Are there any normies on this board? If so, can you explain

It's something inherent to people willing to take part in focus groups.

>>84696935
Is that most of America and China? (And the world?)

>>84696904
They're stupid whereas you are clearly a genius level intellect

most of the population doesnt have time to devote to analyzing tropes or being desensitized to derivative schlock.

they barely scrape along working uncreative jobs to buy things they think they need and carry on propping up facets of society necessary for the majority to operate uninhibited.

critical thought simply doesnt occur to them and they just want something quick to give them a tiny bit of escapism to keep them distracted from the relentless onslaught of monotonous years ticking away from them

>>84696960
Menial compensation for sitting on your ass and giving your opinions?

Yeah, sounds like most of the world. If we were getting paid to post, it'd be the same.

>>84696904
>I'm not even (...) pretentious
look at him! look at him and laugh!

>>84696904
You ARE contrarian. These movies (or at least the first two) didn't have any pretentions about what they were: they were fun, lighthearted adventures with an all ages focus. They aren't meant to make you think, or fellate the writer for his superior brain.

I'm not a normie either, I just don't get high off my own farts. If you don't enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean, fine, I don't like the later films either, but they weren't blatantly lowest common denominator trash like Transformers or the recent Fast and the Furious (or ff2)

People who believe in God, or some other Truth don't derive their own worth from their appreciation or taste in art, or worse still, derive the meaning of their life from artistic consumption. In the grand scheme of things, the range of experience one can receive from a good or a bad film is just kind of trivial. But I suppose if the consumption of art is the main purpose of your life, this spectrum seems more grave.

>>84696964
>le reddit snark reply

Instead of falling back upon "your just a tryhard supreme gentleman who cant turn his brain off" like nu males who use geekdom as a simulated ethnic identity always do, you could at least try to explain the worth of the flicks you're defending

>>84697078
Can you tip any harder?

>>84696993
>If we were getting paid to post, it'd be the same.
I got some news for you...

Are you an eastern euro by chance? My parents grew up in the soviet union and they can't stand 99% of capeshit, sci-fi, fantasy, etc.

>>84697076
But they're objectively poorly made.
A movie doesn't have to grapple with philosophical issues or be alienating to most of the wider population.
But it should be well shot, properly edited, and once again: not look like a PS2 game.

>>84697111
I know I know, tendies for anons, hot pockets for mods

>>84697121
Both my parents are Jews from Poland, but I was born in America.

>>84697141
So I'm assuming they also grew up under commie rule like mine did. If so there might be a connection here since their taste in movies has kind of rubbed off on me.

>>84697122
Take Star Wars: The Force Awakens as an example.

It's one I can speak about personally because my girlfriend at the time forced me to see it with her.

Even if you dismiss the boring plot as "mindless fun just turn your mind off bro" it's hard to argue that it's a good-looking movie, or even a properly made one.

There's a scene where the bad guys fire a laser and blow up a whole planet from way back on their frozen base. And the good guys on the forest planet see the beam shooting across the horizon. But then less than a minute later, the same bad guys who were on the frozen base when the laser fired are swooping through the atmosphere of the forest planet. That's the kind of editing that you can only get from bloated committee-designed corporate hackjobs. All the money in the world and the movie still flows like crap.

>>84697185
Maybe.

Growing up they would rent lots of American blockbuster tapes for me, but they didn't watch it themselves. I don't know their opinions on art really.

>>84697225
I can't recall anything being poorly shot or the CG looking horrendously bad in the first two Pirates, even not considering the limits of CG.

Even if there are, they weren't so egregious that I couldn't enjoy the rest of the movie.

>>84697225
>But then less than a minute later, the same bad guys who were on the frozen base when the laser fired are swooping through the atmosphere of the forest plan. That's the kind of editing that you can only get from bloated committee-designed corporate hackjobs.
That's because they made a hyperspace jump with their space ships capable of going at the speed of light. How the fuck did you connect that with bad editing.
Also you haven't made a single argument of why it looks bad.

>>84697349
I don't know. I don't see the value of CG besides adding more smoke or buildings to a landscape. If a character or entire set is CG it's immediately noticeable.

>>84696904
Passing normie here. I was surrounded by normies in a crowded theater yesterday, and a preview for the Jumanji reboot came on.

People were unironically and totally sincerely excited by this trailer, laughing at all the moments they were expected to laugh. It was fucking surreal.

>>84697375
they were outside their ship when the laser fired
so they manually boarded the ship, hyper-jumped, and caught up with a lightspeed projectile?

also on the same planet, when the ship with C3PO and the others lands, the hero party walks straight up to them, but C3PO pops out from the side of the camera shot, as if to surprise the party, which makes no sense

This might seem like autistic nitpicking but it's all symptomatic of the overall flaws in enormous corporate undertakings. there is no unified vision

>>84697383
David Fincher wouldn't agree with you.
The Social Network has more CGI and visual effect shots than the 2014 Godzilla. Look it up.

