Why do we act like having narrower, "more discerning" tastes is a good thing...

There you go again. What do you mean, "adults who genuinely enjoy..." Genuinely enjoy? As opposed to, what, enjoying something ironically? Ironically kill yourself, fucking hipster. You've just reiterated that you see "genuine enjoyment" of the wrong things as somehow bad or offensive, yet failed to explain why.

>most of which is aimed at children or teenagers
No, I think you're just so desperate to be seen as an adult that you want to signal your distaste for "children's" things. Once you're an actual adult, you learn you get the most enjoyment out of going with things you like and not caring about who they're "for." It's part of accepting your own self-identity rather than trying to construct one out of social signals.

People seem to have this odd belief that threads or posts they don't like somehow crowd out better threads - as if Cred Forums has a finite amount of threads total and posting a "bad" thread somehow replaces a "good" thread.

>'I only like basic, fast food, but not if it's spicy. There's nothing you can do to broaden my taste. What if I try it and hate it??!?'
>'I only enjoy super-rare exotic food, but only if they're fair-trade organic and gluten free. How dare you debase yourself by eating the garbage you do? Get some taste.'

Equally intolerable. It doesn't matter what your taste is so much as how vehemently you oppose giving other stuff a shot. Why *not* like both blockbusters and the French new wave? Neither makes you a better moviegoer than the other.

>As opposed to, what, enjoying something ironically? Ironically kill yourself, fucking hipster.
I only said that because there's a real movement in recent times of recognizing things that are bad but still enjoying them for the irony. Don't blame me for pointing something out before you start accusing someone observing a trend of being hipsters themselves. Do you not understand that an observation can be made without being part of a group or do you still think in cute little simplistic divisions like a child?

>You've just reiterated that you see "genuine enjoyment" of the wrong things as somehow bad or offensive, yet failed to explain why.
Because the things I mentioned are created by commercialized institutions that have no objective beyond preying on the growing population of mollycoddled adults who have been clinging onto their childhoods longer than any previous generation, whose ideas about aesthetics and taste is fast becoming indistinguishable from their own (god forbid they breed) children. This isn't some hipster view about the regression adult interests to those of children, it was predicted by people like Neil Postman decades ago.

>No, I think you're just so desperate to be seen as an adult that you want to signal your distaste for "children's" things.
So you admit that there are certain "children's" things. And you're totally fine with adults not growing beyond those childish things? Do you not see anything inherently foolish about adults and children basically having the same interests today? There are certain things that are self-evident, including the fact that childish things should be more or less exclusively for children and not adults.

>It's part of accepting your own self-identity rather than trying to construct one out of social signals.
Just be yourself :^)

Because without refined tastes shit like Transformers movie series and Capeshit happens.

It's a Cred Forums thing.
In the world of music, the broader you tastes the better.
Except on Cred Forums but that place is a shithole.

Both sides are fucking bad. The people who hate any mainstream movie because it's popular and acting they're so above it and the People who dismiss any old or foreign movie because they consider them pretentious or boring. I don't care if it's mainstream of obscure, as long as the tv show or movie is good.

That's likely because there is still good music that appears in the popular sphere that is accessible to plebs. It is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely rare that a major blockbuster that makes a billion $ is any good. I'm not sure there's every been one actually.

Even something like Fury Road, which is a masterpiece as far as blockbusters go, was not a big hit at the box office.

I'm not sure why the masses are such disgusting plebs when it comes to movies but they are.

>It is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely rare that a major blockbuster that makes a billion $ is any good.
This is the exact same mindset that makes Cred Forums such a shithole.

Believing that you acting like a hipster and shitting on anything popular makes you some kind of defender of the medium is so far beyond simple narcissism I don't know where to begin.

I know you don't like to admit it, but consumers have agency. They choose things because they like them, not because "they" (Hollywood, big media, Jews, etc) somehow tricked them into it.

how is that true? I haven't been on mu in a couple of years but there are plenty of people on mu who appreciate albums by people like Grimes, Kanye, Tay Swift, Carly Rae, etc.

Name me one movie that has made over a billion dollars that is any good. I love a lot of mainstream movies, I don't believe in that elitist foreign only movie viewpoint at all.

>Because the things I mentioned are created by commercialized institution
Capitalism is evil guys repeat after me I am free, true art is done without profit. Collectively kill yourself, commie.

