# Most unenjoyably Pretentious Movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171 "2004-03-24T19:16:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/181 "2004-03-30T01:04:34Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Again, I feel like you’re reacting to something I’ve never, ever written. Please cite examples of things I’ve said that have given the above-emphasized impressions. Already done, at length. I know you read the post, since you quoted from it. If you want to maintain that you had a different intent in what you’re saying, fine. I can only react to what you actually wrote, which is condescending, arrogant, and pretentious. However, I have a hard time believing that you can honestly say you think you haven’t made any value judgements in this thread when your very first post in this thread started with the sentence, “Man, you poor poor people.” You want to try and claim that’s not a value judgement? > [@](#): > > That’s bullshit projection. For me the key word there is choice; you wanna make it effort, that’s your Rorschach. In other words, it’s not _your_ fault that people don’t understand what you _meant_ to say, it’s _their_ fault for only going by what you _actually_ said. > [@](#): > > I like to dig through complicated movies; I have many friends who do not. In fact, I only have, like, three friends–out of a lot of friends–who do enjoy such digging. Do I consider all my other friends–and you and Miller–lazy, because you go to movies for another reason? that’s absurd. Well, then you should stop saying that, because that is precisely the impression you continue to give in threads like this, including in this very paragraph, where once again, you assume that because people in this thread have listed movies you like as “pretentious”, it must mean they didn’t attempt to dig into the movie. That is a pretense: that people who do not appreciate a movie must not have made any effort to appreciate the movie. That is precisely what is so infuriating about trying to discuss almost anything with you: your regular habit of assuming different conclusions must be the result of different processes. I am every bit as interested in discerning subtext as you are, and at least as skilled, but of course, since I’m arguing with you, I must be one of those people who only go to the movies for car chases and explosions. > [@](#): > > I keep emphasizing (and I will not do so again) that we each choose to make a DIFFERENT effort in our approach to movie watching; I have never said that I “give extra effort.” I have said over and over again that I get one thing out of movies, you get another. Any judgment value on that has been projected, defensively, by you and Miller: I have never made a value judgment on the individual approaches to moviewatching. Manifestly untrue. You haven’t been able to make a post yet in this thread that didn’t contain a value judgement. And, just for kicks, I like how you paranthetically say you will not re-emphasize your point shortly before you use all caps to re-emphasize it. Maybe I’ve been mistaken all along, and words just aren’t your bag, because you seem to have some trouble making them do the things you want them to do. Such as construct a sentence that doesn’t contradict itself, or state your opinion without alienating your audience. I’ll try to keep that idea in mind when addressing you from now on. > [@](#): > > The difference here (I will not address the Little Nicky jab, because I already have) is that you give a reasoned “defense” of your position; most of the posts in this thread have stopped at calling a movie pretentious, without any intelligent discussion of such a judgment was made. The point of the thread isn’t to debate these movies. The fact that people haven’t been offering up nuanced defences of their opinions does not mean they are incapable of doing so. This is the sort of assumption that makes you appear to be arrogant, because you are assuming things about people with insufficient evidence. > [@](#): > > To label a movie pretentious, and suggest that anyone who “claims” to like it is also being pretentious, is nothing by namecalling, and is just as stupid and thoughtless and insulting as saying that anyone who doesn’t like the movies I like, for the reasons I like them, is stupid and lazy (which, again, I have never said, nor yet even implied, Miller’s frothing to the contrary). So, let me get this straight. If I say that a movie you like is pretentious… let’s say, _Showgirls_… that means I’m saying _you_ are pretentious? If I say it’s a bad movie, am I saying you’re a bad person? If I say I didn’t like it, am I saying I don’t like you? Of course, I have pretty much said two thirds of those to you in this thread: I do think you’re pretentious, and I don’t much like you. But that’s not because of which movies you like, or why you like them, it’s because of how you treat anyone who disagrees with you. Oh, and for the record, I think Roger Ebert is a pompous ass. Great movie reviewer, but I’d never want to get in a debate with him, because… well, because it’d be a lot like debating you, really. