Because YOU demanded it...Resident Evil 6 - The Movie (and other films in the franchise) Page 3

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 17:42:47
    Of course people like dumb things sometimes. Hence why I said switch the focus instead of get rid of completely.

    I think one of the problems is that it's self-reinforcing. If your consumption is mostly passive, it'll struggle with something active as you won't be used to it, so you'll naturally fall back to passiveness. Active minds stay lubricated and all that.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 17:43:41
    quadfather wrote:
    BillCityfingers wrote:
    quadfather wrote:I could write the biggest rant in history about adverts, but I digress.
    On the subject, nothing has made me angrier recently than the fucking Andrex scrunch or fold campaign. I want to find whatever twatty marketing company came up with that idea, and kill them until they're dead from it. Then seek out every vacant moron that agreed to be in it, and kill them until they're dead from it.

    Fuck it, I'll boot the bloody puppy n all

    I just think... Thousands and millions of years of evolution to this? Really? I'll get me coat.
    This is what I was like before I took the aerial out!
    Thankfully we don't get a signal anymore and rely on iplayer of 4od...

    Wife still insists on hollyoaks though :-(
  • kalel 14 Mar 2013 17:47:25 87,120 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    ronuds wrote:
    That I said Transformers wasn't really the point.
    I think it is the point. Quality and intelligence are not the same thing. People should not tolerate bad films, and the whole "turn your brain off thing" is a moot point in this respect.
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 17:55:16 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I just feel like it would be a bit arrogant of me to judge someone based on a form of entertainment they enjoy. As if to say, 'if I think it's important, then so must you.'

    If it's someone who invests themselves in film and TV and still thinks RE is the height of the medium, then I'd start asking some questions.
  • disusedgenius 14 Mar 2013 17:57:22 5,284 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's a pretty arrogant thing to call someone an idiot full stop, so you have to be careful with such accusations. Keeping that in mind, kal is still right.
  • kalel 14 Mar 2013 18:00:53 87,120 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    To be fair I quite like some bad films. I think the important part is to recognise it is a bad film.

    So to amend, it's not liking Transformers that would make one an idiot, it would be thinking that it's good.

    I also think arrogance is sometimes confused with superiority. They're related, but they're not quite the same thing. Neither is particularly pleasant, but the latter can be justified.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:01:49
    It's arrogant, sure, but in a fair few number of cases it's justified. If someone only ever reads Harry Potter and blankly refuses to branch out to anything different, I feel wholly justified in scorning them for it. If someone read Harry Potter and Twilight, made a decent attempt to branch out to something different but found it wasn't for them, then it's a bit different. I'd argue that the vast majority of passive consumers fall into the first category, however.
  • Blotto 14 Mar 2013 18:06:16 2,774 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Its still a dick move though. What if they're just not that into books?

    Telling them, you have to at least try and read other books otherwise you're an idiot, when they don't really have a huge interest in books, makes you a bellend.

    If they say "Yeah, I'm a big book fan. Harry Potter is obviously the best book! No I haven't read anything else but I'm sure Harry Potter is the best" then you can scorn them or whatever.
  • disusedgenius 14 Mar 2013 18:08:13 5,284 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    meme wrote:
    If someone read Harry Potter and Twilight, made a decent attempt to branch out to something different but found it wasn't for them, then it's a bit different.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:09:36
    Books were just an example. I wasn't singling out the genre. Swap out with Transformers/Resident Evil/GI Joe or whatever if you feel like it. Or EastEnders/Housewives of Wherever/X-Factor for TV.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:12:52
    But it also boils down to if that person is happy not branching out, and if they genuinely feel they are missing out by, say not reading anything than Harry Potter. If that person only wants to read Harry Potter, then who is it to tell them they must seek out other books when there isn't a need for it?

    You can still be a book fan reading only one type of book, as it's still reading, a book.

