Youtube comments of Morgan King (@MorganKing95).
-
Daniel Day-Lewis is probably the definition of "Method Acting"; you can go on forever to talk about what he's done to prepare for his roles:
- My Left Foot: Befriended several people with disabilities at Sandymount School Clinic, refused to break character, and demanded to be moved around on the set in his wheelchair and have other people feeding him. (btw, he denied that he had broken those two ribs)
- The Last of the Mohicans: went through weight training, spent lots of the time in the forest his character lived, learned how to fish, camp, hunt, make canoes, and skin animals. He also never went anywhere without his rifle.
- In the name of the father: kept his Northern Irish accent the whole time, lost weight, spent lots of time in a prison cell, and insisted that the crew would throw cold water at him and verbally abuse him
- The boxer: spent three years at learning to box
- Gangs of New York: Always spoke with his New York accent, became a butcher apprentice, listened to music by Eminem, and hired circus people to teach him how to handle his butcher knife and throw daggers. He also became sick during production because he refused to wear a warm coat since it was not from the 19th century.
- There will be blood: spent one year at researching his role where he learned how to drill for oil.
- Lincoln: read over 100 books on Abraham Lincoln, demanded to be referred to as "Mr. President", wrote messages to Sally Field in "Lincoln" style, and refused to let the English cast members speak to him with their own accents.
Daniel Day-Lewis is indeed one of the greatest and most acclaimed actors of his generation, but I'm not very sure if I want to be on the same set with him or live with him; I'd prefer to be with someone who can be completely in character on set, and then turn it off when we're not on set
946
-
177
-
163
-
122
-
103
-
102
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
74
-
73
-
68
-
65
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
53
-
47
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
37
-
36
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
Several people asks where Brando is on this list.
Marlon Brando is my all time favorite actor, and a big inspiration for me, but actors can't be on two decade lists, and I think he belongs to the 50's; he single-handedly revolutionized modern film acting with his performances in "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront", had 5 Academy Awards nominations, and had a great influence on pop culture with his performance in "The Wild One" (both Elvis Presley and James Dean based their images on him).
It often makes me sad that almost every time people talk about Brando, they just mention his performance in "The Godfather" (sometimes also "Apocalypse Now"). Don't get me wrong, I think those performances are great, but it isn't just because of "The Godfather" that he's considered to be one of the greatest and most influential actors of all time, and I believe that if you want to consider yourself a true Brando fan, then you should also appreciate his performances in the 50's.
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
+The Golden Boy
Oh the ignorance; NWA was hugely influenced by Beastie Boys, Run-D.M.C, Rakim, and especially Ice-T and Public Enemy, so can you really call them unique? And in terms of laying the foundation for 90's Hip-Hop, then Grandmaster Flash, LL Cool J, Sugarhill Gang, Slick Rick, Big Daddy Kane, and Kool G Rap had way more influence
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
My favorites:
1. Wine: the taste is very good, it's relaxing to drink, and it makes a meal taste even better. It also often helps with the atmosphere at a formal party. On a side note, I consider champagne to be wine, but I actually think Cava tastes better
2. Whiskey: the taste is not as good as wine, but it's still very good and I like how strong it is. It also helps with the atmosphere at a party on the town
3. Vodka: I like it for much of the same reasons as whiskey, except that the taste is more neutral and therefore a bit dull. However, I love to mix it with other drinks, and I find it okay to drink if I just need something strong
4. Sake: I have only drunk it once, but it had a really great taste; a bit like sparkling wine or cider. However, I don't think it's that versatile
5. Beer: It helps to get me in the party mood and its taste is not so bad, but it often tastes like piss until I have drunk for a while, and I can easily grow tired of beer.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
+Dino Wolf
What other raps then? The Monster, Berzerk, Spacebound, and Love the Way You Lie?
Nah, nah, nah, kid. Listen to some real Eminem raps like Infinite, Guilty Conscience, As the World Turns, Brain Damage, Rock Bottom, Stan, Kill You, The Way I Am, The Real Slim Shady, White America, Till I Collapse, Sing for the Moment, Cleaning out my closet, Without Me, Lose Yourself, Nail in the Coffin, The Sauce, Like Toy Soldiers, Mosh, and Mockingbird.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Oh great, cherry-picking mob movies when Scorsese also has made "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York, "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Age of Innocence", "The Aviator", "Hugo", and "Silence", just to name a few
9
-
9
-
Candie in "Django" was one of the finest supporting roles in history? It's one of the cringiest villain performances I have ever seen, especially compared to these:
- Vincent Price in practically every movie he played a villain in
- Marlon Brando in "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Apocalypse Now"
- Lee J. Cobb in "On the Waterfront" and "12 Angry Men"
- Anthony Perkins in "Psycho"
- Malcolm McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange"
- Louise Fletcher in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
- Laurence Olivier in "Marathon Man"
- Michael Douglas in "Wall Street"
- Joe Pesci in "Home Alone" and "GoodFellas"
- Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs"
- Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List"
- Samuel L. Jackson in "Pulp Fiction" (if you consider Jules a villain) and even "Django Unchained"
- Kevin Spacey in "Se7en" and "The Usual Suspects"
- Brad Pitt in "Fight Club"
- Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York" and probably "There Will Be Blood" (if you consider Daniel Plainview a villain protagonist)
- Meryl Streep in "Devil Wears Prada"
- Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland"
- Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"
Simply put; wearing a suit, yell, constantly hold a cigerette holder, and make a constipated face does not a great actor make. You should also at least have that villainous aura rather than looking like you belong in a porn movie. As for leads, there are tons of performances that have blown me away a lot more than anything Leo has done (except in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" and "The Revenant"):
- Marlon Brando in "A Streetcar Named Desire", "Julius Caear", "On the Waterfront", "The Godfather", and "Last Tango in Paris"
- Vivien Leigh in "A Streetcar Named Desire"
- James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause"
- Anna Magnani in "The Fugitive Kind"
- Al Pacino in "The Godfather" trilogy and "Scent of a Woman"
- Robert de Niro in "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", and "Awakenings"
- Meryl Streep in "Sophie's Choice"
- Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi"
- Nicolas Cage in "Leaving Las Vegas"
- Daniel Day-Lewis in "My Left Foot", "Gangs of New York", "There Will Be Blood", and "Lincoln"
- Jim Carrey in "Man on the Moon" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
- Edward Norton in "American History X" and "25th Hour"
- Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain"
- Jamie Foxx in "Ray"
- Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote"
- Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland"
- Adrien Brody in "The Pianist"
- Tom Hanks in "Cast Away"
There are several more I could mention, but I'm stopping there. And you believe Leo to be the next Brando? Yeah, right! Brando revolutionized modern film acting in an unprecedented way, and he never had his show stolen in addition to always mastering eye contact, gestures, posture, expressivity, and mannerism in addition to bringing a sense of naturalism. You always remembered him, even in minor roles such as in "Apocalypse Now" and "A Dry White Season". Leo hasn't even appeared in Empire and Premiere Magazine's lists for best characters and performances of all time, and they did include modern movies. The only reason people like Leo is because he looks good, but put him alongside actors like Samuel Jackson, Daniel Day-Lewis, Brad Pitt, and Christoph Waltz and you quickly forget about him
9
-
9
-
You obviously haven't seen "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "Age of Innocence", "Shutter Island", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Silence", "The Aviator", "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Hugo", and "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", so good job on cherry-picking and showing off your biases
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Michael Colby Well, you’re constantly talking about Guy Pearce and claim that he’s the greatest actor in the world, and you often just mention ”Memento”. And my favorite actor of all time is Marlon Brando, but Daniel Day-Lewis comes second. I like Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, and Gary Oldman very much too, and I think they’re better than most actors alive today, but I have just not been as impressed by them as Daniel Day-Lewis and Brando. But if you want me to mention amazing acting performances I’ve seen from many other actors, then here you go:
• Humphrey Bogart: “Casablanca” (1942)
• James Dean: “Rebel Without A Cause” (1955)
• Anthony Perkins: “Psycho” (1960)
• Peter O’Toole: “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962)
• Dustin Hoffman: “The Graduate” (1967), “Marathon Man” (1976)
• Al Pacino: “The Godfather” (1972), “The Godfather part II” (1974), “Scent of a Woman” (1992)
• Jack Nicholson: “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” (1975), “The Shining” (1980)
• Robert de Niro: “Taxi Driver” (1976), “Raging Bull” (1980)
• Sylvester Stallone: “Rocky” (1976)
• Burgess Meredith: “Rocky” (1976)
• Jon Voight: “Coming Home” (1978)
• Christopher Walken: “The Deer Hunter” (1978)
• Martin Sheen: “Apocalypse Now” (1979)
• Joe Pesci: “GoodFellas” (1990)
• Anthony Hopkins: “Silence of the Lambs” (1991)
• Ralph Fiennes: “Schindler’s List” (1993)
• Leonardo DiCaprio: “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” (1993), “The Aviator” (2004)
• Samuel L. Jackson: “Pulp Fiction” (1994)
• Tom Hanks: “Forrest Gump” (1994), “Cast Away” (2000), “Captain Phillips” (2013)
• Nicolas Cage: “Leaving Las Vegas” (1995)
• Edward Norton: “Primal Fear” (1996), “American History X” (1998)
• Jim Carrey: “The Truman Show” (1998), “Man on the Moon” (1999), “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (2004)
• Haley Joel Osment: “The Sixth Sense” (1999)
• Adrien Brody: “The Pianist” (2002)
• Philip Seymour Hoffman: “Capote” (2005)
• Heath Ledger: “Brokeback Mountain” (2005), “The Dark Knight” (2008)
• Forest Whitaker: “The Last King of Scotland” (2006)
• Matthew McConaughey: “Dallas Buyers Club” (2013)
• Jared Leto: “Dallas Buyers Club” (2013)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
grandpagohan1 You think it is easier to play a real character? When you play a fictional character, you can base his/her personality and mannerism much on the situations and given circumstances, or you can invent some of it yourself. When you play a real person, you know that he/she has existed and that the critics will butcher you if you play him/her inaccurately, and also if you don't look like the real person. You really have to research and study the real person to find out how he/she looked, walked, talked, and behaved, and then you have to make his/her life be illuminated to the audience.
In addition, Charlie Chaplin was a silent movie legend, a genre that is not as normal to see today as back then, and he did those slapsticks and other comedic elements so incredibly well that it is very difficult to imitate; it is almost like trying to dance like Michael Jackson. Playing Charlie Chaplin is a very physical challenge in addition of finding his personality and mannerism.
Colin Farrell's performance as Alexander the Great for example was panned because the critics and historians thought his performance was almost pure fiction and that Oliver Stone had skipped so many important parts of Alexander's life that his life was not illuminated at all. And in my country Norway, the movie "Kon-Tiki" spawned lots of controversy because Thor Heyerdahl's second-in-command in the film did not look like the real person at all, neither in appearance nor in personality
Iron Man is Robert Downey jr's most recognizable role, but it is definitely not his most challenging role, and I think several other actors could had played him, it is just that Robert Downey jr. happened to get selected and now people cannot think of any other actor.
8
-
"None of his movies have done that well financially"
Hmmm, let's see:
- Cape Fear: 192 million
- Casino: 116 million
- Gangs of New York: 194 million
- The Aviator: 213.7 million
- The Departed: 291 million
- Shutter Island: 295 million
- Wolf of Wall Street: 392 million
And I'm not even adjusting for inflation here. Your statement applies better to Paul Thomas Anderson. Besides, box-office success doesn't automatically equal cinematic quality, otherwise movies like "The Last Jedi", "Independence Day", "Transformers", and "Avatar" would be considered cinematic masterpieces, whereas movies like "The Shawshank Redemption", "Grave of the Fireflies", "The Iron Giant", "Citizen Kane", and "Fight Club" would be considered garbage movies
Also, if you've actually watched his crime movies, you'd have noticed that the protagonist is often called out for his violent behavior, or clearly regrets it. On top of that, only a fraction of his movies are about organized crime. Ever heard about "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "New York, New York", "Age of Innocence", "Gangs of New York", "The Aviator", "Hugo", "Last Temptation of Christ", "Shutter Island" and "Silence"?
And what exactly is he jealous of? He has more than enough money to be satisfied with, and he has way more awards and general acclaim than most directors working today
Conclusion: do some research before you type!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Robert Lyons Isn't that a bit of a overstatement? Daniel Day-Lewis overshadowed him in "Gangs of New York" and always manages to really become the character he's playing, Marlon Brando revolutionized modern film acting, Laurence Olivier and Spencer Tracy are both considered to be some of the greatest actors of the 20th century (along with Brando), and actors like Al Pacino, Robert de Niro, Jack Nicholson, and Dustin Hoffman have played much more challenging and versatile roles. I've also been more impressed with Christian Bale and Edward Norton, and even Jim Carrey when he has played serious roles ("The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind")
I'm not saying that DiCaprio is not a great actor, but he's far from the greatest actor who has ever lived.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"MCU films are like riding a ride at a theme park. It's fun"
And then it quickly stops being fun and ends up being repetitive and disposable, whereas movies by Scorsese, PTA, Tarantino, Fincher, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kazan, Hiyazaki, Coppola etc. are those that sticks into your brain for days even after you've watched it the first time, and can be discussed from multiple angles and perspectives for an eternity
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I love his performance as Terry Malloy, and "On the Waterfront" is probably my favorite movie by him, but I still believe Stanley is his best performance because of its legacy and influence:
- His line delivery sounds like the way we would have spoken in real life, not that poetic and rhythmic way that sounds more fitting for theatre than film.
- The way he establishes the room and his character when he meets Blanche in the kitchen
- The way he interrupts Stella to try to get her attention when he talks about the Napoleonic code, and then pauses for a second when he notices that she is not listening and says "Will you listen?". Actors back then would just exchange their lines. I also like his little pause before he says " Your looks are okay" to Blanche; it shows that he actually thinks about the question Blanche was asking him. You can also really his sarcasm in his line "Well, that's good" when Blanche says that she feels like a brand new human being
- When he gets offended or gets provoked, you can see that he really is reacting to it, not just acting that he gets offended.
- The way he slapped Stella's butt or threw those dishes on the floor and the wall looked completely real and genuine. I also like that he builds up his anger when Stella says "Go and clear the table" instead of being very angry right away. You can also see that he built up his anger and really got offended when he's being called a polack
- The entire "Hey Stella" scene is probably one of the most dramatic moments I've ever seen from a male actor.
He really introduced a whole new acting style and new ways of interpreting a scene with that one performance, so that's what's making it one of the most influential performances in cinematic history. Of course, I love every single scene with him in "On the Waterfront" (especially the taxi scene where he delivers his famous "I coulda been a contender" line, and the way he gently pushed down Rod Steiger's gun and sounded disappointed instead of being mad at him is considered to be one of the best moments in film history). I would have put that performance as #2, and the reason I put Stanley as #1 is because that perfornance came first out of them. I also like Stanley as a character a bit more than Terry, but Terry comes very close.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Samuel Russ
Just because something's first doesn't mean it's the best. "Jaws" and "2001" may be iconic for their respective genre, but their fanbase isn't that big compared to other movies and there have been thrillers and Sci-Fi movies that have taken their achievements a step further. "Taxi Driver" however should be on this list, but I don't think it should replace "Pulp Fiction"
"Pulp Fiction" just have an originality, influence, writing, and direction that still hasn't aged badly; you've got non-linear narrative, intrigues and plots that may seem obscure at first, but you find their connection in the end, strong language, powerful delivery, and memorable quotes, colorful characters, badass soundtrack, movie and cultural references (IMDB alone lists 139 of them), and on top of it you've got the pulp magazine concept
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
link biff I agree that Stanley is a bit stereotypical, but I still find him very interesting. Of course, he abuses, manipulates, and dominates Stella, shows no remorse for his brutal actions, makes the life hard for Blanche by investigating her past, give her a ticket home as a "birthday gift", sabotages her relationship with Mitch, and rapes her, and he drinks, smokes, and is prone to violence.
At the same time, you can't help but to feel sympathy for him when he desperately calls for Stella (even if it's just an act to manipulate her and make him look soft), and the times he is seemingly nice can fool anyone. He is also a representative of the working class husband in the 40-50's, sees himself as the king of his home, and is an adherent of the Napoleonic code. It's also interesting to see the contrast between him and the Southern belle Blanche, because she implies several times that Stanley is not the right husband for Stella and that she is better than him because of her Aristocratic background. Blanche therefore also calls him a Polack and an ape. This of course is the motivation for Stanley's hatred of Blanche, and he tries to make her look ignorant and old-fashioned by stating that he's American, and that she doesn't belong to the new heterogenous America.
But yes, I think Terry is more relatable than Stanley, and is the ideal hero, and he's definitely a very complex character. It's makes me very glad that some people can discuss his roles in the 50's too like Stanley Kowalski, Terry Malloy, and Mark Anthony. Most people today only talk about "The Godfather" and nothing else when they discuss Marlon Brando, so thanks
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Well, it was obviously never meant to be a Superhero movie. I already knew that before I watched the movie, because I read an article about it, and I did not get much superhero movie feelings from watching the trailer. And it was obviously not meant to focus on story and message, nor on lots of action and visual effects (aka. Michael Bay style and several superhero movies I have watched). In both film and theatre, there are something called free associations, aesthetics, and the experience, as well as the art of filmmaking or theatre production.
The film references Michael Keaton’s obscurity after leaving the Batman franchise after the second movie (Batman Returns). And just like the Broadway production in the story is probably Riggan Thomson’s last chance to get back in the spotlight, this film was probably Michael Keaton’s last chance to make a comeback as an actor. If you are an actor, you know how hard and depressing it is to feel forgotten and ignored for a long time, and that you wish you could get one more chance to become important and great again. But there is more: playing the role has had such a huge impact and psychological effect on him that he believes the character is haunting him and controlling him, and that he is not Riggan Thomson anymore, but that he actually is Birdman and really has Birdman’s superpowers. Supposedly, he has almost developed DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). I have also once immersed myself so much in the character I am playing that I suddenly feel like my daily life is strange and unnatural, and that I have lost myself (Not in such an extreme way as Thompson though)
Edward Norton’s character Mike Shiner references both to himself of being very stubborn and difficult to work with, and Method Actors in general; if his character is going to have sex with someone in the story, he really has to do it on stage, and he cannot react to a gun and become afraid if the gun does not look convincing enough etc. I am not a professional actor, but I do practice Method Acting, and Mike Shiner almost reminded me of myself, especially during my last year at High School (I took drama classes there and went a little too far with the realism, as well as being difficult to work with). Naomi Watts of course represents the fresh Broadway actress who becomes a victim of the brutality of Method Acting, and how much a Method Actor makes his/her partner uncomfortable on stage because it becomes too close to real life (Something previously demonstrated with Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider in the controversial film “Tango in Paris”). Lindsay Duncan’s role as the critic Tabitha Dickinson of course represents the harsh critic who seems to write a terrible review just to ruin someone’s career or other selfish reasons, not because he/she actually thought the performance was bad.
It was also very interesting that the movie was being taken almost entirely in one shot; it did something with the mood of the film, and almost highlighted Riggan Thomson’s condition, as well as to make some of it look more like a documentary. One of my favorite moments is when Riggan Thompson is walking in just his underwear through the crowd on the street; it highlighted the pressure he is feeling about him being Birdman, and what he has to do to top that performance and become important again. In general, I just thought it was interesting to watch Michael Keaton and Edward Norton’s characters because I could somehow to relate to them, and the psychological condition of Riggan Thompson was quite intense in a subtle way, and the hospital scene made my quite dizzy and overheated because it was very unpleasant to watch, and it made me feel kind of lost when I left the cinema and tried to find my way home. I do not care if there are some things that I do not understand nor thinks make sense in the movie; not everything in life needs to make sense, and some theatre plays and films are not meant to have a clear story and message, and be analyzed and interpreted with that focus. I just thought the film was dramatic, evocative, and atmospheric, I have lots of associations and things I can relate to, I thought it was creative to use that kind of cinematography and direction, I liked the references to Michael Keaton and Edward Norton’s real lives, and I liked the original decision of focusing on an actor’s past of playing a superhero, and his condition at the moment instead of making a movie about the actual character.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+Rick Sanchez
1. His flow sucks, and I mean even without auto-tune
2. He has to rely on beats, instrumentals, and other production aspects in order for the songs to sound good.
3. Only a third of "Tha Carter III" is great, and that's a lot because of the guest contributions and the production aspects, and not because of his rapping.
4. His lyricism and storytelling are average compared to Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Slick Rick, Chuck D, Kool G Rap, Black Thought, Big L, Big Pun, 2pac, Nas, Pharoahe Monch, The Notorious BIG, Chamillionaire, GZA, Ghostface Killah, Jay-Z, and even Eminem. Those rappers also have more than 1 good aspect that they're good or great at.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Your list is great, as well as your arguments for the ranking order. However, I would have called it the best actors of today, or best actors of the 21st Century. When I hear best actors of all time, I think of actors like Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy, Laurence Olivier, Charlie Chaplin, Mickey Rooney, Paul Newman, Clark Gable, James Stewart, or Cary Grant.
I don't think Jack Nicholson disappear into his roles that much either, and I'm not that much of a fan of him, but I think people call him one of the best actors of all time because his movies mostly have been great. I also believe he has a magnetism or a certain personality that moviegoers love about him. During the Hollywood Golden Age, actors were famous and beloved because they had certain trademarks and personalities that they brought into every movie. It may have looked like they played the same character over and over again, but that's how the standards were. I think Jack Nicholson has relied on that, and that the conservative critics have praised him for that.
I also have an example from Marlon Brando when he appeared in "On the Waterfront". He said: "It (the iconic taxi scene) wasn't wonderful at all. The situation was wonderful. Everybody feels like he could have been a contender, he could have been somebody, everybody feels as though he's partly bum, some part of him. He is not fulfilled and he could have done better, he could have been better. Everybody feels a sense of loss about something. So that was what touched people. It wasn't the scene itself. There are other scenes where you'll find actors being expert, but since the audience can't clearly identify with them, they just pass unnoticed. Wonderful scenes never get mentioned, only those scenes that affect people". In other words, I think Jack Nicholson (and many actors from the Hollywood Golden Age) touches or impresses the audience because they believe in the movies' situations, and they think that Jack blends in with them. He has a great naturalism in his acting, as well as presence.
I have a divided opinion of the philosophy "Acting is not about emotions and creating characters, it's about storytelling" (I've heard that from my acting teachers in high school, as well as from a Scottish acting coach in a Youtube video), but I guess it's true in some occassions. I'm more into emotions and character development, but I also think that it doesn't matter how great the character is developed or how emotional he/she is if the situation is not relatable or believable, or that the character's emotions are unfitting for the situation.
You can disagree with me if you want, I respect that, but that's my impression of acting and Jack Nicholson
4
-
Michael Colby
While I agree with you that Jack Nicholson’s performance in ”The Shining” is not better than the other performances you mentioned (I do not think it is his best performance either), it seems to me that you evaluate actors almost entirely (or at least to a large degree) on characters and emotions. While those aspects of an actor are important and make performances great, they are not the only things that matter. If only those things matter, why do you even need actors? If the script calls for a beggar, then just get a real beggar from the street. The performance will be realistic, but it will also become very internal and lifeless.
Other important aspects of an actor include line delivery, dynamism, tempo-rhythm, storytelling, subtext, motivation, making situations believable, process, reaction and interaction, presence, and acting based on given circumstances. Although Jack Nicholson does not always focus on characters and emotions that much compared to the actors you mentioned, he certainly has managed to bring out the other aspects of an actor, and to most actors and directors, that is good enough. His characters are also very different if you analyze them in-depth. And like I have mentioned earlier, if the situations of the story are clear and relatable, and the actor believes in it and makes it believable to the audience, what more can you ask for? And although many acting performances may look easy to play from the audience’s perspective, it is often very difficult to make them look easy and natural if you try acting them out yourself, and critics, directors, and actors know that. Some of the roles I believe are among the most difficult ones to make look natural include:
- An alcoholic
- Someone with a mental illness (PTSD, Schizophrenia, OCD, psychosis etc.)
- Someone who is suffering from a deadly disease (AIDS, cancer etc.)
- An authoritative person
- A transgender, or playing someone of the opposite gender
Much of the reason acting legends like Laurence Olivier and Spencer Tracy received so much praise was because they made every performance look so easy and natural, so much that the audience and fellow actors did not notice that they were acting. In the Hollywood Golden Age, and also in Norway where I come from, almost all of the actors look they are playing the same character over again, but it does not mean that the actors are bad, it is just a different acting style than what you and your favorite actors prefer. Classically trained actors focus more on storytelling, the situations, and the given circumstances, and believe that characters and emotions emerge organically as a result. I prefer method acting over classical acting, but I do not look down on classically trained actors just because it is a different acting style than what I prefer (I know Jack Nicholson is considered to be a method actor, but he does not remind me of one), because I realize that classical acting is what works for them and makes their performances the best.
4
-
Michael Colby
”I look for actors that can really embody a wide variety of characters. Why should I be imprsesed with somone who plays the same character in ever movie?”
”I think he [DDL] was so concentrated on sounding like Lincoln that he forgot to add an emotional side to his character”
”plenty of actors disapear into their characters”
”there is no way in fucking hell you could recognize him [Guy Pearce] in those roles, he completely disapeared into them”
”Oldman's at his best when playing cartoony characters and does not seem nearly as good when trying to be serious”
”All he [Christoph Waltz] did was act like his usual charming self”
”So you are saying that Heath Ledger did not have stretch or transform himself in The Dark Knight?”
”He [DiCaprio] stretched himself beyong limits and completely disapeared in character”
”He was a charismatic, cocky great looking guy. That is Brad Pitt in real life he did not need to stretch himself very far at all. Honestly Norton gave a much more transformative performance in a much more complex character”
”You watch Memento and La Confidential you would not even believe you are watching the same actor, same goes if you watch Lawless and The Rover, or Animal Kingdom and The Propostion. How Pearce changes his voice, his accent, his mannerisims, his gestures, his speech pattern, the way he holds himself is head and shoulders above Leo”
”He [Brad Pitt] always plays the exact same character and anytime he tries playing someone other then himself he fails”
”Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce are both character actors which means they have immense range so cross those 2 off the not enough range list”
”not the exact same, but I can always tell I am watching him [Brad Pitt]. With Guy Pearce I cant even reconize hm in most of his films because of how much he disapears into a character”
”Keaton played himself (that was part of the joke actually) Gyllenhaal completely disapeared into his character and that is harder to do”
”The reason you could not recognize him [Matthew] is because of his weight loss and facial hair, his acting was nothing special as he just played the same character he does in all his films”
”all Mathew did was lose weight and do a poor impersonation of himself. Every nominee was superior, especially Leo and Bale”
There are not very much comments I have seen that are not about characters and emotions. But if you really focus on the other aspects of an actor when you evaluate them, then it is splendid, and I have nothing more to say. I just wish to see that more often.
And once again, many audiences do not mind the actor playing ”himself” or that the actor does not make every single character unique, because they believe in the story and the situations. It is a different acting style, and it was also the standards during the Hollywood Golden Age with actors like Charlie Chaplin, Fred Astaire, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, and James Stewart. Also, one of the teachers at my drama school often asked his students to actually play themselves, because he wanted to focus on the story, the situations, and the given circumstances, and the acting still looked convincing to me because they brought out all the other aspects and instruments of an actor
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheHandsomeman
Are you really comparing them as a whole, or just their crime movies? Because none of them have crime films as their primary genre.
Yes, "The Godfather" is amazing, and so is "Apocalypse Now", but outside of those two and maybe "The Conversation", how many Coppola movies can you name that have actually been widely acclaimed outside of smaller circles? Scorsese by comparison made "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "The Aviator", "The Age of Innocence", "Shutter Island", and "The Last Temptation of Christ", while still making what's probably the second-greatest crime film of all time ("GoodFellas")
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So we're gonna ignore "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", "New York, New York", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "Age of Innocenence", "Gangs of New York" (not a "gangster movie" in the traditional sense of the word), "The Aviator", "Shutter Island", "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Hugo", "Silence", and all the other non-gangster movies in his filmography? Cherry-picking does not a good argument make!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Joy Cooper
No, an anti-hero is a major character who lacks the many qualities of a traditional hero like empathy, friendliness, and judging fair, and they often do the heroic things out of selfish reasons. Their bad qualities are often more apparent than their good ones, but their objectives and alignments ultimately make them heroes rather than villains.
Let's look at Snape. Throughout the first 5 movies, his objective is just to be a Hogwarts teacher, and although he has a gloomy presence, is being unfair and abusive, he still never shows any intentions of being evil; it's just his teaching methods, and he genuinely teaches the students with the intention of actually teaching them. His hatred for Harry is also motivated by his hatred for James after being bullied by him, which also overwhelms him and takes over his emotions, but he still never attempts to murder Harry or harm him for no reasons. In fact, there are moments where he actually attempts to protect him despite his hatred for him; no villains would have done that unless it's a trick to gain the hero's trust, which it isn't in this case. And when you find out Snape's full backstory and his status as a double agent, there’s no way you can call him a villain.
Here are some examples of anti-heroes:
- Charles Foster Kane from "Citizen Kane"
- Rick Blaine from "Casablanca"
- Jim Stark from "Rebel Without A Cause"
- Man with no name from the "Dollar" trilogy
- Travis Bickle from "Taxi Driver"
- Rambo from the "Rambo" series
- Melvin Udall from "As Good As It Gets"
- Jimmy Rabbit from "8 Mile"
- Frank Martin from the "Transporter" trilogy
Real-life anti-heroes who appeared in movies:
- Jake LaMotta from "Raging Bull"
- Oskar Schindler from "Schindler's List"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheSpanishzombie
1st of all, boring is not an argument. Pace and structure can be discussed though, but I don't feel "The Revenant" has problems with it.
2nd of all, it's a survival film, so you really expect lots of action? Movie is not literature either, so story and action doesn't really matter, especially not when the film excels in cinematography, scenery, aesthetics, and especially the physical acting; even the way he moved his fingers were thoroughly done, and you see a man destroyed by not only the coldness, but also his fatal wounds and lack of resources. Not to mention that he's being abandoned by his allies.
3rd of all, if you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid things like "lol", "ugh", profanity, and personal attacks
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1971SuperLead "My opinion is still subjective", "That's your opinion". Is that the only things you can say? Well, that's amusing. The only thing I get from you is "... is a bad actor because I say so, even though I have only seen a couple of movies from the actor, and he/she doesn't convince me for reasons I don't know". How the hell do you expect people to open their eyes and see new things with your claims and statements? If you can't even convince me, then I can assure you that there are thousands of people you won't convince either.
Usually, I ignore people like you, but since you said you wanted people to open their eyes and see new things, there is no mercy from me, because by saying that, you're implying that you're trying to be objective. And even those who are completely subjective have reasonable arguments for their statements. You can't be really that simple-minded
Your lack of arguments is not an opinion, it's a fact, because I don't even see you using terms like presence, process, achievements, dynamism, complexity, situations, and viewpoints. If you really have arguments, then prove it! Give me your arguments for why you think Marlon Brando and James Dean are bad actors, I don't care about the other actors (or at least not as much)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Anthony Stargaryen
You haven’t been responding with any relevant argument for his character; all you’ve been saying is “Snape isn’t a complete good guy, so that automatically makes him a badly written character”. Even now you still do it. People like you are the reason why Alexander Kielland didn’t get paid by the government and Knut Hamsun went into obscurity despite them being gifted authors, and also the reason why movies like “Birth of a Nation”, “Citizen Kane”, “Triumph of the Will”, “A Clockwork Orange”, and “Raging Bull” weren’t immediate successes.
I’m not saying that characters need to be good to be considered great; I’m going against that belief. Voldemort is obviously not a good guy, but he’s being praised for how he is written as a villain, while Snape is being praised for how he is written as an anti-hero/tragic villain. Moralism is not an argument because it only looks at how morally good/bad and politically correct/incorrect something is, and not on how they excel in their artistic and aesthetic aspects. Art is not a representation of something else; it’s autonomous!
I’m not denying that Snape was a bully and an asshole, but a character like that can be still considered complex and well-written if their background and motivations are clear enough. To be honest, I saw him as bland and cartoonish until I knew about his background, but things quickly changed. Snape obviously lived a tragic life and was bullied by James, so his bitter personality and his antagonism towards Harry and other Gryffindors make sense. And while he became a Death Eater, it’s still obvious that he wasn’t completely loyal and therefore changed sides after Lily (a person he at least felt some love and compassion for despite not being completely nice to her) was killed. Another thing to take into consideration is that Harry having resemblances to both James (most of his physical appearance) and Lily (the eyes) obviously overwhelm Snape, but he can’t let go of it because when you have experienced a trauma and see associations to it, you most likely only see the dark aspects of things. But being a double agent in the Wizarding World equivalent of WWII and ultimately being on the heroes’ side is definitely not everyone has the courage and bravery to do, and while it doesn’t make him a complete good guy and make up for the bad things he has done, it definitely makes him way more complex and interesting than your average anti-hero/tragic villain.
I’m not praising Snape because I see him as a hero (on the contrary), but because I enjoy seeing a character clearly having both bad and good qualities to him and being in the middle of good and bad, and the fact that he has made mistakes and acted badly, but tries to learn from it despite not being completely able to makes him way more human than most characters in the Harry Potter series.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Heinsenberg
Well, well, well. Looks like we have another condescending Youtuber here; can’t have enough of them, I guess.
First of all, I’m over 20, study at the University and have moved from home, so don’t call me a kid unless you’re an old geezer.
Second of all, if you have some basic philosophy knowledge, then I presume that you know the difference between liking/disliking a movie because it was simply entertaining and of your personal preference and giving a movie a positive/negative aesthetic judgement? Aesthetics is more than just perception of beauty; it’s also knowledge perceived through the senses and evaluating pieces of art based on criteria that are again based on norms and traditions. It’s called “the standard of taste” (And please don’t confuse this with elitism where critics tell people what to like; I see that so much and it’s a misconception)
Like you imply, movies by Michael Bay might be entertaining for people that are fans of action and visual effects, but for a serious review and aesthetic judgement, those visual effects and cinematic elements won’t have any aesthetic value (when it comes to senses and feelings perceived by the critic) or fulfil any criteria for what makes a great movie.
My main point however (and Ryan Beaty’s if I have understood him correctly) is that there are movies that anyone can like and find entertaining if they just want to enjoy a movie night at home. My personal examples are about any action movie with Sly Stallone. However, when people are being analytic and are looking at their criteria and judging every aspect of those movies, then their impression is a lot more negative; I can like those movies and find them entertaining, but I will still give them a negative review
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
booty call911
Yes, that's what I'm saying. "Rap God" isn't top 10 material when viewed from a technical and critical point of view, just like anyone can have Tim Burton as their favorite director, but it would be ridiculous to put him in the same category as Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, John Ford, Stanley Kubrick, and John Huston for example, or put "The Avengers" in the same category as "The Godfather" and "Citizen Kane". (If someone tried to put "Battlefield Earth" there, they'd probably be smacked)
Also like I said, I don't put Eminem as the best rapper of all time despite him being my favorite.