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/182 "2004-03-30T01:48:35Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I keep emphasizing (and I will not do so again) that we each choose to make a DIFFERENT effort in our approach to movie watching; I have never said that I “give extra effort.” I have said over and over again that I get one thing out of movies, you get another. Any judgment value on that has been projected, defensively, by you and Miller: I have never made a value judgment on the individual approaches to moviewatching. > [@lissener](#): > > I have emphasized over and over that it’s about the effort one chooses to make, not about any inherent intelligence. So… let me get this straight. You’re not saying you give _more_ effort. Just _different_ effort. Does that even make sense? You know, I was trying to be nice, conciliatory, and halfway neutral before. > [@lissener](#): > > You’ll have to explain this further; I don’t see the contradiction you’re referring to. Please read my previous post, with particular attention to the bolded segments of quotes from yourself. In standard English, they may be construed as contradictory. Note however that I did not say they _were_ contradictory, merely that they could be taken that way. > [@lissener](#): > > I’ve read this paragraph 3 times and I can’t fathom your point. What’s the parallel here? Is this about intrusiveness, or different approaches? I discuss movies on as many different levels as I have friends who’ve seen the movie. I don’t refuse to discuss a movie from any but one perspective. Is that what you’re suggesting? Your image of a stranger coming up to me and interrupting a conversation kinda makes it hard for me to see what your parallel is. I’m sorry. I was presenting a hypothetical situation so that, if you had bothered to respond to my question, I might have a greater understanding of your position. My mistake. > [@lissener](#): > > Um, the reason I keep saying that I like both “high” and “low” art is to suggest that I, too, fail to see a distinction. I have not labeled any particular thing as high or low; I’ve only meant to suggest that things that are considered low art by some people are just as important to me as things considered high art; that, again, I personally do not make a distinction. Did I suggest that you do make that distinction? No, I said that some people might be confusing you with that sort of person. This is what I get for trying to halfway understand someone’s point of view. They get as hostile as if I’d flamed them myself. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/183 "2004-03-30T01:59:41Z")
**lissener** , It looks like you have retracted your initial post about Little Nicky and the condescending attitude contained in it. If so, we are on the same page. I just realized what the most pretentious piece of shit I have ever seen is. It starred Nicolas Cage as an angel who comes down to earth after falling in love with Meg Ryan. A few years after seeing this piece of shit, I saw Wim Wenders’ _Wings of Desire_ and was shocked to discover how badly it was adapted by Hollywood in the aforementioned Nick Cage-Meg Ryan film. Come to think of it, the Meg Ryan romantic comedies tend to be pretentious in their own way… with dreamy characters and overly clever lines. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/184 "2004-03-30T02:13:59Z")
> [@litost](#): > > I just realized what the most pretentious piece of shit I have ever seen is. It starred Nicolas Cage as an angel who comes down to earth after falling in love with Meg Ryan. A few years after seeing this piece of shit, I saw Wim Wenders’ _Wings of Desire_ and was shocked to discover how badly it was adapted by Hollywood in the aforementioned Nick Cage-Meg Ryan film. _City of Angels._ I don’t think I’ve ever laughed as hard as I did when Meg got creamed by that semi. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/185 "2004-03-30T02:15:13Z")
> [@litost](#): > > I just realized what the most pretentious piece of shit I have ever seen is. It starred Nicolas Cage as an angel who comes down to earth after falling in love with Meg Ryan. A few years after seeing this piece of shit, I saw Wim Wenders’ _Wings of Desire_ and was shocked to discover how badly it was adapted by Hollywood in the aforementioned Nick Cage-Meg Ryan film. _City of Angels._ I don’t think I’ve ever laughed as hard at a movie as I did when Meg got creamed by that semi. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/186 "2004-03-30T02:44:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > _City of Angels._ I don’t think I’ve ever laughed as hard as I did when Meg got creamed by that semi. You make it sound as if it wasn’t a comedy. It was, wasn’t it? Wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/187 "2004-03-30T07:15:59Z")
Seriously, was it meant to be a comedic adaptation of _Wings of Desire_? I thought Saving Private Ryan was pretty contrived. The Normandy Landing was (deliberately) realistic and after that it was all downhill. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/188 "2004-03-30T11:36:35Z")
Wim Wenders’ **Wings of Desire** - what a piece of crap. Now I have no problem with dull movies ( **Sex, Lies and Videotape** or **The Double Life of Vironique** or \*\*Paris Texas \*\* which are three of my favourites) but I really had no time for his supposed masterpiece. And that one about getting shot by Indians whilst floating down some river in South America - wrist slashingly dull. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/189 "2004-03-30T14:49:27Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > . . . This is what I get for trying to halfway understand someone’s point of view. They get as hostile as if I’d flamed them myself. HUGE gap of understanding here: I felt no hostility, nor meant to communicate any, whatsoever. Please do me the favor of rereading my previous post with that miscommunication in mind. Your response seems to have been colored by that misapprehension, for which I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/190 "2004-03-30T15:03:06Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > HUGE gap of understanding here: I felt no hostility, nor meant to communicate any, whatsoever. Please do me the favor of rereading my previous post with that miscommunication in mind. Your response seems to have been colored by that misapprehension, for which I apologize. Describing someone’s behaviour as ‘defensive’, at the very least is not a friendly thing to do. Ignoring questions designed to help me understand your point of view isn’t really, either. But it’s a moot point. I won’t try to help any more. Answer my previous questions and points if you like. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/191 "2004-03-30T15:03:31Z")