>adults must embrace adult tastes
Why? Part of being an adult is having agency to pursue what you like, rather than what, say, your parents or peers say is appropriate for you.

>there are certain things that are self-evident
No, they aren't, and saying it's obvious doesn't excuse you from having to explain why """children's"""" things are somehow bad for adults. Granted, most "capeshit" is PG-13 or R, so I question the notion that they're for "children" rather than for general audiences.

Furthermore, shove your strawman up your ass. What I'm fine with is people having a range of interests. If you only like what you deem as being for children, that's just as bad as if you only like artsy hipster "adult" shit.

>Name me one movie that has made over a billion dollars that is any good.
Any good by whose standards? Yours? Because if so, yeah, nah, go fuck yourself. You literally just declared that no movies that clear $1B are good by your standard. I'm not saying you're wrong by your standards, I'm saying your standards are wrong. Get it?

>I know you don't like to admit it, but consumers have agency. They choose things because they like them, not because "they" (Hollywood, big media, Jews, etc) somehow tricked them into it.
It's easier to pretend there's some kind of conspiracy to discredit you and what you like, than to admit that what you like is very niche, because that means admitting that most people are not like you - that you are the odd one out.

"It is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely rare that a major blockbuster that makes a billion $ is any good"

You seem to be fond of misinterpreting my words to prove a point. I have said that I don't believe there exists a movie that made over a billion dollars that is any good. That in no way means that there couldn't conceivably be a movie that makes that much that is also good.

Again, I restate my case that hardly any movies that make huge amounts of money are any good. That is not the case with something like music these days as there are still major, "blockbuster" albums released that are great. See: Lemonade.

>Enjoying obscure things does not stop someone from enjoying mainstream things. Having tastes outside the norm does not mean you "hate" the norm.
Except that its been prove time after time this isn't true and always said by the mongrels that don't watch quote unquote "obscure things"

Jesus Christ kill yourself fucking retard
You shit up all threads with your stupid autism

I'd still like some kind of objectively measurable standard of what is or isn't "any good".

The only objectively measurable standard you've mentioned is commercial success.

So I ask you again. By what standard do you mean when you ask me for the name of a movie that was any good? Is it critical reviews? Commercial success? Consumer reviews? My personal enjoyment?

You do realize that when people have a discussion they are stating opinions, yes? It is my opinion that most movies that succeed with the masses are also generally garbage. If you happen to enjoy that stuff that's all well and good but it is my belief that you enjoy garbage.

OP fucking DESTROYED

>"Shouldn't we prefer liking more things to being closedminded?"
>will call anything that comes from outside the Hollywood system as "pretentious" or "hipster" any chance he gets

hehe you gotta love plebs...so fucking amusing

>I'm entitled to my opinion!
If you don't want to answer the question, just say so.

Nice samefagging retard

Okay, give me an argument for the quality of a movie that made over a billion $ based on your belief in its artistic merits/significance. Pick any of the movies that made over a billion $, explain to me what you think makes it a great film.

Kek spoken like a true fedora tipper

stick to videogames, manchild

Stop aping korinefag, fucktard

I will, but not on "artistic merits." artistic significance is too nebulous, its lack of concrete definition is a recipe for a neverending argument.

I don't even have to reach back very far, the last two movies I watched in theaters were The Force Awakens and Zootopia the latter with my daughter and I enjoyed both of them. The former revived a franchise that had been made a basket case by an overrated director being given too loose a hand, and cleared $2B, let alone $1B. The latter was genuinely funny and surprised me by having a message deeper than the "racism is bad, pls be SJWs" that I was expecting, not to mention having quite a lot of humor obviously oriented for adults - no kid is going to get whole-scene jokes about the DMV or references to movies like The Godfather.

I'm sure you're about to shit on both, but please, don't bother, I've heard it on Cred Forums before. I enjoyed them, they were very popular with audiences, they were commercial successes, and very well-received critically.

