News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

TV/Movies Megathread

Started by Eddie Teach, March 06, 2011, 09:29:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

celedhring

Phantom Menace was one of the first big profile movies shot in digital and it really shows. The coloring looks really fake.

grumbler

Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.  That's the only reason why such a comparison would not itself be reliable.


Quote:huh: I never said that.  The Magnificent Seven (the original US one) is a remake of the Seven Samurai.  And I much prefer the US western edition to the original one in b&w.
But as I said, I totally understand that some people would prefer the original japanese one.  I just grew up watching westerns and James Bond movies with my dad, so a western has more of an appeal to me.  It ain't reational by anyway, but then again, there's not much rationality in art.
Also, the latest King Kong wasn't too bad.

So you don't know how to make an argument.  I would argue that The Magnificent Seven was not a remake of The Seven Samurai, though clearly heavily influenced by it (including the moral).  it was a different type of movie with a different emphasis.  But, even if you want to argue that it is a remake, you cannot just give the title of a movie that has, in fact, actually been remade, and assume that people know that you are referring to the 1960 movie being a remake of a 1954 movie with a different name, filmed in a different country in a different language.   

Arguing which of TSS and TMS being the better movie is going to depend on whether you prefer the blockbuster-movie format (TMS) or the character-building format (TSS).  They aren't really very comparable.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

celedhring

What the world was demanding: a Nurse Ratched origin series!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2tbRZn7tpY&ab_channel=Netflix

(Who knows, it might be a great show, but the premise seems a bit of a parody of prestige TV)

Barrister

Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.  That's the only reason why such a comparison would not itself be reliable.

That's not what he is saying.

He is saying the movie review aggregations compiled on sites like Rottentomatoes, aren't exactly reliable for movies released before RT existed.  That's not the fault of those individual movie reviewers, but the fault or RT - it doesn't do a good job of digging up old movie reviews to include.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Josephus

Quote from: celedhring on September 16, 2020, 10:52:06 AM
What the world was demanding: a Nurse Ratched origin series!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2tbRZn7tpY&ab_channel=Netflix

(Who knows, it might be a great show, but the premise seems a bit of a parody of prestige TV)

I'm actually looking forward to it; but yeah it might suck
Civis Romanus Sum

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." Jack Layton 1950-2011

grumbler

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2020, 10:52:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.  That's the only reason why such a comparison would not itself be reliable.

That's not what he is saying.

He is saying the movie review aggregations compiled on sites like Rottentomatoes, aren't exactly reliable for movies released before RT existed.  That's not the fault of those individual movie reviewers, but the fault or RT - it doesn't do a good job of digging up old movie reviews to include.

This sounds a lot like argument by assertion.  No aggregation system is completely reliable or ANY movie, regardless if its date, but there's no evidence that i can see that somehow movies change over time and so the same reviewer working before RT was founded in 1998 (or, at least, before the digitally-available reviews that RT requires) and after 1998 would rate the same movie any differently.  To blame RT for some flaw that you cannot even demonstrate exists is the worst sort of red herring.

The reason that Viper attacks the credibility of RT is that RT's critics' consensus supports my position and not his, not because he has any evidence at all that remakes somehow suffer from RT's data collection methods (let alone be responsible for the 40-point gap between a 93 rating for the original and a 53 for the remake)..
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Barrister

Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 02:23:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2020, 10:52:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.  That's the only reason why such a comparison would not itself be reliable.

That's not what he is saying.

He is saying the movie review aggregations compiled on sites like Rottentomatoes, aren't exactly reliable for movies released before RT existed.  That's not the fault of those individual movie reviewers, but the fault or RT - it doesn't do a good job of digging up old movie reviews to include.

This sounds a lot like argument by assertion.  No aggregation system is completely reliable or ANY movie, regardless if its date, but there's no evidence that i can see that somehow movies change over time and so the same reviewer working before RT was founded in 1998 (or, at least, before the digitally-available reviews that RT requires) and after 1998 would rate the same movie any differently.  To blame RT for some flaw that you cannot even demonstrate exists is the worst sort of red herring.

