John Williams: Unpopular Opinions

[Richard Penna 3,672]

Well actually you didn't narrow it down to 'film buffs' to start with, but ok, I can accept that as a starting point.

[Thor 7,471]

No, because while I think it is generally applicable, it is ESPECIALLY true for socalled film buffs. I'm talking to the crowd for which it is mostly applicable, and on JWFAN, most of the members presumably consider themselves film buffs.

[Richard Penna 3,672]

Actually I wouldn't consider myself a film buff. (mostly because LoveFilm shut down  )

 

Although that won't change that I think your comments that having a narrower range of film enjoyment than yourself is bad for someone, is an out of line statement, and makes assumptions about what they want to get out of movies.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

18 hours ago, Thor said:

As I've said at least two or three times now, my main target for this particular criticism is those that claim to be 'film buffs' (I take it that most members on this board are at least above average interested in movies). Why do you consistently ignore these specifications?

People are people, regardless of them being film buffs or not.

And surely something that is "unhealthy" for one group would apply similarly to the other?

 

I do like movies quite a lot, that's for certain. But I claim no professional expertise on the subject.

Would that make me a "film buff" or not?

 

Normally, I can be quite curious about "serious fare" as well as popcorn entertainment.

But "normally" has been a while ago, my preference is vastly for fun, positive stuff and I'd definitely not consider a personal preference on a subject like movies to be in any way "unhealthy".

One-sided perhaps, but when it comes to cinema, that's really far more harmless than many other subjects would be.

 

In the end, it's only entertainment.

That can admittedly be educational and even eye-opening at times.

But still...

[Thor 7,471]

Well, I stand 100% by what I say, and I don't care if it's considered 'elitist' or not (again: how can it be considered elitist if I apply the same criticism to those who consistently look down on superficial Hollywood fare?). My firm opinion is that this is more than just having this or that preference; it's about basic human development. People who only go in one singular direction are stuck in a rut and have a limited range of human experience. Sounds harsh, but that's how I see it. Sorry.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If you want to develop your brain, read books!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

What Thor says is absolutely true and it's the only movie watchers that you can take seriously. Still, I don't take many of Thor's opinions on specific movies seriously.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

He tends to like everything.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

On 01/12/2017 at 12:16 AM, Thor said:

Not at all. Having a one-sided diet in anything is not good for you.

 

So you agree that having a diet consisting only of abridged and arranged releases is a bad thing, and that one should balance it with complete and chronological releases? Good! Now we're going somewhere...

[Quintus 5,399]

The fast food analogy is dreadful Thor! Tut tut. 

[Thor 7,471]

3 hours ago, Quintus said:

The fast food analogy is dreadful Thor! Tut tut. 

 

Quite the contrary, I think it's very apt. Humans consist of bodies and souls (or "spirits" or whatever your juice is). While what's unhealthy is easier to scientifically measure for the first, it's not all that outlandish to propose things that might be unhealthy for the latter.

 

"Popcorn movies" is in itself an analogy that says something about the type of cinema in question that isn't too far removed from "fast food".

[Quintus 5,399]

It's literally not physically unhealthy to the human body to consistently watch one sort of movie over another, Thor. How ridiculous 😂

 

Eating a ton of burgers on the other hand can literally shorten a person's life. 

[Thor 7,471]

1 minute ago, Quintus said:

It's literally not physically unhealthy to the human body to consistently watch one sort of movie over another, Thor. How ridiculous 😂

 

Of course not. I never said so. I said it might be "spiritually" unhealthy.

[Quintus 5,399]

That's subjective. How about cognitively unhealthy instead? Even then it's a silly assumption. Vital mental stimuli comes from all kinds of different places. 

[Thor 7,471]

5 minutes ago, Quintus said:

That's subjective. How about cognitively unhealthy instead? Even then it's nonsense. Vital mental stimuli comes from all kinds of different places. 

 

It IS certainly more subjective than a more scientifically measured assessment of one's body. But it was an ANALOGY, Quintus. The whole point of an analogy is to apply a thing from one area to another, i.e. just as eating only fast food is bad for your body, so too is watching only one type of film bad for your spirit/soul/human development/call it whatever you wish.

 

"Comfort zones" are by definition comfortable, but they don't allow for much development.

[Quintus 5,399]

I never said it wasn't an analogy. I said it's a bad analogy, which it is. Of course you disagree - you have to. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

The stupid conceit behind this whole conversation is that there are "non-escapist" movies in the first place. They're almost all escapist. Unless you were either a NAZI or in one of their concentration camps, Schindler's List is escapist.  And even then is has very little to do with the reality of being in that situation. 12 Years A Slave is escapist. The most boring Spielberg process movie is escapist. Even films about every day people doing everyday things we can all relate to are escapist. No film is anything like real life. Unless you have a life span of two hours accompanied by a soundtrack. The second you sit down for a film in a darkened theatre or in your living room, you're escaping.

