Oh, bullshit. You trotted out a dead horse “joke” at the expense of another poster. Like everyone else, you know that (for whatever bizarre reason) it’s been a a sensitive issue.
I think, at this point, we can all agree to stop making it an issue. It’s pretty obvious why you got an e-mail warning – quoting your post in the thread would just draw more attention to it.
Golly Larry, I had no idea you had access to my email in-box. I guess I should change my password.
If only you could actually cite these 50,000 people, and not just those two dickheads you happen to work with. Never mind.
Would it be cruel of me to point out that just about everyone here thinks you’re a dickhead for being so astoundingly belligerent about a film you’ve not seen? And that by your own logic, you should really pay attention and, y’know, reassess your cough “opinion”? After all, an awful lot of people seem to think the same thing. And therefore, they must be right. Right?
I guess I owe you an apology (of sorts) for jumping to conclusions, since that one post leapt out as an instance of total dickishness, (and a specific behavior that others have been warned about.)
I didn’t remember seeing any other posts of yours in that thread, but in review it’s clear that there are a couple more that might be expected to attract the quiet wrath of mod. (Potential for political hijack, and direct insult to a poster’s taste.) As it happens, I totally agree with you in both of those instances, but they’re a bit out of place in the Cafe.
I apologize, if that other post wasn’t the one you were warned about – although I don’t see how a discreet word over it translates to anyone having a bug up their ass. It’s natural that the thread is going to garner more borderline posts than your typical Cafe thread, since it’s specifically asking for people to comment on films that piss them off.
CG, do you think it’s remotely possible that your pre-conceived belief that the movie is going to suck might influence your subsequent enjoyment of the movie when you actually watch it? Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy?
Look, I don’t have a dog in this at all, but I think you need to read what you wrote and think about it for a second. If you’re pre-judging the movie, and feel pretty confident about the rightness of your judgement (in general, you sorta seem like the kind of person who has a high opinion of your own judgements), how objective are you being? Could it be more important to you that your judgement is right than it is that you enjoy a movie you believe you won’t?
I just don’t think you can use the fact that you’ve agreed with yourself three times as proof that your pre-judgements are accurate. Maybe you should loosen up and go see some movies that you haven’t already analyzed from afar. Or, if you don’t want to waste the money on movies you think you might not like (which is a perfectly valid reason to try to screen out crappy films), get Netflix or cable and watch them at home, or go to more matinees. It seems like you’re making an awful lot of effort to avoid bad movies, so much that you might be tricking yourself into not enjoying things. It’s a bit silly, really.
On several notable occasions, I have not expected to enjoy a movie due to assumptions made from trailers and reviwers, and found myself pleasantly surprised. It doesn’t happen terribly often, but it is possible. I think it’s a more reliable predictor to see movies by directors and writers that I like regardless of what other people say. Think about how many times you thought a movie was going to be great and it sucked-- it’s certainly possible for it to go the other way.
Ok, I’ve never done this before but I’ve never run across this situation before.
Rubystreak What the Fuck?? !!
The exact message people were slapping you across the face with in another thread and you use it in a different thread as your argument makes it . . . what?? True in this case but not in yours? I really tried to be non-judgemental in that other thread but, damn!
What’s funny is that you’re arguing my point. I obviously had a hell of a lot more information about the situation I was discussing than anyone who came into that thread to slam me and call me names. Are you honestly trying to say that your opinion of that issue is more valid or valuable than mine because you have superior data about the situation? Because that’s what CG was saying about Supersize Me, even though other people had a hell of a lot more information and personal insight into the film than he did. Somehow here I am trying to discredit the opinion of people who actually saw the incident… no, wait, that would be YOU, contradicting the opinions of people who witnessed the event, whose opinions I share, when you are actually getting the information third hand at best. Hmmmm. What the Fuck ?? !! indeed.
In your mind, these are comparable situations and warrant you hijacking this thread to drag that argument here, even though I have made it clear that I no longer want to discuss it with you or anyone. I regret ever opening that thread or my big mouth on the SDMB on a topic so emotionally laden for me. If it will make you happy, I officially disavow that thread and everything I said in it. I no longer wish anyone a sentence to hell, I just feel like crap about the entire thing, the cat is still in the shelter at 17 and the old guy is still in a nursing home. Yay.
How about this? Why don’t you just Pit me in another thread rather than derail this one, if you feel I’m worth chasing through threads to continue this argument? Or maybe get a life and leave me alone? Go watch a movie or volunteer at your local animal shelter. Or just STFU.
Hijacking a thread in which you yourself have berated another poster about hijacking threads. Status: Guilty ! I duly apologize. Specifically to CandidGamera. Although I disagree with you, I should not have brought other fights into your arena.
Can I just reiterate for the record that I’ve seen Super Size Me and I think Spurlock and his conclusions are idiotic at best and insulting at worst?
…which conclusion in particular?
You just keep asserting these things. Can you make an argument for them other than ‘it annoys me when people so this’? Why would reading a script, reading interviews, reading reviews, watching clips, and being aware of the history of film and context in which the particular film was made be insufficient to give a person enough information to decide that the Duece Bigalo sequel was a bad movie - sorry, there’s no such thing as a bad movie in your view - I should say, a movie they don’t want to see, or one which annoys them?
And since we just utterly disagree about art and whether interpretations of it can be correct or incorrect, we should probably just leave that aside for another discussion.
So . . . Miller is wrong unless he can “prove” to you that art is objective and is open to different interpretation by different individuals? An idea that just happens to be a nearly universal consensus?
I’d say the burden’s on you, dude.
Mostly it’s his repeated mantra of “Why does fast food taste so good? To get you to eat more!” that bugs me.
McDonald’s (and all fast food) is a business. They are in the business of making food.
