<Snipped quote by Awson>
(IMO) Fury road, was incredibly shallow, a completely drag with a 2 hour length (yet completely plotless.)
Kratesis Spiritus Mundi
Member
Seen
9 mos ago
OP
stark snarky genius
Member
Seen
3 yrs ago
holy shit fuckin nerds
Duh -- you're on a roleplaying site.
(Next you'll regale everyone with tales about how green the grass is...)
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
@Awson Do I have to like show you evidence that your wrong? It wouldn't be hard.
nypost.com/2015/05/14/why-mad-max-fur…
bustle.com/articles/82751-mad-max-is-…
buzzfeed.com/lauriepenny/the-fast-and…
Bullshit eh? Want more? I have it...It doesn't even -have- to be true. The fact, (the FACT) is a ton of people did like it solely for what they saw as a political message. :/
Almost every movie has people trying to spin it in a social or cultural way. There are people who praise Fury Road for its "feminism," but that doesn't mean that they only liked it for solely that reason. Those people are the minority anyway.
All I did was point out why people liked it, (a true statement)
Some people.
What you did, was assume people that didn't like it, was somehow related to the quality of the television they watched it on. (Which aside from being just absurd.)
It's not absurd, actually. The audio and visuals are very important for this movie. The visuals, especially. And it was a mere possiblity, among many, for people not getting what's good about the movie.
It also (unlike my comment.) Doesn't have articles talking about how they don't appreciate "limited dialogue" to back it up. People didn't like the fact the only real dialogue that did exist, was trite and pointless chatter about some unexplained kind of redemption. My speculation is actually backed up and isn't baseless.
There are also articles that say it's good and say nothing about feminism.
PURE SPECULATION: And you don't hear anybody say "I don't like limited dialogue" because when that's true, what actually comes out is "The story was shallow." You wouldn't know that you didn't like that. Most people don't truly understand themselves.
99% of movies you see have plenty of dialogue. And they make sure the story is said out loud, crystal-clear. Some will certainly dislike a movie because it goes against this common pattern. The truth is, that the amount of verbal storytelling has no bearing on whether a movie is good or not. Hell, the amount of ANY storytelling has little bearing on whether a picture is good (this is the hard part). An action movie with little story can still be a good movie. It's perfectly fine for the story to take a backseat to action. Normally, I don't particularly like movies like this, but Fury Road happens to have THE MOST WELL-MADE ACTION in any movie I've ever seen. And I liked the aesthetic and characters. I liked everything about it, really.
I believe that since you were expecting more verbal story, the "trite" dialogue between characters stood out as bad because it notably lacked what you wanted it to have.
It's not nonsense, if that's all you gave to me to go on. It's your limited information that had me bring up that movie. You can't tell me some extremely vague concept is the only way someone can dislike something. People's tastes are usually far more complicated than you seem to believe. And then judge me for bringing up something that is EXACTLY what you described. Sure, it's completely different. But if "I can't understand why anyone would hate Sin City unless they don't likes black and white movies." I could bring up an unrelated black and white movie, that may have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it certainly isn't my fault. :/ "Outdoorsy movies" isn't a genre anyway...so just saying "movies spent mostly in the outdoors" well that doesn't help in the slightest...that could mean "127 hours." to the "Blair Witch Project."
The first thing I said is The Revenant is good, as long as you don't dislike outdoorsy survival movies. Then you said The Grey was an outdoorsy survival movie that was bad, and "If that's really all it has going for it. :/"
The problem is that I never said or even implied that it being outdoorsy was all it had going for it. You brought up The Grey as a singular example of a movie like that which you didn't like, and then said some dumb shit. So yes, "nonsense."
Yeah, I think I can debunk the statement of "you surround yourself with people that have the same taste" because one of my best friends I spend the most time with disregarding the one I live with, has taste that is nearly 100% different from mine. And my family has plenty of differences in taste as well. I don't purposefully try to surround myself with circle jerk bandwagons. Though you are correct, doing that makes you a fool and will likely give you no benefits in the future. But I have been a target of bandwagons, far more than I have joined a bandwagon. :/ I think it's ALSO a little silly on top of that. To mention, "It seems like you're joining a consensus made by other people, don't you know how bad that is?" when mere moments ago you pointed out. "Why dislike something when the general feeling of many people thought it was good?"
Lots and lots of contradictions I'm seeing here, is all I'm saying.
I was never saying that you're completely surrounded by like-minded people. Just that you may echo off of one or two of them. I judge my "general consensus" on lots and lots of sources. I carefully weigh each one as well. It's kind of an obsession of mine. It just seemed to me like you mostly go off of yourself and a few friends.
I'm not exactly sure if this is still addressing me. But yeah I think attempting to point out "why your opinion is 100% wrong and my opinion isn't an opinion but fact because..." Probably won't make it that far on the cutting room floor, so to speak.
