|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 17, 2023 23:22:34 GMT
Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs. But I was referring to favoritism, not idolization in my talking point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* There really is no stalemate, I said people can sympathize with The Monster in Frankenstein despite the bad things that he does in the narrative, you however want to expand upon the example and make the case that the character shouldn't be seen in a negative light, which wasn't my point. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* No, that isn't relevant. Once again, you are free to dislike that particular play, all I am saying is that people like the flawed titular characters and most don't walk away from the experience wanting to imitate them because they recognize they were very emotionally driven youths. I am not going to further discussion on this any further *foot down* If you're putting your foot down on 3 of the points, there isn't much worth further discussion except that Scorsese should be seen as some God of Filmmaking whose opinion is beyond reproach. I put my foot down on all three because your response to them was quite frankly unnecessary and ridiculous. However, I am willing to discuss the rest of the conversation. I will repeat myself, Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 18, 2023 0:06:19 GMT
If you're putting your foot down on 3 of the points, there isn't much worth further discussion except that Scorsese should be seen as some God of Filmmaking whose opinion is beyond reproach. I put my foot down on all three because your response to them was quite frankly unnecessary and ridiculous. However, I am willing to discuss the rest of the conversation. I will repeat myself, Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs. I do have Psychology Training and a Degree, yes. And Michael Jackson got hit worse because of thing he directly did to himself and his family and not things he inspired others to do. Meanwhile Scorsese had become enough of a media darling thanks to Taxi Driver it would've raised a stink from people saying he was being unjustly treated if he was punished in any way for what Taxi Driver inspired so it was easier to just pin it all on Hinckley.
I'm saying that if he intended Bickle to be unsympathetic and this is what happened instead, then he wasn't very good at what he set out to do. Which makes him fallible, which means he shouldn't be seen as some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by pennypacker on Mar 18, 2023 1:43:21 GMT
This thread is fucking hilarious. 😂
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 18, 2023 2:53:40 GMT
I put my foot down on all three because your response to them was quite frankly unnecessary and ridiculous. However, I am willing to discuss the rest of the conversation. I will repeat myself, Please answer my questions. First, what makes your opinion more valid than the justice and medical professionals who thoroughly investigated the cases and came to the conclusions that were reached? And do you work in either field professionally to make your statement have validity to it? Because if you do not work in either field professionally, I cannot take your argument that the state government would avoid going after popular media and its creators seriously, because popular media and popular entertainers go to court all the time, regardless of their wealth and popularity with the masses. Michael Jackson was one of the world's biggest entertainers and he was taken to court to stand trial on numerous occasions before his passing in 2009. Please make up your mind, one minute you want to make the case that Martin Scorsese should have been charged with the criminal actions of John Hinckley, Jr. over his film Taxi Driver, and then the next you express that you just don't want people to hold him in a high regard as a filmmaker. One argument is very extreme (and has not been laid out very effectively thus far), the other is, as far I am concerned, rather petty because film and the talent of the people involved in their creation is (mostly) subjective; you have your opinions, other people have theirs. I do have Psychology Training and a Degree, yes. And Michael Jackson got hit worse because of thing he directly did to himself and his family and not things he inspired others to do. Meanwhile Scorsese had become enough of a media darling thanks to Taxi Driver it would've raised a stink from people saying he was being unjustly treated if he was punished in any way for what Taxi Driver inspired so it was easier to just pin it all on Hinckley.
I'm saying that if he intended Bickle to be unsympathetic and this is what happened instead, then he wasn't very good at what he set out to do. Which makes him fallible, which means he shouldn't be seen as some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged.
So, what makes your opinion more valid than either of the medical and law professionals who came to their conclusions? I am not going to go into Michael Jackson's various trials, I am simply using him as an example of someone who was successful and very popular who still was taken to court and made to stand trial. But no one on here is saying Scorsese is some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Mar 18, 2023 7:50:52 GMT
This thread is fucking hilarious. 😂 It’s excruciating. Let it end…
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 18, 2023 15:58:46 GMT
This thread is fucking hilarious. 😂 It’s excruciating. Let it end… Then ignore the thread, Einstein.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 19, 2023 21:48:37 GMT
I do have Psychology Training and a Degree, yes. And Michael Jackson got hit worse because of thing he directly did to himself and his family and not things he inspired others to do. Meanwhile Scorsese had become enough of a media darling thanks to Taxi Driver it would've raised a stink from people saying he was being unjustly treated if he was punished in any way for what Taxi Driver inspired so it was easier to just pin it all on Hinckley.
