Serious Movie Discussion XLI

[Flemmy Stardust]

I have to confess the urge to resist you here. The shift from "it's right" to "it makes sense" strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Mainly because, if that argument were to proceed, it'd look like this: "It makes sense..."/"Maybe, but I think it would've made more sense..." And isn't the idea of making more or better sense just a variant of right/wrong talk?

I do like that you're emphasizing what Nolan did. That's keeping things specific, which is what I was getting at earlier with my philosophical nonsense ( ). Our job in every aesthetic discussion is to do justice to the particular artwork under consideration. To discuss art in an objective register is to acknowledge that, as an objectively existing entity, every artwork has an identity. If, however, we grant that artworks, as objectively existing entities, have their own identities, then it does follow that what happens in, for example, a film had to happen, otherwise it wouldn't be the film that it is.

The challenge in light of this then becomes how to determine what is so essential in a film that, without it, or in a different form, the film itself becomes a different film. In our Inception example, the slow-motion in that sequence is essential to the inherent logic of the film. It doesn't just make sense. It's right. And if you object to that, what you're objecting to isn't an element of the film. You're objecting to the film.

And fuck anyone who objects to Inception.

I kind of agree with what you're saying about if it makes more sense, it's better. But i think we have different starting points. You're saying it makes sense = good. I'm saying it makes sense = it makes sense. I can still think a line of dialogue sucks, even if its a plausible thing for a character to say it in the scene. I also think it's up to subjectivity to determine what makes "more sense" after the initial agreement of "it makes sense".

If this is all you mean to say about something being objective...that it could have not made any sense...then I'm kind of not interested in making a case against it. Almost everything would be good, because it is what it is and it fit (regardless of how well anyone thinks it fit).

I don't think the slow motion was essentially to the inherent logic...i think it worked really well with it. And i don't think all points against that would be more biased or arbitrary. I'm pretty sure if you put it under a microscope the timing is incredibly off. I think the proportion is off from level to level. I think it's logical to feel that every level could have been handled in real time, and levels 2 3 and 4 actually were (they only have gravity changes, not the slowing down of motion). Without suspending such disbelief...it's not hard to say "it didn't make sense".

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

I think I've found at least one or two quotes online that were said by people more than 17 years ago

Sure, but were any on the subject of how Phil Collins feels about his competition in the 1999 Academy awards?

For as much as they're a duo, Trey is the one who always brings up Phil Collins, so here, the question is what would make me think Trey is lying. And, to be more precise, I don't think he's lying. He could be lying. Or he could just be mistaken. Or he could've gotten bad information. Whatever the case, it'd be much easier for me to accept than Phil taking shots at them. That's the hardest scenario for me to buy based on what I know of Phil from being a fan of his for so long and reading so many interviews and watching so many documentaries.

Who knows. Maybe they just don't like his music or are mad that he left Genesis. I know I preferred Genesis to his solo stuff, by a long shot.

Oh, they're perfectly capable of contradicting themselves and being hypocrites. Given their egos, I'd be surprised if they didn't contradict themselves every once in a while. Saying they don't mince words means they say exactly what's on their minds even if it pisses people off. It has nothing to do with whether what they say that pisses people off is in line with or contradicts their values.

So why wouldn't Trey say the real reason he hates Phil. If they say exactly what's on their mind, then they hate Phil because he talked shit about them. There is a good chance it was something they heard, it could be a case of the telephone game, or it could be real. Phil isn't a saint. His wife kind of said that he's a shitty dad.

If you have to say "maybe," then it's pretty clear your exposure to Phil is very limited if not nonexistent.

He was in Genesis, everything else I know about him I learned from you, or from googling South Park Phil Collins. The Disney things does say a lot about his politics though.

If people weren't capable of understanding ideas that they themselves disagree with then the very concept of disagreement would be inconceivable. Besides, if it's possible for Trey and Matt to have had an ambivalent relationship to the Oscars (where the negative-to-positive ratio was admittedly favoring the former) - thinking it's stupid but not wanting to pass up the opportunity to at least go to the Oscars and have that experience - then surely it's possible for Phil to have had a similarly ambivalent relationship (where the negative-to-positive ratio favored the latter) such that he could get and appreciate the joke while nevertheless enjoying getting an Oscar and being able to dedicate his work to his kids on such a big stage.

That's a little like saying Left-wing protesters go the RNC convention for the experience. Matt and Trey went to make a statement, just like Michael Moore did. I have a lot of respect for Matt and Trey, they're biting the hand the feeds by bashing Hollywood and the media, but they do it anyways, because despite the risks it presents, they believe it's the right thing to do.

Seth on the other hand, hosted the Oscars.

The fact that Trey, Matt and I usually agree when it comes to politics makes the show so much more funny to me, because the humor speaks to me on a comedic and a political level.

I should point out that often South Park episodes are silly or they focus more on social issues than political ones.

Take the Awesem-o episode where Cartman is pitching ideas for movies. (that episode had me in tears I was laughing so hard btw) It was funny because the ideas were funny, but it was also funny because his ideas weren't any more ridiculous than a lot of the stuff they actually put out. We're obviously very different people when it comes to politics.

Another straw man alert. There isn't a single Family Guy episode that doesn't have a story. In fact, from day one Family Guy has been an ensemble show, which means episodes frequently have multiple storylines just like any other sitcom, including South Park. The charge that Family Guy is completely random doesn't even come close to touching the actual show.

