"I know it's heresy but I don't really like to watch that many old movies...

>"I know it's heresy but I don't really like to watch that many old movies. There's an obvious lack of quality on a technical level due to the primitive technology. Yeah sure, there's no doubt that Eisenstein and Bergman are very influential but in my opinion, their movies don't hold up. The people that tend to praise the films of Kurosawa and Welles are usually either pretending to be infatuated with them to give off the look that they're cinephiles or just take influence into account when it comes to cinema. I personally like to take an objective approach to film criticism and not take into account influence and other subjective variables."

He's right, y'know.

Uh...what's his name again?

>that butthurt user that called me a moron for saying Adum yells in a monotone in his videos.

I completely agree with him and have been saying this for a while now. Still don't agree with him on Kurosawa, most of his stuff holds up very well.

>influence
>a subjective variable
Why do you take this dogfucker seriously again?

He means influence does not make a film better. So if you are trying to evaluate it's objective quality then it has no bearing.

Sweet jesus this it's the opinion of a man who justifies fucking dogs.

Old movies, are:

>Technically capable

Film did and still looks amazing.

>The scripts can be perfect

We haven't gone that much far in terms of writing, one could argue that it has gotten incredible worst.

>Acting.

Completely depends on the actor, some are way to good.

The only real complain is lack of over the top CGI and filters for color grading post production.

Isn't this the guy who wants to make it legal to fuck your family pet?

That's bullshit. Sure, some directors are more popular. But, there are plenty of great films from the past. What has changed is that older films were shot more or less like plays and feel more "staged" than modern films which have lots of second unit production (allowing for quick cuts of skylines, outdoors, street scenes, etc.) and more movement in the shots, and also faster/quicker cuts. If anything, modern films are like mosquitoes buzzing around compared to the slower and often still shots of older films that allow scenes to unfold before you (much like European cinema). To me, this is the major difference other than the obvious differences in film stock/digital. In addition objectively, films can be bad or good aside from "picture" quality, such as the current lack of well-written film fare and dialogue which is cliched and hackneyed.

This is a pretty old picture. He looks fat as fuck now. What happened?

1) Actually autistic.
2) Actual dog fucker.

so he doesn't want to watch old movies as a "film critic" and made up some shit to rationalize it.
he really is a dog fucker.

This is like complaining the Sistine Chapel was made before they invented skyscrapers and so it sucks.

I get that autistic people struggle with there not being an objective measure for certain things but then why insist there must be some kind of objective way to improve art? Why can't he say it's his opinion instead of pretending it's a fact?

What a pleb holy shit.

He wants to have sex with a horse and may have already done so. He should be burned.

totally agree user

>I personally like to take an objective approach to film criticism and not take into account influence and other subjective variables."

He contradicts himself here

>its okay to jerk off a horse and forcefully make it cum to force it to produce offspring
>you can't do it with your mouth if thats what you enjoy, for some reason this mutual exchange is frowned upon

argue this hypocrisy without resorting to emotional appeal

DUDE MINOR AUDIO PROBLEM BETTER SUBTRACT THREE POINTS LMAO

It's worth noting he gave Rick and Morty a 10 on his IMDB page

>There's an obvious lack of quality on a technical level due to the primitive technology
What a deluded faggot.

For one thing, doing anything with your hand is generally safer than with your mouth in almost every situation. You want horse dick bacteria in your mouth?

For another, the idea that it's ok to jerk it off is being misrepresented. It's tolerated at best to produce money via offspring for farmers. Enjoying it would for sure make you a freak. Same thing with something like cleaning your kids vagina or asshole - it's tolerated because it's necessary but in no way should it be something you derive deep pleasure from especially sexually.

>why can't i suck a horse dick
also disease can spread between humans and animals

Wtf am i looking at

I can almost guarantee you he sees himself as as less crazy Rick. I got that vibe from him day 1.

He was obviously talking about pre 60's, not the 90's.

>this is an actual screenshot from a modern film
>lawrence of arabia shot 50 years prior is primitive technology

if its clean is it okay?

>some kind of freak
argument from tradition. I'm arguing for a change to societal rules and you're arguing in favor of them BECAUSE they are societal rules. Your argument is circular

try again

>waaah societal rules stop me from sucking a horse's cock

Im sure your parents are very proud of you

There is less detail in the 1989 shot. It's got better exposure and saturation balance, but it's far blurrier and less detailed.

Animation was objectively better technically in 1930s than it is today.

>Your argument is circular

It's really not, you shouldn't be sexually aroused by cleaning your kid's asshole, neither should you be when jacking off an animal. It makes you a freak of nature, not a freak of society (it does that too though)

True for a lot of things desu, I feel the same way about even less old films, mostly action films of the 80s.