I'm saying that if he intended Bickle to be unsympathetic and this is what happened instead, then he wasn't very good at what he set out to do. Which makes him fallible, which means he shouldn't be seen as some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged.
So, what makes your opinion more valid than either of the medical and law professionals who came to their conclusions? I am not going to go into Michael Jackson's various trials, I am simply using him as an example of someone who was successful and very popular who still was taken to court and made to stand trial. But no one on here is saying Scorsese is some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint that it would've raised too much of a stink to try and accuse Scorsese of anything. That's all.
Jackson's direct actions made it easier to get people to turn on him.
Anyone who keeps bringing him and his "Real Cinema" spiel up certainly are.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 20, 2023 7:07:16 GMT
So, what makes your opinion more valid than either of the medical and law professionals who came to their conclusions? I am not going to go into Michael Jackson's various trials, I am simply using him as an example of someone who was successful and very popular who still was taken to court and made to stand trial. But no one on here is saying Scorsese is some ultimate authority whose views can never be challenged. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint that it would've raised too much of a stink to try and accuse Scorsese of anything. That's all.
Jackson's direct actions made it easier to get people to turn on him.
Anyone who keeps bringing him and his "Real Cinema" spiel up certainly are.
But as I have said, successful and popular people go to court all the time, sometimes for very serious charges, hence my example of Michael Jackson. I also asked why your opinion is more valid than the people of law and psychology that researched the case and came to their conclusion that the media was not the root cause, but apparently you don't want to go into that despite your claim of having education and professional practice in the field of psychology. And no one here is doing that, so please do save the generalizations for elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 20, 2023 12:02:45 GMT
I'm offering an alternative viewpoint that it would've raised too much of a stink to try and accuse Scorsese of anything. That's all.
Jackson's direct actions made it easier to get people to turn on him.
Anyone who keeps bringing him and his "Real Cinema" spiel up certainly are.
But as I have said, successful and popular people go to court all the time, sometimes for very serious charges, hence my example of Michael Jackson. I also asked why your opinion is more valid than the people of law and psychology that researched the case and came to their conclusion that the media was not the root cause, but apparently you don't want to go into that despite your claim of having education and professional practice in the field of psychology. And no one here is doing that, so please do save the generalizations for elsewhere. Jackson did things that were easier to condemn him for.
This whole thread is about people trying to discredit Florence Pugh because she, who's done plenty of Indie stuff and is seen as a "Real" actor, bothered defending the MCU whereas it's in vogue for "real" actors and directors to single it out for abuse. Which all got started when Scorsese had a temper tantrum over their popularity. I'm taking Pugh's side in this and pointing out that Scorsese is hardly some infallible God who can never be challenged.
Scorsese may as well have said those things about "Jaws" and Star Wars, but he chose to single out the MCU for abuse.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 22, 2023 19:05:05 GMT
But as I have said, successful and popular people go to court all the time, sometimes for very serious charges, hence my example of Michael Jackson. I also asked why your opinion is more valid than the people of law and psychology that researched the case and came to their conclusion that the media was not the root cause, but apparently you don't want to go into that despite your claim of having education and professional practice in the field of psychology. And no one here is doing that, so please do save the generalizations for elsewhere. Jackson did things that were easier to condemn him for.
This whole thread is about people trying to discredit Florence Pugh because she, who's done plenty of Indie stuff and is seen as a "Real" actor, bothered defending the MCU whereas it's in vogue for "real" actors and directors to single it out for abuse. Which all got started when Scorsese had a temper tantrum over their popularity. I'm taking Pugh's side in this and pointing out that Scorsese is hardly some infallible God who can never be challenged.
Scorsese may as well have said those things about "Jaws" and Star Wars, but he chose to single out the MCU for abuse.
