No.104
Out of 10 how accurate is this?
No.108
>>1049/10 I'd say, so fucking glad there is more of an artistic cinema board although I still no very little compared to the majority on here.
No.109
>>108/tv/ on 4chan was 60% people talking about films like Starwars, Pulp Fiction, Braking Bad 30% films like 2001, Reservoir Dogs, The Wire, and the rest docs and shit.
Just made this pic for the lul'z though.
No.115
>>109Mod should sticky TSPDT and other resources for taste development.
No.116
>>115sounds like a hell of a plan, don't want the board to drop down to idiots circle jerking about Tarantino.
No.119
>>116Don't forget the wave of.
"I liked this film" "
4U XDDDD"
No.135
>>104>/film/>grate taste in films>grateSeems legit.
No.155
Fucking dyslexia all fixed now.
No.234
This needs a sticky.
No.461
>>155>braking badthere are no brakes on the dyslexia train
No.561
Why don't me just make it /film/ only covers cinema and /tv/ covers television with movies also allowed but not the focus. Personally I prefer /film/ because actual cinephiles seem to be hanging out here so I can talk about Herzog and Almodovar without getting funny looks. Don't care much about television except maybe tng.
No.566
>>561Somehow I would have preferred if /film/ were a place where you got funny looks for posting about Herzog or Almodovar.
No.567
Fucking hell you are right…
I might make it with the films, /film/ likes and the films /tv/ likes by doing a pole.
Thank you based Brazil crusher.
No.570
>>561Here is the base pic if you guys want it.
No.572
No.578
>>572Because they are both very simple and accessible and will attract the same kind of posters the blockbusters would.
No.583
>>578"Accessible". Maybe you're just a hipster who likes feeling superior about the movies he likes? Let me guess you only watch silent films.
No.587
Alright done….
No.589
>583
Germany plz.
We don't want to start WW2 again, we all know how that ended :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)
No.591
>>583But I do agree, I like /film/ not being apart of /tv/ with LEEPICMAYMAYBANEPOST XDDD
No.593
>>583You got me bro.
But if we're going to be making fun of Titanic, Herzog and Almodovar are just a few steps away.
No.594
>>589Sorry. I just hate it when people do the whole I only watch the most obscure shit so I'm better than you and you know nothing about film attitude. Calling Herzog or Amlodovar simple is about as stupid as you can get.
No.596
>>593Titanic….any herzog film.
>mfw No.599
>>594>>596>people do the whole I only watch the most obscure shit so I'm better than youWhy can't I hold these projections, nobody said that.
But go ahead and name a Herzog film that isn't simple.
No.603
>>599Define simple because calling most any film simple implies that you must prefer something more complex. That's the superiority bit right there. If you don't see any complexity in their work you might wanna get your eyes checked. But I'll humor you with an Almodovar film. Explain to me how Talk to Her is simple. Just stating your opinion without reasoning makes you an idiot.
No.604
fix'd
No.605
>>599This gona b gub.
>in /tv/ YOU DONT LIKE THE FILM I LIKE YOU ARE A FUCKING FFFFAGOGOOOT!!!
>in /film/ I see you disagree with me sir, vary well I SET YOU A CHALLENGE! No.606
>>604>>603Holy shit fighting on /film/ is so classy compared to /tv/
No.608
>>605lel. This sort of arguing is mostly pointless. I don't even know why he brought it up. Hating on other peoples tastes. Yeah…..
No.611
>>603adjective, simpler, simplest.
1.
easy to understand, deal with, use, etc.:
That is the definition of the word simple.
I do not see any complexity in the work of Herzog, all of his films are easy to understand after the first viewing. The last few posts were about Herzog so I'm not sure why you are bringing up Almodovar once again.
Once again, can you give any examples of Herzog films that aren't simple?
No.615
>>611Did you just quote the dictionary? lel
I'm not gonna continue this. You're clearly so smart you can appreciate any movie completely on first viewing. Go back to /tv/ with your attitude.
No.618
>>615Well, you did ask for the definition of the word, so I have provided it.
It's quite unfortunate that you're not going to continue, I'm not going to tell you to go back to /tv/, but I think it would be beneficial for this board if the next time you entered the discussion with somebody you focused less on creating a psychological profile of the person you are talking to, and more on the discussion itself.
Take care.
No.623
>>611Woyzeck and Nosferatu are both quite complex and interesting. As are most of his older documentaries. And complexity of meaning and design is not tantamount to good, or not to me at least.
To me what counts as good is something with atmosphere and ideas that stick with you, no matter how simple they may be.
I'm absolutely fine with you not enjoying their films and finding them too simple but talking of them as simple as if that is some objective truth that makes them poor films and that those who don't enjoy them therefore have bad taste is really quite egocentric and snobbish.
No.624
>>618I suggest you don't criticize other peoples tastes without sound reasoning first.
Bye
No.634
>>623>>624I am fairly amused by the projections coming from your inferiority complexes.
I have not criticized anybody's taste here, nor have I implied that Herzog makes poor films.
He is in fact one of my favorite directors of all time, but in no way does he make complex films, and character dramas where it's very easy to empathize with protagonists like Woyzeck or Nosferatu definitely aren't examples of complexity.
simple means simple
simple does not mean bad
No.638
>>618Your argument lacks from every side, though. It's like —correct me if I'm wrong— you are implying that a film's quality is measured by its level of complexity, being complex movies generally superior henceforth. That's a terrible artistic convention in my book. Pure, outrageous bullshit. First of all, there are several fields of complexity to film, not only plot-wise. Seemingly simple stuff can be absolutely great and masterful. Do you really think minimalistic gems like those of Kiarostami, or Jarmusch, or even Herzog appeal to the blockbuster audience? Precisely, the genius of Herzog emerges from his sincerity, his straighforwardness, his ability to capture beauty, his deep interest in foreign cultures, his unique, improvisational styling of shooting, his raw emotion. Quite on the opposite pole of your pretentious babbling.
No.639
>>634Lel. Forget my previous comment. I apologize.
No.642
>>634You said their movies attract blockbuster audiences and compared Herzog films to titanic. At best you've expressed yourself poorly.
No.644
>>642agreed with this
>>634either way if that was in fact what you were saying then fine.
No.648
>>642I did because blockbuster audience is fully capable of appreciating the majority of Herzog films, since as I've said before they are simple.
No.653
>>648yeah I see what you're saying now, blockbuster audiences can appreciate them and they're still good films, fair point really, there is simplicity to most of them and the success of his recent documentaries proves your point.
No.661
>>653>>648Fair enough. I think what we can all take from this is to explain our opinions more succinctly in future. I apologize for my overblown reaction. I guess I'm still used to /tv/ myself. For anyone who's interested I've looked up how much his movies made in the past. It's not a complete list though.
http://www.the-numbers.com/person/65080401-Werner-Herzog No.1034
Keep the shit-flinging and one-upmanship off /film/ for as long as you can, please.
We don't already need to start the superiority shit.