Help me understand human nature

[Elok]

That's what you get with people who are conditioned to think that a good movie must have an recognizable and exicting plot. When they come across movie that isn't centered on the plot they feel lost and they'll dismiss it as artsy.

It takes precisely no skill or talent to put two characters together and have them bumble around aimlessly for an extended period of time. It takes only a little talent to have them interact with each other in a more or less believable way, while still failing to move the action forward or develop as characters. I should know. I've done that **** by accident plenty of times, it's not hard. You just bought Coppola's artistic laziness as somehow meaningful.

EDIT: Actually, it's been like eight years since I saw the thing; did they somehow develop as characters? Don't remember any, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Bereta_Eder]

It takes precisely no skill or talent to put two characters together and have them bumble around aimlessly for an extended period of time. It takes only a little talent to have them interact with each other in a more or less believable way, while still failing to move the action forward or develop as characters. I should know. I've done that **** by accident plenty of times, it's not hard. You just bought Coppola's artistic laziness as somehow meaningful.

You just didn't get it or there was something that bothered you and your switched off your "antenas" (you perceived it as narcisistic naval-gazing? their "lifestyle" got in the way? - whereas what it talked about was pretty much universal)

Anyway about taste there's not much to say. One can like something and not like something else. Meh.

[Colon™]

What about "Tree of Life" and "To the Wonder"?

Not seen and I don't intend to. Wouldn't have watched Badlands either if I had known beforehand it was by the same guy who made Thin Red Line.

[Elok]

Uh, yeah, I get that they were feeling sort of listless and out-of-sorts with their lives and all that. But that's not a story. Stories involve change, something happening. A thematic snapshot of two largely static characters is only part of a movie.

Xpost

[Colon™]

...did they somehow develop as characters?

Why should they? It's just a portrait of two people in a specific place at a specific point in their lives. That conflicts with your hollywoodian sense of what a movie should be like.

[Bereta_Eder]

What should have happened so that you are happy?

The film does a great job of getting you inside their psyche. What has happened is seeing and feeling how they felt.
The film and the end did have a "happening". Them actually connecting. Completely different and exactly the same.
And it's not so far from reality either.

Should they have won the lotto or protect the planet from a meteor shower for you to be happy

[Bereta_Eder]

anyway here are stories that are portrait centered and "something happens" as that there's a breakthrough in peoples' lives, if that appeals more to you

a great one
1.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1675434/

and a light hearted comedy
2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2800240/

[Aeson]

It only took one page for the Apolyton "the fappening" thread to turn to a discussion of Star Wars movies ... SORRY HOLLYWOOD ACTRESSES, PUBLICITY STUNT FAILED!

[regexcellent]

There's only so much to talk about with Jennifer Lawrence's nudes. I'm not interested in them for discussion purposes.

[DaShi]

You should write movie reviews

Elok's reviews are often off-base and a usually consist of a collection of cliched remarks meant to sound edgy but lack in both cohesion and authenticity. He either sacrifices substance for style or style for substance failing to deliver on either. The best example I can think of are those youtube videos of people who tried to emulate Yahtzee during the height of his popularity. I hate to use a cliche like this myself, but it really is that he lacks a voice and his attempts to copy others' are hollow. Sorry if this is too critical.

[Elok]

Why should they? It's just a portrait of two people in a specific place at a specific point in their lives. That conflicts with your hollywoodian sense of what a movie should be like.

No, that conflicts with several thousand years of narrative tradition where there's, well, a conflict, and it gets resolved somehow. It doesn't have to be a violent conflict, or an external conflict, or a really super-dramatic conflict, but there really ought to be some kind of problem at hand, or at least change. Stasis is boring, and for that matter false to reality. Everyone changes. Now, it usually happens on a slower scale than it does in movies, but that's because movies can't show you years on screen, and change can be very subtle. If someone spends an extended period of time not developing, that person is almost by definition unhealthy. Which, as it happens, would make it an excellent setup for a movie . . .

[DaShi]

Elok that is a terrible critique. There is no one right kind of writing. However, there are plenty of wrong kinds.

Anyway, it's been so long since I saw the movie that I can't make specific points about it. But I can say that you're failure to get the point does not make the movie bad.

[Elok]

Elok's reviews are often off-base and a usually consist of a collection of cliched remarks meant to sound edgy but lack in both cohesion and authenticity. He either sacrifices substance for style or style for substance failing to deliver on either. The best example I can think of are those youtube videos of people who tried to emulate Yahtzee during the height of his popularity. I hate to use a cliche like this myself, but it really is that he lacks a voice and his attempts to copy others' are hollow. Sorry if this is too critical.

And yet you can't shut up about me, can you? I just knew this post was going to be critical of me, even though there's a whole thread full of posts here, IIRC you hadn't posted in it yet (don't feel like checking), and I don't believe I've spoken critically of you ever since we buried the old hatchet last year. I've thanked a few things I liked and held my peace on all the rest. Not going to argue with you here, or click on any more "view post"s, just saying, speaking of static characters . . .

(also "style for substance" and vice versa would also count as cliches)

[DaShi]

I hardly ever post about you. But since you'd like me to continue, your writing is hackneyed and painful and your reasoning is incredibly narrow. You make a conclusion and then find evidence to support it disregarding everything else. In fact, you don't just dismiss other approaches, they seem to simply not exist to you.

I've never met someone who knows so much esoterica but lacks more than a shallow understanding of any topic. It's like you think just being able to reference zoroastrianism is enough contribution to a conversation. You're basically the Family Guy of pretentious *****.

[DaShi]

Wow, I wrote that with an even tone, but it really does come across harsh. I apologize for that, but damn your writing is painful.