I didn't say they don't have stories. I said the jokes usually don't relate to the story, which is why I find their writing lazy. One of the jokes that made me like Family Guy early on was the "Raisin Bran" sun dropping two scoops of raisins on everything... It's a funny joke but it had nothing to do with the story and you could fit it into any episode. That's why Trey and Matt hate being compared to Family Guy.

Take your favourite example "Butters Bottom Bitch", it worked because Butters in that role is so bizarre that it's hilarious. The jokes revolve around butters and prostitution, and the story. It wasn't just Butter being a pimp with jokes about Raisin Bran and celebrities, and Peter's past jobs.

Your reading of Barry Lyndon was so insightful. Where'd that Beardo go?

Thank you for the compliment. I watched Barry Lyndon the night before. I barely watch Family Guy anymore, and for South Park I usually just wait to the end of the season and then watch them all in a day or two, while getting really high.

You're not giving me much to work with either, your criticism of the show is vague and sweeping. You're not giving examples of the townspeople being stupid, or of Family Guy's great writing.

What do you think some of the best-written Family Guy episodes are? I see you answered the question further down... were those examples there when you made this post? I don't remember them being there...

To the many issues in this interpretation:

1) I know all about the bias towards fairness. I've watched The Newsroom.

2) "Dummies" makes it seem like the problem with the people interviewed in that news segment you're referring to is one of intelligence. It's not. It's one of (moral) guts. It's not that they're not smart enough to take a stand for or against changing the flag, it's that they're not brave enough. Equivocation is the problem, not ignorance.

3) You're actually the one making the issue black-and-white. Your limited reading of that episode would fall apart if you tried to incorporate Chef's revelation at the end of the episode. The whole point of that episode is that the discourse has changed from tolerance to progress. In fact, going back to the previous point, the second news segment in that episode turns it around and shows how tolerance (which all but demands equivocation from a logical standpoint) is the problem, as the people interviewed are forced to tolerate the KKK if they want to maintain their precarious position on both sides of the fence.

4) As for progress, this can be seen in Chef's arc. Chef is from an earlier era in which he had to fight for equality and fair treatment, an era when the Civil Rights movement was a lived experience. Realizing that that's not the case anymore, that not everyone is a product of the Civil Rights era, that not everyone is part of the violent history of race relations, he realizes that there's no need for race relations to always be violent. He sees, in the kids' perspective, the possibility of true equality and peaceful progress.

5) It's funny that you reference the Redskins, not only because it made me think of the "Go Fund Yourself" episode, but also because the corollary episode here is "Douche and Turd" where so much energy is wasted on the school mascot. It's the flip side of the coin where racism is still a problem (as is animal cruelty) but social justice warriors (or PETA terrorists) are no less problematic, and are arguably more problematic insofar as their actions keep tensions at a boiling point rather than trying to bring people together so that we can all move forward.

I haven't seen the "racist flag" episode in 15 years, I was looking through an episode guide and that episode stood out. I had to read the description because I didn't even recognize it. The only part I remembered was the townspeople being interviewed by the media and their pathetic answers.

I'm just trying to guess since you're not providing examples of the town being frustratingly stupid. You also illustrated how the kids are smarter than the adults... they haven't been corrupted by adulthood yet. You don't really meet racist children, you do meet racist adults though.

I think Douche and Turd were an analogy for the presidential candidates, for the political system in general, tbh. People vote for the lesser of two evils, for the douche or the turd. Stan represents voter apathy, why bother? That's why Puffy was chasing them around, it was during his "vote or die" era. He know admits he was a shill, and the whole system is a scam.

South Park aren't big on protesters and protesting because they're just a special interest group. You need to get the masses on your side to get traction and you don't win over the masses by throwing paint on people wearing fur coats, you win over the masses through the media.

Whether you agree with Trey and Matts points or not, whether you think the townspeople or ridiculous or not the important thing is South Park often forces people to think about important issues. And often cartoon viewers are the type that don't expose themselves to that type of information.

Yes.

Interesting... I don't see it, at all.

To recapitulate:



When I'm talking about the "internal coherence" of the two shows, I'm talking about which show makes more sense on the terms established therein. South Park suffers from the "reset" problem. For so many years, Trey and Matt operated on the obsolete sitcom premise that, after each episode, you hit the reset button and start all over. The result in a standard 22-episode season is a season of 22 self-contained story worlds. In South Park, with its heavy didactic bent, it doesn't make sense that all the morons in that town keep doing such stupid shit and keep having to learn the same lessons with not even a hint of an increase in knowledge or growth.

I fail to see how the "reset" button is an issue. Family Guy and The Simpsons are the same.

It makes 100% sense. You're looking at the trees, I'm looking at the forest. You're looking at individual people while I'm looking at them as members of society.

I don't want to turn this is into a long political rant, so I'm not sure how to explain this... History repeats itself,

There's lot's of crazy opinions that huge sections of the population embrace, such as heaven being a real place (the ladder to heaven episode was one of my favourite South Park's) evolution not being real, global warming not being real, political promises during campaigns being real, tax breaks for billionaires being good, trickle down economics, competition is healthy, our leaders have our interests at heart etc.

As individuals we might not be stupid, but as a society we're extremely stupid.

We see the videos all the time. Late night shows go and ask people questions... Americans always do shockingly bad. It's not that they don't want to take a stand, it's that they're not informed enough to know which side to take. Canada isn't much better, our media just doesn't portray us that way, but most of us are just as ignorant as the Americans, imo.

There was a war on drugs... it resulted in increased drug trade and drug use worldwide. So they start a war on terrorism, which results in an increase in terrorism and terrorists worldwide. And people aren't saying "hey, wait a minute, maybe we should stop", no quite the opposite.

