• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Movies & Shows everyone seems to love so much and you can't understand why!

Raffaella

bon vivant
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
945
I never understand the hype for 3D movies. Just never do. 3D never makes a movie any better for me.

The hype irritated me too, Arctic, but every now and then a good film will be in theatres and everyone'll tell you to see it 3D and it'll be worth it. Did you see Life of Pi in 3D? That was incredible, I completely forgot I was in the theatre. Iron Man 3 in 3D was boring (aside from scene where they're falling from the airplane). Reviewers usually tell you whether it's worth seeing 3D. Like these guys, not a fan of them but they're honest about 3D films.

I was excited about Tron: Legacy simply because the soundtracks by Daft Punk was too magnificent.

Essentially just a long Daft Punk music video and "light show for the eyes" (Roger Ebert RIP).
 

Arctic Hysteria

an abyss of Nothingness
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
655
MBTI Type
IxFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Why is this exactly? Do you find something about movies with large budgets inherently distasteful, or do you find that most people just aren't very good at making them?
There are movies with large budgets that I find entertaining. However, essentially, what can make a movie brilliant is a well written script, unique story-telling technique, good performance, and striking cinematography. To achieve this, it requires skills, talents and dedication rather than gigantic budget. Usually, when a director has a huge amount of money in their hands, they spend it on equipments and the visual labs and bigger stars who probably choose the roles for the money and the attention they brings.
People love big loud beautiful things that overwhelm their eyes and ears. Usually these effects come hand in hand with predictable plots, mediocre acting and mediocre cinematography (not to be confused with visual effects). If something is understood and loved by everyone, quite often, there's nothing groundbreaking or challenging about it. These kinds of movies I go to with a large group of friends where enjoying arts is not the priority, or I watch on airplanes during long-haul flights.

There ARE a few big budget films I find artistically satisfying too. A very few.


The hype irritated me too, Arctic, but every now and then a good film will be in theatres and everyone'll tell you to see it 3D and it'll be worth it. Did you see Life of Pi in 3D? That was incredible, I completely forgot I was in the theatre.

I did see Life of Pi in 3D. However great cinematography can be never enhanced or achieved with 3D. I am a cinematography kind of girl. I certainly will be entertained with a 3D movie, but I most likely forget about any movie an hour after watching it if the story telling and/ or the cinematography don't measure up.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Fi?

Breaking free from social and legal constraints is something a lot of people wish for or fantasize.

No way buddy. I am as liberal as they come, I live very freely and encourage individualism. That show and movie are about doing sick evil things that hurt other people on flimsy rationalization, just to get money. They are shining examples of what's wrong with American people, it's utterly narcissistic to do such dark things and still think you are a "good person" just because you have a family. There's a message there, something about American people having no conscience about harming socially unacceptable people because they themselves are bourgeois.

Thelma and Louise or Weeds are about breaking free of conventional norms. Breaking Bad and Good People are about bad people.

Meth isn't pot, it isn't even ecstasy, it's a horrific drug, the worst.
 

Riva

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2,371
Enneagram
7w8
No way buddy. I am as liberal as they come, I live very freely and encourage individualism. That show and movie are about doing sick evil things that hurt other people on flimsy rationalization, just to get money. They are shining examples of what's wrong with American people, it's utterly narcissistic to do such dark things and still think you are a "good person" just because you have a family. There's a message there, something about American people having no conscience about harming socially unacceptable people because they themselves are bourgeois.

Thelma and Louise or Weeds are about breaking free of conventional norms. Breaking Bad and Good People are about bad people.

Meth isn't pot, it isn't even ecstasy, it's a horrific drug, the worst.

Reg breaking bad -

The writers actually do a good job making viewers have conflicted feelings. Initially they make us feel so frustrated 'for' him that we wish he would succeed at selling meth. Then as the show progresses they make the character power hungry and greedy and unlikeable. Yes unlikeable.



He also confesses that he did what he did for his amusement to his wife. Also he could have asked his friends to help him. He refuses and even gets mad. At that moment the viewers although would feel frustrated would understand what he was doing. But later we realize he refuses help because is arrgant/big headed etc. I think overall the writers were trying to make the viewers feel disappointed about his ethical choices but feel somewhat respectful for his tact.

They do a good job i think making us feel -
frustrated at his circumstances,
admire his skill,
disappointed/disgusted with his actions and
finally feel sorry for everything that has happened to him and what he has done.


I didn't think you were a liberal.
 

Arctic Hysteria

an abyss of Nothingness
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
655
MBTI Type
IxFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Did I even watch the same series? Because Breaking Bad is all about how integrity deteriorates.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Reg breaking bad -

The writers actually do a good job making viewers have conflicted feelings. Initially they make us feel so frustrated 'for' him that we wish he would succeed at selling meth. Then as the show progresses they make the character power hungry and greedy and unlikeable. Yes unlikeable.



