This is a question aimed at the snobs, and this being PTP everyone can really answer.

I work with a bunch of know-it-alls, and unlike my past jobs full of know-it-alls, all these guys are quick to argue. (damn lawyers)

This may be more of a comment on lawyers than anything else, but generally speaking - for folks super educated, follow politics, have opinions, get paid to read, write, and think - they're not really all that sharp and rarely have any sort of "ah ha" insight. Or none that comes across in polite conversation.

So for whatever reason, the topics of movies come up - and every last one of them is hype on the Pirates of the Caribbean series. They all know it's gonna suck, but they're gonna see it anyway. (only a few would admit to watching Spiderman, haha)

Topic moves to "Knocked Up"

"yeah that trailer didn't look funny"

The convo continues, but for a group who would have nothing to do with a "chain" restaurant, they're all clamoring about major hollywood blockbusters.

My little slice of the top 10% seems to show similar if not identical tastes to the bottom 90%.

Have you also found this to be the same?

one
k. orr

I was reading somewhere that Ludacris listens to rock music too. I'm thinking, "cool, he's made some good songs, done some decent acting, he just must be a pretty well rounded and cultured dude"

wrong (c) charlie murphy

luda's like "yeah, the illest rock band out now is puddle of mudd yo!"

but this wasnt in like 2000, this was like last year

Most people look for a release or something that they can just turn their brains off and enjoy for two hours. On their time off from work, house work, etc. they don't want to be lectured about what's wrong in the world or given some depressing look at life. They want entertainment.

After reading briefs or whatever all day, I'm sure many lawyers just want to see Johnny Depp act funny rather than invest in a deeper film.

I'm not trying to sound like a smartass asshole, but I really did come to that realization 5-6 years ago.

Direct quote from someone I know after I showed them "Memento" - "I'm want to watch a movie, not do a math problem."

I gotta respect that.

we were going to see a movie right after work.

I might could see that.

So basically non blockbusters are for grad students with ample time and no chance at a real job.

I'm sure Janey would beg to differ.

one
k. orr

Sorry, just noticed this after re-reading.

"Most people" is the key. I would say "Most people" also probably wouldn't invest in fine dining either. They'd rather just get something easy and familiar to eat than risk trying something new. It doesn't mean that they can't or won't try something new in the future but more often than not, they'll go with what they know.

There are people of all walks and professions that can and do appreciate film. And sometimes, a film can catch someone's eye and make them want to try it out. But I'd say, much more often than not, people go to the movies to be entertained. They aren't there to appreciate the finer things in film.

And as has been said, being smart in one field doesn't mean that you will appreciate something else. A lawyer could want to go enjoy a fine wine after work but some might just want to grab a beer.

>Most people look for a release or something that they can
>just turn their brains off and enjoy for two hours. On their
>time off from work, house work, etc. they don't want to be
>lectured about what's wrong in the world or given some
>depressing look at life. They want entertainment.

as if there were no middle ground whatsoever between Jerry Bruckheimer and Jean-Luc Godard's recent works, right?

it's that idea that people are either geniuses or lemmings.

It's not that people can't appreciate a film like Children of Men or Blood Diamond, it's just that when they go out to see a film they'd rather see something lighter like Knocked Up or Pirates of the Caribean.

It's not really that wild of an idea. People look at film for different reasons. TV as well. I love The Shield, but even I wondered at the beginning of the season how much I wanted to watch because it was so depressing.

and that would be the "middle ground" someone here was talking about

I really wasn't blown away by it so I didn't consider it that high brow.

that's what you continually fail to understand

I would throw Knocked Up in with the blockbusters. People might have just not liked the trailer. I don't think they didn't see it because it didn't match their pedestrian tastes.

As was noted earlier by someone, it is more middle ground.

YOU are slanting it that way.

That's from the original thread. There are film designed for the mainstream and films that break a bit from that pattern. The more you break, the less likely you'll be embraced by people who just want to go see a film. I don't see why that's such an insane idea.

But what do you think the post is about or give me some examples since I seem to be missing the point.

