[quote=@SleepingSilence]
[s][i]You totally did it again on purpose didn't you?[/i][/s][/quote]

Only thing being done on purpose here is you making it all the more annoying to have a discussion with your silly ordered list.

[quote]1. ...Yes? The purpose of my entire assortment of paragraphs is debunking that idea, because it's a pure fallacy of logic. Like it's [i]literally[/i] a fallacy argument.[/quote]

What's the fallacy here? You're over here making claims about movies you haven't seen and then acting like you're making sound reasoning and logic because you've read a couple reviews. "Don't knock it until you try it" is the exact opposite of what you're doing. You're literally knocking it without trying it because you think trying it will just further play into your own biases. 

[quote]2. You can think that. I don't.[/quote]

You don't think I read what you wrote? I mean if you wanna be wrong I guess. Oh wait, this is about the Oscars. If you don't think the Oscars are the most prestigious awards for the modern American film industry then have fun being actually wrong I guess? 

[quote]3. 'Discounts' is the wrong word. 'Pointless' is more accurate. You sincerely responding to my (admitted in the very next line to be a) sarcastic comment. Won't get anyone anywhere...[/quote]

Oh wait nevermind this is the tl;dr comment. I don't quote respond to be a dick, I do it so the people I'm speaking with know specifically which points I'm addressing. You know. To avoid confusion and such. I sincerely respond to comments because A: Sarcasm doesn't come through super well in the internet (or else people aren't very good at it) and B: Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt and assume everyone is willing to have the same conversation. 

[quote]4. *Now you're getting me to do a double take, because I swore I already mentioned my negative opinion of Venom on here, but now I realize it might have just been the discord* Yes, I've heard of Venom...and I didn't really like the movie. XD [/quote]

Not the point I was making. Now who doesn't read am I right? (That was sarcasm by the way. Or was it?)

[quote]And no, it's really not. Reviews on why the movie was liked, are just as important as ones that didn't. I mean even this entire conversation, the only thing you've mentioned about the movie is the racial point. Certainly not hard selling me to give it a chance. Not that you need to. But you essentially said, "It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but you have to watch everything presented to you before you can approved said disinterest."[/quote]

I'm not trying to hardsell you on the movie. Judging by your posts in this topic I wouldn't sell you on a movie even if I worked in a video store, not because I don't want to but because you're so picky you'd probably hate something because there was one minute of comedy in a two and a half hour character drama about homicide. It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but to have an opinion on that media without experiencing it makes your opinion weaker. I haven't seen Venom. I have no desire to see Venom and didn't have any desire to do so even BEFORE the reviews came out. Even people I talk to who have generally positive experiences with the movie aren't making me want to see it, but I'm not making the claim that Venom is a garbage fire of a movie. It could be, for all I know, but my opinion of the movie is just "I haven't seen it, it doesn't interest me" and not "It sounds better than these other blockbuster movies that shoehorn in some hamfisted girl power point with its message". 

What you're doing is making the claim that Get Out (and other movies in the same overall genre as 'horror') is hamfisted an chastising it for 'having a message' without seeing the movie at all. It makes you look silly because people who [i]have[/i] seen it know it's flatout untrue. You can say that the subject matter doesn't interest you. You can say that it's not your kind of movie. You can't make a claim about the content and intent and success of said content/intent of the movie without seeing it. Because how do you know? 

[quote]And I know for a fact, nobody does that with consistency. So I don't even believe, that you sincerely believe that. Because if you did believe that audiences and critics could both be wrong all the time and its a wild west where you may never know. You would never have used the Oscars to validate certain movies, because that also relies on outside opinion.[/quote]

Audiences and critics aren't 'wrong'. Critics aren't 'wrong' for liking, say, The Last Jedi and neither are audiences 'wrong' who didn't like it. Film criticism is, in the short term, a way to summarize and critique aspects of a film that worked or didn't for the individual reviewer. The average movie goer is not going to look at different sources and critic scores, they're going to see a number on Rotten Tomates or see a commercial with a bunch of out of context quotes and go from there. This is why you constantly have people who say stuff like "I dunno what the critics were smoking, I liked that movie!" 

