The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Thank you bob.

I didn't see the film and won't ever see the film unless its on one late night, there is nothing on, my computer is broken, my internet is down, and I'm home alone.

But now thanks to you, I don't have to watch it, and have been entertained for a good 11 mins :)
Love Satire, though. Bob, if you can, Subsribe to the Private Eye. It would be asadly for you, very British centric but, its fourt nightly satire at its best.

If you think that Zack Snyder sat down and made this movie, trying to convey those things that Bob mentioned, you are out of your mind.

If you stare complete darkness far enough time, you will start to see shapes. With movies, you can add any hidden subtext to any film, if you are crazy enough.

The oddest thing I figured about the movie was in the final Asylum scene, how when describing all the trouble Babydoll caused, no mention at all is made of the three girls who died.

daibakuha:

Markunator:

Why not? What is wrong with them? They're usually more reliable than Bob is, anyway.

They don't look any deeper than a simple plot analysis. They don't really take the time to dissect a film's message.

and being "more reliable than Bob" is a not-so-clever way of saying their opinions often match with your own. So you like them because they reaffirm your opinions.

You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.

I can't believe people are still talking about this crap. And it's always the guys who liked it too.

Seriously, if you enjoyed it, good for you. You didn't waste an hour and a half of your life. But please, for the sake of those of us who did, shut up about it. Why the hell do you care if half the world thinks that this "masterpiece" is a piece of crap? This isn't a cure for aids, it's a damn movie. ONE YEAR AFTER it's release you still feel the need to defend it and argue that it was good?

Real secure about yourself, guy.

I always took it as sort of a joycian multiple characters, 1 person sort of thing, baby doll sacrificing herself to let sweet pea get away being the transition of having to grow up, become a full fledged person, while being a charicature of a person can solidify strengths and reduce weakness it is another form of enslavement. Once she got to the point where that wasn't necessary for survival, childish things were put away. Kinda what happens to most of us in our late teens-mid twenties. So through the movie sweet-pea is the nagging voice of reason, but by the end of the movie she is the person.

daibakuha:

1337mokro:

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

The important part of this is that the video doesn't sound egotistical. The title is just a hook to get the viewer to watch the video. Arguing over the title is just a straw man.

It's not a similar situation at all, in fact it's completely different. It's one person making a well reasoned and researched article about how some may have misinterpreted a film, and another guy just saying it sucks without any discussion as to why it does.

I dislike his post because his criticism is bad. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have the same opinion as Bob does (which as I've pointed out, I don't).

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's sort of like his "PC gaming is dead" episode which basically entailed nothing more than "PC gaming is going portable". It's kind of a low brow thing to do, but hey he is on the escapists where content is titled in the most nerd baiting way possible. Not to mention that the rather weak "Your opinion is valid to" section is sort of undermined by the other 8 minutes of "My opinion is more valid than yours" bits.

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

impocalyptic:

SL33TBL1ND:

impocalyptic:

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

It doesn't matter. The only reason she has any attention is because people keep giving it to her.

Considering that the majority of the gaming community blew up at her, I think she would appreciate a level-headed deconstruction of a damn good film.

I think the internet would appreciate it if people stopped bringing her up. Good of the many and all that.

Well bob, you have not changed my mind. Mainly because I never criticised the film for 'mysogyny' I thought it was crap because it was very poorly executed and made by someone who believes themselves to be much smarter than they actually are.

After this movie zach snyder comes across as the creepy guy at university spouting feminist theory so everyone will hear just to get extra credit and perhaps a little sex as well.

I really hate doing this line by line shit, but here it is:

1337mokro:

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's a strawman because it has nothing to do with the argument. You bring it up in an attempt to discredit Bob's opinions.

1337mokro:

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

That's still not valid film analysis but at least it's more concise. He could have just posted "I disagree, for XYZ reasons" instead of flat out calling an opinion wrong without any other arguments to back it up. Doing so on the other video does not excuse acting like a douchebag here.

1337mokro:

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

I'm noticing a trend with your posts, I post something, then you put words in my mouth and strawman to try and prove that some asshole on these forums is somehow correct for being a douchebag. Quit putting words in my mouth and making this about something it's not, I've already said what makes a criticism valid.

1337mokro:

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

His are valid because they come from well reasoned concise arguments, this other guy's are not because they don't. Is it really that hard to understand the difference?

1337mokro:

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's a total false equivalency to compare film crit to colors. Color isn't an art. In art you have to explain why you like or dislike something in order for it to be valid criticism.

1337mokro:

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

He was being a jerk, I called him out on it. I've seen this poster do this before, so I responded with harsh "criticism" of my own. I don't care if he changes his opinion or not. Maybe he'll think twice before deciding to act like a douche? I don't really care either way, if he does and I see it, I'll call him out again.