>It's not really that wild of an idea. People look at film for
>different reasons. TV as well. I love The Shield, but even I
>wondered at the beginning of the season how much I wanted to
>watch because it was so depressing.

so other than movies based on theme park rides, the only other option is stuff that is "depressing" and "lectures about what is wrong with the world"?

i don't see how my "reading" of that is limited. i think the only thing limited is the thinking that presents that kind of argument in the first place.

Here's an example from TV.

CSI vs. The Wire

People haven't gotten into The Wire's pacing, it's subject matter, etc. They prefer something easier to manage like CSI or Law and Order. They aren't interested in the politics of the corner or of the Mayor's office, they just want to watch a case get solved.

the post is about "pedestrian taste"... about certain entertainments that might be lean excessively to the lowest common denominator.

but it's false to assume that the only alternative is the HIGHEST denominator.

okay... so they don't like the pacing of "The Wire." how do they feel about"Homicide"? "NYPD Blue"? "Law & Order" even?

Homicide wasn't a huge rating success either. Law and Order has stayed around because it is more pedestrian. It doesn't mean that it is done poorly but it is more typical fare than Homicide.

you're dealing in extremes... like Pirates of the Caribbean vs. Hou Hsiao-Hsien and shit.

and i think that is a false argument.

And I don't think i"m dealing in extremes. Homicide is less challenging but still is not typical and doesn't fit the pedestrian taste of many. NYPD Blue had more soap opera elements so it was more accessible to many viewers.

>And I don't think i"m dealing in extremes. Homicide is less
>challenging but still is not typical and doesn't fit the
>pedestrian taste of many.

exactly.

and that is the taste/discernment that we are talking about in this post.

and it's not a matter of film students vs. normal people per se... because k_orr pointed out that these people have discriminating tastes in just about every other field... but not movies.

even something like Knocked Up - which is hardly a Pasolini flick - lost them.

why are they attracted only to the lowest common denominator in THIS case? why do they seem to have almost NO discrimination at all in this area? why do they feel the need to see an LCD movie that they *know* will probably suck when they would not eat in a restaurant with a mediocre Zagat score?


THAT is what the argument here is about.

I mean are we gonna define people's high brow-ness based on their reaction to trailers now? Has it gotten that deep?

>even something like Knocked Up - which is hardly a Pasolini
>flick - lost them.

I think this lost them because they didn't think it looked funny. I don't think it necessarily fits the argument.

>why are they attracted only to the lowest common denominator
>in THIS case? why do they seem to have almost NO
>discrimination at all in this area? why do they feel the need
>to see an LCD movie that they *know* will probably suck when
>they would not eat in a restaurant with a mediocre Zagat
>score?

And I've explained this. Those people appreciate food. They don't want something quick to eat, they want quality. They want to savor the food. I personally could give two shits about that so all of the fine dining is lost on me. Steak is steak. The more you add to a steak, the less likely I am to order it. I'll look at the menu and think, what's all this extra shit? I just want a steak. People can try to sell me on it and tell me what I'm missing but I want steak and potatoes and all that other stuff is pointless to me.

This is similar to film viewing. If you give the people the basics, they'll go. It might look silly but they know what they are getting and will enjoy it. Start deviating from that and they will be less likely to go to it and possibly won't invest enough to enjoy it. NYPD Blue took the soap opera police show and made it grittier. Homicide took a step further away from that and less people followed. The Wire took a step away from that and the audience dropped.

I use extreme to make the point easier to understand. The Wire vs. Law and Order is easier to get than Homicide vs. NYPD Blue.

I guess I don't see what people are so upset about since I think that we basically agree. Rather than saying, intelligent people aren't intelligent in all subjects, I took a step further and said for some people it isn't a lack of intelligence but a psychological reason behind why they cling to the lowest common denominator as opposed to seeing films that deviate from that.

i suppose what i'm taking issue with here is what i see as the false analogy that is quite popular on this board:

if you admit to being less than thrilled by something like Pirates of the Caribbean or Bad Boys II, you're a nose-elevating snob who probably only watches obscure black & white movies about the sex life of a dying fisherman in Sardinia and you don't know how to have fun.

Especially since everyone I know hated those two films. Even the guy who considers Michael Bay one of the best working directors and the guy who bought Snow Dogs.