You can like/love the movie, it doesn't mean you liked it for the same reasons I described. (or because you're televison had better speakers. <.<) And I'm not saying you're worse or better than anyone for that opinion. :/
Let's not go into this one.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
1 day ago
Okay, some of this discussion needs a little unpacking...
Disclaimer: Stuff is my opinion
Okay now I get what you were trying to say in relation to these statements, but you have to admit. Saying "minority of people" followed by "it happens all the bloody time by everyone" seems eye brow raising. But what you meant was, "yes, it happens to a lot of movies. But it's usually the same minority of people who are politically charged people." That's clearer. However...
This implies that NO ONE liked the movie solely because of its political message. But I can you again, that isn't true. And you admitting previous sentence that it's the minority, at least grants me that it DOES happen. But this sentence disregards the whole thing.
Like this one did previously. Is it true or not? It can't be both.
Again, contradiction. You say it's all bullshit in some of it and then you say it's some people. And I didn't imply everyone...But I've made that abundantly clear, you didn't read my statement if you believed otherwise.
Most things you mentioned about the movie were the "they just don't get it" which is kind of insulting since the movie was so stupidly basic/plotless. But, most people "got" what they were watching, they were just questioning, why a post apocalypse where gasoline is super expensive, do they waste as much on this absurd chase as possible and have a giant sound stage set up with a guitarist shooting flames. >.>
:I
Ya know, it would make a point just a wee bit stronger, if you even provided ONE link when you say that. -.-
But, I'm sure there's one that exists in the either. It's the internet after all, but there's plenty that hated the movie too. For no reason you mentioned previously. Like I did. :/
:I
Stories can be shallow, regardless of dialogue. (it depends on the strength of the dialogue present.) If you try to argue this story is a masterpiece, I'd love you to explain, how. You can't. Because it wasn't.
I liked the Avatar (the blue cat one) in theaters, but it wasn't because of the story. So I'm not opposed to liking beautifully shot cliches. But admitting that is the first step.
I liked John Wick. So, uh yeah no. :/ I agree that PLOT isn't the most important thing in a story. It's the characters. No one would make superhero movies about batman and superman if all there was to those characters was their powers. John Wick made me CARE about the carnage I was watching, it actually did a good job hooking you in and wasting no time. It was a far smarter movie and more interesting as an action flick. :/ The dialogue that the movie did have, WAS trite. Is was redemption that had no context or meaning or point, and took the story no where. There was no character depth, arcs or growth. There was no interesting world building, (unlike John Wick.) The action, was literally ONE chase scene and location for nearly the whole 2 hour movie.
All you gave me, was it can't be disliked if someone liked outdoor survival movies. That's all you said, and I gave you an example of another one of those movies. I knew that it wasn't the same, but what you gave me, wasn't remotely helpful. Even if it's somehow one of "those" movies, that it's hard to explain why it's good. You could at least -say- that. :/
I don't know how you got that, since not only did I mention I DON'T actively go see movies more often than not...I also brought up my family as well. So, definitely not the case. Also from you're post about judging something based on outliers being a bad thing, you seem like you pick whatever the popular consensus is. Which I guess can't be true, if you're telling me about the problems of bandwagons. (that, believe me I'm aware.) Also you don't like GOTG2 Which again, makes me question why it's egregious to disagree with the majority.
I'd almost be interested to see someone argue, that art quality isn't/can't be subjective. If I knew if wasn't futile. :I
Edit: Sorry if this comes off too impolitely, was grumpy because I haven't ate. Rectified that. :I
Disclaimer: Stuff is my opinion
Almost every movie has people trying to spin it in a social or cultural way. There are people who praise Fury Road for its "feminism," but that doesn't mean that they only liked it for solely that reason. Those people are the minority anyway.
Almost every movie has people trying to spin it in a social or cultural way.
Those people are the minority anyway.
Okay now I get what you were trying to say in relation to these statements, but you have to admit. Saying "minority of people" followed by "it happens all the bloody time by everyone" seems eye brow raising. But what you meant was, "yes, it happens to a lot of movies. But it's usually the same minority of people who are politically charged people." That's clearer. However...
There are people who praise Fury Road for its "feminism," but that doesn't mean that they only liked it for solely that reason.
This implies that NO ONE liked the movie solely because of its political message. But I can you again, that isn't true. And you admitting previous sentence that it's the minority, at least grants me that it DOES happen. But this sentence disregards the whole thing.
First part is still bullshit.
Like this one did previously. Is it true or not? It can't be both.
Some people.
Again, contradiction. You say it's all bullshit in some of it and then you say it's some people. And I didn't imply everyone...But I've made that abundantly clear, you didn't read my statement if you believed otherwise.
