Bad…and I'm a real fan of dystopias
-
VicBooth — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 05:43 AM)
You truly are one of the worlds most ridiculous people. Your delusions of self-actualisation probably pinched it. Its not even in principle. How you structure arguments and philosophies feed into themselves. From mental scenario (?) to your ridiculous attempt to obfuscate equilibriums childlike plot to asking people for tips on movies that are thematically related to it (hint: try google dystopian films), you truly are an amusing semi-pseudo-intellectual.
You try to attack things in a meta way without having any real understanding of what really is beyond those ideas. Im guessing youre in first year philosophy, or perhaps, given your prose, a teenager with a book of Nietzsche's maxims
Your ideas on definitions are also incredibly convenient given you dont evidently know any for any of the words or terms you use. But in the in the structured world of language and human communication 'tyranny' does have a definition, as does 'dystopia'. This is mainly because they were created as symbols for non-physical concepts so they necessitate stable meanings. And films themes fit within this context because they are born from them. All articulated art is. And if any dramatic story were to break that, 'Equilibrium' certainly wouldn't be the source.
Also, intellectual equivalent (as in: two ideas which are connected through practical result) is not any way connected to your intended meaning of intellectualization (which was remarkably fitting mistake for you to make, given its real meaning) The word you were looking for was articulation. Or perhaps it was schdsfifofsdf given your ridiculous notion on the meaning of words, or lack thereof.
And remember Jean-Soren Descartes: De omnibus dubitandum means keep your mind open, not act like an obtuse fool who uses unbiased-thought to mask a gross ignorance of pretty much everything related to their argument.
And yes I am addicted to definitions as they are the only true way people attempt to transcend their personal isolation and create a shared meaning of spirit and existence and an unyielding battle against the darkness of social duplicity. (see, its annoying when youre on the receiving end of that).
But heres the Coup de grce. Youre defending Equlibrium. Not Metropolis or Alphaville or THX-1138 or Beyond the Black Rainbow or Brazil or even damn Cosmopolis. Youre actually trying to bestow some insanely lofty sense of grandeur to a film that was just plain medicore. It wasnt even bad enough to be misunderstood or before its time. It was just nowhere. A glass of tepid water. Too forgettable to even properly hate.
(By the way, you seem to have missed but Im just going to give it to you. Criticising critics is wait for it ironic) -
drova360 — 13 years ago(November 15, 2012 01:26 AM)
Wow. I can tell by your horribly over dramatic and forcefully used vocabulary you take yourself far to seriously. Use big words and fancy sentances, your still a moron.
This idiot aside, its a great and emotion provoking film. VicBooth is an idiot. Watch it yourself then come back and let him know. -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(November 15, 2012 02:14 AM)
- overly
- sentences
- too
- you're
- it's
And 'emotion provoking' is redundant, as a provocation is by its very definition emotional.
A person with as obviously vast an intelligence as yours, accusing others of stupidity, should probably keep an eye on that.
I'll tell you what I do find odd though "drova360": the fact that you've only joined today, have a poor understanding of grammar and a natural hatred of any vaguely intelligent thought.
It's almost as if a user who was getting decidedly schooled in all things language and art related got a much needed ally who shares almost the same views and sentence structures as them. Useful, seeing as they didn't really have any more points to present and couldn't suddenly change their argument.
Weird, huh?
-
supamanz_04 — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 08:29 PM)
VicBooth, you seem to be bitter about the film for some reason. I thought it was good for just what it was. Calling it's action scenes laughable is an arrogant statement. could you compile anything better? and if so I would enjoy seeing your efforts. The film represents someone's passion, and while it's execution is a bit off it still beats many action films I have ever watched.
I don't think the creators of this film were aiming for Rambo, Aliens, or even true lies when they made this. I think they wanted to create a film that could rival the matrix and it does a very good job of doing that. why not take a different look at the film. Imagine what it would be like to not have emotions at all from birth to age 30+ then suddenly having them. You would be nearly child like in many ways and Bale does an amazing job of representing this. The action scenes are fun and different compared to what we usually see. there is no over the top leaping and running along the walls.
The concept of mathematics being applied to real life situations (the gun kata) isn't far from reality, and with someone who is free from fear and anxiety executing such a form would be a formidable opponent. The story is driven excellently holding the viewers attention and even adding levity to escape the drab emotionless and cold blooded killings. while there are plot holes lurking about like the smiles the surprised looks and expressions on the faces of the storm troopers. It doesn't completely take away from what the movie is. an action movie with a decent story that is pretty well received by most people I've met. so cool your jets pal
WoW.. what a mansion - wesker -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(February 18, 2013 05:41 AM)
The ability, or inclination for that matter, to criticise something isn't predicated on one's ability to "compile" something better than it. It merely points out an professional's failure in his/her profession.
