Pretentious Fanboys of Mindless Films

[Asteroid-Man]

So I've always known about how fanboys will be pretentious in what they love (hell I still do it sometimes) but when it comes to Mindless Films it usually goes far... sometimes fans will hate on a film just to jump on the bandwagon, even though they secretly love the action, music, cinematography, hot chicks and explosions (Transformers 2...). Then we get films like 300... Alright here's my issue... not everything by Frank Miller is gold. 300 is a terrible idea and it is incredibly offensive... furthermore it is a waste of a medium for artistically portraying a message. Just look at the first reply to my post on the main page:

My Post:

Just drop it. As much as ignorant people like to claim "it's just a movie! Don't take this so seriously!" 300 was a bastardization of film as an art form and as well as of a Medium that has enough power to express a message to the masses; message here being that the Easterners are sinful, Godless demons, and that the Westerners are always the Protagonists.

Ridiculous. Give the funding for this film to a movie that actually has a constructive message to give society.

Pretentious Fan's Post:

Shut the f**k up Asteroid Man. Don't you have more important things to do with your life than complain about movies being made?

And it isn't just with this film... the same goes for countless other films (including Taken). It's disgusting that we have atrocities like this in the media and even worse that so many people support it and on top of that even, people will rudely bash others who point flaws in the film in even public venues.

Pretentious Fanboys... what to do with them?

 

[SuperFerret]

But... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars


IN FACT, given this:

pre·ten·tious/priˈtenCHəs/
Adjective: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

It appears that you, yourself, are being pretentious in your attempt to grant actual meaning in what's essentially just a dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of actual historical events.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

I always thought comic book guy's uppity condescending patronizing attitude was just a exaggerated and unbelievable character that would't exist in reality, then I registered.

 

[Mister H.]

I can't stand Asteroid-Man, but I will agree that 300 is a pungent heap of afterbirth. Not because its pretentious or because of any commentary on the West vs the East, but because it sucks. Stupid plot, horrible acting, and looks like a tacky music video from the '90's.

 

[Gunga Diner]

Just drop it. As much as ignorant people like to claim "it's just a movie! Don't take this so seriously!" 300 was a bastardization of film as an art form and as well as of a Medium that has enough power to express a message to the masses; message here being that the Easterners are sinful, Godless demons, and that the Westerners are always the Protagonists.

Ridiculous. Give the funding for this film to a movie that actually has a constructive message to give society.

This is pretentious. Textbook example, actually. And I didn't even think 300 was all that good.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

But... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars


IN FACT, given this:



It appears that you, yourself, are being pretentious in your attempt to grant actual meaning in what's essentially just a dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of actual historical events.

First, it's no just a "dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of an actual historical event", it's racist and offensive.

Secondly, it isn't pretentious to call out a bad film as a bad film when reasoning is provided. If I said something like "it's bad - anyone who likes it is a fool" and no pretext, THAT would be pretentious... in the same light saying "OMFG!! THIS MOVIE IS EPIC!!! SCREW YOU AND ANYONE WHO HATES IT!" without giving a legitimate reason behind their opinion (besides "cause it's epic") then THAT is pretentious.

I always thought comic book guy's uppity condescending patronizing attitude was just a exaggerated and unbelievable character that would exist in reality, then I registered.

I can't stand Asteroid-Man, but I will agree that 300 is a pungent heap of afterbirth. Not because its pretentious or because of any commentary on the West vs the East, but because it sucks. Stupid plot, horrible acting, and looks like a tacky music video from the '90's.

I don't mind the plot or the acting. The music is nice, but it's cut to a weird montage... I got tired of the constant two hours of action scenes of the film, but the source material itself I find offensive.

 

[Figs]

And it isn't just with this film... the same goes for countless other films (including Taken). It's disgusting that we have atrocities like this in the media and even worse that so many people support it and on top of that even, people will rudely bash others who point flaws in the film in even public venues.

What's wrong with Taken?

 

[SuperFerret]

First, it's no just a "dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of an actual historical event", it's racist and offensive.

Secondly, it isn't pretentious to call out a bad film as a bad film when reasoning is provided. If I said something like "it's bad - anyone who likes it is a fool" and no pretext, THAT would be pretentious... in the same light saying "OMFG!! THIS MOVIE IS EPIC!!! SCREW YOU AND ANYONE WHO HATES IT!" without giving a legitimate reason behind their opinion (besides "cause it's epic") then THAT is pretentious.