It's not absurd, actually. The audio and visuals are very important for this movie. The visuals, especially. And it was a mere possiblity, among many, for people not getting what's good about the movie.
Most things you mentioned about the movie were the "they just don't get it" which is kind of insulting since the movie was so stupidly basic/plotless. But, most people "got" what they were watching, they were just questioning, why a post apocalypse where gasoline is super expensive, do they waste as much on this absurd chase as possible and have a giant sound stage set up with a guitarist shooting flames. >.>
There are also articles that say it's good and say nothing about feminism.
:I
Ya know, it would make a point just a wee bit stronger, if you even provided ONE link when you say that. -.-
But, I'm sure there's one that exists in the either. It's the internet after all, but there's plenty that hated the movie too. For no reason you mentioned previously. Like I did. :/
PURE SPECULATION: And you don't hear anybody say "I don't like limited dialogue" because when that's true, what actually comes out is "The story was shallow." You wouldn't know that you didn't like that. Most people don't truly understand themselves.
:I
Stories can be shallow, regardless of dialogue. (it depends on the strength of the dialogue present.) If you try to argue this story is a masterpiece, I'd love you to explain, how. You can't. Because it wasn't.
I liked the Avatar (the blue cat one) in theaters, but it wasn't because of the story. So I'm not opposed to liking beautifully shot cliches. But admitting that is the first step.
99% of movies you see have plenty of dialogue. And they make sure the story is said out loud, crystal-clear. Some will certainly dislike a movie because it goes against this common pattern. The truth is, that the amount of verbal storytelling has no bearing on whether a movie is good or not. Hell, the amount of ANY storytelling has little bearing on whether a picture is good (this is the hard part). An action movie with little story can still be a good movie. It's perfectly fine for the story to take a backseat to action. Normally, I don't particularly like movies like this, but Fury Road happens to have THE MOST WELL-MADE ACTION in any movie I've ever seen. And I liked the aesthetic and characters. I liked everything about it, really.
I believe that since you were expecting more verbal story, the "trite" dialogue between characters stood out as bad because it notably lacked what you wanted it to have.
I liked John Wick. So, uh yeah no. :/ I agree that PLOT isn't the most important thing in a story. It's the characters. No one would make superhero movies about batman and superman if all there was to those characters was their powers. John Wick made me CARE about the carnage I was watching, it actually did a good job hooking you in and wasting no time. It was a far smarter movie and more interesting as an action flick. :/ The dialogue that the movie did have, WAS trite. Is was redemption that had no context or meaning or point, and took the story no where. There was no character depth, arcs or growth. There was no interesting world building, (unlike John Wick.) The action, was literally ONE chase scene and location for nearly the whole 2 hour movie.
The first thing I said is The Revenant is good, as long as you don't dislike outdoorsy survival movies.
The problem is that I never said or even implied that it being outdoorsy was all it had going for it. You brought up The Grey as a singular example of a movie like that which you didn't like, and then said some dumb shit. So yes, "nonsense."
Not gonna try very hard to convince you to see The Revenant. I'll say that it's probably the hardest for someone to dislike out of my list up there. As long as that person is okay with outdoorsy, survival movies.
All you gave me, was it can't be disliked if someone liked outdoor survival movies. That's all you said, and I gave you an example of another one of those movies. I knew that it wasn't the same, but what you gave me, wasn't remotely helpful. Even if it's somehow one of "those" movies, that it's hard to explain why it's good. You could at least -say- that. :/
I was never saying that you're completely surrounded by like-minded people. Just that you may echo off of one or two of them. I judge my "general consensus" on lots and lots of sources. I carefully weigh each one as well. It's kind of an obsession of mine. It just seemed to me like you mostly go off of yourself and a few friends.
I don't know how you got that, since not only did I mention I DON'T actively go see movies more often than not...I also brought up my family as well. So, definitely not the case. Also from you're post about judging something based on outliers being a bad thing, you seem like you pick whatever the popular consensus is. Which I guess can't be true, if you're telling me about the problems of bandwagons. (that, believe me I'm aware.) Also you don't like GOTG2 Which again, makes me question why it's egregious to disagree with the majority.
Let's not go into this one.
I'd almost be interested to see someone argue, that art quality isn't/can't be subjective. If I knew if wasn't futile. :I
Edit: Sorry if this comes off too impolitely, was grumpy because I haven't ate. Rectified that. :I
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
Ow, my head. So much quote-work ahead D:
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
Okay now I get what you were trying to say in relation to these statements, but you have to admit. Saying "minority of people" followed by "it happens all the bloody time by everyone" seems eye brow raising. But what you meant was, "yes, it happens to a lot of movies. But it's usually the same minority of people who are politically charged people." That's clearer. However...
This implies that NO ONE liked the movie solely because of its political message. But I can you again, that isn't true. And you admitting previous sentence that it's the minority, at least grants me that it DOES happen. But this sentence disregards the whole thing.
