<Snipped quote by Awson>

(IMO) Fury road, was incredibly shallow, a completely drag with a 2 hour length (yet completely plotless.)

My Hider [+]

holy shit fuckin nerds

@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. :/

All I did was point out why people liked it, (a true statement)

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 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.

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."

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'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. :/

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.

There are people who praise Fury Road for its "feminism," but that doesn't mean that they only liked it for solely that reason.

First part is still bullshit.

Some people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let's not go into this one.

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.

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.

Ima ruin this convo real quick

+ [+]

Leroy Jenkins.

<Snipped quote by UnknownScarlet4>

A Thirty-something-year-old yelling in a dank room for an hour.

Also the plot of Saw.

<Snipped quote by Doug>

I still haven't seen Saw.

Yeah, I'm behind on some stuff.

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.

The story was not a masterpiece. And that's okay. :)

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

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.

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 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'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.

Because I know that cherry-picking reviews is pointless.

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.

• 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?

It's not egregious to disagree with the majority. It's egregious to misunderstand or misrepresent the majority.

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 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.

<Snipped quote by Doug>

I was arguing that the plot was light. It can be light, with actual plot points.

<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.

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.