He's obviously talking about any film made pre 90s.

I get that but what are these images? I know theyre from Twin Peaks but did he reshoot it?

you're in luck, society has accepted the walking mental cases that are trannies, so maybe horse fuckers will be next.

Good post.

I would add also that advancements in location sound recording, sound design and nuanced foley have all made modern films better that their predecessors, but that this plateued in the 70s, with films like The Godfather, which is technically good enough from a sound perspective, and creatively superior to anything that came afterwards.

That's the age by which direction & performances had also refined to be naturalistic, building from Brando's performance in A Streetcar Named Desire in 1951 and the introduction of method acting techniques.

I think anything pre the late 60s suffers at least a little from aging, but after that we begin to see actual GOATS like The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest which genuinely have not been bettered.

If you take a very recent great like Amour, what about it would have changed if it was made earlier? It's European cinema as you say, much with sensibilities that have not been perverted by our short attention spans. It wouldn't be any different in the 70s. Earlier than that though, it would have technically suffered from worse sound, and the blocking, preformances and direction would have been less immersive.

This is all argument between what is a 9/10 film and what is a 10/10 film. IMO Still Walking is better than Tokyo Story, but god they are close. Most people that don't rate old movies probably don't like the modern films that are actually better.

not an argument
false equivalence, a horse is not a child. Also who cares if you're a freak of nature?

Fuck if I know man.

>Also who cares if you're a freak of nature?

Nature

Look at his IDMB. Literally less than 5% of his top 122 were made before 1980.

you have a mental health problem.

since when has man cared what nature thinks? goddamn this board needs to take a debate class

I really don't know who this guy is at all, I just agree with his argument when applied to (most) pre 60's films.

Just suck a horse dick and shut the fuck up you overly righteous faggot freak

>goddamn this board needs to take a debate class

You can pretend you're winning all you want but nature is nature - what man wants doesn't mean shit.

If you want to suck off a horse go ahead and do it, but don't be surprised when you get Esophageal cancer from nature, or you get tortured and killed by a group of men, in response. All actions have consequences.

hopefully nature will take it's course and you die painfully when you let a horse fuck you to death.

If he's saying what it seems to me he's saying, that's idiotic. You don't need to pretend to enjoy movies like The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, or Seven Samurai. They're fucking enjoyable to watch.

He gave Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind 2nd place on his list - he doesn't like to enjoy movies he likes to be mentally jacked off for 2 hours.

imagine if throughout history people argued like this

>im going continue taking slaves, might makes right, this nature
>please stop doing this, it is not ethical and causes unnecesary suffering. maybe might doesnt have to make right
>AHAHAHA FAGGOT, THAT IS NOT HOW NATURE WORKS

i dont even want to fuck horses but you faggots cannot argue at all without appeals to emotion. argue or fuck off

>what man wants doesn't mean shit

then go live in the fucking woods you hypocrite. of course what mans wants means something. in fact, it means literally everything.

if there were no health risks, why should society find it disgusting?

you're a literal mental case demanding a debate about sucking horse cock on Sup Forums, how about you fuck off.
so fucking delusional you think your lack of horse dick to suck is comparable to fucking slavery.
seriously kill yourself and do humanity a favor.

>of course what mans wants means something. in fact, it means literally everything.

I want to shoot lasers from my finger right now. Not from a device - directly from my nerve endings. I want them to look like the blaster bolts in star wars and I want it to make the sounds my old Han Solo toy blaster makes. I'd also like to fly with my arms - no planes needed.

What I want means fuck all.

You're a raging cunt. How does it feel having a horse up your ass?

that is not what man wants that is what is physically possible or limited by technology. What the fuck your false equivalence is all over the place. Take a goddamned debate class
I dont want to suck horse cock, im playing devil's advocate here and you're arguing fucking horribly.

Is that the guy that fucks dogs?

>I dont want to suck horse cock
don't lie nigger.
hurry up and tie that noose

>I want to have sex with men in fursuits and animals but if you like old movies you're the faggot

What did he mean by this?

>MUH DOG FUCKER

I dare you to find at least woman who hasn't fucked her own dog.

>that is not what man wants that is what is physically possible or limited by technology.
>physically possible
>physically
>possible

nature.

I know you want to troll and shit but it's fun debating someone so retarded. What else do you have?

yms is on the spectrum and his "career" is mostly nitpicking movies on you.

By this philosophy all movies will eventually be shit so why do movies today get a free pass?

I agree.
There are a lot of decent films in the 70s but once you go pre-Godfather era - movies really lose in quality. They are usually overlight and boring from a cinematic point of view (with some exceptions, of course). Actors overact (like in the theatre) and the writing is too unrealistic.
Still think that old movies are good for educational purposes. Because of their simplicity you can actually see writing technics better.