    I'm a music fan, I listen to music all the time, but I only really listen to one or two genres, this makes me happy and I don't feel the need to try a different genre of music, does that make me worth scorning?
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 18:13:16 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I went skiing once, but I'm not a skier. I liked it, and may go again, but I'm not going to begin training for the Olympics any time soon. The mountain I went on was fun, but I assume for a professional it would be kiddie or possibly even terrible. I couldn't say because I'm not trained in such things.
  • disusedgenius 14 Mar 2013 18:15:39 5,284 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    BillCityfingers wrote:
    If that person only wants to read Harry Potter, then who is it to tell them they must seek out other books when there isn't a need for it?
    Someone trying to evaluate their intelligence and relative worth to humanity.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:20:07
    Not feeling the need to try new things is exactly the kind of passivity I'm talking about, to be honest. Actively engaged minds want to try and experience new things, to think new things and feel new things.
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 18:25:57 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The liking of quality film is a bit of an arbitrary thing to cling to, though - especially with how bad a lot of them are these days. Look at kids and what they're growing up with. You'd have to think everyone born after 1985 is an idiot then!
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:27:07
    But why scorn those who choose to be passive? Are they a worse human being because of it?

    Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a very engaged person, in fact I'm on my way to a writing class as I type this. But while I love being a person constantly looking to self improve, I don't hold any animosity to those who don't.
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:29:36
    Are they, as an individual, a worse human being? No.

    Would humanity, as a whole, be a much more interesting place, culturally and socially, if more people switched on more than switching off? In my opinion, yes.
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 18:32:53 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You originally said they were worse human beings, which is why I commented in the first place. If you're now admitting that they're not - we can move on and talk about what is sure to be a horrible film. :p
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:34:43
    Don't recall saying that. I said I'd scorn and judge some, but that's not the same as saying they're wholly a worse human being. Unless it was in specific reference to someone who likes Transformers, in which case, yes, they are worse human beings.
  • disusedgenius 14 Mar 2013 18:35:47 5,284 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Not 'worse', necessarily, more 'not at the top of the list to get to go to Alpha Centuri'. :)
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:37:17
    While in a sense that's true I think as a race there is an immense amount of culture out there. And more and more art and music, writing and film is up for consumption through the web. So more and more individuals can express themselves. It's not the position of those driven individuals to cast judgement on those that choose to remain passive. Engage with what you will but that doesn't give a right to criticise others for not doing as some are suggesting. That's the only point I'm making,
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 18:38:05 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @meme

    You said their brains were permanently detached or something along those lines. :D

    Edited by ronuds at 18:38:40 14-03-2013
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:40:41
    Oh yeah. That was more commenting that such people are almost physically incapable of engaging with something, rather than calling them morons or something.

    although the argument is there that they are ;)
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:45:26
    Anyway, we're kind of going in circles now. The main argument was that "switch off your brain" or "so bad it's good" as an argument for shit films existing is a terrible one. Low-brow films aren't inherently bad, so why should we tolerate the genuinely bad ones to the extent they get six sequels?

    Edited by meme at 18:45:46 14-03-2013
  • cubbymoore 14 Mar 2013 18:45:45 36,488 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    This is exactly the same argument that was popular in the 1920s. When everyone thought eugenics was cool.
  • King_Edward 14 Mar 2013 18:51:20 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Are they, as an individual, a worse human being? No.

    Would humanity, as a whole, be a much more interesting place, culturally and socially, if more people switched on more than switching off? In my opinion, yes.
    "The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care to know. They are incurious. Incuriosity is the oddest and most foolish failing there is."

    Smartest man in the world said that. :)
  • Deleted user 14 March 2013 18:52:11
    The 20s were fucking awesome for creativity, though. Lost Generation and all that.

    I'm still blaming the 80s.
  • disusedgenius 14 Mar 2013 18:54:50 5,284 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    cubbymoore wrote:
    This is exactly the same argument that was popular in the 1920s. When everyone thought eugenics was cool.
    Now it's called genetics. Not quite as cool nor stylish, mind.
  • ronuds 14 Mar 2013 18:55:35 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I thought music started to take a shit in the 80s, but film was the 90s?
  • cubbymoore 14 Mar 2013 18:59:08 36,488 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    We just developed better ways of preserving crap that would otherwise have been forgotten. Tapes, cds and mp3s for music. Videotapes for films.
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply