|
|
Post by ruiner420 on Mar 30, 2017 12:56:34 GMT
Horror B-movies 80s comedies/action
The rest of them suck
Don't give up the fight for truly independent cinema!
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Mar 30, 2017 13:32:27 GMT
Sci-Fi, War, Biopics and true stories
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 30, 2017 17:08:44 GMT
Definitely Westerns for me. Of course, I can understand how those who grew up on the lame Leone crap would not love Westerns, as he destroyed the genre for the good of the establishment, but take out Leone and Coen, and it's a superb genre for a person who likes inspiration and credible characters in incredible circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Mar 30, 2017 20:38:53 GMT
Action. I'm willing to overlook a lot in a movie if it has good action (ie, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which I now love).
|
|
|
|
Post by sariz on Mar 30, 2017 22:20:15 GMT
Romance action thrillers musicals biopics period Pieces
|
|
|
|
Post by pippinmaniac on Mar 31, 2017 1:02:32 GMT
My favorite genre overall is sci-fi/fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Mar 31, 2017 1:06:59 GMT
Superhero sci-fi action adventure fantasy suspense horror
|
|
|
|
Post by gbone on Mar 31, 2017 1:38:08 GMT
Horror followed by more horror.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 31, 2017 9:44:18 GMT
Definitely Westerns for me. Of course, I can understand how those who grew up on the lame Leone crap would not love Westerns, as he destroyed the genre for the good of the establishment, but take out Leone and Coen, and it's a superb genre for a person who likes inspiration and credible characters in incredible circumstances. I can understand how a traditionalist might loathe Leone, but the part in bold makes no sense ... Leone's radically revisionist—indeed, nihilistic and iconoclastic—Westerns were anti-establishment by definition. Anyway, the Western is my favorite genre as well. It offers great opportunities visually, dramatically, historically, ideologically, and allegorically. The genre's history and conventions create great potential for both homage and subversion, while its seemingly benign forum offers filmmakers a safe haven in which to explore controversial topics. Finally, the Western facilitates cinema's ability to showcase both space and time.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 1, 2017 15:39:52 GMT
Definitely Westerns for me. Of course, I can understand how those who grew up on the lame Leone crap would not love Westerns, as he destroyed the genre for the good of the establishment, but take out Leone and Coen, and it's a superb genre for a person who likes inspiration and credible characters in incredible circumstances. I can understand how a traditionalist might loathe Leone, but the part in bold makes no sense ... Leone's radically revisionist—indeed, nihilistic and iconoclastic—Westerns were anti-establishment by definition. Anyway, the Western is my favorite genre as well. It offers great opportunities visually, dramatically, historically, ideologically, and allegorically. The genre's history and conventions create great potential for both homage and subversion, while its seemingly benign forum offers filmmakers a safe haven in which to explore controversial topics. Finally, the Western facilitates cinema's ability to showcase both space and time. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. The establishment has always been nihilistic, and Leone was totally iconic with traditional Greek demi god heroes, totally formula. There is no difference at all between his characters and Homer's. Like Homer, there is no credible motivation in his major characters, nothing to relate to, unless you're zonked on drugs as Leone's fans were in the sixties and seventies. I know. I was there. Only the totally whacked out psychos were his fans, but they were the loudest of people. Westerns you call "traditionalist" were totally the opposite of "tradition" and had a short life span, roughly about 1939-1964, with hints of it before and after, but even then the loud mouth psychopathic control freaks panned them and tried to discourage people from watching them, because they put control freaks in their place. They were the iconoclastic films. That's proven by the popularity so swiftly attained by Leone among the mobsters and psychos instead of those who quietly tried to make things work.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 1, 2017 19:50:54 GMT
I can understand how a traditionalist might loathe Leone, but the part in bold makes no sense ... Leone's radically revisionist—indeed, nihilistic and iconoclastic—Westerns were anti-establishment by definition. Anyway, the Western is my favorite genre as well. It offers great opportunities visually, dramatically, historically, ideologically, and allegorically. The genre's history and conventions create great potential for both homage and subversion, while its seemingly benign forum offers filmmakers a safe haven in which to explore controversial topics. Finally, the Western facilitates cinema's ability to showcase both space and time. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. The establishment has always been nihilistic, and Leone was totally iconic with traditional Greek demi god heroes, totally formula. There is no difference at all between his characters and Homer's. Like Homer, there is no credible motivation in his major characters, nothing to relate to, unless you're zonked on drugs as Leone's fans were in the sixties and seventies. I know. I was there. Only the totally whacked out psychos were his fans, but they were the loudest of people. Westerns you call "traditionalist" were totally the opposite of "tradition" and had a short life span, roughly about 1939-1964, with hints of it before and after, but even then the loud mouth psychopathic control freaks panned them and tried to discourage people from watching them, because they put control freaks in their place. They were the iconoclastic films. That's proven by the popularity so swiftly attained by Leone among the mobsters and psychos instead of those who quietly tried to make things work. Wtf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on Apr 1, 2017 19:51:30 GMT
Thriller/Romance, Romance, drama. 