>yfw you wanna get knotted but he won't stop talking about Kurosawa films

hes a paid shill

I liked this guy's stuff over a year ago but now it's all the same whiny shit. Just nitpicking with reddit humor (he still uses reddit reaction images in the year of our lord 2017)

I'm hyped to see the short film he's apparently working on because I bet it'll be as dull and cringey as his music.

Also he's fat now and it's sad.

no mostly horses.

>Also he's fat now

pic? He always had a heroin addict's body to me.

Here's the real bottom line on this guy: He can be funny, and cynical jokes of his about shitty movies can be entertaining.

Doesn't make up for the rest of his holier than thou personality or his autistic opinions. Funny is funny, it's just not enough.

an appeal to nature is not appealing to what is technologically possible. Maybe you should substitute all of those reaction gifs with substantial arguments.

ill break it down for you brainlet. Why are you bringing up what is physically possible in a debate about ethics? We are not talking about what is physically possible, but what is permissible. Let's start over dummy. Give me a good reason why you should be able to forcibly make a horse cum for artificial insemination, yet someone whose fetish that is shouldn't be able to enjoy it.

Protip: saying "BECAUSE THAT'S FUCKED UP BRO" is not an argument

*inhales*

...

Reminder this fucking degenerate literally fucks animals.

>The Lion King, Black Dynamite, and Sin City are better than all of Kubrick's films

I remember when I was 14 too.

>Why are you bringing up what is physically possible in a debate about ethics?

Because you were discussing whether or not man's wants matter. They don't. It's simple. I wish you were actually good at this so you could really dig into trolling properly.

i didnt think i had to fucking spell out man's desire to turn invisible isnt what i was arguing. an appeal to nature is that something should be seen as unethical because it is "not natural"

we got tangled in this stupid fucking semantic mess of "what is possible" because you misunderstood what an appeal to nature was. The original argument was that what man wants, in terms of what is currently physically possible and societal, matters because we can make it so

>2002 was 15 years ago

YMS seems insecure. he probably feels intimidated by people who actually love classics.

>fucks a dog

>1. The Holy Mountain
>3. Eternal Sunshine
>4. Lion King

bruh

Wow, I didn't know Styxhexenhammer was such a pleb.

Influence is not a subjective variable. When you say you're 'influenced by Hitchcock" that means that you are incorporating themes/tones/sounds/perspectives/etc. that Hitchcock was known for. It's the most objective measure there is.

If a film or bundle of films you enjoy are influenced by Kurosawa, then watching a Kurosawa film will:
1. See how it started, what tricks were learned and how Kurosawa developed them, what they meant, and why he tried them. While it will seem dated and quaint you will see the beginnings of genius and the growth of an art form.
2. Show you what the master was like and how much we still have to learn about what we are truly capable of with the tools he's given us.

Win win.

I love watching B&W movies, for some reason they can hold.my attention way more than modern ones, even with orders of magnitude less action. Especially films with Henry Fonda and Humphrey Bogart

I don't agree. I never felt that a lot of the really influential old movies, like Citizen Kane, Sunset Boulevard, Seventh Seal and so on don't hold up. I mean, they're in black and white and acting conventions have changed somewhat since then but it's not like they had super archaic camerawork or set design or anything. The angles and the staging and so on isn't really less sophisticated than it is now.

the dog rapist strikes again

I just like to see the first use of different techniques. I like the film for it's place in film history more than the film itself. I'm entertained either way so...

>justifies fucking dogs.
Why do retards misunderstand simple arguments and analogies?

Found the dog fucker

Doggy.

He's a pleb, more news at eleven.

> objective approach to film criticism
Anglos and germanics have destroyed the world.

Millennials are hitting the wall.

What a fucking pleb

Unironically agree with the autism part.
He's very anal about sound and music.
Other shit seems to be whatever triggers a momentary sperg rage
rather than him operating from real cool-headed logical foundations
or even responding to classically autistic pattern-violation triggers.

Also, yes on the dog fucking shit.
Dunno if that an autist thing or a gay thing.

>so many animals films
this guy is some kind of weirdo, isn't he

How the fuck has a Bergman film aged “technically”? The acting and cinenamtography are imp cable and it’s not like there are pew pew cg scenes to look poor in comparison to modern stuff

I just watched a Kurosawa movie today for the first time ever. And I loved it. How is it technically bad? I guess I just have shit taste.

YouTube was a mistake.

t. adam the dogfucker from ydsmc.org(your dog sucks my cock.org)

to be fair he probably has a very high IQ

>There's an obvious lack of quality on a technical level due to the primitive technology.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.