a lot of people are idiots if they are looking for ‘answers’ in entertainment products.
Yeah psshtt they can go to their mom to cry about “satisfying narratives” and “stories which make sense”.
A car is a mode of transport. That’s why it doesn’t tell you shit, but you can use it yo travel. However movies aren’t modes of transportation, and instead are media for stories.
Is this all honestly news to you? Have you hit your head? Want me to call an ambulance?
sorry, do you think all stories must be a certain way? or subscribe to a certain structure?
i mean, there are lots of different types of cars. a monster truck isn’t for travel, not is drag strip racer.
No, I’m just not a twat who threatens people with violence with they have a different perspective. Do you want to go beat the crap out of Stanley Kubrick because he didn’t make the movie you wanted him to make? Does it offend you that thinks you don’t like or enjoy, exist?
“A certain way” in much the same sense all cars need four+ wheels, a steering wheel and an accelerator and some breaks. If I get into the tiny details, having lights is also rather good.
What you were saying is that it’s unreasonable to expect stories to be… well, stories. You know, with a beginning, middle and end?
Unless you’re trying to tell me that two-wheeled chain driven transport with no steering wheel or motor is also “a car”, I think I’ve made my point.
i’m not aware of any definition of story that requires it have those elements, or they be presented in that order.
you have a very narrow definition of what a story is, and seem to think anything outside of that structure is bad or wrong.
i mean you can define a car however you want. doesn’t mean other people have to drive such cars or agree with you. definitions change. is a semi truck a car? it has all those qualities. but i wouldn’t call it a car and i’d considerate to have zero overlap with operating a car, hence why operating trucks often requires a CBD and not a regular drivers license.
I’m guessing you never took a college level film class? I took several. A lot of the movies we watched, and I’ve seen seen outside of class, don’t subscribe to your definition of story at all. I still very much enjoyed them and thought some of them were far superior to marvel movies.
I too could argue that you have a way too narrow definition of a car and since my feet also take me places, they’re also a car. But it’d be fucking moronic to do that, just like your argument is utterly moronic.
Your argument is a thing you’re not aware of can’t exist.
Can’t really talk to such a fundamentally moronic person, really. If you don’t realise that there are things which you don’t understand but others do, then there’s just no helping you. Maybe try a few milligrams of LSD.
Must be nice to be smarter than professionals who make movies and cars. Wish I as much of a genius as you clearly are.
It’s not actually, because the large majority of people are like you, who just won’t accept the fact they’re ignorant of something.
So which professional storytellers have said that there are no conventions in stories? Which movie doesn’t have a start middle and end? Documentaries? Even they do. Because it’s ingrained in humanity for hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of years.
Who were the professionals whom I am smarter than?
No, it’s not. My argument is that just because you don’t like 2001 doesn’t mean it’s stupid and bad. I think it’s a great film. So do most people educated in film who have a broader understanding of the medium.
You are conflating general audience exceptions of a conventional hollywood narrative as some form of universal merit. As if there aren’t audiences outside of that mold. As if art film doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.
Harmon writes for general audiences. I’m well aware of him and his work. His biggest fans are people who think they are smarter than everyone else and that Rick and Morty and Community are genius level works of art… because they are very referential and self-referential, but they are ultimately neat and tidy and comforting and built on familiar tropes. They are not designed to be challenging or interested and don’t demand much of the viewer. Nothing about his story telling is complex or open ended. And that’s fine, but it’s not the only kind story structure or film/show that exists.
Dude, you just hate open ended stories. Just say that. I have watched Dan Harmon stuff and it’s funny, and enjoyable, but I also find it trite and nihilistic. It’s superficially enjoyable, but 2001 is a lot more enjoyable on deeper levels and a work of art. Dan Harmon doesn’t make art, he makes entertainment.
Tell me, which definitions of a story are you aware of, then?
Because I can’t find a single one that even slightly supports your naive garbage. A story is narration. (from latin narrare, to tell) and a narrative has a plot and a plot has a beginning, a middle and an end.
I’m not conflating shit. You’re pretending you can tell a narrative without touching any conventions (which go back tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years).
Just because you don’t get the art film doesn’t mean it didn’t have a beginning, a middle and an end. If it doesn’t then it’s just okay to only watch a portion of it? And since there’s no end or start, you can just watch a random 10 min from anywhere and backwards or forwards… riiight? Because that’s what you’re saying, dimwit.
Just like with the structure of a narrative, you’re completely wrong. I have never said I don’t like 2001. But will you accept that? Ofc you won’t.
Yeah psshtt they can go to their mom to cry about “satisfying narratives” and “stories which make sense”.
