|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 8:39:30 GMT -5
"Mans game charges a mans price. Take that away, we got nothin' left..."
Seriously, who writes this garbage? The scene was going along all nice and dramatic, I was enjoying the stark cinematography and everything... and then the script throws in some line that sounds like it escaped from a crappy 1954 Western??? Why???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 9:38:09 GMT -5
Then I'll default to my traditional argument "show me." We have the wonderful world of YouTube. Where is this great performance that I've missed, wherein he wasn't playing some variation of "disoriented redneck?" Hint: It doesn't exist. Because Woody Harrelson cannot act, and is a wildly overrated hack piece of garbage. Why all of the sudden is there a stipulation that he can't be playing a disoriented redneck? It's what he does better than anybody. It's what I enjoy about him when a film calls for a disoriented redneck. He does it very well and I find it entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 10:23:44 GMT -5
Then I'll default to my traditional argument "show me." We have the wonderful world of YouTube. Where is this great performance that I've missed, wherein he wasn't playing some variation of "disoriented redneck?" Hint: It doesn't exist. Because Woody Harrelson cannot act, and is a wildly overrated hack piece of garbage. Why all of the sudden is there a stipulation that he can't be playing a disoriented redneck? It's what he does better than anybody. It's what I enjoy about him when a film calls for a disoriented redneck. He does it very well and I find it entertaining. How is that "all of a sudden"? My point is that he can't act because he's always playing himself, and when forced to do otherwise, the fact that he's incompetent shines through all too clearly. You might be "entertained" by him, but he is not an actor. Part of the problem we've got these days is that we no longer teach objectivity. Too many people are running around working on the assumption that if someone is in a movie they enjoy, they must be a "good actor" when in fact, most of these people don't "act" at all. They're celebrities who play themselves in everything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 10:41:32 GMT -5
Why all of the sudden is there a stipulation that he can't be playing a disoriented redneck? It's what he does better than anybody. It's what I enjoy about him when a film calls for a disoriented redneck. He does it very well and I find it entertaining. How is that "all of a sudden"? My point is that he can't act because he's always playing himself, and when forced to do otherwise, the fact that he's incompetent shines through all too clearly. You might be "entertained" by him, but he is not an actor. Part of the problem we've got these days is that we no longer teach objectivity. Too many people are running around working on the assumption that if someone is in a movie they enjoy, they must be a "good actor" when in fact, most of these people don't "act" at all. They're celebrities who play themselves in everything. No he's a good actor because he plays a redneck well. Larry the cable guy does not. Vince Vaughn plays a loud mouth well in all of his movies. He is capable of doing other things but that it what he is hired to do. Woody is hired to be the redneck because he does it well. The fact that he has found a niche does not make him talentless. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 10:45:06 GMT -5
No he's a good actor because he plays a redneck well. Larry the cable guy does not. Vince Vaughn plays a loud mouth well in all of his movies. He is capable of doing other things but that it what he is hired to do. Woody is hired to be the redneck because he does it well. The fact that he has found a niche does not make him talentless. 1) Yes it does. It's called being a "one note performer" and it's been recognized as a category of "talentless hack" as long as there has been acting 8) 2) He's not acting at all. He is a mentally addled redneck in real life. All he's doing is memorizing lines. 3) Show me the evidence that Harrelson is capable of doing other things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 12:03:14 GMT -5
No he's a good actor because he plays a redneck well. Larry the cable guy does not. Vince Vaughn plays a loud mouth well in all of his movies. He is capable of doing other things but that it what he is hired to do. Woody is hired to be the redneck because he does it well. The fact that he has found a niche does not make him talentless. 1) Yes it does. It's called being a "one note performer" and it's been recognized as a category of "talentless hack" as long as there has been acting 8) 2) He's not acting at all. He is a mentally addled redneck in real life. All he's doing is memorizing lines. 3) Show me the evidence that Harrelson is capable of doing other things. Lord, now we have the opinion police writing laws for subjectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 12:05:34 GMT -5
Lord, now we have the opinion police writing laws for subjectivity. ... are you unfamiliar with the difference between "subjective' and "objective"? My whole point is that objectively Woody Harrelson is not a good actor. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 12:24:28 GMT -5
Lord, now we have the opinion police writing laws for subjectivity. ... are you unfamiliar with the difference between "subjective' and "objective"? My whole point is that objectively Woody Harrelson is not a good actor. I'm quite familiar. An opinion of art is subjective. You may look at it objectively. However it will still be subject to ones particular taste. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 12:28:28 GMT -5