Markunator:

You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.

Yes I have, and I've listened to several of their reviews before. They almost never go deeper than a simple plot analysis, unless it's blindingly obvious.

The whole thing sounds incredibly unprofessional too, it sounds more like a group of guys joking about movies than it does legitimate criticism.

daibakuha:
I really hate doing this line by line shit, but here it is:

1337mokro:

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's a strawman because it has nothing to do with the argument. You bring it up in an attempt to discredit Bob's opinions.

1337mokro:

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

That's still not valid film analysis but at least it's more concise. He could have just posted "I disagree, for XYZ reasons" instead of flat out calling an opinion wrong without any other arguments to back it up. Doing so on the other video does not excuse acting like a douchebag here.

1337mokro:

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

I'm noticing a trend with your posts, I post something, then you put words in my mouth and strawman to try and prove that some asshole on these forums is somehow correct for being a douchebag. Quit putting words in my mouth and making this about something it's not, I've already said what makes a criticism valid.

1337mokro:

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

His are valid because they come from well reasoned concise arguments, this other guy's are not because they don't. Is it really that hard to understand the difference?

1337mokro:

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's a total false equivalency to compare film crit to colors. Color isn't an art. In art you have to explain why you like or dislike something in order for it to be valid criticism.

1337mokro:

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

He was being a jerk, I called him out on it. I've seen this poster do this before, so I responded with harsh "criticism" of my own. I don't care if he changes his opinion or not. Maybe he'll think twice before deciding to act like a douche? I don't really care either way, if he does and I see it, I'll call him out again.

How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?

Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?

The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.

1337mokro:

How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?

the title of the video has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

1337mokro:

Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?

Color is a tool used by artists to express themselves, it isn't art by itself. The color blue isn't art, blue used in a painting, in conjunction with other colors is art. Color by itself isn't creative, it doesn't have a theme, it's just a color.

1337mokro:

The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.

I don't like him because of the way his "opinion" is expressed, I don't think it's a valid criticism and he was being a jerk. It has everything to do with how he presents himself.

Bob's psuedofeminism soap-box must be getting some bowing by now considering how often he is getting up on it these days.

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

Which makes her right, but not in the way she intended, I think.

Zulnam:
I can't believe people are still talking about this crap. And it's always the guys who liked it too.

Seriously, if you enjoyed it, good for you. You didn't waste an hour and a half of your life. But please, for the sake of those of us who did, shut up about it. Why the hell do you care if half the world thinks that this "masterpiece" is a piece of crap? This isn't a cure for aids, it's a damn movie. ONE YEAR AFTER it's release you still feel the need to defend it and argue that it was good?

Real secure about yourself, guy.

A person, who rages in Caps and anwsers to a topic he/she doesnt like and bitches about how he/she is confronted with a subject he/she could have avaoided easily, talks about insecure. x)

I'm not sure how many people have done research on this movie, but I came across an interesting article that describes it as an example of Monarch programming experiment performed by the CIA. Even the period being in the 50's suggests it might be related.

I also find it interesting that not a lot of people pick up on the fact the wise old man is actually a handler, controlling the girls, so the end sucker punch may be that sweat pea just gets on the bus with a handler that is taking her further away from reality.

Anyway, there is a lot of symbolism with the butterflies, mirrors and white rabbits throughout the movie that also suggest the movie is more about mind control in order to turn the girls into sexual slaves, and the deeper alternate realities are just the means by which the mind control is achieved.

Check out

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/sucker-punch-or-how-to-make-monarch-mind-control-sexy-7-2/

I always had the feeling that a lot of the people who disliked Sucker Punch, just didn't get alot of it. I never realized how much of it I didn't get.

bz316:
I'm not sure what's worst: having a movie pretty much call me an asshole, or (assuming Bob is correct in his assessment of the film's intentions) the fact that I totally deserved it...

Got to say this is exactly how I felt.

daibakuha:

Markunator:

You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.

Yes I have, and I've listened to several of their reviews before. They almost never go deeper than a simple plot analysis, unless it's blindingly obvious.

The whole thing sounds incredibly unprofessional too, it sounds more like a group of guys joking about movies than it does legitimate criticism.

Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?

spartan231490:
I'm going to go with: The curtains were fucking blue. Cookie if you get the reference.

The only reference that comes to mind concerning the "blue curtain", is similar to that of the "iron curtain", that is that blue curtain is the veil of secrecy that exist behind the the outward face of police and police enforced authority.

If I go a step further and read a ton into it, the situation opens to one in which a young guy may want to "white knight" the girl, only to turn her into a member of his harem later. It's a pretty common angle worked by a lot of "harem" anime.