The reason that Viper attacks the credibility of RT is that RT's critics' consensus supports my position and not his, not because he has any evidence at all that remakes somehow suffer from RT's data collection methods (let alone be responsible for the 40-point gap between a 93 rating for the original and a 53 for the remake)..

Well it's not my argument - I'm not even sure what movie you guys are talking about any more. :lol:

But I saw what seemed like a genuine misunderstanding, thought I would try to help out. -_-
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Eddie Teach

Grumbler prefers to keep the misunderstanding going as long as possible.  :P
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

katmai

Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2020, 02:34:45 PM

But I saw what seemed like a genuine misunderstanding, thought I would try to help out. -_-
Look at the fng here
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

viper37

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 15, 2020, 04:15:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 03:58:02 PM

Yeah, but not everyone has your patience for watching bad movies :P

You have it as well. You just think they are good, that's the difference whereas I go for the so-bad-it's-good variety.  :D
:ph34r:
Once I've begun watching a movie, I can rarely stop until it's finished, no matter how bad it is.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

viper37

Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.

That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Review aggregators like RT compile online sources from top critics, critics at large and general public.  Do you really think it's one dude in his basement inputting the data manually?  :rolleyes:
Most of this is automated, gathering the info from the web site, reposting it over there, parsing the results.  If you do this for a movie made before RT, then you have to consult newspaper archives which may not all be available online, so you get incomplete results for some movies.  Such sites are highly unreliable for older movies and it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

You could easily compare the latest 7 Magnificent with Inception to see which one was more popular, but doing the same exercise for a movie made in the 60s is just plainly dumb, and you know it as well as I do.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

viper37

I've started watching Aquaman.  The special effects are atrocious, they look so fake.
Acting seems semi decent for now, but I've only made 40 minutes into the movie.  The plot does look like its really predictable though; it's like every scene is telegraphed all accross the movie.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

grumbler

Quote from: Eddie Teach on September 16, 2020, 03:54:58 PM
Grumbler prefers to keep the misunderstanding going as long as possible.  :P

:lol:  Yes, it is clear that I somehow am misunderstanding something, here.  In spite of viper being quite clear in what he was claiming.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Eddie Teach

He even gave you the year. :contract:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

grumbler

Quote from: viper37 on September 16, 2020, 05:18:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 16, 2020, 10:25:06 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2020, 04:03:19 PM
Comparisaons on an aggregator site for movies made way before the site existed aren't exactly reliable.

:huh:  This is simply claiming that movie reviewers were not "exactly reliable" before the advent of Rotten Tomatoes, which might be the dumbest argument I've ever read on Languish.

That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Review aggregators like RT compile online sources from top critics, critics at large and general public.  Do you really think it's one dude in his basement inputting the data manually?  :rolleyes:
Most of this is automated, gathering the info from the web site, reposting it over there, parsing the results.  If you do this for a movie made before RT, then you have to consult newspaper archives which may not all be available online, so you get incomplete results for some movies.  Such sites are highly unreliable for older movies and it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

You could easily compare the latest 7 Magnificent with Inception to see which one was more popular, but doing the same exercise for a movie made in the 60s is just plainly dumb, and you know it as well as I do.

What is just plain dumb is that you keep making these assertions as though they were meaningful.  The current view of critics of the 1960 and 2016 versions of The Magnificent Seven, or the 1994 and 2019 version of The Lion King, are all that we care about, since we are evaluating them today.  You simply cannot accept that the critics support my view of the films and not yours, or that my views are supported by honors that your preferred movies did not earn, so you feebly try to argue that the movies cannot be compared using review aggregation sites.  You are not able to explain why, except that it "is just plainly dumb."  That logic may have served you sell in second grade, but this isn't second grade.

The fact that RT may be missing a 1960 review for the 1960 version of the Magnificent Seven means absolutely nothing to a contemporary evaluation of the relative merits of the movie.  A movie like Blade Runner, misunderstood upon its release, actually benefits from having RT only include more modern perspectives on it.  Initial reviews were hostile and the movie was a commercial failure.  Ten years after its release, though, it was inducted into the US National Film Registry and it is now widely recognized as one of the most popular and influential SF movies of all time.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!