There's nothing wrong with using the Oscars to mention a movie's quality. You brought up Suicide Squad as some kind of indictment on the Oscars just because Suicide Squad had legitimately good makeup - Killer Croc wasn't CG for a reason. But if someone hears "Best Picture Winner" or "Was nominated for Best Picture/Golden Globe" it makes an immediate impression to them. "Oh, this movie won/is up for an Oscar? It's probably really good!" So yes, the Oscars are as valid as any other means of forming an opinion on whether or not to see a movie.

[quote]5. Literally every single movie has themes. As many as audience members would love to interpret. The last time I was lambasted by multiple people that I never saw the movie so I could never understand the sheer depths of its astounding quality was that shitty Ghost In The Shell movie. And I was proven right and wasted a considerable amount of time on something I knew was going to blow chunks. I'm pretty sure how I've said I've been proven wrong on movies before, but in those cases it wasn't so concretely backed up with outside opinion and was more of a vague hunch. And I try to be at least a little better than that now. But I will not see every movie, especially in theaters, if I don't think I'm going to enjoy it. You don't have that much time in your life.[/quote]

Every movie has themes but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a movie at surface level - hell most people [i]do[/i] and it's why loud movies tend to do super well in regards to mass consumption and market appeal. Not every movie is made with subtext or analysis in mind. Get Out [i]is[/i] but it can also be enjoyed just as a pure reality horror movie where the villain isn't a slasher but is no less terrifying a concept precisely because it's so grounded in reality. It holds a mirror up in the way the best horror movies do. If you go into a movie or literally anything with the negativity bias most times you're going to come away like "I KNEW IT! I WAS RIGHT, IT SUCKED!" and that's no way to go through life or media.

[quote]6. I'm watching a "My opinion is better than your opinion." shine on through without much self-awareness. I'd be wrong in your eyes if I saw the movie or not. So let's be clear that doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. See previous answers. If all you want is a semantics argument over my word choice, and completely skip over the whole "I don't want "a message" in my horror movie..." Then we've reached a foregone conclusion. (Also, your own explanation of the movie is the same as every other person I've seen explain the movie.)[/quote]

First off, if you saw the movie we wouldn't be having this discussion. This started because Dynamo asked the question on how you knew it was hamfisted if you hadn't seen it while my question was more disbelieving in nature and your answer was to list out of context snippets from IMDb and then make the bizarre claim that the movie (which you haven't seen, of course) has Key and Peele style humor despite none of the snippets you posted saying that. The fact that you kept mentioning Key and Peele as if this was a joint effort instead of just one doesn't exactly help the case. This isn't a matter of "my opinion is better than your opinion" it's a matter of "I've seen the movie, you're wrong, stop trying to sound like you know how well the movie is structured because you literally cannot make that assertion because you [i]haven't seen it[/i]." If you don't want a 'message' in your horror movie then don't watch horror movies, fucking Dawn of the Dead is satire about consumerism and slasher films damn well might as well have abstinence seminars attached to them. If you think Get Out is a preachy film, you're wrong. If you think it's got a message, no more so than [i]any other film in its ilk[/i]. And I haven't even explained the movie beyond the point that I'm starting to believe is true that [i]you're the type of person the film is satirisng[/i].

[quote]7. I'm not saying they don't happen all the time. But it's not my brand of horror movie, usually. Cabin In The Woods worked because really it was a comedy/satire of the genre before being anything else. I'm not knocking a horror movie for "not being scary." Since again, most of what's being discussed is subjective anyway. The best way to shill for a movie (or anything that) you like, for people that don't want to/haven't seen it for various reasons. Is not attacking them, or trying to attribute some motivation.