I agreed it was mediocre, something you would know if you read my reply thread apart from challenging me on the specific plot problems (something I avoid because it ferrets out a whole variety of pedantic and critically agnostic lukewarms. You know, the kind that don't see the trees for the leaves, let alone the forest? No, you probably don't know.)
I also don't enjoy having my original argument syntax obfuscated, which elaboration always results in. -
supamanz_04 — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 10:50 PM)
Your reply only shows that you are still a bitter and very arrogant person. While I enjoyed your thesaurus worthy vernacular, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the reader in that you are seemingly, (well lets face facts you are) being condescending. Am I saying big words are scary? That's laughable. I did have to look up obfuscated though (kudos).
To be frank, your objective opinion on the sequences indicates that you could fabricate something better. Be it on film or using your strong suits like your dictation.
Challenging you is also laughable; this is a message board thread where people come to discuss a film. One so learned as you ( or pretending to be) would know that a forum is a gathering of ideas where people challenge one another to think. If you think I was drawing a line in the sand demanding that you do better for the defensive sake of the film, you are missing the forest for the trees my friend.
Re-read your post and evaluate the emotion that is in it, you would have to admit it seems bitter, even in the replies (especially the one you sent me). The film is what it is. Yes my opinion contradicts yours, but I did not elicit an emotional response from you nor did I challenge your intelligence. Until now.
WoW.. what a mansion - wesker -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 06:14 AM)
Nice try Gandhi but calm people are prone to brevity.
You mistake general aggression for bitterness, just like you mistake your indignation for my arrogance.
I will admit though, that I admire your instinct to attack my credibility rather than my argument.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
It's just a bit too amateur for my purposes. -
RetroNewWave — 13 years ago(March 01, 2013 01:43 PM)
You're right in my opinion, but it is not a matter opinion in what fits the requirements of a dystopian film. And I personally believe there has to be some requirements so it can be classified as one. I feel like the movie failed in what it tried to bring to the table. I think Christian Bale could have just been Montag in a Fahrenheit 451 movie. I'm not really passionate to get into an argument and the film in weary in my memory, but I just wanted to say that you seem like the least pretentious of everyone here.
-
StrangeSwami — 12 years ago(September 28, 2013 10:50 AM)
The ability, or inclination for that matter, to criticise something isn't predicated on one's ability to "compile" something better than it. It merely points out an professional's failure in his/her profession.
I also don't enjoy having my original argument syntax obfuscated, which elaboration always results in.- a
- enjoying this?
Pretentious Moi?
-
CindersOJuniper — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 01:04 AM)
I couldn't help but take an interest in the conversation, because both parties' responses were so fervent, but one of the, let's say 'actors', seems to have claimed a premature 'victory' when the argument over the film in question (Equilibrium) was far from over, and in fact, had hardly begun, in my humble opinion.
I must say, notwithstanding my 'opinion' of Equilibrium, as I'm going to be as objective as possible about both the arguments and the film, that VicBooth is not concerned with the film Equilibrium and in fact seems to have no thoughts on it whatsoever. He tells what the movie took advantage of and what it 'cashed in' on, what it betrayed, the depth of its 'failure', etc. He even provides a list of movies that are superior to it, in what way we aren't told. In other words, he talked around it, above it, through it, but never from within it; he mentioned nothing of Equilibrium's plot, though saying there were plot holes, nothing of the characters, and no mention of a story ever being told or thoughts on that story.
VicBooth's sole mention of something from the movie, namely how "citizens getting burnt alive for not following petty rules fits in it" [the definition of tyranny] fails to take into account the very first paradox of the film, which is that these supposedly cruel or tyrannical measures are taken in the name of peace and freedom, for the purpose of eradicating 'man's inhumanity to man', so that order is kept and maintained through this absolute law of prohibited feeling, and that maintaining this strict law required even stricter powers and government training programs in the service of that law, namely the Grammaton Cleric. At this point the rule isn't 'petty' as Vic says but the very opposite: necessary. VicBooth's one mention of the movie also fails to take into account the greater paradox that the man, or machine, in charge of enforcing the law, namely Preston, happens to be the only force capable of overthrowing that same law.
Even stranger, his reply was addressed to nijabhaava, yet never once did he show how any of the conflicts brought up by nijabhaava were used in the film,(neither by the director, the actors, a particular shot, nothing). What we're shown by VicBooth is not why these certain ideas fail to adhere to an argument, but rather their purpose IN an already structured, relevant, & 'human' argument:
"But in the structured world of language and human communication 'tyranny' does have a definition, as does 'dystopia'. This is mainly because they were created as symbols for non-physical concepts so they necessitate stable meanings."