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 4, 2017 7:24:07 GMT
I can understand how a traditionalist might loathe Leone, but the part in bold makes no sense ... Leone's radically revisionist—indeed, nihilistic and iconoclastic—Westerns were anti-establishment by definition. Anyway, the Western is my favorite genre as well. It offers great opportunities visually, dramatically, historically, ideologically, and allegorically. The genre's history and conventions create great potential for both homage and subversion, while its seemingly benign forum offers filmmakers a safe haven in which to explore controversial topics. Finally, the Western facilitates cinema's ability to showcase both space and time. You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. The establishment has always been nihilistic, and Leone was totally iconic with traditional Greek demi god heroes, totally formula. There is no difference at all between his characters and Homer's. Like Homer, there is no credible motivation in his major characters, nothing to relate to, unless you're zonked on drugs as Leone's fans were in the sixties and seventies. I know. I was there. Only the totally whacked out psychos were his fans, but they were the loudest of people. Westerns you call "traditionalist" were totally the opposite of "tradition" and had a short life span, roughly about 1939-1964, with hints of it before and after, but even then the loud mouth psychopathic control freaks panned them and tried to discourage people from watching them, because they put control freaks in their place. They were the iconoclastic films. That's proven by the popularity so swiftly attained by Leone among the mobsters and psychos instead of those who quietly tried to make things work. So the "establishment" was always about "the rejection of all religious and moral principles" (the Oxford definition of "nihilism")? And Westerns from 1939-1964 "attacked cherished beliefs" (the Oxford definition of "iconoclasm")? Leone's films depicted mythic characters; if they owed anything to Greek mythology (a supposition that is not really clear to me), they still did not constitute "formula," especially relative to the Western context. Instead, they upended or subverted Western formula. His anti-heroic major characters certainly possessed credible motivation in most cases: avarice and money, mercenary or professional obligation, vengeance, lust. Those motivations just did not belong to the moralistic variety offered by traditional Westerns; they did not involve virtue, piety, patriotism, justice, or the desire to carve civilization out of the wilderness and romantically regenerate the human species. The motivations of Leone's characters may not be as easy to relate to, but then again, people and society are fundamentally motivated by amoral economics. Leone brought that cynically iconoclastic—and essentially realistic—sensibility to the Old West, which Hollywood filmmakers had instead suggested was something of an American Eden, a refuge from the greedy depravity of modernity. Leone, instead, suggested that the Old West constituted a squalid locus that exposed the grubby roots of capitalism and human motivation. Those comments do not mean that Leone was offering a leftist critique—after all, he clearly showcased the power of iconoclastic individualism and he certainly did not advocate anything in the way of organizational solutions or centralized planning. But he travestied comforting conventions, including the notion that the entrepreneurial spirits that helped inspire westward expansion were simply benign forces or, if corrupted, were corrupted only by the aberrant land baron or the wayward villain. In this way, Leone directly contradicted decades' worth of Westerns that came before him. By the way, I enjoy and appreciate traditional Westerns myself, but you seem to be reacting from a defensive posture because some people consider traditional Westerns to be "square," and you want them to believe the opposite. And if the "establishment" embraced Leone, why were his epochal Westerns savaged and mocked by English-language critics on both sides of the Atlantic, including those in most of the major media publications? Nor were the Hollywood studios initially rushing to hire Clint Eastwood for major roles. Although interested by the phenomenal grosses that the Leone-Eastwood Westerns were attaining in continental Europe, the studios remained skeptical circa late 1966-early 1967, after Eastwood had returned from starring in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. After he landed in New York on November 1, 1966, at least six months would pass before he had a deal in place to star in an American Western. For the record, I would say that the era of traditional Westerns in Hollywood ran from about 1930-1967. The Western emerged as an "A" genre in 1939 with Stagecoach, and the Golden Era of Westerns lasted, I would argue, from 1946-1962. (After all, not many, if any, major Westerns emerged from 1941-1945.) Regardless, all of those time periods lasted longer than the era of Western revisionism, which percolated from about 1964-1976—and shorter than that in Hollywood (maybe 1966-1976 and more seriously from 1968-1976). After 1976, Westerns of all kinds more or less disappeared, with occasional revivals (including some notable ones in recent years) that have ranged between traditionalism and revisionism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 0:12:47 GMT
World Cinema and currently my favorite sub-genre is spaghetti westerns. They put a new spin on the tired old American western themes.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooltu101 on Apr 13, 2017 7:28:20 GMT
Musicals and drama
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Apr 13, 2017 8:46:25 GMT
It changes all the time, depending on my mood.