>Even
>the guy who considers Michael Bay one of the best working
>directors and the guy who bought Snow Dogs.

Yes I know this.

Perhaps if you read my other posts instead of commenting on my limited reading of the opinion, you would know what I mean.

Being smart in one field doesn't mean you're smart in another.

You hate the argument but then restate it. I didn't make a judgement on the people's knowledge of film. I just stated that their tastes are different and that they might be looking for something different out of a trip to the theater than a film student.

those hollywood blockbusters are sorta remarkable when you consider how much skill went into creating all the special effects, costumes, stunts etc. it may not add much intellectually but there's still a lot to admire

as far as insight into movies...i find even non blockbuster heads struggle to engage well with the themes/message... i suppose they're just admiring something else, like the acting or the music instead of the stunts

i suppose i'm thinking too much about ppl on the internet though, who are usually young males, so not a very good way to judge how most people react. but most people don't want to have indepth discussions about films in real life

i'm hardly an art connisseur... i just like to look at certain pictures
other people probably like film music more than real classical music
know what i mean?
it's not like movies, novels and pop music are the three fundamentals of human existence. it's easy to see how people might not take them very seriously

You're on point. Messageboard geeks think that their somewhat ecclectic tastes put them on a higher plane than others. I used to be the same way.

But it's also important to remember that Mozart was the pop art of his day. The audience was far more narrow and there was a much sharper distinction between pop art and folk art, but it was very much a sign of the times.

I remember talking to a friend of mine that's a translator. He told me about how he goes to conferences a lot, meets a lot of great older guys that are fluent in several languages, accredited, award winning--but when he tried to talk books with some of them, he found out that in their leisure time a lot of them read John Grisham and Dan Brown.

At the same time I've met people who kept a strict diet of the classics as far as literature goes, but when it came to movies they were all about whatever the box office hit of the day was. I just didn't know what to think when a few years ago this friend of bio-chemist friend of mine (no joke) was swearing up and down that The Punisher (the one with John Travolta) was the movie to see.

And at this point, even if I did meet someone that both liked more intellectual films AND books, it probably means that they rock out to Jack Johnson, Avril Lavigne or Kayne, or just whatever's on the radio at the time.

That's just how it goes. Being smart and well-grounded in one subject doesn't mean you're just in general the type of person that goes for intellectual stuff.

At the same time...I don't know...isn't there also that level of film snobbery where you don't even rule out the Spiderman 3's and Pirates of the Carribean 3's anymore?

There has to be. Cause I'm probably a film snob, and I know for a fact that if I knew somebody had seen ever Tarkovsky film out there but hadn't seen National Lampoon's Vacation or Raiders of the Lost Ark I would still think, this person doesn't know shit.

movies - as art - serve and emotional need.

people's emotional needs change from moment
to moment, day to day.

speaking only for myself, i can say
that i went to see pirates for the
same reason your co-workers did:

i knew it probably wouldn't be good,
but i wanted to indulge in the american
summer movie experience and everything
that comes with it (the going out, the
hanging at the mall before and afterwards,
the people watching, etc) at most, i hoped
the movie would have some decent set pieces
that might be memorable.

i thought the same thing with spiderman and
ocean's 13.

to varying degrees, they all met my criteria,
and of them all, only SPIDERMAN seemed like a
complete waste (because the movie was so bad to me)

on the flip, sometimes i feel my brain turning
to oatmeal and i want it stimulated, so i'll
rent irreversible by noe or go see syriana
or something like that. and to varying degrees,
those movies do what they are supposed to do
for me, too.

i will say this, though: at least hollywood blockbusters
seek to give the audience what they want. noe and
the other 'arty' films i watch - even when they
are good - easily annoy me by becoming self
indulgent, pretentious excercises that i have
to WORK to enjoy.

most who already WORK FOR A LIVING don't wanna
WORK in a dark ass movie theater. they wanna laugh,
or get excited, or get scared, but overall
be ENTERTAINED.

that's why more people will fuck with a bad bruckheimer
movie over a dope soberbergh (unless there are big
stars in it, like o13)

people wanna be entertained.