Not him, but there have been a lot great films that have been commercial successes, in fact history is filled with them. Just look at the wikipedia entry for the highest grossing films. Of those that have made more than $1 billion:
>Gone with the Wind
>Titanic
>Jurassic Park
>ET
>The Ten Commandments
>Sound of Music
>Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Scroll down to see the highest grossing film of each year and you'll find great films like:
>City Lights
>Rear Window
>The Bridge on the River Kwai
>Spartacus
>Psycho
>Lawrence of Arabia
>2001

I didn't see Zootopia but I thought The Force Awakens was mostly bad. It's a shame because the first half hour was surprisingly enjoyable but I thought after that it was an incredibly lazy, derivative bore.

Anyway, it seems we have a different interest in film. I think there are great movies made for mainstream audiences (Mad Max Fury Road, Magic Mike XXL, etc) that happen to end up not doing very well while far more mediocre to bad movies end up being very successful (see: Suicide Squad). I don't think it's impossible that a movie could be genuinely great while also being popular but I would say there hasn't been one in quite a long time. Meanwhile major, serious albums by people like Kendrick Lamar become very successful.

>Capitalism is evil guys repeat after me I am free, true art is done without profit. Collectively kill yourself, commie.
Keep sucking that Jew dick.

The reality is the average movie is shit. People who enjoy most movies they watch aren't some kind of sage individual who transcended the highbrow/lowbrow dichothomy; they are just chumps who haven't watched enough movies in order to develop a personal taste. If you like most movies you watch, you either aren't venturing outside your comfort zone too much or lack any sort of critical faculty.

PS: go back to Cred Forumseddit.

This guy apparently has a daughter lol

>No, they aren't
It's pretty evident that you're a manchild still clinging to what you enjoyed as a child and mentally refusing to grow up.

I'm not OP.

>Cred Forumsedditor
>religion cuck
>no taste in movies/tv

I fear for this child's future

You know, calling someone names as a cover for failing to explain yourself is really transparent.

I was talking more about contemporary film, there have been instances in the past when great films made a lot of money/had a cultural impact.

That being said, I still don't think most of the movies you listed are all that good. E.T. is a masterpiece as far as children's movies go. Titanic is terrible. Gone With the Wind mostly disposable. Jurassic Park is one of Spielberg's weaker movies, I have no idea what the appeal is for that movie despite my deep love of Spielberg.

City Lights, Rear Window, Lawrence, Psycho, and 2001 are all great. Again though, my viewpoints were mostly rooted in the contemporary landscape. And I would still say that you're looking at exceptions to the rule. Most of the movies I would consider all-time Great were not box office smashes. Those movies you listed and some others were fortunate.

Notice how not a single one you listed was made in the last 19 years.

>why """children's"""" things are somehow bad for adults.
Is this guy serious? Do you really think it's healthy for the general adult population to be enjoying works that are deliberately made as simple as possible? Someone dig up that Simon Pegg quote about infantalization of the masses.

this guy gets it

>I have no idea what the appeal is for that movie despite my deep love of Spielberg.
It's really something you'd have had to see when it came out.

You mean like OP calling anyone who disagrees with him a hipster?

Why do plebs have such a victim complex on this board? No other board is like this

Because television and film are the most pleb media possible.

I can understand that. I liked it when I saw it as a youth but I mean I don't think that looking back on it now is all that worthwhile. It's fine but looking back on it now with appreciation because you liked it at the time is basically just indulging in nostalgia.

It bums me out that Spielberg is often reduced to Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park. He's so much better than those movies.

>You're not an adult unless you solely and exclusively like things that are 2deep4kids
And this is preferable to having a broad range of interests how, again?

It's not just that it was fun for its time, it was actually really impressive for its day, too.

I mean that's all well and good but it does not hold up anymore.

Compare it to a movie like Citizen Kane that was very impressive for its day and it remains a great piece of entertainment.

Citizen Kane is overrated. Now don't get me wrong, with its reputation it basically has to be overrated, I'm not saying it's a bad film like some other """classics"" like Gone with the Wind and It's A Wonderful Life. But god fucking damn is it overrated. I'm tired of people sucking its cock like it's the only good movie ever made. Fuck, I even liked Casablanca more than Citizen Kane.

>food analogy
like clockwork

Sorry, didn't know you still counted on your fingers.

Is that a problem?

Why are you getting so mad when I only brought up Kane as a point of comparison? Sure, it's overrated. It's still extremely entertaining and overall quite a good movie.

But uh, It's a Wonderful Life is practically a masterpiece.

