|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 6:02:37 GMT
Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always). More like "If the crowd shows up ugly, don't play nice. It's not worth it."
OT fans were against the Sequels from the instant they were announced, that's a fact.
Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always). And that is actually a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 18, 2023 6:56:36 GMT
Atomic Blonde wasn't a successful movie, for good reason.
IE, they knew it would get labeled Woke if it weren't for Stallone and anyone watching the 3rd and not thinking it's Woke are lying to themselves.
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation. I mean, his entire defense for why movies like Red Sparrow and Bird Box weren't called woke was because (according to him) they were failures. So I guess only successful films can apparently be called woke in his head canon...
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 14:21:01 GMT
Atomic Blonde wasn't a successful movie, for good reason.
IE, they knew it would get labeled Woke if it weren't for Stallone and anyone watching the 3rd and not thinking it's Woke are lying to themselves.
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation. Both, really.
I'm simply saying that the Anti-Woke crowd are a bunch of hypocrites. They would have been against the movie and called it woke if Stallone wasn't there and now that they actually like the Creed character they can't admit that if he'd been on his own from Day One they'd have hated him.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 14:24:19 GMT
No, that's just a very narrow interpretation of the word to further the mission of those who are against any and all forms of social and political commentary in any forms of stories at all. Any writer worth their wait will have a plan for their story, and therefore an Agenda.
And actions speak louder than words. What we saw in the stories says otherwise than his statement.
It doesn't change that the movie showed it being "wrong" for Danny Zuko to change himself but not for Sandy to do the same.
The Godfather movies as a whole really failed at their messages, they were supposed to be about the horrors of Organized Crime and the destructive effects it has on people. Instead it made it look glamorous and real Gangsters used it as a model. So the sexism isn't portrayed negatively either.
My, you certainly want to be crowned as The King of Fallacies, don't you? It isn't a narrow interpretation of the word; it is literally a definition for it, it has multiple meanings depending on context. The context for "agenda" in this conversation is clear as day, and in the context of which I am speaking of, I am correct - an agenda is not necessary for a story. You are free to interpret the work that way, but the creator says otherwise and that is as close as you can get to their official word. Some people have made the argument the 2013 film Gravity is science fiction, but it doesn't really qualify as such and even its own director Alfonso Cuarón doesn't see it as science fiction, either. But Danny Zuko does change himself for Sandy, he began to wear a letterman jacket and more preppy attire. If you truly believe that the filmmakers went out of their way to glamorize the mafia in The Godfather and basically encourage the viewer to want to aspire to have that sort of lifestyle, I think it says more about you as the viewer than the work itself. It sounds like you had an agenda when you watched The Godfather trilogy, in all honesty - It sounds like you also had an agenda when seeing Top Gun: Maverick, as well. The context for "Agenda" in the way it keeps getting brought up is in how it's part of the Story's Plan from Day One. You literally cannot have a story without a Plan/Agenda. Hence, those who complain about Agendas don't know how storytelling works.
He can say that, but actions speak louder than words. Especially when he didn't give that interview till later.
Yes and the movie portrays that as wrong, but her changing is portrayed as right.
Coppola didn't go out of his way to do that, but he still ended up doing that regardless for several reasons. It happens a lot with Gangster movies, Scorsese did the same thing with Godfellas.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 14:26:52 GMT
He'll self-destruct, like Alex Jones did. It's the fate of all Grifters. A well deserved fate. If anyone's acting like a grifter who is self-destructing, it's you friend. You keep pushing up and down with the same rhetoric like a wild person, and no one is buying it and calling you out. Your arguments keep breaking apart to the point where they read silly and sound like a much younger person. Nah, I'm used to being "against the grain" and having the Majority come after me. I usually end up on top after the fads passed. I thought NuBSG wasn't a good show either back in the mid 2000s while its fans harassed me for this, and that show self-destructed too. I wish I'd been more against Alex Jones during his heyday as well, it would have made it sweeter when he went down.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 14:27:33 GMT
More like "If the crowd shows up ugly, don't play nice. It's not worth it."
