Patrician here

What is wrong with you and this board.

There used to be at least some real discussion but now you all seem to have gotten on the "JUST TURN YOUR BRAIN OFF, DUDE" bandwagon.

Maybe I just grew out of this place.

what movie is that from?

I was extremely depressed by the amount of positive opinions about Kong Skull Island that I saw here

>what movie is that from?
TDKR

It's a good movie, if you can't consider something good because it has CGI apes in it I don't think fiction in general is suited for you.

Problem Child 2

It's not from a movie. It's a picture I took. Here's another.

Really? I guess I don't come around enough anymore to see that.

It is not a good movie. Get the fuck out of here. It has choppy editing, lazy direction, a word salad of lazy pop culture allusions, awful acting, baffling production design choices and some of the most cringey fanservice I've ever seen in a movie.

>It has choppy editing, lazy direction, a word salad of lazy pop culture allusions, awful acting, baffling production design choices
Based on this, nothing distinguishes you from the posters you're criticising. Everyone writes superificial crap like that here.

What, do you want me to produce a video essay to prove these to you?

Let's take them one by one
>choppy editing, lazy direction
Vogt-Roberts has no idea how to block or construct a scene. Go back and watch it again, he doesn't have any actors move about the frame while speaking. Instead he'll just cut from close up to close up during dialogue sequences.

You can tell the things he cared about most were the "shots" which he just threw in liberally even if the didn't flow with the current scene. This is a constant problem with these large budget movies.

>a word salad of lazy pop culture allusions
How do you even contest this? Did you not hear the music or the dialogue?

>awful acting
Very subjective, but it felt like Tom Hiddleston was there just for the paycheck. Brie Larson never once felt like a real person. John C Reilly clearly could not be bothered to care and was just fucking around. I guarantee you that in one of the sequels they're going to put the ants he quipped about into a scene because they can feel in their bones how well it will service fans.

>baffling production design choices
-Everyone is too clean. This is a constant problem in big budget corporate driven movies.
-They literally carry around a vinyl record player so they have an excuse to inject more fucking 70s music into scenes for no reason
-Brie Larson, ostensibly a serious Vietnam era journalist, is using a leica that has a wide angle fixed lens on it.
-They show one boat that has 4 helicopters, then somehow there are more than 10 helicopters destroyed in the fight sequence.
-Kong is as tall as a building because he has to fight Godzilla because of course this movie is a cash grab to make yet another "universe".

You like this movie because you have low standards, plain and simple. It is nonsense, and if you can "turn your brain off" for it, you're actively making yourself dumber.

>the director cared about the shots the most
How... terrible? I can agree with Hiddleston being a worse actor than CGI monster but I thought Reilly was fine, and in addition to him Jackson and Goodman did a good job. I don't even like Jackson most of the time but I don't think he phoned it in here.

>They literally carry around a vinyl record player so they have an excuse to inject more fucking 70s music into scenes for no reason
The soundtrack has 70s music because the film takes place in the 70s. I don't understand why this is a problem. Those other complaints are inane, having correct camera models isn't going to matter to anyone except professional photographers and they are more likely to pay attention to the film's photography rather than a prop. It seems like you're objecting to the film's aesthetic, like it's too pulpy for a movie about giant monsters. Have you seen King Kong vs Godzilla?

That's the direction Sup Forums culture has gone on in general.
It's not fun anymore.
It's just infuriating.
I wish there was a better site to go to.

i'm glad i have a friend who appreciates movies that i can talk to
people here just care about blockbusters, rotten tomatoes and celebrities

i feel genuinely bad for the people who actually like movies and only have Sup Forums to use for discussion

Where was this picture taken, it looks like somewhere familiar to me.

Let's be realistic, unless there's someone who could post something long and worthwhile in a fast thread (people who 90% of the time have better things to do), all this place amounts to is shitposts.

Everyone has simply embraced that thought process not to spend more than a minute on a thread and move onto a fast thread instead, and that wasted put into posts is effort wasted. It's just the nature of Sup Forums; content creation is not worthwhile.

>unless there's someone who could post something long and worthwhile in a fast thread
All it takes is browsing the site with a pc/laptop. Phoneposting is too inconvenient for it.

This is a really comfy picture OP, do you have any other similar ones?

It looks like Ohio to me but I can't really tell where from how blurry it is.

>Why is it bad that a director cares only about shots?
Here's Bergman "He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process" he was talking about Antonioni here and while I disagree with him so far as Antonioni goes, it's a perfect description of what I mean here.

I this movie, you will see a dynamic shot, out of nowhere probably because Vogt-Roberts sketched it, or thought it might look cool, not because it fits a sequence or illustrates anything to the audience.

>John C Reilly
He's a likeable guy. In this he played John C Reilly, not a WWII fighter pilot that has been marooned on an island for 30 years. There's no pathos behind his acting, just quips. And that would be fine if he was the main character and the character was written to be John C Reilly, but it wasn't and if you're going to try and play a soldier from the 40s with loved ones he Left behind, maybe it shouldn't just be John C Reilly playing John C Reilly.

