 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: That's sad... posted by Harmonia on December 21, 2003 at 19:40:22:
Having witnessed the parts of the first two films left me completely unwanting of getting any more of it.So unless you are implying the third one is done in a completely different style I see no reason to waste my time on it.
The first two I found incredibly boring... so sue me for not wanting to see the third one. But I truly believe that I can find better use for my time and money.
Somehow I find the notion that one must see every film just to know it is bad indefensible.
Follow Ups:
As you have seen enough of the first two films to conclude that they are not to your taste... a personal decision, absolutely nothing wrong with that... then you certainly shouldn't waste your time on the third. Certainly the films are not for everyone, so I would argue against Audiophilander's logic in this case.
... his assertion that the 3rd film is "bad" simply because he doesn't like the bits and pieces of the other two films he's seen isn't logical; it's an assumption. He has every right not to see the last film and to say that he doesn't THINK that he would like it based upon what he has seen of the other two, but a careful reading of his post reflects an uninformed opinion which goes MUCH beyond that, even if this wasn't his intent.I certainly agree with you that it's a personal decision, because NO film is right for everyone, but my logic is quite sound, thankyou very much!
AuPh
If you had stated that it's unnecessary to see an entire film to know you won't like it, that one thing, but to make an arrogant, preposterous, all encompassing assessment about a film's quality based solely on your own miserably narrow viewpoint is pretentiousness on a grand scale! This bears out the subjective observations I made about your doctrinaire opinions posted in another forum.AuPh
I didn't see clark say it was a bad film, so you hysterically liead about that.Then I didn't say that either - there goes your another lie. I said that based on the privious films I have no inclination of wasting my time.
Sounds like you are simply unable to think straight when someone disagrees with your choices... but that has been your traditon all along.
But now you are down to pure lies... this is intellectually insulting.
ROTFL! That's more than meager pretentiousness, that's pure unadulterated chutzpah! ;^D> > > "I didn't see Clark say it was a bad film..." < < <
No, Clark weaseled out of that by using other critic's opinions, those in the vast minority, in order to reflect his own preconceived notions. Pretty silly approach to criticizing a movie if you ask me, but that's Clark for you!
> > > "Then I didn't say that either..." < < <
But you did, Victor. The fact that you tried to weasel out of it by employing a very weak caveat (i.e., having no inclination of wasting your time based on the other two films, which BTW, is rather disingenuous since you haven't seen either of the previous films except in bits and pieces) doesn't alter the fact that you're placing a value judgment on the film without having seen it.
Heck, I even tried to sit through the Solaris (Russian), which is the most boring film this side of Robert Altman's Pret-a-Porter, before passing judgment.
> > > "But now you are down to pure lies... this is intellectually insulting." < < <
If there's any "intellectual insulting" going on around here, most folks now KNOW from whence it originates; let me give you a hint... it aint comin' from your's truly! ;^)
AuPh
!
;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