How reciting a dictionary that no one has ever seen or heard of helps one understand a particular film, I do not know. Objectively now, one can say that films, just like stories, just like theatre, and literature, employ words and ideas and images, in film through everything we see and don't see on the screen. Vicbooth never did talk about anything on the screen, nor about any movie, to be honest I'm actually hard-pressed to say what he talked about.
And if Vicbooth could explain the meaning of this, I would appreciate it:
"And yes I am addicted to definitions as they are the only true way people attempt to transcend their personal isolation and create a shared meaning of spirit and existence and an unyielding battle against the darkness of social duplicity. (see, its annoying when youre on the receiving end of that)."
These terms are taken for granted, in other words unclear and unaccounted for: 'personal isolation', 'shared meaning of spirit and existence', and 'social duplicity'. One cannot deduce the meaning of this from what has been said so far, in fact writing like this begs more questions than it answers.
I'm not siding with anyone or agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, as should be clear, I'm merely upset that discussions about movies should become so easily distracted. -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(January 28, 2013 01:34 AM)
Firstly, please don't refer to me in the 3rd person when directly replying to me. It comes across as condescending and overly-academic.
Secondly, the entire body of text is directed against me so you can stop thinly veiling passive aggression with objectivity (despite how clear you wanted it to be).
I avoid systematic points of detraction from a film as they normally just incite digression and petty debate, which I don't have the time or patience for. Equlibrium's failures are so glaringly obvious to anyone with credible critical faculties (of which you're clearly not in possession of, just an inert vocabulary). But I can see you really want to get down to the nitty-gritties of cinema mediocre:- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
- The movies directing was sub-par and had a decidedly B-grade quality to it: If you want an analysis of the shots, discuss a better film. Although despite your criticism, I dont think you have the technical knowledge to discuss them.
- All the characters are one-dimensional and experience zero character development: smug Taye Diggs dies smug, haughty Angus Macfadyen dies only slightly less haughty and even the talented and mercifully immolated Emily Watson is treated as a purely symbolic love interest.
- There are chasm sized plot holes: The gun swap, how immensely obtuse Preston is as to how suspicious his superiors and peers are of him while being seemingly incredibly observant, how almost all of the characters (apart from Preston, ironically) show a broad spectrum of emotions most of the film (including: fear, horror, humour and smug self-satisfaction).
- The action sequences were a contrived and superfluous: Gun butting a bunch of guys to death who have helmets on (no silencers or knives in the future apparently)? Gun fighting statistics would make it a bit more unlikely you'd get shot but certainly wouldn't allow you to stand in the middle of a room and avoid any gunfire (human beings have judgements which adapt to differing circumstances).
Although probably the biggest flaw to your argument: you seem to think that a film like Equilibrium measures a complete and comprehensive knowledge of its contents to properly criticise.
It's a shame you're somewhat confused about so many basic things and yet so ardent about them. With a film that has already has a convincing degree of public opinion against it, the burden of proving its merit really falls to its fans (that's you, in case you thought you were being subtle about it).
It's the same way I don't have empirically prove Gigli was a bad film, chocolate cake tastes nice or Stalin was an evil dude. There may be arguments against it but those certainly dont belong to the majority (in case youre wondering that doesnt mean you belong to the cultured intellectual minority, which you can probably tell by the company your opinion keeps on this board).
Here's the part where your point really lost steam: There are almost no tyrannical governments (both real and fictional) who are intentionally malevolent. The premise always being that control over the people is for their own well-being as its seen as "necessary". That was just lazy pedantry really.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
I love how you lament that the films discussion has fallen to semantics, then argue semantics with me.
I wrote that paragraph to parody nijabhaavas sophist and redundant writing style, which you failed to notice in your objective commentary on the argument and which I quite obviously pointed out (you even quoted the parenthesis in which I pointed it out)
And VicBooth did recognise the greater paradox (not really, rather: irony) that the man in charge of enforcing the law happens to be the only force capable of overthrowing that law. Mainly because its almost directly lifted from the plot summary of the movie (another lazy one). An actual paradox would be: an intelligent discussion on Equilibrium. One Im currently suffering under.
Whenever I feel Im done here I get a new user with a slightly better vocabulary bringing up the EXACT same points again. Its like going up against some Ignorance Hydra. CindersOJuniper should be aware that even well-articulated ideas are betrayed by the stupidity of their content.
Ill leave you with Christian Bales thoughts on the film (and Reign of Fire):
''Um, they were experiments for me. And I hope I make more experiments in the future, but more successful experiments.''