Your cooking analogy is stupid since it's a big difference between aesthetics and bodily taste. But yes, my favorite dish is hot dogs, but I still don't consider that to be high-class
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
check out "The Godfather", here are my reasons for why I think it's pure perfection:
- Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, and Robert Duvall all delivered one of their best performances of their careers, and the rest of the cast were all outstanding as well
- It has several layers with allegories to war and capitalism, but also talks about family loyalty and Mafia rivalry, and you see Michael Corleone's transition from being a family outsider to become a Mafia head
- The music is either beautiful, suspenseful, intense, or very Italian-like
- Every scene affects the next one and is well-thought-out
- Great nuance in locations, conflicts, and atmosphere
- All great characters and especially antagonists
- Great art direction
- Very faithful to the novel; it didn't lack very much
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ItsMichaelFlinn
The intro never said that the criteria was movies that didn’t receive any Oscar nods. They said, “but failed the big time, whether it was at the Oscars, with critics, or the audience” and “didn’t win much more than a spot on this list”. The former quote indicates the following scenarios:
- It didn’t win the BIGGEST awards at the Oscars (since “big time” means “highest level”, so in that sense it’s the most prestigious Oscar awards they’re talking about), and it wasn’t successful with critics or audiences.
- It didn’t win the biggest awards at the Oscars but was viewed favourably by critics and audiences. This is a possibility because “whether” and “or” indicate different alternatives.
- It did receive smaller awards at the Oscars, since “big time” points to the biggest awards at the Oscars, but it wasn’t viewed particularly well by critics or audiences. Again, a possibility because “whether” and “or” indicate alternatives.
The latter quote on the other hand indicates that it won something since “not much more” is not synonymous with “nothing”. The difference between you and me is that I actually refer to that was said in the criteria, while you resort to assumptions and twisting the definitions to your advantage without using actual argumentation.
But since you’re so fixated on the whole “must not have earned Oscar nods” criteria, let’s look at some movies that are considered failed Oscar bait:
- Don’t Look Up
- Australia
- Vice
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
- House of Gucci
- Babylon
- Nine
- War Horse
- The Book Thief
- Invictus
- The Post
- The Lovely Bones
What do all these have in common? They received at least 1 Oscar nomination. Hmmm… isn’t that bizarre? It’s almost as if “Failed Oscar bait” isn’t synonymous with “Failed Oscar nomination” after all. Your argument is officially refuted!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@elzibiel
Well, I wouldn't say "Rocky II" is just an alternative version of the original. He gets married, but he also squanders most of his prize money (like most people who aren't used to handling huge sums of money), and he's way too uneducated and incompetent to do a regular white collar or blue collar job, so the stakes are raised: either he goes back in the ring (despite his health issues), or he falls into poverty with his now wife and new-born son. Apollo meanwhile is angry at people publicly shaming him for not "beating Rocky", and his kids now getting bullied in school because of it. He therefore demands a rematch and becomes more of a threat since he's way more serious than last time, but it's ultimately pride that leads to his downfall: he dominates Rocky throughout most of their rematch, and he could easily have won again by split decision if he just "danced around" during the last rounds. However, because he demands that he wins by knock-out, he tires himself out and gets knocked out himself, losing his title. On the other hand, his loss becomes a catalyst for him wanting to lift Rocky up again after the latter loses the title in the third movie
So, while I will always prefer the original, I still respect "Rocky II" for what it does
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dmv3373
What there is to debate? Business, marketing strategies, and engagement in the community.
MVMT wanted to introduce the younger generation into the watch world, especially because watches are usually considered expensive, outdated, only for the high-cultured, and inferior to phones. Good intentions.
Their strategy to make the watches more affordable and focus on design since most people just see watches as jewelry. Good strategy.
How do they do all this? Making poor quality watches in China that's equal to something you can get for $3, sell them for $150, and basically normalizing that the latter price considered "affordable". In the process, they're making it harder for people to realize that nice-looking watches with the same quality can be found for $3, and other watch brands where $150 is actually justified. I know a lot of people who still find $150 expensive on its own; it's not like in the clothing industry where people know that you can easily find stylish and good-quality items for less than $100
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+YanSlimCoolMods
You need more than a bunch of statements if you want to influence my impression of Weezy. I gave him a chance back in 2016 and listened to both "Tha Carter II" and "Tha Carter III" and thought they were better than expected, but in retrospective, I realize that it's the only the production that make them good and not his rapping and lyricism.
"Admit it, he's good". Again, you need more than that, and until you've actually given me a proper assessment, I stand by my words.
"People just love to call him trash just because they think it's cool". No, I went against the crowd and gave him a chance and thought that "Tha Carter II" and "Tha Carter III" were better than Lil' Wayne's standard, but I still don't think he's not legendary compared to 2pac, Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Grandmaster Flash, Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, Guru, Biggie, Big L, Big Pun, or even Nas and Eminem.
And if you think I'm only following the masses, you're wrong. Everybody dickrides Dr. Dre, Kanye West, and Snoop Dogg and call them legendary, and I'm not afraid to say that Dr. Dre is awful as a rapper and only great as a producer, Kanye West is a great producer and mediocre rapper, and Snoop Dogg has to rely on production for his albums to sound good. Everybody says that Biggie is top 3, but I'm not afraid to say that Big Pun was basically a new and improved version of him.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Randy Dhimal
Biggest sale doesn't equal best skills/quality. I mean, do you really believe that James Cameron is a better director than Bergman, Tarkovsky, Bertolucci, Huston, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Lang for example?
If we were to talk about actual skills and quality, then Eminem is nothing compared to Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Rakim, Black Thought, Big Pun, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Ghostface Killah, and Chuck D
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I liked him very much in "Lincoln", and that was actually the first time I saw him. I thought it was very different performance than "Gangs of New York" and "There Will Be Blood" (which are some of the best acting performances I've seen from any actor, don't get me wrong), he was completely unrecognizable in both appearance and voice, he made Lincoln look almost divinely or royal, he had that energy and power in every single line he delivered, and every action he did seemed so well-thought and thorough; the way he sat with Lincoln's pocket watch, the way he addressed the other characters, the way he stood with his arms behind his back, and even the way he answered that letter about Confederate representatives being in Washington D.C. or not. Not to mention that he had many memorable quotes.
He also gave me those images that made me remember him well, and even when he was being calm, he still got my attention all the time. He simply has an amazing presence, and I actually enjoyed the voice he gave Lincoln even though many people would argue against that
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, I see. You’re one of those who were forced to read it during high school. Well, I was also one of them and also didn’t enjoy the novel back then, but I read it twice after I finished high school (one of those times was quite recently, actually) and it’s now one of my favorites. I would have given it a second chance now if I were you since it’s easier to enjoy a book or movie when you’re not forced to read/watch it. I would also not have focused on plot entirely; many novels (or movies) are highly enjoyable just because of their formal qualities and the presentation of the protagonist’s psyche. Characters don’t always have to be dynamic to be complex either; Hedda Gabler being a great example.
You could say that Holden Caulfield is judgmental and whiny, but his motivation for it could be because of his alienation from society, his brother’s suicide, his lack of a functional family, and his observation of adults being obsessed with money and education and pleasing the society instead of choosing their own paths and keep their innocence (an observation quite similar to that of The Little Prince actually). If I were you, I wouldn’t also have complained about what type of character is, but rather on how well he is written, which I definitely believe he is.
He also has a development in the form of trying to be “The Catcher in the Rye”, which is a metaphor for a teenager trying to prevent children from “falling down” from the “mountain/cliff” in the “rye field” that represents childhood and innocence. Holden Caulfield also attempts several times to lose his virginity and develop a relationship, but is unable to because of how women were mostly seen as sexual objects at that time rather than actual human beings. He also clearly has a soft spot for his sister, and there is one point where he has a headache and feels drunk because of all of his stress and inner conflicts. He also ends up at a mental hospital, so he is clearly not the same person in the end that he was while he was still in high school.
It’s okay that it’s not your favorite novel, but from a critical and technical point of view, I would say the novel is very well-written.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Haunted Life
WRONG, you ignoramus! I've actually performed it without any problems, and I've heard amateur rappers perform raps at the exact same speed. If you also want a fast rap, then "Ridin'" by Chamillionaire is much better (Oh wait, you don't know who that is, do you?)
Second of all, rap is not about speed. It's about flow, beat, rhymes, production value, and expressing yourself and speak from your heart in a way that anyone can relate to you.
And third of all, how much have you actually been listening to Eminem (or any rappers in general). A Tribe Called Quest? Run-DMC.?, Public Enemy? Gang Starr? NWA? Wu-Tang Clan? Da Lench Mob? 2pac? The Notorious BIG? Nas? Ghostface Killah? You probably have no idea who they are, because from what I've seen from you, you don't know anything about Hip-Hop.
I destroy pseudo-fans like you for breakfast because you "Rap God" fantards are so fragile since you don't listen to any other rappers.
Your score: -100
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Winston S.
I see what you mean, but my experience from Daniel Day-Lewis is still that his performances are more theatrical and larger-than-life than most other film actors, but it's still done in an amazing way. I also think it's possible to portray Bill Cutting and Daniel Plainview in a more "naturalistic" way, but since we now associate Daniel Day-Lewis with those roles, it's harder to imagine a different approach. I look up to Daniel Day-Lewis and have loved every performance from him, but he clearly has a different acting style than Robert de Niro for example, who relies more on making the situations clear and relatable instead of him making the scene.
Jim Carrey is really underrated. He has had amazing dramatic performances in "Doing Time On Maple Drive", "The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon", "The Majestic", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and he shows soreness, inner conflict, warmth, and likability just in his eyes and facial expressions. However, most people only associate him with those gross-out and immature comedy films, and I hate that
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Catherine Alces
People hate the Scissor Scissors’ version because it pales in comparison to Pink Floyd’s original version, it’s disrespectful, it’s absurd, and it’s made with no context, no insight, no thoughts, no emotions, NO NOTHING! It’s pure cash grab! Trying to cover Pink Floyd is an extremely bad idea already, but those who are bold enough to even attempt to do it should at least know the song’s context in terms of the concept album “The Wall”:
Up until “Comfortably Numb”, we have gotten familiar with the main character’s past and his traumas and motives for “building his wall” (being a metaphor of getting more and more isolated from the rest of the world), and we have seen (or in this case “heard”) him really feeling lonely and alone with not much hope left in the world, and all of his emotions overwhelm him to such a degree that he either gets into a coma or can’t communicate properly. A doctor visits him to help him (albeit in a very creepy and uncomfortable way) and offers medications and injections, but the main character explains that there are no real physical pain, but instead a feeling of being alienated, unable to speak and explain things, and almost feeling like you’re having a fever when you haven’t. The expression “Comfortably Numb” probably means that he’s getting so used to the “pain” that although he’s not feeling good, he at least doesn’t mind it. The doctor does the injection anyway so that the main character can fulfill his duties as a musician, and the main character repeats his explanations, but also adds that all hopes and dreams he had as a child are now lost. On the succeeding songs, we learn that the injection makes him hallucinate and imagining himself as a Neo-Nazi and the concert a rally.
The original “Comfortably Numb” has a perfect use of Roger Water’s creepiness and emotions and haunting presence as the doctor and David Gilmour’s harmonic, beautiful, and emotional vocals as the main character, it features one of the most acclaimed and iconic guitar solos of all time, the entire album feels like a rock opera where the order of the songs and the dramaturgy are really taken into account (which is one of the main reasons why Pink Floyd are so popular and acclaimed), and the song overall manages to be haunting, dramatic, cool, and sad.
None of these amazing aspects are found on Scissor Scissors’ version at all.
2
-
2
-
PandaMan
I hate the song because the only good aspect of it is its speed, but that doesn’t matter because rap has never been and will never be about speaking really fast. “Rap God” is also a symbol of the newer generation not understanding what Hip-Hop is about. In addition, there are some idiots who don’t even know that Hip-Hop is a way of life and that you can’t just be a rap fan out of nowhere. It would be like listening to Johnny Rebel or Skrewdriver without being a white supremacist.
As for raps by Eminem that are miles above “Rap God”, I’ll go with:
- “My Name Is”
- “As the World Turns”
- “I’m Back”
- “I’m Shady”
- “Guilty Conscience”
- “Bonnie and Clyde”
- “Role Model”
- “Rock Bottom”
- “Just Don’t Give a Fuck”
- “The Way I Am”
- “Stan”
- “The Real Slim Shady”
- “White America”
- “Business”
- “Cleaning out my Closet”
- “Sing for the Moment”
- “Till I collapse”
- “Without Me”
- “Like Toy Soldiers”
- “Mosh”
- “Mockingbird”
- “Just Lose It”
- “When I’m Gone”
- “Headlights”
In addition, if you have listened to rappers and crews like A Tribe Called Quest, Run-D.M.C., NWA, Public Enemy, Wu-Tang Clan, 2pac, Nas, and The Notorious B.I.G., you should know why “Rap God” is far from being a top 10 material. So no, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you pseudo-fan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dena Spohn
For your information, I love The Beatles too and was happy that they made a musical at my high school based on their music and "characters", and I listen to "She's Leaving Home" a lot if I'm going back home after vacation is over and I have visited my family (I'm male though, but who cares?). The same goes with "Leaving on a Jet Plane" by John Denver. I also listen sometimes to Madonna, but not that much. The difference between me and you is that I still acknowledge their fame and merit despite them not being my favorites.
Your criticism of Eminem is void of anything that isn't prejudice, and it's void of actual analysis of the song lyrics and its technical aspects, so that's why your statements are invalid.
Also for your information, I have regularly been performing raps by Eminem at 4 different karaoke bars in the city where I live, and I have managed to receive more applause than people who perform rock, soul, or country (those guests could might as well make an album, so they're not your usual "heavily drunk but sings to use it for something" performers). I even impressed people who compete in karaoke championships.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BlazertronGames
Well, since you ask so politely, these are must-listen albums (and I mean from start to finish, not just a couple of raps from each album):
- Run D.M.C.: “Raising Hell”
- Public Enemy: “It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold us Back”
- NWA: “Straight Outta Compton”
- Eazy-E: “Eazy Duz It”
- A Tribe Called Quest: “People’s Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm”
- Dr. Dre: “The Chronic” (way better than "2001")
- Wu-Tang Clan: “Enter the Wu-Tang (36 chambers)”
- Nas: “Illmatic”
- 2pac: “Me Against the World”, “All Eyez on Me”, and “Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory”
- The Notorious B.I.G: “Ready to Die” and “Life After Death”
- Kanye West: “The College Dropout” and “Graduation”
- Chamillionaire: “The Sound of Revenge” and “Ultimate Victory”
As for Eminem, these are his best albums by far:
- “The Slim Shady LP”
- “The Marshall Mathers LP”
- “The Eminem Show”
I must add though that one can’t just simply listen to Hip-Hop; it has to be a part of one’s life. The reasons I started to listen to Eminem in the first place are:
- Like him, I have felt like I’m someone else and that I couldn’t relate to the environment I grew up in.
- I was highly uncomfortable around older teenagers and also many of the boys in my environment (especially because they acted like gangster-wannabes), so Eminem was a way to make myself feel more confident around them
- I’ve found myself a niche in the form of performing Eminem’s raps at least twice a week at the pubs in the city where I live, and it’s close to being a celebrity life, so all of the celebrity aspect of his life has become a part of my life, and Eminem has become an alter-ego to me in the same way Slim Shady is the alter-ego of him.
- Eminem is a kind of therapy for my everyday struggles
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ameanasaur
I asked you for songs that are better than ”Lose Yourself”, and the album ”Infinite” was the only thing I got from you. If that is the only thing you can think of, I will naturally assume that you think it’s better than the songs on his other albums.
“Pissing on his other songs”? Ok, that is just ridiculous; any real Eminem fan will think highly of “Lose Yourself”, and even contemporary critics (who usually look down on Hip-Hop in general) have constantly praised it and called it one of Eminem’s best, along with “Stan” and “Without Me”. It seems more like you have a personal problem with the song rather than it being actually bad or average.
I agree that Eminem is very versatile and nuanced, and those qualities are some of the main reasons Eminem is my favorite rapper of all time. But “Lose Yourself” is no exception to this, and it covers almost all of the nuance and versatility in his library (except the comedic and sexual aspects, but that’s actually not such a bad thing):
- It has the serious and mature tone of “Mosh” and “Like Toy Soldiers”
- It has the emotional and aggressive delivery of “The Way I Am” and “Cleaning out my closet”
- It has the autobiographical content (to some degree) of the songs mentioned above (except “Mosh”) and “Mockingbird” and “When I’m Gone”
Eminem has also proven to be the best at delivering words with the vowels E, I, and Y, and those sounds are prominent here along with clever rhymes, the pace and rhythm of the song is not too fast and too slow, and his emotions are great. The song is also highly relatable, probably more than his other songs since this song doesn’t specifically talk about his childhood, his involvement in the Hip-Hop environment, or his personal life, but rather about general feeling of identity crisis, grabbing the chance even when you’ve been through lot of hate, backlash, and other conflicts, and a little bit about how the celebrity life affects his relationship with the family. What more can you ask for?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I’ve watched ”Django Unchained” three times, and even tried to just watch his scenes, but I frequently forget about him. He personally said that playing that character was very disturbing and uncomfortable, and he was advised to take it all the way, but I can see that he didn’t. If a villain character is going to interest me and be memorable, then I have three minimum requirements:
- Highlight the contrasts between the villain’s good and bad sides. I’ve liked previous villains like Norman Bates, Hannibal Lecter, Aaron Stampler, Bill the Butcher, and Idi Amin because they at first either looked very innocent so that I sympathized with them or that they were very sympathetic towards the main character so that they earned my faith. But then I got completely shocked when they showed their true colors. Villains like Amon Göth and Hans Landa on the other hand managed to highlight the contrasts because they were very charming towards a character, and that worked very well too. Calvin Candie however is someone I would never trust, and he doesn’t seem to be sympathetic towards anyone, and I don’t think he looks charming and handsome at all.
- Give me some images and moments that make the villain memorable. Yes, it’s very impressive that he kept his head cool after really hurting his hand on that glass, but that’s one moment and it’s only memorable because it was completely real. And I got tired of watching him with that nose in the air attitude and standing with that cigarette holder. I also blame much on the direction of several of his scenes. Many of the scenes where Calvin Candie is being sadistic and violent could have been very shocking and memorable, but the other actors’ reaction to this scenes and the way they get treated by him seem very over the top and unnatural, the kind that’s fitting for a black comedy. I remember Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) from “Gangs of New York” very much because he gave me several images and memorable quotes (For example “I will teach you to speak English with this fucking knife”, “What will it be then? Rib or chop? Loin or shank?”, and “On my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat, we are met on this chosen ground to settle for good and all!”), and when he was raising his voice, he used his entire body to project that power and intensity, and I have never seen anyone who has managed to give such an intensity that Daniel Day-Lewis always shows in his line delivery. And I remember very well his physical actions like the way he opened his arms when he yelled “This is a night for a America!”, the way he threw those knives at Cameron Diaz, and when he threw that axe in the air so that it started spinning and crashed down right next to DiCaprio.
- Make the villain complex and well-developed so that I have some thoughts after watching him/her. I don’t understand what’s so special about Calvin Candie, he just seems to be the representation of the plantation owner during the Civil War, and he’s just sadistic, that’s all.
And in terms of the performance itself, I thought DiCaprio’s line delivery often sounded very over the top, and I don’t get what his intensions are with these lines. His line delivery reminded me of the film actors in the 30’s and 40’s like Humphrey Bogart, Gary Cooper, and Clark Gable. (They were major stars of course, but there’s a new generation of actors now) I didn’t like his southern accent that much either, and it sounded too flamboyant. The way he raised his voice during the skull scene could have been a good highlight, but it also sounded unnatural, and villains who are screaming and shouting a lot just aren’t scary. And when he tried to be calm in a frightening way, it sounded like he was holding back and afraid to take it all the way. Some of it also reminded me of when he played Romeo Montague, and the way he acted that death scene looked more fitting for theatre than film.
I really wish to see another performance like “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, because that’s a role I can’t picture many actors being able to perform; that’s really the most challenging role he has ever played. But lately, I’ve mostly seen him playing that handsome and rich guy that always tries to be charming, and often wears a suit, and occasionally raises his voice to not seem passive. There are tons of actors I can imagine playing his roles, maybe even better, and I want to see a different side of DiCaprio
2
-
Shang Tsung He's maybe one of the best actors today, but definitely not of all time. Laurence Olivier, Marlon Brando, and Spencer Tracy are considered to be some of the greatest actors of the 20th century, and other legendary actors include Charlie Chaplin, Humphrey Bogart, James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Clark Gable, James Stewart, James Cagney, Gary Cooper, and Cary Grant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I liked it very much, and I don't understand why people constantly call it overlong, overrated, and boring (this is the fourth WatchMojo Top 10 Video I've seen where it's talked about in a negative away, the other lists were "Worst Best Picture Winners", "Bad movies that were successful", and "Overrated Movies").
The scenery was beautiful, the ending was really sad, the actors did a great job, and the movie as a whole was really well-made and touching. And I'm not being sarcastic or trying to look that I'm pretending to like it, I actually thought it was a great movie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Warp2567 Peter O'Toole had many other great performances than just "Lawrence of Arabia": "Becket", "Lion in Winter", "The Ruling Class", "Goodbye mr. Chips", "Venus", "The Stunt man", "My favorite year". If you haven't seen those movies, then check out some movie clips from them on Youtube. He also did a great voice acting job in "Ratatouille", and I thought he did a better job in "Troy" than most of the other actors in that film.
O'Toole was also a great Shakespearean actor, and his line delivery was so calm and pleasant, as well as poetic, and there is always something distinctive about each of his performances. Not to mention that he had covered so many genres.
I really can't believe that a man with 8 Oscar nominations, 4 BAFTA nominations, and 10 Golden Globe nominations never won a single Oscar. I guess he had really tough competition or that his movies just wasn't popular enough.
2
-
loda lega I'm actually Norwegian, but it seems like most audiences in USA today stick to modern movies like Lord of the Rings and Marvel movies, while people who study film or those who don't like fantasy movies and comic book movies (or those who are looking for story and character development) prefer the classics. I often come across commentators on film-related Watchmojo videos who say things like "Who cares about those ancient relic movies?", "Citizen Kane and The Godfather are so boring", or "Star Wars, The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings are the best movies of all time"
In my opinion, movies in the 21st century excel at science fiction, fantasy, and superhero movies, but movies from the 20th century have the best drama films, comedy films, crime films, and war films. I think it's a matter of what genre you prefer
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cuzthechicksdigit Most movies after the 90's (but especially in the 21st century) are about action and visual effects or gross-out humor instead of story (and movies that have a story look more like Oscar baits), and they care more about popularity or looks instead of acting skills when they cast actors
Hollywood was much better when they had actors like Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy, Laurence Olivier, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, James Dean, and Montgomery Clift, and actors like Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, and Robert de Niro were either more active or chose better movies. And who can forget about movies like "Gone With The Wind", "Casablanca", "All About Eve", "On the Waterfront", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Godfather", "Taxi Driver", "Apocalypse Now" and "Raging Bull"? I may not be that old, but I think movies in the 20th century are superior to movies in the 21st century
2
-
regulator619 You really compare "The Dark Knight" with those movies I've mentioned? You got a lot to learn about movies. And even though there are some good movies today, they are very rare to find compared to those in the 20th century, and even active directors like Spielberg, Coppola, and Scorsese had better movies in that century. You also had great directors like Elia Kazan, Alfred Hitchcock, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Stanley Kubrick, Sergio Leone, Laurence Olivier, John Ford, William Wyler, Orson Welles, and Frank Capra. I watch classic movies because I'm tired of watching superhero-movies or science fiction films that are only meant to show off their technical achievements, and wait until Oscar-nominated movies are released since they are some of the few movies that have a real story or great quality.
TV-shows have become better though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Ellen Collins
My interpretation is that there is often a norm or principle (or maybe an expectation?) that people should be happy about their lives and the world/society they live in, and it makes people forget that some other people actually are dissatisfied, feel alienated, have teenage angst, and cannot relate to the people around them. Since most of us live by these norms and principles of being happy about life and the society's expectations, we cannot relate to those people who don't live by the same principles as us, and Holden therefore has a subtle rebellion and open disdain for those kinds of people
I remember very well back in high school that they tried so hard to seem "heavenly" and that there would be no conflicts or dissatisfaction, but I disagreed a lot with how the lessons worked (since I had drama programs, I mostly disagreed with the theatre norms and principles, as well as curriculum), and I was rarely taken seriously, and it pisses me off even today. Of course, everything has worked out now
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+theGoldenboy111111
One thing I would be looking for is exceptionality. The only movie I have seen with him standing out from the rest, doing a really challenging role, and doing something I would not expect is "What's Eating Gilbert Grape". In his other movies, I expect the performance from him because I have seen him do something similar previously, or the performance just doesn't stand out from the other actors in the film. He also looks too "comfortable"; a great performance would be that he stepped out of his comfort zone
Many people will use "Django Unchained" as an example of exceptionality, but I just don't like that performance; his line delivery lacked motivation and intention, he tried too hard to be evil and authoritative, many of his close-ups reminded me of either "Titanic" or "Romeo and Juliet", and his rant near the end started at the "boiling point" instead of giving it time to build up. Yes, he really hurt his hand and still kept his head cool, but I would not use that moment alone to give him a nomination. His death scene also looked too staged, and I got tired of seeing him with that cigarette holder (which is also the only image I have of him in my head)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
*****
Still, if masterpieces like "Mona Lisa", "Odyssey", "Hamlet", or "The Godfather" are declared garbage by a critic, then most other critics and art "connoisseurs" will frown at that person and claim that he has no taste
Besides, the critics look at how well the artist handles the formal qualities and artistic elements of the specific artform or genre (that of course is subjective, but the criterias are virtually established), and not on how they enjoyed it out of personal preferences. Because of that, they can personally hate those masterpieces, but still give them positive reviews because they fullfill their criterias.
I've done an academic text on "the standard of taste", and I had no idea that the difference between liking/disliking something based on personal preferences and giving aesthetic judgement would be so crucial, but it apparently is (You're not the first one I've needed to explain the difference to)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
rockfan96channel What about Buster Keaton, Spencer Tracy, James Stewart, Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, James Dean, Gary Cooper, Rod Steiger, Montgomery Clift, John Wayne, and Dustin Hoffman? And actresses like Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, Shirley Temple, and Jessica Tandy?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JonatasAdoM
(WARNING: Long reply)
It depends. One factor is of course how accurate the adaptation is (I don't want a carbon copy, but the essence and key elements need to be there), but also how a style/genre work in one medium compared to another one.
Movies:
- I liked "The Godfather", "Marathon Man", "Leaving Las Vegas", and "Apocalypse Now" better as movies. That's because I like Mafia stories, thrillers, alcoholic themes, and war stories generally better as movies than books since they bring an aesthetic and suspense that books can't compete with, and because they often have suspenseful music to accompany them (The film "The Godfather" was also better trimmed and structured than the book, while "Apocalypse Now" took the essence of "Heart of Darkness" and turned it into something that became more intense). Environments can also often feel very stunning and beautiful in the moment they are shown because of aesthetics.
Books:
- On a general note, descriptions of the environment and the character's personality and feelings in books are often so poetic and artistic that it virtually sounds like a melody in the reader's head, and it's hard to adapt that to movies. Yes, movies can use music, visual effects, art direction, cinematography etc. to get the emotional feel, but I feel that it's more impressive to bring an emotional and artistic feel just through language. Describing the character's inner feelings and conflicts also generally works better in books than movies, especially when it's neo-Romantic and modernist novels like those of Knut Hamsun, James Joyce, and Franz Kafka.
Another advantage books often have is that they can be enjoyed on their own, but when the film is 100% accurate to them, it can get disappointing and predictable. Movies also generally ruin subjectivity by making the scenery presentation and character design in the film adaptation "official", while books allow creating your own pictures in your head.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dylan Christensen
Before I begin, I must say that you still make judgments based on personal preferences, and you attack Holden Caulfield as a person rather than attacking him as a character.
The novel is mostly a character study of Holden Caulfield, and the key word for this novel is “representation”. Holden Caulfield is a representation of teenage rebellion, angst, alienation, and longing for innocence in the 50’s, a period influenced by the post-trauma and lack of innocence after World War II. He condemns and criticizes the society and their structures, their insecurity, and their façades because he cannot relate to the people around him or find his place. He also criticizes adult life because of the society’s expectations to them, and he hesitates to lose his virginity because most women at the time were treated more as objects than someone you could respect and grow attached to. The norms and principles for casual sex are also much of the reason he has fantasies about childhood innocence; he wishes to stay away from sex because he cannot have casual sex and still care about the woman, and childhood fantasies seem to be the solution since sex is not expected.
And of course, Holden Caulfield is very affected by the death of his younger brother and the suicide of one of his classmates. The novel also talks about how much Holden Caulfield’s depression escalates and affects his health; he feels dizzy and nauseous and eventually ends up at a mental hospital.
I also believe that the novel is a rebellion towards the society's norms and principles of being happy about life and the world around you, so when you feel dissatisfied and judgmental (even if it is for good reasons), the world around you cannot relate to you and you grow a disdain for them
2
-
Dylan Christensen
The reason the book was banned because it was not acceptable back then to have “immoral content” such as profanity, smoking, casual sex, and such open disdain for the society’s structures. Some schools have also claimed that it had a communist theme, and it has been controversial later because it had influenced killers such as Mark David Chapman
Understanding the time setting and relating are necessities to get into the story and the novel. If you are completely satisfied with the people and world around you, never have felt rebellious, never felt alienated, never had something against the society’s expectations of you, never grown up in that type of society, and never experienced a tragic incident that has affected you in later years (in Holden’s case, it’s both the death of his brother and the suicide of one of his friends), then there’s no hope for you to understand the novel. People who cannot relate to Holden will thus label him as whiny and pathetic even though they would have different thoughts if they were in his position.
Yes, sex is a recurring theme in the story because of that “women as sexual objects VS women as people”. The society has through history been very misogynic, and in the 40’s and 50’s, women were especially seen as sexual objects (which is also talked about in movies like “Raging Bull” and “A Streetcar Named Desire”). Just to answer a previous question, he is actually 17 years old, so him wanting to lose his virginity should not be that much of a surprise.
The reason it has been considered such a classic is because of its influence. It was not normal back then to write about the teenage life and their problems and inner conflicts, and the movies did not take it seriously until “Rebel Without A Cause” (1955). Because of that, it probably wouldn’t have the same impact today, so people can have the right to say that it had not aged that well compared to other literary works, but people should not deny that it’s still influential and iconic. He may be a prototypical emo, but I don’t see that being a bad thing since the novel does such a good job of doing a realistic portrayal. That’s the biggest flaw I see in many people’s judgments of the book; they criticize it because they don’t like “emos” and “whiny teenagers” instead of looking at how well this portrayal is (with the logic that you have to “like” and agree with the character for it to be considered well-written or portrayed, I don’t understand why people then praise characters like Tyler Durden).
I can assure you that critics and historians didn’t call it a classic because they were “fans” of its theme and Holden Caulfield, they did it because the novel has been an icon for the teenage troubles, angst, and inner conflicts in that period. I mean, I can be highly against communists or think that Mafia figures are completely inhumane, but I will still give a novel or film good reviews if it does a great job of portraying one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brandon Griffiths you said "people inside the industry", which include actors. And I guess you have some proof for your claims and statements? And if you have not even seen "A Streetcar Named Desire" (and obviously not many other of his movies), and the reason for it is "because it's boring", you have already lost much of your credibility. I have also already noticed that you have not taken many acting classes or studied acting techniques
Many actors could have played Brando's roles, but could they have played it the same way? One of the reasons his performance in "On the Waterfront" is considered to be so great is because he thought outside the box, especially in the taxi scene; instead of being angry and yell at Rod Steiger like most actors would do, he remained calm and sounded more disappointed because he felt it would be unnatural to not be frightened if a gun was pointed at him, and he slowly pushed down the gun. He also made Terry a very complex character; on one hand, a rebellious dockworker, on the other hand, a tender soul. If you canot sympathize with Terry or relate to the iconic taxi scene, I really wonder what life you have been living. With "The Godfather", he managed to highlight the fatherly and Mafia-like side of Don Vito, as well as being able to play him despite being much younger than what he is described as in the novel (I have read the novel, and Brando portrayed Don Vito's personality and mannerism just like they are described there). He also had a natural authority and improvised his death scene (Brando also improvised a lot in his younger days, which was not common or acceptable at the time). In addition, he had an ability to read from cue cards while still making it look natural and that he had memorized his lines
With "A Streetcar Named Desire" alone, you can see many new interpretations of scenes, line delivery, and physical action:
- While his diction was bad, his line delivery nevertheless sounded more realistic than the poetic and rhythmic line delivery more fitting for theatre
- The way he establishes the room when he first meets Blanche in the kitchen
- The way he actually reacts to what's being said and takes pauses to think about what's being said to him
- The way he constantly tries to get Stella's attention and reacts on that she is not listening. Most actors back then would just exchange their lines
- The way he builds up his anger when Stella offends him at the birthday party. Most actors would probably just be really angry right away
Brando brought a gripping realism to film acting; he was not just a pretty face. You can go to IMDB and Wikipedia, and both will say that he was one of the greatest and most influential actors of all time. Elia Kazan considered Brando's performance in "On the Waterfront" to be one of the best male performances ever, and Kazan was considered to be one of the most honored directors in Broadway and Hollywood history. There are also quotes from Jack Nicholson and Martin Scorsese:
- "There was before Brando and after Brando"
- "We are all Brando's children"
Just because you're an adult and favor James Stewart over Brando doesn't mean that you can just sound pretentious and hate on Brando without having any reasonable arguments for why you don't like him. And if you think Brando didn't do anything revolutionizing, you need to refresh your acting history. I guess you claim that Stanislavski or Lee Strasberg didn't do anything either
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I personally thought the dramatic mood was there, the setting and art direction was good, the music was great, the story was good, Jim Carrey did a great job, and the cultural references were interesting to watch, but I thought it became a bit too dramatic. By that, I mean that the dramatic mood could had built up a little more, because I felt that it was dramatic on a very similar level from start to finish, and the pacing became too slow because of that, especially because it lasts for 150 minutes. I also longed for a small moment or scene that could had lightened the mood a little bit (There may have been some, but it wasn't enough); it makes the movie more nuanced and makes it easier to sit through.
I thought it was good and had great potentials, but I would had shortened it down and worked on the structure and the buildup of the dramatic mood. But I think the only reason the critics panned it and it was a box-office failure is because people expected to see something like "Ace Ventura", "The Mask", or "The Truman Show" again (which has a dramatic core but is quite comedic on the surface until the ending). Thankfully, people finally managed to take Jim Carrey seriously with "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I think "The Majestic" is a good movie and I'm glad to have seen it, but I don't think it's a great movie
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** What I see is that his character's situation is clear and believable; a screenwriter who loses his job due to alcoholism, and therefore moves to Las Vegas to drink himself to death. There he meets a young prostitute, whom he starts a relationship with to get some love and compassion before his life has ended. The film has a dramatic and sad atmosphere, and he has good chemistry with Elisabeth Shue (shown especially when he's lying on the couch with her or in the final scene), as well as they're clearly interacting and reacting to each other, which is a sign of presence instead of just exchanging lines
Some of the most dramatic moments include when he can barely sign a check because he is shaking so much, when he desperately wants booze at a bar even though it's too early at the day, when he wakes up during the night and runs to the refrigerator in desperation to get vodka and orange juice, and the last scene where he can barely breathe, but still has a final moment with Elisabeth Shue's character. I have seen people being heavily intoxicated and I have been very drunk myself and wondered if I'm about to die, so I can relate to much of this. Playing an alcoholic is one of the most challenging roles out there, and Cage portrays it much more realistic than I have seen from many other actors, and he's clearly more calm and serious than for example in "The Wicker Man".