OT fans were against the Sequels from the instant they were announced, that's a fact.
Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always). And that is actually a fact. The reaction the "fans" had when the Sequels were announced speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 14:28:03 GMT
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation. I mean, his entire defense for why movies like Red Sparrow and Bird Box weren't called woke was because (according to him) they were failures. So I guess only successful films can apparently be called woke in his head canon... They're the ones the Injustice Warriors notice, they won't go after lesser films.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:21:22 GMT
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation. I mean, his entire defense for why movies like Red Sparrow and Bird Box weren't called woke was because (according to him) they were failures. So I guess only successful films can apparently be called woke in his head canon... Elsewhere in a similar thread he made the argument that A Wrinkle in Time, a film that was critical and commercially unsuccessful and often labeled as "woke", failed at the box office not because of favoring politics over story or that the product itself wasn't very good, but because the source material no longer had any impact for the marketplace and was destined to fail. He also made the argument that the much considered "woke" films like Lightyear and the 2016 version of Ghostbusters had "respectable" box office intake, when they really didn't. And with Strange World, he kept arguing it had streaming numbers that were worth bragging about it - but they aren't. It looks like he picks and chooses.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:22:37 GMT
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation. Both, really.
I'm simply saying that the Anti-Woke crowd are a bunch of hypocrites. They would have been against the movie and called it woke if Stallone wasn't there and now that they actually like the Creed character they can't admit that if he'd been on his own from Day One they'd have hated him.
But we weren't talking about box office, it was about the content of the work. Well, it's not a very compelling or sound argument the way you have presented it. Again, I suggest reading your comment before clicking on "Create Post".
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:46:21 GMT
My, you certainly want to be crowned as The King of Fallacies, don't you? It isn't a narrow interpretation of the word; it is literally a definition for it, it has multiple meanings depending on context. The context for "agenda" in this conversation is clear as day, and in the context of which I am speaking of, I am correct - an agenda is not necessary for a story. You are free to interpret the work that way, but the creator says otherwise and that is as close as you can get to their official word. Some people have made the argument the 2013 film Gravity is science fiction, but it doesn't really qualify as such and even its own director Alfonso Cuarón doesn't see it as science fiction, either. But Danny Zuko does change himself for Sandy, he began to wear a letterman jacket and more preppy attire. If you truly believe that the filmmakers went out of their way to glamorize the mafia in The Godfather and basically encourage the viewer to want to aspire to have that sort of lifestyle, I think it says more about you as the viewer than the work itself. It sounds like you had an agenda when you watched The Godfather trilogy, in all honesty - It sounds like you also had an agenda when seeing Top Gun: Maverick, as well. The context for "Agenda" in the way it keeps getting brought up is in how it's part of the Story's Plan from Day One. You literally cannot have a story without a Plan/Agenda. Hence, those who complain about Agendas don't know how storytelling works.
He can say that, but actions speak louder than words. Especially when he didn't give that interview till later.
Yes and the movie portrays that as wrong, but her changing is portrayed as right.
Coppola didn't go out of his way to do that, but he still ended up doing that regardless for several reasons. It happens a lot with Gangster movies, Scorsese did the same thing with Godfellas.