Miller, you continue to refuse to hear anything I say, and instead do nothing but mine my responses for hooks to hang your hostility on. Can we bring it down a notch, please? Frankly I’m surprised that the viciousness and personal nature of your posts in thread have gone unchallenged by a moderator, but then I probably wouldn’t make a very good moderator. The single most important point I want to make—I’ve attempted several times, without any acknowledgment whatsoever—is that the word “pretentious” is an accusation of dishonesty. “Bad” does not hold the same connotation. “I don’t like this movie” does NOT of course mean “I don’t like you,” but “This movie is pretentious” means that it only PRETENDS to be of value when really it has none, so anyone who CLAIMS to see value in it is stupid or dishonest. For me to dig into a movie that doesn’t interest you, and to have found a nugget of value in it, doesn’t mean I’m smarter, only that I took a different approach to it. For you to be uninterested in digging for the nugget in question does not mean that I am pretentious for having found it. I have a habit writing with a sarcastic tone. Sometimes that habit gets in the way of saying what I mean. I have never, ever “looked down” on people who’s approach to movies differs from my own. Never. I have bristled, though, at being labeled pretentious for liking old Japanese movies or for finding layers of meaning in Showgirls. I still don’t get where the one follows the other, except to take the literal meaning of the word, and take it as an accusation that I’m LYING about my fondness for old Japanese films, and I’m LYING about the layers I find in Showgirls, and I’m making it all up just to seem superior to you. That is all I have ever reacted negatively against, and insofar as any negativity seems to have been broadcast on a wider channel, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/192 "2004-03-30T15:07:54Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Describing someone’s behaviour as ‘defensive’, at the very least is not a friendly thing to do. Ignoring questions designed to help me understand your point of view isn’t really, either. > > But it’s a moot point. I won’t try to help any more. Answer my previous questions and points if you like. This has gotten way out of hand. Please point out my offensive use of “defensive,” and please tell me which points you’d like addressed. We’ll come back to the fact that I don’t feel that any of my points have been acknowledged at all, let alone addressed: one thing at a time. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/193 "2004-03-30T15:13:26Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > The single most important point I want to make—I’ve attempted several times, without any acknowledgment whatsoever—is that the word “pretentious” is an accusation of dishonesty. “Bad” does not hold the same connotation. “I don’t like this movie” does NOT of course mean “I don’t like you,” but “This movie is pretentious” means that it only PRETENDS to be of value when really it has none, so anyone who CLAIMS to see value in it is stupid or dishonest. > > For me to dig into a movie that doesn’t interest you, and to have found a nugget of value in it, doesn’t mean I’m smarter, only that I took a different approach to it. For you to be uninterested in digging for the nugget in question does not mean that I am pretentious for having found it. Okay, I’m going to try one more time. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. What you’re saying here, then, is that you’re making a semantic distinction. (‘Semantics’ is not a dirty word.) You object that the word ‘pretentious’ is being used imprecisely, in your view? Would you feel better if the posters described these movies as pompous, snooty, snobbish, elitist, etc.? That’s the definition I think they’re getting at, but maybe I’m wrong. And even if they mean pretentious in the absolutely literal sense … let’s say a movie has a subtext of some kind. It trumpets it’s own value for having this subtext. You find the subtext has value, and therefore, the movie is not dishonest or pretentious, to you. Another viewer finds the subtext of the movie worthless in their own independent analysis. To them, the movie has put on airs about having this wonderful message… which isn’t so great. To them, it is pretentious. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/194 "2004-03-30T15:19:53Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This has gotten way out of hand. > > Please point out my offensive use of “defensive,” and please tell me which points you’d like addressed. We’ll come back to the fact that I don’t feel that any of my points have been acknowledged at all, let alone addressed: one thing at a time. Use of Defensive: > [@lissener](#): > > Any judgment value on that has been projected, **defensively** , by you and Miller: I have never made a value judgment on the individual approaches to moviewatching. Points to be addressed: [More vs. Different Effort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4698261&postcount=182) and > [@Me](#): > > Seriously, now, if you and a friend are having a pleasant discussion on, say, John Woo’s ability to stage an effective action scene, and some guy comes up to you, having overheard you mention ‘Face/Off’, and pipes in with “Yeah, that movie rocked!” … and proceeds in a friendly fashion to attempt to discuss the high points of the movie with you from his perspective… do you welcome the somewhat intrusive and less-than-insightful input? Do you bite back the bilious disdain that wells up in your heart? (Okay, now I’m just being silly.) Or perhaps patiently wait for him to finish his praise of the movie and move on, before resuming your conversations about the ‘higher’ levels of the art form? the paragraph attempting to analyze your position on a similar hypothetical situation. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/195 "2004-03-30T15:28:19Z")