He also confesses that he did what he did for his amusement to his wife. Also he could have asked his friends to help him. He refuses and even gets mad. At that moment the viewers although would feel frustrated would understand what he was doing. But later we realize he refuses help because is arrgant/big headed etc. I think overall the writers were trying to make the viewers feel disappointed about his ethical choices but feel somewhat respectful for his tact.

They do a good job i think making us feel -
frustrated at his circumstances,
admire his skill,
disappointed/disgusted with his actions and
finally feel sorry for everything that has happened to him and what he has done.


I didn't think you were a liberal.

I am liberal in the sense that I allow people freedom to choose their own morals as long as it doesn't harm others.

People watched this show for SIX SEASONS and sympathized and rooted for Hank. That's bullshit. It reminds me of how disgusted my ESFJ ex got with his parents back in the day for rooting for Tony Soprano.

It troubles me that American adults even need to go through such a morality play for such an extended time, that they accept horrible disgusting things as long as a homely teacher with cancer and a disabled child does them, because they think he's the underdog? No, he's a middle class person who will stop at nothing to maintain the financial status quo. I can tell you right away if someone told me I was going to die, harming others would be the last thing I would do, and if one of my family members did such a thing I would do everything to stop them.

The fact that people accept his circumstances as an excuse really bothers me, especially when they aren't usually so quick to forgive dealers trying to survive in the ghetto.

And that Good People movie just offended my intelligence. It's not just immoral but stupid "yar her derp let's rob a murder scene so we can live in a house instead of an apartment. "

I think my frustration underlying is with what it indicates about greater cultural norms. I don't watch Dexter either. I am a horror fan, but I don’t think that's cute at all.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Did I even watch the same series? Because Breaking Bad is all about how integrity deteriorates.

If that was the point of the show it could have been over in a half hour. Someone like that has no integrity to begin with, they're just passive. Big difference. Passive =/= nice or good.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In the case of Mulholland Dr., I thought it was so bad that I have a pet theory that it's David Lynch's joke on film critics. He's a universally acclaimed director, and I think he may have deliberately made an obtuse movie that makes no sense just to show that critics are lazy and have preconceived ideas about the work of certain directors.

My understanding is that it was supposed to be a TV show that fell through during production, and he cannibalized footage and/or story to make the movie. So the disjointed nature of it wouldn't be surprising to start with.

There are movies with large budgets that I find entertaining. However, essentially, what can make a movie brilliant is a well written script, unique story-telling technique, good performance, and striking cinematography. To achieve this, it requires skills, talents and dedication rather than gigantic budget. Usually, when a director has a huge amount of money in their hands, they spend it on equipments and the visual labs and bigger stars who probably choose the roles for the money and the attention they brings.

While it doesn't happen all the time, that is my fear too and I've seen it happen before with directors I love. (I'm an Aronofsky fan, for example; and while I didn't think Noah was a bad movie, it's one of the lesser Aronofsky movies out there. I also think Nolan's earlier works were consistently better than his more recent ones and I totally hated TDKR, although I'm hoping Interstellar is a move back towards his roots. I can go on, but I'm preaching to the choir.)

I did see Life of Pi in 3D. However great cinematography can be never enhanced or achieved with 3D. I am a cinematography kind of girl. I certainly will be entertained with a 3D movie, but I most likely forget about any movie an hour after watching it if the story telling and/ or the cinematography don't measure up.

I didn't see Life of Pi in 3D in the theater but now wish I had. (I can watch it at home in 3D on my plasma... I expect it to be pretty amazing even on the smaller screen because in 2D it was just beautiful.)

3D has become a kind of gimmick, unfortunately -- both to draw people + to increase movie revenue due to higher ticket costs. Not all movies are worth 3D, and you can also do a terrible job creating a 3D movie (where the film experience is not really enhanced by it). We can probably blame James Cameron for the 3D revival, due to the success of Avatar -- and in that case, the film WAS enhanced by 3D but the story and lead actor were pretty thin. Or Gravity, which was mentioned earlier; this was SO worth seeing in 3D in an IMAX theater (because 3D was used to create depth and space, versus making things pop out of the screen... I was awed), but again the movie is essentially plot without much characterization and there's really only 2 characters that get any screen time.

The Croods in 3D? Urrkrkkkk....
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Did I even watch the same series? Because Breaking Bad is all about how integrity deteriorates.