File: atlas.png (285KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x800px

Dumb people generally like dumb movies. Smart people generally like smart movies. There are far more dumb people in the world and they are more inclined to waste 2 hours watching a movie, hence the fast and furious franchise, capeshit, etc exist. Pretty simple stuff guys

>>84697464
Most people are average. There are as many dumb people and smart people.

>>84697383
It's to make things possible that otherwise couldn't be done either feasably or at all. I like CG better than toy ships in a sink or godzilla tier rubber suits. I'm not saying it's not noticeable or can't get under my skin (in fact, when I was watching Doctor Strange, there's a scene where he drives his car off a cliff and all I could think was "that would've been ten times better with practical effects"), but aside from blatant misuse or over-reliance on it, I think you're hating on CG just for the sake of being critical.

>>84697464
See I don't even agree with that. I think most people have the capacity to be intelligent/righteous. I get the feeling that an insidious self-serving spectacle has taken root in our culture irrespective of our collective intelligence.

>>84697493
Well, show me CG that looks good. It's mostly to save money more than anything else.

>>84697464

This, it's that simple. If very basic repeated plot entertains you just because there were pretty CGI lights and effects for the 15th time you sure don't have good taste in films, most likely you are a massive consumer whore as well.
Funny that people who enjoy these shit movies are so self-absorbed that they take it as an insult if you criticise their taste. Regardless that it has nothing to do with self-measured success.

>>84696960
>Is that most of America and China? (And the world?)

And your home country as well, you pretentious twat.

>>84697443
>so they manually boarded the ship, hyper-jumped, and caught up with a lightspeed projectile?
That never happened. Also the "bad guys" who come to the forest planet is Kylo Ren and his trooper units, General Hux (the guy who fired the weapon) and those storm troopers were still on that Starkiller base.

>also on the same planet, when the ship with C3PO and the others lands, the hero party walks straight up to them, but C3PO pops out from the side of the camera shot, as if to surprise the party, which makes no sense
That was made for comedic effect and for the nostalgia factor, you can argue that it's not funny but it's not an argument against the look and the visuals of the film

>>84697559
since postmodernism has largely condemned national identity people are now defined by consumption patterns. to question a nerd's questionable taste in capeshit movies is essentially to call him a big fat nigger

>>84697122
>But they're objectively poorly made
That's objectively wrong. Davey Jones is still the peak of cgi 15 years later

"normies" is codeword for "i started posting on 4chan sometime after 2013"

>>84697525
Any David Fincher movie, as I said here>>84697460
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWIFi8fOY

>>84697590
I'm from America.

>to inteligent for hollywood

>>84696904
>explain to me the blissful sensation of watching a Hollywood flick
>I'm not even contrarian or pretentious.
It's okay anon, smart people make mistakes too. I know "entertainment" is a difficult word to remember.

>>84697631
which part? bolivia?

>>84697464
Honestly depends. Lots of dumb people like """smart""" movies and you're probably one of them. While smart people can enjoy a stupid movie because they're not insecure about their intelligence and just want to be entertained.

Have you never watched and enjoyed something stupid or silly even though it's "below" your intelligence?

>>84697609

>nerd

I would rather say the average consumer of the movie industry. Most of the people has nothing to do with comic book culture or anything just wants something "fun" instead of a movie that requires you to pay attention and try to figure it out an emotional level.

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (26KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x400px

>>84697615

post more normies

>>84697653
Explain how something like Transformers is in anyway entertaining. Even if you want to see robots fighting it fails to deliver, because it's so poorly made.

Once again the problem with Hollywood isn't that their movies aren't "intellectual," it's that they can't actually make movies anymore. Of any genre.

>>84697615
Nowadays you can find facebook posts and youtube comments about normies. The normies are actually using the word as if they're not normies.

>>84697691
We are all nerds now.

>>84697699
>Explain
no

File: 51TCjriOduL[1].jpg (51KB, 348x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 348x500px

>>84697683

This. It's one thing to be dumb but it's a lot worse to be a pretentious prick.
If you can break down a movie to it's elements and explain why it's shit it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. It's a whole lot other to think that everything you personally LIKE means it's automatically good.

Pic. related is something I watched many times and it's a piece of shit.

>>84697760
This anti-anti contrarianism peaked years ago you know.

You're not special for having bad taste "but at least I can admit it lol :p"

>>84697525
Of course it's about saving money, that's one half the heart of all special effects. It's unrealistic to expect a movie to stay in production for 10 years to touch up the CG and make it indistinguishable from reality. Show me a rubber suit that doesn't look stupid, show me a car crash that doesn't look like it was done on a lot. When you start having problems conceptually with CG, that can extend to the very core of fiction itself. The narrative is just as unreal as the visuals, so why poke holes in this and not that?

I guess that kind of came off as a rant, but the point is that CG isn't fundamentally bad, even if it has abhorrent misuse today. Any rational person's expectations of CG are that it looks "fine."

>>84697706
>Nowadays
It's been that way for three years at the least. Even before that /r9k/ shooting, it was in wide enough use on facebook/twitter/etc.