Gone With the Wind is trash though

>can't answer a simple question
Can you at least answer why you've confused complexity with quality?

It's A Wonderful Life is only a "classic" because it bombed and stations picked up the license for nothing. Contemporary critics hated it and it only narrowly made back its budget at the box office. This despite a huge marketing campaign.

Anyway, I get your point, not disagreeing with it. Just went off on a tangent, sorry about that.

t. fat american that loves capeshit and assorted blockbusters

liking everything on the disney channel AND cartoon network is technically a broad range of interests. do you see how having a broad range of interests isnt necessarily a virtue in and of itself? good taste, refined taste, is a virtue of many, regardless of how you scoff at it, and is by definition selective.

I honestly think that It's A Wonderful Life is the embodiment of everything that was great about Hollywood. It's incredibly moving and it holds up extremely well. I've actually only become a huge admirer of it in the last couple of years after slogging through it as a child for years.

"Obviously,” he said, “I’m very much a self-confessed fan of science-fiction and genre cinema. But part of me looks at society as it is now and thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own taste. We’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes… Adults are watching this stuff, and taking it seriously!

“It is a kind of dumbing down because it’s taking our focus away from real-world issues. Films used to be about challenging, emotional journeys. Now we’re really not thinking about anything, other than the fact that the Hulk just had a fight with a robot."

>ad hominem
like clockwork

>mfw OP is definitely wrong, but nobody in this thread can even begin to explain why, just going off on petty insults or on tangents about capeshit or age groups

>>can't answer a simple question
Because it's a silly question. If you can't see that, then it's no point trying to explain it again and again.

No, it isn't technically a broad range of interests. Do you know what broad means? Liking everything on two networks devoted to a single niche, and presumably you mean only those networks, is the literal opposite of broad. Are you illiterate?

>mfw you just like to greentext things without reading the thread

>Can you at least answer why you've confused quantity with quality?

The problem with this logic is it assumes what you deem "capeshit" are the only movies out there. There are still films about "challenging, emotional journeys."

Christ it's not like we live in China where only some arbitrary number of foreign movies are allowed per year and one "capeshit" film means one less "art" film.

oops, didn't mean to memetext

So, the answer is no, you cannot.

I'm very definitely going to take seriously the media advice of someone who can't answer simple questions about what they like and why. Definitely.

As opposed to someone who will argue that there is nothing wrong with adults enjoying things made for children?

People enjoy "children's movies" because they're consistently fun. Most art movies are pretentious garbage films about gay cowboys eating pudding.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "serious" movies are more worthy than entertaining movies, but maybe if "art film" weren't unanimously synonymous with "pretentious shit," more people would see better films.

Serious should not mean boring.

If it's such a problem you should be able to at least begin to explain why it's such a problem without immediately debasing yourself to petty insults and question dodging. Ironically, the way you approach being asked a simple question is something I find quite childish.

And I still question why all these PG-13 and R movies are being dismissed as being "made for children," but okay.

>why it's such a problem
It's already been answered early in the thread. It's not my fault that you're incapable of understanding something.

>And I still question why all these PG-13 and R movies are being dismissed as being "made for children," but okay.
It's well known that the American rating system is extremely stupid. Any movie that contains something that might have the most remote chance of being scary to someone who is 12 is automatically slapped with a PG-13 rating. And you're probably thinking of Deadpool when it comes to the R-rated movies but it's going to be next to impossible if you think the next Star Wars or Marvel movie will have explicit gore or cuss words.

There's also the questionable dichotomy of there being "children's movies" and "adult movies" with zero in-between. Yet a lot of the best and most highly regarded films are neither. It used to be seen as the norm for a movie to be enjoyable by a typical family, including both adults and children. The idea that only children should partake of one category, and only adults the other, is asinine and ignores a century of film history.

Do gore and cuss words make a movie "adult"?

You're the one who brought up R-rated movies. And no, because Deadpool is still a children's movie at heart.

*tips fedora*
Dumb special snowflake faggot

>*tips fedora*
Why? Chances are you are the actual fedorian here brother

I hated Deadpool, it felt like the kind of thing I'd have thought was amazing when I was twelve. You're the one who brought up Deadpool, not me.

>It's already been answered early in the thread.
No, it was declared "self-evident" with no explanation early in the thread, and has been asked about ever since. Look, if you really don't want to answer, just don't. You're an user, you're not gonna lose any face, it's not like you have a rep or something.