After 9/11 Time magazine did a survey and 50% of Americans supported locking up all arabs in internment camps... Modern society thinks the solution is segregation... Segregation is the problem, understanding other cultures is the solution. At least half the country doesn't realize this, and the war on terrorism has only increased the fear and mistrust of foreigners and other cultures.

History repeats itself, for thousands of years all around the world societies have made the same mistakes over and over. We don't learn.

Now, to Trey and Matt's credit, they were aware of this and poked fun at it within the show (see "Butt Out" and "Pandemic" where Kyle and Craig respectively point out all of the silly shit that happens in the show). You, however, are trying to have your cake and eat it - which, again, to Trey and Matt's credit, they also acknowledge as an inherent contradiction in what they're doing (see the end of "Stunning and Brave").

Family Guy, on the other hand, suffers no inherent contradictions. In moving away from the absurdism of their earlier seasons, the logical holes in South Park are more problematic now. In Family Guy, by contrast, they've always been and still are zany and absurd. So it doesn't hurt them that Stewie is still an infant or that Meg and Chris are still in high school. The show has a talking dog and a talking, malevolently brilliant baby. The genius of Family Guy, in fact, if I had to put a fine point on it, is not strictly its plotting but the way Seth has obliterated the formal boundaries of TV storytelling. It's one thing to make references, to have allusions, to be self-aware; what Seth is doing is literally changing the form of TV comedy, animated or otherwise, by pushing this much further, and in a way that's both smart and funny.

Space Ghost Coast to Coast changed the formal boundaries of TV comedy long before Family Guy did. The show also trolls celebrities and shits on their ego's. Truly a masterpiece of comedy... but it's not filled with references to mainstream popular culture so no one cared about it.

South Park has plenty of absurd and zany moments too. Kick the baby for example, mass cow suicides, there's plenty of absurdity in South Park as well. Having intelligent 4th graders play the characters is a revolution also by your standards, and one that came before Family Guy as well.

There aren't logical holes in South Park, you're just not picking up on the analogy correctly.

I think Stewie being evil is one of the best parts about Family Guy. It's a statement on nature vs. nurture and the idea that people can be born evil.

Of course, formal experimentation versus moral/political enlightenment is a battle that has been raging in the philosophy of art for centuries and I don't expect for the two of us to settle things once and for all here on Sherdog. I do think it's important, though, to clarify the terms and the sides of this debate.

Let's put it this way, if everyone was morally and politically enlightened then the world would be a peaceful place. If everyone was into formal experimentation then we have a formal experiment that could end up in any number or ways, many being horrible.

*FTFY

Interesting that you find political double-talk to be mature...

That part of the answer was, itself, a joke. Seth was saying that, to top South Park, which devoted two episodes to bashing Family Guy, Family Guy would have to do three episodes bashing South Park.

Proof that Seth is terrible at telling topical jokes.

Also Trey and Matt are like the Hunter S. Thompson's of TV comedy writing, by which I mean they finish their scripts about 5 minutes before the deadlines. The episodes are put together quickly and then aired. This was they can stay very up-to-date with their politics. The family guy episode was a two-parter because the network wouldn't allow them to show Allah and their deadline was up, so they made it a two-part series so they would have more time to try and force Comedy Central into showing Allah. Obviously they could've explained that Manatee joke in 25 minutes.

Seth with his mighty ego totally missed the plot. Speaking about ego's, the one who hosts the Oscars has a bigger ego than those who protest it. That's a general rule of thumb. It's like we both look at a sign that says 1+1= , and we get different answers. Obviously I think I'm right, but so do you.

And copious amounts, to boot.

To you criticism is arrogance. To me it's progress.

Rosa Parks criticized, The civil rights movement criticized. It's not a negative thing when it's done towards social progress

No, I equate Trey and Matt's criticisms with hate. Especially when they talk about getting flowers from other animated shows after bashing Family Guy and describe it as the solidarity of the animation community in their hatred of Family Guy.

I didn't introduce hate into this conversation. Trey and Matt did. You can keep denying it, but Trey and Matt don't, so why would you?

They didn't say they hate Seth. They probably like American Dad.

Chappelle's Show routinely beat South Park and every other show on in the ratings.

Neither show was on Fox...

By your description of Matt and Trey they should hate Chapelle too, since he offended their huge ego's by beating them. Yet they didn't bash him.

Having an ego is believing the shit the academy says about you. Not having an ego is protesting the academy. Your views on arrogance and ego perplex me.

I don't know if Trey and Matt contradict themselves on this point, but given your repeated criticisms of Seth for not taking a stand and using his power for good, you certainly do.

I blame scapegoats? How is Seth a scapegoat?

1) Season 1 Episode 2 (1999) - "I Never Met the Dead Man" - Peter crashes into a satellite dish and knocks the cable out for the neighborhood. It becomes clear that he's so addicted to TV that he ends up losing his mind and walking around with a cardboard square in front of him, in effect turning the real world into a TV show. It's a very sharp indictment, not to mention it's funnier on my 20th viewing than any South Park episode was when it was fresh to me.

2) Season 2 Episode 8 (2000) - "I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar" - Peter has to go to sensitivity training for his sexism in the work place. He ends up basically turning into a woman, and while Lois initially likes the new sensitive Peter, she quickly grows to miss the man she married. A sharp and incisive commentary on the blurring of gender lines in our increasingly PC society, and, once again, an episode that far outpaces South Park in hilarity.