Like this one did previously. Is it true or not? It can't be both.
Again, contradiction. You say it's all bullshit in some of it and then you say it's some people. And I didn't imply everyone...But I've made that abundantly clear, you didn't read my statement if you believed otherwise.
I don't know what you're talking about. It happens in a lot of movies. Few people say it. Some of those people who do say it, say it matters culturally in addition to being good. Is that so hard?
Most things you mentioned about the movie were the "they just don't get it" which is kind of insulting since the movie was so stupidly basic/plotless. But, most people "got" what they were watching, they were just questioning, why a post apocalypse where gasoline is super expensive, do they waste as much on this absurd chase as possible and have a giant sound stage set up with a guitarist shooting flames. >.>
You're only proving more that you didn't get it. The point is that the superb action and visuals are enough to make story less important than usual. That's an argument for the lightness of it.
As for your points about the logic of it -- because it was entertaining. Those aren't even strictly plot holes. Why did they waste the gasoline? Because they had his breeders, which were very important. Why did they have a guitarist shooting flames? The same reason armies have drummer boys.
:I
Ya know, it would make a point just a wee bit stronger, if you even provided ONE link when you say that. -.-
But, I'm sure there's one that exists in the either. It's the internet after all, but there's plenty that hated the movie too. For no reason you mentioned previously. Like I did. :/
Because I know that cherry-picking reviews is pointless.
:I
Stories can be shallow, regardless of dialogue. (it depends on the strength of the dialogue present.) If you try to argue this story is a masterpiece, I'd love you to explain, how. You can't. Because it wasn't.
The story was not a masterpiece. And that's okay. :)
I liked the Avatar (the blue cat one) in theaters, but it wasn't because of the story. So I'm not opposed to liking beautifully shot cliches. But admitting that is the first step.
This was your best point so far. I'm gonna go with....... you were happy with the fact that it was at least trying to have a normal story?
I liked John Wick. So, uh yeah no. :/ I agree that PLOT isn't the most important thing in a story. It's the characters. No one would make superhero movies about batman and superman if all there was to those characters was their powers. John Wick made me CARE about the carnage I was watching, it actually did a good job hooking you in and wasting no time. It was a far smarter movie and more interesting as an action flick. :/ The dialogue that the movie did have, WAS trite. Is was redemption that had no context or meaning or point, and took the story no where. There was no character depth, arcs or growth. There was no interesting world building, (unlike John Wick.) The action, was literally ONE chase scene and location for nearly the whole 2 hour movie.
John Wick has a pretty normal structure. Not totally comparable.
The whole thing being one car chase is strange, huh? That's not inherintly a bad thing.
I guess I'll go through the characters. I'd let you say little growth, but none?
Max and Furiosa: No trust, to trust. Max has a nice moment where he goes against convention and doesn't stay with them. Furiosa's dream of paradise is destroyed, she accepts the Citadel as her home.
Nux: Mindless drone, dreams crushed, abolishes his idol
All you gave me, was it can't be disliked if someone liked outdoor survival movies.
NO I DIDN'T. I SAID THAT IF YOU WERE PREDISPOSED TO DISLIKE OUTDOOR SURVIVAL MOVIES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY REASON SOMEONE WOULD DISLIKE IT.
I don't know how you got that, since not only did I mention I DON'T actively go see movies more often than not...I also brought up my family as well. So, definitely not the case. Also from you're post about judging something based on outliers being a bad thing, you seem like you pick whatever the popular consensus is. Which I guess can't be true, if you're telling me about the problems of bandwagons. (that, believe me I'm aware.) Also you don't like GOTG2 Which again, makes me question why it's egregious to disagree with the majority.
It's not egregious to disagree with the majority. It's egregious to misunderstand or misrepresent the majority.
Ima ruin this convo real quick.
Leroy Jenkins.
1x Laugh
Ima ruin this convo real quickLeroy Jenkins.
A Thirty-something-year-old yelling in a dank room for an hour.
Also the plot of Saw.
1x Like
OP
stark snarky genius
Member
Seen
3 yrs ago
<Snipped quote by UnknownScarlet4>
A Thirty-something-year-old yelling in a dank room for an hour.
Also the plot of Saw.
I still haven't seen Saw.
Yeah, I'm behind on some stuff.
<Snipped quote by Doug>
I still haven't seen Saw.
Yeah, I'm behind on some stuff.
It's fine, I haven't either.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
1 day ago
Oh my, this wasn't suppose to be an argument in the first place. But this is so bad I have to address this point first.