>I only watch mature movies for mature people such as myself where pretentious bullshit happens and I pretend to like them because I'm an insecure loser with special snowflake syndrome and I call people who actually enjoy things manchildren

This board is a fucking joke

>still posting this 2013 chart
Kek you truly are a cancerous edgelord just like people who like these movies

And you are the person who says religious people are stupid

>I pretend to like them
Just like you pretend to like movies like mad max 4, john wick, fight club, et cetera to pander to facebook nerd culture right?

There are good and bad examples of every conceivable genre. Liking the good examples from each is how you have a broad range and still have selective, or as you pretentiously put it "refined," tastes.

Sincerely declaring entire genres of film and media off-limits makes you a narrowminded retard more interested in social signaling than cinema.

Why would you pretend to like movies that are easy to get
I don't particularly like any of these except Fight Club

>fedoracore
see: social signaling

Paying more attention to who likes a certain film than the film itself is retarded and makes you a hipster.

>No, it was declared "self-evident" with no explanation early in the thread
There's more than one post that talks about infantilizing the modern adult populations, you know.

To get likes on facebook/twitter/whatever

I can tell just by reading your post you don't actually like fight club you just like being seen liking it

>You're the one who brought up Deadpool, not me.
You're the one who brought up R-rated children's movies. Deadpool is but an example (R-rated superhero movies). What exactly were you thinking of?

It's because they hate their lives and hate themselves. They associate joy and engagement with children, because in their own lives that's the last time they felt those emotions. They assume anyone else who feels these things is acting childish, rather than admitting its their own attitude which is the problem.

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

-C.S. Lewis

Kingsman, but it was just an example.

I suppose more than halfway through the thread, well after your apparent inability to answer a simple question came up, constitutes being "early in the thread" now, so okay then. It was explained why that idea was retarded, too, and what a shock, that went unanswered.

No wonder he didn't understand how illogical his trilemma was.

Whatever you say

You do know that Lewis was very outspoken about wasting time with lower forms of art, right? Do you think he would have taken your side here? Or is this just another case of the juvenile misusing his quote to defend themselves?

im not going to read this thread, but think about it like a picky eater. someone who only likes mac and cheese and chicken tenders is a child. some people refuse to eat mac and cheese and chicken tenders soley because its for children.
however an adult can appreciate a well made mac and cheese while still shunning kraft shit.

thats all it is. you can like good things, you can like crap, it doesn't matter as long as you aren't confusing one for the other.

I'm not defending childish things like capeshit, I'm just saying people who try hard to act mature often look stupid

It's the 12th reply in a thread that has now over a hundred posts >It was explained why that idea was retarded, too, and what a shock, that went unanswered.
Where?

Not him, but there's also Watchmen, Blade, Highlander, Robocop, Wanted, Dredd, Kick-Ass, 300...point is, there are superhero, graphic novel etc movies that are rated R. Deadpool didn't invent the concept.

>Why do we equate liking fewer things with having better tastes?
But people who have better tastes often like a broad range of things

>Deadpool is but an example

So I'm correct about my suspicions about you. Thanks

This thread is half interesting discussion and half petty name calling

Where in that post does it explain why this thing is bad? It says it's bad, says it's "self-evident" why it's bad, but fails to explain why it's bad, and I see a very long chain of replies of dodging that very simple question.

>Where?
see

you sound triggered

>And you're probably thinking of Deadpool

>Where in that post does it explain why this thing is bad?
>Because the things I mentioned are created by commercialized institutions that have no objective beyond preying on the growing population of mollycoddled adults who have been clinging onto their childhoods longer than any previous generation, whose ideas about aesthetics and taste is fast becoming indistinguishable from their own (god forbid they breed) children. This isn't some hipster view about the regression adult interests to those of children, it was predicted by people like Neil Postman decades ago.

I WANT TO SHOVE MY FACE INTO THE BIG HOLE BELOW THE URETHRA KNOWN AS THE BEAUTIFUL VAGINA VERY MUCH

>probably

>created by commercialized institutions
Collectively kill yourself, commie
>preying on
"selling to" is not "preying on" - collectively kill yourself, commie
>insult, insult, insult
Not an argument
>declaring that children's things are bad
This is the problem, and the question you have been unable to answer. Why is this thing bad?
>some guy said it a while ago, this is relevant somehow

>Collectively kill yourself, commie
You first, Jew shill. See, I can do this too.