Cage also won an Academy Award and Golden Globe, and I can understand why.
In general, acting is about storytelling, and the audience believe the actor if the situation is clear and relatable, and Cage blends in with the situation. If "most people" don't believe in the situations in "Leaving Las Vegas", then they cannot have had much life experience
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Κωνσταντινα Μπαγλατζη
Eminem has never been able to compete with Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Nas, Rakim, 2pac, Black Thought, Big Pun, and The Notorious BIG when it comes to technical skills, so his biggest strength to overcome that bitter truth has always been to be a great storyteller, "actor", and being able to connect with the audience and create creative concepts and personalities.
Rap God however is just supersonic narcissistic techno nonsense with no real thoughts behind it, no real story, and no depth, and it's so meh compared to songs by rappers like Twista and Chamillionaire and groups like Bone Thugs N Harmony (as well as his former self) that I see no reason to praise it at all. The reason people overpraise it so much is that they think Hip-Hop is all about speed, and I hate the song because it's become a symbol of Hip-Hop declining
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+The HVA Productions
Grammys and sales don't automatically equal skills, kid, and Beastie Boys broke the color barrier already a decade before Eminem showed up (and there was a time when Vanilla Ice was respected). Also, Kanye West actually has more Grammys than Eminem. Anyway, do you know anything about alliterations, flow, punch-ins/outs, bass, rap metres/bars, polyrhythmic patterns, or internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes? I can guarantee you that Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, Rakim, Guru, Chuck D, 2pac, Biggie, Nas, Big L, Big Pun, Pharoahe Monch, and Black Thought display those formal qualities to a way bigger degree than Eminem does.
So your intention is to try to act tough and teach someone a lesson by making them laugh at your stupidity and immaturity? What kind of cyberbully are you? You're not accomplishing anything; you're just being a pathetic child throwing a tantrum, and I told you that ad-hominem doesn’t buy you any credibility or points here. The only people who can teach me a lesson are those who can actually argue and make points.
And btw, your lack of grammar and syntax make you look like a 10 year old kid
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blackguyofthesouth2161
I didn't literally mean that it's a consolation prize, and no matter how you slice it, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and the acting nods, are the biggest ones, closely followed by Best Editing. If you do everything in your might to win an Oscar, even if it's too obvious, try-hard, and "formulaic, and all you get are nods for some visual aspects, it definitely feels like a letdown, unlike with a movie that doesn't seem like it was made to win Oscars anyway (whether it's an indie movie, a fantasy flick, or an action thriller)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Stefan Marstrander
I think you're a bit confused about how aesthetic judgment works. If you haven't noticed, this list is for Top 10 BEST movies of all time, which is a completely different story than someone's favorite movies. Your personal problems with gangster movies are completely irrelevant in this context.
When evaluating a movie, critics are supposed to sense and analyze the formal qualities in the piece of art and judge how they correspond with the normative standard of what makes the execution satisfying for the average moviegoer. With that in mind, a critic can personally dislike a movie but still call it great from a critical and technical point of view.
Let's take "JFK" for example. I'm not at all interested in its topic and think the movie is overlong, but from a technical and critical point of view in terms of cinematography, music, writing, acting, aesthetics, and especially editing, I still consider it one of the greatest movies of all time
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Nestor Marrero Alvarado
(WARNING: LONG COMMENT)
Hater? Eminem is actually my favorite rapper; I grew up with his music, I wrote a school essay about him, I'm familiar with all of his mainstream singles, I participated in an Open Mic and talked about how he was an important part of my life, and I have for 2 1/2 years performed his music at the local karaoke bars to such a degree that the hosts call me their answer to Eminem. When I was younger, I was convinced that he was the best, and even today I'm critical to those who only listen to his most mediocre raps rather than his legendary ones.
However, I got older and listened a lot to other rappers such as Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Rakim, Slick Rick, Ghostface Killah (and basically the entire Wu-Tang Clan), Big Pun, Big L, 2pac, Biggie, and Nas. I then realized from a critical and technical point of view, Eminem can't really compare. It was initially a pain to admit that, but now I'm confident that this is the case (especially because I got more into art criticism in 2017). It was only in late 2016 that I've got comments saying that I was an Eminem fantard.
TL;DR; Eminem is my favorite rapper for personal reasons, but he's not really that amazing from a technical point of view, and the only reason I may I have looked like a hater is because I'm passionate about art criticism and this video has been about "best".
2
-
2
-
@icegloves7777
Oh yeah, because Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Karl Malden, Paul Newman, Burgess Meredith, Harvey Keitel, and Al Pacino are/were DEFINITELY known for constantly changing their weights, and if you look up the first page of "The Lee Strasberg Notes" you will ABSOLUTELY see that it says "Step 1: change your weight".
Seriously! Method acting is as much of a personal and psychological approach as you can get, without anything in its core having to do with your physique. The only physical aspect of Strasberg's method acting is to base a character's attitude, movements, and posture on animals, and even that's very subtle compared to Commedia Dell'Arte and Grotowski's physical work.
Also also, incorporating your voice, emotions, gestures, and movements to your character, as well as finding out your character's motivations, has been an convention since David Garrick's acting days in the 18th century. It's not anything unique to method acting.
Next time, try to do a bit more research on the topic
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Steven Reyna
So content is all that matters to you, is it? The advanced cinematography, aesthetics, and art direction, as well as the music, the acting, the lighting, the nihilistic themes, the symbolism, and generally Coppola's direction and management of the cinematic elements in such an ambitious project don't matter to you at all? If content is all that matters to you, then stick to reading books.
And no shit that it's over-dramatic; if you want it to be completely realistic, then you should just watch a documentary. Movies require to be above complete realism in order to preserve the artistic aspects and make the theme and conflicts perfectly clear.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+James
Rap God is hypersonic narcissistic imitation rap with no depth, no complex flow, rap metres, or delivery, no real narrative, and no message. Eminem will also never reach the level of legends like 2pac, Biggie, Kool G Rap, Big Pun, Black Thought, Rakim, Nas, Ghostface Killah, and Big Daddy Kane anyway, so he has always stayed relevant with his content and storytelling. With this in mind, I see no reason to worship a song where he's not only a shadow of the big legends, but also of himself.
"If they listen and enjoy a lot of rap". That really depends; you cannot really call yourself a rap fan if the only rappers you listen to are for example Pitbull, Black Eyed Peas, Flo Rida, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, and Lil' Wayne, just like you cannot really call yourself a movie buff if you only watch Transformers and Marvel movies. What is consistent with the so-called rappers like Pitbull etc. is that the formal qualities in their actual rap performances are either terrible or non-existent, so they "save" themselves with their songs' production.
From an essentialistic point of view, there are certain criteria for what define rap, and there are also criteria and requirements for the audience to be considered reasonable judges, and the sad truth is that not everyone has that ability to know which raps fit the criteria.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+PrinceTrexus
Leo was hammy and whiny and reminded me of an overgrown teen with a superiority complex, and his death scene looked staged. I can't even remember any good gestures, viewpoints, or tableaus from him.
Compared to villain performances like Marlon Brando in "A Streetcar Named Desire", Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight", Anthony Perkins in "Psycho", Daniel Day-Lewis in 'Gangs of New York", Joe Pesci in "GoodFellas", Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List", Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland", and J.K. Simmons in "Whiplash", Leo doesn't grasp villain portrayals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yhwachpoetry4205
I never said "objectively", I said "normative standard". That's two very different terms, and you not understanding what I'm saying and the complexity of movie criticism is not my problem either; that's you not being experienced enough in the field. Not everyone has equal experience in directing and acting for example and nobody gets pissed when they're told that, so why is it suddenly a problem to be told that you're not experienced enough in movie criticism? Arts have standards and require skills and experience, and art criticism is no exception. There have been so many times where I read a review and it turns out that the critic is not experienced at all and have fallacies and flawed argumentation everywhere in his/her review, so how can I be sure that the film is actually of good/bad quality and not that it's just the critic not evaluating it properly? How would you like if you hand in a paper or maybe even a short film project to a teacher and it gets an F just because the teacher uses personal bias and irrelevant criteria? And then it gets evaluated by a different person who obviously has much more experience and developed critical sense and grades it an A.
And you still haven't understood that it's not their opinions themselves I have a problem with, but their assessments. I don't agree with everything Doug Walker or Lindsay Ellis for example say, but I can still buy their opinions because they still have amazing critiquing skills. And other people not caring about formal qualities is their loss, because anyone who knows anything about movie criticism knows that they are highly relevant factors to take into consideration. And not everything that's considered "boring" to a lot of people is actually bad. People generally consider "Ulysses" to be a masterpiece despite finding it somewhat boring, and people still consider newscasts to be highly useful and well-made even when it's boring. Have you ever considered that maybe you're just not mature or patient enough to appreciate "The Godfather"?
And I know what you're going to say next: "Oh, you're such a pretentious twat!". I don't care! As long as what I'm saying is backed up and approved by the most experienced within the field, then what everyone else is saying doesn't matter to me. And that's not being elitist, that's being critical to the source material. I would much rather take workout advice for example from Jeff Cavaliere than a million random obese people.
2
-
2
-
What in the blue FUCK is a “professional art critic?”
Someone who does art criticism for a living, isn’t that obvious?
Are you this deluded that you truly believe art can be objectively critiqued?
No, I’m saying that some people have the skills to evaluate a film in such an effective and reasonable way that despite it being a subjective assessment, it makes the general audience think “Yeah, that actually makes sense when you really think about it. I can actually learn something from this guy” compared to someone who is so overly subjective and personal that the only response he gets is “Well, that’s your opinion”. You just claim that I say “objectively” because you haven’t researched about normative standards, because it’s definitely the latter I’m referring to, and both my colleagues, superiors, and Ebert, Ellis, and Walker have definitely understood it. Even JelloApocalypse has understood it.
You’d rather take the advice of a person in shape about weight lose (loss) that (than) someone who is obese
Of course. If I want to learn about getting muscular or generally in shape, I would much rather take advice from someone who has dedicated his life to it rather than a million people who don’t give a damn.
I fail to see how that correlates to film critique
Isn’t it obvious? I would rather hear the opinion of someone who has dedicated his life to art criticism than someone who takes it for granted, and that again has to do with being critical to the sources just like that people always get skeptical about Wikipedia since it’s written by “normal people” rather than being a site that quality secured and written by professionals.
Once you see a movie and critique it, you’ve have experience (Lol, that grammar)
Not enough! You kinda need to see many different types of films and be used to them and crack the code for what the criteria are. Everything is a learning process, so that’s why some people initially seem to hate a movie, but after learning more about its form, genre, and criteria, and see many different examples of that film, they get used to it and often change their opinion. That’s part of the reason why so many of the masterpieces today in art were looked down upon in its contemporary time, but have now received their acclaim in retrospect.
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO CRITIQUE ART, ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE
I never said it wasn’t subjective. I’m just saying that I find an assessment more reasonable and well-formulated when it’s viewed from the perspective of the general public rather than just the person himself/herself.
And whose mind in this scenario is supposed to be the more advanced.....yours?
No, I highly respect Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, and Lindsay Ellis and have always been overwhelmed by how much they seem to know what they’re talking about, and I’m always working my ass off to reach their level. They have also obviously won the general people’s hearts, so naturally I want to strive to become just like them and consider them way more credible sources for philosophy regarding art criticism than random people.
Lol you have to be trolling, there is no way you’re this stupid
Why should I care what you’re saying or even believe what you’re saying? What I have been trying to tell people here are supported by Ebert, Walker, and Ellis, as well as David Hume, film historians, journalists, and theatre professors, and those type of people are obviously more worth trying to impress or get the approval of since it seems way more likely that impressing them will make me become big within this field. It’s impossible to please everybody, so instead I have to be picky with whom I’m trying to please. Haters gonna hate! The fact that you're also now calling me a stupid troll makes me question your reliability and credibility even more, and I doubt that impressing people like you (those who take art criticism for granted) will be benificial to me.
2
-
@yhwachpoetry4205
If these people actually were as skilled as Lindsay Ellis and Doug Walker, I wouldn't be as relentless, but they're not. There was also once that I criticized an amateur critics's review and that person just got whiny and salty and said I was stupid. I later criticized a professional critic's review the same way, and do you know what he said? He said "Thank you for a well-written feedback. Maybe we'll become colleagues one day". I once tried to publish an essay in an amateur newspaper and got turned down for being "too formal, technical, and boring". I sent the same article in a professional newspaper and it got published. I even got 2 additional articles published.
Oh yeah, a critique is just a critique. So by that logic, a movie is just a movie, an exam is just exam, a singing performance is just a singing performance, and there's no point in having any criteria or standards? That makes total sense.
2
-
@yhwachpoetry4205
You don't see me saying "Boo hoo! You're so mean to me! But you're right, I am such a moron!", do you?. That's already a proof that I don't care what you think. And your insults haven't changed anything, especially when what you think is stupid about me is seen as being intelligent, reflective, and insightful in the eyes of people I actually want to impress and make a good impression on.
And tell me this; if I'm so asinine, arrogant, pretentious, and delusional, why have Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, Lindsay Ellis, and David Hume (whom all share the exact same belief as me) received their acclaim, merits, awards, and fame, and still continue to be popular? Why did I get my A's on the take-home-finals about this topic at the University? (the majority of the criteria were based on argumentation, viewpoints, and personal opinions rather than facts). Why did the critic consider me worthy of being a colleague? Why did the newspaper publish 3 of my articles that were highly subjective and close to being political? Why did an independent theatre consider me a helpful consultant for their production? Why did a local theatre call me "the big man" and wouldn't stop asking me what I thought about their latest production?
I may not be close to being world-famous or even famous nationally, but that's okay. That just means I have something to strive for, and I still have accomplished more than what most people on my age and within my field and environnent can dream of, and of course I'm confident in my abilities and know that I can be better, especially when my role models have seen my potential. There are naturally some sacrifices to be made, which in this case is to have people like you hate on me, but that's okay since I instead get the approval of people I actually look up to, people that have more merits than an average person, and people that are benificial to impress. Haters gonna hate!
2
-
I want to be a critic, dramaturge, assistant director, or consultant, so yeah, of course I look up to those people I mentioned and want to be in the company of those people. If you don't like it, then fine, but the vast majority within this field worship them, and that's what matters to me.
Also, an University is not the same as a school, and the whole thing about "grade doesn't matter" only applies if the profession you're striving for is not theory-based, but the profession I am striving for is entirely based on intelligence and theory, so of course it's a good foundation to ace take-home-finals that are entirely based on someone's intelligence and critical sense, especially when it's evaluated by those who have been in the professional field for decades. Also, I wasn't just talking about grades; I mentioned people in the professional field appreciating my abilities, as well as the fact that I have got in touch with professionals since they have seen my potential.
Finally, if you think a 23-year old whose colleagues and peers are in their 30's, and whose tests about mental age suggest that he's 30, is a kid, then you must be an old geezer in comparison. And of course I called you a hater; none of the things you have said about me has been positive, and you spend more time insulting me than actually debating, and I'm not responsible for your headache. Take some medication if that helps you out!
2
-
if you think my tone is aggressive....lol good luck with life from the standpoint of a film critic. THIS? Is nothing in comparison
I never said that I feel hurt, bent, overwhelmed, beaten etc. by your aggressive tone; I’m just saying that it makes you look immature and emotional, as well as hypocritical since you complain so much about my supposed arrogance and immaturity when you’re nothing better yourself. I also just wanted to inform you that your tone doesn’t make you look any smarter or more mature, and I hoped it would make you start acting your age and take things a bit more seriously, but I guess not. I also commented on it simply to inform you that the only way you could eventually bring me down was to actually debate properly. Ad-hominem doesn’t work on me. I’m just like Doug Walker; aggressive comments just nurture me.
Also, I never once discredited your “peers and superiors” who think so highly of you
You definitely didn’t say anything positive about them or thought that getting their approval or blessing is something to be proud of, so that’s enough proof for me to see that you discredit them.
and your assertion that just because a film critics critique is constructive or well formulated makes it any better or more easily fragmented than anyone else’s is still asinine in the vacuum of art critique
If that’s true, why is it part of the curriculum when you learn the most basic things about art criticism and something that David Hume, Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, and Lindsay Ellis (all well-established names) go by?
It doesn’t matter the scope or lens in which you dissect art, it’s still just a subjective opinion
And it’s your opinion that it’s just a subjective opinion and something irrelevant, and it’s not shared by those people I mentioned whom are more acclaimed, established, and respected than what most people within this field will ever become, so again, why should I even believe what you’re saying?
And this isn’t a debate, btw. This is a petty YouTube comment thread back and forth
It’s not petty to me, and I’m taking any discussion seriously. I’m not dumbing myself down just because we’re on YouTube and not at an official debate.
I actually feature on several podcast’ in which REAL debate about varying topics take place and trust, this isn’t how I debate
If you’re actually able to debate properly, then I’d glad to see it. If you did and we spoke the same “language”, then maybe this could actually turn into a discussion that’s more to your liking and we’re just exchanging opinions. With the way you’re “debating” with me now, you’re just making me waste my time analyzing and commenting on your fallacies and flawed arguments instead of sticking to the topic.
This is simply for my entertainment at this point
Constantly insulting someone who tries to take a discussion seriously, not take art criticism for granted, and actually being analytical is entertainment to you? You’re a very strange person.
I’ve actually become rather enthralled by you superiority complex
If I had a superiority complex, I wouldn’t have admitted that I have role models and there are a lot of people that I consider to be above me and superior to me.
You seem to be the only person lost in wonderland, unable to truly grasp the concept of my opinion doesn’t have to match yours
I never said it had to, but I’m definitely critical to your assessment and the way you’re arguing with me. Like I said earlier, if you could just debate properly and prove to me that you can write a reasonable, well-formulated, and well-thought-out assessment, then you’d be allowed to disagree with me as much as you want. Doug Walker highly disliked “Shrek” (a movie that I and a bunch of other people really love), but his assessment was so amazing that I thought to myself “Ok, fair enough. He’s still proven to be an amazing critic”.
Someone says The Godfather is overrated and you instantly go into hysterics, typing away in an attempt to argue and sway opinion based mediums
I’m critical to their assessments and the way they discuss me and come off as impatient children rather than serious debaters. You could say that them thinking it’s overrated trigger me, but if they had argued for their statements properly, then I would have forgiven it, but they don’t, so I’m starting to question if it’s really overrated or if they just don’t know how to evaluate it properly.
There is a stark difference between presenting your opinion and arguing it against another’s persons, and shoving your opinion into the realm of fact
I would love to have a discussion or debate like Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had at their TV show or like when I’m participating in cultural debates with my colleagues, but unfortunately, these people won’t debate properly, so I’m critical to their assessment in an attempt for them to speak the same “language” as me, but it’s hopeless! Just like Lars said, I should just let this discussion die, but you still come back with catty comments.
Take it how you want it but as I said before; you aren’t as important as you think you are and your opinion about a subjective medium holds no more weight than that of a 10 year old
I believe that when I hear it from a credible source.
2
-
2
-
Oh great, cherry-picking mob movies when Scorsese also has made "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York, "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Age of Innocence", "The Aviator", "Hugo", and "Silence", just to name a few
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+alexio ortiz
1. What does money and sale got to do with talents and skills?
2. Jay-Z is not as amazing as Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Chuck D, Big Pun, Kool G Rap, 2pac, Biggie, Ghostface Killah, Raekwon, GZA, and Big L. He can't even beat Nas in a feud
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trailer for "Pink Floyd -- The Wall" was kind of misleading, but I was actually relieved when I saw the film. When I saw the trailer, they basically showed just the most uncomfortable scenes like those creepy masks, Pink running in only his boxers, a close up of the sadistic teacher, Pink suffering in the pool of blood, the animated sequences by Gerald Scarfe, Pink being injected with drugs and screaming, someone lying in some kind of hospital bed, and the skinheads. I don't know what I expected to see, but it looked like it was going to very graphic and violent.
It turned out to be a subtle movie about someone suffering, but more in a psychological way than a physical way, the movie was very creative and original, I wanted to hear more songs by Pink Floyd, and there were more scenes that were painful to watch because Pink was depressed and felt isolated than scenes that were painful to watch because they were gory and graphic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jazztom86
Audience obviously watch movies, theatre performances, and operas only from the audience's point of view, so they don't notice the techniques in the same way practitioners and acting students do. If someone has gone to an acting school, studied acting techniques (as in evaluating actors the same way critics evaluate movies) or been an actor for a long period, then I can find their assessment a bit more reliable. If not, then I don't trust them as much.
I also base my assessments on my own experiences, and since it's now been a norm that Jim Carrey is a great yet underrated dramatic actor (as in the joint verdict is that Jim Carrey's performances are Oscar-worthy performance that was overlooked), it seems like my experience and thoughts are similar to that norm.
And yes, I've always looked up to Roger Ebert, and he has praised Jim Carrey a lot in "The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon", "The Majestic", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and he is obviously a lot more acclaimed and praised than the average movie critic
1
-
jazztom86
Yeah, I don't always blindly trust Ebert. I also mostly looked up to him when I was into movie criticism for the first time, but now that I've learned even more about argumentation and aesthetic judgment, I've been more and more on my own. There have also been instances where I have been questioning his authority, for example when he criticized "The Cable Guy" almost entirely because he expected a light comedy like "Ace Ventura", or when he gave negative reviews to "The Usual Suspects" and "Gladiator". I also don't understand why he criticized Marlon Brando in "The Godfather". I therefore often read his reviews to see why he thinks the way he does, and not just look at how many stars he gave the film. Overall though, I really like his structure and disposition and his no-nonsense writing, as well as his philosophy on relativism.
I mostly do theatre criticism nowadays however since that's what I'm specialized in, and because I don't come across theatre reviews that often, so it's easier to stand by own words. Many of the reviews I've actually read are also not that good (I'm Norwegian, and many of the critics here are people who hate on avant-garde or post-modern theatre performances just because it's not traditional. Many of them are also way too subjective and look into every small detail just to find something to criticize), so I usually ignore them
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
spacedigger
You idiot. Youtube is just to practice criticism and refresh. I'm just on a holiday. You also don't know me at all and the main topic wasn't even about me; it was about "The Deer Hunter", so don't even try to beat around the bush.
You've lost the debate because you have no arguments, no analysis, no comparison, no elecution, no credibility, and you're not free of bias. The only thing you've said is that the film is boring and nothing else, so you just created some straw man who foolishly believes that personal attack and profanity will make you feel superior and wise. I've met dozens of people like you, and they're equally pathetic.
I may not be a professional critic yet, but I definitely know more about aesthetic judgement than you do. You wouldn't even last one day in college with your straw man fallacies and lack of argumentation, and you're way too young to be on social media.
And do you really think you're accomplishing anything? Your personal attacks only make you look pathetic, and you can't even argue for your statements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
spacedigger
You still don’t get it, do you? Discussions and debates on Youtube aren’t any different than those at school, college, or any public debates, and normative argumentation still applies. The only difference is that the chance of encountering trolls and uneducated people are higher, and you’ve already proven this, but again it's easier to bust their arguments. Everyone also gotta start somewhere, and acing two exams in college/University about art criticism, dominating debates with professors that are twice as experienced as you, becoming member of an artistic council for a theatre, and working voluntarily as a dramaturge are way better foundations than what most critics today have. Even a professional critic like Roger Ebert seemed to be heavily influenced by David Hume. I also already have a plan to join a newspaper soon and write reviews for them, and people around me say “Go for it” constantly.
What kind of foundation do you have that makes you such a better critic? If you can’t even discuss with and convince me on such an entry-level as debating on Youtube, you have no chance to make it into the professional world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ShaunLovesAnimating
A Tribe Called Quest, Wu-Tang Clan, Gang Starr, Run-D.M.C, Public Enemy, NWA, and Biggie are the essentials (as well as 2pac, but you apparently listen to him), and without them, there would be no Hip-Hop. Hip-Hop is also not just a music genre; it's a culture and way of living, and you obviously don't understand what Hip-Hop is all about. You're like "Yes, I listen to Ice Cube and Dr. Dre, so I'm automatically a true Hip-Hop follower". You're also too young and born in the wrong generation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Caleb Folts
You cannot be serious, there are multiple differences between those films:
"E.T" is a science fiction film aimed at the family, "Schindler's List" is a war movie aimed at adults and older teenagers. "E.T" talked about child loneliness and a bit criticism towards adult life, as well as of course being about a child befriending an alien and helping him get home. "Schindler's List" was about the horrors of Holocaust and the evil of the Nazis, and a business man risking his life and faith from to the Nazis to save 1,200 Jews. "E.T" highlighted the cinematography, art direction, and warm atmosphere, and had an uplifting yet suspenseful musical score, while "Schindler's List" highlighted the narrative and the seriousness of its theme, and its atmosphere (as well as music) was sober and gloomy and heavy. And of course you have the obvious difference with "E.T." being vibrant and colorful while "Schindler's List" was dark and in black-and-white
I don't see the analogy at all
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** I like your interpretation, but I just don't think his acting fits in with it.
Sure, Ralph Fiennes follows his direction to every single detail and knows how to make an entrance and establish his character, his physical actions are focused and well-thought out, he has a natural authority, he has great presence most of the time, there is always a process between each line exchange, and he brings out the almighty-powerfulness of Voldemort.
However, there is a way to show endurance and willingness to to kill the main character without having to sound like you are at the nursing home, or sounding like Don Vito. Much of this can be accomplished in just the physical action and relying on presence. One thing that I liked about Voldemort was him being mysterious; in the first movie, he was cloaked most of the time and was usually just mentioned until we finally saw his face, and I thought it made him frightening. Ralph Fiennes also accomplished to bring out the mysteriousness of Voldemort when we saw him "The Goblet of Fire" and "The Order of the Phoenix" (where also his voice was satisfactory), but I just don't feel it in the last two movies.
All in all, that weird laugh, funny facial expressions, and weak voice just make him unintentionally annoying to me instead of intimidating and mysterious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dil Matturro
I'm not hating on his new music because I think it's cool; I just hate that people only care about "Rap God", "Not Afraid", "Love the Way You Lie", and maybe "The Monster", but that's about it, and they have not even heard a full album by him and barely any music from his pre-Relapse period. Their arguments for why the newer songs are better are also either thin or non-existent (Seriously, the only argument I get for why "Rap God" is the best is that it's rapped so fast, and that's stupid and is pure ignorance and misconception around Hip-Hop). What's even worse is that the new Eminem-fans barely have heard any old school Hip-Hop in general like Run-D.M.C, NWA (as well as Ice Cube and Eazy-E on their own), Public Enemy, Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, 2pac, and Biggie.
People can like Eminem's newer music as much as they want, but from a technical, critical, and normative point of view, there’s just no contest; the older music is better
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Niels Gutiérrez Torres
“What kind of question is that?” I’m just trying to make sure that you actually remember the albums and can speak about them. Anyone can say “Yes, I have listened to them”, but we don’t know if they really care about them or that they just randomly listened to them, but are otherwise indifferent.
“You want to know If Im such a hip hop head that listened to all the classics because if not my opinion is worthless”. If you were discussing movies, theatre, literature, or even sports, would you give credibility to someone who only knows Christopher Nolan and Tim Burton, has only watched Shakespeare adaptations, read fantasy literature, and never watched a match live? It’s about checking the other person’s experiences and character.
“Because YOU dont like this specific song, doesnt mean everybody has to agree”. They can like "Rap God" as much as they want, but calling it one of Eminem’s best rap is just unreasonable and is a sign of people not having listened to any of his older albums. I don’t even consider Eminem to be the best rapper of all time despite him being my favorite. When viewing from the normative standard, Eminem’s newer raps pale in comparison to his older ones.
“I get you listened a lot of hip hop, still doesnt mean you have always the reason”. What reason? And listening to a lot of Hip-Hop is about getting more experience. I know there are a bunch of people who are way more die-hard fans of Hip-Hop than I am, but I also know there are a bunch of Eminem’s fanbase who don’t listen to any other rappers and haven't listened to his albums between 1996 and 2004. I’m also wise enough to not try to challenge those I know are superior to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(I’m not living in the U.S):
#10: Haven’t experienced it that much except maybe once, which of course was painful since I had an infection. Usually when I’m in the middle of a big crowd, people manage to walk slowly without stepping on someone
#9: Never experienced. Even the weakest handshakes I’ve experienced were satisfying enough
#8: Where I come from, people are usually good at parking without doing it across two spaces
#7: Oh God, I hate that so much! That and the computer not responding! Makes me wanna throw my computer out of the window
#6: Usually, people are actually being very nice and open to me when they’re drunk, but there are some drunk people I just wanna push away from me
#5: Never experienced that someone tailgates
#4: It’s really disgusting when there’s lots of litter around, but most of the time, I don’t even notice it since people are usually good at throwing things in the trash can. I haven’t seen people litter either, I have just seen the trash lying there.
#3: I hate it when small children won’t stop crying, but I often understand that they can’t help it
#2: I often miss calls from telemarketers, and when I manage to pick up the phone, I usually had nothing important to do anyway (I always hang up though)
Dishonarable mentions:
- I often see people smoke on the street, and I hate it when people smoke in their homes, but I never see people smoke in the cinema or inside restaurants
- I don’t mind escalators that don’t work; I’m fit enough to use them as normal stairs
- Oh yes, I’m so tired of constantly being invited to play games on Facebook
- Never thought about people talking over me
#1: I have only experienced once that the phone is ringing during the movie, and I just laughed silently since I knew that person (he hanged up immediately). I find it disrespectful that people use their phones during the movie, but I usually ignore them. I think it's more annoying that people are sleeping during the movie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Haunted Life
“Since when do we have a score count?”. It’s a measure of how much credibility you have (or in this case, you don’t have), and since you commit so many fallacies and is horrible at argumentation, your credibility is as low as it can possibly get.
“I didnt say rap is about ''flow, beat, rhymes, production value, and expressing yourself and speak from your heart in a way that anyone can relate to you'. No, I did, and it’s true.
“I also didnt say that rap is about speed”. You implied it since the only “argument” I get from you is about Eminem’s speed.
“I was talking about that you cant rap as fast as him “. You’re wrong about that and it’s also irrelevant since this is Eminem we’re talking about, not me.
“Yes i do know who Run-DMC, Tupac and The Notorious BIG is”. Are*, and I highly doubt about it, and you obviously don’t listen much to them since you don’t even know what rap is about. And what about the other rappers and groups I mentioned?
“I only like to listen to rap only when its about like the problems in the world or the things they went through or the sort raps about motivation not the sort rap nowadays”. First of all, punctuations, man! Second of all, now you’re just kissing up to make it look like you have more credibility than you actually have, because if you really believed in what you’re saying here, you would have hated “Rap God” as much as I do.
“Yes i do know stuff about Hip Hop and im not saying im the best at knowing stuff about Hip Hop and you also dont need to know everything about it, its just about the music” You don’t know anything, and Hip-Hop is more than just music; in fact, it’s a culture and way of life! You can’t just listen to Hip-Hop, you have to live it.
“oh and you also said you performed it without any problems so that means you like the song. you said you hate this song so you would definitely not search the lyrics for it and practice it so you can perform it without any problems”. I was challenged when my and my friends had a karaoke night, and I only did it to impress them since they also haven’t understood yet that rap is about way more than just speed. I never listen to "Rap God" otherwise and I haven't performed it since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mato Buček
In fact, I have. One of them was "Ridin'" by Chamillionaire, another one was two students who visited my acting school and challenged our principal into writing what she heard while they performed a rap at the exact same speed.
Sorry, I'm looking for lyrics and storytelling and relatable topics, like "The Way I am", "Cleaning out my Closet", "Lose Yourself", "Like Toy Soldiers", "Mockingbird", "When I'm Gone", and "Headlights" (probably the only MMLP2 rap I actually like), or the entire "Me Against the World" album by 2pac, or even "Juicy" by Biggie and "Forgive Me" by Proof.
"Rap God" to me is gimmicky and exploits the misconception about rap only being about speed (seriously, that's the only argument I get for why it's good)
1
-
1
-
Mato Buček
Of course I can, because teenagers (especially those between 13 and 15) are not able to relate to the serious themes in Eminem’s more dark raps, and definitely not 2pac’s, and see the subtlety and get the emotional feel. They’re all like “Oh yeah, it’s such a funky and catchy beat, and such amazing speed! Let’s all go around with saggy pants and play gangsters in the ghetto!” when it’s gangsta rap, techno-rap, and G-funk, but when rappers actually try to be serious and speak from their hearts, they become like “Ugh, it’s so boring”.
Plus that most teenagers are too young to have experienced Eminem's first 5 albums
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mato Buček
My language? I'm Norwegian, and I can speak English perfectly fine.
I'm looking for the big Hip-Hop legends, not random ones from a random country. And also to illustrate how indifferent I am towards Slovakia, I will say that your country can't even contribute to and influence theatre! (One of my biggest passions):
- We Norwegians have Ibsen
- Sweden has Strindberg
- Denmark has the Odin theatre (although Eugenio Barba is Italian) and Georg Brandes
- Germany has Goethe, Schiller, Brecht, Max Reinhardt, Pina Bausch, Erwin Piscator, and were behind the Sturm und Drang movement, which again influenced the melodrama
- Russia has Stanislavski and Meyerhold
- France has Artaud, Ariane Mnouchkine, and Diderot and dominated the theatre in the 17th and 18th century
- England has Shakespeare, David Garrick, and all of the great British stage actors, as well as Edward Gordon Craig and Peter Brook
- Italy has Dario Fo and both opera and the Commedia dell'Arte and the groundbreaking theatre architecture
- Greece is the main influence for theatre in general!
- Poland has Grotowski
- Switzerland has Adolphe Appia
- Serbia has Marina Abramovic
-USA has Broadway, Robert Wilson, Eugene O'Neill, Arthur Miller, and Tennessee Williams, and Method Acting
Give me one reason why I should care about your music and culture when there are so many better ones to pick from
1
-
1
-
TheKingOfWasabi
You seem to be a bit unenlightened, so let me help you:
I have been listening to over 80 Hip-Hop albums (and I mean from start to finish) spawning from the 80’s up to today, and it includes mainstream rappers and rap groups like Run-D.M.C., A Tribe Called Quest, Public Enemy, NWA (as well as Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, and Eazy-E on their own), Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, 2pac, Biggie Smalls, Jay-Z, and Snoop Dogg to relatively unknowns like Da Lench Mob, Ghostface Killah, Eminem’s best friend Proof, and even non-American rappers. I’ve been listening to gangsta rap, West- and East-Coast Hip-Hop, G-Funk, and both Southern- and Midwest Hip-Hop. I even perform Eminem live at least twice a week at the pubs in the city where I live. Bottom line is that I know what good Hip-Hop sounds like, and “Not Afraid” is definitely not top 10 material.