Again, not my point. My point is that no famous person is above getting taken to court. But once again, I kindly ask how your opinion is more valid than those in law and psychology who came to their conclusion. I'm pretty sure the thread, which you created, was to highlight a statement the actress had made about why she decided to join the Marvel Cinematic Universe and doesn't see it as being a smear on her acting career, it isn't about people trying to discredit her and she doesn't specify which people have said such things to her that made her want to say such a thing. She didn't call out Martin Scorsese, and where in any of Scorsese's arguments was he throwing a temper tantrum? "Abuse"? Criticism isn't abuse. Both Jaws and Star Wars were made in the 1970's and defined the summer blockbuster, the filmmaking craft on both is not comparable to a major studio release today, while quality is open to debate the situations in which Spielberg and Lucas had to deal with on the regular are not.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 23, 2023 0:46:43 GMT
Jackson did things that were easier to condemn him for.
This whole thread is about people trying to discredit Florence Pugh because she, who's done plenty of Indie stuff and is seen as a "Real" actor, bothered defending the MCU whereas it's in vogue for "real" actors and directors to single it out for abuse. Which all got started when Scorsese had a temper tantrum over their popularity. I'm taking Pugh's side in this and pointing out that Scorsese is hardly some infallible God who can never be challenged.
Scorsese may as well have said those things about "Jaws" and Star Wars, but he chose to single out the MCU for abuse.
Again, not my point. My point is that no famous person is above getting taken to court. But once again, I kindly ask how your opinion is more valid than those in law and psychology who came to their conclusion. I'm pretty sure the thread, which you created, was to highlight a statement the actress had made about why she decided to join the Marvel Cinematic Universe and doesn't see it as being a smear on her acting career, it isn't about people trying to discredit her and she doesn't specify which people have said such things to her that made her want to say such a thing. She didn't call out Martin Scorsese, and where in any of Scorsese's arguments was he throwing a temper tantrum? "Abuse"? Criticism isn't abuse. Both Jaws and Star Wars were made in the 1970's and defined the summer blockbuster, the filmmaking craft on both is not comparable to a major studio release today, while quality is open to debate the situations in which Spielberg and Lucas had to deal with on the regular are not. Famous people get away with things all the time, whenever they are punished for their actions today it's called "Cancel Culture" because apparently you're supposed to get away with your vileness.
Scorsese saying that the MCU isn't cinema in any way and his silly "Theme Park" comment. It's him being a spoiled whiny brat throwing a temper tantrum.
You don't see directors all getting together to say the Western Genre is bad the way they keep attacking the MCU for daring to be popular.
It doesn't change that both of those qualify as "Theme Park" "Not cinema" movies, but he chose to single out the MCU. Because he's a spoiled brat.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 23, 2023 2:22:22 GMT
Again, not my point. My point is that no famous person is above getting taken to court. But once again, I kindly ask how your opinion is more valid than those in law and psychology who came to their conclusion. I'm pretty sure the thread, which you created, was to highlight a statement the actress had made about why she decided to join the Marvel Cinematic Universe and doesn't see it as being a smear on her acting career, it isn't about people trying to discredit her and she doesn't specify which people have said such things to her that made her want to say such a thing. She didn't call out Martin Scorsese, and where in any of Scorsese's arguments was he throwing a temper tantrum? "Abuse"? Criticism isn't abuse. Both Jaws and Star Wars were made in the 1970's and defined the summer blockbuster, the filmmaking craft on both is not comparable to a major studio release today, while quality is open to debate the situations in which Spielberg and Lucas had to deal with on the regular are not. Famous people get away with things all the time, whenever they are punished for their actions today it's called "Cancel Culture" because apparently you're supposed to get away with your vileness.
Scorsese saying that the MCU isn't cinema in any way and his silly "Theme Park" comment. It's him being a spoiled whiny brat throwing a temper tantrum.
You don't see directors all getting together to say the Western Genre is bad the way they keep attacking the MCU for daring to be popular.
It doesn't change that both of those qualify as "Theme Park" "Not cinema" movies, but he chose to single out the MCU. Because he's a spoiled brat.
