Ruth wrote:

okungnyo wrote:

Ruth wrote:yea, the guy will never stop, it's better to just back off before you lose your sanity.

good morning, this whole sub is

That's a weird way of saying, "I was spewing vitrol and acting superior as usual towards those darn pesky newbies who are ruining the Dunkirk subforum, only I didn't expect one to actually start replying and arguing back."

Edit: but yes, let's stop now, because there's no point in arguing any further. You'll just discount everything I say by throwing ad hominems at me again.

I mean Vader WAS responding to you with serious posts and no ad hominems, yet you accused him of following you around.

No he/she wasn't:

Vader182 wrote:

okungnyo wrote: Mad Max: Fury Road follows some pretty standard beats:

I've been telling all of you, this guy's posts are not good.


-Vader

Ruth wrote:And I'm the angry witch with a superiority complex here.

So accusing someone of following me around = being an angry witch?

Because that's what you're saying by using the "And I'm the _ here." expression.

Ruth wrote:Why would you think anyone would want to interact friendly with you after you've basically rendered Law and the rest of us stupid for how we handled the prologue situation, while the rest of the forum was setting itself on fire and you just couldn't stop bitching.

Plenty of people, apparently, because I've had friendly interactions with many people on this forum.

And "prologue situation"?
I had to rack my brain to try to remember what on earth you are talking about.

What you consider "bitching", I consider "trying to save everybody some time".
Openness beats secrecy every time; and information wants to be free.
It was only a matter of time before the video link became public, and that's exactly what happened.
I wasn't trying to call Law "stupid", I was simply trying to save him/her from doing futile, pointless work.

And who is "the rest of us" in that sentence?
Even now, after being called out on it, you can't help but continue to play the "I've been here longer than you, and I have people on my side who will back me up" card, like this is a high school playground or something.

Ruth wrote:Me going after newbies is a joke and I do not remember ANYONE ever being offended for it, if anyone has ever felt I was being rude to them - I can totally own up to that and apologize.

"It's just a prank, bro."

What if I told you that all my arguments with you these past few days were all just one big joke?
Would you be OK with that?
No, you'd be like, screw that, I don't give a crap if you meant it as a joke.

Ruth wrote:Maybe if you tried pulling your head out of your ass for a moment and stop acting like everyone is victimizing you, you'd notice for the most part whenever I was interacting with people here, I wasn't singling anyone out for no reason.

I never acted like everyone was victimizing me.

I specifically singled out Vader182 for following me around, which is true (this is the third time that he has started an argument with me).

And again, don't put words in my mouth.
I never said you were singling out anyone.

I said that you frequently mock newcomers and bemoan how 'bad' the Dunkirk subforum has gotten, all of which is true, as you have admitted.

Ruth wrote:But you have been rude and passive aggressive to me (and other people) before.

I don't recall being rude to anyone unless they were rude to me first.

But I'm not 100% sure. Please provide links and I will "totally own up to that and apologize" (your words).

Ruth wrote:So stop acting like I was the first one to jump down your throat while you yourself were nothing but rainbows and unicorns.

Except in this case, you clearly did.

All I did was point out that Mad Max: Fury Road follows some well-worn action movie tropes, and you jumped on me as if I had called it a bad movie.

Guys please stop. There's no need for these arguments.

This place needs a good amount of bleach to drown out the noise.

To be honest, the BIG Rotten Tomatoes question for me is how DUNKIRK will hit critics/movie bloggers/the academy. There's a rise and fall story built around Nolan in the press and academy with the "rise" TDK/Inception to the "fall" of TDKR/Interstellar. Dunkirk is interesting because it's in theory the easiest to market as a serious drama, adult war film, first movie Nolan's made that is "mature."

WB is (smartly, I think) doing anything but marketing it this way. They're selling it as purely visceral blockbuster, delivering to us a hyper-vivid WWII experience. Almost like WWII VR with the IMAX realism and so on. It appears, on the surface, to subvert all the negativity built around C.N. in the public forum by being:

-SHORT
-FOCUSED
-VISCERAL
-SERIOUS SUBJECT MATTER
-NOT INDULGENTLY DOUR

The question that's going to be answered come July is if Dunkirk will be written off as a WWII "Action Movie" (which can still be acclaimed) or if it will be legitimized as serious art and a serious contribution to the WWII genre. T do that it will need to bring serious thematic heft and serious emotion. The running time fascinates me due to it being the tightest wound Nolan movie to date. If it's wall to wall action where will the emotion come from? What will the human stakes feel like? What about this can be profound? Will this be more of an abstraction, like Gravity or Mad Max: Fury Road?

These are the things I'm most curious about in anticipating Dunkirk, other than just being madly curious what Nolan's up to with this project in general and how little he's shown us.


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:first movie Nolan's made that is "mature."


-Vader

You mean modern Nolan? Because Following, Memento and Insomnia were mature in a the most "bing-fucking-go" way.

Lord Shade wrote:

Vader182 wrote:first movie Nolan's made that is "mature."


-Vader

You mean modern Nolan? Because Following, Memento and Insomnia were mature in a the most "bing-fucking-go" way.

Not really. They're all genre and Memento has a "gimmick."


-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

Lord Shade wrote:

Vader182 wrote:first movie Nolan's made that is "mature."


-Vader

You mean modern Nolan? Because Following, Memento and Insomnia were mature in a the most "bing-fucking-go" way.

Not really. They're all genre and Memento has a "gimmick."


-Vader

But you wrote the same about Dunkirk: a serious drama, adult war film. It's also genres.

And, if fact, marketing this as an adult movie would probably be the same mistake from WB's side as marketing Transcendance as sci-fi action. Nolan's wife once said that since Interstellar he wants to make movies he can watch with his children.

As Nolan has grown older, his sense of his audience has changed. As Emma put it, “Where, in the past, he never made movies for any reason other than the fact that he wanted to see those movies himself, now he wants to make films he can watch with his kids.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/maga ... .html?_r=0

I doubt that any would choose "mature" type of film to watch with the kids. Would you?

I don’t really believe that WB are refusing to market it as a “mature” movie in an attempt to subvert the negativity surrounding Nolan recently. Nolan has made it emphatically clear in his interviews what the movie is. Besides, I don’t think the criticism of Nolan’s films has anything to do with length or subject matter except maybe the lack of focus in his last two. I don’t know to what extent you can call TDK and Inception serious but they were also both quite long and accused of being self-serious, and yet they had very good reviews. Interstellar on the other hand, even though being sci-fi, deals with Nolan’s most serious subject matter and without the gloominess Nolan is known for and still had disappointing reviews.

I think it’ll be pure action like Nolan has said and that’s a bit dispiriting to me. I just find it strange that Nolan who is quite renowned for being an intellectual will tackle his first serious subject matter only to strip it down of all its flesh in a quest to provide pure adrenaline. Worse for me is that it already has less going on for it than Gravity or Fury Road. It’s not a stroke of magic that WB are marketing this way.

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:

make a thread make a thread make a thread like it's 2012