I don't think anybody considers St. Anger 'classic'.Your once and future Fanboy said:All of Metallica's work after 1998
I don't think anybody considers St. Anger 'classic'.Your once and future Fanboy said:All of Metallica's work after 1998
I sorta had the opposite problem with Blade Runner - at high school I was forced to study the first 15 minutes over and over and over again, then the next 15 minutes, and the next... by the time I was done I hated it, but I had a pretty thorough understanding of the imagery behind it.y1fella said:Subject is in the title but I got to say I watched blade runner and........
It was either really boring or I'm really stupid. And I don't think I'm particularly stupid because I have read the entire wheel of time series thus far and you need allot of patience to keep reading book 10.
that aside I don't understand the whole stigma around the movie. I walked in expecting a slow burn but talk about no burn. Instead of you know investigating and stuff he just roams around getting in arguments about philosophy with the replicant girl before very suddenly everyone starts very suddenly getting in gun fights. and then at the end it just ends. I mean the bad guy dies suddenly no kind of personal goal is achieved and the movies over. I walked in with the highest expectations yeah but I still never once enjoyed, was intrigued, liked the characters or anything that would typically constitutes a good movie.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie so don't get angry but I seriously didn't get it.
anyway what classics were you less then fond of.
Sure, all lists like this are. However, it's a reasonable collection of what common opinion holds as "good" regarding films, and a useful source that people on this site are familiar with.KafkaOffTheBeach said:You do realise that the IMDB 250 is retarded though, don't you?Verlander said:The following films feature on the IMDB Top 250 list (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top), yet I would rate them average to poor. I have seen 212 out of 250, so some (like the Social Network) I haven't seen. I wouldn't recommend people to not watch these, but bare in mind that they are nowhere near as good as people say they are. The following are average to poor:
IMDB is good for hard facts, and shit for opinions and recommendations.
Verlander said:Surely anything that requires education to enjoy would automatically be discounted, as it's appealing to a niche audience, and the majority of people cannot enjoy it? For example, I enjoy well written books on the history of art, as well as advanced documents on computer science, BUT I cannot expect others to enjoy the same things as they won't have the foundations to even approach the material.TSED said:I wonder how many of these opinions come from academically minded individuals. There is a huge difference in how, say, a Bachelor of English will dissect a narrative and how a layman will.
"Blade Runner," I must confess, is a movie I have never seen. "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", the novel by Dick on which it is based, I have read and quite enjoyed. The point of the novel is how it's a postcolonial piece. It's a critique on specific paradigms found at the time it was written. Many of the points it makes - particularly the anti-war sentiments coupled with a frustration and acknowledgement of the necessity of the police - ARE still culturally relevant. Once again, I know the movie has been altered substantially from the novel but I have not seen it.
Anyway, education is important to appreciate things. Some people complain that this exposure "ruins" literature for them; others find the exact opposite. The latter finds a way to vocalize their dislike of a work, and can now not only explain why they liked something, but they can find new interpretations to further their enjoyment.
This is not to dismiss pacing (I can't stand anything written between Pope and the Modernists, for example), but there's no nice way to say this. You don't like it because you don't get it.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that if something demands from the audience, it cannot complain when the section of the audience that cannot give treats it with disdain...
I agree with Pulp Fiction. that was going to be my pick.steeple said:game: dangerous dave...
seriously, who played this crap?
movie: pulp fiction wasnt that great, and probably "the birds"...
BLASPHEMY! I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO ENRAGED!!! *beats up inner Wes Craven fanboy and stuffs him back into the box* Sorry.eggsovereasy said:Nightmare on Elm Street (the original). Highly disappointed.
Ha! I like that... but, being heavily opinionated, I would have to disagree. You see, in your theory, every single persons opinion would have a different amount of worth (as well all have different levels of experience, education and general intelligence). This cannot apply when the media in question is universally aimed. The best anyone can give is a personal opinion (which education is, in the long run). I can give reasons for the selections I made (I didn't because I can't be bothered), and there will be people who disagree. Sadly, some of those people may be smarter or more motivated then I am, and then tackle each of my reasons successfully. It doesn't invalidate my opinion though, and there will be many people who agree with me.TSED said:Verlander said:Surely anything that requires education to enjoy would automatically be discounted, as it's appealing to a niche audience, and the majority of people cannot enjoy it? For example, I enjoy well written books on the history of art, as well as advanced documents on computer science, BUT I cannot expect others to enjoy the same things as they won't have the foundations to even approach the material.TSED said:I wonder how many of these opinions come from academically minded individuals. There is a huge difference in how, say, a Bachelor of English will dissect a narrative and how a layman will.
"Blade Runner," I must confess, is a movie I have never seen. "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", the novel by Dick on which it is based, I have read and quite enjoyed. The point of the novel is how it's a postcolonial piece. It's a critique on specific paradigms found at the time it was written. Many of the points it makes - particularly the anti-war sentiments coupled with a frustration and acknowledgement of the necessity of the police - ARE still culturally relevant. Once again, I know the movie has been altered substantially from the novel but I have not seen it.