You're talking about a famous person getting away free of charge from the crime(s) they are taken to court for, which doesn't really act as a counterpoint to what I was saying, which was that no person is shielded from being taken to court, no matter how famous they are. No, it isn't, unless you have footage of the man jumping up and down like a child then you might be onto something, but Scorsese didn't make his argument with that sort of behavior, his opinion piece for The New York Times is well written, finely argued, and fair, not abusive as you claim to be - linkScorsese also has said that Marvel Studios releases are well-made, but most if not all are not just for him (his right to feel so), as brought up earlier in this very thread Scorsese grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, the landscape was very different then than it is now. As he says, it's likely an generation thing. The western genre hasn't been huge in a long time, they were fairly common back in the day but are something of a novelty now unless you're into the direct-to-video marketplace, otherwise, your best is an Oscar hopeful in the winter put out by a major studio. Star Wars I would agree could be described as the cinematic equivalent of an amusement park ride, Jaws is more of a thriller and a character study, you didn't get serious shark action till when they set off to hunt it in the third act.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 23, 2023 17:53:11 GMT
Famous people get away with things all the time, whenever they are punished for their actions today it's called "Cancel Culture" because apparently you're supposed to get away with your vileness.
Scorsese saying that the MCU isn't cinema in any way and his silly "Theme Park" comment. It's him being a spoiled whiny brat throwing a temper tantrum.
You don't see directors all getting together to say the Western Genre is bad the way they keep attacking the MCU for daring to be popular.
It doesn't change that both of those qualify as "Theme Park" "Not cinema" movies, but he chose to single out the MCU. Because he's a spoiled brat.
You're talking about a famous person getting away free of charge from the crime(s) they are taken to court for, which doesn't really act as a counterpoint to what I was saying, which was that no person is shielded from being taken to court, no matter how famous they are. No, it isn't, unless you have footage of the man jumping up and down like a child then you might be onto something, but Scorsese didn't make his argument with that sort of behavior, his opinion piece for The New York Times is well written, finely argued, and fair, not abusive as you claim to be - linkScorsese also has said that Marvel Studios releases are well-made, but most if not all are not just for him (his right to feel so), as brought up earlier in this very thread Scorsese grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, the landscape was very different then than it is now. As he says, it's likely an generation thing. The western genre hasn't been huge in a long time, they were fairly common back in the day but are something of a novelty now unless you're into the direct-to-video marketplace, otherwise, your best is an Oscar hopeful in the winter put out by a major studio. Star Wars I would agree could be described as the cinematic equivalent of an amusement park ride, Jaws is more of a thriller and a character study, you didn't get serious shark action till when they set off to hunt it in the third act. In this case, there was enough of a buffer that Scorsese avoided having such attention targeted right at him because he didn't directly tell the guy to try and kill Reagan, he indirectly did. Whereas Jackson was cause directly doing the stuff he did.
His opinion piece = Outdated views. Just like him in general.
So like I said, they're just going after an easier target because one of "Their messiahs" said so.
Sure, but it doesn't mean you couldn't end up applying the Theme Park thing to Jaws as well, seeing how the "Theme Park" thing is bunk to start with.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 23, 2023 18:32:39 GMT
You're talking about a famous person getting away free of charge from the crime(s) they are taken to court for, which doesn't really act as a counterpoint to what I was saying, which was that no person is shielded from being taken to court, no matter how famous they are. No, it isn't, unless you have footage of the man jumping up and down like a child then you might be onto something, but Scorsese didn't make his argument with that sort of behavior, his opinion piece for The New York Times is well written, finely argued, and fair, not abusive as you claim to be - linkScorsese also has said that Marvel Studios releases are well-made, but most if not all are not just for him (his right to feel so), as brought up earlier in this very thread Scorsese grew up in the 1940's and 1950's, the landscape was very different then than it is now. As he says, it's likely an generation thing. The western genre hasn't been huge in a long time, they were fairly common back in the day but are something of a novelty now unless you're into the direct-to-video marketplace, otherwise, your best is an Oscar hopeful in the winter put out by a major studio. Star Wars I would agree could be described as the cinematic equivalent of an amusement park ride, Jaws is more of a thriller and a character study, you didn't get serious shark action till when they set off to hunt it in the third act. In this case, there was enough of a buffer that Scorsese avoided having such attention targeted right at him because he didn't directly tell the guy to try and kill Reagan, he indirectly did. Whereas Jackson was cause directly doing the stuff he did.