While that’s not as incendiary, it’s still not the way I’d put it, though I’m inclined at this point, with your added clarity, to agree to disagree. The way I’d put it would be to prefer to see a movie viewer who doesn’t like a movie take some responsibility for that. To take a page from **Equipoise** ’s book and leave room for the possibility that someday they might gain a different perspective on it. That’s in my perfect world, but I understand that not everyone goes to a movie for the same thing. As attacked as Miller feels by my liking certain movies (a feeling I’ll acknowledge but don’t completely understand), I feel just as attacked when criticism of a movie I like carries connotations of dishonesty or stupidity (a feeling which I don’t expect Miller to understand, but it’d be nice if he acknowledged it). (And for the record, as ill-advised and as sarcastically stated as it was, my “You poor, poor people” was meant only to express a sadness that none of you would ever experience the joy of appreciating the movies you’d all listed as pretentious; that you were, from my perspective, cutting off your nose to spite your face. I meant roughly, “It’s your funeral.”) ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/196 "2004-03-30T15:30:18Z")
> [@Candid Gamera](#): > > the paragraph attempting to analyze your position on a similar hypothetical situation. Although I understand the point you are trying to make, I don’t think that that is a very good hypothetical, simply due to the social dynamics involved, i.e. actually being rude to the person as opposed to at least feigning interest until he leaves. Almost everybody would resent the intrusion, but put up with him until he loses interest. Merely finding his critical analysis banal and pedestrian wouldn’t make most people tell him to shove off. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/197 "2004-03-30T15:37:51Z")
First, my post #195 was in response to #193; #194 squoze in between while I was typing. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > Use of Defensive :I meant that in a more general sense; sorry for the lazy writing. I was talking about being attacked for liking certain movies, and not necessarily by you specifically. I was doing a sloppy oversimplification of “this side of the argument” versus “that side of the argument.” > [@](#): > > Points to be addressed: > > [More vs. Different Effort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4698261&postcount=182) I meant that you (or whoever) chooses to approach a movie differently, or to expend your efforts in a different way, or in a different direction. I was attempting to clarify that I see the distinction of how “you” (generically speaking) see a particular movie and how I see that movie as due to \*different \* approaches, not better or worse. > [@](#): > > and > > the paragraph attempting to analyze your position on a similar hypothetical situation. I still honestly don’t get your point here. Can you please try a different analogy or something? Frame it in a Dope situation if you can, so I don’t have to translate it from metaphor to reality; my brain’s just not picking up on that. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/198 "2004-03-30T15:40:05Z")
> [@Ilsa\_Lund](#): > > Although I understand the point you are trying to make, I don’t think that that is a very good hypothetical, simply due to the social dynamics involved, i.e. actually being rude to the person as opposed to at least feigning interest until he leaves. Almost everybody would resent the intrusion, but put up with him until he loses interest. Merely finding his critical analysis banal and pedestrian wouldn’t make most people tell him to shove off. It is faulty, I’ll own to that, but I was trying to craft a dynamic similar to one opening a thread on a messageboard titled ‘John Woo discussion’ … when one means for it to apply to his directorial vision, and getting posters who drop by to say ‘Yeah! Face/Off Rocks!’ … modelling messageboard behavior with real social situations is … difficult. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/199 "2004-03-30T15:41:31Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I still honestly don’t get your point here. Can you please try a different analogy or something? Frame it in a Dope situation if you can, so I don’t have to translate it from metaphor to reality; my brain’s just not picking up on that. Does my above reply to Ilsa help at all? ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171/200 "2004-03-30T15:41:50Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It is faulty, I’ll own to that, but I was trying to craft a dynamic similar to one opening a thread on a messageboard titled ‘John Woo discussion’ … when one means for it to apply to his directorial vision, and getting posters who drop by to say ‘Yeah! Face/Off Rocks!’ … modelling messageboard behavior with real social situations is … difficult. See, there it is far easier to say “Shove off, you ignorant peon!” Personally, I think my _Starship Troopers_ thread is a good example. Not that I would ever say so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-unenjoyably-pretentious-movies/236171.md?page=11)