3) Season 3 Episode 3 (2001) - "Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington" - Peter's toy company gets taken over by a tobacco conglomerate, and rather than trying to fight the tobacco industry, Peter allows himself to be blinded by the money and prestige they throw at him to keep him in line. Yet another sharp commentary in yet another hilarious episode.

4) Season 4 Episode 14 (2005) - "PTV" - Peter gets sick of the FCC censoring his favorite TV shows, so he and Brian create their own TV channel with "edgy" material. The FCC then shows up to censor real life. Funny, smart, and prior to South Park's real-life TSA episode.

5) Season 5 Episode 17 (2007) - "It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One" - Lois runs for mayor against Adam West. She's losing until she dumbs down her platform. She tells Brian it's only to get elected, but once she's in office, she'll make significant changes. Instead, she ends up just as greedy and corrupt as Adam West was. Another home run.

And that was literally just a few minutes on Wikipedia picking one episode per season and stopping at Season 5 because I didn't feel like doing all of your work for you. Watch Family Guy beginning to end the way I watched South Park, and watch it with an open mind, and see if you can honestly maintain any of your silly reductive criticisms when faced with the actual episodes themselves.

1) The film Network came out in 1976. Twenty five years before Family Guy covered the topic, Hollywood already had.. In other words Seth was at least 25 years behind the times with that "cutting edge" message. In fact the internet was already becoming common by that time.

2) They take a pro-sexism stand and conclude that the older sexist Peter was better... Is the blurring of gender lines really a bad thing? You don't support segregation do you?

3) Good topic, but again it's something that was established long long ago. They're not exactly pushing the envelope.

4) Ok, but did you miss the point of Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)? Which was as a sharp as a Ginsu, next to Family Guy's sharp plastic butter knife. South Park does plenty to fight the censors, they both deserve credit in that area, but South Park clearly pushes the envelope more. They go so far as to try and goad other shows into taking a stand, whether you see it or not.

5) That was a great episode. But again, it's not exactly cutting-edge or controversial stuff. Everyone knows politicians are corrupt,what they don't know is the specifics. That's why South Park exposing the how and why of Gentrification with their Sodosopa episode is much more poignant and radical.

Ok, but did you miss the point of Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)? Which was as a sharp as a Ginsu, next to Family Guy's sharp plastic butter knife.

Criticism isn't negative.

Is telling your friend they have Broccoli in their teeth negative, or is it positive because you're helping them to remedy the situation, rather than let them walk around embarrassing themselves.

Scientology is negative, To criticize it is positive.

You can't simplify things like good and evil, negative and positive the way you're trying to do.

Even Homer knows better than that.

Timmy's first appearance in South Park was in 2000 (Season 4 Episode 1). Joe's first appearance in Family Guy was in 1999 (Season 1 Episode 5).

No, it was a jab at Phil Collins.

So you understand Trey and Matt's motives better than they do it... They just made that gumby thing up, without mincing words

You may want to lay off hurling those arrogance and ego comments around...

They're not children, and neither are you, despite your opinion on comedy

What was a great song by one of the greatest and most popular musicians, songwriters, and performers in music history doing competing for and winning an Oscar in the Best Original Song category? Really?

No, what was a love song like that doing in a kids movie. Here's a scenario, Pretend I'm making a movie about the Holocaust, and I take a great song by Lady Gaga (for example, she's still popular I think) and cram it into a movie where it doesn't belong...

Now let's assume the Lady Gaga song is the best of all the songs (that can be nominated)

Does it deserve to win, even though it doesn't belong in the movie? I say no, fuck the academy.

Anyways, this is going nowhere. We're on totally different political planes of thoughts and that's why we respectively appreciate each show better. Cause baby, I'm an anarchist and you're a spineless liberal... @Flemmy Stardust

That last part was an inside joke that only Flemmy would get, I don't really think you're spineless.

 

[Bullitt68]

You're saying it makes sense = good. I'm saying it makes sense = it makes sense.

I'm trying to forge a link between the two. I'd like to see if it's possible to say it's good because it makes sense. "Because" is the key. We throw out value judgments all the time in aesthetic discussions. To go the subjectivity route seems to me to be to say that what value judgments are based on is nothing. If I can get a "because" in there, then it's possible to find something on which to ground value judgments.

Foundationalism has been philosophically out-of-fashion for decades, but I've always had a foundationalist bent. I guess I'm like the cartoon character who won't actually fall until he looks down and realizes he's run out of cliff

Without suspending such disbelief...it's not hard to say "it didn't make sense".

I could defeat this claim, but it's beside the point. Plus, it's perverse for me to keep forcing you of all people to play the part of the obnoxious Inception hater.

We should leave that to @Ricky13.

Spoiler

Sure, but were any on the subject of how Phil Collins feels about his competition in the 1999 Academy awards?

It's innocent until proven guilty. Until evidence is provided that Phil talked shit, he didn't. The burden of proof is on the Phil haters.

To you criticism is arrogance.

You have a bad habit of being reductive in your arguments. Never did I nor would I ever say anything even remotely close to this. All I said was that Trey and Matt - and you - are arrogant. And it's not due to being critical, it's just due to being arrogant. Though anyone who needs to be told that they're arrogant - and is surprised by the charge - all the while continuing to promulgate Frankfurt School-style elitism regarding the mindless masses and the chosen intellectual elite is clearly operating with some heavy duty blinders on.

Neither show was on Fox...

You asked "in what world is a show on Comedy Central going to beat a show on Fox in the ratings?" I answered your question. South Park didn't routinely lose to Family Guy because of what channel it was on. It lost because more people felt like watching Family Guy than South Park.