No, what you describe as "agenda" is not the same sort that we are referring to. A word can represent more than one thing, the agenda that I am talking about is not the agenda you are describing. As stated before, Stan Lee is no longer with us and neither of us can ask for comment, so the closest things we have to statements on the matter are interviews such as the one I shared and some of his comments in the soapbox section that ran for years. You are reading the movie all wrong, the movie's core theme is to stand out from the norm. Danny is a rebel, Sandy is a perfect student, Danny tries to become a model student to impress her, but Sandy realizes that it isn't right for him to change who he is just to be with her and she also grows tired of being the perfect schoolgirl everyone sees. In the end, she changes her appearance to surprise him, and they two drive off together with a stronger spark in their love for each other. Whether or not Coppola or Scorsese glamorized the gangster lifestyle to the viewer is open to interpretation, but most consumers do not walk away from The Godfather trilogy and Goodfellas aspiring to have a life of crime, otherwise these works would be banned and heavily edited.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:53:51 GMT
If anyone's acting like a grifter who is self-destructing, it's you friend. You keep pushing up and down with the same rhetoric like a wild person, and no one is buying it and calling you out. Your arguments keep breaking apart to the point where they read silly and sound like a much younger person. Nah, I'm used to being "against the grain" and having the Majority come after me. I usually end up on top after the fads passed. I thought NuBSG wasn't a good show either back in the mid 2000s while its fans harassed me for this, and that show self-destructed too. I wish I'd been more against Alex Jones during his heyday as well, it would have made it sweeter when he went down. If being "against the grain" means making obvious fallacy and displaying unsound and invalid arguments online and being too egotistical to acknowledge such things, then the problem really lies with you than it does with everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:54:22 GMT
Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always). And that is actually a fact. The reaction the "fans" had when the Sequels were announced speaks for itself. Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 23:04:26 GMT
Both, really.
I'm simply saying that the Anti-Woke crowd are a bunch of hypocrites. They would have been against the movie and called it woke if Stallone wasn't there and now that they actually like the Creed character they can't admit that if he'd been on his own from Day One they'd have hated him.
But we weren't talking about box office, it was about the content of the work. Well, it's not a very compelling or sound argument the way you have presented it. Again, I suggest reading your comment before clicking on "Create Post". Well, it works either way. Content and Profit.
Oh, and if Stallone wasn't in the first Creed what do you think would have happened?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 23:07:02 GMT
The context for "Agenda" in the way it keeps getting brought up is in how it's part of the Story's Plan from Day One. You literally cannot have a story without a Plan/Agenda. Hence, those who complain about Agendas don't know how storytelling works.
He can say that, but actions speak louder than words. Especially when he didn't give that interview till later.
Yes and the movie portrays that as wrong, but her changing is portrayed as right.
Coppola didn't go out of his way to do that, but he still ended up doing that regardless for several reasons. It happens a lot with Gangster movies, Scorsese did the same thing with Godfellas.
No, what you describe as "agenda" is not the same sort that we are referring to. A word can represent more than one thing, the agenda that I am talking about is not the agenda you are describing. As stated before, Stan Lee is no longer with us and neither of us can ask for comment, so the closest things we have to statements on the matter are interviews such as the one I shared and some of his comments in the soapbox section that ran for years. You are reading the movie all wrong, the movie's core theme is to stand out from the norm. Danny is a rebel, Sandy is a perfect student, Danny tries to become a model student to impress her, but Sandy realizes that it isn't right for him to change who he is just to be with her and she also grows tired of being the perfect schoolgirl everyone sees. In the end, she changes her appearance to surprise him, and they two drive off together with a stronger spark in their love for each other. Whether or not Coppola or Scorsese glamorized the gangster lifestyle to the viewer is open to interpretation, but most consumers do not walk away from The Godfather trilogy and Goodfellas aspiring to have a life of crime, otherwise these works would be banned and heavily edited. There's only one way an Agenda works in storytelling, and it's in the inherent plan right there from the start. Which all stories have.
Uh huh, and the stories not matching up with that interview...?
You're the one not getting the hypocrisy of the movie then. It's wrong for Danny to think there's anything in him he needs to change but Sandy is right to change who she is because "she's tired of it"?