Most recently I think that the Tomb Raider video clip sort of attempted to work this angle... it's fairly common when one wants to get the audience to "care" about a protagonist in the shortest time possible. Narrative efficiency? Stuff like Avatar comes to mind almost instantly.

daibakuha:

SpiderJerusalem:

daibakuha:

It's a good thing you aren't a film critic, because you suck at film analysis.

Oh please, Bob is living proof you don't have to have any qualifications to call yourself a film critic.

I guess that pesky degree in film has nothing to do with his job as a film critic.

Though who am I kidding, you're one of his contentionists, you don't agree with anything he says because of some imagined slight. It doesn't matter whether or not he has a valid point, you will shoot it down, simply because it came from him.

I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.

On the subject of whether or not one agrees, I mentioned it in a previous post, that in consideration of the film's own narrative not committing to any particular "context" then as a work there is no deconstruction that could ever be considered any more valid or not valid than anyone else's interpretation.

This dictates that one "cannot" be wrong in an interpretation of the film, because there is no "right" answer. It's essentially a plot-less narrative, in it's fundamental structure.

'There is nothing outside the text,'... "means there is nothing outside context." And since the context in which words might be read or heard can always shift, meanings are impossible to completely pin down -- and the distinctions we base on them ultimately rest on sand." - Jacques Derrida (developer of semiotic analysis known as "deconstruction").

Markunator:

Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?

Who cares if they don't like a film, has nothing to do with their less than stellar analysis, and I'm not just talking about Sucker Punch.

I actually didn't say that. Read what I wrote and come back to me.

mfeff:

I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.

I assumed he has a degree, for a couple of reasons though:

1) You don't see people talk about film the way he does without a degree, or at least extensive education on film. It would be very difficult for a lay person to have self taught themselves film crit on the level Bob does.

2) I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to get a job as a film critic, if you don't have a degree in film criticism. Especially since their aren't a lot of jobs in that particular field.

daibakuha:

mfeff:

I am aware that Bob Chipman has taken university courses in film (he has mentioned it in other videos), however, I am not aware that he has ever been awarded a degree on the subject... mind you I "could" be wrong. Though the burden of proof is simply noting the degree and the date in which it was awarded.

I assumed he has a degree, for a couple of reasons though:

1) You don't see people talk about film the way he does without a degree, or at least extensive education on film. It would be very difficult for a lay person to have self taught themselves film crit on the level Bob does.

2) I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to get a job as a film critic, if you don't have a degree in film criticism. Especially since their aren't a lot of jobs in that particular field.

I think it's a fair assumption to have. That being said I think your original comment was pretty close to being in the realm of an appeal to authority; which is fine... but assumes that the person from which one is referring is "in fact" an authority on the subject.

As it goes then, one may be challenged concerning the appeal, which is the burden of proof side of the coin. As I said there are some older videos where he mentions that he had some academic experience with film (subject), but a couple classes isn't a degree.

Shamus Young used to write some articles for the Escapist as a self proclaimed "Software Engineer", but he holds no degree on the subject from an accredited university nor has passed any relevant industry test which would merit such a title.

Extra Credits, Daniel and company "do" hold degrees of various merit, none of which are particularly technical degrees in software development. Daniel is a 2d artist, James on "wiki" is listed as a "games designer" which isn't particularly accurate. (His degree has more to do with staging, literature, philosophy... i.e. a fine arts degree), and Allison is another artist. (The joke here being that the only game any of them have ever worked on directly was James who worked on CoD) Then he founded a start up, and it failed... now he lectures academically... (an old saying that goes... those that can't... teach).

My point being is that in internet land, it's pretty easy to "sound" or "imply" one is a qualified speaker on a topic... and not really "be" qualified to offer up anything other than an opinion.

Now as far as your second position goes... most of the internet people that get on web-zines get started either through a friend of a friend association or they had some blog or YouTube channel that was leveraged onto the E-zine. Most people that are academically accomplished note those accomplishments pretty directly... if your not seeing the degree noted, school, dates, so on and so forth... the chances are, there isn't anything to note.

Most the "writing" that I have seen not only on this site but others... are not the penning of academically accomplished people. It's not a lie, unless someone is saying that "I graduated from such and thus", and it turns out they didn't. Assumptions fall onto the assumptive.

Themis media... I think that's who owns the escapist, will pay more or less anyone to create content regardless of the professional or academic background... they used to run ads on the site for it all the time. Heck get popular enough on YouTube and offer to move your channel over, I am sure they will at least hear you out and make an offer.

Don't really know about film magazines specifically, but for games... what you said is true, if you where interested in writing for "Game Developer", or perhaps something for gamasutra... but here...? Nah man. A pulse, a fan base, a spell checker, maybe a little better grammar than the average bear. To anecdote that, both Bob and Yahtzee started on Youtube, then migrated over here, for all practical purposes Escapist is the house that Yahtzee built.