Yes, it is. There wasting a precious fuel source on something completely unnecessary. It's cool for the audience, but that doesn't exist in the movies world...And holy shit that last analogy, instead of just repeating. "That analogy DOES NOT WORK!" one hundred times. No, armies used drums for morality. (and drums don't burn fuel which is integral for humanities survival in the post apocalypse.) The guitarist shooting flamethrowers out of his guitar on a sound stage that had to cost an absurd amount of money to maintain and the flames cost a shit load of gasoline this entire WORLD doesn't have a lot off. And they had so many vehicles chasing them down, when more people probably could of fit on less cars.
Okay good, doesn't need a defense then. Because it had no story. I'd argue again, the characters are weak and unimportant which makes the story fail. But you seem to like the very little character interaction...
But why did those things happen, why? Why was there no trust and then trust? Why did someone who was brainwashed for decades, randomly turn heel on some random day? What was their motivations? There was like 100 characters, how about mad max? The title of the damn movie. What was his point? What did he accomplish in the movie? What was his arc? :I
As an action film, I'd argue it did a better job with it's characters, action, setting, world building and was a better movie overall.
You make it sound like you'll deny it, but you don't. And it was a problem for this movie. (Imo)
The story sucked, but it was pretty to look at...
Like I said, nothing wrong with liking something purely on it's artistic merit. Well that's kind of the only point this was suppose to be, you're saying it's a masterpiece, I say it sucks. And we can both be right, because it was a personal experience. But even comparing Avatar, it's locations and settings changed constantly and it made the movie better visually because of it...
People do and will get tired of the same thing over and over again. (usually.) Not all style over substances movies will draw you in and it just didn't work for me. Simple as that.
You say is that so hard, yet don't seem to understand my simple concept and confusion with you're sometimes/all bullshit statements being made one after the other.
So, yes that's correct. But it ALSO has people that SOLELY (meaning only like the movie, not based on ANYTHING else other than political reasons.)
I don't know how many times I can say, "not giving two shits what the characters are doing" was this biggest flaw in the movie and not the story itself. But I said it again. :/ I DO GET IT, I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, THOSE THINGS EXIST. YOU CAN THINK ITS GOOD AND I CAN NOT, AND NEITHER ONE IS INSTANTLY MARKED AS "DON'T GET IT". YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS. >.<
Not when you bring them up in the first place! It's called lazyness at best. :/
Not a single person on this god forsaken planet dislikes movies because of outdoor shots! :I I get people that may be genre buffs or people that don't like genres, or actors, or the like. But no human being actually gives two shits about movies shot outdoors...The point is, that means absolutely nothing. Is that really all you can think of, of why someone may not like the story? How about?
THERE'S A SHITLOAD OF QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED BY IT BEING "AN OUTDOORSY SURVIVAL MOVIE."
You told me that you weren't going to try, and now you're acting like you actually did try. :I
Yet that wasn't really clear beforehand. And I didn't. :/ You said some, I never said/meant all. And almost instantly clarified it wasn't directed at you. (which automatically means, not everyone because you are someone.)
Edit: You also technically said majority/not everyone. So misread, but point being majority of reviews I've read, do bring up the feminism aspect of the movie, even if it's to discredit it. It's not a fringe. One of the primary actors was a feminist activist and said she wanted to influence the movie in interviews. It's not out of nowhere. :/ But I'll concede that's in the weeds and not the point. Message or not, you liked it regardless and I disliked it regardless.
The rest can be summed up with, I agree to disagree. :/
As for your points about the logic of it -- because it was entertaining. Those aren't even strictly plot holes. Why did they waste the gasoline? Because they had his breeders, which were very important. Why did they have a guitarist shooting flames?The same reason armies have drummer boys.
Yes, it is. There wasting a precious fuel source on something completely unnecessary. It's cool for the audience, but that doesn't exist in the movies world...And holy shit that last analogy, instead of just repeating. "That analogy DOES NOT WORK!" one hundred times. No, armies used drums for morality. (and drums don't burn fuel which is integral for humanities survival in the post apocalypse.) The guitarist shooting flamethrowers out of his guitar on a sound stage that had to cost an absurd amount of money to maintain and the flames cost a shit load of gasoline this entire WORLD doesn't have a lot off. And they had so many vehicles chasing them down, when more people probably could of fit on less cars.
The story was not a masterpiece. And that's okay. :)
Okay good, doesn't need a defense then. Because it had no story. I'd argue again, the characters are weak and unimportant which makes the story fail. But you seem to like the very little character interaction...
I guess I'll go through the characters. I'd let you say little growth, but none?
Max and Furiosa: No trust, to trust. Max has a nice moment where he goes against convention and doesn't stay with them. Furiosa's dream of paradise is destroyed, she accepts the Citadel as her home.
Nux: Mindless drone, dreams crushed, abolishes his idol
But why did those things happen, why? Why was there no trust and then trust? Why did someone who was brainwashed for decades, randomly turn heel on some random day? What was their motivations? There was like 100 characters, how about mad max? The title of the damn movie. What was his point? What did he accomplish in the movie? What was his arc? :I
John Wick has a pretty normal structure. Not totally comparable.
