"this is not what anyone said originally."
I never said it was. I was pointing out a potential flaw within the logic.
"they said that feast rules and saw 4 sucks and they are right."
That's not exactly what anyone said (although it's close) and there's no rational standard by which to determine whether they are "right" or not in reference to an opinion, other than what they can back up as their preference.
"why does that make less sense? i could see if it was the same food in both places. just cause some guy can cook a killer chicken dinner doesn't mean he can cook steak.
for example, Quentin Tarantino. i loved reservoir dogs and true romance, but i also hated kill bill and jackie brown."
That makes less sense because if you say, "This guy always makes good food.", eat one thing and say, "Wow, this is great, unlike that !@#$ over there." and he made the !@#$ over there, too...you then negated the fact that he created the !@#$ food in your original assessment, possibly due to being unaware that he made the !@#$ food. Therefore, were someone to come along and say, "Hey, he made that !@#$ food, too." (which is more or less what I was doing), you might then decide to re-evaluate the situation.
And in relation to Tarantino...that may be the case...but you don't say, "Wow! Look at how good Reservoir Dogs and True Romance are based on their direction." (pointing out various things about it, as people pointed out various elements about the writing/storyline elements of Feast)...and then go, "At least it's not any of that Kill Bill and Jackie Brown stuff." (pointing toward that as the "bad end" of what can be done in the same regard without acknowledging that Tarantino even made those films - or acknowledging that he made those films as being the basis for judgment of one set as better than the other...or, if one does, one should then be able to, upon someone inquiring as to why they contrasted it against that...specify that those are the "good" Tarantino films in their view pitted against the "bad" ones from Tarantino).
So if you said you loved RD and TR and was glad they weren't crap (were you to think that) like KB and JB...and you didn't know they were directed by the same guy...
You're telling me it's wrong of someone to show up and go, "Uh...you may want to consider that KB and JB were directed by the same guy...so what you're saying isn't looking at the entire picture. That is not to say that it's wrong...but it leaves out addressing a major factor in its assessment."?
Because that's all I've been saying. And that stands perfectly well to reason, as far as I'm concerned, to have been pointed out.
-Ash
My Signature Sucks.
reply
share
psychojack
16 years ago
ok man look your arguments are completely weak. i'm not sure what you are even talking about anymore. First off I used tarantino as an example because he wrote all those movies. he did not even direct true romance. Tony Scott did. your changing peoples point of view, not to mention words to try to make us realize what? That we are idiots for not liking the saw sequels and liking feast? who cares if the same person wrote them. Yeah great, thanks for pointing out that they were written by the same people. I before hand did not know that, however I still feel that Feast was well written and original, but i also feel that it was well acted, directed and edited. When I watch saw 4. i feel that it lacks a little of everything. the names of people involved do not always make a good movie. sometimes good people do bad things. plus i did not say this "This guy always makes good food." I said this guy makes great Chicken, but his steaks suck. ala Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan write really great horror/comedy like feast, but they are terrible at writing horror sequels that are already well past done enough. you know like the saw franchise.
"this is not what anyone said originally."
I never said it was. I was pointing out a potential flaw within the logic.
how can you use a view that nobody ever presented to show flaw in logical thinking.
now the original poster cut down movies like saw, hostel, tcm and and devils rejects. while talking up movies slither, feast and teeth. now while i liked hostel, tcm, devils rejects, feast and teeth and did not like either slither or saw. I am not going to go all seven degrees of bacon to tell that that their logic is flawed. that would be illogical.
reply
share
ashedmaniac
16 years ago
Whether or not he directed it wasn't the point. The point was he was involved in it. I didn't think he had directed it (as I am aware the amount of films he's directed is "limited", to a degree), but I said that anyway because I view him as a director first and foremost. That was my error.
"your changing peoples point of view, not to mention words to try to make us realize what? That we are idiots for not liking the saw sequels and liking feast?"
What are YOU talking about? I was never saying anyone was an idiot or that anyone should like the Saw sequels if they like Feast. You clearly weren't listening (reading) in the first place and THAT'S why you perceive my supposed "arguments" as weak and don't know what I'm talking about anymore.
"the names of people involved do not always make a good movie. sometimes good people do bad things."
Both true.
"plus i did not say this 'This guy always makes good food.' I said this guy makes great Chicken, but his steaks suck."
So? What I stated was to define the point made toward the entire thread which is what you were pushing against despite it not being what you seemingly think it to mean - THAT phrasing was not toward you, specifically. It was clarifying to you the point made toward those in the thread which you then took a stance against.
"how can you use a view that nobody ever presented to show flaw in logical thinking."
That's why it said "potential"...
You yourself said you didn't know they were written by the same people. I felt this might be an oversight when commenting on the superiority of the plot/constructs/writing in one but discounting it in relation to the other and that some might like to be aware of that or might like to include that in the formation of their opinions if they hadn't already done so.
"I am not going to go all seven degrees of bacon to tell that that their logic is flawed. that would be illogical."
I may be a fan of the Saw films, but my intention in this thread was never to "support Saw" or push my opinion on anyone (as that's the implication I get from you seeming to think I'm telling people off for not liking the Saw films). It was simply to inform people that to say, "These elements written into the film are so much better than these elements from things such as this series." (which was the implication of a lot of what was said) was potentially a statement made without understanding that the same people wrote the latter ones.
Not that that meant the latter were good or the first were good or either was bad or one had to like the first if they liked the second or vice versa.
Don't be so defensive about it. I was just pointing it out to the thread as something to consider...and yet you've made a sort of tirade against me as though I was saying, "Screw all of you! Saw is amazing!"...which is never what I said and isn't something I WOULD say as I am fully aware people have differing opinions of the same thing and can do so for valid reasons on either perceived side ("good" or "bad" or "liked it" or "didn't like it").
So just...don't jump to conclusions about me trying to force my view onto others just because so many on IMDb seem to. That's not what I was doing at all.
I try to promote understanding and debate and it more or less gets me told off for trying to contribute something of potential note to a conversation?
Geez...I didn't know someone would be so hostile toward the suggestion that people may want to consider something related to the topic at hand.
-Ash
My Signature Sucks.
reply
share