>"selling to" is not "preying on" - collectively kill yourself, commie
They see a market and exploit it, much like a predator eyes a prey. no u Mr. Shekelberg.

>Not an argument
Not an argument.

>This is the problem, and the question you have been unable to answer. Why is this thing bad?
>Because the things I mentioned are created by commercialized institutions that have no objective beyond preying on the growing population of mollycoddled adults who have been clinging onto their childhoods longer than any previous generation, whose ideas about aesthetics and taste is fast becoming indistinguishable from their own (god forbid they breed) children. This isn't some hipster view about the regression adult interests to those of children, it was predicted by people like Neil Postman decades ago.

>some guy said it a while ago, this is relevant somehow
Not an argument.

There was literally zero reason to declare anyone was "probably" thinking of any one specific movie. So if you, or he, or whoever posted that thinks anyone is "probably" talkking about Deadpool the instant they mention an R-rated superhero movie, they're the kid that doesn't realize Deadpool didn't invent the concept.

Point is, there are lots of "capeshit" movies that are unquestionably meant for, made for, and marketed to adults. Declaring the entire genre for children is dishonest and absurd.

patricians have the broadest range of interests
plebs are the ones incapable of going beyond whatever film of the week is offered them or classic movies

Apologies for not knowing the history of capeshit. You did a good service today.

>Point is, there are lots of "capeshit" movies that are unquestionably meant for, made for, and marketed to adults.
That still doesn't change the fact that it's a childish genre at its core. You can fill your movie with tits and fucks but it is still ultimately a movie about costumed men beating each other up.

>If I repeat myself, my words will magically go on to answer the question they danced around the first time!

I'm not sure why you think making money is Jewish, but whatever, go to Cred Forums and let them tell you off, it's off topic. And yes, insulting people is not an argument.

So, here's the question again, just in case you forgot what it was you were trying to avoid answering. Why is it not acceptable for an adult to enjoy something that is also enjoyable by teens, or even their own children? Why would you rather the narrowminded dichotomy of "adults" and "children" to the openminded appreciation of quality examples from any genre?

Ah, and you, being the final arbiter of what adults are allowed to find enjoyable, have declared that men beating each other up is off limits for adults.

Fuck, I could dismiss pretty much any movie with violence in it as "costumed men beating each other up." Why is a guy in a cape beating another guy up less acceptable than, say, a guy in a police officer's uniform, or a suit, doing the exact same thing? Is James Bond less of a superhero than Batman? Is Dirty Harry?

You've reduced your own point to nothing more than arguing that "realism" is more adult, which is equally retarded and narrowminded. You're the Cred Forums equivalent of kiddies on Cred Forums who insist games don't look realistic unless their color palette consists of brown, gray, blood, and muzzle flare.

>I'm not sure why you think making money is Jewish
The same reason you think criticizing corporations who have no purpose except making money and churning out garbage warrants you to repeatedly telling me to "collectively kill [myself], commie". Insulting people is not an argument, remember?

>Why is it not acceptable for an adult to enjoy something that is also enjoyable by teens, or even their own children?
Because they are dumbed down simplistic versions that are specifically made for that audience. You'll probably say, well just because they're not for adults that doesn't mean adults can't enjoy them. Sure they can, but don't expect anything deep or profound from them that comes from good art and which is ultimately the function of any artistic work.

I knew I was being told off by someone who frequents Cred Forums. Congratulations on negating everything you typed.

Reaching a deep and profound understanding is not the ultimate function of any artistic work. This is why people call you a pretentious hipster. Plenty of movies aspire to be, market themselves as, and successfully do nothing more than entertainment; if I have a fun couple hours watching something funny or dramatic or action-packed, that's also fine. I can appreciate deep and insightful art and also entertaining art.

I'm telling you to kill yourself because I'm not going to dignify silly anti-capitalist tripe with a serious response. Sorry, I reject "it was made for profit" as evidence that something is bad, because I reject the underlying notion that profit is bad.

Lmao you are not even trying to argue now
Fucking stupid coward

user, if you're that desperate to avoid an argument, just close the tab, or at least stop replying.