You too use that stupid nostalgia as a factor, which is just dumb. Unless you’re Dr. Dre or Puff Daddy in disguise, I highly doubt that you’re so experienced that you can only speak on behalf of yourself and give credible judgments. Rap is a form of expressing yourself and includes important factors like rhymes, beats, flow, and production value, and “Not Afraid” is mediocre in all of those factors and pales in comparison to his older raps where he actually has insight, creative flow and rhymes, great production, and being able to speak on behalf of everyone, not just some random teenagers, and if you knew anything about Hip-Hop, you’d know that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aman uel
Jay-Z may be a better rapper than Eminem if we’re being technical, but Eminem is definitely a better storyteller and “actor”, and appeals to a wider audience. When he’s performing, it’s like hearing dramatic monologues and speeches, especially because he speaks actual English and not “rap language”. It may be an unorthodox style and more like poems/monologues in a rhythm and with music, but at least Eminem has a unique style. How often do you hear rappers perform their lyrics like they have an everyday conversation? I can assure you that if you try to make the average listener listen to Jay-Z, Biggie, 2pac, Nas, NWA, Wu-Tang Clan etc., they will most likely say “What is this noise?”, while Eminem is more seen as an ordinary person who simply expresses himself, especially because he often talks about identity crisis, family- and relationship problems, the dangers of rap and war, and the pressure of being a celebrity. There’s a reason why he’s so commercially successful, and every time I try to defend rap, I always use Eminem as an example. 2pac was an amazing poet/lyricist, and reading through and interpreting the entire “Me Against the World” album was like reading a very moving one-act play. He also had an amazing flow, but the problem is that the lyrics and subtext are very hard to grasp without knowing them beforehand, while Biggie had a flow that was meant to be artistic, unique, and appealing, but the delivery still doesn’t sound that believable when it comes to storytelling, and his lyrics are not the strongest.
And when it comes to Jay-Z’s albums, I only see “Reasonable Doubt” appearing on top lists and magazines over best or most influential albums, but even then, I can’t put it in the same category as previous albums like “Raising Hell”, “Paid in Full”, “It takes a nation of millions to hold us back”, “Straight Outta Compton”, “Enter the Wu-Tang Clan”, “Illmatic”, “Ready to Die”, and “Me Against the World”. I’m not saying that Eminem‘s albums are classics, but he and Jay-Z are definitely not that far away from each other.
1
-
efren gonzalez
- By "average listener", I mean everyone who listens to music, not just hip-hop fans. Of course I know that hip-hop fans listen to those rap legends I mentioned and praise them, but how often do those who usually despise rap? I've met several people who can't stand that genre, but see Eminem as an exception because of his lyrics and storytelling abilities, and he was the one who made me give rappers a second listen. Rap in general is considered to be the black sheep or Avant-Garde of music; something with a more cult following, and that the mainstream audience question is considered art (With the case of rap, the morality is also questioned), so if you manage to appeal to people who are not "die-hard rap fans", that's impressive.
- I don't need to go to urban dictionary or rap.genius to look up "street language" or get an interpretation when reading through Eminem's lyrics. I often didn't even need to know the lyrics at all to find out what he was trying to say, and that says a lot. That's what I mean when I say that he speaks actual English.
- The point I'm trying to make is that Eminem may not be a better MC in the traditional sense of the word, but he has a style that appeals to a wider audience. Rap is a way of expressing yourself and speaking from your heart, and it's done in a rhythm; it's like a rougher and more emotional version of poetry, and with music in the background. But how do you expect people to get moved if your subtext is unclear and you sound too technical instead of natural? Do you really think someone will enjoy "Fuck tha Police" for example if they aren't hardcore hip-hop fans despite the strong lyrics?
The legendary rappers are like Shakespearean actors; their delivery is considered artistic and high-class in its medium (rap in this case), but it definitely doesn't sound natural. Eminem on the other hand is more like a modern actor (and yes, I use acting as an analogy since the rhetorical practice is virtually the same)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dork Jam
Once again, this is what I said:
1. I'm aware that movie criticism is subjective; that was literally the first sentence I wrote to the idiot Canadian Muffin after I complained about him. I've never said that aesthetic judgement is objective. But what I'm trying to say is that are also critieria that are not directly written or made by anyone, but simply exist in people's subconscious because those critieria seem to be what the general public and the "normative standard" consider ideal and how it should be done (or not). It's of course subjective how you're able to sense them and the arts formal qualities however. Instead of objective, I'd say that movie criticism is subjective/normative
2. There are two ways of watching a movie or any other pieces of art. One way is to just watch "for fun" and praise it for any kind of reason, whether it would be because you have a bias for the genre, lead actor, conflict, or the theme, or because of nostalgia. Or on the flip side, criticize it because you find it personally uninteresting or boring. That's when you create lists for "favorite (or least favorite) movies", and nobody should criticize them since they're as subjective as you can come and don't have the intention of changing someone's view. The second way is watching movies with a critical mind and thinking things like "What elements have been satisfactory for the general public in this specific type of movie? And which kinds of direction methods, cinematography, musical score, narrative etc. have also been satisfactory for the general public? And how well have the director and other people involved handled them", and also not being biased.
To wrap this up, here are some statements that sum it up and that I find acceptable:
- "I personally don't like this movie that much and it isn't my favorite, but I'm still acknowledging its status as an amazing movie, critically thinking"
- "I've never been a personal fan of Stanley Kubrick, but I still acknowledge that he was an amazing director and made landmark films that will be talked about for years to come"
- "Personally, 'The Godfather' is not my cup of tea, but that it can be seen as one of the greatest movies ever made is undeniable"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The first movie was motivational and with a deep story that isn't too cliched, Rocky was much more complex and well-developed in that film, Stallone had more shiny acting moments (Critics like Roger Ebert even compared him with Marlon Brando in "On the Waterfront"), and the whole "Gonna Fly Now" sequence is iconic and often imitated. I also felt the first movie was more of a drama film than Rocky IV, especially because of the setting, the soundtrack, and both the love story between Rocky and Adrian, and Rocky's scenes with Paulie and Mickey. I also felt inspired to not only exercise and work out, but also to never give up to reach my goal, and I had a feeling that I can do anything if I really want to.
Many people today just don't appreciate drama films anymore because they mostly care about action and visual effects (or gross-out comedies that tries too hard to be funny), and I thought Rocky IV was pretty predictable and followed the same formula as Rocky III, and what made the first movie so great is not visible in Rocky IV. From an objective perspective, Rocky IV is clearly inferior to the first movie and many other films. When I'm going to see a movie, I'm looking for story and character development, unless it's an arthouse movie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kaily Cubberly
I appreciate your reply and I agree that opinions are a subjective matter. However, I’m always trying to look at it from an acting point of view, and I just don’t see many flaws in Jim Carrey’s acting when doing dramatic roles. I also don’t see what’s so annoying about him in them:
- In “Doing Time on Maple Drive”, he was kind of an alcoholic, but he was at the same time one of the few functional members of his family. His confrontation with his father also reminded me of James Dean
- In “The Truman Show”, he was a common man trapped in an artificial world (or constructed reality) and it’s quite hard to not sympathize with him when you find out (especially during the ending). Truman’s emotions and initial happy mood in the world was also literally the only one that was real; all the other characters were actors acting out emotions. His (Jim Carrey) presence is also amazing
- In “Man on the Moon”, you could argue that he was annoying if you don’t like Andy Kaufman, but at the same time, he (Jim) was chameleonic and captured the essence of Kaufman close to perfection. The ending again was highly moving
- “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is probably one of the few performances from him where he is completely calm and serious. That alone is a plus. Another thing is that his presence is at his best here; when he wakes up and walks to the train platform, looks at Clementine (Kate Winslet) before she wakes up in his car, when he drives his car while crying, and when he walks down the street while furniture falls down to the ground, you kind of feel the same as him.
I also have favorite actors and actors I usually don’t like, but if the performances are great/bad, I’ll cut them a break. For example, I usually don’t like Nicolas Cage at all, but his performance in “Leaving Las Vegas” was one of the saddest and most natural yet powerful portrayals of an alcoholic I have ever seen. On the flip side, Marlon Brando is my favorite actor of all time, but I have no idea why he even appeared in “Christopher Columbus: The Discovery” and “The Island of Dr. Moreau”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some Guy
No, there is no right or wrong in opinions, but one thing you don't seem to know is that there is a standard of taste, based on the philosophy of the great David Hume. There are norms and principles of what makes a movie (or other pieces of art) good or bad, and there are requirements for the critics to determine if he/she is a true judge. These select few of true critics have a strong ability to sense and percept the aesthetic qualities in a piece of art, and therefore has the authority to guide and lead the general audience to the tradition of how a masterpiece is supposed to look like.
Movie critics don't judge based on personal preferences and what they are "fans" of, they operate in the tradition of what makes movies good or bad, and they set criterias to the movies based on this tradition. If the movie fullfills the critierias, their natural reaction will be that they highly enjoyed it
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but if you were going to write reviews or participate in a debate for example, chances are that the majority will say "Ok, bad for you, but nobody cares"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ZakAttackz
I knew you wouldn't understand, kid. This is just like when I debated with a newspaper editor because her reviewers were awful at argumentation and obviously had never heard about "the standard of taste", just like yourself. You are a pseudo-fan, and you always will be, and that's MY opinion, so don't be a hypocrite. And it's also my opinion that anyone who enjoys "Rap God" have no idea what Hip-Hop is about. Run-D.M.C., Public Enemy, NWA, A Tribe Called Quest, Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, 2pac, The Notorious B.I.G., Big L, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, Dr. Dre; doesn't anything that they accomplished and influenced Hip-Hop with mean anything to you? Because all of their influence are clearly not evident in this abomination.
Now let me tell you something; if this was about movies for example, would you really say that "American Hustle" was a better movie than "The Godfather" or that "Battlefield Earth" could be considered a good. If your answer is "yes", then you just prove my point of you being a dumb teenager with no common sense or critical sense.
Let me also add something that you obviously don't understand, you pseudo-fan; there's a difference between liking/disliking something and giving a critical review. People like you disgust me
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Btxdz
You think I will sit here and just smile while Hip-Hop is declining because newer "fans" have no clue what Hip-Hop is actually about? All they care about now is speed and semi-pop and meaningless lyrics. If you like Eminem's newer raps, then you're just like them.
And no, it's personal preference when it's a top 10 best Eminem songs; then it's about having a critical sense and basing on the normative standard.
Do you anything about Hip-Hop at all? Ever heard about the big legends like Run-D.M.C., NWA, Public Enemy, Wu-Tang Clan, Gang Starr, A Tribe Called Quest, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, Nas, 2pac, Notorious B.I.G., Big Pun, and Big L?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is incomprehensible; do you understand a single word he's trying to say? There's no real subtext other than arrogance, and it's meaningless when he's previously criticized war and rap violence in "Mosh" and "Like Toy Soldiers" respectively, his pressure of being so acclaimed in "The Way I am", the music business' double morality in both "White America", "Without Me", and "The Real Slim Shady", the pressure he feels from listener's parents in "Sing for the Moment", and his turbulent relationship with his family in "My Name Is", "Cleaning out my Closet", "Kim", "Mockingbird", "When I'm Gone", and "Headlights". Not to mention raps like "Brain Damage", "Guilty Conscience", "Rock Bottom", "Role Model", "Stan" and "Till I Collapse"
Also, rap is not about speaking fast and it's not really a feat when it's as basic as shuffling in dancing. It's actually much harder to rap at a slower speed since it's much easier to become off-beat, lose your energy, or generally having an awful flow. There's a reason why Biggie is called "The king of flow".
And as for experience, I've been listening to over 80 Hip-Hop albums from start to finish, and that includes albums by groups like Run-D.M.C., A Tribe Called Quest, NWA, Public Enemy, Wu-Tang Clan, and Da Lench Mob, and rappers like Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, Nas, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Big L, and even Eminem's best friend Proof
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You really think acting is all about line delivery? The facial expression has a lot to say about the emotions the character is feeling, and certain roles, like playing an alcoholic or a mentally disabled person require very good control over your body to make it look natural and believable, otherwise it will look over the top and unintentionally funny. Your facial expressions and physical action also have a lot to say about the actor's presence. There has also been times where I think an actor does a great job at acting without words because I can a see a happiness, soreness, evil, desperation etc. in his/her character's eyes, and because he/she blends in with the situation. And sometimes, I can get disappointed when the actor begins to speak. Some of the most important things in acting are interacting and reacting, as well as establishing the "room" (make it clear to the audience what kind of setting you are in, and how you're experiencing it), and you can't always do that with words.
The stars from the silent movie era like Charlie Chaplin had to do acting without words, and they did great. If only the language and line delivery matter, then the actor should stick to dubbing, voice acting, or radio dramas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Aditya Samadhiya
"Rap God" is just too gimmicky and cheap. It's like "Oh, super sonic speed! Whoop de doo!" and "Oh, more words than any other songs in history! Hooray!"
People nowadays only get impressed if raps are performed at a high speed, and they take flow, rhyming, beat, and lyrics for granted. Eminem's older songs contain all of that, but people neglect them because they're not fast enough.
Mind you that I have made it a hobby to perform songs by Eminem at karaoke bars, and I needed to know them by heart most of the time to do it well enough. With "Rap God" however, I just performed it unprepared because the only challenge in it is the speed, and that's basic
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stormwatch153
I usually don’t discuss with people who can’t think of better arguments than ”Because it’s a piece of shit/crap”, but I’ll make an exception with you.
First of all, I’ll explain the plot and conflict, because you seem to have missed the point completely. We have 5 Mafia families (a reference to the 5 families in New York) that have a rivalry and control different areas of crime, but have mostly lived in peace. The Corleone family is at the top, and problems start when an associate of the Barzini family (Sollozzo) offers Don Vito Corleone drugs to sell, but he refuses because it would ruin his political contacts and because drugs is a bad life style in general (Sollozzo probably knew that and tried to sell the drugs as an attempt to weaken the Corleone family and strengthen the Barzini family). Sollozzo attempts to assassinate him, but fails. When Michael Corleone (Vito’s son) finds out about this, he suddenly changes from becoming a family outsider into having lust for revenge. He successfully assassinates Sollozzo, but also his bodyguard, who is a corrupt cop, so the entire thing can trigger a war between the families (which happened). The war continues until the son of one of the other Dons dies and Sonny (Vito’s eldest son) dies in return, and Vito calls for peace even though he is unable to stop the drug business. Everything seems to be peaceful, but Don Barzini still knows that the Corleone family will remain strong, especially now that Michael has proven to be the perfect successor to Vito, so he plots to eliminate him, but thanks to Vito’s advice, Michael is able to think one step ahead and has his “soldiers” murdering the other Dons while he’s attending a Christening. This victory leads to Michael being the new Don of the Corleone family.
So you see, the entire plot and conflict can be seen as an allegory of war and capitalism, and there’s always an important plot point in a scene that affects the next. The movie also shows the development of a Mafia family outsider who initially wanted to be a politician, but after the events of the film changed into becoming the head of the family. The movie also references Frank Sinatra’s alleged association with the Mafia in order to get big movie roles, and it’s shown throughout the entire film that every time someone is disloyal towards Don Vito, they meet their downfall, and when he makes an offer, nobody can refuse it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Angeldustto2 Beauty
"Infinite", "Rock Bottom", "I'm Back", "Guilty Conscience", "My Name Is", "Just Don't Give a Fuck", "The Way I am", "Stan", "Kim", "The Real Slim Shady", "Lose Yourself", "Rabbit Run", "White America", "Business", "Cleaning out my Closet", "Without Me", "Sing for the Moment", "Till I collapse", "Just Lose It", "Mosh", "Like Toy Soldiers", "Mockingbird", and "When I'm Gone" are all miles above that shitty semi-pop song "Rap God"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1971SuperLead
Before I will ”open my eyes and see new things”, I must say that your judgement is flawed for multiple reasons:
- Your judgement is completely void of arguments and precision; you just say their acting is bad without coming up with one reason for your statements, or you say that you just
do not get convinced. There can be several reasons for that, but I do not see
anything from you. Anyone who has not seen the movies you mention will not know
what you are talking about because there is no precision nor arguments. Also,
do terms like dynamism,
tempo-rhythm, storytelling, subtext, motivation, making situations believable,
process, reaction and interaction, presence, main objective, and acting based
on given circumstances make any sense to
you? Judging by your statements, I highly doubt it. I also highly doubt that
you have heard about people like Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, and
Sanford Meisner.
- In addition of being void of arguments and precision, your judgement is void of perspective; there is always several aspects to one case,
but you just look at the bad things in each actor instead of discussing the
aspects. All of this of course is coupled with the things I mentioned above.
- I can see that you
do not think much about elocutio; by only saying ”actors that suck”, I can
already see that your criticism is poor.
- You beat around the bush by talking about psychology and IQ, which have nothing to do with the
topic. If your goal was to strengthen your ethos, I will say that your ethos
instead got weakened because you do not think about kairos.
- You seem to have watched only one or two movies from each actor. For example, you only mention
”The Wild One” with Marlon Brando, which is definitely not his greatest movie,
and even he thought the movie had not aged well because it was mostly just
influential and iconic for the 50’s, and the subculture in that decade. If you
really want to his acting that are greater and more relatable, then watch
movies like ”A Streetcar Named Desire”, ”On the Waterfront”, ”The Godfather”,
and ”Last Tango in Paris”.
- You confuse movie actor with movie star and acting performance with influence. For example,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Wayne, and Clint Eastwood are movie stars; their
acting are not always talked about, but The Terminator (Schwarzenegger), Ethan
Edwards (John Wayne), and both Dirty Harry and Man With No Name (Clint
Eastwood) are such iconic characters in movies that are iconic in their
respective genres, and that is why those actors are praised. Movie stars
have/had certain personalities, trademarks, and ”stock characters” that the
audience love/loved, and therefore they bring/brought it in every movie. The
title of the video may be ”top 10 worst movie actors” and not ”top 10 worst
movie stars”, and Arnold’s acting may not be as good as the acting of Eastwood
and Wayne, but putting those three on this list is just being wrong. The main
reason why James Dean is so praised is because much like Brando, he brought a
naturalism and spontaneity to acting that was really groundbreaking and
influential at the time, and he was a cultural icon for the teenagers in the
50’s. His emotions are also much stronger than from most actors I’ve seen
today. With Brando, his line delivery was much more close to how people spoke
in real life, he opened the doors to new ways of interpreting scene (for
example in ”A Streetcar Named Desire” where he builds up his anger instead of
ranting immediately with no buildup, or in ”On the Waterfront” where he slowly
pushes a gun pointed at him by his brother and sounding more disappointed
instead of angry. Another example is ”The Godfather” where he made the title
character more a fatherly figure instead of the ruthless gangster stereotype
that most actors would interpret him), he established the setting and his
characters in a more clear way than most actors (shown especially in ”A
Streetcar Named Desire” when he first meets Blanche in the kitchen), he reacts
to bring out emotions instead of acting them out, and instead of just letting
the co-star finish his/her sentences, he actually tries to interrupt or
struggle to get attention because that’s what real-life conversations are
mostly.
- "I like being controversial". Yes, I bet Elia Kazan and Knut Hamsun felt the same thing, or
maybe even Mark David Chapman.
- You try to cover up your lacking of arguments by saying ”My opinion is still subjective”. If your
goal is to make people see new things, then you should see the case from an
objective perspective to a very large degree, and be more neutral to the topic.
I can promise you, no critics or acting teachers will buy your statements, and
I can see that most of the people who reply to you don’t do it either.
I respect your opinion, but like I said, if you want to make people open their eyes and see new things, I would
say that you failed. I will definitely not change my opinion. I was once
watching a video with an adult movie lover who debated around Marlon Brando may
not be the greatest movie actor of all time, but at least he had perspective
and some good arguments unlike you; he said that Brando brought a major
influence and created some of the most iconic characters of all time, and had
great acting in the 50’s and 70’s, but was not always consistent in choosing
good movie roles and always being great at acting (especially during the 60’s
and 90’s), and that he seemed to do movies just because of money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kat Eyed Gurl
Since when have the users at IMDB been considered ”professional critics”? Anyone can create a user profile, write reviews and call themselves “Critics” on that site.
Also, the articles you posted from about.com, and empire.online do not look like reviews I would have called “argumentative and formally written”, so I do not find them completely reliable despite being written by supposed professional critics (I had a take-home final once where I was going to analyze arguments in articles from professors and scientists, so I do not believe that just because something is written by an authority, they are immediately to be trusted).
Roger Ebert, arguably one of the most acclaimed movie critics of all time, called the movie good, but not great, and not a masterpiece compared to previous movies by Scorsese. He gave Daniel Day-Lewis the most praise though, just like in the articles you posted. Ebert also claimed that Scorsese didn’t seem to like his characters in “Gangs of New York” that much.
You should also note that Roger Ebert mostly talks about relativism in his reviews, and I agree; something can look very good on its own, but if you have seen the type of performance several times before and this does not bring much new to it, then you are not as impressed (Marlon Brando also talked a lot about doing something nobody have thought about earlier to give it a new life, otherwise you will become very predictable). And if an actor is so great that he overshadows the other actor, you will most likely forget about the latter. Leo has also in general given a lot stronger performances than in “Gangs of New York”, and I have come across several people in the comments section of movie clips with him that he seemed surprisingly miscast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dena Spohn
Who cares about cussing being used? In most cases, it's a way to strengthen emotions. And like I said, arts and moral are (or at least should not be) created equal.
Rules about not using profanity online? This is Youtube, not some knitting class, and we have freedom of speech.
Yes, you're speaking in general, and generalization is a fallacy in argumentation, and in your case, it has lead to ignorance and prejudice. You obviously haven't listened to many of Eminem's other songs like "The Way I am", "Mockingbird", "Mosh", "Like Toy Soldiers", and "When I'm Gone", or any song by 2pac (whom by the way used a lot of his music as part of social activism).
Yes, I know Elvis was often misunderstood despite his legacy today, so why are you being just as bad as your mother-in-law then? Yes, I know the older generation often dislike rap, but that's because they're just as prejudiced and bad at argumentation as you. I haven't seen a valid argument from you at all.
1
-
Dena Spohn
(Late reply, I have been away). You’ve proven to not be as conservative and narrow-minded as I initially thought, and you’ve certainly redeemed yourself. I will also admit that I’m often getting biased and carried away when I see people criticize Hip-Hop, because the criticism is usually “All raps are about money and drugs and prostitutes and all of them are aggressive and anti-social” or “Rap isn’t music because rappers are never singing” or “Rappers are just a bunch of criminal bums, so it would be immoral to listen to their music as well”, and they’re usually not elaborating or giving me any good examples. You at least managed to stay a bit more neutral and open-minded.
I’m getting defensive because even though that those descriptions often fit the gangster rap genre, such as the music by Public Enemy, NWA, and Ice Cube, there are also conscious Hip-Hop, comedy Hip-Hop, and political Hip-Hop songs to name a few. In addition, “Lose Yourself” for example isn’t solely about the story of his character, it’s about the general feelings of nervousness when you’re about to enter the stage, how stardom alienates you, and about never giving up even when you’ve experienced backlash and even been assaulted. The delivery is also a lot more emotional than aggressive or anti-social. I don’t want people to immediately like Hip-Hop, but I want them to accept that rappers have their merits and fan base, and that they can be praised on a technical level for their specific genres just like anybody else. I’d also argue that most singers, while having wonderful voices, usually neglect proper emotions and subtext in favor of melody, and that their background music often create the emotional feel for them. Rappers however focus a lot more emotions and subtext because their songs don’t have a melody, so it’s like performing dramatic monologues or poems with background music, which I at least don’t consider a bad thing. If people can get moved by dramatic monologues and poems, why shouldn’t they get moved by emotional raps?
Also on a side note, I don’t mind cursing because it’s sometimes strangely catchy and helps with the flow and rhymes, it strengthens emotions, and because there’s a stereotype that people from the northern region of my country curse a lot, either for making an aggression stronger or for comedic effect, so I’m used to hearing people curse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fight Club as a whole was a better movie, but I thought his performance in American History X was better; he always had that power and dynamism in his line delivery, he stole the show in every scene he appeared in, and he really highlighted the contrast between Derek when he was a skinhead and when he had reformed. When he had reformed, he looked like the big brother everybody could wish for, but when he still was a skinhead, he looked like someone you definitely don't wanna meet on the street. And the image of him standing on the street with his arms behind his head will always be stuck in my head, as well as the scene where he's working out in the prison. The music also helped a lot to highlight his character, and he was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. Not to mention that Edward Norton is almost unrecognizable when he plays Derek during his days as a skinhead
He was great in Fight Club, but I don't remember that much from him except the Soap Scene and the scene where he's fighting himself, and his slightly creepy narration didn't give me that much chills
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WeegeeMh his career was at least quite promising. Between "Moonstruck" in 1987 and "Adaptation" in 2002, he had 4 Golden Globe nominations, 2 BAFTA nominations, and 2 Oscar nominations (He won both the Oscar and Golden Globe for "Leaving Las Vegas"). "Raising Arizona (1987), "Face/Off" (1997), and "Bringing Out the Dead" (1999) were also very successful (the latter was a box-office bomb though, but received critical acclaim), and he later appeared in "Matchstick Men" (2003) and "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" (2009), but also the critically panned "The Wicker Man" (2006) and "Ghost Rider" (2007). The only well-received movies in the 2010's that he has appeared in are "Kick-Ass" (2010), "The Croods" (2013), and "Joe" (2013)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSmashingTesticles
Listen here, bucko. Although there are many shitty rappers nowadays like Lil’ Wayne and Pitbull, it doesn’t mean every rapper is like that. And you’re dead wrong about Eminem! Those songs I mentioned do not talk about sex and drugs and twerking women:
- The Way I am: the pressure of being famous and people always having too big expectations from, as well as never giving him privacy
- Mockingbird: how poverty and him being unable to give his daughter the best treatment possible motivated him to become a musician so that he could earn enough money, and how this has affected his relationship with her and his ex-wife
- Cleaning out my closet: How he wants take distance from his family after being abused by his mother and his father leaving the family. (Something you apparently are not mature enough to take seriously)
- Like toy soldiers: How much the violence in the Hip-Hop has escalated and turned into a war between rappers, and how he wants to take distance from it. It also talks about the beef between Eminem and G-Unit
- Mosh: A protest song against Bush and his strategies to send American soldiers to Iraq, as well as Bush’s president campaign
- Lose Yourself: How much the Hip-Hop environment and success create identity crisis, how much he has struggled to become famous and experienced backlash, but is still able to stand up and grab the opportunity.
- When I’m Gone: how much his duties as a rapper affect his relationship with his daughter and is unable to spend enough quality time with her
So there you have it! Eminem has become successful because he is one of the few rappers who actually have some serious and mature topics to talk about. The same goes with 2pac (And Notorious B.I.G to some degree). And you should be careful; many Hip-Hop fans are not the friendliest persons to face, and if you start saying the same stuff to them in person that you write here, you’re guaranteed to get smacked. The same goes when you meet rappers in person. You should just feel lucky I’m more peaceful
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Vicente Mariani
Your English is giving me cancer soon, and don’t you use that “English is not my primary language” excuse, because English isn’t my primary language either. You already lost your credibility by saying “I don’t like classics”, and you obviously don’t realize that it’s the normative standard and consensus of several critics that determine if a movie can be considered a classic and a masterpiece. In other words, if 99% of all critics, magazines, and top 100s rank it as #1 or at least top 5, then it’s obviously not a bad movie at all and you just probably don’t have much critical or common sense. I will also be so courteous to enlighten you about the intrigues of “The Godfather”:
Here we have an accurate and well-thought representation of the Mafia business; everything from explaining the hierarchy with a consigliere (“advisor”) and Don (Mafia boss) to bringing up the rivalries and competition between the different families, which again is meant to be analogies to capitalism and wars. What separates this Mafia story from other stories is that in a world of guns, drugs, casinos, prostitutes, and murder, the biggest crime is loyalty, and it’s disloyalty towards Vito Corleone that lead to people’s demise, while those who stay loyal and listens to him get rewarded. We also have a main character whom initially was seen as a family outsider, but because of his love and loyalty towards his father, avenges him and develops into a new powerful head of the family. “The Godfather” is also a great example of a movie where every scene is well-thought and affects the next one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Vicente Mariani
For the last time, it’s “writing WORDS “, not “worlds”, it's not supposed to space between the coma and the preceding word, you lack a capital I, your structure is awful (and so is your grammar), and you lack punctuations.
And yes, when you make a statement (even if it’s an opinion), you have to justify and argue for it. That’s basic argumentation, and anyone educated should know that. But of course since you can’t even write English, your country most likely has both a retarded education system and lousy economy as well. And just like Pierre Bourdieu said, anyone with poor taste and an inability to make aesthetic judgments is low-cultured and has a low status in society. The reason you dislike “The Godfather” is because you’re low-cultured and are unable to sense the formal qualities in it and make aesthetic judgments. Consequently, you’re just a juvenile troll.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chaos King
"More meaning and depth"? If you were a true fan, you would know that songs like "The Way I am", "Stan", "Lose Yourself", "Like Toy Soldiers", "Mosh", and "Cleaning out my Closet" are way better than his new stuff. And I guess "Mockingbird" and "When I'm Gone" are not about his relationship with his daughter. Oh wait, they are!
Don't use that "I've been listening for 10 years" bullshit on me, because I've been listening for the same amount of years. And I'm not some fucking moralist either; I base my judgement solely on the rap on its own. And while we're at it, your grammar is horrible, so you lose a lot of credibility.
"U can't rant"? I can say whatever I want, I have a free will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pedro Torres Yes, but the most important thing is to tell a story and make the situations clear. And he has played a baseball-player in "Bull Durham" and "Tin Cup", a police detective in "The Untouchables", a Civil War lieutenant in "Dances with wolves", an attorney in "JFK", and a bodyguard in "The Bodyguard". He also has the charm and presence of a leading actor
There are also some actors like Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Guy Pearce who like to completely change their appearance and make every character unique. And then there are actors like Kevin Costner who instead focuses on the story and situations, and it therefore looks like he's playing a variation of himself. Doesn't mean that it's bad acting, it's just a different acting style
1
-
1
-
1
-
Walter Frith Jack Nicholson is considered to be a method actor, and went to Actors Studio. But to be honest, he doesn't remind me of one that much compared to Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, and Robert de Niro. It's probably because Method Acting has changed so much over the years, because if you read Lee Strasberg's notes, it doesn't say much about losing and gaining weight, or live as your character; it's more about personal memories and experiences, and substituting the given circumstances with them. It does talk about characters, but not that you have to behave like them the whole time or change your physiques. You still find the way your character would feel and react to the situation though. It's hard to explain, you just have to read about it yourself
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Ruman-Gonzales
He’s more than that if you just take your time to in-depth:
Holden Caulfield is meant to be a representation of teenage angst, alienation, and rebellion against the society’s standards, hypocrisy, and expectations, as well as the feeling of living in a world that you can’t relate to nor find your place in. Identity crisis also plays a part here, as well as criticism towards the adult life’s expectations and norms, so he wishes to remain his innocence, most likely because of the un-innocence and post-trauma culture in USA after World War II. He tries to make friends in his life, but cannot relate to any of the people near him. He tries to lose his virginity, but is unable to do it because he thinks it’s wrong to treat women as objects (which was quite common at that time), and he finds himself unable to develop a true relationship because of the society’s standards. The suicide of one of his classmates and the death of his brother have also affected him a lot.
What I don’t understand however is why most people criticize Holden Caulfield as a person rather as a character. There are fictional characters that are generally unlikable and despicable as persons, but still worshiped as characters because of their complexity. Why should Holden Caulfield be any different? If I have to choose between a golden boy and Holden Caulfield, I would definitely go for the latter since I find him much more interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Blackfyre
Ivan Drago was like a comic book villain; I mean come on, Rocky would have died from brain damage after just one hit from him, and he had pretty cartoonish scowls. Mickey's death was much more sentimental because he and Rocky were mentor and student, and had a stronger bond, and because heart attack is such a cruel way to die from. This also makes Rocky's breakdown and lack of motivation more realistic and understandable (not to mention that Rocky actually looked sad over his death), and Rocky even has more development by initially falling into the "cocky champion" trap, but loses to Clubber Lang as a result just like Apollo eventually lost to Rocky. However, the former foes turn into allies and take Rocky's skills to a new level.
Another big flaw Rocky IV has is that virtually none of the characters serve any real purpose at all; you can replace Rocky with any other protagonist, as well as replacing Apollo and the villains, and throw out Adrian and Paulie and it wouldn't make a difference.
Of course, you don't care about all of this; all you care about is music and action. You're the definition of what is wrong with modern moviegoers. Can't imagine that you watch art movies for example
1
-
William Blackfyre
Somebody's a little emotional, and you're wrong about me being a film student, so it looks like you like to make assumptions as well, you hypocrite. What made Rocky so great in the first place was giving the audience a real human being with real human conflicts, and a motivational core that didn’t just apply to getting buff and becoming a champ, but achieving your dream as well, while Rocky 2 and 3 showed the consequences of fame and riches, and the latter gave us Rocky losing his confidence for the first time in his life, but building it up again and improving his skills with the help from his former rival. And of course, Rocky Balboa was the life when you're close to getting retired and only got your memories and heart left. All of those Rocky movies showed us a real human being with real conflicts, not a bland generic boxer who gets overshadowed by action sequences and a soundtrack. There are movies where action and soundtrack are enough and where it works, but Rocky is not the right franchise for you if that's what you're looking for.
"Just, wow, what a pretentious prick". Yeah, real mature, I must say, and you just added another fallacy in your flawed judgment. It's getting old and laughable too.
1
-
William Blackfyre
You seem to be very upset that I don't like Rocky IV as much as you do, and yes, it's my opinion; movie reviews are not fact-based, but the general reception of the franchise and what people want from a sports drama conclude that Rocky IV is one of the weaker movies. It's a normative standard. And yes, he's definitely a super boxer if he can defeat Drago, but why is it so implausible that he beat Creed and Lang? Much of the point of the 1st movie was that Rocky had potentials, but never knew about it, and he proved himself worthy by surviving against Creed, but it would be too unrealistic that he actually won, so he lost instead, but proved to be a contender. However, the sequel took his skills to the next level and gave him enough to actually become a champ, therefore developing his character. The sequel (in addition of showing that he gets too comfortable with his money) also gave us more insight in how he's literally a nobody without boxing and raises question on how he's supposed to become a good father; it showed a different side of him and made him even more three-dimentional.
Clubber Lang was just the #1 contender and beat Rocky because the latter was both distraught from Mickey about to die and because his fame and glory made him cocky and not taking his training seriously. However, it at least gave us a conflict in the form of him losing his confidence and giving us the "Rival becomes ally" element, and it at least made Apollo have a real purpose in this film. Also, Mr. T wasn't really a celebrity when he starred in the film, so that argument is very weak.
I've given you plenty of analysis of the story and character development in Rocky II, III, and even Rocky Balboa (the latter having a final match that boxers have stated is one of the most realistic ones they have ever seen in a movie btw), but you dish them out in favor of your own opinion. "Proving that my opinion is right?" Ok, 1st of fall, opinions are not fact-based, so it's a weak argument to crave facts in a movie debate; this is not some political debate or discussion in science. 2nd of all, you have spent this entire conversation trying to prove why your opinion is right, and you even throw out direct insults and comments about me by calling me a pretentious prick multiple times. I don't even get insulted by them since it's a fallacy, and it's laughable because it's based on your impression of me as a person rather than looking at my arguments; my criticism of you was at least based on your flawed judgment and lack of proper skills in movie criticism, but now I can say that you're no better than me if you think I'm being pretentious. I didn't even used direct insults; I said that you don't seem to be someone who is looking for story and character development in the Rocky franchise, and there are too many people nowadays who don't care about it in general. I've even had debates with newspaper editors where I have criticized journalists' lack of art criticism skills, and what I got as a response is that modern audiences don't care about formal qualities in general anymore, so why should they?
Generally, I don't even understand your problem. Movie debates are like what we have been doing; exchanging opinions and arguing for them, and criticizing the opposition's lack of judgment if it's evident. However, calling someone a pretentious prick is both immature and irrelevant, and based on this entire conversation, I can conclude that movie debate isn't the best option for an activity for you
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
Did we even watch the same movie?
