MovieChat Forums > Windsaar > Replies
Windsaar's Replies
No need to clarify that it's a thread about De Niro, that's what I was mentioning in my last post.
The ONLY reason I even mentioned you "singling him out" was because you were confused as to why someone would specifically mention him in a thread dedicated to him.
We aren't discussing Madonna and if we were, it would wholly depend on circumstance whether or not you were singling her out. I don't need to "go with" anything, because I seem to be the only one that can stick to the discussion at hand instead of constantly changing the goalpost.
My logic would not apply in said situation and it's very obvious you didn't even begin to grasp my logic, never mind fully understand it.
I don't think his opinion was unwanted, as I keep saying. I KNOW he was called to speak. (As shown in the video).
If you think the word "fuck" is an affront to the sensibilities of any POSSIBLE children in the audience, I don't know what to say or do for ya. Nothing they don't hear in movies, tv, the classroom, at home, the playground, etc.
I just assumed you hadn't watched the video because you seem to have the entire situation confused.
You're correct that I assumed wrong, though, as now it's just obvious you'll contort, twist and change almost any points or facts presented to seem like you're right.
I was unaware of which personality type you are, based off the first couple posts. You've made it clear now several times, though.
I think they meant it was a "run on" because the whole paragraph was one sentence.
I don't think you actually read my reply. You don't seem to have, anyway.
You singled out De Niro as an asshole for mentioning politics (or anything, I guess, but you used politics as an example and then said it's not about politics and are confused what my reply about De Niro on a thread about De Niro has to do with De Niro)
So I cited examples of other actors/actresses using their "air time" to discuss politics. Which was a rebuttal to what you had brought up.
I also clarified that it wasn't a "hijacking" because he didn't just jump on stage and take the mic. He was announced and then called on stage. Which is an invite. Basically, the opposite of a "highjacking"
So, if I'm understanding this correctly...since you mentioned that he could have talked about traffic or the phone book, you essentially think he's an asshole for speaking when he was called to the mic to speak? It doesn't really matter WHAT he said (your words), it's just the fact that he didn't stand in front of the mic in total silence that makes him an asshole?
I agree completely, though. Had he pulled a Kanye and taken the mic from someone (hijacking) to interrupt the ceremony with unwarranted opinions, he would most certainly be out of line.
What confuses me, is the fact you think that because someone spoke into the mic after being called to speak into the mic is considered "hijacking" an award show?
I'm gonna go ahead and also assume that you didn't actually watch the video, since you seem to both feel very strongly about it AND simultaneously don't know what happened. Other than the fact he said a bad word about someone.
All of their movies are monetized the same way. Through subscriptions.
So he's the only actor to talk politics during an award show?
Uncalled for and unnecessary, sure, but I don't think that one instance of someone speaking about Trump should qualify someone's entirety being painted as an asshole.
Also, he was called onto the stage through an official introduction: "Ladies and Gentlemen...Robert De Niro!". Which means he didn't really "hijack" anything. He just said a scathing comment during his airtime.
Had he snatched the mic and done the ol' "I'm really happy for you and imma let you finish in a minute..I just wanted to say 'Fuck Trump'", THAT would have been a hijacking.
Also, didn't he receive a standing ovation?
Usually the unpopular opinion is met by resistance, not cheering and applause.
My personal opinion on the matter (Trump) is negligible, tbh. Just stating what happened and the response it got.
https://www.syracuse.com/vintage/2017/01/11_times_award_shows_got_polit.html
https://www.more.com/celebrity/movies-tv/19-best-times-award-shows-got-political/
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/the-long-history-of-pointed-political-speechifying-at-hollywood-awards-shows/%3foutputType=amp
Tbh, there are TOO many links to websites listing celebrities bringing politics into award shows, so I just linked the first 3.
It's advisable to actually watch a movie BEFORE questioning it's validity for Oscar nominations...no?
He looked absolutely NOTHING like he did in Godfather, unfortunately. It was even hard to pass him off as a 30-40 year old.
I agree. While I enjoyed the movie immensely, there wasn't really anything new brought to the table.
Except that God-awful "de-aging technology". Young Sheeran looked old AF.
His attack on the grocer looked almost slow-mo, as 76 year old De Niro isn't as agile as the young man he was portraying. Looked like he was about to break a hip.
**MINOR SPOILERS**
The grocer could have just walk at a brisk pace to lose him or struck him back. He probably would have one-punched him to death, though lol.