An opinion of art is subjective. ... like I said, they just don't teach what "objectivity" is anymore. That's okay. You go on believing that there is no objective way to determine the quality of art. It's easier on the mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 12:33:46 GMT -5
An opinion of art is subjective. ... like I said, they just don't teach what "objectivity" is anymore. That's okay. You go on believing that there is no objective way to determine the quality of art. It's easier on the mind. There's an objective way to assess one's opinion of art. You go on believing proclamations are the same as facts. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606 
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 12:35:40 GMT -5
just finished the "Fly" episode. still not sure why people hate it so much..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 12:38:36 GMT -5
just finished the "Fly" episode. still not sure why people hate it so much.. I agree. Not my favorite, but it was good character development. Not sure why anyone would say it was bad. |
|
muta75
Jobber
RONDA ROUSEY IS THE BEST FIGHTER ON THE PLANET
Posts: 3,606
|
Post by muta75 on Mar 11, 2014 12:41:15 GMT -5
just finished the "Fly" episode. still not sure why people hate it so much.. I agree. Not my favorite, but it was good character development. Not sure why anyone would say it was bad. maybe it's those PETA fucks... |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Mar 11, 2014 14:23:51 GMT -5
just finished the "Fly" episode. still not sure why people hate it so much.. Because of the pacing. I don't hate the episode but many do because it stands out as the one show where virtually nothing happens, exacerbated by the fact that it's an obvious bottle show that takes place on a single set. Character development is fine but when ten minutes of it are drawn out to fill a 47 minute running time and your episode looks not like the ones that surround it but rather a random stage play, it's going to exasperate a lot of people. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 14:33:42 GMT -5
There's an objective way to assess one's opinion of art. ... make that sentence make sense. I dare you. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on Mar 11, 2014 14:44:14 GMT -5
I've seen this before and chuckled. I wanted to post it then but you hadn't yet gotten to that part of the show so I didn't want to spoil it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:04:52 GMT -5
Well considering that to assess something weans to evaluate it and that being objective in this instance is intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind I can look at art objectively to consider how it may influence my subjective opinion. Just because you look at something objectively doesn't set in stone one's personal opinion on something like art. People like art for many reasons. Even if an objective first glace suggests you wouldn't. It makes perfect sense.
I'm not using objectivity to determine someone's guilt or innocence in this case. I'm evaluating art. I may see a painting that to me is morally reprehensible. looking at it objectively I may not find much to like about it. However the beauty of art is that it can get past that and still find a way to be appreciated despite the initial objective assessment.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:11:59 GMT -5
Well considering that to assess something weans to evaluate it and that being objective in this instance is intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind I can look at art objectively to consider how it may influence my subjective opinion. Just because you look at something objectively doesn't set in stone one's personal opinion on something like art. People like art for many reasons. Even if an objective first glace suggests you wouldn't. It makes perfect sense. That was some fancy BS, but it was still BS, and even if it did answer my question, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Objectivity is not about opinions. There are, and have been for centuries, objective means of determining the quality of art. You're stuck on the notion that there is only subjective determination. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:14:29 GMT -5
Well considering that to assess something weans to evaluate it and that being objective in this instance is intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind I can look at art objectively to consider how it may influence my subjective opinion. Just because you look at something objectively doesn't set in stone one's personal opinion on something like art. People like art for many reasons. Even if an objective first glace suggests you wouldn't. It makes perfect sense. That was some fancy BS, but it was still BS, and even if it did answer my question, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Objectivity is not about opinions. There are, and have been for centuries, objective means of determining the quality of art. You're stuck on the notion that there is only subjective determination. I would be inclined to agree with you 95% of the time. With art it's different. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Mar 11, 2014 15:15:46 GMT -5
I would be inclined to agree with you 95% of the time. With art it's different. No, it's not. We just want to make it different because our egos don't like us running around acknowledging that we like things that are, objectively, garbage 8) |
|