Firstly, Rocky only won against Apollo because the latter got tired and couldn't get up, and because of the former's endurance. If Apollo had gotten up, then he would have won instantly because of his points. Rocky's victory was basically a fluke, evidenced further in the third movie by Mickey directly stating that all of his opponents from that point on were handpicked, thus he wasn't even a true champion, which already makes Rocky doubt himself and question his title.
Secondly, Rocky's match against Thunderlips is a reflection of what Rocky had become; a cocky show-off who's basically had fixed matches (pro-wrestling is infamous for being staged, which is even lampshaded in the movie). It gets expanded further by Rocky just focusing on having a glamorous gym and satisfying the press, and it was even brought upon during the "The Eye of the Tiger" montage with all the tabloid headlines and his appearance at The Muppets, a massive stark contrast to Lang directly training. Rocky later having Apollo as his trainer brings him back to his roots, and it also shows that deep beneath Apollo's flashy and flamboyant exterior, he was actually a true fighter. He also took Rocky under his wings because he could see that Rocky had become just as cocky as he himself was during their first match, and he wanted to assure himself that he lost to a great fighter and not a cocky bastard who just got lucky.
Thirdly, Rocky's loss against Clubber Lang was due to him being distraught over Mickey's heart attack (combined with his doubts after finding out that all of his opponents were handpicked), and thus he underperformed. With his title and trainer/manager gone, he faces his great challenge at that point, which was immense doubt since he initially thought he could do anything after his first match against Apollo, but now he doesn't know if he was even a true champion, and he has also lost the person that made him a champion in the first place. It raises the stakes, and Apollo is the one who makes him get back on his feet again.
And finally, we don't know Clubber Lang's true strength. Sure he became the number one contender and defeated Rocky, but he only won because Rocky wasn't himself and underperformed due to emotional and psychological stress; he didn't beat Rocky at the latter's strongest. When they have their rematch, then Rocky has first of all gotten his confidence and focus back, and he had trained a lot with Apollo to change his tactics, so Clubber Lang could very easily have become just as cocky as Rocky and not done an effort to actually stay strong or become stronger
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
That punching machine goes out the window immediately because if he really was that strong, then Apollo and Rocky would die after just one punch, but they didn't, and brain damage would happen regardless if a boxer hit him in the head as much as Drago did. As for Lang's strength, then it's not an assumption since one can just compare the two fights and clearly see that he hasn't changed his tactics or strengths when Rocky clearly has as evidenced by his training with Creed or just when one looks at how he performs in the rematch. Dixon on the other hand has no previous battles of his own to be compared with.
Yes, you disregarded a bunch of points for why the third movie apparently is so bad because they were too subjective and biased (I mean, you even said "personally" and talked about wishing to be "inspired" as if that's supposed to be an indication of a film's aesthetic qualities. Now you even say "in my opinion" despite also trying to present your assessment as common sense, and you previously talked about your feelings, which again is a bias and something private), and that proves how bad your argumentation actually is; when leaving out everything that isn't personal biases or completely personal and private preferences, then there's nothing you're really bringing up that's supposed to justify your sweeping claim of it being a garbage movie, because those claims need more of a "disinterested" argument in order to be valid. Instead, you begin pigeonholing and cherry-picking Rocky apparently using a cheap tactic against someone we're not even supposed to be sympathetic towards, as if that's supposed to define the entire movie. One thing I've also noticed is that you're only talking about story rather than bringing up any of the aesthetic qualities. Hate to break it to you, but if story is the only thing you care about, then read a book rather than watching movies
As for the Gazzo conversation, then that's in the 2nd movie when he hadn't become the champ yet, hadn't become cocky, and hadn't returned to his roots, so that's irrelevant
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
I wouldn't watch it
Then you obviously haven't watched any movies by Warhol, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Fritz Lang, or even certain movies by Tarantino or Nolan. If you think meta-movies or experimental films aren't movies, then you're even more biased and narrow-minded that I thought
What is the connection between garbage movie and common sense
The fact that the general consensus has never been that Rocky III is garbage or even the worst Rocky film and yet you try to prove that it is. "Rocky V" is more hated than "Rocky III" if we look at the statistics.
You can look at this video's comments for example
That's the same as Sam Harris claiming that the philosophers he's supposedly talked to seems to agree with him, and that's apparently enough evidence. Who are all these people? What are their backgrounds?
All these people loved the movie
Except the people that nominated it for all its Razzies. It doesn't even have a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I guess I also don't exist since I hate the film, and yet you claim that "all these people" loved it. Not to mention that "The Last Jedi" was a way bigger success than any of the Rocky movies combined, and yet it's hard to find someone who's actually speaking positively about it. Box-office success doesn't automatically equal universal acclaim.
Also, for the last time: I'm not talking about objectivity, I'm talking about disinterested pleasure. What part of that don't you understand?!
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
Should I have some philosophy degree just to enjoy a movie
No, but if you read Kant, then I wouldn't have needed to explain the difference between disinterested pleasure and objectivity, and you would realize that you're mixing two completely different types of aesthetic judgments despite trying to deny it
I am not a movie critic or something
Looks like you're trying to act like one when one looks at your assessment.
You are not respecting my personal preferences
If you had made this conversation be entirely about personal preferences, then things would have been different, but instead you're trying to make this be about disinterested pleasure and common sense
You're just trying to act like I'm ignorant or stupid
When one looks at how you're debating and how little you know about aesthetic judgments, then it's proven conclusively that you're very inexperienced and incompetent
Because all you do is attacking me
That's the point of debating, genius!
Stop saying we're not supposed to care about Lang
If you think assaulting an old man, hitting on a married woman in a lustful way, and being disrespectful towards a champion, is morally upright, then be my guest, but the movie's angle certainly doesn't indicate that. Making Lang too sympathetic also lowers the stakes immensely
1
-
1
-
@konuralpyldzkan1495
"Validity", when talking about statistics and quantitative research (including polls), refers to the data and results being relevant and accurate to what one intends to examine. A quick Google search could have given you that answer! You said you wanted to make a poll, and I'm asking how you intend to measure the validity of that result. You now wrote an essay worth of ranting without even knowing what you're reacting to or what a term even means.
If there's one thing for certain, then it's that you don't know what basic terms mean, and that you're mixing several different paradigms without letting your arguments be relevant to the particular paradigm you're trying to use. You're either having your statement's quality appeal to general consensus and using biases and internal irritations as your paradigm, or you're having your statement's quality appeal to personal preferences and using logical positivism, common sense, and cultural hegemony as your paradigms.
Bottom line: this entire discussion has been about you trying to mix water and oil without you even realizing it. It's hopeless to discuss with you because you don't even understand how aesthetic judgments or language games work (and now you're probably going to misunderstand what "language games" mean too, so at least Google it before you respond to it)
And yes, it is cherry-picking if you only focus on 1 aspect without even mentioning any other aspects or properly elaborating on how that 1 rotten apple supposedly spoils the bunch
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is a war movie, it's just that it focuses more on the psychological part of the Vietnam war and its horror, which I think is more fitting for a Vietnam war movie than lots of violence. Besides, I thought Apocalypse Now was better directed in terms of art direction, the visuals, make up, and what happens in each the scene. I also remember Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Dennis Hopper, and Robert Duvall better than the actors from "Full Metal Jacket", and I think both the characters and the story were very deep and complex, and I really felt I went through the same experience as them because they took the horror all the way.
I felt that "Full Metal Jacket" looked too simple made and lacked intensity, and that the story lacked depth and complexity, and the message was too little and too late. It's good and realistic and both Vincent D'Onofrio and R. Lee Ermey did a great job, but the story, direction, and the experience were too weak that I can call it a great movie; I didn't feel very affected by watching it compared to "Apocalypse Now" and "The Deer Hunter". Besides, it was released after the highly acclaimed movies "The Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now", and "Platoon", so it's easy to compare "Full Metal Jacket" with those movies.
And "Full Metal Jacket" is far from the greatest movie ever, that would be movies like "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca", "All About Eve", "On the Waterfront", "Lawrence of Arabia", "The Godfather" (both part I and II), "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", and "Schindler's List"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
EgyptianMinor
I’m impressed that you actually used a book source instead of the internet, but even then I stand by my word. If my choice is to use books that are specifically meant for theatre concepts (in this case protagonist, antagonist, etc.) and an encyclopedia or dictionary that is meant for anyone, I’ll definitely go for the former. Similarly, if I want to learn about method acting and I have a choice between using the internet or to read Lee Strasberg’s personal notes, I will not even consider going for the former.
And if you have to be all linguistic with me, then the etymology of “protagonist” is “protos” (first) and “agonistes” (Combatant, pleader, actor), while “antagonist” comes from “anti” (against) and “agonistes” (combatant, pleader, actor). “Deuteragonist” and “Tritagonist” come from “deuter” (second) and “trit” (third) respectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mikael Donoso
Well, a LOT has happened during the last 4 years after I wrote my comment there, and I'm really not into acting anymore. I've done some more acting after I wrote my comment, and I'm starting to realize that it's mostly a battle of satisfying the director, the critics, the audience, and most importantly yourself, and that there's a lot of arbitrariness, competition, and institutional manipulation in the field. Not to mention in a time when it's hard to be yourself in your own life without having to constantly "act" and play a role to adapt, then it feels meaningless to have a profession completely dedicated to pretending you're someone you're not
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sda1225 I guess you haven't seen that movie then, and I bet you base your opinion solely on his performances in "The Wicker Man" and "Ghost Rider". If you want to evaluate an actor's abilities, you should look at the actor's whole career.
In "Leaving Las Vegas", there were several moments that showed that he can actually act; the scene where he desperately crawled to the refrigerator to get more booze, the scene where he can hardly breathe while sleeping, the scene where he tries to sign a paycheck but his body shakes too much, and the scene where he and Elisabeth Shue are lying on the couch together. There were several parts where he was a happy and funny man, where he was a depressed man, and where he started to suffer, and neither his actions nor line delivery were over-the-top.
And if you want to see more good movies with him, you should watch "Adaptation", "Moonstruck", "Face/Off", and "Matchstick Men"
1
-
sda1225 I'm not a fan, I'm just trying to say that he has enough good performances to prove that he can act if he wants. Not all actors are so consistent. Just look at actors like John Travolta, Kevin Costner, Al Pacino, and Robert de Niro: there used to be a time where they had amazing performances, but now I don't know what happened to them (Cage is not as talented as the latter two, but still). Even the legendary actor Marlon Brando seemed to be a joke in the 60's and 90's, even though he had iconic performances in the 50's and 70's
And "Face/Off" was actually very well-received, and he was nominated for a Saturn Award, two MTV Awards, a Jupiter Award, and a Blockbusters Entertainment Award.
I also forgot to mention "Raising in Arizona", "Honeymoon in Vegas", and the recent "Joe"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andre Sampaio
Silly boy; of course I can write better aesthetic assessments than it seemed. I just asked you to write an assessment to give you a final chance to prove that you’re more than some childish troll who cannot write a single comment without profanity and biased “argumentation”. But you bungled it and made an even bigger fool out of yourself. Your “assessment” consists entirely of statements after statements without reasoning, reflection, and analysis, and they come off as biased, oral, and emotional. And you don’t even mention any of the cinematic elements and techniques, which post-modern movies focus on and highlight; they’re not supposed to focus entirely on story and message, but on aesthetics (atmosphere, music, art direction, visuals etc.) and free associations. Coupled with the fact that you continue to directly attack me instead of the topic, you’ve lost all of your credibility. I give you a little plus for actually writing the assessment though.
I write to people based on the way they come off as and respond; if they act neutral, humble, and sophisticated, I comment in a friendly way. If not, then I criticize them and their comments. Your little friend could have humbly said “I don’t understand what the hype around ‘Birdman’ is and why it’s considered to great”, or simple had written “The movie is so incredibly overrated, in my opinion”, and I would have ignored him entirely. But no, he had to act childish and write “Oooh, the movie is such crap! Fuck that movie! And fuck everybody who praises it”. You don’t expect me to take that seriously, do you? The worst thing is that such assessments sometimes actually get printed in newspapers and websites. As for you, bucko, you could have just stayed neutral and given me mature criticism, but instead you foolishly attacked me in the same way as him, and it doesn’t bring the discussion any further. And you didn’t even have to reply to me; you could have just left the thread and moved on.
Now it’s my turn:
“Birdman” is a semi-biographical film about Michael Keaton’s period as a washed-up actor after leaving the renowned “Batman”-series. He is represented through an equally washed-up and emotionally stressed actor named Riggan Thompson (played by Keaton), whom used to be famous for playing the superhero Birdman in a movie of the same name, but now lives in the shadow of his former glory and is close to suffer from D.I.D. He makes a final attempt to retrieve his glory and relevance by directing a Broadway play, but his internal pressure, disturbed mind and inner conflicts, and the conflicts during production affects his motivation properly directing the play.
Thompson’s inner conflicts and disturbed mind is illuminated by the use of a relatively unsaturated color scheme in the art direction, the “spirit” of his own performance as Birdman controlling his life and putting more pressure on him, and the illusion of a movie being filmed in one shot; it’s awkward, yet mysterious and intense in a subtle way. The madness reaches it peak when Birdman’s spirit directly shows up and when Riggan Thompson imagines himself flying like his own character, and when he attempts to shoot himself on stage. Riggan lives in a world where he is unable to shake off his own character and performance, where his lust for relevance and glory and feelings of being washed-up overwhelm him, and where people either sees him as a nobody or the famed actor he no longer seems to be. In addition, the film contains signs of satire through the characters; Riggan represents the washed-up actor whose character mentally controls his life and makes him unable to think clearly, and gets destroyed by his own inner conflicts and intrigues and disturbed mind. His co-star Mike Shiner represents an exaggerated and caricatured method actor, who wants to have every prop and action real, and also takes advantage of his fame to not cooperate properly. The reviewer Tabitha Dickinson represents the stereotypically biased and unreasonable critic who lets personal problems get in the way with actual assessments, and abuses her authority to butcher the play before she has even seen it. It may seem too exaggerated to be considered realistic, but it strengthens the comedic elements of the film
1
-
PrimoCurby
"The movie is still boring, because it is just boring and nothing more". Oh yeah, such good argumentation, and boring is not even an argument since it's based solely on personal preferences and not the movie itself. I appreciate that you actually try to discuss the movie though instead of attacking me; it gives you more credibility.
There’s also something called "target audience", and if I were you, I would have looked at how it hits the target audience and how it handles its elements for its specific type and genre; not judge it for what it's not. I can respect that it's not your type of movie, but that doesn’t make it bad for those who analyze it from a technical and critical point of view. After all, post-modern movies are meant to focus on its technical achievements and appeal to the audience's free associations, and not focus entirely on story and message. In fact, they usually take a clichéd story and give it a new life through an original and aesthetic direction.
"Movies are about entertainment". If you really think movies like "Requiem for a dream", "Apocalypse Now", "Schindler's List", "American History X", "The Pianist", and "Pink Floyd: The Wall" for example are meant to entertain the audience, then there’s something you have misunderstood. Comedies, thrillers, and action movies may have the objective to entertain people, but war movies and drama films for example are meant to move the audience and use the film medium as a way to talk about and/or criticize a serious or horrible topic, and post-modern movies like "Pink Floyd: The Wall", "Birdman", "Gravity", "Boyhood", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" are meant to highlight and worship the art of filmmaking and be open for interpretation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+XxRANDOMPLAYAxX
Won't Back Down? How about "Infinite", "My Name Is", "As the World Turns , "I'm Back", "Brain Damage", "I'm Shady", "Guilty Conscience", "Just Don't Give a Fuck", "The Way I am", "Stan", "Kim", "The Real Slim Shady", "White America", "Cleaning out my Closet", "Sing for the Moment", "Without Me", "Till I collapse", "Lose Yourself", "Rabbit Run", "Mockingbird", "Like Toy Soldiers", "Mosh", "Just Lose It", or "When I'm Gone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lane Alder I thought it was okay. The soundtrack and final fight were amazing, Dolph Lundgren did very well, and I liked the whole "No Easy Way Out" sequence. But I also thought it followed the same formula as Rocky III, and I just didn't feel as inspired and motivated as the first movie, and I thought Rocky was better developed in the first movie, and that Stallone had more shiny acting moments in that film. The setting in the first film was also more fitting for the story and Rocky's character. I also liked Rocky II because I was curious to see what happened to him afterwards, and I liked the concept that Rocky is virtually nothing without boxing, and has to choose whether to care about his health or fight Apollo to save his reputation.
As a movie on its own, I thought Rocky IV was pretty predictable and not the most original, and it looked a bit like some Cold War propaganda. And yes, I often analyze movies like a film critic, that's just the way I am.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BlazertronGames
The Hip-Hop environment is like a huge garden that has to be trimmed and where weed and withered flowers (aka. pseudo-fans) have to be taken care of so that the worthy plants (aka. real fans) can grow strong. Eminem used to have a great fanbase, but ever since “Recovery” was released, the fanbase has become more and more retarded and only 5% of them know what Hip-Hop is actually about and what Eminem’s background and intensions have been in his older raps (not to mention that only 5% are able to sense great flow, beat, lyrics, and rhymes).
It’s also hard enough to be an Eminem fan without being embarrassed to admit it in the presence of fans of for example Nas, 2pac, Biggie, NWA, and Wu-Tang Clan. I therefore try to teach people what raps by Eminem represent real Hip-Hop the most, and I get so provoked when people claim “Rap God” to be top 10 material when it’s the prime example of what real Hip-Hop is not supposed to be like, and also the sign of Hip-Hop in general declining and turning into semi-pop. Hip-Hop is not just music; it’s a way of life! And whatever happened to the time when Hip-Hop was about storytelling and a way of expressing yourself and speaking from your heart? Now it’s turned flamboyant and glamorous, but in a negative way.
Here are Eminem songs that are miles above “Rap God”:
- “Infinite”
- “My Name Is”
- “As the World Turns”
- “I’m Shady”
- “I’m Back”
- “Rock Bottom”
- "Role Model"
- “Just Don’t Give a Fuck”
- “Bonnie and Clyde”
- “Guilty Conscience”
- “The Way I Am”
- “The Real Slim Shady”
- “Kim”
- “Stan”
- “Lose Yourself”
- “Rabbit Run”
- “White America”
- “Business”
- “Without Me”
- “’till I collapse”
- “Sing for the Moment”
- “Like Toy Soldiers”
- “Mosh”
- “Mockingbird”
- “Just Lose It”
- “When I’m Gone”
- “The Re-Up”
- “You Don’t Know”
- “Headlights” (one of the few newer raps by him that I actually enjoy)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
James Santiago
Well, I have went to acting school, as well as a monologue workshop with an actress turned director, I have read the biography of Sanford Meisner and read "The Lee Strasberg Notes", and I was recently assistant director for a theatre production.
- Did my teachers criticize their students for sounding and looking the same? Not at all, they focused on storytelling and expressivity (which means to be clear in what you're trying to say and do)
- Did Meisner focus on character work and emotions? No, he objected to it and focused on physical action and reacting to your partner, as well as repeating your lines to make them sound natural.
- Did Lee Strasberg focus on character work and emotions? A lot, but the main core of his theories (aka. Method Acting) was to substitute the given circumstances with your own personal experiences and memories
- Did the director I was assistant for care about the actors "transforming" into the character? No, she did not, it was all about reaction and interaction, physical action, subtext, and what happens between the line exchanges
I was also given a booklet from the main acting school in my country during a theatre production, and it was also all about subtext and intentions. I have also got information from that school that they actually want their students to be themselves, because their philosophy is that a really great actor is someone who can capture the essence of a character and still be true to himself and his own personality.
1
-
James Santiago
First of all, English is not my first language
Second of all, I'm not speaking on behalf of myself, I'm referring to professional directors and acting teachers and their philosophy on acting. You do realize that Strasberg trained actors like Al Pacino, James Dean, Dustin Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, and Ellen Burstyn, while Meisner trained actors like Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, and James Caan? We also have Stella Adler who trained Marlon Brando, Robert de Niro, and Warren Beatty. Do you think you know more about acting than the teachers I mentioned? Virtually everything you have mentioned have been denied by them.
Googling things? Oh please, finding information about acting on Google is the worst thing you can do. I only read books on acting or attend workshops and productions
Yes, staying to true to yourself is essential because the audience needs to be sure that they can replace the character’s name with the actor’s in order to believe in the situations. Otherwise, they will become indifferent
1
-
1
-
James Santiago
Oh my God, another one of those pretentious adult snobs who look down on younger people for no reason.
If you know so much, then why haven't you gone to any acting schools, don't use any acting terms, or refer to any acting directors or teachers? You even admitted that you're just an audience member. You're the one who comes up with statements without a single reasonable argument, and I can guarantee you that every director or teacher I have met or worked with will disagree with virtually everything you have claimed here
My statements are at least backed up by the theories and philosophies of influential acting teachers like Strasberg, Meisner, and Adler, whom you don't seem to know anything about since you just shove them aside. If you have paid any attention, then you will hopefully see that I refer to adults' view on acting. What's next? You participate in a discussion around ethics or aesthetics and shove aside Aristoteles, Plato, Kant, and Hume just because someone younger than you refer to them?
"Adults"? Don't make me laugh. The way you come off, I don't see an adult at all, I only see a pretentious, grumpy, overgrown troll who has nothing better to do in his life than to act condescending. Real adults have at least learnt some manners, or are you just one of those cranky loners who isolate themselves from the rest of the world?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
At my school in Norway, we had a monologue project where each of us chose a song that has touched us somehow, and a friend of me chose a Norwegian hip-hop song called "Nattens sønner" ("sons of the night"). Most of the time, people just think it's cool and funky, but when it was performed as a monologue, people were brought to tears since the last verse is about a 12 year old boy who tries to impress his older brother (who is sort of a gangster), but ends up driving himself to death.
Btw, I don't think "Born in the USA" sounds very happy, and it's not something I wanna dance to. (It's just an honourable mention, but still). "My Hometown" however sounds very nostalgic, but it also mentions fights between black and white, and economic depression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, I'm getting tired of constantly seeing people who don't know that "Philosopher's Stone" is the original title of the first Harry Potter book and film, or don't know that UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern-Ireland. I also often see people who think Daniel Day-Lewis is Irish just because his father was. Daniel is born and raised in London
And no, I'm not British (I'm Norwegian). And I'm sure that it's not just Americans who don't know about these things I mentioned, but it often seems to be them (I'm not trying to hate), especially with the thing about the Harry Potter book and film. There is also an old myth that Norway is the capital of Sweden, and that polar bears are walking in the streets. I also went to Los Angeles once, and someone said to me "Oh, Norway! Where are your wooden shoes?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Freaking King
Oh please, with your logic, "Transformers" and "Avatar" should be considered to be the greatest movies of all time. Also fyi, the albums I mentioned also won grammys and were way more acclaimed, and Eminem received an Oscar for "Lose Yourself" from 8 Mile.
And before I can take you seriously, I should add that I have been listening to over 70 Hip-Hop albums spawning from the 80's up to today (and I mean from start to finish). Ever heard about A Tribe Called Quest, Gang Starr, Run-D.M.C, Public Enemy, NWA (or Eazy-E and Ice Cube on their own?), Wu-Tang Clan, Da Lench Mob, Biggie, 2pac, Nas, Slick Rick, or even Proof? I also perform Eminem at least twice a week at the pubs in the city where I live.
I destroy pseudo-fans like you for breakfast, so don't you dare challenge me before you know what you're talking about
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Niels Gutiérrez Torres
I have no problem with people liking “Rap God” and “Not Afraid” (Ok, I have to some degree, but not much), but I do have a problem people claiming “Rap God” to be amongst his best raps. If this was some random person/people’s list of “Top 10 favorite Eminem songs”, I wouldn’t care. However, “Rap God” and any song from “Recovery” are not some of his best raps for the following reasons:
1. The only impressive part about “Rap God” is the speed (that’s also the only argument I get from people), but rap is so much more than just speaking very fast in a rhythm, and its lyrics is nonsense and the flow isn’t even comprehensible nor creative. Virtually every song from “Recovery” sound exactly the same and Eminem either sounds like an emo or a shadow of his former self rather than someone who can appeal to a wide audience and make them relate.
2. On his first albums, he was able to be either a lyrical and rhyming genius, or a great storyteller who could speak from his heart and express himself (which Hip-Hop is all about), but still speak about topics that everyone can relate you and in a way that it is actually comprehensible. Plus that his life and background and his traumas are reflected in his older raps in a way that he’s saying “Fuck ya’ll! I’m still standing her even after all I’ve been through”. In addition, Eminem could be serious, fatherly, emotional, satirical, badass, or straight up entertaining on his older raps. All of these things are completely lost in his older raps (except “Headlights”).
And yes, I will continue to bring up normative standard because his earliest albums have been way more acclaimed from the average critic and listener than his newer ones. I'm also not alone on this, and I don't expect anyone to have exactly the same preferences as me, but they should have enough common sense to know that his newer raps are inferior to his earlier ones
1
-
1
-
1
-
I will try to give my best explanation:
With Stanislavski's system (the traditional acting style), you act through storytelling, the magic if ("What would I have done if I were in the same situation), physical action, and the given circumstances (the information that you are given). With method acting however, you draw your emotions through your own memories and experiences; you start feeling and reminiscing the senses you felt in a specific memory (how it looked, how it smelled, how you felt etc.), then you bring it to the story and get affected by it
Another important aspect of method acting is substitution; instead of simply reacting to your partner, you react as if he/she was a person from your own life that you have a relationship with (for example a parent or a girlfriend/boyfriend). It can also be that you're using your prop like it was a personal object that has a sentimental value to you
Method Acting needs practice to fully understand, and Watchmojo has clearly confused it with character work and dedication. Many other people in my generation do it as well, and conservative acting teachers love to use those misconceptions and false rumors to argument against method acting (which has annoyed me and provoked me for a long time). Sure, method acting talks about thinking what your character would have done and thought in the situation, but that's only a small part of it.
Many people also believe that you have to live like your character to gain the same experiences, but that's also a misconception. As long as your memories and experiences will bring the same emotions and reactions and you understand your character's mindset, it doesn't matter if you have the exact same experiences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
loda lega Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert de Niro, and Jim Carrey are also among my favorite Hollywood actors. I also think Jim Carrey is quite underrated, and that he is actually a great dramatic actor as well, but no-one seems to know that. However, Brando will always be my favorite and inspiration
I know well what Method Acting is, and I know that Marlon Brando kind of introduced it to mainstream moviegoers, and it's possible that Dilip Kumar was one of the first to use it and is one of the greatest method actors in Bollywood, but I think it's quite uncertain who really started using it. Lee Strasberg developed it from the mid 20's to the early 30's, but it's also a further of development of emotional and sense memory which Stanislavski introduced, but later abandoned. And actors like Spencer Tracy and James Stewart, although not considered to be method actors, nevertheless had some of the naturalism and versatility you find in method actors. Elia Kazan also taught students method acting at Actors Studio before Strasberg took over, and Strasberg introduced method acting to his colleagues at Group Theatre before Actors Studio was established. Anyway, all this is just a small digression since you mentioned Method Acting
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dan Grant I'm not joking. If you read Lee Strasberg's notes (the founder of Method Acting), you will notice that he talks about the following (in a very simplied presentation here):
- Sense memory: you focus on a place you have been, and all the senses from that place (how it looked, how it smelled etc.). It can also just be how you are using daily objects like a coffee cup or drinking glass.
- Emotional memory: you think of a memory that affects you a lot emotionally, and then draw your emotions in the play/film from it.
- Personal object: you react to the props as if it was an object from your own life that has a sentimental value to you
- Animal work: you compare your character with an animal and study its behavior and movements, and then bring it to your character
- Substitution: instead of acting based on the given circumstances, you react to the setting as if it was a place from your own life that you have strong memories from, and you react to your partner as if he/she was someone from your own life (like a lover, sibling, or parent).
In general, you cannot see what acting techniques an actor is using unless you talk with him with about it or is the one teaching him. Method Acting is a lot of internal and mental work, and about sharpening your senses and emotions based on personal memories and experiences, as well as substituting the given circumstances; it's not about changing your physiques and staying in character the whole time.
Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis did all that research to probably gain the experiences, but in most cases, it wouldn't be necessary because your emotions and the experiences you already have should make you capable of playing any character. Lee Strasberg himself played Hyman Roth in "The Godfather part II", and he did it as simple as possible: he knew that he was not a Mafia figure, but he was as smart as him, he ran an organization like Hyman, and he was as confident in his actions as he was. He also put some personal experiences into his character like his love for football.
1
-
1
-
Dan Grant I’m aware that the definition has basically changed, and that your impression of method acting will fit that new definition, but I find it so provocative that things have become like this: almost nobody knows about the core or foundation of method acting anymore, and those who do mostly misunderstand it. Everything nowadays is about gaining or losing weight, doing research, being in character the whole time, learning a new accent, and transform physically. I am not completely sure, but I cannot imagine that this was what Lee Strasberg had intended. It’s like an entirely new acting style has been invented that people just happen to call method acting, and the definition of method acting that existed while Lee Strasberg was alive has basically been ignored by the general audience. Stanislavski’s system, even though it was developed between 1890 and 1938 or something, has still been able to preserve its original core and definition today, and is part of the curriculum on most Western acting schools. When it comes to the two method acting definitions, method acting schools would not have taught their students the things that people now consider method acting, because that would have been risky for the health or generally unnecessary. Because of that, I don’t know where the general audience gets their information from. It seems like the logic is this: “Since some actors that are considered method actors do these exercises, it has to be a part of method acting”
What’s even worse and provokes me a lot is that conservative acting teachers love to criticize method acting based on this new definition, or they completely misunderstand emotional- and sense memory. The time between October, 2013 and October, 2014 was painful and made my drama year suck because I always had to hear these stupid statements from my acting teachers:
- “We cannot ask our students to gain or lose weight”
- “The character work will only make you lose control over yourself and become mentally ill”
- “I cannot live a life like a rapist just to act a rape scene very good”
- “Method acting is just schizophrenic”
- “What? Emotions and character work? Back in my day, acting was about storytelling”
- “You shouldn’t do method acting because it’s not part of the curriculum. You should stick to Stanislavski, he is very good” (Little did they know that only knowledge about Stanislavski was part of the curriculum. The other parts, which has to with acting abilities in general, can be accomplished with any acting style)
I usually don’t bring my personal life into discussions, but I felt for it. I also choose to not believe in WatchMojo (whom has screwed up definitions before, for example with their “Top 10 Movie Anti-Heroes” list) or articles on the internet written by the general audience, because I find them unreliable compared to the notes of the man who basically invented method acting (Lee Strasberg) and method acting schools that teach the techniques and exercises I’ve been mentioning in my first comment; it all has to do with ethos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elías MG
I don't trust Rotten Tomatoes entirely. I see if a movie has received a "fresh" rating, and then I watch the movie myself and see if I agree; the higher rating, the more I'm likely to not get disappointed since I think more like a critic than an average audience member and a really high rating is close to be near-universally acclaimed. (Of course, I have been disappointed or thought that a movie is underrated). However, I rarely watch their lists for top movies of the year
Another reason I like Rotten Tomatoes is because it follows the "joint verdict" principle, where several film critics share their judgement and the website finds out what aspects of the movie that was generally praised or criticized (therefore the consensus you see below the Rotten Tomatoes score). With that principle, I'm prepared for the movie, and I think it's more reliable than just reading a bunch of audience reviews where the majority of the writers confuse aesthetic judgement with personal preferences.
At the end of the day however, I generally watch and praise movies that are considered to be among the best by many different sources, not just RT. For example, you don't have to go to RT to know that "The Godfather" is considered to be one of the best movies of all time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
regulator619 I’m not a film student, I’m a drama student. My teachers don’t even care about movies, and we have just been discussing theatre plays at my school. But you sound like a Dark Knight-fan (or Nolan-fan) who just shove aside and discredit other movies.
Let’s have a look at some of the actors I’ve mentioned:
Spencer Tracy: he had a naturalism and versatility that made him look like he was not acting all, and managed to have a natural authority in several of his movies (for example “Boys Town”). A big contrast to many actors who had an acting style that seemed more forced or unnatural. Also, unlike many other actors, he managed to be consistent in choosing good movies and staying up. Something that not even Marlon Brando managed to achieve.
Marlon Brando: brought a realism to acting and opened the doors to new ways of interpreting a scene, and it was clear that he was reacting and not “acting” (he showed his emotions because he got a reaction, not because it said so in the script). In addition, he managed to make improvisation and spontaneity more common, and he could go from playing a paralyzed WWII-veteran to abusive husband to revolutionary to gang leader to rebellious yet tender dockworker. He also surprised everyone by doing a Shakespeare-movie and musical. He created some of the most iconic characters of all time like Stanley Kowalski, Johnny Strabler, Terry Malloy, Vito Corleone, and Col. Kurtz.
Laurence Olivier: just like Spencer Tracy, he had a naturalism that made him look like he was not acting, and he was one of the biggest Shakespeare-interpreters of all time, as well as being a great director. He could also go through any genre.
James Dean: just like Brando, he made improvisation and spontaneity more common, and had strong emotions and intensity in his acting. Unfortunately, he died too young before he could really make an impact.
Clark Gable: his charming looks and powerful voice made him one of the biggest leading actors in Hollywood.
Humphrey Bogart: he could go from playing an unsympathetic villain to an anti-hero who ultimately shows his noble and sympathetic side. He could also go from westerns to film noirs to romantic dramas, and had a presence and charm that made him perfect as a leading actor
And then let’s have a look at some of the movies I’ve mentioned:
Casablanca: an owner of a nightclub with a romantic past that doesn’t know how to find the love again with his former lover after she left him. There is a dramatic tone throughout the entire film, several memorable quotes (Most notably “Here’s looking at you kid”, “We’ll always have Paris”, and “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship), and the farewell scene is really intense; she doesn’t wanna leave him, but he says she must, and then they share a proper farewell with him reminding her of their memories and his famous line to her (“Here’s looking at you, kid”).
On the Waterfront: in addition of corruption near the waterfront, there is a story about a man who has to choose between ratting on the gangsters or stay loyal to them; if he rats on them, he will get himself killed, but if he remains loyal, he must continue to live a bum’s life. The iconic taxi scene actually sums up much of Terry Malloy’s character; he could have been a contender, a huge boxing sensation, but he became completely forgotten after a fixed match. And now he has to live a bum’s life as a dockworker in a dock where there’s lots of corruption. Not to mention that Marlon Brando again opened new ways to interpret a scene, by slowly pushing down Rod Steiger’s gun and sounding disappointed instead of being very mad at him. I also love the music that’s played in this scene.
Lawrence of Arabia: beautiful scenery, a solid performance by Peter O’Toole where he has calmness at the same time of being naturally authoritative. I also didn’t notice that it lasted for 3 and half hour because it was always so interesting.
The Godfather: an amazing story that covers Michael Corleone’s rise from being a family outsider to become the powerful Don, dramatic and beautiful (and also several times suspenseful) music, beautiful scenery, an art direction that highlights the drama and suspense. Almost every scene affects the next, and there’s so much that happens; introduction of Don Vito and the other characters, the wedding, the assassination attempt, Michael’s time in Sicily, 5 families-meeting, baptism of fire etc. And top of all, an amazing acting performance from Marlon Brando and Al Pacino where the former manages to highlight the complexity in Don Vito; on one hand, a ruthless and no-nonsense mafia boss, on another hand, a loving family father. He also managed to have a natural authority and his appearance and mannerism made him look 20 years older than he actually was. Al Pacino also had a natural authority and managed to highlight the complexity in Michael’s character; he was initially an honest man that wanted to be a politician, but because of the assassination attempt, he wanted to take revenge on the rivaling families. At the same time, we saw his love and loyalty towards his father, which many other characters lacked, and that led to their demise. The whole movie is also like an allegory on capitalism.