WWW.TYPEILLYPRESS.COM <-- buy product
http://blog.myspace.com/mtorez <--- recent exploits

<--- SOUTHSIDE NEFERTITI # 3
art by PENCILISM (ye'en ready!)

Something that I usually don't get with conversations like these is that people just assume that the 'intellectual' movies aren't actually made for enjoyment, and that the only enjoyable movies are the certified dumb shit.

I mean...there are actually people that 'Enjoy' watching Eric Rohmer...it's not like folks just sit down in front of the TV with crackers and caviar like "I shall now provide adequate stimulus for a zesty round of critical analysis."

Just like everyone else doesn't get home from a long day at work, sit on the couch and think, "Oooh Chalie, Roll Bounce is on in five minutes. That's some really stupid shit--PERFECT!"

for some people, an intellectual movie
is WORK, and they just wanna watch
some dumb shit. to them, that's
entertaining...

on the flip, to some folks, MEMENTO is...

to each his own, honestly. i'm just
saying - from my personal standpoint -
its not either or. i like BOTH,
depending on what i'm going through.

the only thing i will say that might
be seen as disagreeing with you is that
satsifying my pure intllect is never
entertaining to me.

so if your position is that
INTELLECTUAL = ENTERTAINING
for you, that's cool, but
not for me.

unless my emotions are
engaged, i can't be
entertained...

WWW.TYPEILLYPRESS.COM <-- buy product
http://blog.myspace.com/mtorez <--- recent exploits

<--- SOUTHSIDE NEFERTITI # 3
art by PENCILISM (ye'en ready!)

I loved A Thin Red Line and Requiem for a Dream but I don't watch them when they're on. Yet I've actually sat through D.E.B.S. and Accepted more than once.

Many great films aren't to be "enjoyed" the same ways as a confectionary film. Many people don't look to be challenged the way many high minded films challenge them. Hell, many people don't even want to be bothered reading sub-titles. Doesn't mean they can't enjoy a foreign film but 9 times out of 10 they are looking to invest less when watching a film.

>Many great films aren't to be "enjoyed" the same ways as a
>confectionary film.

What do you consider a great film?

Many people don't look to be challenged
>the way many high minded films challenge them.

Sure.

But what do you call high minded? Is Taxi Driver high minded? What about Shortbus? Amelie?

Hell, many people don't even want to be bothered reading sub-titles.

Sure.

>Doesn't mean they can't enjoy a foreign film but 9 times out
>of 10 they are looking to invest less when watching a film.

I think it would be interesting to know what people in this thread consider to be a, I don't know, high brow movie.

Is it just a foreign film? Or any movie that doesn't specifically include a healthy serving of either excessive gore and/or dick and fart jokes?

The examples were Memento and Pirates of the Caribbean. Not necessarily art films but films that go beyond the typical matinee films. There is some overlap but you can usually agree that LA Confidential isn't a blockbuster.

There is some overlap but you can usually
>agree that LA Confidential isn't a blockbuster.

LA Confidential????

Are you kidding me???

Really?

Unless we're talking about a different movie:

You're talking about LA Confidential, with the all-star cast of Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Danny DeVito and Kim Basinger, among others. Academy Award for Kim Basinger and I believe the best screenplay, but nominated for plenty of other movies. Yes it was a box office hit. Curtis Handon directed, a movie or two before 8 Mile.

Based on the novel by that really under-the-radar crime novelist James Ellroy.

Yeah I'd put it pretty close to other non-blockbuster movies such as Braveheart and Dances With Wolves.

You do remember when this was in theaters, right?

L.A. Confidential only made 64 million dollars, one-third of what Dances with Wolves made. It opened in 769 theaters, half of what "In & Out" opened with. It's peak was 1600 theaters, blockbusters open with at least 2000 (Starship Troopers opened at 2900 that year). It never made more than 5 million in a weekend. Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe were nobodies.
Also, thematically, it was hardly a "blockbuster" film since it was a noir and had little crossover appeal.


L.A. Confidential was hardly a blockbuster film in any sense. It didn't make big money and it wasn't released like a blockbuster film.

Please. If you want to run to imdb.com to check facts and then race back and try to patch them into context, that's up to you.