As an action film, I'd argue it did a better job with it's characters, action, setting, world building and was a better movie overall.
The whole thing being one car chase is strange, huh? That's not inherintly a bad thing.
You make it sound like you'll deny it, but you don't. And it was a problem for this movie. (Imo)
This was your best point so far. I'm gonna go with....... you were happy with the fact that it was at least trying to have a normal story?
The story sucked, but it was pretty to look at...
Like I said, nothing wrong with liking something purely on it's artistic merit. Well that's kind of the only point this was suppose to be, you're saying it's a masterpiece, I say it sucks. And we can both be right, because it was a personal experience. But even comparing Avatar, it's locations and settings changed constantly and it made the movie better visually because of it...
People do and will get tired of the same thing over and over again. (usually.) Not all style over substances movies will draw you in and it just didn't work for me. Simple as that.
I don't know what you're talking about. It happens in a lot of movies. Few people say it. Some of those people who do say it, say it matters culturally in addition to being good. Is that so hard?
You say is that so hard, yet don't seem to understand my simple concept and confusion with you're sometimes/all bullshit statements being made one after the other.
So, yes that's correct. But it ALSO has people that SOLELY (meaning only like the movie, not based on ANYTHING else other than political reasons.)
You're only proving more that you didn't get it. The point is that the superb action and visuals are enough to make story less important than usual. That's an argument for the lightness of it.
I don't know how many times I can say, "not giving two shits what the characters are doing" was this biggest flaw in the movie and not the story itself. But I said it again. :/ I DO GET IT, I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION, THOSE THINGS EXIST. YOU CAN THINK ITS GOOD AND I CAN NOT, AND NEITHER ONE IS INSTANTLY MARKED AS "DON'T GET IT". YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW THIS. >.<
Because I know that cherry-picking reviews is pointless.
Not when you bring them up in the first place! It's called lazyness at best. :/
NO I DIDN'T. I SAID THAT IF YOU WERE PREDISPOSED TO DISLIKE OUTDOOR SURVIVAL MOVIES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONTENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY REASON SOMEONE WOULD DISLIKE IT.
Not a single person on this god forsaken planet dislikes movies because of outdoor shots! :I I get people that may be genre buffs or people that don't like genres, or actors, or the like. But no human being actually gives two shits about movies shot outdoors...The point is, that means absolutely nothing. Is that really all you can think of, of why someone may not like the story? How about?
- How good is the soundtrack?
- Is the acting good?
- Is the story/character decisions believable?
- Is it super gory?
- Is it a thinking man's movie?
- Is it a heavily symbolic movie?
- Is the movie super realistic?
- Is the movie really action heavy?
- Does this movie have any super good moments?
- Is this movie a slow-burner?
- Does this movie have an environmental message?
- Does a dog die in it?
- Is there some kind of twist?
THERE'S A SHITLOAD OF QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERED BY IT BEING "AN OUTDOORSY SURVIVAL MOVIE."
You told me that you weren't going to try, and now you're acting like you actually did try. :I
It's not egregious to disagree with the majority. It's egregious to misunderstand or misrepresent the majority.
Yet that wasn't really clear beforehand. And I didn't. :/ You said some, I never said/meant all. And almost instantly clarified it wasn't directed at you. (which automatically means, not everyone because you are someone.)
Edit: You also technically said majority/not everyone. So misread, but point being majority of reviews I've read, do bring up the feminism aspect of the movie, even if it's to discredit it. It's not a fringe. One of the primary actors was a feminist activist and said she wanted to influence the movie in interviews. It's not out of nowhere. :/ But I'll concede that's in the weeds and not the point. Message or not, you liked it regardless and I disliked it regardless.
The rest can be summed up with, I agree to disagree. :/
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
I agree, their fuel efficiency is pretty absurd. The characters being foolish doesn't mean the story is bad. They don't care much for efficiency? That's not impossible.
I'm gonna cancel the rest of the argument due to extreme displeasure.
I'm gonna cancel the rest of the argument due to extreme displeasure.
@SleepingSilence, I might be stealing your thunder right now, but christ do I have to address this.
So, @Awson deflects your attack of the plot by saying the money is in the visuals. Alright, fine, that's somewhat an invalid move of debate but damn it this is a fucking roleplaying website. No need to be a stickler. But I still have confusion regarding why the man then defends the plot and characters in the same post.
Your agreement is either the plot is extremely weak or your argument is the plot has actual points, Awson. Keep your argument consistent. As well, @SleepingSilence is giving some legitimate concerns to the gaps in the new Mad Max's plot, so it would also be wise to answer those queries instead of throwing them aside. But, again, I'm not gonna be a nazi about debates on RoleplayerGuild.com, but your biggest fault is definitely that inconsistency.