No one's impressed by your superior taste in film. Just turn your brain off bro :^)

>>84697078
>"you're* just a tryhard supreme gentleman who cant turn his brain off"
This is honestly the answer, do you need everything you waste your time watching on screen to challenge your intellect? You're talking about fiction and fantasy escapism, you watch it for fun. At least the first few of this series, I'm not even sure how many there are now but the last I saw with that Spanish chick was awful even with your brain turned off, like they forgot Jack Sparrow was only a side character and tried to make the entire movie about his chuckling ass.

File: bwb38g0ezz8y.png (206KB, 604x370px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 604x370px

>>84696904
Your first mistake is thinking that "normies" or even the general public really care about the quality of a movie beyond the shallow scope of whether it was entertaining or not. Blockbusters today are soulless focus tested corporate products designed for mass appeal (see Disney) and sometimes movies designed with more esoteric principles can achieve blockbuster status. The public doesn't take movies as seriously as you do. They aren't in it for the same reason you are so you'd do well to abandon any desire to understand them unless there's money in it for you.

>>84697787

It's not special fucking retard. It's called normal.

>judge something based on facts not personal feelings

Oh how much of a special snowflake I am.

>>84697827
At least try to read the thread you cocksucker.
I think I've said at least twice now that movies don't need to be intellectual. They just need to be well-made.
Alien isn't exactly arthouse fodder for example, but it's properly composed, has a consistent aesthetic, and generally reflects a singular vision in a way that CGI-laden China-baiting blockbusters don't.

>>84697787
You're just trying too hard. Not everyone is so miserable in their real lives that they let it effect the shitty films they watch.

>>84697787
So you think a "good taste" is someone who only likes 10/!0 flawless critically acclaimed masterpieces?
Because I would say that person has no taste.

>>84697893
It's somebody who has enough grounding in theory to recognize kino when it presents itself, regardless of genre or pretensions.

>>84697893
critics are shit though

>>84697893
It's someone who eats crab legs at every movie he sees

>>84697880
Surprise then, you figured out that the vast majority of people aren't as knowledgeable as you about film composition. You had to know that already before making this thread.

Movies are just another social thing to them. They watch them to not be left out from the conversation. Also you need to reflect on your conversation partners opinions, worst thing is to say something negative about a movie someone else likes, they take it as personal insult. Only proper way to talk about bad movie to someone who liked it to point out something you liked, no matter how insignificant. This of course creates illusion that masses love to eat shit when in reality most people just thought the random piece of nut or corn was kind of okay.

>>84697953
>not thick cut ham

Plen

>>84697966
yeah but I figure it's like pornography or a bitching ass guitar solo: people know it when they see it

there are plenty of objectively good movies that are massively financially successful as well, so mass appeal and "taste" aren't mutually exclusive

I think the problem as a whole doesn't even lie with audiences but within Hollywood itself, where a cynical business model is sucking all of the creative air out of the room

audiences just go along with it because there's not much else to watch

but then you see people on /tv/ defending this crap. Those are the people whose brains need to be picked. So far I've gotten nothing but defensive nerdlinger bitching, but maybe it's to be expected

>>84696904
>tries to make an argument that CG fest movies look like PS2 games
>chooses to highlight one of the few cases of amazing CGI despite being made over 10 years ago
You are so lazy OP. So fucking lazy.

>>84698032
>I think the problem as a whole doesn't even lie with audiences but within Hollywood itself, where a cynical business model is sucking all of the creative air out of the room
>audiences just go along with it because there's not much else to watch
I can agree with this, but still managed to enjoy the first two or maybe three Pirates movies. You've got a point that Hollywood panders to the lowest common denominator because that's where the most money is, but I still think you could relax your standards a bit.

>>84698032
>So far I've gotten nothing but defensive nerdlinger bitching
What do you want, a brainless echochamber of cock sucking agreement to satisfy your confirmation bias?
Also nice reddit spacing.

>>84696904
>Are there any normies on this board?
>If so, can you explain to me the blissful sensation of watching a Hollywood flick and unironically enjoying it? I'm not even contrarian or pretentious. I just can't understand how somebody can watch a 2.5 hour focus-group tested bricolage of PS2 cutscenes and walk away feeling satisfied.
>Is it something inherent to Amerishart culture? But that doesn't make sense because it's even bigger in China.
>I don't get it. It's all just so bad.


normies go the the theater like twice a year. they only go to whatever had the most marketing, and it has to be noisy and flashy to draw their attention away from their phones every few minutes.

they "like" what they've seen because they don't know any better. they have no basis for comparison.

I unironically like all of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies

its not because of the plot or the characters by themselves its just because of the specific unique flavor and essence that the movies have which when added to the mix make all of these individual and basic pieces enjoyable
there is something comforting about it and it can always pull me in

A lot of the bad movies I enjoy are just like this as well
I'm fully capable of getting invested in bad movies as long as they have that jumping off point which itself can take many different forms