His opinion piece = Outdated views. Just like him in general.
So like I said, they're just going after an easier target because one of "Their messiahs" said so.
Sure, but it doesn't mean you couldn't end up applying the Theme Park thing to Jaws as well, seeing how the "Theme Park" thing is bunk to start with.
You again miss my point, I was only using Jackson as an example of how anyone can be taken to court regardless of their popularity, and it sounds like you now flip-flopping; one minute you're saying Scorsese should be held accountable and go to court, now you're saying he couldn't have because he wasn't directly involved. You may not like his views, but he definitely didn't express them in the way you described him as doing so. Also, while it is a matter of opinion, Scorsese on his worst day is still better than most directors on their best days - The Irishman, Silence, The Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo...Not to mention his documentary and commercial works in recent years. He's 80 years old and still delivering acclaimed work, which is not something every storyteller is capable of doing past their first or few successes. Westerns are not a very profitable genre anymore, hence why the few that get made are vanity projects put out by studios or low budget, and the rest are direct-to-video releases. No actor under the age of 65 working today is strongly linked to the genre, hence why this generation doesn't have a Clint Eastwood, a John Wayne, or a Roy Rogers that are face of it. You don't see many people criticize westerns because there are not enough made to where they take up the majority of the marketplace. Superhero movies though are very dominant in the current marketplace. Discussing the current landscape is common and expected practice to do by those who work in the industry. You could, but again it doesn't get lean into spectacle till the third act, most of the story up to that point is a character driven thriller.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 23, 2023 22:57:04 GMT
In this case, there was enough of a buffer that Scorsese avoided having such attention targeted right at him because he didn't directly tell the guy to try and kill Reagan, he indirectly did. Whereas Jackson was cause directly doing the stuff he did.
His opinion piece = Outdated views. Just like him in general.
So like I said, they're just going after an easier target because one of "Their messiahs" said so.
Sure, but it doesn't mean you couldn't end up applying the Theme Park thing to Jaws as well, seeing how the "Theme Park" thing is bunk to start with.
You again miss my point, I was only using Jackson as an example of how anyone can be taken to court regardless of their popularity, and it sounds like you now flip-flopping; one minute you're saying Scorsese should be held accountable and go to court, now you're saying he couldn't have because he wasn't directly involved. You may not like his views, but he definitely didn't express them in the way you described him as doing so. Also, while it is a matter of opinion, Scorsese on his worst day is still better than most directors on their best days - The Irishman, Silence, The Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo...Not to mention his documentary and commercial works in recent years. He's 80 years old and still delivering acclaimed work, which is not something every storyteller is capable of doing past their first or few successes. Westerns are not a very profitable genre anymore, hence why the few that get made are vanity projects put out by studios or low budget, and the rest are direct-to-video releases. No actor under the age of 65 working today is strongly linked to the genre, hence why this generation doesn't have a Clint Eastwood, a John Wayne, or a Roy Rogers that are face of it. You don't see many people criticize westerns because there are not enough made to where they take up the majority of the marketplace. Superhero movies though are very dominant in the current marketplace. Discussing the current landscape is common and expected practice to do by those who work in the industry. You could, but again it doesn't get lean into spectacle till the third act, most of the story up to that point is a character driven thriller. No, I'm saying why it was easier to go after Jackson than Scorsese.
That doesn't make him an infallible Titan who can never be questioned. Same with Coppola. Spoiled brats, the both of them. Or crotchety old geezers yelling at the kids on their lawn, if you must bring age into it.
Insulting the genre and attacking it and trying to write it all off because it takes attention away from you is just being an overgrown brat.