-
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 05:53 PM)
Ha.You're one of those people who talk a lot but say nothing.You are no different from the idiots posting messages like "OMG this movie was so fu**ing bad",the only difference is that you use long paragraphs and heavy vocabulary in a weak attempt to add some sort of weight to your opinion.
Not once do you explain why you hate the movie,you merely argue about the semantics of the words tyranny and dystopia and what genre the movie belongs in.A normal person would post something along the lines of "I really didn't like this movie for the following reasons"- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
Firstly,Equilibrium has no problem admitting it is dystopian,however the dystopia like a lot of things in the movie is a paradox as everything is done foe the apparent good of mankind.
Secondly,just because a story has similar tones and outlines to another story does not make it a cheap imitation.If that's true then every movie about space or aliens is a copy of Aliens.There's nothing wrong about being influenced by other pieces of art while making your own.You mistake influence and similarity with being derivative. - The movies directing was sub-par and had a decidedly B-grade quality to it: If you want an analysis of the shots, discuss a better film. Although despite your criticism, I dont think you have the technical knowledge to discuss them.
The direction was excellent and though some scenes did have a B-grade quality to them that does not make the movie itself B-grade.The direction focussed on the story and themes rather than action.There are only two major fights in the entire movie and even the final fight is extremely short,there's no cheesy face off between Preston And Brandt or the Father. - All the characters are one-dimensional and experience zero character development: smug Taye Diggs dies smug, haughty Angus Macfadyen dies only slightly less haughty and even the talented and mercifully immolated Emily Watson is treated as a purely symbolic love interest.
You mention that all characters are one dimensional yet name only three.Hmm.You know not every character needs to go through a journey only to reach an emotional epiphany.If you'll notice most people in real life too are one dimensional.Emily Watson was hardly a love interest for Preston,he simply felt pity and guilt for her and she reminded him of his wife and how he had let her burn.Did you find Preston's character to be one dimensional too?Did he have the same emotions and views throughout the entire film? - There are chasm sized plot holes: The gun swap, how immensely obtuse Preston is as to how suspicious his superiors and peers are of him while being seemingly incredibly observant, how almost all of the characters (apart from Preston, ironically) show a broad spectrum of emotions most of the film (including: fear, horror, humour and smug self-satisfaction).
Chasm sized?Really?Only thing chasm sized is your incompetence of seeing the beauty of a great film. Anyway let's get to it.
The gun swap is clearly explained in the movie's FAQ page.There is no plot hole there.Preston's superiors are not suspicious of him,only Brandt is and Preston is aware of it,he is aware that Brandt suspects something but he does not know for sure.So he does the only thing he can,brush off his suspicions.You miss the point of the movie (not surprisingly though).The drug never eradicates emotions,it merely suppresses them and it does not even suppress them all,it only suppresses harmful emotions such as rage but as a consequence emotions like love are suppressed too and so is empathy but as explained in the movie,that is the price they are willing to pay.Where was fear or "horror" displayed?Also the two main villains are the only one who express maximum emotions and it's quite obvious by the end that they were not on the drug.And do you really think Preston didn't show any emotions?Is that your weak attempt at a sarcastic way to say you found Bale's acting bad? - The action sequences were a contrived and superfluous: Gun butting a bunch of guys to death who have helmets on (no silencers or knives in the future apparently)? Gun fighting statistics would make it a bit more unlikely you'd get shot but certainly wouldn't allow you to stand in the middle of a room and avoid any gunfire (human beings have judgements which adapt to differing circumstances).
The movie invented a whole new style of action never seen in any movie before or since,something so obvious and simple.Guns and Kung-Fu.The director even explained it in a satisfactory manner via statistics and predictions.The action was cool,unique while not being over the top.How does it matter if the guards have helmets on?Are you suggesting that bullets can't break through glass helmets?And i'd like to see
- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
-
the_la_baker — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 11:20 AM)
Just like equilibrium, your "rebuttal" could only be dumber if it were longer. Don't try to defend this film. It's impossible and makes you seem foolish and uneducated.
This film is almost a perfect idiot test. Just look at the people defending it. They can't understand the most simple concepts, like no emotions would either make people catatonic or psychopaths, literally, yet profess insight on some deep meaning or originality. It a movie of completely stolen ideas that were executed laughably bad. The ideas that were even slightly original were astoundingly stupid. The vast majority of the world knows this film sucks, stop fighting it. -
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(June 27, 2013 07:48 AM)
So you're basically saying that this movie is impossible to defend because YOU found it dumb and because your dinosaur brain couldn't see through it?You didn't even get that the film did not take place in a world with NO emotions.You invented a plot hole in your head and ignore any rebuttal to it to make yourself feel superior.Wow.
BTW the vast majority of people like this movie,that's why it has a you know 7.6 on IMDb.
