>>Oh yes. It was the ONLY movie meant to be discussed. (Begin
>>sarcasm) Art films were meant to be watched, and those
>>certainly had plots and characters and arcs and all that
>good
>>stuff narrative film has (end sarcasm). You're retarded for
>>thinking this.
>
>This paragraph didn't make any sense.

Yes it did.

You said PF ushered in an era of films that were meant to be discussed. No, it didn't. And you're retarded for thinking so. Art films, specifically the ones made in the 1960s (ex. Contempt, Blow Up, Wild Strawberries, etc.) were films that were meant to be discussed as they were simply art for arts sake and had no character arcs or really much of a plot. On top of that, PF takes much of its "macguffin" from Kiss Me Deadly, a film which is arguably as "discussable" as PF due to its similar device of a glowing weird object that nobody seems to know what it is.

Plain and simple, you can hate PF all you want...but your "it started making people discuss films in stead of enjoy them" is a moot point, so you should probably stop saying it.

>I'm still waiting for you to explain what is good about the
>movie.

What's the difference? If I tell you what I like about it, you'll just say you hate it, and this pointless thread will continue. I like it, you don't. That's fine and good, but you continue to make pointless statements about it that simply aren't true.