MovieChat Forums > Fandango > Replies
Fandango's Replies
I think it can certainly be interpreted as such, sure. As someone put once in a review, the question is: to what point do you forgive the transgressions made upon you by other who may be less fortunate, but are nevertheless committing a wrong?
Essentially, just because someone is worse off than someone else, doesn't mean they can make themselves feel better at that other person's expense, even if that misdoing will still mean their lives are better, despite any trauma (i.e., Grace was raped and abused, in the end she may have still been better off than the residents, despite the psychological impact).
These are some interesting points and are certainly worth considering.
Do you enjoy the workplace dynamic? I imagine with the right patrons, the time can fly. It can go the other way, too, however.
I'm glad you made it out alive. Stay safe out there.
If we think about it for a moment, I think we can come up with the following answer:
Men are supposed to be objective. If a man is objective, he will rationalize that obsessing over someone is fruitless, because there are plenty of women out there, and to think that the one you're crushing over is somehow "the one" is not very manly.
Women, on the other hand, are considered emotional, and therefore they're unable to think rationally. The reason they have crushes and collect posters is the same reason they tend to ruminate when you say something wrong to them.
Just a theory. I don't know, as I am generally aloof myself. I can see why it may be considered a double standard, though.
Very interesting perspective. Thank you for the insight.
"Yeah, I'm Bill Murray--just don't tell anyone."
-Coffee & Cigarettes
I'll have to check out the GD boards. Thanks for the heads up.
The beauty of the IMDB message boards lied in the fact that you could post a question or a comment about a film that was seemingly barren, and a few weeks or even a month from then you would get a message saying that someone responded to your comment.
Here, the population is just not saturated enough to expect anything similar, unless it's under a popular movie.
So would you say the problem is the death of objective standards? If a producer can hire markedly poor directors that create oscar winners, who is to blame here? Is it the producer hiring the directors to make these films, or is it the academy, that doesn't care much for anything objective in film such as writing, cinematography, direction, or originality?
It seems that ultimately what happens is you have separate categories that acknowledge these individual criterion, but the "best" film is only the best film if it promulgates a certain agenda.
At any rate, thank you for putting things into slightly more perspective. And the world grows dimmer, it seems.
I think these are excellent points. I enjoyed reading both of your thoughts and would like to thank you for keeping it civil in an otherwise uncivilized world.
As someone who casually enjoys watching films, I would love to hear a little elaboration on what you mean. I know he had his own production company, but how did this power influence the direction films are in now?
This is not an affront, just a genuine curiosity.
Thank you in advance.
This is always an interesting point of contention that arises every year come Oscar season. Essentially, people start disagreeing about whether or not a certain film is worthy of its accolades. The problem ultimately lies in the fact that films are, by and large, still considered a wholly subjective experience. When we start applying objective standards to films and rating every category (e.g., screenwriting, plot cohesion, period accuracy, character development, etc.), then maybe people would be slightly less disappointed if they understood why a film was nominated for so many awards.
In a sense, you're right--what decision making process lead to this film being nominated for 13 awards? What is the scale being used here? My argument is that there are no objective standards.
I suppose if you exist outside of time, you can.
At this point I think we should just enjoy it for what it is. Even though the quality has dipped, it is still indubitably one of the better shows on television at this current juncture.
Knowing Varga, I have no reason to doubt that he will in fact be released. It's not as if he has been hiding those five years. He has just adopted a new outfit and is continuing business as usual.
The mistakes get me as well. It appears not that many people really pay attention to the details. For a good portion, a movie is something you can escape reality from for 90 minutes and blank out. How many people who saw a film like "End of Tour" noticed the parking lot had cars that weren't out in in a scene set for 2012. Or a show like "Narcos", set in the early 90s, showing a model not released until a decade later.
Cars are the one of the easiest things that can be spotted, yet most people don't notice or just don't care, just like they don't care that the guy didn't have a jacket on three seconds ago. Nobody cares about the jacket, because the details are unimportant it seems.
I loved Naked.