That movie was by NO means an under the radar film. I'm sorry, but my only answer is that anyone that thinks LA Confidential doesn't count as a Hollywood blockbuster is either naiive or too young to remember when it was at the theaters.

While Russell Crowe wasn't a top billing actor yet, he was definitely known at that point. And DeVito, Spacey and Basinger were the sells for that, especially since Spacey already had an Oscar by then.

This really isn't even worth the discussion. I don't know what to tell you if LA Confidential is what you're using as a basis for the intellectual film.

So there are only under-the-radar films and blockbusters? L.A. Confidential was a prestige pic that they hoped would crossover. I don't think anyone would have bet the house that it was going to make 100 million or be a blockbuster.

And I never said it was an intellectual film. I also never said the film was devoid of any commercial appeal. I was saying that it strayed away from the lowest common denominator and wasn't a typical blockbuster than everyone would be interested in seeing. And seeing that it was released more like an prestige pic as opposed to a blockbuster, it seems that Warner Brothers agreed.

And please, no average fan knew who Russell Crowe was. His biggest role to that point in the States was Virtuosity and The Quick and the Dead.

And sorry that I come with facts rather than calling you names.

But it was definitely a solid success. At that time, the blockbusters grossed AT LEAST $100M.

Everyone I know who has actually seen L.A. Confidential saw it once it got to video.



"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

"But today's black leaders, I'm afraid, have become leading blacks. And don't ever confuse leading blacks with black leaders." --Dr. Julia Hare.



http://www.myspace.com/dozingoff

whatever makes people intelligent isn't the same thing that gives them the ability to have sensitivity about matters of taste. people with discriminating tastes strike me as having an "intelligence" that's a little different than what happens when people have brain power.

brain-power intelligence helps, but i'm not sure that it's an obvious indicator that a person will have developed a sensibility about taste.

intelligence doesn't save smart people from having questionable taste.

i mean, now that i think
about it, how do you measure
TASTE anyway, beyond = x person
likes the same things i do, and
therefore must have good taste.

does anybody go around thinking
'MY TASTE IS WACK, LEMME FIND
SOMEBODY WHO HATES WHAT I LIKE
SO I CAN UPGRADE?'

WWW.TYPEILLYPRESS.COM <-- buy product
http://blog.myspace.com/mtorez <--- recent exploits

<--- SOUTHSIDE NEFERTITI # 3
art by PENCILISM (ye'en ready!)

he is a smart man who has "brain power" ... but anything to do with movies, music or art is lowest common denominator. whether he wants to shut his brain off for a while, i dont know, but i have just about given up on him.

i mean, when he gives the prestige & the departed two 'meh' ratings within a week, i was about to scream.

You can learn a ton about a person by his or her reading choices, because reading is something that requires a real investment in time and energy.

_______________________________________________________________________________

You can't sleep on us forever: http://www.myspace.com/regeneratedheadpiece

Well said!


Yo, I love the way I am and can’t nobody out here change me
Rearrange me, tame me, try to game me, you don’t play me
When I grab the mic then shock the party spot
Your rhymes are flip-flop, I’ll rock, hip-hop
Non-stop, me nah stop rock
You can touch

How long have you known these people? How well do you know these people?

All I'm getting here is that

A.) Your co-workers are intelligent and opinionated

B.) They are excited about a Pirates movie

I fail to see the disconnect here.


Y'all are jumping to some wild conclusions with this one.

First of all, it's blockbuster season. Pirates and superheroes and giant robots are bound to come up in conversation. The 90% and the 10% are gonna overlap eventually. It usually involves popcorn.

Second, it's work. You're not rolling with a crew, you're rolling with co-workers. People are gonna tend to stick to those safer "common denominator" topics with each other. No telling what kind of freaky indie shit they're watching with their real friends. So you may be getting some skewed data here.

I think most of the other counter-arguments have been covered already, so I'll stop there. But yeesh, is this one a doozy.

>Second, it's work. You're not rolling with a crew, you're
>rolling with co-workers. People are gonna tend to stick to
>those safer "common denominator" topics with each other. No
>telling what kind of freaky indie shit they're watching with
>their real friends. So you may be getting some skewed data
>here.

Really good point.