>The soundtrack has 70s music because the film takes place in the 70s.
Ask yourself what the additions of these songs actually adds to the movie. Most of the time, it's nothing. What does the 15 second clip of "we'll meet again" add to the shot of their boat coming out the mouth of a river other than a very poorly conceived Dr Strangelove reference. What does the begging of "long cool woman in a black dress" add to a transition sequence other than to keep the audience from noticing how mind numbingly boring it would be to watch that scene with out music.

>Camera model doesn't matter.
The choice of that leica is emblematic of how lazy the overall production design is. It is a symptom of a larger issue, that no one is paying attention to details and details are the difference between a decent movie and a great movie. You may disagree with that but can you think of a legitimately great film that didn't pay attention to details?

The problem is that faux elitism runs rampart on this board.

Yeah, there basically isn't. On r/truefim everyone is too scared to have real opinions.

This is important. To have other people you can talk to. If I relied on this place, I might be incredibly depressive.

Northeast Ohio when I was driving and the sun was setting. I don't have any particularly similar. I have this though

It's sad. I used to be able to check the catalog and find at least one art house thread at any time and in it, I swear it wasn't just people posting lists and cinegrids. There used to be honest to god Godard-fags who really pissed off everyone else.

I don't really come here that often any more. Ever since TFA trailer came out and infected this board with Cuckposting and Sup Forums it has just been insufferable. Every once in a while I stop by to see if things have gotten better and it always seems worse.

This board single handedly killed any serious interest I had in film.

kek
How?

Used to be the only place I'd come to get recs/talk about movies. Now it's useless.

>On r/truefim everyone is too scared to have real opinions.
>on anonymous forums people will shitpost and ignore every answer, thought out or not because lol who gives a shit I was trolling u bro u mad :^)
>on forums with accounts no one will talk because going against the hivemind will kill you.
Fucking hate this. I hated a lot of stuff in the movie the Witch, tried to have some discussion about it and ended up giving up because every answer was basically "lol u don't understand lol" And that's a good thread, the rest are twitter posts and stupid superhero stuff. Even Sup Forums has better disussion, it's fucking sad.

>There used to be at least some real discussion but now you all seem to have gotten on the "JUST TURN YOUR BRAIN OFF, DUDE" bandwagon.

Honestly, if the only problem with this place was that people were only interested in talking about fun movies, I'd be ecstatic. At least we'd be talking about movies, you can still have meaningful conversations about craft even with regards to the plebbest schlock.

The problem is that Sup Forums is 98% shitposting, and that's not even an exaggeration. Almost every single thread is le ebin meem, company wars, Sup Forums bait, or something even worse. It's 20fucking17 and Bane threads still hit 150+ replies almost daily.

Burn this place down and salt the earth.

you know it's bad when the only things that actually discussed are capeshit and anime

I miss the days when we argued over waifus instead of politics.

I understand what you're saying, but I can't see the film as disjointed like you do. To add to that, bombarding the audience with 'cool shots' is an entire thing of its own. Can a consistent and elaborate manner of presentation be called poor filmmaking for not adhering to the pacing you happened to expect or prefer? Saying that the imagery illustrates nothing is dishonest. You just don't care for the kind of thing it's doing.

I haven't seen The Witch, so I can't discuss it with you. I feel the pain though.

>Can a consistent and elaborate manner of presentation be called poor filmmaking
I don't think it is consistent. I think the dialogue sequences are incredibly uninteresting. I'd have to rewatch to come up with a specific example but those scene have no real care to them. Mostly over the shoulder close ups and then he just throws in a random shot that doesn't really mesh.

I don't think he's doing anything with the imagery. Why is the camera moving in some of these sequeces, what't motivating it other than "that would be a cool shot!" I think things should be motivated if they are going to happen. They should have a reason to be there within the frame of the story and not just because market research said it or he thought it looked cool.

these have to be the most boring photographs i have ever seen in my entire life.

That's okay, m8.

if you want to see what constitutes film discussion, the retard and his wranglers are going at it over in the /lbg/ thread right now.

Don't know how much you come here, but there is certainly a small and alienated crowd of people who care about, and want to discuss films. The /lbg/ thread is the perfect example, of how discussion on this board cannot be serious and not just devolve into ad hominems, baits, and memes.

I secretly think that a lot of people here secretly want true, sincere discussion about more serious or artistic films. But that the constant shitposting and the easiness of baiting and trolling is too easy so people give up after awhile or just become jaded.

And then, well, there is an entire crowd of capeshitters, feetfags, celeb worshippers, memeposters, that really drown out any signs of life. Most of the sincere stuff, is few and far between, and gets relatively little attention at best.

Sup Forums in 2017 feelsbadman
also your photography is neato

>inb4 i get called a faggot

Intellectual, collegiate discussion on Sup Forums, lol. Go to graduate school for film, that is where you'll find what you are looking for.