 

A film is rightly judged in how well it works as a piece of cinema, not its subject matter.  There's nothing wrong with "serious" films (I love many), but don't pretend they're not escapist. And it's the height of pretension to say someone can't be a serious conniseuer of cinema (or even worse, their "soul" is somehow lacking) if their taste in subject matter isn't serious, or varied, enough for you.

 

And finally, while I like a wide range of films, from serious to the seriously stupid, those who use film as an escape to me are a lot more intuitively "getting it right" than those who look to film to make themselves feel more intellectual. That's rubbish. If you're looking for that, read a book. Or Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

[Thor 7,471]

 

7 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I never said it wasn't analogy. I said it's a bad analogy, which it is. Of course you disagree - you have to. 

 

Yeah, and I don't see how it's a bad analogy, sorry.

 

Singular food diet + body = unhealthy

Singular film diet + "soul" = unhealthy

 

Only difference is that the first is easier to measure scientifically than the latter.

 

3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 And it's the height of pretension to say someone can't be e serious conniseuer of cinema if their taste in subject matter isn't serious, or varied, enough for you.

 

Quite the contrary, it's one of the most common sense things I can ever think of.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

4 minutes ago, Thor said:

Singular film diet + "soul" = unhealthy

 

Oh for crying out loud. 

[Thor 7,471]

The truth hurts, I know.

[publicist 4,643]

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

The stupid conceit behind this whole conversation is that there are "non-escapist" movies in the first place.

 

That's relativist semantic nitpicking. Most people have a vague notion what 'escapism' means and it's not 'Schindler's List'. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Well whatever those notions are, Schindler's List is still escapism. Just because it's seriously horrific subject matter doesn't mean it's not escapism.That's absurd.

[Quintus 5,399]

26 minutes ago, Thor said:

Yeah, and I don't see how it's a bad analogy, sorry.

 

Singular food diet + body = unhealthy

Singular film diet + "soul" = unhealthy

 

Only difference is that the first is easier to measure scientifically than the latter.

 

Quite the contrary, it's one of the most common sense things I can ever think of.

 

Lmao, stick to movie bufferey mate

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

6 minutes ago, Thor said:

The truth hurts, I know.

 

We should meet for a movie sometime. No need to look for me, I'll know you by the black turtleneck.

[Thor 7,471]

4 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Well whatever those notions are, Schindler's List is still escapism. Just because it's seriously horrific subject matter doesn't mean it's not escapism.That's absurd.

 

LOL...SCHINDLER'S LIST an escapist movie! As if your comments in this thread weren't outlandish enough already. I think you might be confusing 'escapism' with 'storytelling' or 'fictional engrossment'.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

And that, is why you fail. You pretentious consumption of countless "serious" films Thor hasn't given you an ounce of insight into anything. Have you watched so much to come away with so little?

 

Oh, and these are my first comments in this thread, so reading comp is apparently a thing with you. You should try cracking a book open sometimes (an no Thor, film studies books don't count).

[Quintus 5,399]

"I could have done more... to stop people going stupid."  

[publicist 4,643]

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Well whatever those notions are, Schindler's List is still escapism. Just because it's seriously horrific subject matter doesn't mean it's not escapism.That's absurd.

 

No. 'the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy'

 

It's not one of the commandments, it's just a pragmatic term to describe something that does not apply to something that wrecks your spirit. 

[Thor 7,471]

Quote

 

And that, is why you fail. You pretentious consumption of countless "serious" films Thor hasn't given you an ounce of insight into anything. Have you watched so much to come away with so little?

 

Oh, and these are my first comments in this thread, so reading comp is apparently a thing with you. You should try cracking a book open sometimes (an no Thor, film studies books don't count).

 

 

Ha, ha...give me a break! You're such a ridiculous person, Nick. Your idiotic remarks just display your total inability to understand anything of what we've been talking about. 

 

Talk about massive (reading) Fail!

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

9 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Ha, ha...give me a break! You're such a ridiculous person, Nick. Your idiotic remarks just display your total inability to understand anything of what we've been talking about. 

 

Talk about massive Fail!

 

No, Thor (sigh) what's a "massive fail" is your usual pseudo intellectual bullshit, and inability to communicate without sounding like a pretentious ass. 

 

On 9/23/2017 at 5:30 PM, Thor said:

dismissing Gibson's movies on a 'superficial' approach to violence, is simply missing the point completely.

On 9/23/2017 at 12:23 AM, Thor said:

 

No, it isn't. It's very much out in the open. Sorry if this sounds arrogant, but you're arguing from the vantage point of someone who hasn't really been paying attention to what has been written about these guys over the years; or who just evaluates them on face value.

16 hours ago, Thor said:

 

Why do you consistently ignore these specifications?

 

On 11/27/2017 at 10:31 PM, Thor said:

 

OK, reject it if you wish. It's called denial.