I've spent most of my life hiding my taste in music and movies from everyone but my closest friends.

>Second, it's work. You're not rolling with a crew, you're
>rolling with co-workers. People are gonna tend to stick to
>those safer "common denominator" topics with each other. No
>telling what kind of freaky indie shit they're watching with
>their real friends. So you may be getting some skewed data
>here.

Maybe it's a graphic design thing, I dunno.

But still... we be editing shit out for our co-workers, there's a good chance they edit shit out for us, too. Actually I kind of wish they'd edit MORE shit out but that's another post entirely.

I gave up talking with my coworkers about the films and TV shows I like the most after a few too many humoring nods and "uh-huh"'s and glazed expressions. . .much like what they get from me when they ask if I've seen the latest crappy action movie or last night's American Idol.


>Second, it's work. You're not rolling with a crew, you're
>rolling with co-workers. People are gonna tend to stick to
>those safer "common denominator" topics with each other. No
>telling what kind of freaky indie shit they're watching with
>their real friends. So you may be getting some skewed data
>here.



~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


kurly's Super-Duper Awesome DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

If you wouldn't dare dine @ Chili's, and prefer whole foods to Safeway...yet you aren't a snob when it comes to music?

fuck outta here.

one
k. orr

Still pointless, though.

I mean why can't you just be picky about what you're picky about? Why you gotta be snobbin' all across the board?

The food thing is especially flawed because that stuff goes in your body. Nobody ever died from shitty movies.

Yet the same criticisms they make in other areas don't apply.

Maybe it's a lawyer thing, cause it's like one of the tenets of the professions, treat like cases alike.

one
k. orr

It just depends on your interests.

The lawyers I know vary: some love movies and drink beer and eat like shit. Others are die hard sports fans but love pop music. My brother loves film but drives an Accord and could care less about cars (and is most certainly not going to spend more money for a nicer one). Meanwhile, his friend has talked to me for two hours about his motorcycle.

Most times, people invest in what you are most interested in and stick with the common garden variety of most other things.

Most metro-cosmo-urbane-foodie-music snob you could ever meet.

Will not shut up about how much he loves Legally Blonde.


I think it's an interesting thing when this happens, though I still stand by my original point that perhaps we don't know these people as well as we suspect...

We could just write it off as a "Dif'rent strokes" type of thing, but there might be more to it than that.

In my experience, I find that movies are one of the lesser fashionable aspects of pop culture. I mean to say our "cool" is often defined by the clothes we wear and the music we listen to. It's what separates the "us" from the "them." Movies generally do the opposite... it brings us all together in a big dark room to commune. I don't know why this is exactly. Early in life we learn that "Movies are fun"... and it's one of those rare childhood lessons we don't seem to un-learn.

Think about high school... you hung out with the people who liked what you liked. Generally they dressed sort of like you and had similar tastes in music. And you learned to divide yourselves from other cliques based on those qualities. But come Friday night, EVERYBODY was going to see the same shitty ass blockbusters. From the preps to the jocks to the food court thugs and hippies and everything in between. You might get clowned for your clothes or your music but nobody's gonna chide your ass for going to see Pulp Fiction. Well, there is this one guy...

On one hand I like this about movies because it unites us. On the other hand, it seems like very few of us ever learn to think critically about movies. Not that you have to think critically about movies... but damn, at least equip yourself with the option. I'm all for the "turn your brain off" approach to movie going, but it helps to flick a switch every now and then.

Maybe it has to do with a bystander factor. With music, someone can roll by and hear what you're listening to. With fashion, people see what you are wearing. But very rarely do passers by see you watching a movie. So maybe movies are like this pure thing that you do solely for you and not for show (Luckily the internet got invented so we can flaunt this, too). Maybe they are truer representations of our character than other forms of entertainment?

Now maybe I'm the one painting with too broad a brush. Or maybe I'm just completely wrong. But I do think there's a reason that this sort of thing happens.

three couples I think very highly of recommended 'National Treasure' as a surprisingly great movie to my wife & me.

(Side note: I was curious about it in a ridiculous way since the trailer had cracked me up intensely by referencing Bben Franklin as the helicopter shot swooped directly over City Hall.)

