Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Famous Actors That Consistently Make Bad Movies" video.
-
10
-
6
-
6
-
+Darryl Haycock
First of all, if you want to continue this debate with me, then start writing properly! If there's one thing that I find downright insulting, then it's people acting like debates are just kindergarten fights. I'm craving proper language and formalities. You've already lost this debate just because of that.
Second of all, money is everything? Oh great, so you mean to tell me that you're a supporter of Trump, Putin, and Kim Jong-Un? Good to know.
Third of all, people who do shitty art just because it's mainstream are called sellouts, and nobody with normal brain functions like to get that reputation.
All in all, you're a horrible debater
5
-
3
-
+Blissful Insomniac
Oh yes, the infamous "art movies are pretentious" argument that I see every time post-modernism and Avant-Garde are discussed. Allright, I want you to ask yourself "if the movie isn't better than the script, is it really worth watching?".
Scripts will always remain the same, but context will change how it's viewed, and it's an actor's job to understand the context and his surroundings, because understanding context is a sign of presence. Acting is also a communication tool between the actor and the audience, so if the audience doesn't believe in the actor, then the actor has no purpose in being there.
Plus, watching a Christmas movie in July for example will be a completely different experience than watching it in December even though the movie is technically the same. The target audience will also affect how the movie is viewed even though the story and acting performances are technically the same.
And finally, the purpose of modernism and Avant-Garde was to view art as something independent rather than a representation of literature. That's not pretentious, that's viewing the art for what it is instead of letting the text determine how the piece of art is supposed to be made.
3
-
2
-
+Blissful Insomniac
First of all, opinions are never right nor wrong
Second of all, it's low-cultured to only care about action, story, and acting when movies are not literature and because there's nothing artistic about those kinds of movies. Story and acting are not the core of art, and it doesn't take much research to figure that out. Why should I care about movies that are not better than seeing an actor standing in an empty black room and reading from a script? Plus, have you read any IMDB reviews? Their attitude are not really saintly either.
Third of all, if I'm pretentious, does that mean you're gonna hate on David Hume, Pierre Bourdieu, Charles Baudelaire, James Joyce, Bertolt Brecht, Antonin Artaud, Adolphe Appia, Edward Gordon Craig, Max Reinhardt, Fritz Lang, Robert Wilson, Ingmar Bergman, and Andrej Tarkovsky as well? From my knowledge, their attitude haven't really been any different from mine, and it's because of them that we even have fine art
2
-
+Marko Todorovic
“How pretentious can someone get?” Seeing movies as an independent art form with its individual norms and principles rather than seeing movies as a subordinate to literature is not being pretentious.
“I don’t know if this is a brilliant troll or a self-centered moron”. No, trolls just spit out random insults and nonsensical and intentionally offensive comments and never make any attempts to bring out arguments, and their tone is oral. And I can’t really be a self-centered moron when I’m speaking on behalf of the Avant-Garde movement and post-modernism.
“Story, acting, and action ARE the core of movies”. No, they aren’t, because context changes how the audience sees those elements, and it’s an actor’s job to get a full understanding of his surroundings and the story’s context, because if the actor doesn’t understand those elements and is unable to communicate with the audience or even show that he knows what his purpose of being there is, then he’s got no reason to be there in the first place. In addition, the movie’s time of release gives an impression of what the movie is going for. For example, if the movie is released in the summer, then it’s most of the time a summer blockbuster with a lot of intensity, a high-budget, and a lot of special effects. If it’s released around November, then it’s usually the Oscar-bait type of movie, and if it’s released in December, then it’s obviously a Christmas movie. Seeing those types of movies at another time of the year than what is most typical gives an entirely different impression even though they’re technically the same movies. To give an analogy, I will mention that you probably wouldn’t listen to songs associated with funerals when you’re at a nightclub or vice versa even though they’re technically the same songs. In addition, the director needs to be aware of the context to bring the story to life. What year or era is it? What type of conflict is it? What kind of setting is it? What type of environment am I dealing with? How am I supposed to establish all of those elements with the tools and knowledge I have?