Which doesn't change that Scorsese's "observations" could easily be applied to other things than CBMs.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 24, 2023 4:46:50 GMT
You again miss my point, I was only using Jackson as an example of how anyone can be taken to court regardless of their popularity, and it sounds like you now flip-flopping; one minute you're saying Scorsese should be held accountable and go to court, now you're saying he couldn't have because he wasn't directly involved. You may not like his views, but he definitely didn't express them in the way you described him as doing so. Also, while it is a matter of opinion, Scorsese on his worst day is still better than most directors on their best days - The Irishman, Silence, The Wolf of Wall Street, Hugo...Not to mention his documentary and commercial works in recent years. He's 80 years old and still delivering acclaimed work, which is not something every storyteller is capable of doing past their first or few successes. Westerns are not a very profitable genre anymore, hence why the few that get made are vanity projects put out by studios or low budget, and the rest are direct-to-video releases. No actor under the age of 65 working today is strongly linked to the genre, hence why this generation doesn't have a Clint Eastwood, a John Wayne, or a Roy Rogers that are face of it. You don't see many people criticize westerns because there are not enough made to where they take up the majority of the marketplace. Superhero movies though are very dominant in the current marketplace. Discussing the current landscape is common and expected practice to do by those who work in the industry. You could, but again it doesn't get lean into spectacle till the third act, most of the story up to that point is a character driven thriller. No, I'm saying why it was easier to go after Jackson than Scorsese.
That doesn't make him an infallible Titan who can never be questioned. Same with Coppola. Spoiled brats, the both of them. Or crotchety old geezers yelling at the kids on their lawn, if you must bring age into it.
Insulting the genre and attacking it and trying to write it all off because it takes attention away from you is just being an overgrown brat.
Which doesn't change that Scorsese's "observations" could easily be applied to other things than CBMs.
Which doesn't dismiss my point that just because you are famous doesn't mean you are shielded from being charged with wrongdoing. Furthermore, Scorsese has gone to court several times in the span of his life, so your argument doesn't really have a whole lot of weight given that. And neither I nor anyone else on here has said Scorsese is an infallible titan who cannot be questioned. If you have encountered such people who think that way in the past what's then is then, and this is now, and it's really telling of your character that you let some odd people get under your skin so easily. Scorsese was pretty fair and argued his points kindly in his editorial, he didn't say the movies were bad, that the filmmakers had no talents, or that people were wrong to like them, and he admitted that they are well-made for what they are. What specifically did Scorsese say that upsets you much? If anything, you're the one acting like an overgrown brat simply because someone doesn't share your opinion. He didn't insult it, and he didn't attack it, or write it off, it's just not what he considers to be cinema, which for some filmmakers has different meanings. And Scorsese isn't jealous of anything, he's 80 years old and regarded as one of America's prominent filmmakers, he was asked what he felt about them and gave his honest response. Not saying it cannot.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 24, 2023 12:24:16 GMT
No, I'm saying why it was easier to go after Jackson than Scorsese.
That doesn't make him an infallible Titan who can never be questioned. Same with Coppola. Spoiled brats, the both of them. Or crotchety old geezers yelling at the kids on their lawn, if you must bring age into it.
Insulting the genre and attacking it and trying to write it all off because it takes attention away from you is just being an overgrown brat.
Which doesn't change that Scorsese's "observations" could easily be applied to other things than CBMs.
Which doesn't dismiss my point that just because you are famous doesn't mean you are shielded from being charged with wrongdoing. Furthermore, Scorsese has gone to court several times in the span of his life, so your argument doesn't really have a whole lot of weight given that. And neither I nor anyone else on here has said Scorsese is an infallible titan who cannot be questioned. If you have encountered such people who think that way in the past what's then is then, and this is now, and it's really telling of your character that you let some odd people get under your skin so easily. Scorsese was pretty fair and argued his points kindly in his editorial, he didn't say the movies were bad, that the filmmakers had no talents, or that people were wrong to like them, and he admitted that they are well-made for what they are. What specifically did Scorsese say that upsets you much? If anything, you're the one acting like an overgrown brat simply because someone doesn't share your opinion. He didn't insult it, and he didn't attack it, or write it off, it's just not what he considers to be cinema, which for some filmmakers has different meanings. And Scorsese isn't jealous of anything, he's 80 years old and regarded as one of America's prominent filmmakers, he was asked what he felt about them and gave his honest response. Not saying it cannot. Not gone to court over anything truly damaging, because no one was willing to charge him with anything truly reputation damaging.
It's the overall response his statements created that annoy me, he "opened the floodgates" so to speak and then Coppola and other outdated old folks couldn't shut their yaps either. It even became a joke when we got stuff like "The Ghost of Orson Welles came back to decry the MCU". First it was the Nolanites who hated the MCU for existing and then the FoX-Men fans who couldn't back off and then when things calmed down Scorsese had to make them feel vindicated.