I blame scapegoats? How is Seth a scapegoat?

You're starting to sound like Peter...

1) The film Network came out in 1976. Twenty five years before Family Guy covered the topic, Hollywood already had.. In other words Seth was at least 25 years behind the times with that "cutting edge" message. In fact the internet was already becoming common by that time.

2) They take a pro-sexism stand and conclude that the older sexist Peter was better... Is the blurring of gender lines really a bad thing? You don't support segregation do you?

3) Good topic, but again it's something that was established long long ago. They're not exactly pushing the envelope.

4) Ok, but did you miss the point of Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999)? Which was as a sharp as a Ginsu, next to Family Guy's sharp plastic butter knife. South Park does plenty to fight the censors, they both deserve credit in that area, but South Park clearly pushes the envelope more. They go so far as to try and goad other shows into taking a stand, whether you see it or not.

5) That was a great episode. But again, it's not exactly cutting-edge or controversial stuff. Everyone knows politicians are corrupt,what they don't know is the specifics. That's why South Park exposing the how and why of Gentrification with their Sodosopa episode is much more poignant and radical.

1) You can go the "X did it first" route with South Park, too. You're just hypercritical when it comes to Family Guy while you give South Park the benefit of the doubt. There's no arguing with that biased "logic."

2) If you think that episode is about "pro-sexism," then it went over your head. As for if blurring gender lines is a bad thing: In relation to the events in that episode, yes, and for the reasons made clear in the episode.

3) See point 1.

4) I'm not arguing better or worse. I'm arguing that Family Guy is clever and more than Raisin Bran jokes, which is the caricature you've reduced the show to in the strained effort to elevate South Park to the pinnacle of comedy.

5) See point 1.

So you understand Trey and Matt's motives better than they do

No. Just better than you do. Also, based on this charge, I think it's worth asking: Given all the shit you've talked about Phil, do you understand his motives for doing Tarzan better than he does?

No, what was a love song like that doing in a kids movie.

You're asking what a song about people falling in love is doing in a movie where two people fall in love?

I've heard your political spiel on Disney, but out of curiosity, have you ever actually seen a Disney movie?







Maybe I should put this in spoiler tags, but love is kind of a universal theme in storytelling.

It's also worth pointing out that, with You'll Be In My Heart in particular, the lyrics are about the bond between parent and child (written, as I mentioned, by Phil for his daughter Lily) and its relevance in the film is pretty obvious (not to mention its relevance in the context of a kids movie):

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

Besides - and this is open to all of you - how much do you really buy the "art is subjective" thing? Honestly, in my own research, I've been toying with the idea of going full steam ahead and arguing that art is not subjective, neither in terms of interpretation (determining what a film means) nor evaluation (determining whether or not a film is good).

I buy it, hence the reason our views on South Park and Family Guy are so different. We have different political views therefore each show appeals to us for different reasons and turns us off for different reasons.

So who gets to decide if a film is good or not?

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Plus, it's perverse for me to keep forcing you of all people to play the part of the obnoxious Inception hater.

Haha, shit man...this whole time I've been like "the slow motion was my example of something good...how am i supposed to keep arguing against myself?"

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Cause baby, I'm an anarchist and you're a spineless liberal... @Flemmy Stardust

Dunno why i didn't get the notification for this, but to him solidarity is a four-letter word.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

I'm going to see Suicide Squad tomorrow morning.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

And Sausage Party tomorrow night

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Hopefully they are good.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Gold Belt in the GOAT thread.

 

[ufcfan4]

Hopefully they are good.

I enjoyed Suicide Squad for the most part but it could have been better. I've heard Sausage Party is hysterical.

 

[BeardotheWeirdo]

It's innocent until proven guilty. Until evidence is provided that Phil talked shit, he didn't. The burden of proof is on the Phil haters.

Maybe they were wrong about Phil, maybe he did something to them I don't know. We're both biased here. Clearly you're a huge Phil Collins fan, of him as a musician and a person, I'd go so far as to wager that he holds a special place in you're heart. I think your love of Phil Collins has probably affected your opinion of South Park.

And clearly I'm a huge South Park fan, and believe it or not they hold a special place in my heart. I don't like to hear people talk shit about them. We're both just have a pissing contest here.

You have a bad habit of being reductive in your arguments. Never did I nor would I ever say anything even remotely close to this. All I said was that Trey and Matt - and you - are arrogant. And it's not due to being critical, it's just due to being arrogant. Though anyone who needs to be told that they're arrogant - and is surprised by the charge - all the while continuing to promulgate Frankfurt School-style elitism regarding the mindless masses and the chosen intellectual elite is clearly operating with some heavy duty blinders on.

Quite the opposite, to accept that the current political systems are worth maintaining is to have heavy duty blinders on, the world's a mess. One doesn't have to be full of himself to see this. I'm just being practical. Power corrupts, so they key to a fair system is to reduce the amount of power that the politicians have, which means a true democracy. The masses have to accept the power and responsibility, they have to inform themselves and make the decisions... but the people don't want that, honestly, from my experiences 99% of people want to be led. I've researched and discussed this at length with just about everyone I know (outside of work). So if people want to be lead and power corrupts our leaders, then we're fucked. Not so much us, but all the victims of the wars we wage are. Until the masses decide they want the power we're subject to corrupt politicians, that are beholden to huge corporations (whose only goal is profit) through campaign contributions. It'd not that I think I'm above them, I just want more from the world, and am willing to work towards it, but I'm held back by an unwilling public.