EDIT: Ninja'd by four minutes. Oh well. I will keep the rest of the writing above just so anyone can educate themselves on my opinion on this debate and argument. Hopefully no one cares.
@Awson, you're very honorable to give up a debate in order to keep a typed flash fire from happening. Well on you, you're better than half the internet population.
Alright, time to break for lunch everybody.
You're only proving more that you didn't get it. The point is that the superb action and visuals are enough to make story less important than usual. That's an argument for the lightness of it.
So, @Awson deflects your attack of the plot by saying the money is in the visuals. Alright, fine, that's somewhat an invalid move of debate but damn it this is a fucking roleplaying website. No need to be a stickler. But I still have confusion regarding why the man then defends the plot and characters in the same post.
I guess I'll go through the characters. I'd let you say little growth, but none?
Max and Furiosa: No trust, to trust. Max has a nice moment where he goes against convention and doesn't stay with them. Furiosa's dream of paradise is destroyed, she accepts the Citadel as her home.
Nux: Mindless drone, dreams crushed, abolishes his idol
Your agreement is either the plot is extremely weak or your argument is the plot has actual points, Awson. Keep your argument consistent. As well, @SleepingSilence is giving some legitimate concerns to the gaps in the new Mad Max's plot, so it would also be wise to answer those queries instead of throwing them aside. But, again, I'm not gonna be a nazi about debates on RoleplayerGuild.com, but your biggest fault is definitely that inconsistency.
EDIT: Ninja'd by four minutes. Oh well. I will keep the rest of the writing above just so anyone can educate themselves on my opinion on this debate and argument. Hopefully no one cares.
@Awson, you're very honorable to give up a debate in order to keep a typed flash fire from happening. Well on you, you're better than half the internet population.
Alright, time to break for lunch everybody.
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
Oh fuck, I said "nice moment" when describing something I admitted was weak. Screw off.
Weak things can have positives.
And I'm not giving up, I'm walking away.
You've managed to frustrate me more than he has in just one post.
Weak things can have positives.
And I'm not giving up, I'm walking away.
You've managed to frustrate me more than he has in just one post.
1x Like
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
Your agreement is either the plot is extremely weak or your argument is the plot has actual points, Awson. Keep your argument consistent.
I was arguing that the plot was light. It can be light, with actual plot points.
<Snipped quote by Doug>
I was arguing that the plot was light. It can be light, with actual plot points.
I got ya. I didn't perceive your writing that way, but hey, that's cool. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
1x Thank
Awson Waiting & Waiting
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
<Snipped quote by Awson>
I got ya. I didn't perceive your writing that way, but hey, that's cool. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Thank you for this reply. I think I might have blown my brains out if you didn't say this.
1x Thank
Arawak oZode's ghost
Member
Seen
3 mos ago
I think that people freaking out about current events need to have some perspective.
Assaults on the USA's freeness have happened time and time again, be it Jackson, Nixon, Wilson, the Bushes etc and have been carried out by people much, much smarter and much, much more politically capable than 45. Nixon had a personal crony appointed to the FBI and for an election sabatoged peace talks while actively spying on US citizens. He also was much much more popular than Trump ever war, winning a landslide in 1972 and filling half the supreme court with very right wing appointees. Yet despite that, Roe V Wade happened under his watch and despite having so much time to rid of Roe, the right never was able to even as Roe had not nearly as much precedent as it does now. It is not even clear if Gorsuch would dare overturn it. Or if the politicos even want to overturn it.
In the 1990's, a time of suppossed nostalgia and american greatness which is claimed to be more stable than today Yeltsin nearly caused WW3 while Drunk, we nearly got into a war with China over Taiwan and a genocide happened in Europe. The 2000's weren't much better.
I think it is safe to say that political instability is the NORM, not stability. A caligula with nukes is scary, yes, but they have existed before be it when fucking Mao (who believed nukes could be used tactically) had nukes and nearly started a war with the USSR or when we let a aging man with dementia have nukes for five years straight.
Nuclear war is viewed as a inevitable apocalypse, I question this since they said this about bombers and chemical weapons back before the world wars and Saddam was suppossed to cause a global famine when he destroyed the oil wells. Seeing as there are far, far less nukes now (even if more nations have them) is it really a given that a missile war between nation states means the end of technological civilization or just be a collapse of the current system much like how the world wars destroyed Europe's hold on the world and gave the vacuum that allowed for American dominance? The mongols wiped out nearly 20% of the world population yet civilization around the world survived even if Islam was forever ruined by the mongols.