If that food does not taste good then they will go out of business. Oh no!
It’s not a question of morality, obesity or caloric intent. It’s a dumb question that can be answered with a little Economics 101.
I can’t parse this. Are you saying that his acknowledgment that one of the obstacles to healthy eating is that french fries are so dang yummy? How is acknowledging the complexity of the problem a bad thing?
Nothing you’ve said is anything that Spurlock would disagree with. I don’t see your objection.
No, dude. That’s the part of the conversation I was saying we should set aside, because it’s an eternal discussion with lots of permutations, and by the way, you’ve misrepresented my argument. Of course art is open to interpretation. C’mon, do you really think I’m saying otherwise? I’m saying some interpretations are more valid than others. Not all are equally sensible, rational, informed, inspired, or interesting. Except I’m not saying that, because it’s for another thread.
I’m not saying “Miller is wrong unless X”, either, speaking of misrepresentations. I’m asking Miller to say something other than “X is X because X”. He is asserting:
I say defining “actual experience” as “seeing the movie” and absolutely nothing else is arbitrary. I want to know why “actual experience” can only ever mean “seeing the movie” and not “reading the movie” or “studying the movie”.
This is true, of course, but again, why is that the only way?
Now here’s an assertion I think has some legs: that the opinion of someone who has actually seen a movie is inherently more interesting. That I might agree with. But that not having seen a movie automatically excludes one from having an opinion about it? No.
I’ve seen many, many movies, hundreds, maybe thousands of movies, and I’ve studied probably about half as many that I haven’t had a chance to see, or couldn’t watch for some reason (something I’m slowly breaking myself of, because it’s fucking absurd, but anyway). Of course I don’t feel my understanding will ever be complete without seeing them, but according to the breakdown in my earlier post, with many I feel my understanding is as comprehensive as it needs to be. It may, in some cases involving frame-by-frame stills, even be more informed than that of someone who has actually seen it only once. (But still possibly not more interesting - I’ll give you that).
Maybe CG is being a dick, but I don’t think his dickishness is a direct result of his claim that he can understand everything he needs to form an opinion about a movie without seeing it. Whether he has failed to do so in this case, I don’t know, but everyone seems to think so, and I’m definitely not arguing with that.
I don’t understand why, in the Miller model, seeing a movie once is such an enormous badge of qualification that it permits the viewer to any interpretation under the sun, but someone who hasn’t seen it isn’t allowed to make even a straightforward assertion, easily refuted by facts, about its content.
OK, let me try again. I’ll use a quote from the jacket of Spurlock’s companion book to Super Size Me, Don’t Eat This Book:
“He looks at why fast food is so tasty, cheap and ultimately seductive”
None of those things have anything with the “problem” of fast food.
Food is supposed to be tasty.
The price of McDonald’s food is between them and their shareholders. It has no place in this discussion.
What does “seductive” even mean? That McDonald’s has good marketers? See number 2.
These themes are repeated in Super Size Me wrapped around Spurlock’s McDonald’s Diet, which we’ve already established, is a monumentally stupid stunt.
Are you satisified that I hate this movie “correctly” yet?
You know what, asshole? Fuck you. I never said anything about “correctly.” I was discussing various possible interpretations of this movie with you, and others. Stick your fucking “correctly” up your ass.
You are awash in a tangle of contradictions. Your overall argument is an attempt to minimize the importance of an “informed” opinion, and yet you claim “informed” as one of your standards of validity.
I don’t understand how you’ve managed to convince yourself that third-party-filtered interpretations of art–the method you’re defending–is just as “valid” as the actual experience of the art. There are very few absolutes in art, but that strikes me as one of them. You’re not experiencing the art. Inarguably! You’re experiencing certain aspects of the art, plus or minus other aspects. Each plus or minus *changes *the art. You can only form a valid opinion on “movie + others’ reviews” or “movie - sound” or “movie + third-party reframing.” YOu’re still not experiencing “movie,” so your interpretation is not valid. If your impression turns out to be “right,” that’s purely anecdotal and “proves” nothing. We all have an impression of a movie before we see it. Sometimes those impressions change in the seeing, sometimes they don’t. When they don’t, that doesn’t suddenly and universally, as you suggest, invalidate the process of seeing the movie at all. That’s just bizarre.
The math is simple. The only “informed” opinion you can have about a movie is after having seen it. Before that, your opinion is only about your impressions–however formed–not about the movie itself.
Are you going to actually tell me that you have NEVER had your impressions of a movie altered by the actual seeing? This happens ALL THE TIME to me. I have an impression of what a movie’s gonna be like, and end up being surprised.
I tend to hate movies made by SNL alumni. 13 years ago, that’s all Bill Murray was to me. I hated Caddyshack, and everything I’d ever seen by him. When it came out, Groundhog Day looked like the stupidest movie in the world to me. The “premise” as I understood it just made me roll my eyes. How could it possibly be anytyhing but stupid? I had a VERY strong opinion about that movie: all the signs–ALL the signs–pointed to something I would just not enjoy in the least.
Guess what? Turns out seeing the movie totally changed all that.
I could go on for PAGES about expectations versus results, in my moviewatching career. But that’s not even necessary. Think of the widely varied interpretations of such movies as Starship Troopers, King Kong, The Last Tempation of Christ–think of any movie that gets boycotted or picketed by people who haven’t seen it! How well informed do you think they are?
You’re right, that was petty of me. But you’re not exactly acting like Mary Sunshine either.
You seem on the offensive and very ready to attack anyone that questions your interpretation of Super Size Me.
So if you want, I’ll really like to go back to a civilized discussion. If not, I can swear too.
Dude, YOU are the 50,001st scientist. Your conclusion has no merit because you fucked up the study.