Anyway. It sucked, and badly. Those guys are still my friends, but I'm not taking movie recommendations from them any more.

...and yup, the theoritically most educated folk in my country (New Zealand) still clamour to see Shrek, Pirates, Spiderman etc... But I don't think it's bad or should be a surprise.

I think the problem is that people with educations like to assume they're somehow superior in ALL ways, when they're so obviously not. I've got almost a decade of high-achieving university education under my belt, but can I:

a) Do more to my car than change tyres/oil/petrol?
b) Fix a plumbing problem?
c) Hammer right?

Nope. Book smarts don't equal necessary intelligence I don't reckon.

Music/books/movies especially suffer from the pseudo-snobbery of the generally educated, whereas the fact is that unless you're actually into a media, you're just as ignorant as everybody else; best example: Dan "Cliff-hanger every second half-assed page) Brown.

IMO you shouldn't even go into a big convo about a movie if you haven't seen it.

And that happens a lot around here. PTPers keep trying to give their rating off the trailer. If you haven't seen the movie, anything past "I don't want to see that" becomes unnecessary.

EDIT:
And there are people that actually DON'T want to be challenged by a film. I don't think that's wrong. If I want to sit down and watch something like Bad Boys 2 there's no reason for you to say something along the lines of "I don't know why anyone would want to see THAT". It's not like I'm peeling your eyelids back Clockwork Orange-style and forcing you to watch it.

I wonder how some of these people actually get entertained by anything.

First person I ever heard praise Carlos Mencia was a lawyer (though he worked for the state).

films i've been to recently

miami vice (ouch)
i, robot
the kill bills
the lord of the rings
sin city
terminator 3
the matrix sequels
casino royale
eternal garbage of the spotless mind
V for Vendetta
tutsi
hero
anchorman
team america

hardly arthouse masterpieces
going to the cinema is just a like a 'day out' for me, like going to the zoo or going to the theme park. there's not much taste involved other than 'i don't want to watch a disgusting horror film'. that's the mentality

i save all my serious film viewing for dvds or TV. and i think a lot of people really don't have time to commit to watching a film at home, or make a habit of it

These days going to the movies is like going on a rollercoaster ride.

A lot of times I usually don't even want to see a great movie in a big theater full of people, because it feels like more of an intimate experience. Whereas Spiderman 3, Knocked Up, Pirates of the Carribean, etc, are all movies that are big. Big laughs, big action, big big big. So big that you see it in a big theater with a big screen full of people and a big bag of popcorn and big drink.

Over the weekend I saw Knocked Up on Friday and Once on Saturday. Once was easily the better movie, by a long shot, but Knocked Up was more entertaining to see at the theater.

It's almost like there are different scales to use for movies.

neither has anything i've seen in any commercials or clips. i haven't seen the movie yet, i'm just saying.

was that I figured that, given the enormous amount of reading and books and words and writing involved in the law, and given the fact that the law is one of the humanities, I would have a lot of interests in common with lawyers.

Better luck next life.

Maybe that was true in another era. It is NOT true now.

That's why we have PTP.

They have no problem rolling out to see Pirates 3 or any other forms of so-called dumbed down entertainment

Sometimes there's a "guilty pleasure"/"ironic"/"kitsch"/"camp" stigma/justification tied to it, but it is what it is

I really don't have time to judge them on their tastes

I'll clown them on their music/film choices, but that's more to do with me being friends with them than it is some kind of grand snob statement from on high
______________________________________________________________________
DON'T STOP--

(Black)

(Roll Credits)

...and I also watched damn near every episode of The OC.

I mean, why not enjoy both kinds of art if you can? I love immersing myself in The Wire, thinking about every little detail, what it means, what it can lead too.

And I enjoyed taking an hour a week to see the various Seth Cohenisms and the melodrama of The OC.

Granted, I'm more enthusiastic about The Wire, and if I have to pick one, there's no question, but the beautiful thing is that I don't have to...I can enjoy stupid shows if they strike the right chord even while I use my brain and watch something that really makes me think and feel.

------------
AC Milan: European Champions 06-07

2006-07 Zeno Memorial Cup winner: Chara SMASH