Potentially -- although there's a legitimate question of whether it's more a gradual corruption or more an erosion of the veneer that overlaid those elements in Walt's character to begin with. But that's why he's called Heisenberg, and the quantum/dual self.

my thoughts on breaking bad (spoilered just cuz it's kind of a tangent):

 

Recktor

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
26
Movies

Almost Famous
Magnolia
Juno
Superbad
The Hangover
Bridesmaids

Shows

Friends
How I met Your Mother
The Big Bang Theory
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
And the way yhe husband gets caught is too soon and too sad. Yes yes that was where they could have lengthen it, catching the husband, finding evidence of his involvement.

I love Fargo, and that's actually my favorite scene in the movie. The pathos that William H. Macy conjures up in that scene is astonishing.

Breaking Bad. Seriously, the middle class romantic delusions about SELLING METH honestly makes me hate people. Almost as much as that movie called Good People or something like v that, where the people aren't good at all but capitalize on their neighbors murder, then wonder why bad things are happening to them. I don't know if Americans are morally bankrupt or just stupid

I don't think that just because people loved the show means they thought Walt was a good person or that he was justified. It was just an amazing show that depicted something horrific.

I did see Life of Pi in 3D. However great cinematography can be never enhanced or achieved with 3D. I am a cinematography kind of girl. I certainly will be entertained with a 3D movie, but I most likely forget about any movie an hour after watching it if the story telling and/ or the cinematography don't measure up.

But...Life of Pi won the Oscar for cinematography. Now, a lot of that award is actually for the VFX, since many Academy members can't tell the difference. But for the purposes of this discussion, that's irrelevant. It's a visually stunning film that was enhanced by 3D. I think too many films employ 3D that's not justified, but this isn't one of them.
 

Arctic Hysteria

an abyss of Nothingness
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
655
MBTI Type
IxFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
But...Life of Pi won the Oscar for cinematography. Now, a lot of that award is actually for the VFX, since many Academy members can't tell the difference. But for the purposes of this discussion, that's irrelevant. It's a visually stunning film that was enhanced by 3D. I think too many films employ 3D that's not justified, but this isn't one of them.

Oh I was referring to other movies when I mentioned cinematography.

I agree that Life of Pi was stunning. I myself was impressed.
However I tend to pay a great deal of attention to the camera work aspect of cinematography, raw and real.
 

Arctic Hysteria

an abyss of Nothingness
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
655
MBTI Type
IxFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Amélie

Have I mentioned it?

Everyone loves it. I hated it. It started off well, lovely cinematography and witty. But then the artsy French sense of humor just bugged me immensely.
 

Evee

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
2,285
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

implied-facepalm-300x195.jpg


What don't you like about Superbad?
 

Chthonic

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
683
I always found The Wizard Of Oz disturbing rather than the fantasy wonderland everyone else thought it was. Glinda gave me the creeps.
 

Chthonic

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
683
I liked the God Father 1 and esp 2. I don't see any females complaining about it. I am still kinda concerned whether i like it mainly because it appeals to the i-want-to-be-a-crime-boss-who-is-above-the-law part of tbe male brain.

The second was better tha the first.


Complaints ladies?

I can't complain about movies I have never seen.
 

Raffaella

bon vivant
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
945
Looper (2012) - another film I wanted to enjoy however it left me agitated since it received a lot of praise. It was predictable, you knew the end before you saw it. I genuinely don't understand why people love it. I'm reminded of a commercial form of Primer (2004) barring the realistic approach (Looper is too sugar-coated). I loved Primer, though I couldn't exactly follow it.
 

Surr

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
79
MBTI Type
IDFK
I never cared much for Gladiator, plotlines like that (zero effort put into the story to make it differ from the gazillion other stories with exactly the same plotline) make me cringe. Also, it was far too pompous and pretentious for my taste as well. Same goes for Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon. Like, I have nothing against doing a story that's completely unoriginal but at least give it something new, a twist maybe or another standpoint to look at it. When I watched Monsters University and realized it's gonna be your basic "zero to hero", I was groaning in frustration, but I ended up loving it for the simple reason that they actually twisted the story a bit and actually made it quite fresh and new. And it was kinda funny as well.

Another movie I didn't like quite as much as everyone else was The Dark Knight, but to be honest I see why people like it and I agree that it's a really well made film and I liked it too, I just wasn't blown away by it as much as other people seemed to be. The same goes for The Avengers. I think they're both awesome but I never got that into them.

Hobbit was a bit too dragging for my taste and it was too faithful to the book to the point of being repetitive (run into troube-try fighting-try to run away-shit that didn't work let's fight again-Gandalf) and I was confused what was the target audience for the movie. What works in a book might not work in a movie and when you make a movie adaptation you should always be very mindful of that. I think Peter Jackson wasn't mindful enough and it ruined the film a bit for me.
 
Last edited:
Top