I added a definition of the often misused word in order to prevent arguments like this. You're inappropriately adding a racist subtext to the movie, which is, according to the proper definition of the term, pretentious.

And you're ignoring the facts here. This IS based off of an actual war, and told from the point of view of the Spartans (which explains the portrayal of their enemy as the "bad guys").

As for their "monstrous" appearances, which I assume is the second reason this is "offensive", everything else in the movie is stylized, even the Spartans themselves. The stylization follows the typical "good guys - pretty, bad guys - ugly" pattern that has been going on in fiction for centuries. And, as I said above, in this telling of the Greco-Persian wars, the Greeks are the good guys and the Persians are the bad guys.

You're acting like this is some jingoistic propaganda for a war that hasn't been fought for over two thousand years by two nations that haven't existed for nearly that long.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I added a definition of the often misused word in order to prevent arguments like this. You're inappropriately adding a racist subtext to the movie, which is, according to the proper definition of the term, pretentious.

And you're ignoring the facts here. This IS based off of an actual war, and told from the point of view of the Spartans (which explains the portrayal of their enemy as the "bad guys").

As for their "monstrous" appearances, which I assume is the second reason this is "offensive", everything else in the movie is stylized, even the Spartans themselves. The stylization follows the typical "good guys - pretty, bad guys - ugly" pattern that has been going on in fiction for centuries. And, as I said above, in this telling of the Greco-Persian wars, the Greeks are the good guys and the Persians are the bad guys.

You're acting like this is some jingoistic propaganda for a war that hasn't been fought for over two thousand years by two nations that haven't existed for nearly that long.

...excuse me?

Saying it's not a racial issue is just plain ignorant, and for your information Persia still exists... it's name was changed to Iran in 1935.

 

[SuperFerret]

Oh, I know that Iran calls itself Persia, but seriously, neither Persia nor Greece are the same nation they were back then. The names might stay the same, but there's nothing else that is.

 

[hammerhedd11]

First, it's no just a "dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of an actual historical event", it's racist and offensive.

It seems to be that your definition of "racist" includes anything involving middle easterners as bad guys.
And 300 is purposely over the top and stereotyped; it's told from the point of view from a Spartan who is pumping up the soldiers to go fight in a battle in five minutes. Thus the Persians are constructed as demonic and beastly, to dehumanize them. I thought it was actually quite a brilliant idea for a film.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Oh, I know that Iran calls itself Persia, but seriously, neither Persia nor Greece are the same nation they were back then. The names might stay the same, but there's nothing else that is.

Greece is a different story, but Iran/Persia is still the same. Still the same people, still the same core land, still the same ethnic rule, still the same independence for almost 3000 years. That's something Persians pride themselves on, so don't go prancing around thinking you know your history about a foreign country when you've just shown you don't.

Iran doesn't call itself "Persia", if anything, Persia went and called itself "Iran".

]It seems to be that your definition of "racist" includes anything involving middle easterners as bad guys. [/B]And 300 is purposely over the top and stereotyped; it's told from the point of view from a Spartan who is pumping up the soldiers to go fight in a battle in five minutes. Thus the Persians are constructed as demonic and beastly, to dehumanize them. I thought it was actually quite a brilliant idea for a film.

Based on what logic? I loved Syrianna and Body of Lies. You just generalised my disdain for two films over all films that have middle-eastern villains. The reason they are so terrible are because of how they succomb to stereotype - and there's a difference between ethnic stereotype and moral stereotype. Persians are seen as being unjust, enslaving and godless, even though Persians didn't enslave people, instill religious or racial persecution and they were also monotheistic. And don't say "It was a Greek stereotype" because it wasn't - Xenophon and Plato both recognised these lofty attributes in the foreigners. Granted, Persians did have debt-slavery, but that was common. Greeks had ethnic slavery! The Athenians alone had built up an army of slaves to battle alongside them and the Spartans during the battle of Therm. and did the movie cover that? Nope. Did the film talk about the female warriors of Persia? No. Did the film talk about the female generals of Persia? No.