Lately I've been enjoying old b-movie crime dramas, vintage travelogues, "actuality" films (a common genre around 1890s/1900s), and comedies.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 13, 2017 17:53:16 GMT
You couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. The establishment has always been nihilistic, and Leone was totally iconic with traditional Greek demi god heroes, totally formula. There is no difference at all between his characters and Homer's. Like Homer, there is no credible motivation in his major characters, nothing to relate to, unless you're zonked on drugs as Leone's fans were in the sixties and seventies. I know. I was there. Only the totally whacked out psychos were his fans, but they were the loudest of people. Westerns you call "traditionalist" were totally the opposite of "tradition" and had a short life span, roughly about 1939-1964, with hints of it before and after, but even then the loud mouth psychopathic control freaks panned them and tried to discourage people from watching them, because they put control freaks in their place. They were the iconoclastic films. That's proven by the popularity so swiftly attained by Leone among the mobsters and psychos instead of those who quietly tried to make things work. So the "establishment" was always about "the rejection of all religious and moral principles" (the Oxford definition of "nihilism")? And Westerns from 1939-1964 "attacked cherished beliefs" (the Oxford definition of "iconoclasm")? Leone's films depicted mythic characters; if they owed anything to Greek mythology (a supposition that is not really clear to me), they still did not constitute "formula," especially relative to the Western context. Instead, they upended or subverted Western formula. His anti-heroic major characters certainly possessed credible motivation in most cases: avarice and money, mercenary or professional obligation, vengeance, lust. Those motivations just did not belong to the moralistic variety offered by traditional Westerns; they did not involve virtue, piety, patriotism, justice, or the desire to carve civilization out of the wilderness and romantically regenerate the human species. The motivations of Leone's characters may not be as easy to relate to, but then again, people and society are fundamentally motivated by amoral economics. Leone brought that cynically iconoclastic—and essentially realistic—sensibility to the Old West, which Hollywood filmmakers had instead suggested was something of an American Eden, a refuge from the greedy depravity of modernity. Leone, instead, suggested that the Old West constituted a squalid locus that exposed the grubby roots of capitalism and human motivation. Those comments do not mean that Leone was offering a leftist critique—after all, he clearly showcased the power of iconoclastic individualism and he certainly did not advocate anything in the way of organizational solutions or centralized planning. But he travestied comforting conventions, including the notion that the entrepreneurial spirits that helped inspire westward expansion were simply benign forces or, if corrupted, were corrupted only by the aberrant land baron or the wayward villain. In this way, Leone directly contradicted decades' worth of Westerns that came before him. By the way, I enjoy and appreciate traditional Westerns myself, but you seem to be reacting from a defensive posture because some people consider traditional Westerns to be "square," and you want them to believe the opposite. And if the "establishment" embraced Leone, why were his epochal Westerns savaged and mocked by English-language critics on both sides of the Atlantic, including those in most of the major media publications? Nor were the Hollywood studios initially rushing to hire Clint Eastwood for major roles. Although interested by the phenomenal grosses that the Leone-Eastwood Westerns were attaining in continental Europe, the studios remained skeptical circa late 1966-early 1967, after Eastwood had returned from starring in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. After he landed in New York on November 1, 1966, at least six months would pass before he had a deal in place to star in an American Western. For the record, I would say that the era of traditional Westerns in Hollywood ran from about 1930-1967. The Western emerged as an "A" genre in 1939 with Stagecoach, and the Golden Era of Westerns lasted, I would argue, from 1946-1962. (After all, not many, if any, major Westerns emerged from 1941-1945.) Regardless, all of those time periods lasted longer than the era of Western revisionism, which percolated from about 1964-1976—and shorter than that in Hollywood (maybe 1966-1976 and more seriously from 1968-1976). After 1976, Westerns of all kinds more or less disappeared, with occasional revivals (including some notable ones in recent years) that have ranged between traditionalism and revisionism. Six months to land a deal is nothing. That's pretty much immediately. I was alive in the sixties, so I know you are full of crap when you claim those westerns were mocked. Anyone who dared to mock them would lose his or her job swiftly. Even during the brief period of motivation geared Westerns, there were always movies based on zero motivation, and frankly, there is zero motivation in the dollar trilogy, as well as the once upon a time in the west crap. A pagan demi-god decides to wipe out two large gangs by himself in one movie, yet pretends to muse over odds. Another one three men kill everything that moves, practically the entire population of the West, to seek stolen Gold, when it would be easier to just steal their own Gold considering. Another one is just Leone's neo nazi excuse to kill every brunette in a movie (makes one think he was jilted hard by some dark haired beauty, but this is common neo Nazi brainwashing in Hollywood), and another a man wants revenge on a man for killing his brother, so he kills everyone who tries to kill the man he wants revenge on. There is no motivation, good or bad. Just zero. The idea that there is mercantile motivation doesn't come into play, because it doesn't fit no matter how hard you try to make it. Yet feeble minded crack heads still worship this garbage, and try to force everyone else to do the same. Now that has been the tradition longer than any other tradition in the Western world.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Apr 15, 2017 12:05:08 GMT
Horror (and genres like crime, science-fiction & fantasy that tend to overlap with horror)
|
|
|
|
Post by pippinmaniac on Apr 15, 2017 17:46:56 GMT
Sci-Fi/Fantasy
|
|