[quote=@SleepingSilence] >Weighing the possibilities and the pro's and con's of this single sentence. 1. The statement is really lacking any forethought. And despite every other point being made previous in a single (non split up/divided) format. Somehow it's the replier's fault for wanting to respond in a cleaner and more concise manner. By foregoing including the entire reply, split up into unnecessary/uneven chunks that makes the list possible in the first place as a counter balance to the clusterfrick. 2. The "I'm rubber, your glue/no u infinity" defense is being used. Typical, for some discernible reason. Aside from it's just much easier to copy/paste than be creative or concise. 3. You genuinely think and want my reply to include me taking all your reply and inserting it into my commentary unnecessarily. Despite the fact there's multiple point we both are repeating ourselves, and you are just outright missing context that you wouldn't if you didn't reply that way. >Regardless, it's responding to a joke again. So clearly not much on the to-do list. Do you bother even reading (let alone responding) to the rest? [s][color=f7976a]1. Do literally anything else. (That requires you having something to do that you'll be interested in sticking with while you feel like achy and moody from lack of sleep)[/color][/s] [color=39b54a]2. Don't lie to yourself. You have nothing better to do.[/color] >I also graciously await a TL:DR statement, or you repeating this in some way, shape or form. [s][i]This is what you do to me.[/i][/s] But fine. You want me to do what you're doing...I'm sure this will be *so* much clearer. [hr][/quote] I mean if you're gonna be this bitchy about it then fuck, sorry for thinking there's a better way to discuss things on a forum with a quote feature than just numbering things. [quote]Man, I see what you mean this splitting up business is much cleaner than replying all at once.[/quote] Yes. It is. When you actually do it with the intent of doing it rather than literally breaking it up by the individual sentence in one paragraph like you're doing in some bizarre attempt to prove some point. You can't even mock my style properly, dude. [quote]Frankly, having this conversation is playing into my own biases...[/quote] Then stop prolonging it and just admit you made an incorrect and bad call instead of trying to win some nonexistent war of logic or whatever. [quote]This entire conversation has been a blatant contradiction. You've stated that in terms of audience and critic opinion, that nobody can really be wrong. Basically the idea and general two sides of subjectivity and objectivity. On one side that there is objective truth and that people can very much be wrong. And the other, that everyone has their own subjective truth and that saying somebody is wrong (is also wrong objectively.) [s]Gee, wonder which side makes more sense.[/s][/quote] Criticism is subjective by its very nature. A critic can be wrong about the technical aspects of a film as much as an audience member can but a critic who dislikes something that's well loved isn't wrong for doing so. This isn't some hard concept to grasp, this is like pre film theory. You made an objectively false statement, not a subjective one. [quote]But in this case, you've just argued both. Because everyone else can have their opinion. You just tacitly admitted to never watching Venom but you've made a statement on the movie and used it as a general example to simply have a discussion. (and I can only guess you've had the sense -not- to watch all Micheal Bay movies.) But you understand the general pattern of his movies enough to make a critical judgement of those movies. And both of those things, are fair and obvious to me.[/quote] I used Venom as an example to point out the subjectivity of film opinions. It's not hard, I literally said this. I've watched all the Michael Bay movies, even his good ones, but that doesn't matter. Michael Bay is not an objectively bad director. He makes subjectively bad movies. I know people that love the Transformers movies. They aren't wrong for doing so. I think they are all pretty shit. This wasn't even about critics, you're the one that used [i]user reviews[/i] as some kind of defense for your bunk statement. [quote][i]But nothing I've done is different to what you are currently doing. I'm simply already aware of this.[/i][/quote] The difference, and the crux of this entire stupid thing, is you making a ridiculous comment and trying to justify it instead of running it back and admitting that maybe you misspoke. [quote][b]I stated I generally prefer my horror movies to be without messages, listed ones off the top of my head, and said regardless of their quality, I'd would prefer to not have them crammed into a story.[/b] I simply gave an opinion. To be fair, Dynamo's first comment brought up the racial point. So that's what started it, and our conversation happens to have spawned from that. But then again, your first response is "If you think the story felt preachy/like a lecture to you" then *insert attributed motive here* (Whether playful or serious, it doesn't really matter here.)[/quote] You said that after the initial response. Your initial statement was: 'I've been meaning to watch The Quiet Place, since I've seen more good things about that. (and it also doesn't sound like the twist is trying to be clever and "give a message" like, The Babadook, Get Out, It Follows and the recent trend of horror movies attempting to insert some hamfisted point in it.) *Not speaking of their individual quality.*' My first response was that Get Out is the opposite of hamfisted. Our issue was never with the statement of quality or if you liked the movie or not but that Get Out wasn't hamfisted. You followed it up with the "no messages in my horror movies" statement (which is itself a weird thing to note considering horror movies and all) to which I followed up with the tongue in cheek but none the less accurate assessment of the type of person who would watch Get Out and be like "Pssh, I don't need to be lectured to I came for a movie!" as being in the same vein as the person who watches Get Out and doesn't understand why the white people don't do the thingymabob to other races - including white people. [quote]So if you find my original statement off the cuff. Fine, it is. But you had just made your own loaded statement in response. When you later clarify and contradict that friends you have did dislike the movie without having this problem. To summarize. My original comment was not what it was twisted into. In your own convenient terms, I'm not "wrong" for having these first impressions. And after the repeated (and equally snarky) explanations about the racial message and nothing else, it doesn't help the movie's case that the movie wasn't designed to have those kind of conversations about it.[/quote] The difference in our statements is that mine comes from the camp of having seen the movie multiple times and engaged in analysis of its themes while yours comes from the camp of not seeing it and assuming you know all there is on offer. One is an informed position. The other is Cliffs Notes. My friends who disliked the movie still can and did appreciate the film for its merits such as acting and symbolism while also thinking it didn't hit every mark it set out to or find issue in its 'unconventional horror' genre trappings. The movie offers more than just satire and subtlety on systemic racism. That's just a central core. [quote]And because I don't want this conversation to spiral down, I'm merely being playful in the beginning. And don't actually intend to antagonize. I get the intention. I know the idea of someone having an surface opinion can make people defensive, but it wasn't my intention. My claim is no less provable, and far less personal than either of your reactionary responses.[/quote] Okay. Prove that Get Out is hamfisted and preachy. I'll wait. It wasn't that you made a surface opinion, it's that you didn't even bring a shovel. [quote]I'm certainly well aware that my preconceived stubbornness can lead me to missing out, and I already make attempts to be better in spite of how often is goes the way I expect. But I do you hope (and I'd like to think I'm not alone that looking at your statements) would only highlight and emphasized how the message overwhelms the noteworthiness rest of film. Because nothing else was even described, and was used as a "weapon" to attach a label on someone with simple reservations.[/quote] Again I have to wonder why anyone would attempt to sell you on a movie you've clearly already gotten some kind of idea on. Get Out is not just about liberal leaning white people and systemic racism, but yes it's a major element of it. And nothing in it is hamfisted or preachy. It is incredibly sharp and insightful, subtle, satirical, and effective as a horror movie because of the reality of its more insidious characters. If you'd watched the movie you'd know this. And I'd have no issue with you thinking it was bad or whatever.