A car is a mode of transport. That’s why it doesn’t tell you shit, but you can use it yo travel. However movies aren’t modes of transportation, and instead are media for stories.
Is this all honestly news to you? Have you hit your head? Want me to call an ambulance?
sorry, do you think all stories must be a certain way? or subscribe to a certain structure?
i mean, there are lots of different types of cars. a monster truck isn’t for travel, not is drag strip racer.
No, I’m just not a twat who threatens people with violence with they have a different perspective. Do you want to go beat the crap out of Stanley Kubrick because he didn’t make the movie you wanted him to make? Does it offend you that thinks you don’t like or enjoy, exist?
“A certain way” in much the same sense all cars need four+ wheels, a steering wheel and an accelerator and some breaks. If I get into the tiny details, having lights is also rather good.
What you were saying is that it’s unreasonable to expect stories to be… well, stories. You know, with a beginning, middle and end?
Unless you’re trying to tell me that two-wheeled chain driven transport with no steering wheel or motor is also “a car”, I think I’ve made my point.
i’m not aware of any definition of story that requires it have those elements, or they be presented in that order.
you have a very narrow definition of what a story is, and seem to think anything outside of that structure is bad or wrong.
i mean you can define a car however you want. doesn’t mean other people have to drive such cars or agree with you. definitions change. is a semi truck a car? it has all those qualities. but i wouldn’t call it a car and i’d considerate to have zero overlap with operating a car, hence why operating trucks often requires a CBD and not a regular drivers license.
I’m guessing you never took a college level film class? I took several. A lot of the movies we watched, and I’ve seen seen outside of class, don’t subscribe to your definition of story at all. I still very much enjoyed them and thought some of them were far superior to marvel movies.
And that’s sort of the issue here.
I too could argue that you have a way too narrow definition of a car and since my feet also take me places, they’re also a car. But it’d be fucking moronic to do that, just like your argument is utterly moronic.
Cheerio
so your argument is you are right because you are you and all that matters is your opinion on things?
and auto-motive engineers, are wrong if they don’t agree with your layman definition of a car?
Must be nice to be smarter than professionals who make movies and cars. Wish I as much of a genius as you clearly are.
Your argument is a thing you’re not aware of can’t exist.
Can’t really talk to such a fundamentally moronic person, really. If you don’t realise that there are things which you don’t understand but others do, then there’s just no helping you. Maybe try a few milligrams of LSD.
It’s not actually, because the large majority of people are like you, who just won’t accept the fact they’re ignorant of something.
So which professional storytellers have said that there are no conventions in stories? Which movie doesn’t have a start middle and end? Documentaries? Even they do. Because it’s ingrained in humanity for hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of years.
Who were the professionals whom I am smarter than?
Not Dan Harmon, that’s for sure. https://youtu.be/RG4WcRAgm7Y
No, it’s not. My argument is that just because you don’t like 2001 doesn’t mean it’s stupid and bad. I think it’s a great film. So do most people educated in film who have a broader understanding of the medium.
You are conflating general audience exceptions of a conventional hollywood narrative as some form of universal merit. As if there aren’t audiences outside of that mold. As if art film doesn’t or shouldn’t exist.
Harmon writes for general audiences. I’m well aware of him and his work. His biggest fans are people who think they are smarter than everyone else and that Rick and Morty and Community are genius level works of art… because they are very referential and self-referential, but they are ultimately neat and tidy and comforting and built on familiar tropes. They are not designed to be challenging or interested and don’t demand much of the viewer. Nothing about his story telling is complex or open ended. And that’s fine, but it’s not the only kind story structure or film/show that exists.
Dude, you just hate open ended stories. Just say that. I have watched Dan Harmon stuff and it’s funny, and enjoyable, but I also find it trite and nihilistic. It’s superficially enjoyable, but 2001 is a lot more enjoyable on deeper levels and a work of art. Dan Harmon doesn’t make art, he makes entertainment.
You’re even confusing me with someone else.
Tell me, which definitions of a story are you aware of, then?
Because I can’t find a single one that even slightly supports your naive garbage. A story is narration. (from latin narrare, to tell) and a narrative has a plot and a plot has a beginning, a middle and an end.
I’m not conflating shit. You’re pretending you can tell a narrative without touching any conventions (which go back tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years).
Just because you don’t get the art film doesn’t mean it didn’t have a beginning, a middle and an end. If it doesn’t then it’s just okay to only watch a portion of it? And since there’s no end or start, you can just watch a random 10 min from anywhere and backwards or forwards… riiight? Because that’s what you’re saying, dimwit.
Just like with the structure of a narrative, you’re completely wrong. I have never said I don’t like 2001. But will you accept that? Ofc you won’t.