To the AK haters

[JAZZFAN_2814]

I love it when somebody with some knowledge about what artists have accomplished feels he/she has license to be a prick.

Notice that he brought up the subject.

You act as if it's a handicap or pox on my house simply because I understand these cinematic standards: how they apply and why.

The idea that actually having superior knowledge makes me a "prick" is laughably dim. Or painfully typical.

By the way, this movie could have skillfully executed all of these techniques you mention and still been mediocre -- just like your nominalist analyses which hit on some sexy concepts as they fall prey to them.

What you don't seem to understand is that understanding film techniques is often the way to truly evaluate their content -- execution through tone, that communicates ideas and overall thematic structure.

To say that the film does these things, while you don't notice them or know of them, but that it somehow or necessarily fails is to confuse your own lack with the film's.

Does that mean you have to like the film? No. That's subjective. But skill as far as production procedure and design are issues related to technical analysis.

If you can't grasp or appreciate film as a visual medium? Well, par for the course.

Your own rhetoric appears to be little more than pretense, however. And not very good pretense, as it's clearly lacking in content. How ironic and hypocritical.

This doesn't change the fact that TRON: Legacy was mediocre or that you're a pretentious doucher.

So your opinions are to be confused with fact. Which is another way of saying that ignorance is bliss.

I doubt you could even pronounce 'mise en scene'. And I'm sure that would be a source of pride for you.

The facts? Well they seem to point to your foolishness.

You're very good at insulting things that are above your pay grade. I look forward to more.

Are we really gonna split hairs here dude?

Split hairs? Would those be above or below your belt? The interior or exterior of your skull?

Oh yeah, and it's been 19 months, more than a year and a half. Not just over a year.

Yes, what an embarrassment, clearly, for me.

Boy is my face red. You've only managed 6,000 posts in a year and a half.

The fact that you want to belabor this point tells me all I need to know about room temp and IQ in this case.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Along with less wins head to head (dominated), less playoff wins, fewer playoff advances, and less wins any way you cut it.

Are we to believe that Paul was on teams with equal talent?

Let's not be reductive.

He also actually ran a coach out of town.

So you know, with absolute fact, that Deron had nothing to do with Sloan's abrupt exit?

Huh.

 

[Gameface]

I had to look up 'mise en scene' and all I can say is that you could have "said" all the same stuff without the French, except that it seems you wanted to be a prick.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I don't know if they can survive having two of the most talented players that hardly sniffed their absolutely elite and special potential because they aren't professionals.

The other being Odom or Artest? I think they will amnesty Artest.

 

[Chris-L]

Notice that he brought up the subject.

You act as if it's a handicap or pox on my house simply because I understand these cinematic standards: how they apply and why.

The idea that actually having superior knowledge makes me a "prick" is laughably dim. Or painfully typical.



What you don't seem to understand is that understanding film techniques is often the way to truly evaluate their content -- execution through tone, that communicates ideas and overall thematic structure.

To say that the film does these things, while you don't notice them or know of them, but that it somehow or necessarily fails is to confuse your own lack with the film's.

Does that mean you have to like the film? No. That's subjective. But skill as far as production procedure and design are issues related to technical analysis.

If you can't grasp or appreciate film as a visual medium? Well, par for the course.

Your own rhetoric appears to be little more than pretense, however. And not very good pretense, as it's clearly lacking in content. How ironic and hypocritical.




So your opinions are to be confused with fact. Which is another way of saying that ignorance is bliss.

I doubt you could even pronounce 'mise en scene'. And I'm sure that would be a source of pride for you.

The facts? Well they seem to point to your foolishness.

You're very good at insulting things that are above your pay grade. I look forward to more.



Split hairs? Would those be above or below your belt? The interior or exterior of your skull?



Yes, what an embarrassment, clearly, for me.

Boy is my face red. You've only managed 6,000 posts in a year and a half.

The fact that you want to belabor this point tells me all I need to know about room temp and IQ in this case.

/clap

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

I had to look up 'mise en scene' and all I can say is that you could have "said" all the same stuff without the French, except that it seems you wanted to be a prick.

In other words, I'm to defer to your lack of knowledge.

Mise en scene is base concept in film technique. If you're unaware of it, you probably don't understand the nature of the medium.

I'm not going to apologize for that. Or feel that being called a "prick" because you have to look saomething up -- study!!!! -- is justified.

There's a lot of high and mighty attitude around here about knowing less.

Well, congrats.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The other being Odom or Artest? I think they will amnesty Artest.

Odom. Odom had every physical and raw feel for the game advantage that Lebron did. Odom's just not a professional (candy is a staple of his diet) and/or a little out of his mind (KHLOE KARDASHIAN?????????).

 

[Chris-L]

In other words, I'm to defer to your lack of knowledge.

Mise en scene is base concept in film technique. If you're unaware of it, you probably don't understand the nature of the medium.

I'm not going to apologize for that. Or feel that being called a "prick" because you have to look saomething up -- study!!!! -- is justified.

There's a lot of high and mighty attitude around here about knowing less.

Well, congrats.

Wow, seriously. We get it, you're smart. Get over it.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Wow, seriously. We get it, you're smart. Get over it.

That works both ways.

If he wants to argue with me about these things, and call me a "prick" simply because....well? Oh, because I know something he doesn't. Right.

I might feel like responding.

Though I agree that this is becoming dull. I don't think I'll ever make it to 6,000 posts.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Odom. Odom had every physical and raw feel for the game advantage that Lebron did. Odom's just not a professional (candy is a staple of his diet) and/or a little out of his mind (KHLOE KARDASHIAN?????????).

Odom is a secondary player.

At the same time, so far as the statements made about Paul, I don't particularly know what your point would be.

If it's all on the stars then why even evaluate a player like Odom?

It also begs the question of why you're complaining about "super"teams.

 

[Gameface]

In other words, I'm to defer to your lack of knowledge.

Mise en scene is base concept in film technique. If you're unaware of it, you probably don't understand the nature of the medium.

I'm not going to apologize for that. Or feel that being called a "prick" because you have to look saomething up -- study!!!! -- is justified.

There's a lot of high and mighty attitude around here about knowing less.

Well, congrats.

I don't lack the knowledge anymore, so feel free to use the term all you want in discussions with me.

Communication seems to be a concept you either fail to grasp, or much more likely, you fail to attempt because your using the medium to be a prick.

I thought the movie was pretty good, btw. Took my kid to see it at the theater. Only movie I've gone to a theater to see in years. My kid really liked it. He must understand mise en scene better than I do.

 

[Gameface]

That works both ways.

If he wants to argue with me about these things, and call me a "prick" simply because....well? Oh, because I know something he doesn't. Right.

I might feel like responding.

Though I agree that this is becoming dull. I don't think I'll ever make it to 6,000 posts.

For the record, I called you a prick because of your attitude. I'm very happy you know a lot about movies. Personally I don't care for the majority of movies I watch so I haven't taken an interest in them beyond sitting down and watching one now and then.

I'm happy I learned a new word today. Thanks for that.