Not what he considers cinema = He vindicated the hordes of snobs who were just waiting for their chance to write off the entire MCU and all the hard work that's gone into it. Scorsese is jealous, James Gunn called him out on it.
Yeah, and what do you think the response would've been if he had? I doubt he'd have gotten away with writing off Jaws like that.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 24, 2023 13:04:48 GMT
No, I'm saying why it was easier to go after Jackson than Scorsese.
That doesn't make him an infallible Titan who can never be questioned. Same with Coppola. Spoiled brats, the both of them. Or crotchety old geezers yelling at the kids on their lawn, if you must bring age into it.
Insulting the genre and attacking it and trying to write it all off because it takes attention away from you is just being an overgrown brat.
Which doesn't change that Scorsese's "observations" could easily be applied to other things than CBMs.
Which doesn't dismiss my point that just because you are famous doesn't mean you are shielded from being charged with wrongdoing. Furthermore, Scorsese has gone to court several times in the span of his life, so your argument doesn't really have a whole lot of weight given that. And neither I nor anyone else on here has said Scorsese is an infallible titan who cannot be questioned. If you have encountered such people who think that way in the past what's then is then, and this is now, and it's really telling of your character that you let some odd people get under your skin so easily. Scorsese was pretty fair and argued his points kindly in his editorial, he didn't say the movies were bad, that the filmmakers had no talents, or that people were wrong to like them, and he admitted that they are well-made for what they are. What specifically did Scorsese say that upsets you much? If anything, you're the one acting like an overgrown brat simply because someone doesn't share your opinion. He didn't insult it, and he didn't attack it, or write it off, it's just not what he considers to be cinema, which for some filmmakers has different meanings. And Scorsese isn't jealous of anything, he's 80 years old and regarded as one of America's prominent filmmakers, he was asked what he felt about them and gave his honest response. Not saying it cannot. Don't be an illiterate if you and thousands of others worked endlessly to release something for audiences in a specific format and then have someone say that your effort all your hard work isn't worthy to be put on display that would still be an insult. No he didn't swear at them to their faces if that's the only thing your brain can assess as a putdown. Playing stupid should be a crime.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 25, 2023 4:47:15 GMT
Which doesn't dismiss my point that just because you are famous doesn't mean you are shielded from being charged with wrongdoing. Furthermore, Scorsese has gone to court several times in the span of his life, so your argument doesn't really have a whole lot of weight given that. And neither I nor anyone else on here has said Scorsese is an infallible titan who cannot be questioned. If you have encountered such people who think that way in the past what's then is then, and this is now, and it's really telling of your character that you let some odd people get under your skin so easily. Scorsese was pretty fair and argued his points kindly in his editorial, he didn't say the movies were bad, that the filmmakers had no talents, or that people were wrong to like them, and he admitted that they are well-made for what they are. What specifically did Scorsese say that upsets you much? If anything, you're the one acting like an overgrown brat simply because someone doesn't share your opinion. He didn't insult it, and he didn't attack it, or write it off, it's just not what he considers to be cinema, which for some filmmakers has different meanings. And Scorsese isn't jealous of anything, he's 80 years old and regarded as one of America's prominent filmmakers, he was asked what he felt about them and gave his honest response. Not saying it cannot. Not gone to court over anything truly damaging, because no one was willing to charge him with anything truly reputation damaging.
It's the overall response his statements created that annoy me, he "opened the floodgates" so to speak and then Coppola and other outdated old folks couldn't shut their yaps either. It even became a joke when we got stuff like "The Ghost of Orson Welles came back to decry the MCU". First it was the Nolanites who hated the MCU for existing and then the FoX-Men fans who couldn't back off and then when things calmed down Scorsese had to make them feel vindicated.
Not what he considers cinema = He vindicated the hordes of snobs who were just waiting for their chance to write off the entire MCU and all the hard work that's gone into it. Scorsese is jealous, James Gunn called him out on it.
Yeah, and what do you think the response would've been if he had? I doubt he'd have gotten away with writing off Jaws like that.