On 11/24/2017 at 9:29 AM, Thor said:

Wow, some really horrible film diets going on here...

 

BTW, all of those are from just a couple pages in this thread, and none directed at me. So...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The only way this thread could get more ridiculous is if a fake TLJ tracklist was posted in it.

[Bespin 8,480]

Fight! Fight! Fight!  

[Quintus 5,399]

Schindler's List is an important film and quite a marvelous achievement. But I am "entertained" while watching it. Because I am fascinated by the subject, and the filmmaking, it transports me somewhat to its world when I view it. So an argument could be made that it is, in a sense, escapism. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Nick's angle, mind. But I don't think any entertainment, be it film, TV or art hanging on a wall, is so lofty in its intentions that it cannot ever be described as a passive distraction, escapism, or even a fantasy.  

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Exactly. I'm just saying you don't have to shut off your brain and think of nothing but unicorns and rainbows for something to be regarded as escapist. 

 

And I'd probably be much less emphatic about it if Thor wasn't involved.

[Bespin 8,480]

I weep everytime I see Schinder's List, I hate the germans and I love the jewishs, so it's a good movie, because in the real life I feel exactly the contrary! 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Art is escapism for the mind.

 

And "escapism" doesn't necessarily means that it doesn't make you think.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 minute ago, BloodBoal said:

Art is escapism for the mind.

 

And "escapism" doesn't necessarily measn that it doesn't makes you think.

 

 

And this is how it's done.

[Thor 7,471]

12 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

No, Thor (sigh) what's a "massive fail" is your usual pseudo intellectual bullshit, and inability to communicate without sounding like a pretentious ass. 

 

And as usual, you're the person who's completely unable to discuss or disagree with anyone without coming off as a total and utter asshole. Geez, what a total waste of space you are!

 

When you said: "And that, is why you fail. You pretentious consumption of countless "serious" films Thor hasn't given you an ounce of insight into anything", it was pretty clear that you hadn't read enough of the thread to understand the issue at hand, as if my criticism was an "anti-Hollywood attack".

 

You know, before you jump into a conversation, it's an advantage to read what the others have said before. But again -- as usual, you're not interested in that. You neither have the ability or capability to behave like an adult.

 

You're pathetic.

 

[Aaaah....how refreshing to take things down on Nick's kindergarten level now and then! :D]

[Quintus 5,399]

I mean, look at a smart film like Blade Runner. That's pure escapism. So Schindler's List is a historical retelling of a human atrocity, so what? It was still made with actors and cameramen and set designers with money in mind and a desire to captivate and entertain. Two very different films, but with one crucial thing in common: to be thought provoking. 

 

All storytelling is escapism. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

59 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Schindler's List is an important film and quite a marvelous achievement. But I am "entertained" while watching it. Because I am fascinated by the subject, and the filmmaking, it transports me somewhat to its world when I view it. So an argument could be made that it is, in a sense, escapism. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Nick's angle, mind. But I don't think any entertainment, be it film, TV or art hanging on a wall, is so lofty in its intentions that it cannot ever be described as a passive distraction, escapism, or even a fantasy.  

 

Yes. In fact, you could argue that the more successful a film is in transporting you to another time, place and reality, the more "escapist" it is. And certainly a film that is able to show you the world (even profound suffering) through someone else's eyes, and a different reality from your own, is a kind of escapism from your own life.

 

[Thor 7,471]

3 minutes ago, Quintus said:

All storytelling is escapism. 

 

Not at all. Escapism is a very specific TYPE of storytelling. SCHINDLER'S LIST is NOT escapism in any form or fashion.

 

I recommend you and Nick google it.

[Bespin 8,480]

(Does Nick knows that it is practically impossible to win an argument with Thor? I mean you can lose your mind trying to discuss with people having this kind of "concrete" logic.) 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

He must try. It is his burden.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The mighty Thor does not win arguments. He conquers.

[Thor 7,471]

2 minutes ago, Bespin said:

(Does Nick knows that it is practically impossible to win an argument with Thor? I mean you can lose your mind trying to discuss with this kind of "concrete" logic.) 

 

He probably knows, which is why he wants to drag the conversation down into a mudslinging fest. I'm game for that, for as long as Jay allows (probably not much longer).

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, Baby Jane Hudson said:

The mighty Thor does not win arguments. He conquers.

 

He crushes your soul until you surrender.

[Bespin 8,480]

At the end, it makes a totally irrelevant conversation for others to read, you realize that?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 minute ago, BloodBoal said:

 

He crushes your soul until you surrender.

 

So you're saying there's no escape?

[Bespin 8,480]

3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

So you're saying there's no escape?

 

SHUT UP.

 

@Jay Can you add this line in the thread "Read this before your first post" : Don't try to argue with Thor.

 

I mean, it can save lives. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

So you're saying there's no escape?

 

Yes. But you must try nonetheless. It is your burden. If you do not find a way, no one will.