I do have a habit of arguing with people in their own style, usually it makes it easier to get through to them, usually

That reminds me, South Park celebrated Aliens, "they mostly come at night, mostly"

I'll give you credit though, it took me a loooong time to come up with a response to your initial megapost attack. You present some good arguments but their still just your opinions, and mine are just my opinions.

It's better to be an elitist than a defeatist. If no one believes they have power than no one has power. If everyone believes they matter then we can accomplish something. I have no allusions that my life is significant, or that anything I say on here matters, but I refuse to acquiesce to the current system.

To be fair, I'm definitely biased towards South Park. When I was 16 I stopped watching TV for about 5-6 years. I would tape or PVR The Simpsons, but that was it. Sometimes I'd see TV at friends houses but rarely, we'd usually talk or do other things. Then when I was 21 or 22 I broke both my legs, and my hand at the same time. I was bed-ridden for 2 months, I had no choice, it was just me and the TV.

It was interesting, when I stopped watching TV, it didn't take long for me to notice the influence TV had on others, how much of their mannerisms, beliefs and jokes came from TV shows and popular movies. People think they're not being affected by it, but it really does shape us in many ways, especially when we're teenagers and young adults trying to find our way in a confusing world. For this reason I hold all TV shows to a high standard, most of them teach shitty lessons.

So when I was bed-ridden for two months, I was a young radical punk rocker and everything on TV just sucked ass, imo. God it was boring, I had seen all the Simpsons episodes, Family Guy was off the air. I had seen a few episodes of South Park from season one but they weren't that good. By then season 7 was on, and South Park was playing like 8 times a day on the different channels, so I gave them another chance. I PVR'd and watched all 6 seasons over the next two months. It was the only bright spot in my life during those two months, apart from the odd visit from friends. It was the only thing on that god-forsaken box that was honest. And my politics were very similar to South Parks, they found religion to be just as ridiculous as I did, they found society and culture to be silly, it really spoke to me. Family Guy is funny and you're right it is progressive and at times political, but it's not radical like South Park, it's not even in the same category to me.

You asked "in what world is a show on Comedy Central going to beat a show on Fox in the ratings?" I answered your question. South Park didn't routinely lose to Family Guy because of what channel it was on. It lost because more people felt like watching Family Guy than South Park.

Fox is in like 30 times the amount of homes that Comedy Central is.

You're starting to sound like Peter...

I must really be getting through to you then Since you learn so much from Peter

1) You can go the "X did it first" route with South Park, too. You're just hypercritical when it comes to Family Guy while you give South Park the benefit of the doubt. There's no arguing with that biased "logic."

2) If you think that episode is about "pro-sexism," then it went over your head. As for if blurring gender lines is a bad thing: In relation to the events in that episode, yes, and for the reasons made clear in the episode.

3) See point 1.

4) I'm not arguing better or worse. I'm arguing that Family Guy is clever and more than Raisin Bran jokes, which is the caricature you've reduced the show to in the strained effort to elevate South Park to the pinnacle of comedy.

5) See point 1.

1) Conjoined Fetus Lady was in South Park before Family Guy existed btw. I'm hypercritical when it comes to South Park too, I'm hyper-critical when it comes to everything, including myself. South Park just meet my standards. I don't know why this bothers you?

2) That episode was just so over the top ridiculous, like Family Guy usually is. No one's going to change that much from sensitivity training. It was like Peter went to the jail from "a clockwork orange" to receive that training.

3) OK, but what other cartoon has such radical politics as South Park, that's why I love them. I've made this clear.

4) Ok, well then I agree. And are you even trying to understand my point of view, or are you just trying to convince me that I'm wrong? I'm not seeing the effort. Obviously they're more clever than just raisin bran jokes. I was making a point about the jokes not relating to the story. I watched one the other day and 75% of the jokes were random and unrelated to the story. And to top it off the story barely had a message, and the message was questionable. It was the one where Brian goes to India to meet the call center lady. I said The Simpsons was the pinnacle. When I assume things about you it's because you're vague. You're not even trying though, or perhaps you just don't get me. That's fine. I don't get you. We just think in different ways, that's why I was able to enlighten you in the Barry Lyndon thread. Hence the saying two heads are better than one, as long as one of the heads doesn't have a raging hard-on for Phil Collins or South Park (tbf)

No. Just better than you do. Also, based on this charge, I think it's worth asking: Given all the shit you've talked about Phil, do you understand his motives for doing Tarzan better than he does?

Based on what? You didn't even know who the characters represent. Your assumption on why they went to the awards was way off.
I believe you, I believe he wrote it for his daughter.

My only problem with Phil (and it's a hypercritical one by your standards) is I believe in the one dollar one vote system. Politicians are beholden to corporations. We get to choose between a douche and a turd (with all due respect to the handful of good presidents) so we really have no control over that. Corporations however do listen to us, and we can influence them by shopping elsewhere. Personally I would never work with Disney (If I was in Phil's shoes) even if it meant breaking my daughters heart. But that doesn't make Phil a bad person, it just makes him a normal person, in terms of political responsibility. I don't dislike people for being normal, I just with they would work harder at striving for a better society. No biggie.

I lied also, I do like that "I can feel it in the air tonight" song. But Genesis is still better. Genesis' "I can't dance" single was the first cd my brother ever bought.

You're asking what a song about people falling in love is doing in a movie where two people fall in love?

Lmao, actually I was confusing The Jungle Book with Tarzan, that's why I thought Disney mixing n a love song was ridiculous.