Taxi Driver: the main character has a subtle soreness and suffering that often become either too obvious or too obscure. We don’t know much about him, but we can still sympathize with him. And then we have criticism of the society’s treatment of Vietnam veterans, and the shootout against the pimp. The movie as a whole has a very dramatic tone and the score is amazing.
Apocalypse Now: wonderful cinematography, another amazing art direction that highlights the horrors and drama of the Vietnam War, a storyline that can be interpreted as a metaphor for how much the horrors changes the human and makes him insane and corrupted. Martin Sheen played a passive character, but I still see dynamism in him and how much he gets affected by listening and experiencing the horror. Marlon Brando had a limited screen time, but his monologue sums up much of the war: how much we are forced to do horrible things, how much lack there is of morality, and that we need to have a strength to go through such a horrible war.
Raging Bull: one of the best and dramatic themes and scores I have heard, an amazing performance by Robert de Niro where he manages to highlight the brutality in his character, but also soreness and desperation. The black-and-white art direction also makes the film even more dramatic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alan Kardissi
God, you’re so naive. What do you think I am? Some random guy who just engages in acting here and there for fun? I’m far from it. I spent 3 years at an acting school as part of my education, then one year at an acting school where I literally lived there and specialized myself in acting, and now I’m studying theatrical science at the University. I’ve participated in discussions with professional directors, and I’ve partly directed two actresses at a student theatre where a theatre critic said those two overshadowed the other actors.
I may not be professional, but I can definitely say that I know more about acting than you; the things you claim are acting are things that I constantly see from other people on Youtube, but they hardly come up with any arguments or acting terms or even support for their statements. Just referring to some quotes from actors does not make you an expert either. In fact, blindly referring to them is one of the most common fallacies in argumentation. And don’t you use that “English is not my first language”-excuse; it’s not my first language either, but I’m still able to use acting terms. I can definitely see that you’re nothing but an audience member, and Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, and Sanford Meisner, or any acting teacher can all prove you wrong. Also, Elia Kazan claimed Brando’s performance in “On the Waterfront” was the best male performance he had ever seen, and he should know; he directed 21 actors into Oscar nomination, co-founded Actors Studio, and made both Brando and James Dean major movie stars just through one movie each. Brando’s performance in “A Streetcar Named Desire” is also considered one of the most influential acting performances in cinematic history. If you don’t see it, then you’re in a minority (not that you didn’t ruin your ethos a long time ago).
The two biggest tasks an actor can do are first of all to move the audience, and second of all to fulfill his character’s objective. It doesn’t matter if an actor is completely unrecognizable if his actions lack motivation, the character’s inner conflicts are not expressed, and his lines lack subtext and intention; without those things, the audience gets indifferent towards both the actor and the whole scene because the performance turns lifeless and internal. Every character has an objective and something they want to accomplish in a scene and throughout the entire story; if those objectives are not made clear and not fought for by the actor, then he has no purpose to be in the scene or story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alright, I'll reply since you've mentioned me
I didn't say that he was less talented than Non-Method Actors (sorry if I implied that), I said I was impressed with how seriously he takes his roles, and how much effort and work he puts into his performances and preparations. I practice method acting myself, and he is a great inspiration for me, and probably my favorite living actor. I'm fully aware that most he has done was before production began. And it's possible that I'm exaggerating because I'm basing my information on articles with titles like "Actors who did extreme method acting", and they may have a tendency to exaggerate too.
And when I said I wouldn't prefer to be on the same set with him, it was not because I believe he's a diva, but because I would like to speak with the actor when we're not on the set, not the character he's playing. I do believe that he got along with most actors on the set and that he is a wonderful person, but I've just had the impression that he takes his roles so seriously that he doesn't want to do anything that isn't part of the role's characterization, but of course I could be wrong
Again, sorry if I seemed to patronize Mr. Day-Lewis
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ath elas
Now I would argue that you didn't read or analyze the lyrics closely enough. Nor did you take in account his emotions and subtext
The first verse is a reflection around and presentation of the stress, pressure, and nervosity when you're about to perform, and how it makes you lose your concentration and forget your words. This leads to you going back to your bum life and hope that you can get a comeback somehow.
The second verse is about how he's become a star, but it makes him forget his family and who he used to be, and he knows that he always risks becoming a "has-been"
The third verse is about how he got back on his feet after being hated on and receiving backlash, but it also creates a double life where he is on one hand a celebrity and another one a family man. He also reflects on how he is dependent on staying in the game.
The chorus is basically that you have to forget about all pressures and stressing moments and just live in the moment. It also tells you to grab the opportunity and give everything you've got, because you never know if you will get another chance.
I think the biggest reason "Lose Yourself" is so acclaimed is because you rarely expect a rap song like that (one that's relatable and spoken on behalf of the general public, human conditions are discussed, and where true and personal emotions are executed)
I've also performed Eminem a lot on karaoke bars and managed to receive bigger applause than those who perform non-rap music, and I doubt that it's my musical abilities only; most of the other singers are clearly more experienced than me. I think it's more because most people don't expect Hip-Hop to be any good, and they certainly don't expect that someone will perform an Eminem song without butchering it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
xDUBBYx
There are norms and principles of what makes a good movie (of course, how you sense and get moved by the formal qualities are subjective, but the point is that is that they review it based on how the director handle the genre and these formal qualities). You can compare it with film teachers evaluating a movie assignment based on certain criterias. They could easily just give it an A just because they thought it was entertaining or the film student knew that the teachers had a personal bias towards a certain genre and style, but that wouldn't be fair.
The audience however blindly believe that just because they like/dislike a movie based on personal preferences, then the movie is automatically good/bad. Let's say that an audience member personally hates drama films, and even though the movie takes every criteria and formal qualities for drama films to perfection, he still personally hates it. Does that make the movie bad? No
Or on the flip side, an audience member loves drama films, and even though the movie's criterias and formal qualities for drama films are barely passable and are 100 % clichéd and have been seen in multiple movies prior, he would still love it. Does that make the movie good? No
The best reviews are often for movies that the critic has a neutral and distanced relation to, because he would not be biased and instead just look at how the movie is handled based on these norms and traditions
1
-
1
-
Joker boy Zaman
That's cute, kid. Ever listened to Run-D.M.C, Public Enemy, NWA (or Eazy-E and Ice Cube on their own), Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Da Lench Mob, Big L, Jay-Z, Chamillionaire, or even Eminem's best friend Proof?
And really? Justin Bieber, Pitbull, Chris Brown, Nicki Minaj, Usher, and Will.I.Am? They're a disgrace to the Hip-Hop genre! And did you listen to Snoop Dogg while he was under Death Row or afterwards? And what Eminem albums have you listened to?
I've been listening to 70 Hip-Hop albums that spawn from the 80's up to today (and I mean from start to finish), so don't come here and say that I know nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Colleen McDonald
I've seen all three movies you mentioned in the beginning, and I was stunned by "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"; that was unexpected and something I cannot expect many other actors to do as good. I have also enjoyed "The Aviator" and "Wolf of Wall Street", but I was just not overwhelmed by them nor do I remember them that much, even after I rewatched the former just a little while ago. Maybe it's a bit because I expect those performances from Leo and because he looks too much in his comfort zone. If actors like Ben Affleck or Brad Pitt delivered the same performances, then it would have been different since they are generally not as acclaimed. I will watch "The Revenant" as soon as it premieres in my country, and my expectations will be really high.
As for being over the top, I already mentioned that I rarely got his subtext and motivations in his line delivery. If you're an actor and have to exaggerate, then do it in a way that the subext doesn't get lost, but instead that the emotions and subtext get more clear. I've seen it work with actors like Daniel Day-Lewis, Jim Carrey, and Samuel L. Jackson. When I watched Calvin Candie (Leo) however, I saw a man walking around and saying "I'm so evil and sophisticated" and the only image I have of him is him standing with that cigarette holder.
As for his rant needing buildup and how it should be done, I have an example from "A Streetcar Named Desire" where Marlon Brando really does it great:
(We see him smash his fist into the table and throwing his plate on the floor)
(Calmly yet offended) "Now that's how I'm gonna clear this table"
(Slightly louder) "Don't ever talk to me like that"
(Close to yelling) "Pig, polack, disgusting, vulgar, greasy. Those kinds of words have been on your tongue and your sister's tongue just too much around here
(Slightly louder) What do you think you are? A pair of queens?
(Close to how it was in the beginning) Now just remember what Huey Long said - that every man's a king - and I'm the King around here, and don't you forget it (throws dishes on the wall). Now my dishes are done, you want me to clear yours?
(After a while, he gets offended once more)
(Explodes) I'm not a pollack!
(Slightly calmer) People from Poland are poles, they're not pollacks!
(Explodes again) But what I am is a one hundred percent American. I was born and raised in the greatest country on this Earth, and I'm proud of it. And don't you ever call me a pollack!
When it comes to status and being authoritative, every actor in a scene is supposed to be of either low or high status, and I felt that there were many scenes where Candie was supposed to be of high status, but I just didn't feel it. Daniel Day-Lewis did it in "Gangs of New York", "There Will Be Blood , and "Lincoln", Edward Norton did it in "American History X", and Marlon Brando did it in "A Streetcar Named Desire". Even Spencer Tracy had a natural authority in "Boys Town"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Scab Inc
While it doesn’t have that much of a plot in regards of action, it's meant to be an illustration and representation of teenage angst and rebellion during that time period. Some stories can be very interesting just by focusing on human condition and psyche, you know; it doesn't always have to be interesting and intense because of the action
Let's just say that Holden Caulfield is a teenager who shows disdain for people around him because he cannot relate to them, and he feels alienated because he simply cannot live up to the expectations of the society when it comes to things like education, work, and adult life in general. I also think he calls everybody "phonies" because they simply follow the masses and do what the society tells them to instead of being themselves, while the "rye" is a metaphor of childhood innocence and simplicity, and him "catching" the children is a metaphor of him saving them from going over to the adult life.
It may sound like some emo or Peter Pan-like story, but I guess adults and older teenagers often miss the times when the world was simple and innocent, and people didn’t have to worry about the future that much. It's okay if you don't like the story, but I think it's interesting to have a rebellious teenager as a protagonist. I also think it's the formal qualities of the novel and the representation of this teenage angst and rebellion I mentioned earlier that have made the novel so acclaimed
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jglg g
Oh, I don't mind profanity or
sarcasm; they are just fallacies in your argumentation, so all you do is just giving you less credibility, especially because profanity, sarcasm, and internet language don't fit in serious debates. It simply has to do with context, because profanity for example is perfectly fine to me elsewhere. The main problem I have with you however is that you seem to quote someone else instead of using your own words, and you obviously don't understand context.
What's the point of being technically skilled if you can't connect with the average listeners? Rap, just like any other art, is a connection between the artist and the audience, and the reason he became so popular in the first place is because he gave "haters" a new perspective on Hip-Hop.
Of course the younger generation listens to his new music, because 95% of them don't even know the core of Hip-Hop or its origins. When I say to them that Hip-Hop is a culture and a way of life for example, they're like "Huh? Isn't it just music?". Of course they're gonna prefer new Eminem since they don't understand his motivations for his older raps (they also neglect the big Hip-Hop legends for the same reason). It's also an easy exploit to use technicall skills to overshadow the lack of real content, just like you attempt to use big words to make you look smarter than you actually are.
Eminem has gotten much better at his skills, I'm not denying that, but his content and character and nuance have diminished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SheepDudeGaming
I have constantly seen these mistakes on Youtube after just a couple of months:
The "pupil" and "999" things were everywhere in the comments section of "Top 10 school trips gone wrong" video (someone also wrote "it's not 'bin bag', it's 'trash bag'" there) and the whole "Hey, it's not supposed to be "Philosopher's Stone" comment shows up every time the British title is shown on a Youtube video, and I often see someone say "Why did you spell 'hippie' and 'favorite' as 'hippy' and 'favourite'?" if they sre either in the title or are part of the video.
Some things I forgot to add is that in the "Top 10 world's most dangerous animals" video, there was a bunch of people who claimed that insects are not animals, and on the "Top 10 UK actresses" video, there was a lot of people who said "Why are these women named 'Dame'?". I can also bring up the localizations in Japanese anime.
Do you really think I would have randomly listed these comments if I hadn't seen them constantly? If I hadn't, then I wouldn't even be that annoyed in the first place. Sorry mate, but your country isn't always the brightest bulb, and that's become a standard. Not a fact, but a standard. Even your government gets constantly criticized.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nyx Nightmare
"Marathon Man" worked better as a movie in my opinion. Not because the novel is trash (on the contrary, it's wonderful), but because the movie is exactly the same with some very few exceptions (probably because William Goldman wrote the novel and the movie screenplay), so the film simply works better for me because of the aesthetics and because I find thrillers better as movies than novels.
"The Godfather" is a wonderful novel that I loved every page of, but the movie shortened it down in an effective way and didn't leave any imporant parts of. The film also wisely chose to put Vito Corleone's background in the sequel, and they shortened down Johnny Fontaine's story and many of the minor supporting characters. In addition, the baptism murders, Vito Corleone's conversation with Michael, and (SPOILER) Vito's death was handled slightly better in the film.
I haven't read "Leaving Las Vegas" enough to say too much about it, but I thought the film was more clear and focused, and again the aesthetics and especially the music and atmosphere are something you can't find in the novel.
I don't know if "Apocalypse Now" counts as an adaptation, but it's definitely more famed than "Heart of Darkness"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You clearly need to analyze Blanche's character better, as well as Vivien Leigh's performance:
it is about mood swings, being haunted by your own dark past, living a idyllic dream life that destroys you when you discover the bitter truth about it, feeling that your rich and aristocratic life is falling apart, only feeling love from a man through your sexual attraction, and hiding a tender soul behind a beautiful face.
It is really hard to show that soreness and mood swings, and the contrasts between her beautiful, aristocratic personality and her emotional and tender personality. Her performance is meant to be over-the-top and unnatural to highlight those contrasts, and Blanche (the character) is actually acting to hide all the horrible things in her mind and make the world look perfect and carefree, so Vivien Leigh needed to make it look unnatural at the same time of making it look natural
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JW_Gojifan
You don't like dramas? Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's still a bit unusual. The reason they are so highly praised is because they are meant to portray realistic situations that the audiences can relate to and therefore get moved by, or that they can put themselves in the position of the characters. They are also praised because the stories are deep and it's therefore a lot to say about them.
Dramas can show love, death, disfunctional families, addiction, troubles in the daily life, politics, loneliness and isolation, depression, feeling demotivated, and war just to mention some few topics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Loughrie
She is not the only one who runs this channel. Besides, critical consensus, joint verdict, and general opinions are meant to "unite" and gather all evaluations of the different aspects of a movie; some critics may especially praise/complain about the acting, some praise/criticize the story, some praise/criticize the writing etc. In the end, people will find out what was good/bad about the movie as a whole for the average critic or viewer. And finally, having one to make an aesthetic judgement can often lead to reactions like "Ok, so you don't like the movie? Bad for you, then".
If several people praise/criticize a movie for many of the same reasons, it's more probable how it will turn out when you watch it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Heather Taylor
You obviously haven't listened much to rap. I mean, have you even heard about Grandmaster Flash, Sugarhill Gang, LL Cool J, Beastie Boys, Run-D.M.C, Public Enemy, NWA, Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Gang Starr, Rakim, Wu-Tang Clan, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Nas, Big L, or Big Pun?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jim Carrey's performances in "The Truman Show", "Man on the Moon", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" were clearly different from what he's usually doing, and were much more serious and mature, and I can see a big difference between his comedic roles as well.
Jack Nicholson has also had a very versatile career with many challenging roles: "Five Easy Pieces", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "The Shining", "Batman", "A Few Good Men", "As Good As It Gets", and "The Departed" just to name a few. It's no wonder he's been nominated for 12 Oscars.
Tom Hanks is probably one of the greatest actors who are still alive and active, with amazing performances in movies like "Philadelphia", "Forrest Gump", "Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile", "Cast Away", and recently "Captain Phillips"
And with Johnny Depp, you can just search "They said I could be anything I want, SO I DID" on Google.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mad Dog
What I’m trying to say is that there are so many children today who claim to be Eminem fans, but the only songs they know are from his “Relapse” album onwards, so calling them “fans” is not really accurate. Look at all of them who suggest “Rap God”; it’s pure cancer to read! It’s also weird to me that many of them think Eminem started out in 2009 just because VEVO uploaded his mainstream songs on Youtube that year. It also seems to me that the fans’ criteria is “the faster and incomprehensible the better”. I call bullshit on that; any rapper can rap at that speed Eminem does in “Rap God” if they know the basic. I will instead argue that rapping at a slower speed, but still having great energy and flow, is a lot more challenging. That’s why I look up to rap legends like Biggie Smalls (I have been listening to all of his studio albums btw, and I have listened to 2pac’s “Me Against the World” and “All Eyez on Me”, and N.W.A.’s “Straight Outta Compton”).
I will admit that “Headlights” is probably one of his best raps in his new era, and that “Not Afraid”, “No Love”, “Love the Way You Lie”, and “The Monster” are decent, but they just can’t stand out from the rest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christian Bratti
I don't, and neither do all the real Eminem fans. Do you even listen to other rappers at all? Wu-Tang Clan, Da Lench Mob, Run-D.M.C, Public Enemy, NWA, Nas, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Slick Rick, Proof?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PhantømWøłf
Oh look, it’s the pseudo-fan’s rescuer who writes multiple comments and all capitals to look more aggressive. Let’s see the flaws in your replies, shall we?:
- “Who Said I Loved It?”. You’re clearly supporting this pseudo-fan and disagreeing with me
- “There Are Also Tons Of People Who Like It”. Tons of pseudo-fans, yes.
- “You're Also A Pseudo-Fan For Thinking "Real Eminem Fans" Only Listen To His Old Songs”. No, pseudo-fans are those who don’t care about his struggles (which are reflected in his older raps), don’t understand what Hip-Hop is about, and don’t have a critical sense.
- “That's Why He Said Etc Dumbass”. He didn’t bring up any of his raps from “Infinite” or “Slim Shady LP”, so it’s clear that he either doesn’t care about or hasn’t listened to them.
- “Real Fans Have Different Opinions Not All Real Fans Have The Same Opinion. You're Just An Angry Slim Dick Rider”. Again, there’s a difference between liking/disliking something out of personal reasons and doing a critical analysis of something, and the real fans may have different opinion on his raps between 1996 and 2004, but they all agree that his newer raps pale in comparison. The only new rap I can think of that is anything close to his older ones is "Headlights", and I personally can't stand "Superman", "FACK", "Ass like That", and "Kill You" despite them being older raps.
- “Also The Fact That He's Your Favorite Rappers (Pretty Mainstream) And Not The Old Or Newer Ones (Like Logic) Makes You Kinda A Hypocrite”. Once again, I only see him as a favorite and not as the best rapper. He’s also my favorite more for sentimental reasons nowadays such as that I grew up with him, he made me more confident around teenagers when I was young, I relate to a lot of his lyrics, and because I perform his music at the pubs in the city where I live at least twice a week. If I’m gonna mention my favorite rappers based on music alone, I’d mention 2pac, Biggie, Ice Cube, Chamillionaire, and Jay-Z. I also consider them to be better rappers on a technical level.
- “You're Also Judging Newer Rappers Just Cause Em Is You're Favorite”. No, even the most hardcore Hip-Hop fans agree that the best period was the late 80’s and throughout the 90’s, and they sometimes hate on Eminem too. And despite him being my favorite, I still can’t put him in the same ball park as Biggie, Pac, Nas, and Jay-Z, and there were also huge legends like Run-D.M.C., Public Enemy, NWA, Gang Starr, A Tribe Called Quest, and Wu-Tang Clan.
You've got balls for trying to challenge me, but you're gonna need to try harder
1
-
1
-
Christian Bratti
Oh, don't you dare. I have listened to over 80 Hip-Hop albums from start to finish spawning from the 80’s up to today. Rappers I have listened to include NWA, Run-D.M.C, Wu-Tang Clan, Da Lench Mob, 2pac. Biggie, Nas, Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, Public Enemy, Slick Rick, Proof, Nas and Chamillionaire. Rappers I haven't listened to yet include Immortal Technique, Aesop Rock, Ghostface Killah, Beastie Boys, and DOC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
booty call911
For the last time, this is top 10 BEST Eminem songs, not some random person’s top 10 FAVORITE Eminem songs. If that was the case, I wouldn’t care. Claiming that “Rap God” is among his top 10 best raps however is like claiming that Marvel movies are in the same league as “The Godfather”.
That’s the thing people nowadays don’t get. They think art criticism is to only base the judgment on bias, nostalgia, sentimentality, or personal reasons, and to speak on behalf of yourself. If that was the case, every single rap album by any rapper or Hip-Hop group probably wouldn’t get a higher rating than 2.5 stars out of 5 or a D tops, and rap would have died out as soon as NWA and Public Enemy showed up. What art criticism is actually about is to analyze the formal qualities (in the case of rap, it’s flow, lyrics, rhythm, and production value) and see how it matches the normative standard for that specific type of art (that standard is unwritten, but is based on what seems to be satisfactory for the average audience).
And do you really think I will sit here and smile while a bunch of self-claimed fans neglect the raps where he actually put some effort into it and actually has deep and insightful lyrics, flow, creative rhythm, and production value? Not to mention that they neglect all the things he has gone through.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hayley Rodgers Yes, don't get me wrong. I love drama films, but I just thought it could have been more nuanced or had built up a little, because there are different kinds of drama (emotional, depressing, intense etc.) Or maybe I was just tired; I have so many projects going on that I can't relax properly
Some of my favorite drama films include "Casablanca", "A Streetcar Named Desire", "On the Waterfront", "Last Tango in Paris", "Rocky", "Saturday Night Fever", "Raging Bull", "Schindler's List", "Leaving Las Vegas", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ", and "Whiplash"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
“Ain’t you the nicest person I’ve ever met”. Have you seen yourself? Being disrespectful by saying “Good riddance” (see, that's how it's spelt) when several rappers who died actually lived a good life and believed in rap as entertainment rather than violence.
I’m as nice as the people responding. If you had just said “I don’t really like rap” or “I don’t understand why rappers get so much respect, but that’s my opinion”, I would have been a lot nicer. But no, you had to act disrespectful and prejudiced. And you must be really easily-offended if a simple “Shut up” makes you say “As if, douchebag”.
I find your generalization and criticism based on what only a select few of rappers have done and rapped out to be laughable as well. What’s next? You’re going to hate on every German just because of the Nazi party? Or hate on every rock artist because a handful of them have taken drugs and expressed hate against religion? And you will be surprised by the fact that there’s something called “acting”; several rappers create alter-egos as gimmicks or write about violence just to please the fans or record producers, and other raps are written for motion pictures, so blame the fans. Heck, even I sometimes act in my comments and say stuff I don’t really mean just because the other person is asking for it. And you will also get surprised by the fact that several rappers have grown up in poverty and tried to act tough and cool because the ghetto is often a “kill or get killed” place.
Some rappers may talk about drugs and whores and violence, but there are always major exceptions. Have you listened to “Changes”, “Ghetto Gospel”, “Dear mama”, “Suicidal thoughts”, “I’ll be missing you”, “The Way I Am”, “Lose Yourself”, “Mockingbird”, “Like Toy Soldiers”, “Mosh”, “When I’m gone”, or “Headlights?”? No, I didn’t think so, and have fun googling them. Mind you that I have been performing rap at bars for over six months as a way of letting loose, and I have several times heard from bartenders and patrons “Yes, we need rap tonight, or else it will be just a bunch of ABBA songs”.
And for your information, “Mama” and “Ma” often mean an attractive woman or a woman you respect because of her authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
I'm not into moralism; the stupid belief that just because someone does horrible things or their works have inappropriate content, then they lose their aesthetic values. This belief affected authors in the 19th century (as well as in the post-WWII years with Knut Hamsun), it affected filmmakers in the first half of the 20th century, and it affects musicians nowadays
Many rappers are violent and immoral and I won't deny it, but like I said, there are exceptions, and when it comes to aesthetic values in rap like flow, rhyme, and emotions, the most famed ones deliver, especially Eminem
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anubis-xk4ht
The concept of an icon is shallow and commercial anyway. Again, this is most iconic and not "best"
Icon: "a very famous person or thing that is used by society to represent a set of beliefs or a way of life"
Whether Joker is considered the BEST villain or not is up to debate, but he's definitely one of the most iconic villains of all time; everyone knows who he is, everybody thinks "comic book villain" or "Batman" when they hear that name, everyone knows the design, and everybody knows at least one quote or is familiar with his voice, and he's appeared in multiple magazines and top lists.
If anything, an icon is comparable to a brand like Coca Cola. I don't think Harry Potter, Mickey Mouse, or Bugs Bunny are fleshed-out at all, but they're definitely iconic and represent major parts of pop culture
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikeshsapkota8904
Qualitatively, Joaquin Phoenix has in this decade taken on roles that requires an advanced control of a complex set of emotions, gestures, and postures. Leonardo DiCaprio has been more prominent, but most of the roles he has taken on requires minimum efforts for Hollywood actors’ standards; it’s most of the time him just using his basic acting abilities, and the only distinctive thing about him is him yelling every single line. His emotive range is limited, and he never really challenges himself; he mostly just plays a businessman and/or upper-class man who relies on his charisma, and once again yelling as if that’s meant to equal intense acting. Can you really make a distinction between Leo’s performances in “Wolf of Wall Street”, “The Great Gatsby”, and “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” from his performances in “Titanic”, “Catch Me If You Can”, “Gangs of New York”, “The Departed”, and “The Aviator”? Even in “Blood Diamond” he’s only the package, so “unwrap” it and remove the accent and you see the same old Leo doing his usual things. Unlike actors like Jack Nicholson, Samuel Jackson, and Morgan Freeman, Leo’s personal branding doesn’t translate well to a wide range of characters, and a lot of this has to do with him lacking the necessary masculine aura; he looks too feminine and like he’s more fitting for a photoshoot rather than actually playing a real human being. He’s never grown from the archetype he played in “Titanic” since he’s always looked too young for his age. This problem carries over to “Django Unchained” where he looks more like a spoiled man-child rather than an intimidating authority. Actors like J.K. Simmons, The Rock, Clint Eastwood, Samuel Jackson, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, and Michael Madsen would own him in a wrestling match or an argument, and some of them have already done that. Leonardo DiCaprio is hands down the most overrated actor of his generation, and I’m willing to bet that if nobody knew who he was and saw his performances for the first time, they wouldn’t be very impressed.
Joaquin Phoenix’ performance in “Joker” alone is more impressive than anything Leo has ever done; playing a character with a mental illness is hard enough on its own, but doing a convincing laugh is one of the most difficult things to emote along with drunkenness and crying, and it’s made even more difficult when he has to force it in a non-comedic situation and has to make it look like pseudobulbar affect rather than “I’m laughing because I’m Joker”. Then there’s the aspect that a lot of the film is done through close-ups where the audience can see every potential shortcoming, so Phoenix managing to not ruin the illusion is very impressive. Just in one scene alone he displayed anger, insanity, despair, spitefulness, and vengeance in rapid succession through tableaus, gestures, and facial expressions alone, which is accomplished through a meticulous control of facial muscles, expressivity, and spontaneity. Finally, there’s a meta-aspect where Phoenix has to act like a man losing his sanity and taking on an alter-ego that’s on one hand clearly distinct from his original self, but still grounded enough to feel like an ordinary human rather than a comic book character. That’s way more impressive than Leo in “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” who practically repeated his own performance in “Gangs of New York” whenever his character was himself, and “Django Unchained” whenever his character played a villain, and none of those performances were very impressive either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Nathaniel Padilla
Ice Cube is nothing special compared to legendary rappers like Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Kool G Rap, Guru, Chuck D, Pharoahe Monch, Nas, Ghostface Killah, 2pac, Big Pun, Black Thought, Biggie, and Big L
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anshulmadavi8854
1. Lee Strasberg is the one who coined the term "method acting" and developed it based on Stanislavskij's theories, and this happened when your precious Kumar (fortunately dead) was just a toddler, and guess what? There was a collective in the US called "The Group Theatre" in the 30's dedicated to new acting merhods, and Strasberg was one of the most prominent members there.
2. No, I haven't heard about the actor you mentioned, because guess what? He's irrelevant to any major filmgoer who isn't from India. And if your Indian movies are so famous and amazing, why aren't any of the highest-grossing movies from India, and why have no Indian movie apart from "Slumdog Millionaire" been a favorite at the Oscars? It's easy for you nationalists to praise Indian movies, but if we're looking at the bigger picture, then India is just an ant compared to the US and Europe. I'm not even from the US, so I notice which movies get highlighted and not.
It's a good thing that India is a developing country and has so many nationalists, because then I can smile and celebrate every time someone dies there. They also deserve it when they're responsible for the Delta-variant
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anshulmadavi8854
The opposite of "small" is "big" or "great", and thus "smaller" is the opposite of "greater", so you think Indian cinema is greater (superior to) than Hollywood. And of course you're a Hollywood hater; you haven't spoken anything favorable about it and instead have tried to make the point that Hollywood is for people who don't know anything about world cinema, while one-sidedly praising Indian cinema.
You were intentionally travelling to other countries and spreading the virus as a result. Also, HIV originated in Congo and were found on chimps, so that's their fault.
No, I'm not saying Indians are on par with Hitler and Stalin; I'm just saying that it's possible to be happy about someone's death, and that whether it's toxic or not depends on ethics and morals.
And no, I'm not from England. However, them gaining power because of your country's resources just proves how powerful the UK is and how weak and inferior the latter are, and conquering a land has been common practice since Ancient Times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+roasted garlic
Writing in numbers doesn't give you any credibility here, and it actually makes you the kid in this discussion.
Do you know anything about rap at all, kid? Do you know anything about alliterations, punch-ins/outs, polyrhythmic patterns, metres, bass, or internal and multisyllabic rhyme schemes?
Have you even heard about Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Chuck D, Rakim, Guru, Pharoahe Monch, Slick Rick, GZA, Ghostface Killah, Big L, Black Thought, or Big Pun? No, I didn't think so.
Pseudo-fans like you are the main reason why Hip-Hop is declining; you have no taste!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariofloresrivera9920
Yes, you're biased against Seiko; you don't even TRY to look at the aesthetic qualities, and you apply aesthetic displeasure to aspects that for some reason don't apply to MVMT.
Timex has actual quality compared to MVMT in addition to actually having history and heritage. If I find two different pairs of leather boots that both cost $125, and there's a considerable gap in quality between them, of course I'm going to say that one of them is overpriced. Same applies to Timex vs. MVMT; the latter is Chinese junk with no quality, history, or heritage to speak of, while the former actually has all of those qualities, so there's no real comparison. MVMT also gets all the hate because you can't go anywhere without seeing an ad for that junk that consistently lies to and manipulates consumers and exploit their lack of knowledge, when it's in fact fully possible to find their equivalence on Alibaba and WISH and find actual timepieces with way better quality, similar design, and real history and heritage in addition to being associated with people who actually have some real personal branding. The only personal branding Jake has is being manipulative con artist who knows anything about watchmaking, but definitely knows how to swindle the consumers. I can't wait until the brand becomes forgotten just like The 5TH
I ignored your Snoopy Timex because it's a different model, so it's a false equivalence.
Also, scams, false advertising, manipulation, and exploitation is doing something wrong, and several watch experts have actually analyzed MVMT watches right alongside their basis from Alibaba, and it definitely doesn't match the advertising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thatmeee11
This isn't about what you can do in theory, but how it is psychologically. When there's so much build-up to the next season, most people will have their minds set on that season and probably not look back at previous seasons right away. However, when the season over, you might feel more motivated to go back to previous seasons since you have to wait for a long time anyway (or, if you're like me, you move on to other things until we're getting closer). Since we have to wait for a while now for the next part, we will get more and more pumped up since we're starting to become impatient, and thus the launch will feel way more rewarding regardless of quality
To give a different example, there were several shows from my childhood where it was 1 new episode per week (per day if it was re-runs), and I was always excited for that. Binging those shows as an adult didn't feel near as epic and exciting, and that's not only because I've grown older
Or to give an even different example, attending a big party every day for a week isn't nearly as exciting as one big party per week
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scinnyc
Manchildren wearing tights and pretending to save the world? How is that supposed to be taken seriously or be viewed as realism? Sounds more like schizophrenia to me. The best thing about "Birdman" and "Joker" is that they actually acknowledge how ridiculous and psychotic it is
"Art is subjective"
You do know what "subjective" means, right? It just means that it requires an actual subject (as in, you who experience something) to use your senses and experiences to judge an object. Even science is subjective despite having truth values
"But his genre of film"
What genre? He's made romantic dramas, black comedies, historical dramas, sports drama, satire, psychological thrillers, crime films, religious dramas, adventure movies, and everything in-between.
1
-
@scinnyc
Yes, religion is schizophrenic
"Facts can't be subjective. It either is or it's not"
Wow, another one who doesn't know the actual difference between "subjective" and "objective". These statements are objective facts:
- All bachelors are unmarried
- All circles are round
- Two plus two equals four
Why are these statements objective? Because they're independent of experience and are instead fundamental. Science on the other hand requires you, the SUBJECT, to make observations and determine whether something is right or not, and there are always possibilities for disconfirming observations and changes. Take the Corona virus for example. Doctors and scientists (in other words, various subjects) claimed at first that the virus had these and these qualities, but when they studied it further, there were new observations that disproved their initial observations and hypotheses.
If you didn't read those dumb comic books and instead took some real education, then you might have known this difference.
"Yeah, most of those genres don't personally interest me"
Well, so much for your taste in movies being diverse. What genres are left when you take those away?
"Why do you even care so much what I think anyway"
Because it's fun to see someone writing posts where they try to act as if what they're saying is common knowledge, but miserably fails with their argumentation. It's even more fun to see someone not understanding what "subjective" actually means
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"that's like saying Canadians are the same as American Citizens". Not, it isn't; that's a false equivalence. (Oh wait, you don't know what that means, so I will explain; you compare two things that aren't comparable or similar). North-America is a continent, Great Britain is a geographical island that consists of Scotland, England, and Wales, and they're united into the sovereign state of United Kingdom. (so no, Great Britain and United Kingdom are not the same).
"since 90% of Europe was part of the 3rd Reich you can say they're all a bunch of Nazis... that's ur point???". Again with the false equivalence! The Nazis belonged to a political party that controlled a huge amount of countries, so none of them geographically belonged to Germany, and not every German was a Nazi either.
Seriously! When are you going to actually give me a real argument!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+YanSimCoolMods
The comment disappeared, so I guess I have to reply to you here:
It's always enjoyable to see that so many people think that ad-hominen and slang will give someone credibility and points in a discussion, and also that they immediately assume that I have only heard about 2pac and Biggie.
For your information, I have listened to over 120 Hip-Hop albums from start to finish, and these albums spawn from the 80's up to today, and the artists/groups include Grandmaster Flash, Beastie Boys, Run-D.M.C, Gang Starr, Slick Rick, Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Rakim, NWA, Public Enemy, Wu-Tang Clan (as well as GZA, Raekwon, and Ghostface Killah on their own), Big Pun, Black Thought, and Big L in addition of Nas, 2pac, Biggie, and Eminem.