“Why do you think it’s low-cultured to care about those things?” I don’t mind them caring about them in general, but I loathe people who ONLY care about those three things, and it’s a low-cultured thought process because the mainstream impression is that those 3 elements are the only ones that matter. If there’s a movie that tries to be experimental, influenced by Avant-Garde, seeing movie as an independent and autonomous art form, and highlight the cinematic elements rather than focusing on story and message (examples include “Persona”, “Metropolis”, “Citizen Kane”, and “Birdman”), then the mainstream audience automatically rate that movie 1/10 because story and acting are not in focus, and that’s a dumb and ignorant basis. Even movies that try to take a deeper approach to a story mostly associated with action (for example “Apocalypse Now” and “War for the Planet of the Apes”) get a 1/10 rating by audiences.
“I have a feeling you read that somewhere and you just stuck up to that idea cuz you have no mind of your own”. Oh yeah, I have no mind of my own and yet I cared enough to even try to explain these concepts to people here, went to Berlin to discuss the fate of Volksbühne when Frank Castorf is going to get replaced, published an essay in a local newspaper to criticize their critics’ shallow and thin judgments and lack of understanding for art forms, and published an essay in another local newspaper where I criticized an ignorant audience member’s criticism of Robert Wilson’s “Shakespeare’s Sonnettes” because he obviously brought a perspective and norms and principles that don’t apply to Avant-Garde theatre.
“Cinematography is important to the movie, but you can't be serious to say that it's more important than acting and story writing”. Yes I can, because if a movie is no better than watching an actor standing in an empty black room and reciting, then the movie fails in my eyes. Cinematography highlights film as an independent art form, it establishes environments and settings, it communicates with the audience because they get a feeling of being there. If the scenery and environment are never established, then I don’t understand why they even bothered to have a scenery, and I definitely don’t understand why the director chose that type of environment. Movies don’t even need to have a story in order to be good, and a movie can be passable if the cinematic elements are more highlighted than story and acting.
“Heck by your logic most of the theaters would be out of business long ago.” That again is a result of a low-cultured impression of movie industry and a lack of knowledge of what makes movies autonomous and independent. That’s why I prefer niche movies and definitely niche theatre performances since they’re much more rewarding to see.
“Cinematography adds an additional dimension to the plot indeed, but it's the story and actors that make it alive”. I could be fine having no actors and a non-existing story since cinematography at least makes the experience more thrilling, the environment and scenery get established, and it will be like going on a roller coaster ride (you don’t need a story and acting performances to get that feeling)
“Even you comparing yourself to those people is pretentious”. No, because they were hugely influential and established concepts and philosophies that are now unfortunately taken for granted, and they never tried to follow the masses. I'm also not comparing myself to their abilities and legacy, but their beliefs.
“They are the people who did something you are just a hipster”. Rome wasn’t built in one day, and I don’t even see hipster as an insult; hipsters are independent, they have their own styles, they’re able to stand up to themselves, they don’t follow the masses, and they think outside the box
“I've met countless people just like you”. And I’ve met countless people who give me backlash, but they never bring me down, and very few of the people I’ve met show any base knowledge about Avant-Garde and post-modernism, so why should I get offended? Some of the most influential people in the world shared the same philosophy as I do in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and were initially seen as hipsters and even insane, but the joke’s on the haters now.
“Arrogant, stubborn monkeys who think they are better than everyone else while in fact you are not”. You haven’t really provided me with knowledge about the topic here, and I didn’t ace 6 term papers about Avant-Garde for nothing.
“You are just another random hipster.”. Again, I don’t get the insult.
“Don't worry you'll grow out of that phase”. You want me to start seeing movies as a subordinate of literature and overpraising movies that take filmmaking for granted and are not better than reading their scripts? You want me to embrace the French policies for theatre back in the 17th and 18th when everything was just actors reciting a script? And do you want me to see movies and theatre performance as static objects that are supposed to be interpreted rather than a social event? I don’t think so
“You'll laugh at your own stupid comments in a year or two.” Don’t think so since I’ve met several veterans whom I was able to dominate in a cultural debate, and many influential directors and “revolutionaries” have shared the same belief as mine.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1