This is a piece of art, La La Land is a piece of garbage

This is a piece of art, La La Land is a piece of garbage.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/1470205012174/
youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

How do I tell what's art and what's dishonest garbage?

I do I know if something's tryhard or genuinely 2deep4me?

How do I improve my cinematic IQ?

Both are shit

There's a point at which something tries and either becomes (a) cool or (b) pretentious.

It's pretty easy once you learn to not simply think about movies in terms of hurr GOOD / BAD (even worse: I ENJOYED IT / I DIDN'T). But I'll give you a few examples, maybe this way you'll understand more easily

authentic / honest: Scorsese, Koreeda, Wes Anderson, Sorrentino, Tom Ford, Dolan, Coens

inauthentic / dishonest: Refn, von Trier, PTA, Villeneuve, McQueen, Tarr, Inarritu

Why do people keep casting this effeminate twink in action roles?

TAKE IT OFF!!!

Coens are hacks you dumbfuck. This is refns good work hate his other stuff.

I've literally explained in that very post that honest / dishonest doesn't mean good / bad.

>there are straight males who watched la la land

A piece of bad art, yes.

>there are straight males

No I mean they are dishonest. They are the epitome of making uninspired filth and they do it again and again.

Refn is one of the most honest filmmakers working today. He shoots exactly what he feels like with no regard for the audience OR the producers. How could you get more honest?

I guess what I'm getting at is, what the fuck are you even talking about you retard?

>Sorrentino
>Koreeda
>FUCKING DOLAN
>Honest

>Refn
>PTA
>Tarr
>dishonest.

You're like the biggest pleb ever

>How do I improve my cinematic IQ?
watch a movie looking to analyze a specific part of the film making rather than the movie as a whole. Get specific and maybe you use a movie you know and like. Keep doing this and patterns between movies start to show up.

If you want to look a writing, try breaking down the scenes into component parts. Here you'll also realize guidelines the movie follows without even knowing it.

>He shoots exactly what he feels like with no regard for the audience
This is the real test of honesty. It's why Inuaurartu actually qualifies as an honest filmaker.

Just as the scribblings of a 5 year old are technically art, just bad art, so too is La La Land. It's a shame because its "oscar-nominated" cinematography is a combination of a couple of long shots (that don't touch Birdman or Altman) and neon lights straight out of OGF but without the meaning.
La La Land is aesthetically pleasing, but it's nothing special.

In terms of substance, Only God Forgives literally shits all over La La Land. But one of them is about aspiring artists in Hollywood, and the other is about an autistic impotent criminal who may or may not be in love with his mother
It's not hard to guess which one didn't confuse and upset the academy

>movies before his big hit all have distinct visuals befitting the movie itself
>movies after his big international hit look exactly like that hit movie even though the tone and mood is supposed to be completely different
>HAHA BASED REFN GIVES NO FUCKS BECAUSE HE PUT AN ILLUMINATI SYMBOL ON THE POSTER XD SOOO FUCKING EPIC

>plebs like this are allowed to post on Sup Forums
>plebs like this have convinced themselves that they're patrician
for fuck's sake
Sup Forums needs an entrance exam at this poin

even the director of that movie admitted that he had no clue what he was doing or what the movie was supposed to be about

Drive OGF and Neon Demon don't look the same outside of bright lights.
If you can't see the visual differences, you really to watch more films

The Neon Demon is the most beautifully shot film ever made

The fuck? If he was just remaking Drive why did the general audiences dislike Only God Forgives and The Neon Demon? You are talking complete nonsense.

What exactly did you mean by this, Zachary Hasbrouck

archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/filename/1470205012174/

are you a fucking idiot?

Drive and Only God Forgives look fucking nothing alike. Visualwise AND writing wise.
That's why Only God Forgives was such a big flop. Cause people wanted Drive 2 and BASED Refn decided to give em neon cryptic Oedipus King.