OP called it a masterpiece, (which is a common sentiment) and I commented from there.
Don't recall ever typing that everyone considers it a masterpiece. Just said that "people do". Nowhere does that indicate that EVERYONE does.
That aside, that IS the reason people are so into it. Not my fault or doing, I'm just a simple observer.
IIRC people originally started the Oscar buzz approximately 5 months ago (give or take). Before the movie had even seen the light of day.
I'm of the opinion that you should reserve your opinion on a movie until AFTER viewing it.
I don't hate the film. I don't even dislike it. I'm simply stating that if it weren't for Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pachino, people wouldn't consider it a masterpiece. Especially BEFORE the first official trailer was released.
(Not counting the two teasers that preceded the official trailer).
Except that the casting directors + producers involved in the making of the film have said that Rourke was never even considered for a part.
Also, the whole feud started because De Niro said that it would make for better chemistry on the set of "Angel Heart" if the two actors didn't speak. Many, many movies have used this tactic among actors to get that "distance between characters" to seem more real.
Also, fun fact: While Rourke makes it seem like they had animosity and hated eachother, he was the one to contradict the story he was spinning.
"In a behind-the-scenes promo shot on the Angel Heart set in ’87, Rourke had nothing but glowing things to say about De Niro:
“It was the first time I think I ever had to really concentrate in the way I had to concentrate,” Rourke said of working with him. “He’s the most concentrated actor I’ve ever seen.”
“If you lose your concentration with De Niro for, like, four seconds, you’re outta there,” he said. “At the end of the day, I was drained.”
In fact, at a time Rourke was becoming disillusioned with acting, he said De Niro gave him a shot of life. 'Working with him sort of rejuvenated me.'"
Edit: I'm also curious as to what De Niro said or did to you (Tom8) for you to factually call him an asshole? Was it something personal, or do you form your opinions based off conjecture and/or what other people believe?
I bet it's because I was trolling for a single comment, therefore you painted me as a troll in general.
Am I right?
Just like how you didn't like the Irishman, therefore you hate movies. Right?
I think I'm starting to get the concept.
Movies distributed on Netflix aren't eligible for Oscars. Not to my knowledge anyway.
The only Oscar I see this winning is "Best Supporting Actor" for Pseci.
Other than that, the movie was a solid 7/10 for sure. Maybe even a 7.5.
To be honest, I'd have accused them of trolling myself had I not seen it first hand.
A good friend of mine left to join the Mafia after watching Goodfellas. Just up and walked right into the recruitment office..resume in hand. Got hired on the spot.
It's not pretentious at all. Not by definition, anyway. Unless you have a separate definition than the rest of the world?
It could be inaccurate. That, of course, is a matter of opinion though.
I stand by my comment. It's considered a "masterpiece" because of the director and actors. The movie could have been about any subject/story (with the same cast/crew) and people would have the same reviews. "Masterpiece this. Masterpiece that".
OR on the other hand...had it been a different director, all we would hear about is how the movie is too long, or somewhat boring at parts.
Not commenting to impress by pretending to have more culture or talent than I do (ie: "pretentiousness")
Just simply stating a glaringly obvious fact.
If you're watching a movie and thinking of other things you could be doing, it sounds like a problem with the movie.
If something is entertaining, it keeps us entertained. It's that simple.
What?
That was like my 5th comment on these boards.
What's with all the rape talk?
It's difficult to answer your question because it has been catered to fit the response you had in mind.
I know these posts are old, but that's the nature of the internet. Stuff said lasts forever.
To get to my point...almost EVERY SINGLE thread has you throwing words like "masterpiece" around and saying how phenomenal this film is.
It's crazy misleading, as someone who reads this might actually accidentally waste their time watching it.
If the message boards are composed of basically everyone saying how awful a movie is, and 2 or 3 people vehemently defending it, it doesn't really scream "masterpiece".
Some words/concepts are thrown around too much without much thought. These boards are full of them.
People say it's a masterpiece because Scorsese directed Pesci, Pachino and De Niro in the same movie.
It has very, very little to do with the actual content of the movie/story.
Had it been the exact same flick with a different director, it wouldn't be considered a masterpiece.
Just sayin..
I don't think the generation gap has much to do with it. I'm sure there were people who weren't into the length of the movies you mentioned back when they came out as well.
The Irishman was great, but definitely could have cut a good 40mins or so.