Tarzan is still stupid too, the guy was raised by fucking animals in the woods, I'm sure he's a real romantic gentleman. Typical Disney nonsense, and silly academy awarding a silly movie. Phil Collins is more important to the movie industry than Quentin Tarantino (according to the academy) They should all be lead out into the woods naked by in the winter by Samuel L. Jackson...

I've heard your political spiel on Disney, but out of curiosity, have you ever actually seen a Disney movie?







Maybe I should put this in spoiler tags, but love is kind of a universal theme in storytelling.

That question made me burst out loud laughing. No, I've never talked to a female either, c'mon now. Do you want marshmallows and ginger-ale?

That episode alone was much more clever than anything Seth has done. And the Jared has Aides... Maybe I just have a much darker sense of humour than you. That could be it actually.

I was dragged to go see the Jungle Book in the theatre a few months ago. It was pretty good. I saw that new Star Wars too... in retrospect I've been very kind to Disney in this thread. They can join the academy on the trip out to the woods.

It's also worth pointing out that, with You'll Be In My Heart in particular, the lyrics are about the bond between parent and child (written, as I mentioned, by Phil for his daughter Lily) and its relevance in the film is pretty obvious (not to mention its relevance in the context of a kids movie):

Sorry dude, you would probably think that my music collection is shit, but without hint of exaggeration I would rather listen to Faith+1 than that song.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I need to re-watch Family Guy but I just don't see much social and political commentary from them, and I know Seth is capable of it so it bothers me.

Disney is responsible for billions of dollars being wasted on fancy extravagant weddings, damn the false expectations they set, every girl thinks their Cinderella and grows up expecting to be treated like that... Disney is responsible for millions of divorces. If people don't acquiesce to group-think, than why do people shun extravagant sweet 16's while they want fancy princess styles weddings for themselves? Is that logical, or is that what the TV told them to think? What's the difference between the two? The difference is it's socially acceptable to bash teenagers, but not adults... stupid.

Anyways, end rant.

 

[Ricky13]

It was interesting, when I stopped watching TV, it didn't take long for me to notice the influence TV had on others, how much of their mannerisms, beliefs and jokes came from TV shows and popular movies. People think they're not being affected by it, but it really does shape us in many ways, especially when we're teenagers and young adults trying to find our way in a confusing world. For this reason I hold all TV shows to a high standard, most of them teach shitty lessons.

I like this a lot. Some nice posts from you in general meng. @Bullitt68 as well (and I promise to shut up about Inception).

A lot of anti-intellectual sentiment directed towards film arises from disregard of its ability to provide novel insight. That the sum total of our lives informs us better than the art we consume. I mean, sure, it's hard to argue against, but it misses an entire avenue of insight - audience reaction. I had a conversation with a friend about The Amazing Spiderman. I said the film placed the emotions of selfish romantic protagonists before the central ethos (in writing parlance, what the audience needs). The movie concludes with Peter's dismissal of Uncle Ben's sage advice so he can continue to get some. My buddy missed this, which, hey, it happens. But he additionally declared that I couldn't be thinking about every film this way.

Christ, Spidey is a hero to kids. Fuck that film. If I ever have a child, he/she can watch anything but we're going to be discussing after. You see it all the time, people expecting the milestones of their relationships to align with the tropes of some truly heinous romantic tripe. Stupid shit like the friend zone, the bro-code keep eroding understanding between sexes.

Observing how people respond to film and TV informs you of the way media goes about it in the first place. That in turn informs you of technique. That then helps you place the creators as belonging to a particular vocation and/or tradition. That in turn opens up who is doing it 'better' or 'worse' than others. People often get tripped up at this point, wondering (see Bullitt and Flem's back-and-forth) whether there really is a way to objectively judge these things. It doesn't matter: you're already at the point of discussing it, and likely gleaning insight from getting to that point. At each of the turns that got you there are an endless number of detours - new filmmakers, new techniques, varied audience reactions to study. Just stay open.

 

[Bullitt68]

I feel like Mr. White in here. I got @BeardotheWeirdo's anarchic, fuck-the-machine politics coming out of my left ear and @Ricky13's hippy, it's-not-the-destination-it's-the-journey sunshine and rainbows coming out of my right

In all seriousness, though, these last few pages are exactly why I don't just like this thread but why I need this thread. The conversations in here are more useful to me than any I've had since I've been in graduate school. Just think about that. Wherever you guys are in life, whatever you're doing, your insights about movies and the way to talk about them have done more to shape my own thoughts - either because they've allowed me to clarify positions in opposition to what you say or because they've forced me to modify claims in light of what you say - than anything that's happened on a university campus at either the MA or PhD level.

 

[europe1]

I enjoyed Suicide Squad for the most part but it could have been better.

For me it was pretty much the definition of an avarage film. Fine to sit through but nothing you'll think about afterwards. It's style and visuals where rather unstimulating, as where the supervillians (evil black lady was a cool addition though). But yeah, nicely-paced action movie with a team of protagonists.

Tarzan is still stupid too, the guy was raised by fucking animals in the woods, I'm sure he's a real romantic gentleman. Typical Disney nonsense

Yeah, at least Edgar Rice Burroughs had a shitton of race threory literature to base his depiction on.

It was interesting, when I stopped watching TV, it didn't take long for me to notice the influence TV had on others, how much of their mannerisms, beliefs and jokes came from TV shows and popular movies. People think they're not being affected by it, but it really does shape us in many ways, especially when we're teenagers and young adults trying to find our way in a confusing world. For this reason I hold all TV shows to a high standard, most of them teach shitty lessons.

Oh yes, that is a very intresting phenomenon.