How many more decades (or years, if you believe the NK hype) we have until such war, who knows, and who knows what factors may develop that may make such wars not nearly the end of the species as a chomsky would claim. Climate change is horrifying, but biotechnology can abett it to a strong degree and that tech already is being used to make more resiliant crops. The structures that existed 70 years ago lack the resiliance structures made post-9/11 have and many US citizens live in Suburbs, not in the cities.
Assaults on the USA's freeness have happened time and time again, be it Jackson, Nixon, Wilson, the Bushes etc and have been carried out by people much, much smarter and much, much more politically capable than 45. Nixon had a personal crony appointed to the FBI and for an election sabatoged peace talks while actively spying on US citizens. He also was much much more popular than Trump ever war, winning a landslide in 1972 and filling half the supreme court with very right wing appointees. Yet despite that, Roe V Wade happened under his watch and despite having so much time to rid of Roe, the right never was able to even as Roe had not nearly as much precedent as it does now. It is not even clear if Gorsuch would dare overturn it. Or if the politicos even want to overturn it.
In the 1990's, a time of suppossed nostalgia and american greatness which is claimed to be more stable than today Yeltsin nearly caused WW3 while Drunk, we nearly got into a war with China over Taiwan and a genocide happened in Europe. The 2000's weren't much better.
I think it is safe to say that political instability is the NORM, not stability. A caligula with nukes is scary, yes, but they have existed before be it when fucking Mao (who believed nukes could be used tactically) had nukes and nearly started a war with the USSR or when we let a aging man with dementia have nukes for five years straight.
Nuclear war is viewed as a inevitable apocalypse, I question this since they said this about bombers and chemical weapons back before the world wars and Saddam was suppossed to cause a global famine when he destroyed the oil wells. Seeing as there are far, far less nukes now (even if more nations have them) is it really a given that a missile war between nation states means the end of technological civilization or just be a collapse of the current system much like how the world wars destroyed Europe's hold on the world and gave the vacuum that allowed for American dominance? The mongols wiped out nearly 20% of the world population yet civilization around the world survived even if Islam was forever ruined by the mongols.
How many more decades (or years, if you believe the NK hype) we have until such war, who knows, and who knows what factors may develop that may make such wars not nearly the end of the species as a chomsky would claim. Climate change is horrifying, but biotechnology can abett it to a strong degree and that tech already is being used to make more resiliant crops. The structures that existed 70 years ago lack the resiliance structures made post-9/11 have and many US citizens live in Suburbs, not in the cities.
Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades
Member
Seen
2 yrs ago
I think that people freaking out about current events need to have some perspective.
Assaults on the USA's freeness have happened time and time again, be it Jackson, Nixon, Wilson, the Bushes etc and have been carried out by people much, much smarter and much, much more politically capable than 45. Nixon had a personal crony appointed to the FBI and for an election sabatoged peace talks while actively spying on US citizens. He also was much much more popular than Trump ever war, winning a landslide in 1972 and filling half the supreme court with very right wing appointees. Yet despite that, Roe V Wade happened under his watch and despite having so much time to rid of Roe, the right never was able to even as Roe had not nearly as much precedent as it does now. It is not even clear if Gorsuch would dare overturn it. Or if the politicos even want to overturn it.
In the 1990's, a time of suppossed nostalgia and american greatness which is claimed to be more stable than today Yeltsin nearly caused WW3 while Drunk, we nearly got into a war with China over Taiwan and a genocide happened in Europe. The 2000's weren't much better.
I think it is safe to say that political instability is the NORM, not stability. A caligula with nukes is scary, yes, but they have existed before be it when fucking Mao (who believed nukes could be used tactically) had nukes and nearly started a war with the USSR or when we let a aging man with dementia have nukes for five years straight.
Nuclear war is viewed as a inevitable apocalypse, I question this since they said this about bombers and chemical weapons back before the world wars and Saddam was suppossed to cause a global famine when he destroyed the oil wells. Seeing as there are far, far less nukes now (even if more nations have them) is it really a given that a missile war between nation states means the end of technological civilization or just be a collapse of the current system much like how the world wars destroyed Europe's hold on the world and gave the vacuum that allowed for American dominance? The mongols wiped out nearly 20% of the world population yet civilization around the world survived even if Islam was forever ruined by the mongols.
How many more decades (or years, if you believe the NK hype) we have until such war, who knows, and who knows what factors may develop that may make such wars not nearly the end of the species as a chomsky would claim. Climate change is horrifying, but biotechnology can abett it to a strong degree and that tech already is being used to make more resiliant crops. The structures that existed 70 years ago lack the resiliance structures made post-9/11 have and many US citizens live in Suburbs, not in the cities.
Ron Perlman went overboard in this Fallout intro
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
1 day ago
@Awson Never meant to cause frustration in the first place. I'm okay with being done, I sort of already acknowledged it was just two people with different perspectives. Thanks for engaging in the discussion. :3
© 2007-2024