Your best defense and chance of trying to get someone to watch a movie that has reservations is not going "This movie has so much more nuance than you think, and you're probably one of the racists they strictly cover throughout the entire movie." Just spitballing there.[/quote]

Why would I want to shill for a movie to someone who admits that they're super picky and wouldn't like it anyway because it has a message it hamfistedly shoves down your throat. You're not going to watch it no matter what I say about it and literally all I've said about it is surface level shit about it being a well written horror movie steeped in social commentary - which any idiot has probably said in the goddamn byline of a review.  

[quote]8. [s]Yes, it is stupid to use outsider resources to justify your own point of view.[/s] It was merely a single example. I didn't intend to post several thesis papers on the movie when that was never my point in the first place...[/quote] 

What was the point, exactly? That because the movie deals with race it must have a message and be hamfisted about it?

[quote](Yes, only those dumb IMDB comments and the hundreds who liked/agreed with the comment think the movie is heavily about race. That's why out of the several things I've mentioned about the movie and the other person mentioned about the movie was solely about race. When that was never apart of your original point and we ourselves brought it up first.)[/quote]

The original point was how stupid it was of you to make the claim that the movie was hamfisted when you hadn't even seen it.


[quote]9. We really are just arguing semantics with that last one aren't we? (Nothing else said wasn't something I didn't touch upon already in some shape or form.)[/quote]

The semantics of satire? The semantics of one movie not being hamfisted while mentioning movies that ARE and are worse because of it? 

[quote]10. Basically don't use pedestrian reviews and opinions to make up your mind. Use Hollywood. Appeal to authority. But they also can be wrong, see Venom. Got it.[/quote]

I don't use pedestrian reviews to make up my mind, no. When a movie comes out that I'm unsure on - because usually I know if I'm interested based on the trailer or director or cast but I'm not claiming to be the average film audience member - I won't go to IMDb or like Jeremy Jahns or Chris Stuckmann or RedLetterMedia, I'll go through the small handful of critics whose reviews and/or writing I enjoy to see what their take is and then for fun I'll read some negative takes. There's no right or wrong in criticism unless the critic makes a statement that can be disputed. Just because a critic disliked, say, Black Panther doesn't make them wrong because everyone else loved it; what would make that critic [i]wrong[/i] would be if they said "Black Panther shows that isolationism and blind nationalism are unequivocally good!" 

My point with Venom, that I don't know how you missed, was that Venom is a widely critically panned movie, but it's a movie that audiences seemed to enjoy. Neither of them are wrong for doing so. My point was that just because a movie is 'bad' doesn't mean you or anyone can't come away from it thinking it's good.

[quote]I'm sorry, but that's bull. Everyone makes surface judgement about every aspect of life, let alone the unimportant stuff, if you even have your own taste and critical perception. You've both hammered on the race satire, but please note that I didn't mention that anywhere in my original comment.[/quote]

No, you said it was hamfisted and preachy. It wasn't. We called you out on this. 

[quote]And note I even suggested that I disregarded their individual quality. I never said something is bad, when I didn't watch it. If I'm not allowed to have impressions of trends in horror movies. Then forgive me for having no pedestal to stand on.[/quote]

This isn't about good movie, bad movie, it's about you saying something patently false and defending it. Your tone, and don't claim this was sarcasm, was quite snide since you made a direct comparison to A Quiet Place and its 'twist' not being 'clever and "give a message" like X, Y, and Z and horror movies attempting to insert some hamfisted point in it". To which the response was "Get Out wasn't hamfisted" and you doubled your money, doubled your fun with how you don't like being preached to in a horror movie. It was only after this, and the reassertion on my end that it's not preachy unless you're who the movie is satirizing, that you said you hadn't seen it and now we're here wondering how you can make the claim that Get Out is "hamfisted" and "preachy" if you haven't seen it. 

Horror movies having 'messages' is nothing new and Get Out isn't even new in that regard, but that doesn't make it any less poignant or relevant. 

[quote]This conversation has done wonders showing me that there's more than meets the eye.
[/quote]

My dude just admit that you made a silly claim.