Yes, I have actually listened to the albums "Tha Carter II" and "Tha Carter III" that everyone (including me in the past) seems to bring up to defend Lil' Wayne, and I realize now in retrospective that the sole reason they are somewhat worth listening to is because of their production, but that certainly doesn't mean that Lil' Wayne carries the albums or that his rapping performance and lyricism are top 10 material. I mean, remove the production values of those albums or put Lil' Wayne in a duet with a rapper such as Eminem, and you will realize that he's very mediocre.
And no, I don't put the ranking like "1. 2pac. 2. Biggie. 3. Eminem" like everybody else. I think that 2pac may be a strong candidate, but I also consider rappers like Ghostface Killah, Big Pun, Chuck D, Kool G Rap, Big Daddy Kane, Guru, Slick Rick, and GZA to be way stronger candidates than both Biggie and Eminem
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+cardtrix 8
"Who doesn't like Rap God?". Real Eminem fans who didn't discover him first in 2013, and have a critical sense and are able to sense formal qualities such as alliterations, punch-ins/outs, polyrhythmic patterns, narrative, and wordplay.
Anyone who likes Rap God also know nothing about rap in general either. Have you even heard about Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Slick Rick, Chuck D, Kool G Rap, Guru, Pharoahe Monch, GZA, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, Black Thought, Big L, or Big Pun?
1
-
How can you have heard about all those rappers and still think that “Rap God” is any good? (and why the hell is it number one?!). After listening to 2-3 albums from the rappers I mentioned, I began to laugh at how awful Rap God is, and the same goes for how awful the entire “Marshall Mathers LP 2”, “Relapse”, and “Recovery” are. It seems to me that you know those rappers, but you don’t really care about them.
Rap God may be one rap, but it single-handedly made all kids born after 2000 having no clue what rap is all about; the only argument I have gotten from them for why it’s good is its speed, and that makes me sick to my stomach! Rap God has no depth, no narrative, no message, no emotions, no nothing! It’s just hypersonic narcissistic techno nonsense. And it’s not just that one rap they dickride; “The Monster”, “Love the Way You Lie”, “Berzerk”, “Not Afraid”, “Cold Wind Blows”, and “Spacebound” are also up there, and they all sound like Eminem being an emo or a shadow of his Slim Shady persona, and their flow are almost indistinguishable. “Mockingbird” may get some points for sentimentality and narrative, but other than that, it’s got nothing going for it in terms of beats, rhymes, and flow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephsunny
I don't look at the runtime because I'm bored, but because I'm a busy man, and I often need to know how long things take so that it doesn't clash with my other appointments (case in point, I had a meeting only 30 minutes after I finished watching season 5 on its premiere, and I had work 3 hours after I watched season 6 part 2 on its premiere)
Also, what more do you need that isn't plain filler? We've already had the set-up with part 1, the heroes are now at their lowest points after part 2, it's way too late to introduce new plot points anyway, and if we're gonna use the hypothetical of the first 4 episodes being 35 minutes long (though 38 minutes is more accurate even when excluding credits) and the final episode 45 minutes, that's 185 minutes for "The point of return", climax, and conclusion. To put this into perspective, the 3rd act for season 4 and 5 (dramaturgically speaking) were roughly 2 hours. Heck, even when excluding part 3, season 6 is still the longest season
As for the whining about having to wait a couple of months for each part, you clearly have no experience with shows where you had to wait for a day or even a week for ONE episode with only 20 minutes per episode, and with no opportunity to find them online since streaming was basically non-existent. I actually liked it since it kept me waiting in anticipation for each new episode, so that it actually felt like the show was with me for a long time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Michael Angelus
I always find it amusing that somebody thinks that random insults out of thin air automatically makes the person sound threatening and clever. Thanks for your contribution, but your diss track doesn't hold up to 2pac, so I'll have to reject it. But let's have some fun with it:
- "I am a composer of music dramas". And I'm the son of the Saudi-Arabian king
- 'I know an excellent opposition from garbage". Care to elaborate? I thought intelligent people were educated enough to argue for their statements.
- "I suppose you are a transgender negro". No, I'm as white as they can be, and I don't remember taking any operations.
- "After all, who's to say what love is right". Clever, but not quite the same level as Kant and Plato.
- "Nobody has the right to pass judgment on you because you are a free spirit with an open mind". Yes, I am. Looks like something smart came from you.
- "Hail Satan, fag boy". Nah, religion is not something for me, and I don't like men touching me that much. Women however; good to go!
Thanks for your comment! I've had a long and stressful day today, and I needed a good laugh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christian Bale, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Macaulay Culkin, Drew Barrymore, Natalie Portman, Mickey Rooney, and I guess actors like Edward Norton, John Travolta, Nicolas Cage, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Richard Dreyfuss, and Adrien Brody if the limit is 30 and younger
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Faze Shadow
So what? If we're talking actual rapping skills, then he's an amateur compared to legends like Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Kool G Rap, Chuck D, Ghostface Killah, GZA, 2pac, Biggie, Nas, Black Thought, Big Pun, and Big L
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+troywin45
Oh, I don't know, maybe:
- Marlon Brando revolutionizing modern film acting in terms of viewpoints, gestures, establishment of character and space, reacting rather than acting, and basing his motivations in the moment and the impulses he's given rather than leaning on contemporary conventions.
- A deep and complex story of a former Southern Belle (Blanche) suffering from bipolar disorder who lives in an ideal, perfect, and aesthetic "fantasy world" where she virtually plays a character in order to shove away her inner conflicts, and also always is escaping her past and running away from her problems, but gets overwhelmed and broken by the harsh reality represented by Stanley Kowalski and modernity. Vivien Leigh had to act like she was acting on top of making the bipolar disorder look convincing. Not to mention that she was playing a fading Southern Belle.
- A woman (Stella) being abused and mistreated by her husband (whom lives after the Napoleonic Code from the 40's) and tries to stand up for herself, but gets manipulated by Stanley due to his sexual charm and false sympathy and apologies.
- A man (Mitch) having a dying mother and is determined to make her last wish of him settling down come true, and also is the only man in town that Blanche considers a true gentleman, but her inner conflicts once again gets the better of her and Mitch is also a social outsider.
- The symbolic images of the Kowalski apartment getting more and more snug to represent Blanche's mental breakdown, the summer temperature symbolizing strong passions and conflicts, and a metaphorical streetcar literally taking her to a place full of desire, lust, manipulation, betrayal, and mental illness.
- Stanley feeling challenged because he has always been the "king" of the household, a man in a male-oriented world, and someone who has always been able to keep Stella in check due to his role in society and sexual exterior, but now feels patronized because Blanche obviously grew up in richer environments than him and indirectly says that Stella is not the right woman for him even though he claims that women are just a trophy for him.
- Alex North' jazz score and the film's cinematography
- Elia Kazan's work with the actors and ability to handle such an ambitious project.
1
-
+troywin45
That's your response to me?! Well, isn't that typical? Somebody tries to discredit Tennessee Williams, Elia Kazan, Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando, and me, but then comes with bullshit argumentation. Are you trying to be funny with me?
You're just like an old man in the city where I live who tried to discredit Robert Wilson, but then turned out to know nothing about Avante-Garde theatre on top of being shit at argumentation. The critics in a student newspaper were also horrible at art criticism, and both the editor-in-chief and cultural editor couldn't debate properly with me at all!
Based on the "arguments" I've been given, I don't think it's the film that's overrated, but that you're just a bad audience member who can't grasp the formal qualities. But I won't leave you alone until you give me a real response
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, yeah, stop lying to me. Anyone can write on YouTube that they have done this and this and that they're family is successful, but very few of them can actually prove it. Plus that I stopped taking you seriously after seeing your profile picture; who the hell wears a DC t-shirt nowadays and shows it off? Combined with your shirt not looking good for your skin tone, you only look like a dorky teenager (and yes, appearance sends out messages and gives out first impressions. Doesn't mean that the person watching is gay)
Also, in statistics, there is always a benefit to not include too many people since they're irrelevant and draw a false picture. In this case, irrelevant people include beggars, teenagers (and younger people), terrorists, and muslims.
1
-
+Pichele
Teenagers automatically lose their credibility around me since they're underdeveloped, rude, loud, and annoying, and take too much space, and your style just adds insult to injury. So as a whole, I can't take you seriously. You only make laugh! I also find it hard to believe that you're telling me the truth when you look like a dorky kid with no class whatsoever. How the hell don't classy people find you misplaced in their environments?
This is how a man with some class and style is supposed to look like: https://www.pinterest.com/amp/alexcostapinterest/alex-costa/
So no, you don't know much about alcohol and think it tastes like shit because:
A: you're too young
B: you're not developed enough and obviously don't have well-developed taste
C: you don't have enough class, style, or sophistication to appreciate alcohol.
The only way you could prove that you've got everything you claim is if you met me in person, but that's not going to happen any time soon!
1
-
1
-
You actually went to Dolce and Gabbana to buy those ugly glasses? What a rip-off! Anyone who knows anything about style knows that the branding doesn't automatically make the person look sharp, classy, and generally stylish. The only message you sent to me was that you're irresponsible with your money and now try way too hard to look rich and powerful even though you from an aesthetic point of view still look dorky. Plus that glasses is an accessory, so their "high-end" is definitely not worth the money.
And yes, I insulted your mother since she didn't look good at all and didn't do you any favors in highlighting the image you're so desperately trying to send out to me. And why would you even show me pictures of your mother? I know you're 17, but come on! You don't want to look like a little kid either who spends all his time with his mother.
As for your "improved" picture, there are tons of problems with that one as well:
- Backpacks are generally childish and immature, and bright green isn't a good color for anything
- Your aviators look tacky and are way too big for your face
- No facial hair automatically makes you look childish and less masculine
- Your hair has no character, and it looks like you're using the wrong product as well
- Your face as a whole is nothing compared to David Beckham, Leonardo DiCaprio, Alex Costa, Jose Zuniga (Teachingmensfashion), or Brad Pitt, and your jawline looks weak
- Your shirt is too big, and the pattern and color looks like the stuff I wore when I was 12
- Your posture is average and generic and doesn't look like any of those a tough or classy man would have
And btw, way to contradict yourself that you have nothing to prove; you're now desperately trying to prove that you actually have style and class.
1
-
1
-
No, people who fit that description are not worth my time. You're absolutely correct, and I rarely come across those people too, and now you know why; they either make me laugh or cringe.
Nah, I don't see myself the king of good-looking stylish people; I'm still trying to live up to Alex Costa, but that's why he's one of my role models.
Old? Nah, I'm 23, but I sometimes feel like an old man compared to teenagers.
Lonely and no friends? Nah, most of my family are still alive and I met them last week and will meet them the upcoming Saturday, and I have a lot of friends and colleagues in the local theatre environment.
I also have never felt the need to insult someone else's mother until now, because everyone I have come across has actually been very beautiful. Your mother was the first one I have ever seen who was not attractive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Cisum Music
Hahahaha, you made me laugh there. Have you never listened to Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Guru, Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, Pharoahe Monch, Chuck D, GZA, Ghostface Killah, Raekwon, 2pac, Biggie, Nas, Big L, Black Thought, or Big Pun?
1
-
+Cisum Music
"Super Lyrical" alone displays more lyrical capabilities, as well as advanced flow, metres, and bars, than any song I've heard from Eminem, and "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx" makes any Eminem album sound amateurish even if they're produced by Dre.
And since you didn't mention them, Ghostface Killah is the James Joyce of lyricism and has bars and flow that compliment it as well, while Kool G Rap (as well as Rakim and Guru) practically made the blueprint and laid the foundation for several modern rappers such as Nas, Biggie, Jay-Z, 50 Cent, and also Eminem.
As for Chuck D, I was mindblown at how we was able to make the rhymes he did; you virtually need to be from New York in order to make it work, and the same goes for his flow and metres. Not to mention that the production on Public Enemy's raps is artful; the vocal mixings and the rhythm are perfectly timed, and Chuck D's rapping makes it even better.
And if you want creativity, humor, and storytelling, then Slick Rick is the right guy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Paul Wojtko
So popularity is the only thing that matters to you, is that it? So by your logic, Michael Bay and James Cameron are some of the greatest directors of all time, "Avatar" is THE best movie of all time, and all the low-cultured and over-the-top Marvel movies are coming close? Also, quality over quantity, but I guess aesthetic judgment isn't your thing if you even know what that means (which I doubt).
Also also, in my country, "Hip-Hop Police" was actually more popular than "Ridin", and the only reason people dickride the latter is because of a meme.
And finally, you obviously haven't listened to Ghostface Killah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Rayin Ahsan
You mentioned Dr. Dre! That's already a sign that you know nothing! Sure he's a God at producing, but he's an awful *rapper*! Similarly, Tarantino is an amazing director/screenwriter, but he's no actor!
You seriously mention Eazy-E? A rapper who didn't write half of his lyrics and had amateurish formal qualities into his actual performances? Seriously, critics agree that he was never technically gifted, but fit well in the context of NWA's raps (in which he got a lot of help from Ice Cube, MC Ren, and Dr. Dre).
And then we have Ice Cube whom has the same subtext in 90% of his raps; "I'm a badass motherfucker!" and "Fuck society!". The only raps from him that I have ever cared about are "No Vaseline", "It Was A Good Day", "What Can I Do?", and "X-Bitches", that's it!
And seriously? Have you never listened to rappers like Grandmaster Flash, Big Daddy Kane, Guru, Slick Rick, Chuck D, the members of Wu-Tang Clan, Kool G Rap, Pharoahe Monch, Black Thought, Big L, or Big Pun?
1
-
+Rayin Ahsan
First of all, I haven't even listened to Drake since everybody hates him and I want to focus on the legends.
Second of all, Dr. Dre's music is great, but why is that? Because they're amazingly PRODUCED! They're certainly not great because of Dr. Dre's rapping abilities. That's the confusion I see with so many people who are either new to Hip-Hop or simply have no clue; they listen to a great track by Dr. Dre, Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, or Kanye West for example, and then they automatically think they are amazing rappers just because they're featured on said track, but they don't realize that without the production taken into account, then the rappers often have not much going for them. When it comes to aspects to the actual rapping part (or even lyricism) such as flow, punch-ins/outs, bars, and internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes, Dr. Dre is nothing special.
And btw, the members of Wu-Tang Clan have released a bunch of solo albums, you know. "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx" by Raekwon is almost just as good as "Enter the Wu-Tang Clan", and Ghostface Killah has amazing rapping skills just on his own
1
-
+Rayin Ahsan
Then you're definitely not a competent music critic if you're so poor at sensing and evaluating the formal qualities in an aesthetic object.
Dr. Dre sounds like an overgrown 12 year old trying way too hard to act cool, and his flow sounds more like a bumpy road than a flowing river unlike 2pac, Rakim, Biggie, Big Pun, Black Thought, Eminem, Big L, or pretty much any competent rapper. Other times he sounds more like he's speaking in a rhythm rather than actual rapping, and there are a handful of raps with him and the rest of NWA where he sounds like he's trying to imitate Big Daddy Kane.
And if we're talking lyricism and their formal qualities such as alliterations, wordplay, metaphors, stream-of-consciousness, and internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes, then he can't hold a candle to Kool G Rap, GZA, Ghostface Killah, Nas, 2pac, Pharoahe Monch, Big L, and especially Big Pun. Even if we're talking about content, then Slick Rick, Eminem, and definitely 2pac are way better options.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheSharkLord
It's only the most success movie of all time because of a pragmatic and low-cultured perception the modern audience has about art, and there isn't much Avatar provides that mediocre movies like Michael Bay's flicks and 90% of every superhero film also provide.
If I want to see something artistic, I will rather watch "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Birdman", "Apocalypse Now", "The Godfather", "Fight Club", "Gravity", "Last Tango in Paris", "Citizen Kane", or any movie by Ingmar Bergman
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashoikiesaunders721
Yes, the adversary of the protagonist. And what kind of person was the protagonist Henry Hill? He was someone who said he always wanted to be a gangster, who let gangsters beat up postmen, who pointed guns towards the temple of wounded people, who laughed at Tommy's sadistic stories, who got arrested, and who was selling drugs. Tommy really isn't opposed to that since he's a violent psychopath from the same Mafia family. Henry becoming an informant for the FBI is on one hand not really different from an antagonist reforming, but since Henry is the point-of-view character and he's obviously amoral and part of a universe that glorifies violence, drugs, and prostitution, then it's more comparable to someone joining the bad guys since the police are the antagonists to the Mafia.
Of course I know that "GoodFellas" is meant to be ironic; they're all violent criminals, but from their perspective and the angle the film has chosen, they're the good guys, so it's ironic because their definition of "goodness" is the opposite of the general definition, and their views of the word only appear when looking at the twisted world they're part of.
Bringing up the real-life Tommy DeSimone is irrelevant since it all depends on what angle the film chooses. Hitler is the protagonist of "Der Untergang" because of the angle the film is shown from even though Hitler is more commonly portrayed as the antagonist in media where the protagonist represents the opposition to the Nazi party
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+YanSimCoolMods
No, I was actually a person who initially defended him after listening to "Tha Carter II" and "Tha Carter III", but then I listened to them again with a more critical and analytic ear, and I realized that they were only good because if their production and not because of Weezy's performance; you're not gonna find any overwhelming flow or lyricism in them, and Weezy can't compare to Big Daddy Kane, Pharoahe Monch, Rakim, Chuck D, Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, Guru, Ghostface Killah, GZA, Big Pun, Raekwon, Big L, or Black Thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Andrewbiggs Mims
This is not about popularity! That's just the low-cultured and ignorant perception of Hip-Hop, and giving into the mainstream is called SELLING-OUT!
Do you know anything about rap at all? Do you know anything about polyrhythmic patterns, alliterations, bass, or internal and multisyllabic rhymes? Have you even heard about Grandmaster Flash, LL Cool J, Sugarhill Gang, Run-DMC, Beastie Boys, or Ice-T. No, you haven't. You're just another low-cultured pseudo-fan who knos nothing about Hip-Hop. I'm so tired of bumping into you all of the time. Hip-Hop is declining because of fake fans like you!
1
-
+Andrewbiggs Mims
Hip-Hop was a movement and way of expressing yourself and fighting for what you believed in, and using the sound of the urban life. Everybody knows this! Selling out to the whites was to be a Uncle Tom, and Ice Cube criticized his former group NWA when they did that and dissed him. Mainstream and pragmatic rap is not real rap since it exploits the mainstream audience's misconceptions about formal qualities and the essentials in rap.
My point is that you only base your judgment and criteria on sale, and that's a low-cultured and ignorant thought process. By your logic, "Avatar" is the most important film of all time, and you probably think Michael Bay is the greatest director of all time. Rap is about flow, rhythmic patterns, lyricism, and rhyme schemes, and you never discuss or analyze any of these elements in your responses or provide any real backup to your claims. You know nothing about the essentials of rap.
Do you know why albums like "The Message", "Raising Hell", "Paid in Full", "It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back", "Enter the Wu-Tang Clan", and "Wanted: Dead or Alive" are more important than "Ready to Die"? Because they laid the foundation for that album and introduced all the formal qualities and essentials that you seem unable to sense and grasp, and rap wouldn't have developed without them. Even albums like Paul's Boutique and Long Live the Kane have major influence on 90's rap.
Jay-Z is the greatest? Do you only listen to mainstream rap? Because rappers like Chuck D, Rakim, Kool G Rap, Big Daddy Kane, Big Pun, Black Thought, GZA, Big L, Ghostface Killah are shoulders above him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Solo_Traveling
YouTube has multiple movie critics available, such as Doug Walker, Lindsay Ellis, Big Joel, Schaffrillas Productions, Jenny Nicholson, and Musical Hell, so YouTube isn't just YouTube and therefore not an excuse.
What David Hume's got to do with this? Multiple things! If you've actually have read "The standard of taste" (which you obviously haven't), you'll know that his main philosophy was to present requirements for the art critic in order to have the authority to say what's good or bad art, and that we should listen to him in order go get a satisfactory art community .
You on the other hand are breaking the rules of recognizing the artistic aspects in the piece of art by not knowing what a point of view character is, the rule of being experienced and well-trained which you clearly aren't, and having common sense which you lack since you're not very intelligent. You're also obviously not of a cultural elite which David Hume was.
See? You can't even read relevant literature!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dorukevcim7578
I get the party analogy, but I feel like you spend so much time in the party that eventually you start to make friends
If you can’t relate to or see yourself reflected in other people around you, then you can live with them for years and still don’t feeling anything for them. I know that because I’ve lived with such people.
The other struggles the characters go through very human which is I think what grounds the movies
That would be true if the film was either hyper-realistic, animated, hyper-stylized, or even a theatre performance; animation because there’s stylization and a requirement of suspension of disbelief just on the virtue of the art form itself, hyper-stylization because it highlights a film’s autonomy and has direct escapism from physical reality and over to something metaphysical, hyper-realism because it highlights everything that’s realistic but still has some subtle highlight of a film’s autonomy, and theatre because it’s a different medium and highlights not only craft, but immediacy and closeness.
MCU movies try to combine all this and end up creating a dissonance; they try to be stylized, but at the same time try to act as if this is actual reality, but it still can’t be seen as realism considering all the elements that are out-of-this world. It really doesn’t work for the medium of live-action movies either since the nature of that medium is to present a sequence of moving pictures, where each “picture” is seen in relation to the preceding pictures as if it’s creating a syntax. However, I can’t view MCU movies in a logical way since they’re too out-of-this world, but not stylized enough for me to see them metaphysically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spaceace4387
You're staying on a surface level for why you think First Blood is a Vietnam War movie; you look at what's explicitly told and not what's lacking when you go in-depth, and going in-depth matters when you're supposed to define something. And no, child molestation would have changed the story since Travis' alienation and isolation, as well as his underlying motivation to assassinate the president candidate, is directly affected by war trauma and society's indifference towards the Vietnam War.
I consider Born on the Fourth of July to be a Vietnam War movie because we first of all get some actual war scenes, but also that the film is setting up the fact that he's going to war and that he's later going into an anti-war movement as a direct result of his trauma, paralysis, and how he was taken for granted. The war actually takes up the most of the weight of the narrative. Taxi Driver however is not a Vietnam War movie since the actual war is just an underlying motivation for something else, and First Blood is also not a Vietnam War movie since the main narrative isn't dedicated to it; the main narrative is him escaping the police, surviving in the woods, and then going on a rampage.
1
-
1
-
@spaceace4387
I actually can make a coherent story without the Vietnam elements:
- Man returns home from somewhere and finds out that all of his friends are dead.
- The man wanders about without knowing where he's going, and he suddenly gets arrested for no real reason
- The man gets a traumatic flashback as a result of the police holding him tight, making him go berzerk and escaping on a motorcycle
- He runs off to the woods and tries to survive while also escaping the police that are looking for him.
- He goes on a rampage without anyone knowing the reason, and when he meets the person he views as the only one who understands him, he calms down and surrenders.
I would actually have enjoyed that movie. It would have had a nice Verfremdung-effect and been a lot more subtle and suspenseful since suspense is often built upom what we don't know. Just like Roger Ebert mentioned in his criticism of Rambo's closing monologue: "some things are scarier and more emotionally moving when they're left unsaid. He also concluded that Taxi Driver handled this element a lot better.
No, you are cherry-picking since you only look at some elements rather than looking at elements that could weaken your argumentation. You see some underlying elements of the Vietnam War movie and then conclude that it's a Vietnam War movie without realizing that it lacks a lot more to make the definition fully substantiated. It's equivalent to me viewing a text as an historical text just because it consists of two theatre directors briefly talking about how certain direction methods were done in the past.
I consider Apocalypse Now a Vietnam War movie because the setting, the direct narrative context, the actions, and the narrative itself are the main elements and are directly connected to the Vietnam War, while the madness is the underlying messages. First Blood is not comparable to it because it takes place long after the war had ended, the main setting is some forest and local town far away from Vietnam, and the main narrative consists of a misunderstood man escaping the police, surviving in the woods, and going on a rampage before he surrenders. We never see his services apart from some very brief flashbacks that don't really contribute to anything as a result, the contexts and central themes are related to being misunderstood, losing friends, the authorities viewing a man as insane, survival, and going on a rampage. All which are universal and don't need the Vietnam War elements to make sense, and the actual Vietnam War contexts, settings, and elements don't have any real weight on the narrative and the film's overall context; only having some subtle weight on the character's inner motivations. Born on the fourth of july have way more Vietnam War elements that the narrative dedicates itself to, including having way more scenes during the actual war and how this later affects the narrative and the character motivations further, and how the anti-war movements becomes a result of it.
Btw, using paratext is irrelevant, and I'm not responsible for you not being intellectually stimulated enough to understand what I'm saying or the fact that you haven't learned about essentialism and deconstruction
1
-
@spaceace4387
I don't need to know the reason for why Teasle is harassing him, and I definitely don't need any backstory; things are a lot more suspenseful when we don't know why things are happening, and the atmosphere, the setting, the action, and the main narrative are compelling enough, and revealing too much ruins the mystery and suspense a psychological thriller should have. Similarly, I don't need any villain motivation if the villainous aura is present. John Kreese from The Karate Kid is revealed to be a Vietnam War veteran, but I don't need to know that to see his villainous aura; he could just be ignorant towards karate and have a twisted philosophy around it and it wouldn't have made any real difference.
The actual Vietnam War isn't the main focus of the narrative or the setting; the effects and impact are, and they're drowned by the fact that the main narrative (escaping the police and going on a rampage) doesn't need to be directly connected to the Vietnam War in order to happen, and the main setting isn't the Vietnam War either. Only having two Vietnam War veterans shown in the movie that are far away from their environment, and only have the war as a motivation, certainly doesn't make it a Vietnam War movie either. If I make a movie about a cowboy living in the city and being troubled because of urbanation and cultural differences, then that doesn't make it a western movie. I also don't consider "On the Waterfront" a sports drama just because Terry Malloy is a former boxer and s fixed match and the corruption in boxing is what caused him to feel like a bum with no way to go. I also don't consider Rocky to be a crime film just because he's a torpedo for a loan shark and this is what makes Mickey claim he wasted his potential
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Kyle Norcliffe
In terms of album sales. However, let's look at his manager Dr. Dre for example:
- Very successful albums from when he was still a member of NWA, his album "The Chronic" and other albums he has produced for Death Row Records, and his own albums under Aftermath in addition to producing the majority of Eminem's albums.
- He has his own line of highly successful (and often overhyped) headphones and speakers called Beats by Dre.
- Bought and sold stocks from Apple Inc.
And let's also look at Sean Combs:
- Producer for The Notorious BIG in addition to his own successful albums.
- Owns two restaurants and has his own clothing line, helped designing uniforms for a basketball team, and has his own vodka brand. He even developed a calorie-free beverage for athletes, and is the owner of Revolt TV
Jay-Z:
- Always produced highly successful albums and never seems to get old, and he's also a record producer
- Owns a sports bar, skin and hair products, beverages, and various clothing lines, and has stocks in TV programs, hotels, and restaurants.
Bottom line; Eminem has the music, but those three have music plus a bunch of side projects
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, you made a comment, but it was a waste of space since you obviously didn't accomplish anything due to your complete lack of argumentation and willingness to even make points for your opinion.
"You have your taste in movies. I have mine. They are differnt. Not everyone will agree with you. Not everyone will agree with me. That's just how it goes". That only applies when talking about favorites/least favorites, but you said "Pulp Fiction" was overrated and that critics were dumb, which means that you're trying to view this from a critical, technical, and formalistic point of view, and you obviously have no experience with that.
Move critics are overrated? No, it's the audience that are overrated; they always claim critics are so dumb and pretentious, but when they're trying to give an assessment themselves, it's incredibly poor and the equivalent of calling an athlete skinny when you're only skin and bones. You claim critics are overrated and stupid, but you can't even give an assessment yourself or even analyze the critics' argumentation. What a hypocrite! If you also knew anything about critics, you'd know that the most acclaimed and competent ones are those who base their assessments on the normative standard of what makes something aesthetically pleasing for the average moviegoer.
And no, I'm not unhappy in my life. In fact, I've accomplished more in my life than anyone my age can dream off. My life is wonderful, and art criticism is one of my biggest passions. Unfortunately, there are too many ignorant people like you who view certain movies as overrated or critics as dumb when they don't know anything about how movie criticism works.
1
-
You called "Pulp Fiction" and critics overrated, ultimately implying that you're doubting the critics' competence and the movie's merits. Ergo, you're calling critics dumb and pretentious. And we're not talking about fashion here, so your analogy doesn't work.
"I have a mind of my own to decide". That's good, but you're still awful at movie criticism.
"I didn't like the movie". That's fine, but when you're doubting critics' competence, it's no longer about liking/disliking something; it's then about aesthethic judgement.
"What about that do you not understand?" That you doubt critics' competence and a movie's formal qualities when you can't even do simple assessments or argumentation.
"And what about me simply saying , "it wasn't my cup of tea" confusing to you?". Again, when talking about something being overrated, it's no longer a matter of preference, but aesthethic judgment.
"Do YOU agree with EVERYTHING critics say?". No, there has been an entire local newspaper in the city where I live that has such awful critics that I don't even understand why they're even reviewing art. However, the critics were spot-on about "Pulp Fiction"
"Hypocrite?". Yes, you're a hypocrite when you think a movie is poorly made and critics are overrated when your assessment on the matter is even worse.
"YOU didn't even ask me WHY I liked it or not. YOU just automatically jump to the conclusion that I was lazy and have no taste and have bad judgement". Any educated person would know that a statement is not valid without proper arguments, and I also did ask you why, but you're only response was "still sucked! Waste of my time", and you also just shoved away my arguments and threw the opinion card on me instead of bringing up a real counter-argument, and that's just pure laziness.
"YOU said critics were dumb, not me". You said critics were overrated, and you implied they were dumb when you viewed "Pulp Fiction" as overrated.
"Why are you being an ass about it?". It's called taking art criticism and argumentation seriously, and ad-hominen (calling me an "ass") doesn't work on me.
"oh, wait, because you view me as a simple human with no experience or education, or anything worthy to say". You didn't say anything relevant about movie criticism here nor did you display any reviewing skills, so why did you even bother to comment?
"Pssssst, my world and milions of others' lives don't revolve around you". I didn't say it did either.
"If you're such a high and mighty "art critic" why are you trolling on frikin youtube?". I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the stupidity and flawed judgment of people who always hate on critics and on art, but can't bring up any assessment themselves.
"By the way. I watched the Shinning (wrong spelling) finally. What's all the hub bub about. For ME it was so long and boring". Another bad assessment with no real arguments whatsoever. Something tells me that there's something wrong about you, not the movie.
"Again, just movies that didn't appeal to my stupid mind". You're not really much of a critic though, and I remember this old wanker who tried to hate on Robert Wilson just because he couldn't understand simple experimental/visual theatre, and he even went as far as publishing a news article where he claimed that the critics were dumb since they gave the performance 5/6 stars rather than 2/6. Me and a colleague published an article each in the same newspaper where we bombarded him with criticism and pointed out his flawed judgment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vayres7512
So, it's about agreement, now? Well, if you know basic copyright, you'd know that you can't make a cover unless you're paying royalties and/or buying a license, which requires an agreement between the artists. Using "Hurt" is also not the best example considering how Trent Reznor said Johnny Cash's version was so good that he said "It's not my song anymore"
Let's break it all down: your thesis is that using someone else's work is to copy that person, unless said person isn't alive or active and there is an agreement between the people
- Adaptations of Shakespeare, Ibsen, Brecht etc. are using their original works, and covering music is to use a different artist/band's original work. However, the former is a-okay, while the latter is not
- There are playwrights and auteur directors who are dead or inactive, with several of them directing their own works, and there are artists/bands who are dead or inactive and made their music for albums and concerts in addition to movie soundtracks that are not musicals. However, only using the former's works is a-okay
- There are playwrights, composers, and auteur directors who are still alive and well, and there are artists who are alive and well (both are also considered artists). However, only using the former’s work is a-okay
- You need to pay royalties or buy licenses in order to put up other people's plays/stage performances, and thus make an agreement. You also need to pay royalties or buy licenses in order to cover a song, and thus make an agreement. However, only the former is a-okay
- There are plays in the public domain, with even detailed instructions and stage direction. There are also songs in the public domain, with several being written, composed, and sung by a single person. However, only the former is a-okay
- There are plays and musicals adapted into movies or other stages, and there are covers that were specifically made for movies. However, only the former is a-okay
Conclusion: bias and double standards
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Carver Pierce
- Storytelling: Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, 2pac, Raekwon, and Biggie
- Lyricism: Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Rakim, Nas, Chuck D, Big L, Big Pun, Black Thought, Ghostface Killah, GZA, and Raekwon
- Polyrhythmic patterns: Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Chuck D, and Nas
- Flow: Beastie Boys, Biggie, Chuck D, Rakim, 2pac, Big L, Slick Rick, and Big Pun
Not to mention that he was hugely influenced by Beastie Boys, Rakim, Nas, and Kool G Rap
1
-
1
-
+Carver Pierce
Goddamn, you're such a fanboy!
Well, mr. Expert, if you know so much, then give me a full analysis of the formal qualities in those rappers that make them aesthetically displeasing compared to Eminem. Give me an analysis of their alliterations, internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes, polyrhythmic patterns, punchlines, punch-ins/outs, and punchlines.
If you can't do that, then your opinion is invalidated and you're just a troll
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SYEDSHAZEB46013
I'm 29 and always on the run, either at work, at parties, at social gatherings, at the beach, cycling, karaoke nights, and occasionally at cabin trips, family gatherings, and even a fjord cruise once, and I have a golden rule to be outside for at least 10 hours if it's warm and sunny. You just have no life
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedavidwood
If you think award shows or even art criticism in general are actually done in the name of art, then you're stuck in the 19th century. Ever since capitalism and mass-media reached their peak, artistic merit, authenticity, and "the aura" have been lost in favor of reproduction, instrumental rationality, profit, and branding.
Want a great example? William Randolph Hearst banned multiple newspapers from reviewing or even mentioning "Citizen Kane", as well as banning multiple theaters from even showing the movie. It's now regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time (often being ranked #1), but how many Oscars did it win? One! (which was for the screenplay)
Or how about "American Beauty"? Do you think that it won all its Oscars because of artistic merits? Nope! DreamWorks have openly stated that they launched a major campaign to just get it nominated. Heck, Miramax launched a major campaign to get "Shakespeare in Love" to win Best Picture, which has been proven further in 2015 when The Hollywood Reporter Magazine interviewed hundreds of members of the Academy who revealed that they actually preferred "Saving Private Ryan". The fact that a movie has to be shown in Los Angeles for a certain period of time just to get the opportunity for a nomination also throws the artistic merits right out the window.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedavidwood
Jeremy has the same problem as you; not being able to consistent. If his goal is to satirize a grouchy and obscene critic, then he can't throw in his genuine and down-to-Earth criticism on top of it, make behind the scenes videos with the exact same criticism, or genuinely justify that he's satirizing a certain type of critic. People tend to throw the satire card when they receive criticism, but barely anyone knows what "satire" actually means. Do you want examples of actual satire? Eminem's Slim Shady persona, the "you know what's BS?" segment of AVGN, Sacha Baron Cohen's various personas, GradeAUnderA, and Uncle Roger. They keep the charade up because they never lose their mask, and it's obvious what type of people and attitudes they're trying to target or mock.
