Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: Garbage.jpg (48KB, 300x453px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 300x453px
Star Wars is objectively better.
>BUT DUDE LONG TAKES ARE FOR PATRICIANS
You can have long quiet scenes that are both good and bad. Just because its long doesnt automatically make it good fucking hell.
>DUDE THOSE SCENES MAKE US APPRECIATE TECHNOLOGY AND SHIT
A competent director would have directed those scenes in a way that doesn't put a hyperactive 5 year old to sleep. It's just shitty film making, no excuse.
>IT JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH LASER GUNS AND SJW PANDERING FOR YOU LIKING
Fuck off. Before Sunrise was litterally just two people walking around a city, talking and it wasn't boring for a second. You know why? BECAUSE IT HAD A COMPETENT DIRECTOR!
>DUDE BUT THE AENDING WAS PRETTY LSD TRIPPIN LMAO
So it's confirmed the drugs have destroyed your brains. 2001 fans are literally DUDE WEED LMAO tier
>>
Oh look it's the autistic dribbling fucktard and his thread again
Sage
>>
>>85516481
Announcing sage is against the rules.
>>
>>85516450
pleb
>>
>DUDE EVOLUTION IS LIKE A SPERM RACE LMAO
>>
File: 1496140129887.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
18KB, 600x600px
>>85516450
I just came off a thread saying that Pre-50's cinema was not worth watching, and now some philistine is stating that Star Wars is "objectively" better than 2001. Somebody bring back film discussions please, it's as if Reddit has taken completely over this board.
>>
>>85519096
>a thread saying that Pre-50's cinema was not worth watching
Could you link it?
>>
>>85519096
It's been posted every day for a month. How are you just now falling for this shit?
>>
File: 1471360028536.jpg (45KB, 426x600px) Image search:
[Google]
45KB, 426x600px
>>85519953
>How are you just now falling for this shit.
Because I don't spend all my time in this board, and if this is a current meme, then all the more reason to be even more sparse with my visits. The baneposting is already enough.
>>
>>85520483
I'm only really posting this to stir up discussion.
>>
>>85516450
>You can have long quiet scenes that are both good and bad. Just because its long doesnt automatically make it good fucking hell.
This statement doesn't actually cast any judgement or criticism on 2001's long takes so you've failed to make out your point (or any point at all) here.
>A competent director would have directed those scenes in a way that doesn't put a hyperactive 5 year old to sleep.
You're right, hyperactive 5 year olds are definitely not the target audience of this film.
>BECAUSE IT HAD A COMPETENT DIRECTOR!
All you are saying here is that you consider Stanley Kubrick is incompetent. Not only do you fail to state any points to back this up, this also casts criticism on every single Kubrick film, which again you haven't backed up with any real discussion.
>2001 fans are literally DUDE WEED LMAO tier
Visual effects in a film do not necessarily require drugs to enjoy them.
Also, why are you so mad?
>>
File: 1471516109296.jpg (246KB, 575x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
246KB, 575x1024px
>>85516450
>the city of [redacted]
>>
How upset must this guy have been about 2001 to make these same threads every single day
Obviously this is deeper than not liking a film, his intellectual fitness was challenged or something.
>>
>WOW LOOK HOW FUCKIG STUPID WHAT IM SYING IS ITS ALL IN CAPS AND REAL DUMB THIS OPINION IS DUMB LOL BAD STPID IDIOTS THATS ME
You appear to be an idiot. I, however, am calm, collected and rational. These are all markings of intelligence.
>U R POOP IDIOT DUMBASS NOT EVEN CAPITAL LETTER I AM CAPITAL REAL GOOD SMART GENIUS
etc.
Great post OP. You definitely achieved a lot.
>>
>>
It's a good movie with outstanding visuals, but I have to agree that it is overpraised by OMG WEIRD SHIT people that didn't even see the movie, just YT clips.
>>
>>85522182
Then stop spending time with or giving attention to that type of person.
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4