Interesting. I saw the movie as a criticism of escapist fantasy. To me, the message seemed to be "Turning to fantasies to escape your own life (whether those fantasies are action movies, video games, etc) does nothing to improve your actual situation, and if you continue to ignore your real problems in order to focus on these imaginary worlds in which you pretend you are a badass action hero, real life is just going to kick your ass--ie, sucker punch you--in the end." In other words, these fantasies might feel good--might make you FEEL empowered--but in the end they're meaningless and they do nothing to help your real-life situation. But that's just me.

Suck Punch reminded me of Natural Born Killers, I got the joke, but I still hated the film. Burn After Reading is another example, the film was supposed to be inconsequential, and it was, but there's nothing enjoyable about that other than a half-hearted laugh and a "I see what you did there" acknowledgement.
Like you say, you have to offer something more, and Starship Troopers is a great example of a film that succeeds. Sucker Punch just plain sucked, and it's all well and good that Zack Snyder can have all these 'deep' ideas, but he's also the guy who made 300 and butchered Watchmen with his lack of understanding of the source material.

And to say Sucker Punch looks like a videogame as part of an underlining theme about videogame culture, doesn't explain why 300 and Watchmen also looked like Videogames!

Still, a valiant effort, Bob

Gympants:
If you think that Zack Snyder sat down and made this movie, trying to convey those things that Bob mentioned, you are out of your mind.

If you stare complete darkness far enough time, you will start to see shapes. With movies, you can add any hidden subtext to any film, if you are crazy enough.

I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.

lacktheknack:
...

I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.

Are we comparing Snyder to Kubrick? Seriously?

Gympants:

lacktheknack:
...

I wouldn't be so sure. Often, filmmakers will go even deeper than that.

Fun Fact: Stanley Kubrick said he made the War Room table in Dr. Strangelove a pine green, in order to evoke the feeling that the characters were playing poker with the fate of the world, a feeling drawn by the resemblance of the War Room table to a gambling table.

The film was in black and white.

Are we comparing Snyder to Kubrick? Seriously?

Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.

lacktheknack:

Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.

In the same sense that a slug is as capable of space flight as a human, perhaps.

Zachary Amaranth:

lacktheknack:

Not what I was implying, but Snyder is as capable of deep underlying meanings as Kubrick, yes.

In the same sense that a slug is as capable of space flight as a human, perhaps.

It doesn't require genius levels of intellect to bury metaphors into something...

That was a pretty awesome analysis. Made me like Sucker Punch even more :D

daibakuha:

1337mokro:

How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?

the title of the video has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

1337mokro:

Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?

Color is a tool used by artists to express themselves, it isn't art by itself. The color blue isn't art, blue used in a painting, in conjunction with other colors is art. Color by itself isn't creative, it doesn't have a theme, it's just a color.

1337mokro:

The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.

I don't like him because of the way his "opinion" is expressed, I don't think it's a valid criticism and he was being a jerk. It has everything to do with how he presents himself.

But the title does. It shows Bob stance towards all other people's opinions to sucker punch. That we are wrong... simply because our opinions are not his opinions.

Well I do have to thank you for proving my point with the colour argument. We have now gone from arguing the liking of colours to wether or not a colour itself can be ascribed as an art. Because you think something has to be an art form to warrant opinions about it, I say opinions can be formed about anything.

You see what you did there? You basically showed how silly it is to argue about an opinion.

Also you don't like the way he "expressed" himself? Please. The FCC is that way why don't you apply for a job. You already have a sufficiently large stick up your ass. :D

I've already put across a very strong point in the comments of part 1 but I have another.

I know movies are sometimes supposed to make us think but most of them are gutsy enough to tell you before you go see them in the cinema. (Inception/Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind/One Flew over the cuckoos nest/The Prestige/)

And this... Suckerpunch didn't even try to do that... I know it's name has meaning but it just doesn't convey the same depth as those I've said.

So my point is that I went to go see this movie with friends both male and female and sadly we got so bored because the girls saw what the movie was trying to do by exploiting women and we the boys couldn't enjoy movie at all because we noticed what it was doing for the girls and it was making the fun time of going to see a movie with friends turn out really uncomfortable. It also would've made for a very awkward drive home.

Just saying.

daibakuha:

Markunator:

Like I said, they didn't think there was anything to analyze. Besides, they fucking hated the film, so why would they try to analyze it?

Also, are you seriously saying that they didn't offer any legitimate criticisms? Did you even pay attention to anything at all they said in their review?

Who cares if they don't like a film, has nothing to do with their less than stellar analysis, and I'm not just talking about Sucker Punch.

I actually didn't say that. Read what I wrote and come back to me.

How can you analyze a film that's just completely shallow?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here