Official GMD Photo/Social Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen Garden State but I'd prefer it over Titanic just for the fact that it is half the length of that. So at worst it will be just as bad as Titanic, but it'll be over much more quickly. Sounds good to me.

Even James Cameron admitted that Titanic was basically a very expensive chick flick. What confuses me more than anything is why a man who is obviously so fascinated by the ocean and the various disasters that happened on it (see his various documentaries which unlike Titanic are actually interesting and possible to watch without fucking falling asleep) would make a movie that focuses mostly on an incredibly trite love story and completely wastes the potential of making an actually interesting account of what happened (or what might have happened) to the Titanic and the people on it.

Seriously, you can watch two movies that are actually good in the time it takes to sit through one viewing of Titanic. It's a fucking waste of time and a waste of a good director's talent.
 
To Satanstoenail:

It's pretty obvious that you still can't fucking understand my point. I said the MAIN IDEA behind Ahteism is cynical / bleak / etc. Shit, am I fucking typing in Greek? And how the fuck are you defining "bias"? I sure as all fucking hell wasn't biased against atheism the first time I heard it. What, so disagreeing with something automatically means that one is biased against and, therefore, the fact that I disagree with it is made invalid by my supposed bias? Get a clue and learn how to read.

Nevermind the hilarity / irony of Atheists taking offense to someone expressing an opinion that, apparently, insults them.

Man, calm down. Take a deep breath. It's only the internet. The only person acting like they're taking offense and being insulted here is yourself. Maybe I could have chosen a better word than bias. Whatever. My point was, I think it's quite ridiculous to write off all Atheists as being miserable, pessimistic and cynical.
 
But it is Matthew. They are the link that brings you into the story, that lets the audience partake in what it was like on that ship all 4 days. Do you really think the movie would have been as interesting if it was purely historical? Many of you are complaining even so that it was "boring"! Imagine how boring it would have been without that plot?

And I've already explained before what the relationship was about, I guess I'll do it again... It pretty much signified how one person can change you for the rest of your life in just a few days. And the sacrifice at the end is what made the "union" between them able to last for 80 years. The fact he sacrifices his life for her, so she can go and do all the things with her life that she always wanted to, propels it form simply being a stupid love story. This isn't 'You've Got Mail' here. He fucking dies. He slowly freezes to death and dies, without a word of protest, so she can live. That is some serious fucking shit. I'm starting to think now that maybe one reason why you dislike the movie so much is because you know you yourselves would not be capable of such a thing?

The story of Jack and Rose (especially Rose) is needed also for the entire motif throughout the film, and that is Time. The movie is constantly switching back and forth from present day to 1912. This experience of shifting between times keeps the film from simply being a period piece. We need that connection as well. We need Jack and Rose's connection, we need our connection to them, and we need the connection between our present day to that of 1912 to fully feel and understand how those people felt at that moment, at that night, at that presice point in history. And also to see how it relates back to us, now.

Nice try, but totally unconvincing on many levels.

Just to pick one, I can think of a good number of superior historical films which totally lack this "link with the present day" which you see as so essential in order to relate to the characters' feelings and situation.
 
What. The. Hell. Again, go back and read what you just quoted. Specifically, the "I said the MAIN IDEA behind Ahteism is cynical / bleak / etc." part. Read it several times, slowly.

I think the main idea behind atheism is that there is no evidence for god, the supernatural, the afterlife, et al. As such there is no reason to believe in such things. Now the consequences of adopting this opinion may indeed be very bleak and cynical but being such does not make it false.
 
There really is nothing "bleak" about it. Atheists just don't believe in god. We live our lives just like everybody else, save for that fact.

Christians just want to guilt trip atheists into thinking that everything they do is in vain and will lead to damnation because they don't believe in a higher power.
 
Nice try, but totally unconvincing on many levels.

Just to pick one, I can think of a good number of superior historical films which totally lack this "link with the present day" which you see as so essential in order to relate to the characters' feelings and situation.

I like this bit better:

The fact he sacrifices his life for her, so she can go and do all the things with her life that she always wanted to, propels it form simply being a stupid love story.

Because obviously a romantic story where one character ends up sacrificing themselves so that the other can live has never been done before ever in any literature or movies. Oh wait, it has. Lots of fucking times.

I completely agree with Necuratul when he said that the love story could have taken place anywhere else and has literally nothing to do with the Titanic in itself, yet it is pretty much the focus of the entire movie. It is not original, it is not captivating, it is utterly trite, drawn out and boring and has nothing to do with the Titanic which is the title of the movie and which should have had the focus in it.

In that sense it is basically a lot like Saving Private Ryan (another very long, high budget movie which focuses entirely on a very small character-based story rather than the big picture of the setting in which it plays, namely WWII), with the slight difference that Saving Private Ryan was actually quite an interesting movie and hints at the fact that it is not going to be about WWII in general in the title.

Basically they could have named the movie Love At Sea or some other sappy title that probably gets your vagina all moist just reading it, so atleast then it wouldn't have had any pretence of being a movie about a big and dramatic historical event rather than a bland account of two people in love who just happened to be on a really big boat (ie. a chick flick).
 

Good article man...Liked this bit a lot:

""Titanic"'s "critic-vision" is one of a pompous film, filled with bad acting and cliches, all under the direction of a man who knows nothing of quality and thinks only in terms of size and sensationalism. I think that's a fair characterization of the overall perspective so far. But there's more. The hype about the film (mentioned in another quote above) in itself is reason enough for it to be overrated. No matter what Cameron produced, it was publicized and marketed so much that it had to be bad. I confess, my thinking was long these lines at the film's release. But, I did finally give it a shot 12 weeks after it opened. My opinion was quickly changed. Too bad many of "Titanic"'s critics were not so open-minded:

"I have not seen 'Titanic', nor do I plan on seeing it, but I can say without hesitation, it is the worst movie ever made. I simply do not understand the fascination...It makes absolutely no sense to me."


And: Ooey-Gooey Romance: Cynicism Rocks!

"Romance, along with Leonardo's acting ability, is overrated. I am not a romantic person. My idea of romance is buying condoms together."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.