And the whole "burning to the ground" bit is also greatly mistaken. Persians would not burn cities and they would not threaten to do so either. Xerxes said that even if he won, we would take the Greeks in as brothers, even though they had orchestrated a revolt during his father's rule (leading to the first Greco-Persian war). When Xerxes won the first two battles and marched on Athens, the city had been deserted. Doing something non-Persian and for the first time in Persian history, Xerxes burned down the temple of Athena, feeling insulted. The very next MORNING, he regretting this act and ordered his men to begin construction. During the reconstruction the Greeks returned to run the Persians out, and it took the Greeks three-hundred years to rebuild the temple even though it could have been rebuilt in a fraction of the time by the foreigners they ran out of the city.


It's one thing to make adjustments to a story to make it a better narrative, but the changes in 300 are appalling.

 

[bullets]

IN FACT, given this:



It appears that you, yourself, are being pretentious in your attempt to grant actual meaning in what's essentially just a dumbed down, highly fictionalized portrayal of actual historical events.

300 was just a mindless action film that no one in ther right mind would take seriously.

 

[Ponyboy]

Asteroid Man... You're one of those people that's an idealist, I think. Do you work in the film industry? (I'm not being sarcastic)... It's a constant battle when you're involved in the machine to maintain an artistic integrity, while walking the studio line that says you must appeal to the masses. When you get down to the crux of what a film/movie is... The first (and foremost) thing that it must be is a piece of entertainment, & it's designed to make money. That is it's purpose (at least on the studio side of things)... art, and subtlety and beauty, and all those things you strive to maintain are part of the battle. If you're lucky you can maintain that integrity and that's what divides a movie (Transformers) from a film (Amelie). But that's another topic.

 

[SuperFerret]

Greece is a different story, but Iran/Persia is still the same. Still the same people, still the same core land, still the same ethnic rule, still the same independence for almost 3000 years. That's something Persians pride themselves on, so don't go prancing around thinking you know your history about a foreign country when you've just shown you don't.

Iran doesn't call itself "Persia", if anything, Persia went and called itself "Iran".

And yet, it's still not the same place, or some other country would've come in and taken it over. The technology has changed, the culture has changed, the people have changed, and if IF they are the same as they were THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, then everyone who makes the claim that Iran is a backwards land is RIGHT.


I just want to note for those who may be oversensitive that I myself wasn't saying that Iran was backwards, only that any land that lets itself stagnate for millenia is backwards.

 

[Watchman]

I think what some forget about 300 is that it is told by Dilios. He's a Spartan who is rallying troops before they go into battle against the men who just killed their king. Of course it's going to have embellishments and biasness.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

300 was just a mindless action film that no one in ther right mind would take seriously.

Unfortunately the General Audience isn't that smart... and personally I think all mindless action films should just stop being made... they serve no purpose to our society.

Asteroid Man... You're one of those people that's an idealist, I think. Do you work in the film industry? (I'm not being sarcastic)... It's a constant battle when you're involved in the machine to maintain an artistic integrity, while walking the studio line that says you must appeal to the masses. When you get down to the crux of what a film/movie is... The first (and foremost) thing that it must be is a piece of entertainment, & it's designed to make money. That is it's purpose (at least on the studio side of things)... art, and subtlety and beauty, and all those things you strive to maintain are part of the battle. If you're lucky you can maintain that integrity and that's what divides a movie (Transformers) from a film (Amelie). But that's another topic.

I'm at the very base of the film industry (I actually just got off a 12hr shoot) and you know what? You're exactly right. That struggle IS constantly there and it is a very unfortunate one.

And yet, it's still not the same place, or some other country would've come in and taken it over. The technology has changed, the culture has changed, the people have changed, and if IF they are the same as they were THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, then everyone who makes the claim that Iran is a backwards land is RIGHT.


I just want to note for those who may be oversensitive that I myself wasn't saying that Iran was backwards, only that any land that lets itself stagnate for millenia is backwards.

Who are you to make that call? In my eyes (and in the eyes of most Iranians) it's the same country - obviously with evolution of the country. The reason it is so important is that we survived THREE invasions (Macedonian, Mongolian and Arab) and bounced back from all three in terms of language (and multiple old dialects), culture (as well as thousands of Persian subcultures - including the likes of Naw Ruz, Shabeh-Yaldah and Chaar-Shanbeh Souri... all of which are almost 3000 year old traditions), and even the native religion (Zoroastrianism)! Evolution is different than transformation. The country IS the same, it has simply evolved.

I think what some forget about 300 is that it is told by Dilios. He's a Spartan who is rallying troops before they go into battle against the men who just killed their king. Of course it's going to have embellishments and biasness.