What's your favorite films OP?

inb4 black&white photo of a dead dove on the sidewalk.

>There used to be at least some real discussion
bullshit
>you all seem to have gotten on the "JUST TURN YOUR BRAIN OFF, DUDE" bandwagon
welcome to 2008 u fucking idiot

Nice picture
do you have anymore

I suspect that some people want in depth discussion as well but that at any one time none of theme are watching the same things or remember well enough to discuss in detail while the opposite is true for big event movies.

>also your photography is neato
Thanks.

>Go to graduate school for film
I have thought about it but for $70,000+ I think I'd rather just make a film.

Here's a top 10 I posted back in like 2015

Apocalypse Now Redux
Nostalghia
The Face of Another
Throne of Blood
Pickpocket
The Master
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie
Network
Harakiri
Paths of Glory

It's probably a bit different now. A Brighter Summer Day and Sans Soleil would be on there now for sure and a couple of these would be left off or moved. Maybe Sorcerer too.

It happened. I had a really in depth discussion about the japanese new wave with some guy that said he was going to NYU film school once. Similar experiences were common-ish. Probably at least once a week I was able to have a real discussion.

Of course.

woah you've heard of criterion aswell? You are patrician! I love the lack of non narrative flicks and avant-garde film in your top 10, it shows me that you really care about film and know a lot about it because you only watch films with a cover designed by a guy only criterion would employ to draw some shit because he's devoid of all talent

anyway Sup Forums is shit now because the elitism has been well and truly stomped out by the endless waves of newfags who didn't lurk

welcome to reddit 2.0 - angsty posters edition

Criterion releases almost all important art house films of the 60s and 70s. It's hard not to have at least a few in the top 10.

Here, I'll try to make a non criterion top 10
Apocalypse Now
A Grin Without a Cat
Mirror
Network
Shame (1968)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Sorcerer
Terrorizers
The Master
The Cruel Story of Youth

Important =/= good/personal

you've only chosen films that are critically acclaimed so no one can call you out but you haven't realised that by having no real personal choices just shows you don't really have a real interest in the medium or you're too scared to voice a real opinion which just makes you look like a cunt

Well that just isn't what I think a top 10 is.

When I'm thinking about a top 10 I'm thinking about what I consider the best films ever made.

The ones that I watch the most are a very different matter.

L'avventura
Sans Soleil
Sorcerer
The Player
Network
The Sweet Smell of Success
The Asphalt Jungle

I mean there are literally hundreds of movies I could mention that I watch semi-frequently or that have personal significance for me. What does a top 10 look like to you? What should it mean?

I only seen The Master on the list, so I can't comment on the rest but nice anyway.

How long have you been shitposting here anyway?

You can argue semantics and pedantry all you want but we both know unless you put -best movies of all time next to the words top 10 then people are going to assume it's your personal list of a blend of movies that have resonated with you deeply or you have a huge amount of respect for you and if you genuinely didn't know this then your IQ is far too low for you to go around calling yourself 'patrician'

stop posting your basic photograph aswell please. no one wants to see it except the 2 plebs in this thread you've impressed by ratting off names of arthouse films that anyone who's clicked on imdb once knows

I started coming to Sup Forums in 2008, mostly Sup Forums. took a hiatus for a few years. Started coming back in maybe 2011-2012 and have been hopping around boards ever since until the last year or so as I've slowed down due to the radicalization of Sup Forums surrounding this election.

I just find it funny that you can't accept that that's what that top 10 represents simply because half of them happen to be on criterion.

I called myself patrician in the OP to guarantee responses. I know how to piss people like you off so you'll keep my thread going by coming into the thread pissed off and deciding that you're going to show me that I'm not patrician.

No one is patrician, it's nonsense and cringey if you actually subscribe to the pleb-patrician dichotomy. Calm down, user.

I'm going to keep posting photographs and there's very little you can do about it but complain.

>waaaahhh it isn't like the old days waaaahhh

Quit whining, it is more or less the same before and now.
Yes the majority of the posters here are filthy casuals, but if you want to have serious discussions there are always those few anons who know their shit just as you do, if not even more.
Yesterday we had a great thread and overall discussion about Wake in Fright which is somewhat of an obscure classic, but there were quite a few anons participating in general shitposting and real discussion about the film.

These "meta" threads do jackshit, basically go make quality posts in quality threads, and if that thread doesn't exist you go make it. That's it really.
Just don't try to make it when whenever the new Star Wars flick is released, then you have no chance

>These "meta" threads do jackshit, basically go make quality posts in quality threads
probably true. You used to get banned for these though. Now it seems like the mods have given up even deleting bane threads.

>I called myself patrician in the OP to guarantee responses
>can't handle getting a response
Really makes you think. Anyway my point was you're just as bad as the people you despise and you aren't better than anyone else on god's green earth because you know what the rule of thirds is and watch films with subtitles