ITT: Invalid defenses of films

ITT: Invalid defenses of films

>it happened in the book

>It's fun

>the production was plagued with problems

>it's not like you could do better

My answer to that is, Yes. I actually could do better than that

PROVE IT

>It's SUPPOSED to be bad!

So it's just unfortunate for you that you aren't in their position? Besides, it's not like you would have to be able to make a better film than any film you consider to be bad or overrated, or whatever.

>it has better newer effects

get some of the Hollywood Jews to fund me and i'll show you little boy

>it's kino

>the acting is supposed to be bad
>the movie was diverse, so there's that
>the soundtrack was good though

>at least they tried to do something different

Not actually invalid, but comes up way too often.

>I liked it

>watching films based on a book

Only reward creativity. Book-based films are trash and assume that films are the inferior artistic medium, only copying literature.

>it was revolutionary for its time

>that's explained in the sequel

>it's ironic
>it's self-aware
>it's satire
and this>>the acting is supposed to be bad
so basically any meta bullshit

Man it sucks that you possess the genius but lack the resources and credentials to make your movies. You must have gone to films instead of film school.

>it was deep

Similarly,
>it's explained better in the book
Or...
>you need to read the book to understand that part

>its critically acclaimed so that means it's automatically good

This. I had an especially acrimonious exchange with someone about 2001 with just that defense frequently coming up.

>it's not supposed to be an idiosyncratic evaluation of the depths of societal nature

I hear that so often, it's very annoying.

>the cinematography was good so excuses the rest of the shittyness

DUDE PRETTY PICTURES LMAO

>film is about visuals, so if it doesn't matter if there are crippling plot holes or the story makes no sense

It staggers me that there are people who actually believe this. For some films, plot is more important than in others, just as visuals are sometimes more or less important, but to say that plot is never important is nonsense on stilts.

Are we talk about pic reltaed?

Nope. I don't even know what that film is.

>HURR PLOT HOLES
>WHY DIDNT THEY JUST SHOOT HIM
>WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THIS

?

you should not answer because it's one of the shittiest arguments of all time

>Plotfags

LITERALLY the cancer killing cinema.

Movies are audiovisual dreams constructed out of pure artifice. It's all scripted words performed on artificial sets by people pretending to be other people. Cinema should not be literal, it is metaphoric and it is beautiful. Fuck off you STEMfag autist piece of shit who is obsessed with plot because you need "stories" to compensate for the fact your own life is so fucking miserable and devoid of anything remotely interesting. You are plebbitscum cancer who lacks the intellectual capacity to appreciate anything above that churned out by Marvel Studios. Fuck off.

>im smart cause i like pretty pictures

That's pretty good example of an invalid defense, but next time, put it as green text. Otherwise, I could mistake it for shitty bait.

>It's a teenage Sup Forumstard thinks that because he likes Nolan and Fincher he is qualified to discuss film and that he's not an absolute garbage tier faggot plebeian episode

>genius fails to make any actual arguments and resorts to ad hominem and projection

Nolan is actually a great example of a director who has fairly large plot holes in service of visuals.

You aren't making compelling arguments by the way, so instead of green texting and making ad hominem attacks, you try either providing some or accept the fact that people don't agree with you, possibly for good reasons.

>the writing was bad so the actors had nothing to work with

>Sup Forums approved

>its obscure and experimental so that obviously means it's good

>it was unrealistic
>i don't know i just didnt like it for some reason

>i'm an arrogant pretentious asshole: the thread

Who would defend a film like that?

FUCK YOU MEL GIBSON IS A GIFT FROM GOD! FUCK THE JEWS!

retarded hipster, movies are supposed to be the continuity of theater.

goddamned the bullying at school was so terrible 20 years ago? because 30 years old people are fucking cancerous.

>If you don't like this movie, you're an arrogant pretentious aeshole!

>i don't like it because everyone else does like it

wait a second i do this

Again, who would defend a film like that? Did you not read OP's post?

>It's great if you just shut your brain off and don't think about it

That's every marvel movie post 2006.

>you don't like it because it's popular

The worst one is the one given by Marvelfags:

>"IT'S GOOD! I JUST TURNED MY BRAIN OFF AND ENJOYED IT!"

its a defense for not liking a film, i put a fresh new twist on the op

You're just jealous that it made a lot of money and a movie you liked didn't!

>it's all about visuals bro!

>I don't even know what that film is.

The Semen Demon

K. Thought it might be.

>it's so bad it's good
Fuck people who believe this

>It's a DCbabby pretends to be superior to Marvel fag episode

>you only hate [latest marvel film] because you're a DC fuck, or the reverse etc etc

That's not so much of a defense, or even bait at this point, as much as a meme.