The more you avoid my questions and re-use this rhetoric the more it appears your argument is more rooted in emotion than that of logic - You seem to have difficulty in accepting the reality of the situation and must find a reason to satisfy your ego. That you have a degree in psychology and have practiced it but fail to realize this only makes me raise an eyebrow and question your authenticity. Then your issue should be with them, and not Scorsese. Scorsese didn't tell those people to use his words as fuel for their online trolling, he only gave his honest opinion about where he stands on the matter of how he views the work - which was that that they are well-made and entertaining, but not the sorts of things he would hold in high regard, or he would be in line to buy the first ticket for. He thinks there is definitely a place for motion pictures that are spectacle driven, and that filmmakers shouldn't be feel threatened by it, but the mainstream media landscape should be more diverse, and theatres should try to play smaller and different kinds of pictures - I can understand that. For me, there have been some big movies that play in three to four different auditoriums at my local theater, I don't usually mind if it's something that I want to see, but there are definitely more smaller and independent movies that I would like to see but the places showing them are too far away from where I live. Case in point, last spring my theater played Doctor Strange 2 in three auditoriums, but none for another multiverse set film, Everything Everywhere All at Once. It eventually came to my theater, but it was in the winter season and other things in my life had to take interest so I couldn't make the time. I love my superhero cinema, but sometimes when I go to the theater, I am not looking for it to be like going to the Superbowl. Once again, the problem is internet trolls, not Scorsese. Scorsese gave his honest opinion, the press and social media blew it up, and he elaborated in an editorial piece. He thinks these kinds of movies are well-made and beautiful, and there is room for them in the marketplace, he just feels there needs to be more variety in the landscape where audiences will have different viewing experiences and different kinds of ideas can be expressed to the viewer. I would also agree, I think for every Avengers movie a theater should also have a Tár or a Nomadland. The consumer themselves should also understand that not every picture they see will offer the same kind of experience as the other, when you assume one will deliver the same impact you may view the work in the wrong lens. I remember seeing The American in 2010 and not liking it because I was expecting a more action-driven picture. Years later, I saw it again, and my view on it changed. I do not think Scorsese would be jealous of Marvel Studios, as mentioned before he is one of the best regarded filmmakers in American pop culture, and at 80 he's still going pretty strong considering most filmmakers half his age already has hit their peak and may not stay up there or get back to it. Also, the kinds of movies he makes are not even in the same style of picture as a Marvel release, absolutely different and cannot be assumed they play for the same exact type of audience. And, while Gunn did criticize some of what Scorsese had said, he did like other things he said as well and he still much admires him as an artist. I'm fairly certain Scorsese like Jaws, he's a close friend of Spielberg and was in frequent conversation with him during the making of that movie.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 25, 2023 4:49:06 GMT
Which doesn't dismiss my point that just because you are famous doesn't mean you are shielded from being charged with wrongdoing. Furthermore, Scorsese has gone to court several times in the span of his life, so your argument doesn't really have a whole lot of weight given that. And neither I nor anyone else on here has said Scorsese is an infallible titan who cannot be questioned. If you have encountered such people who think that way in the past what's then is then, and this is now, and it's really telling of your character that you let some odd people get under your skin so easily. Scorsese was pretty fair and argued his points kindly in his editorial, he didn't say the movies were bad, that the filmmakers had no talents, or that people were wrong to like them, and he admitted that they are well-made for what they are. What specifically did Scorsese say that upsets you much? If anything, you're the one acting like an overgrown brat simply because someone doesn't share your opinion. He didn't insult it, and he didn't attack it, or write it off, it's just not what he considers to be cinema, which for some filmmakers has different meanings. And Scorsese isn't jealous of anything, he's 80 years old and regarded as one of America's prominent filmmakers, he was asked what he felt about them and gave his honest response. Not saying it cannot. Don't be an illiterate if you and thousands of others worked endlessly to release something for audiences in a specific format and then have someone say that your effort all your hard work isn't worthy to be put on display that would still be an insult. No he didn't swear at them to their faces if that's the only thing your brain can assess as a putdown. Playing stupid should be a crime. But Scorsese didn't say Marvel movies aren't unworthy, he says there is a place for them in the motion picture landscape, he feels there should be more diversity in the industry and the theater going experience.
|
|