Anyway, education is important to appreciate things. Some people complain that this exposure "ruins" literature for them; others find the exact opposite. The latter finds a way to vocalize their dislike of a work, and can now not only explain why they liked something, but they can find new interpretations to further their enjoyment.
This is not to dismiss pacing (I can't stand anything written between Pope and the Modernists, for example), but there's no nice way to say this. You don't like it because you don't get it.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that if something demands from the audience, it cannot complain when the section of the audience that cannot give treats it with disdain...
You recognize that these books are "well written" but you "cannot expect others to enjoy the same things." That's fine. I don't think any one's ever said something along the lines of "all classics are good and if you don't like them you are a BAD PERSON" (actually, ok, a few decades ago they were pretty strict on how lit theory worked...). There's a difference between proclaiming a personal dislike of something and proclaiming a failing of the work itself.
Notice the comments so far. A good deal of them have been "I didn't like it," and then a good deal of them have been "it sucked because of ______." Now, both of these opinion styles have merit, but they amusing work on opposite ends of the education spectrum. As anecdotal evidence, I don't know much swing jazz. When I hear swing jazz I like or dislike, I preface it with how it is merely my opinion. On the other hand, something I have a deep understanding and mastery of I will not describe with opinions. I will use concrete terms and support them with arguments whichever way it lies.
The problem is when this is reversed. If I walked into a debate on, let's say Image Comics (note that I have never read any of their works) and start saying that they suck objectively, my opinion will be worthless. If I started talking about how I think that maybe Neuromancer could possibly mean this one thing... Well, it'd sound like I didn't know what I was talking about. My analysis would be taken as an opinion instead of an educated and nuanced view point.
This being said, I'm still a hypocrite. I have very little knowledge over certain things (Twilight, most famous mallcore / metalcore bands, WoW - as examples) but I still speak as if I have deep insights and do not lace my sentences with the aforementioned weakening modifiers. I still have some knowledge, but in truth most of my knowledge comes from contrasting it with other comparable works. Hey - it's not my fault it sucks too much for me to bother with it.
You're right, it really wasn't. Although the chainsaw scene is entertaining.MadCapMunchkin said:Also, I'm sorry. Scarface wasn't that good...
What version did you watch, just out of interest? There are a few, and it really seems like a few different films.y1fella said:I walked in expecting a slow burn but talk about no burn. Instead of you know investigating and stuff he just roams around getting in arguments about philosophy with the replicant girl before very suddenly everyone starts very suddenly getting in gun fights. and then at the end it just ends. I mean the bad guy dies suddenly no kind of personal goal is achieved and the movies over.
This interests me: How does a work become considered a classic?TSED said:I wonder how many of these opinions come from academically minded individuals. There is a huge difference in how, say, a Bachelor of English will dissect a narrative and how a layman will.
...
[E]ducation is important to appreciate things.
y1fella said:Subject is in the title but I got to say I watched blade runner and........
It was either really boring or I'm really stupid. And I don't think I'm particularly stupid because I have read the entire wheel of time series thus far and you need allot of patience to keep reading book 10.
that aside I don't understand the whole stigma around the movie. I walked in expecting a slow burn but talk about no burn. Instead of you know investigating and stuff he just roams around getting in arguments about philosophy with the replicant girl before very suddenly everyone starts very suddenly getting in gun fights. and then at the end it just ends. I mean the bad guy dies suddenly no kind of personal goal is achieved and the movies over. I walked in with the highest expectations yeah but I still never once enjoyed, was intrigued, liked the characters or anything that would typically constitutes a good movie
I totally agree with you two. You both hit the nail right on the head.Warty Bliggens said:Someone already touched on The Lord of the Rings, but I'd like to go back to it. Tolkien, as creative as he was, could not write to save his fucking life. The books are preachy, monotonous drivel that spend one page on critical plot development for every twenty used to describe a piece of furniture. The man was so in love with this world he created that he forgot to pace them as a story rather than present them as a historical text for what is, admittedly, probably the best medieval-fantasy setting ever crafted. The problem is that as expansive as it's always been, Middle-Earth is just fucking boring.
Wait, what.Verlander said:Ha! I like that... but, being heavily opinionated, I would have to disagree. You see, in your theory, every single persons opinion would have a different amount of worth (as well all have different levels of experience, education and general intelligence). This cannot apply when the media in question is universally aimed. The best anyone can give is a personal opinion (which education is, in the long run). I can give reasons for the selections I made (I didn't because I can't be bothered), and there will be people who disagree. Sadly, some of those people may be smarter or more motivated then I am, and then tackle each of my reasons successfully. It doesn't invalidate my opinion though, and there will be many people who agree with me.
Either way, the question asked for personal opinions, and I daresay there will be people more interested in seeing certain films, like the Godfather or similar, simply because they appeared on an overrated list, because they want their own opinion on the subject. So everyone wins! What a contrary bunch we are...