It's not open to interpretation, it's right there in the presentation and the impact these movies had. Consumers walked away thinking the Gangster life and the misogyny in the movies were cool things even if they couldn't imitate them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2023 23:07:39 GMT
So if ALL Star Wars fans were vehemently against the sequels when they were announced I’m wondering who the hell all those people were that went to see Force Awakens. Shit, there was a couple at my showing opening night dressed like Han and Leia. They must’ve been insane to do that since they hated Star Wars.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 23:10:13 GMT
Nah, I'm used to being "against the grain" and having the Majority come after me. I usually end up on top after the fads passed. I thought NuBSG wasn't a good show either back in the mid 2000s while its fans harassed me for this, and that show self-destructed too. I wish I'd been more against Alex Jones during his heyday as well, it would have made it sweeter when he went down. If being "against the grain" means making obvious fallacy and displaying unsound and invalid arguments online and being too egotistical to acknowledge such things, then the problem really lies with you than it does with everyone else. Against the Grain: Not enjoying the "Big Thing" just because the majority like it, and being willing to put up with the Cultists who will come for you. And usually ending up vindicated down the line.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 23:10:33 GMT
The reaction the "fans" had when the Sequels were announced speaks for itself. Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument. Uh huh, and the "STAR WARS IS SJW NOW!" people...?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 19, 2023 4:05:14 GMT
But we weren't talking about box office, it was about the content of the work. Well, it's not a very compelling or sound argument the way you have presented it. Again, I suggest reading your comment before clicking on "Create Post". Well, it works either way. Content and Profit.
Oh, and if Stallone wasn't in the first Creed what do you think would have happened?
One minute you're about profit, the next is about quality - make up your mind. Stop picking and choosing. I don't know because we don't live in a reality where the first Creed premiered without Stallone being in it, but your argument was neither sound and logical.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 19, 2023 4:22:29 GMT
No, what you describe as "agenda" is not the same sort that we are referring to. A word can represent more than one thing, the agenda that I am talking about is not the agenda you are describing. As stated before, Stan Lee is no longer with us and neither of us can ask for comment, so the closest things we have to statements on the matter are interviews such as the one I shared and some of his comments in the soapbox section that ran for years. You are reading the movie all wrong, the movie's core theme is to stand out from the norm. Danny is a rebel, Sandy is a perfect student, Danny tries to become a model student to impress her, but Sandy realizes that it isn't right for him to change who he is just to be with her and she also grows tired of being the perfect schoolgirl everyone sees. In the end, she changes her appearance to surprise him, and they two drive off together with a stronger spark in their love for each other. Whether or not Coppola or Scorsese glamorized the gangster lifestyle to the viewer is open to interpretation, but most consumers do not walk away from The Godfather trilogy and Goodfellas aspiring to have a life of crime, otherwise these works would be banned and heavily edited. There's only one way an Agenda works in storytelling, and it's in the inherent plan right there from the start. Which all stories have.
Uh huh, and the stories not matching up with that interview...?
You're the one not getting the hypocrisy of the movie then. It's wrong for Danny to think there's anything in him he needs to change but Sandy is right to change who she is because "she's tired of it"?
It's not open to interpretation, it's right there in the presentation and the impact these movies had. Consumers walked away thinking the Gangster life and the misogyny in the movies were cool things even if they couldn't imitate them.
Says who, you? None of the content I have read, watched, and professors I have listened to have said that there is only one way agenda works in storytelling, because the word has different meanings. I reward your attempt to change focus from the discussion point zero points. Art is generally subjective to the eye of the beholder, but the closest one can get to what it actually means is the words of its creator, we can debate your perceived contrast of Lee's words versus his work till dawn, but no definitive answer can really be stated because, again, Lee is no longer with us and can contribute to the discussion. I don't think you understand the movie, let alone the stage play, very well, friend. You're the one making a harmless story into something insidious. The only people who walked away from both sets of pictures wanting to aspire to have the mob life got the wrong message and were not very bright and all there in the head, most consumers watched them and walked away not at all inspired to become criminals. I reward your argument to make some of the best regarded cinema as actually terrible with negative influence on culture zero points as well.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 19, 2023 4:24:58 GMT
If being "against the grain" means making obvious fallacy and displaying unsound and invalid arguments online and being too egotistical to acknowledge such things, then the problem really lies with you than it does with everyone else. Against the Grain: Not enjoying the "Big Thing" just because the majority like it, and being willing to put up with the Cultists who will come for you. And usually ending up vindicated down the line.And, that isn't working for you, isn't it? Nobody is on your side on anything, and your poorly constructed arguments are only giving the suggestion that you are desperate to have the final say and that you have unhealthy obsessions.
|
|