Alright, THAT is a VERY fair point... but I'm still going to say that Miller should have been a little more considerate - and if anyone wants to challenge my belief of Miller having racist tendencies can do a simple google search for quotes upon quotes of him saying inconsiderate things or even look at multiple examples within his own works (again I'm not saying he doesn't produce good work, I'm saying that sometimes he adds on unnecessary and offensive extra content.)

 

[WildcatNC]

 

[lixdexia]

Who are you to make that call? In my eyes (and in the eyes of most Iranians) it's the same country - obviously with evolution of the country. The reason it is so important is that we survived THREE invasions (Macedonian, Mongolian and Arab) and bounced back from all three in terms of language (and multiple old dialects), culture (as well as thousands of Persian subcultures - including the likes of Naw Ruz, Shabeh-Yaldah and Chaar-Shanbeh Souri... all of which are almost 3000 year old traditions), and even the native religion (Zoroastrianism)! Evolution is different than transformation. The country IS the same, it has simply evolved.

so it's ok for iranians to take pride in their ability to repel foreign invasions but when greece does it it's racist?

 

[WildcatNC]

so it's ok for iranians to take pride in their ability to repel foreign invasions but when greece does it it's racist?

Its pretentious homerism complaining about pretentious homerism.


Shouldn't they cancel each other out?

 

[DarKJediKnight]

So those who didn't like Transformers 2 are pretentious?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Could you reiterate your hypothesis, please? I've read over that first post three times now and I'm still kind of confused.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

If there was a 'social group' with a title like this, I would join it.

300 was just a mindless action film that no one in ther right mind would take seriously.

Unfortunately the General Audience isn't that smart... and personally I think all mindless action films should just stop being made... they serve no purpose to our society.

I think you have bullet's meaning backwards. I don't think he was talking about 300 being 'mindless' along the lines of there being no thought put into the film's art. I think what he meant by 'mindless' was that it was not the type of film that had an intricate plot, or you were supposed to think deeply on, beyond getting a kick from the symbolic, 'fight against the odds for what you believe in', message. A lot of thought went into the imagery and artistry of the movie, and a lot of film fans appreciate that.

There is nothing wrong with films like that, they provide us with a type of entertainment that is very desirable, sometimes we don't ant to sit and philosophise about the nature of reality, we just want to see some folk kick ass in an exciting, artfully done way.
The only movies that are truly 'mindless' are ones like Batman and Robin and Battlefield Earth, where the filmakers leave in big logic gaps, insulting the audience's intelligence, thinking we won't mind as long as there are lots of sfx to keep us occupied. That is just bad art, *that* does not benefit society.

 

[bullets]

If there was a 'social group' with a title like this, I would join it.




I think you have bullet's meaning backwards. I don't think he was talking about 300 being 'mindless' along the lines of there being no thought put into the film's art. I think what he meant by 'mindless' was that it was not the type of film that had an intricate plot, or you were supposed to think deeply on, beyond getting a kick from the symbolic, 'fight against the odds for what you believe in', message. A lot of thought went into the imagery and artistry of the movie, and a lot of film fans appreciate that.

There is nothing wrong with films like that, they provide us with a type of entertainment that is very desirable, sometimes we don't ant to sit and philosophise about the nature of reality, we just want to see some folk kick ass in an exciting, artfully done way.
The only movies that are truly 'mindless' are ones like Batman and Robin and Battlefield Earth, where the filmmakers leave in big logic gaps, insulting the audience's intelligence, thinking we won't mind as long as there are lots of sfx to keep us occupied. That is just bad art, *that* does not benefit society.

That was the point I was trying to make. I like thought provoking films but sometimes I need a break from that and want pure escapism. Some people have a different reason for watching films . I just like that there is a balance.
Unfortunately not every film made is going to be good. There is no way to get rid of crap films like Battlefield Earth because everyone has different tastes or is part of separate demographics. Look at 'Epic Movie', that films has no reason to exist , it's just pure garbage. However teenagers are finding it hilarious because they have an undeveloped sense of humor.

 

[WildcatNC]

So those who didn't like Transformers 2 are pretentious?

Who are you replying to? Quote button helps with that.


If its me then you should actually read the thread. How anyone could read the thread and think I was talking about "people who don't like Transformers 2" I can't imagine.