I love how it's even lampshaded in a movie like The Big Lebowski. If you re-watch it enough, you'll start notecing how he starts stealing words and phrases that he has heard from other sources. He sees Bush Senior on the TV say "This aggresion will not stand", and then re-uses it later, only adding the word "man" at the end. Or for example how he starts using the word "penchance" after hearing Maude say it. It makes sense. All of our social understanding is formalized in interactions with others. No wonder our mannerism and sensebilities are shaped depending on what we're exposed to.

'm not trying to insult you or give you shit,

Oh don't worry about insulting me. You do that well-enough whenever you chose to defame a great movie with all those lies and venom that you throw out.

Thanks for the Davis recommendations.

What the hell was Hail, Caesar?

This is excactly one month to late to answer but what the hell I just saw it.

It's basically about keeping Hollywood "in-check", making sure that it performs along societal norms and expectations as a dreamland. This image of Hollywood is under attack though. Scandalously licentious starlets, communist infiltration perverting the message of the films, snoopy reporters trying to unveil scandals. Mannix is the guy who is supposed to deal with this issues and keep the facade up. He's to keep Hollywood "pure". This he does by hiding the truth about the stars pregnancy, smacking the communism out of George Clooney, putting his booth down on journalists and perverted photographers, etc. He is basically there to enforce Ortodoxy. To prevent Hollywood from ever changing (I'm sure there is some real world, present-day parallell to be drawn here)

This is a hidden reason behind Mannix's religious guilt. To lie is a sin, yet his job is to enforce the lie, keep it form never faltering (it is the sin of lying that he is confessing to in the confession booth, btw). He hides lust behind prudence. Every "star" in the film is introduced in some gransiose cinematic scene yet the real them is drastically diffrent.

 

[theskza]

@europe1 i got what it literally was, but...just...why? I think that's what I'm trying to figure out, or was a month ago. I'm kinda over it, but I still don't understand why that movie was made, or what the Coens wanted to do with it, or what they were saying. It felt lazy and worst of all uninteresting.

 

[europe1]

@europe1 i got what it literally was, but...just...why?

To me it seems like a further elaboration on their filmmaking style and quirks. A greater focus on the ensamble. More people encountering ideologies. Confusion and convolution due to misshaps, misunderstandings and complex character interactions. It echoos Burn After Reading in many ways. But all of this is stuff that the Coe-bro's have done and mastered before in other movies. This to me seems like they've taken the craft they've made for themselves and are just having a bit of fluffy fun with it.

It felt lazy and worst of all uninteresting.

I think that the Coen-brothers have done all of these little quirks better in other films. For example: the theme of people encountering people that personify a particular ideology was done much smarter and more interestingly in, say, The Big Lebowski. What makes Hail, Ceasar stand out is just that they've driven the ensamble-structure to a greater extent than before.

but I still don't understand why that movie was made, or what the Coens wanted to do with it,

Well it is basically a loving tribute/indictment of classical Hollywood. The Coens made a movie paying homage to the stuff they grew up watching. While also unveiling how phony and stock a lot of these things where.

Tatum is a gay Gene Kelly. Ehrenreich is a Roy Rogers singing-cowboy. Clooney is a star in one of those historical epics. Scarlett Johansson is one of those... swimming ladies that they used to make spectacle movies about. Seeing all these archetypes of classical Hollywood come to life and be examined makes cinophiles like them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

or what they were saying.

Thematically it's about deconstructing the Golden Age of Hollywood. Though, considering this is the Coens, that does seem rather simplistic. I'd almost want to say that they want to draw parallells between the production-wheel studio-Hollywood of the day and the present, which is likewise focused on repetition and stock-stories with all the reboots and remakes running about.

 

[JayPettryMMA]

So I just watched Eraserhead for the first time in 15 years. Anyone want to talk about it?

 

[chickenluver]

So I just watched Eraserhead for the first time in 15 years. Anyone want to talk about it?

One line of dialogue that I found very creepy was during the dinner scene when the mother is telling Henry there was a baby, and the girlfriend is freaking out and says "They're not even sure if it is a baby!"

 

[ufcfan4]

For me it was pretty much the definition of an avarage film. Fine to sit through but nothing you'll think about afterwards. It's style and visuals where rather unstimulating, as where the supervillians (evil black lady was a cool addition though). But yeah, nicely-paced action movie with a team of protagonists.

Funny you should say that because I was pretty intrigued by the fact that it had left virtually no impression on me the day after I'd seen it. That's not to say I thought it was a poor film because, as I said, it clearly entertained me during its running time, but I typically expect a film to stick with me at least for a while after I've first watched it and Suicide Squad just didn't really do that.

What I will say though is that I thought Will Smith and, to a lesser extent, Margot Robbie and Jay Hernandez stole the film. Leto did not particularly impress me. His iteration of The Joker certainly was not bad, but when you've watched a film as good as The Dark Knight with as good a performance as Heath Ledger gave, you really want the next person to pick up the mantle to deliver something that stands our or distinguishes the role from the previous actors.

To me, Leto even sounded like Ledger a bit with his cadence of lines. It was almost like he was channeling Heath's way of speaking, only with a deeper voice. And he was in so little of the film, that it was tough to really gauge what he did or did not contribute.

I find a lot of the flack on Sherdog at least seems to be going to that ex-model who played the archaeologist/the Enchantress. Maybe I'm crazy but I didn't find her bad at all. Not that those roles were particularly demanding or anything, but she didn't take me out of the film.

There were some narrative elements that I definitely was not on board with though.