You can say anything you want about Refn, but the guy dont give a shit about selling his movies as a product

I didn't say he was remaking Drive. And I just explained the exact reason why general audiences (as well as critics...so basically everyone except freshman film school / youtube film channel tier tryhard simpletons) hated it. Those movies still look like Drive, even though they shouldn't because they are meant to convey completely different moods, themes, emotional states, etc.

It was cringe worthy as fuck

Post factual comparison then.

Cause to me Drive has a really warm, moody palette even in the nigh shots while OGF was extremely saturated feverish tone to it.

>completely different moods, themes, emotional states, etc.

And they do. Did you even watch OGF? The main character is the opposite of Drive's main character and the mood/themes are totally different. And The Neon Demon is a whole another thing entirely.

So was La La Land.

If you direct anything you didn't write yourself, the result is inherently dishonest.

Too much chinese not enough gosling

This is a good thread

haha wooooah my hands are penises

don't you get it

metaphorsssss

kek

this

I haven't seen la la land yet but judging from what I've heard you're probably right

I know it's sort of become a worn out meme but just keep watching movies, start upgrading yourself to more obscure stuff the more you continue. You're pretty much training your brain to become cinematically literate. Also read reviews.

This

>How do I tell what's art and what's dishonest garbage?
>I do I know if something's tryhard or genuinely 2deep4me?
>How do I improve my cinematic IQ?
Leave this shithole.

Hi, reddit. Have a nice day you too.

Wonder wich stupid Hollywood loser created the "dishonest" meme that nobody can understand lol.

no one hates only god forgives. people that do just haven't taken the time to understand it. i saw it on here getting compared to 2001 a lot and i can see what people mean. refn is like a updated version of steven kubrick, hes like kubrick but better in some ways. kubrick has good shots like refn and has stories which you have to interpret like refn but refn tells his stories better i think. also refn gets to work with really good actors which kubrick wasn't lucky enough too. imagine clockwork orange with ryan gosling. wow. i think ogf is far better than 2001 from what i have seen because ogf deals with strong universal theme about higher powers and what it means to be human and stuff while 2001 was just about going to space. i bet kubrick would have loved to collaborate with refn and refn could have taught him some cool stuff like how to make his shots more impactful and emotional and techniques like symbolism and good use of music.

If the director is famous, it's art.

other way around plebstain
famous people can't act genuinely, therefore only people who aren't famous can make real art

Correct.

La La Land wasn't even halfway decent

That's a nice picture of Emma

Reminder that The Neon Demon is the true kino of 2016.

Kek

looks like a perfume advert

Yep

No.

This was art

OGF was garbage.

that's the point

Beautiful and shallow.

this

No the entire flm is shit and refn should be a commerical director.

if you didn't enjoy Neon Demon theres something very wrong with you. It's not a deep film, it's just a beautiful film

How is it shit though?

But the entire movie looks like that, so I guess you kinda explained why it's shit.

Parody of bad directing.

No, that doesn't explain it at all. "Looks like a perfume advert" is not an argument.

but "The movie is bad, because it looks like a perfume advert" is an argument, and I don't see you countering it my friend

perfume adverts display an idealised, beautiful and overall dreamlike world. So does the neon demon, except the beauty and dreamlike world is a mask for the insidious parts of the human psyche, that creep out when submersed in it.

>but "The movie is bad, because it looks like a perfume advert" is an argument

That's a description of the aesthetics at display. I don't see an argument for why those aesthetics are bad or why the film is bad anywhere. Seems to me like you're actively avoiding having to produce real arguments because you know you have none.

>cringe

DID SOMEBODY SAY A E S T H E T I C S
youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE

>nobody can understand
Arw you fucking retarded?

La La Land was pure musikino. I'm surrounded by fucking plebs

That's embarassing. The singing is shit and so are the numbers.

The only number here is you, number 1 biggest pleb I've ever talked at. Don't ever respond to my posts again.