Your mask was already off when you tried to justify that you're just trolling, and there's literally nothing figurative about your response here
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VEGITAS4
Oh yeah sure, why should I watch a movie about life and a true human being with actual human emotions and problems, when I can watch gay "men" in tights who won't let go off their juvenile fantasies? That's not beautiful; it's the cultural decay and the evil of mass-media, nepotism, capitalism, and the culture industry, which is the reason why we have Dingo Pictures for example which very soon will be the norm. No CEO of a major corporation care about you as a person either; they make millions to billions of dollars to deceive the audience through overidealized commercials and false consciousness, and promise something wholesome, but in reality give you that's nowhere close to what's being promised. A true artist creates something, whereas Disney just makes a product through a formulaic machine process
At least when Kant and Hume argued that art is subjective, then people actually appreciated art and had class and sophistication. Am I supposed to believe that beggars and POC for example know what art is?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThatGuyNorm
No, everyone who's obviously not formal or intelligent or can actually use some real argumentation, as well as those say things like "It's retarded" and "Oh please!". If the person seems intelligent and serious however, it's a different story.
Look at this review from Roger Ebert on "First Blood" for example:
"When he explodes near the beginning of 'First Blood', hurling cops aside and breaking out of a jail with his fists and speed, it's such a convincing demonstration of physical strength and agility that we never question the scene's implausibility"
Formal and analytic yet direct, elegant, and engaging.
A bigger example would be from Michel Foucault here in "What is an author?":
"Instead, we must locate the space left empty by the author's disappearance; follow the distribution of gaps and breaches, and watch for the openings this disappearance uncovers"
I disagree with a bunch of things in the essay, but at least he knows how to use words.
And finally we've got Roland Barthes:
"Here the closed character of the form does not derive from rhetorical amplification or from grandiloquence in delivery, but from a lexicon as specialized and as functional as a technical vocabulary; even metaphors are here severely codified"
See? Poetry
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+jarhead mstr
Clichéd choices. No mention of Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Chuck D, Kool G Rap, Ghostface Killah, GZA, Raekwon, Black Thought, Big Pun, Big L, or Pharoahe Monch?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What does Harry Potter really have going for him? He’s just the archetypical hero protagonist who is supposed to fight evil and save the world, and just happens to have a tragic background and experiencing traumas during the process as a cheap attempt to make him interesting when in reality, he’s no different from heroes you can even find in Disney movies such as “Aladdin” and “The Lion King”, or any fictional war hero. And no shit that he develops; the story and atmosphere themselves develop, and Harry Potter would of course need to change as well to not seem misplaced during this development, but it still doesn’t make him any more interesting. And if we’re gonna use the “spectrum” angle you’re mentioning, then Harry Potter is 95% good and 5% “bad” based on how his character is explored, and that ratio is still too immense and unrealistic for him to actually seem human.
I also think you need to read “The Catcher in the Rye” over again, because Holden Caulfield and Harry Potter are nothing alike; Caulfield is a representation of the teenage angst and rebellion during the 1940’s and 1950’s, and a 17 year old whom has the mindset of a 30 year old, but gets aliened from the society and his peers because his mental age makes them seem too mentally young for him in his eyes, and he is constantly viewed as a whiny brat who always complains about school and society (even by many readers) when he’s actually the only one who is able to sense the materialistic mindset of society, as well as the school’s manipulation of students and the pressure they’re putting on teenagers who haven’t even become adults yet. Not to mention that Caulfield is a representation of the idealistic childhood innocence, and someone to prevent children from growing up too fast and instead enjoy the parts of your life where you don’t have to worry about money, marriage, education, work, relevance in society etc. What is Harry Potter? Just a teenage hero whom is chosen to save the world and gets aliened for a year simply because he constantly insists that Voldemort has returned when he doesn’t even have any proof of it, and whom just occasionally shows some sassiness and arrogance to him even though it doesn’t affect his personality very much at all. Harry Potter has a function in the franchise, but his character and inner psychology are so rarely explored since the franchise always put story and action first. His character development is also much more descriptive rather than affective.
And no, I think it’s fair to see Harry as dull when he’s too pure simply because that’s how you expect the hero to be! What are we taught by our parents and even teachers throughout our whole life? Be a good person and treat other people with respect, so when you get a character that is 95% good, that’s very expected and kind of a “well duh” thing. Even if a character is 100% evil, you become more intrigued to find out what are the driving motivations behind this since you most of the time expect a person to be good. The only times I care about a complete good guy is if it’s the character’s psychology and inner conflicts that move the plot, if the character and his/her environments clash with each other, or if the character is developed in an affective way and does actions that are either undeniably moving (such as Oskar Schindler and Paul Rusesabagina saving over 1000 people from genocide, which is even more effective when you realize that they were actual people) or inspiring (such as John Keating from “Dead Poets Society” inspiring his students to seize the moment and go against the norms or Rocky Balboa inspiring the audience to chase your dream).
I can also view a complete good guy as interesting if the author adds elements of defamiliarization, deconstruction, and post-structuralism into a story or character, but that really isn't the case with Harry Potter
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Alex Alex
Do you know anything about rap, kid? Do you know anything about alliterations, polyrhythmic patterns, punch-ins/outs, rap metres, flow, punchlines, flow, and complex internal and multisyllabic rhyme schemes?
Ever listened to Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Slick Rick, Chuck D, Pharoahe Monch, Big Pun, Kool G Rap, GZA, Ghostface Killah, Raekwon, or Big L?
I've listened to about 120 Hip-Hop albums from start to finish, so I know what I'm talking about
1
-
+Shinsuke Nakamura
Oh, I don't know what I'm talking about? Like I said before, I've been listening to over 120 Hip-Hop albums from start to finish, and they're spawning from the 80's up to today. Ever listened to Big Daddy Kane, Public Enemy, Gang Starr, Rakim, Kool G Rap, Slick Rick, Wu-Tang Clan, Big L, The Roots, or Big Pun? Have fun googling those names, but then be struggling to analyze their rapping.
Do you know anything about alliterations, flow, punch-ins/outs, internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes, polyrhythmic patterns, or rap metres?
It's so easy to deal with "tough guys" like you, so don't even try. I also doubt that you have listened to Eminem's non-singles or his mixtape "Straight from the Lab" or his compilations
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The Pixel Show
So what? From a formalistic and lyrical perspective, "Rap God" can't hold a candle to raps like "Lose Yourself", "Stan", "Sing for the Moment", "The Real Slim Shady", "Shady XV", "Like Toy Soldiers", "Mosh", "Guilty Conscience", "I'm Back", "Till I Collapase", "The Way I Am", and "Without Me"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Riju Nirmal
Oh, isn't that cute? Using commercial success as a factor rather than actually taking the formal qualities into account for the aesthetic judgment.
And yeah, it was nominated for one Oscar, but that was for Sound Editing. That's nothing compared to winning Razzie for Worst Picture, Worst Actor, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Song. Not to mention that it was nominated for Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actress. In general, the film was panned and has been criticized for the lack of story, psychological aspects, and the genuine thrilling and life-threatening situations the original displayed, and Stallone's performance was not warmly received.
And btw, Rambo doesn't have a prequel; all the sequels show what happened after their predecessors
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Freckles Fer
You seem to be inexperienced with both argumentation and aesthetic judgment, so let me take you back to school:
- An opinion is by definition a normative statement, and any statement is automatically invalid without proper arguments, so the fact that you're answering a statement with statements already nullifies your credibility, and it also makes everything you've said invalid.
- Movies are autonomous and independent art forms with their own norms and principles for what make them aesthetically pleasing to the average viewer, and they're not complete imitations of reality, so the fact that you're wishing for 100% realism already implies that movies are not for you. Stick to documentaries if you want complete realism.
- You haven't said anything that is relevant for the cinematic core. Are stunts the cinematic core? No. Are story and acting the cinematic core? No! What is the cinematic core? Context! Everything that has to do with environments, themes, conflicts, culture, target audience etc., as well as how the cinematic elements affect and work together. Some unrealistic executions (again, I don't see how movies should be completely realistic in order to be aesthetically pleasing) have no effect on how the cinematic elements work together as a whole. You basically took 1 irrelevant dead fish and suddenly claim that the entire ocean is polluted.
The fact that you won't give me a proper assessment and now refuse to discuss the movie already make you lose this discussion, so your statement about "The Godfather" is now invalidated
1
-
+Freckles Fer
Again you start forcing an irrelevant dead fish down my throat and claiming that the entire ocean is polluted, and you still don't show any real knowledge about how art works. Also, if I have to choose between a photography and an oil painting, I'll definitely pick the latter.
You picked some few action and stunt scenes that have no relevance for the movie as a whole, and it is only nitpicky to even point them out in the first place (they're not facts either since you're evaluating them). You haven't said anything about the story, the acting, the analogies, metaphors, and symbolism, the music, the dramaturgy, the cinematography, or even the aesthetics. Your entire assessment is completely void of any proper evaluations about the context and the cinematic elements, and it's completely void of any real analysis.
You're just like the critics in the local newspaper where I live; looking into every minor detail looking for a flaw to judge the piece of art for, and then basing 80% of the assessment on that minor flaw. And when I tried to debate with them about their flawed aesthetic judgments, they weren't even trying. After a month of discussions with them, they haven't written a single review in almost 6 months.
There was also an old wanker who tried to criticize Robert Wilson, but obviously had no real knowledge about Avante-Garde and post-dramatic theatre, so I wrote an essay in the local newspaper criticizing him for his flawed judgment.
Nothing provokes me more than someone who hates on something without arguing for it properly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Nothing Really
I see what you mean. I first loved Eminem, but after listening a lot to Big Daddy Kane, Kool G Rap, Ghostface Killah, Slick Rick, Rakim, Big Pun, 2pac, Big L, and Biggie, Eminem is nothing special in comparison.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Playing a Francophile is not an excuse for sounding whiny, over-the-top, and less authoritative, and definitely not to have your subtext, viewpoints, and posture getting lost. Heck, his francophilia wasn't even explored properly. When compared to iconic villain performances such as Lionel Barrymore in "It's A Wonderful Life", Marlon Brando in "A Streetcar Named Desire", Daniel Day-Lewis in "Gangs of New York", Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight", Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List", Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs", Anthony Perkins in "Psycho", and Malcolm McDowell in "A Clockwork Orange", there's no contest
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SaifurRehman2005
Story is what makes a piece of literature, not movie, and there are countless examples of movies that have no real story, but instead highlights a film's autonomy and has a meta-perspective on the art and craft behind filmmaking itself. Heck, the original intention of the medium of film wasn't even to tell a story, but capture reality in a way that oil paintings couldn't, as well as highlighting the artist's perspective on the world and show a dynamic succession of pictures and their effects like how a sequence of words form a sentence with a certain syntax to it
Bottom line; your narrow-minded view that story is a necessity was disproved already when film was invented, and anyone who bases an assessment on story alone should just stick to literature. Even context is more important than story, and the art of cinematography is what distinguishes film from theatre, visual arts, and literature
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@guguemichaels
"The pandemic wasn't/isn't business"
Of course it is/was; doctors abused their power to ruin practically every single business on the planet without any compensation. In my opinion, every doctor, politician, journalist, and billionaire, should be forced to donate 75% of their total income to restore what was lost, and doctors should be tightly supervised, only get one week vacation, and only be allowed to use 20% of their total income on leisure.
"Why aren't we still using them now"
Because they only did the bare minimum on virtually every aspect, and only looked stylish, just like how superhero movies are only doing the bare minimum in terms of acting, writing, editing, cinematography, and dramaturgy, and only look good despite being formulaic and having no substance
"It's called evolving"
More like devolving if we get formulaic and mass-produced "movies" without any cinematic or generally artistic merits, and an audience consisting of unintelligent and mentally lazy children. Can you even name one superhero director apart from Nolan, and mention a truly artistic movie they've done that also isn't a superhero movie? Can you even mention some cinematic trademarks from them in the same vein as Burton, Lynch, Tarantino, PTA, Cuaron, Scorsese, Aronofsky, Bergman etc., because all I see are directors who are just blindly following a recipe and are completely dispensable. Same with the actors
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’d like to know what you are smoking if you think Nas is the most influential rapper of all time and rap started with Rakim, and Jay-Z, 50 Cent, and Kanye West are top 10 material. I would also like to know what kind of dumb school you went to if you think your top 10 is a satisfactory assessment; all of your “arguments” for why the rappers were so great were just one vague, imprecise, and overly subjective statement each that had no analysis, argumentation, and precision whatsoever, not to mention that no relevant terms were used.
“Mentioning them is like mentioning big Sean and logic they are good rappers none the less”. Care to elaborate? Because that is also just a statement.
“but had never had the title of holding the rap game neither went double platinum with no features”. Again, just a statement with no elaboration and argumentation, and who the hell takes sale into account when talking about a rapper?
“if you seriously think they top ten u need to share whatever the hell you smoking bro cause u really on some s***”. That’s not an argument, and it also ruins your credibility, and it’s also a statement people stop using when they’re past the age of 18.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+sanjuna kanakaratne
Oh joy, another fanboy who only watched "Straight Outta Compton" and now suddenly knows all about rap history. Can't get enough of you, can we?
Before I continue, let me ask you: have you heard about Big Daddy Kane, Chuck D, Rakim, Guru, Kool G Rap, Ghostface Killah, GZA, Raekwon, Black Thought, Pharoahe Monch, Big Pun, or Big L?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael may have the most screen time, but Vito is the point-of-view character and the one the intrigues are connected to. Let's break it down:
- What's the main function of Vito? He's the Don of the Corleone family, the biggest Mafia family in the city, and the one everyone comes to for advice or deal with a lethal business. However, the other Dons have grown jealous despite Vito wanting to live in peace.
- What's the inciting incident? Vito refuses to buy drugs from Sollozzo because it can ruin his contacts with the police and politicians. This refusal leads to Vito getting almost assassinated, and it's first then that Michael decides to be there for his family (he's literally supporting them).
- Michael goes out on his own to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey to avenge his father, and he then starts a war. This tension however is resolved when Sonny gets murdered and Vito calls for a truce and a compromise between him and the other families.
- The other families are convinced that Vito is growing weaker and won't live much longer, but that Michael is someone that will make the Corleone family stay on top. Vito predicts this and gives Michael this information. The climax is a direct result of Vito dying and the Corleone family thinking two steps forward when they kill the other Dons before they can even carry out any conspiracy against Michael. The overall resolution isn't Michael becoming Don per se, but the legacy of Vito being carried on further, as well as the Corleone family winning the "war". Michael being a family outsider is also more of a subplot and not something that has a connection to the other families wanting to weaken the Corleone family; it's more comparable to an army getting a new ally, but then the ally gets too much attention for what narrative function he serves.
Overall, Vito is always present even when he's absent, and his function moves the plot forward
You could potentially remove Michael from the story and still have a cohesive narrative, but remove Vito and you really don't have a plot. Michael really is a supporting character; his function is to help Vito come to peace with the other Dons (later win over them) so that the family remains powerful
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Javi Fonticiella
Nothing in your list indicated that you were referring to RZA, and he was also only good as a PRODUCER; his rapping skills was nothing inspiring or extraordinary. The same goes for Dr. Dre; amazing producer, but can't rap even if his life depended on it.
The most skilled member (as well as successful) was Ghostface Killah by far with his complex polyrhythmic patterns, internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes, advanced flow, and his stream-of-consciousness techniques. Raekwon's solo album "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx" is the most acclaimed and successful of all the solo albums hands down, and that's a lot because of Ghostface's guest appearances and RZA's production skills.
Ice Cube and Eazy-E have/had nothing going for them when it comes to versatility and standing from the rest, while Rakim influenced an entire generation of rap and pioneered the modern flow, rap metres, and internal rhymes. Kool G Rap also was a pioneer of multisyllabic rhymes and mafioso rap, and he laid the foundation for Nas, Biggie, Jay-Z, Eminem, and the duo Mobb Deep.
Big Daddy Kane, like Ghostface, was an expert on polyrhythmic patterns, as well as internal rhymes and advanced flow.
Big Pun had virtually all of Biggie's qualities, except that he had much more advanced rap metres, alliterations, pauses, and general flow and energy; he could even make Black Thought sound mediocre.
What the hell has Snoop Dogh going for him? He has ONE great album (which is also because of the production rather than his performance), and there is virtually nothing inspiring about the formal qualities in his rap performances. 2pac and every other rapper I have mentioned have way more skills
1
-
+Javi Fonticiella
RZA and Dr. Dre are only great as PRODUCERS! This is for best RAPPERS, and they're not even close to even be top 200 when it comes to the actually rapping part. Similarly, Tarantino is an amazing director and screenwriter, but he's an awful actor!
Snoop Dogg has nothing going for him when it comes to his performances; Chuck D, Big L, Kool G Rap, Big Pun, Big Daddy Kane, Rakim Ghostface Killah, GZA, and Black Thought will crush him in a rap battle with their alliterations, complex flow, internal and multisyllabic rhymes, polyrhythmic patterns, punch-in/outs, and punchlines (No, this isn't just about lyricism).
Doggystyle is one of the most important albums of all time? Have you even heard about "The Message", "It Takes A Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back", "Paid in Full", "Straight Outta Compton", "Licensed to Ill", "Wanted: Dead or Alive", "Enter the Wu-Tang Clan", "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx", "Liquid Swordz", "Ready to Die", or "Illmatic"? Even "The Chronic" has more importance, and that's saying a lot, because G Thunk is all style and no substance, and is so clean and synthesizer-like that it sounds like black people selling out to the whites.
You're such a noob
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anytime someone plays in a movie about a real person, they win an Oscar
Except "What's Love Got To Do With It", "JFK", "The Untouchables", "Walk the Line" (Phoenix), "Braveheart", any portrayal of Jesus, "Schindler's List", "Elvis", "Concussion", "Straight Outta Compton", "Rocketman", "Nina", "Selma", "Vice", "Hotel Rwanda", "The Aviator", "Wolf of Wall Street", "Into the Wild"... wait! What were we talking about again?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+seader bennett
I'd barely qualify him for top 10! When rappers like Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, Kool G Rap, Big Pun, Black Thought, 2pac, The Notorious BIG, Ghostface Killah, GZA, and Big L have been around, Eminem doesn't stand a chance
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@staggerlee1869
That’s a false equivalence. James Cameron is not a one-hit wonder since a lot of his movies have been hugely successful on multiple aspects (not just commercially either):
- The Terminator: 100% ‘fresh’ on RT, 78.3 million box-office gross, #42 on AFI’s 100 thrills, and having the title character be ranked #22 on AFI 50 Greatest Villains
- Aliens: 97% certified ‘fresh’ on RT, 2 Oscar wins out of 7 nods, 183 million box-office gross, #30 on Empire’s “500 Greatest Movies of All Time”, and having Ellen Ripley be ranked #8 on AFI 50 Greatest Heroes
- Terminator: Judgment Day: 93% ‘Fresh’ on RT, 520.9 million box-office gross, 4 Oscar wins out of 6 nods, #35 on Empire’s “500 Greatest Movies of All Time”, #10 on IGN’s “Greatest Science Fiction movies”, and having the title character be ranked #48 on AFI 50 Greatest Heroes
- Titanic: 89% ‘fresh’ on RT, 2 billion box-office gross, 11 Oscar wins out of 14 nods, 4 Golden Globe wins out of 8 nods, and 8 BAFTA nods
- Avatar: 81% ‘fresh’ on RT, 2.8 billion box-office gross, 3 Oscar wins out of 9 nods
As you can see, they’re all balanced and have received positive reviews, ranked high on various lists, and been very successful at the box-office. Now let’s look at Singleton:
- Boyz n the Hood: 96% certified ‘fresh’ on RT, 57.5 million box-office gross in USA alone, and 2 major Oscar nods (Best Director and Best Screenplay).
- Baby Boy: 71% ‘fresh’ on RT and 29 million box-office gross, but no nods at the big 5 award shows.
- Four Brothers: 52% ‘Rotten’ on RT, 92.5 million box-office gross, and no nods at the big 5 award shows.
- Higher Learning: 45% ‘Rotten’ on RT, 38.3 million box-office gross, and no nods at the big 5 award shows.
- Shaft: 67% ‘Fresh’ on RT on RT, 107 million box-office gross, but no nods at the big 5 award shows
Pretty underwhelming in other words where the movies either have good reviews but disappointing box-office gross, good box-office gross but mixed reviews, or are average on both fronts. “Boyz n the Hood” is the only one that has received largely positive reviews, made a great profit, and been acknowledged by the Academy (or just anyone outside of the black community).
Next time, try to learn statistics, as well as actually arguing for your statements and analyze what the other person is saying!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benwong1111
You sound like a 100% snob to me
Eh, no. I don’t own a single watch for over $200 since I don’t see the appeal, and the only automatic I own is an Orient Bambino. I’ve never even been tempted to buy a Rolex, Patek, Omega, or any of the “luxury brands” that people seem to get a boner over. Rolex in particular has lost its mystique and status symbolism since it’s the most talked about luxury brand, and because so many “ordinary people” (as in people who are not politicians, businessmen, or celebrities) try to invest in it. My favorite brand is Seiko because of design and reputation, and because it’s become a part of my personal branding. However, there’s no way that I want to be associated with junk like MVMT, Daniel Wellington, Fillipo Loretti, and Vincero, and I immediately unfriend people who wear those brands.
Fyi, i own 3 Rolex, 1 iwc, 1 nomos, and 1 seiko. So i’m a watch guy too
Good for you
They like the aesthetic
Again, buy things from Alibaba or WISH
the brand is not completely unknown so at least it wouldn’t break after 7 days
No brand would do that anyway
and the price is not out of their budget
The brand will get more expensive in the long run since people would constantly need to replace it since the quality is shit.
Buying some junk from aliexpress is surely sounds more risky and less convenient for most people
Not if they would actually do some basic research first. And buying a MVMT watch isn’t any less risky. And if people really care about aesthetics alone, then they won’t care where they got their watch.
You just can’t reason with people who don’t appreciate watch like us to understand. They would just say your watch need winding, it stops after a few days of not wearing, run less accurately, need time correction every once in a while, afraid of magnets, need to be serviced and service cost is much higher than to buy a whole new fashion watch
That only applies to automatics, and just because kids are stupid doesn’t mean that MVMT is actually good.
Also most of the alternatives we talk about have some questionable design choice (sometimes too small hands, sometimes too thick case) and much worse marketing job that MVMT
The only reason I hear for people not buying more reputable brands such as Tissot Everytime, Seiko, Timex Fairfield, or even Linjer is because they’re “ugly”, and I’m always like “What real difference is there?”. It’s so obvious that people look at MVMT watches with rose-tinted glasses because “Come on! It’s MVMT!”. Then they try to justify the price and quality and I’m always laughing at them. Kids are so stupid nowadays!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregmeecham5903
He was in the original trilogy, but he didn't have much of a personality or presence compared to his appearance in "Cobra Kai", and he was overshadowed by Mr. Miyagi as a character despite the latter not being the villain. Heck, until "Cobra Kai", I barely heard anyone say his name; most people just referred to him as "that mean karate teacher" or something similar. There's also a reason why he's never appeared on any major list for top villains, whereas villains like Darth Vader, Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Hal 9000, Freddy Krueger, Wicked Witch, Norman Bates, Palpatine, Terminator, and even Voldemort and Hans Landa, seem to pop up everywhere. Not to mention how many Blofeld parodies there are out there
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+James
Yeah, of course you're just gonna throw in the "it's just a matter of opinion" card. That's just the naive perception of how aesthetic judgment works, and I guess you're simply too young to grasp it. Nice try, but you need more than that to win this debate. Do you even know what aesthetic judgment means? Do you know what normative standard and standard of taste mean? You're just like the journalists in the local newspaper where I live; ignoring 90% of my responses and reply with incredibly vague thoughts that have no relevance in this context whatsoever, and it annoys me as hell since it means that they don't take me or the topic seriously.
To call yourself a rap fan, I think you need to listen to what is actually rap, and real rap contains formal qualities such as alliterations, rap metres, flow, polyrhythmic patterns, punch-ins/outs, and internal- and multisyllabic rhyme schemes (formal qualities I think you have no idea what mean since you don't give me any reflections around them). Do you see any formal qualities in those rappers' performances? NO!!! All of their songs just have production values to distract audiences from seeing how they can't rap. Tarantino is a screenwriter/director who sometimes acts in his movies, but anyone who calls him a real actor needs to get their brains checked. If you think Pitbull for example (and let's put in Timbaland as well) is a real rapper, then you know nothing about rap.
Nice try, but you lose!
P.S. The only modern rappers that I see some decency in are Eminem and Chamillionaire, and Ghostface Killah has managed to keep his skills up surprisingly
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Filip Stojanovski
1. The formal qualities in a rapping performance such as alliterations, rap metres, flow, wordplay, punchlines, rhyme schemes, and basically anything that makes rap an independent and autonomous art form, are highlighted. If the rap has amazing beats and instrumentals, but the rapping performance itself is awful, then the rapper has failed and doesn't qualify. Same if the rapper only cares about content; I'm here to listen to rap, not read. Mimesis is also an evil in art.
2. The rapping performance isn't just speaking in a rhythm, but is instead highlighting flow.
3. The rap isn't 80% pop and only 20% Hip-Hop.
1
-
+Filip Stojanovski
Sure, every genre has its roots that they're developed from, but it takes a while before they get fully developed and become independent. The Sugarhill Gang, Grandmaster Flash, Beastie Boys, and Run-D.M.C. laid the foundation, but rappers like Rakim, Guru, Ice-T, Big Daddy Kane, Slick Rick, Kool G Rap, and the groups Public Enemy and NWA revolutionized rap and made it an independent art form that isn't oppressed by pop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+james
Fine, just go with your pragmatist hippie bullshit. Hip-Hop is declining, quality is taken for granted, rap is being oppressed by pop, techno, and House, and real rappers are getting neglected in favor of mediocre imitators, but that doesn't matter to you at all, does it? You're an enemy of Hip-Hop!
And why the hell did you even try to discuss with me all those months ago if you're such a lousy critic who knows nothing about aesthetic judgment? I've listened to over 120 Hip-Hop albums and counting, I received an A on basically every take-home final back in college that was related to art criticism, I travelled all the way to Berlin just to participate in a debate regarding the fate of Volksbühne and Frank Castorf, I've participated in multiple debates with a student newspaper that had lousy reviewers who claimed to be above the age of 18, but were worse at argumentation than 14 year olds, I participated in a battle to save an University course from geting shut down just because of some ignorant pragmatists, and I've already gotten reviews published in official newspapers. If I'm going to bother making an effort in debating with someone, then that person needs more arguments than "it's just a matter of different opinions".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emiliomanueldepedro9650
That's just an assumption/theory and not something completely confirmed and substantiated. How do you know for certain that they're handing out their awards to what's best crafted, and not to movies that have mass-appeal and serve as a commodity, marketing tool, and media bait the most? If craftmanship was the no. 1 factor, then a bunch of indie movies and non-Hollywood movies would probably be nominated, but they don't.
Let's just look at film history. Directors like Tarkovsky, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Buñuel, Lang, Bertolucci, Jouvet, Truffaut, Godard, Leone, Eisenstein, and Fassbinder are all directors that film historians and other directors would view as artistic and major contributors and godfathers to cinema. However, are those the most well-known and popular at the Oscars and amongst the majority of moviegoers? Nah, you will probably mention directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Coppola, and Iñárritu, as well as Huston, Hitchcock, Welles, Ford, DeMille, Kazan, Wyler, and Lean if one goes back to the Golden Age.
Also, the "It's all subjective" statement is just a lazy excuse to try dismissing intersubjectivity and the general consensus, and by that logic, I can just say "Well, it's my subjective belief that everything you just said is bullshit", but you wouldn't like that, would you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're telling me! He may be my favorite rapper (mostly for sentimental reasons), but if I'm only judging based on technical skills, then Eminem sounds amateurish compared to rappers like Big Pun, Nas, Black Thought, Kool G Rap, Big Daddy Kane, 2pac, Biggie, Rakim, Chuck D, Pharoahe Monch, Big L, Ghostface Killah, and many others
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KellyNewman-z5r
"Arthropod, (phylum Arthropoda), any member of the phylum Arthropoda, the largest phylum in the animal kingdom, which includes such familiar forms as lobsters, crabs, spiders, mites, insects, centipedes, and millipedes. About 84 percent of all known species of animals are members of this phylum"
From Britannica
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree; I've never understood the hype, and people's reasoning is usually just "Watch this and this" or "He's appeared in this and this movie" without any elaboration at all (yes, that includes you, Vinil Tej), so it makes me wonder if people actually believe what they say.
My biggest issue with him is that I rarely feel that he's challenging himself and going out of his comfort zone (seriously? How distinguishable are his performances in "Titanic", "Gangs of New York", "Catch Me if You Can", "The Aviator", "The Departed", "The Great Gatsby", "The Wolf of Wall Street" apart from the superficial stuff?), he whines too much and looks too caricatured whenever he's supposed to be dramatic, his gestures and tableaus are virtually non-existent, his aura is too feminine, and he generally looks more like a blank slave and window dressing.
His performance in "Django Unchained" in particular is laughably bad; he genuinely looks like a rebellious teen wearing a suit trying to act like an intimidating adult, his subtexts are the same, his death looks incredibly staged, and I'm just waiting for more masculine actors like J.K. Simmons, The Rock, Clint Eastwood, Michael Madsen, Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham, Al Pacino, Brad Pitt, and Danny Trejo to give him a nuggie since I don't see how anyone can feel intimidated by him. If Daniel Day-Lewis or Jack Nicholson had acted alongside him again, then everybody would forget about him. I mean, Samuel Jackson stole the show as soon as Candie died
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Ryan Sorrell
Your list wasn't much better; Dr. Dre?! Ice Cube? 50 Cent? Eazy-E? Seriously? And no mention of rappers like Big Daddy Kane, Slick Rick, Ghostface Killah, Rakim, Guru, Big Pun, Kool G Rap, Big L, Pharoahe Monch, Black Thought, or Big L? Not to mention that Biggie is too high
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Iansco1
Boondock Saints is not even made by Singleton
Anyway, budget and box-office are not the only factors here; marketing, and giving a percentage of the box-office to cinemas for distribution, also play big roles, so you need to earn way more than the double of the box-office to make it profitable
Also, this video is about HITS, not just making good movies. If you make a song for example and it receives good reviews, gets certified gold, and ends up at #60 on the Billboard list for example, would you really call that a hit? Same applies to movies; if you make a movie that receives good reviews, but is only a moderate success and is overlooked at the major award ceremonies, then that movie really isn't a hit
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+George Davis
Um...kid
I’m 23, so don’t even attempt to act like some veteran unless you’re 60 or something
there is also more to film than just editing and cinematography
Yes, but those elements are some of the most important and essential ones and contribute to the pacing and nuance, as well as highlighting an atmosphere, bringing out a scene’s subtext, and strengthen up every other element. When people are bored by a scene, it’s usually because a shot lasts for way too long and doesn’t have enough nuance, or if the editing, cinematography, and even music don’t flow with the atmosphere, subtext, and what’s going on. And there are so many people who think that story and acting are the core of cinema when you can find those elements in mediums such as theatre, radio dramas, and even storytelling. The camera work is what defines cinema and separates it from other mediums.
there are a lot of sci-fi movies nowadays that have great cinematography but do not keep the attention span of modern moviegoers
Yeah, modern moviegoers, and who are those people? It’s clear that they’re not the most intelligent people or those who are experienced with film science or film language, so one may ask if it’s the movie there’s something wrong with or the audience. Believe me, I’ve spent a long time dissecting other people’s assessment, and from an argumentative point of view, it’s clear that they have no idea what they’re talking about.
boring movies typically have pacing problems
Yes, but at least comment on the cinematic elements that contributes to this instead of just saying “this is boring”
don't try to harp on someone for disliking the godfather when this movie is not exempt from constructive criticism
What constructive criticism? The only thing I’ve gotten from these people are “This movie is boring”. How is any director supposed to learn anything from that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yhwachpoetry4205
I find it enjoyable that every response from you is you being catty, emotional, aggressive, spiteful, and offensive, and everything is targeted at ME rather than the topic. If you want me to take you seriously, then at least keep your cool like any serious and mature person would do. My superiors can handle it just fine in any debate, but apparently not you. Saying that someone is retarded is definitely not a good counter-argument, and I expected a lot more from someone who claims that he's a mature adult and I'm an asinine kid. I also find it ironic that you claim that I'm so arrogant and full of myself, but when I refer to people I look up to, are part of my environment, or are people I directly acknowledge to be above me and superior to me, you just shove them aside and discredit them in favor of your own personal judgment of me. That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me, and your aggressive tone just adds insult to injury. It doesn't make you look any smarter or more mature either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're just frustrated because I don't find your argumentation to be convincing enough or your insults to be any effective. I've also got a feeling that your headache is just a result of your frustration.
Also, you still fail to see that I have never said that I find art to be objective or factual. I said that I find it to be normative, meaning that it's not a fact that something is aesthetically pleasing or not, but since experienced critics' assessment are so well-formulated, well-thought-out, serious, analytic, and generally reasonable and convincing to such a degree that the vast majority can relate to the assessment and consensus, then it becomes harder to disagree with them since it's hard to find an effective counter-argument. Norms are never factual, but since arguments behind them are so relatable and reasonable, people just accept them. Critics are like consultants, and what a consultant says isn't always factual either, but it can still be considered reasonable. Not everything a politician or salesman says is factual either, but it can still be reasonable.
One last thing I haven't mentioned is that there's a difference between personal bias and aesthetic judgment. With the former, you can bring up any factor you want and nobody should comment on that, and it usually refers to someone's favorite/least favorite. With the latter however, you're expected to see the film for what it is and the criteria that apply, and of course it's subjective how you evaluate it, but people can still see whether you're being fair and reasonable or not. Just imagine that a critic personallly hated drama films or a film made by a black director and panned the film just because of that. That would be unfair!
So with that in mind. If I'm using my personal bias, I can say that "The Godfather" is slow-paced and tedious at times and not something I would watch if I was tired or just came home from work, and I can find more benefits from watching a simple action film for example, but from a critical and technical point of view, I consider "The Godfather" to be superior. My favorite movie is actually "Rocky", but I still consider it to be a weaker movie than for example "Taxi Driver" from a critical and technical point of view.
1
-
@yhwachpoetry4205
I don't need your approval. I'm saying that people that actually matter to me share my belief, so what you're saying to me is completely irrelevant to me, especially when you're not someone who obviously can lead to where I want. You're not a movie critic, you're not an editor-in-chief of the newspaper I want to work for, you're not a theatre manager, you're not a theatre director, and you're not a film historian. Me talking about you discrediting my peers, superiors, and role models was a comment directed towards your flawed judgment of saying that I'm only thinking about myself when I actually have allies to my statements. You constantly calling me a 12 year old troll is also irrelevant to me, because I know that I'm 23 year old, have received respect from people within my field and some of my role models, and have received my merits. Everybody knows that just because a stranger calls you this and this doesn't mean it's true. Your ignorance is not my problem, and calling someone a troll just because they take a debate and philosophy more seriously than an average person is just ridiculous. I guess if Hume, Kant, Derrida, Nietsczhe, Focault, or even Plato had lived in this era and written their philosophies here on YouTube, they would have been called 12 year old trolls by you as well? And no, I'm not comparing myself to them, this is again directed towards your flawed argument that not taking a philosophy for granted is the characteristic of a troll. I bet that you haven't done any research on David Hume, Roger Ebert, Doug Walker, or Lindsay Ellis either. In fact, you haven't referred to any sources in this discussion at all. You shoving those people aside is the equivalence of shoving aside an encyclopedia
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1