So much insecurity in a single post Lmao

>Reaching a deep and profound understanding is not the ultimate function of any artistic work.
Then what is?

> Plenty of movies aspire to be, market themselves as, and successfully do nothing more than entertainment
Exactly, they're entertainment, not art.

>I'm telling you to kill yourself because I'm not going to dignify silly anti-capitalist tripe with a serious response.
Neither will I to a person who pledges his allegiance to Israel.

>Sorry, I reject "it was made for profit" as evidence that something is bad, because I reject the underlying notion that profit is bad.
Spoken like a true member of the tribe.

Someone's getting desperate. I'm here all night, baby.

You know this board is full of insecure college liberal faggots just by their massivehatred of things like anime, comics and video games, literally no other board is like this, even /lit/ is less hostile

Schizophrenia?

Yet you come here everyday trying to be part of it

every fucking day

Autism?

No, he frequents Cred Forums, Cred Forums and Cred Forums as well and pretends to go to /lit/.

>entertainment cannot be art
Ok, you are one of these pretentious cunts

Please stop replying

Entertainment is entertainment.
Art is art.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation

You have both?

I'm not OP idiot
I mostly visit Cred Forums, Cred Forums and Cred Forums and haven't been to Cred Forums in 3 years

"what is art" and "what is the purpose of art" is something philosophers have espoused on since the fucking greeks, if not longer. We're certainly not going to solve this question in a Cred Forums thread.

People smarter than either of us have stated such things as to elicit an emotional response (and joy, thrill, excitement are valid emotional responses as are sadness, inspiration, or anger), or to inspire, or to derive pleasure from aesthetic attraction...it's really a question for the ages and to reduce it with an all or nothing statement like "All art must be profound and deep" is fundamentally retarded.

>Exactly, they're entertainment, not art.
Is all entertainment for children, then? Is entertainment a bad thing?

>well you're Jewish!
Is this going somewhere?

Cinema culture, bro.

It needs to change.

OF course he's a pretentious cunt. He's pretty much saying anyone who doesn't exclusively watch 2deep4u films is a manchild. He's literally arguing against openmindedness and having an expanse of interests. The only people who ever do that are autistics and pretentious cunts.

He's clearly one of those Korinefag tier idiots who thinks all entertainment is for degenerates and true art is about suffering blah blah blah

You're forgetting that if I have the option to eat a well made mac n' cheese or a 5 star meal, I'm always going to choose the 5 star meal. An adult can appreciate a mac n' cheese, but why would they if something more interesting and tasty is always available to them, especially if they had already eaten plenty of mac n' cheese as a child before they had the option to eat 5 star meals.

Nah if he is who I think he is then he only browses Cred Forums.
The professional victim who wont fuck off, but will keep crying about Cred Forums

What if I enjoy most movies I watch, but only watch movies which have a certain rating or above on imdb? If I fit neither of your ultimatums...

Damn you are really obsessed

>wahh why Cred Forums doesn't likes me when i'm shit posting videogames on the board it doesn't go!! /lit/ isn't like this!!! K-K-KINO GUYS;___;

Go back to Cred Forums or cry on /qa/.

>it's really a question for the ages and to reduce it with an all or nothing statement like "All art must be profound and deep" is fundamentally retarded.
Nice twisting of my words but what I said was that the function of art is to be deep or profound, not that all art must be deep and profound. It's probably too complex for you to understand this notion which is why it was only natural for you to rewrite what I was actually trying to say.

>Is all entertainment for children, then? Is entertainment a bad thing?
No but its function is to entertain and not to be deep or profound.

>Is this going somewhere?
Why are you tired of this when you were the one repeatedly calling me a commie because I criticized commercial industry, Moshe?

Who are you quoting retard?

Nah. There are times I want a five-star meal and times I want something simple. Fuck, I still eat maruchan ramen, not even out of laziness or poverty, I just like it. Doesn't mean I don't also appreciate taking the missus out to a nice restaurant.

Eating at the exact same five-star restaurant every night isn't superior to, or more adult, or more discerning, than going to a range of places including that and other five-star restaurants, home food, cheap food, fast food, and everything in between.

So, to follow your analogy, your options are:
>Exclusively eat at a five-star restaurant
>Exclusively eat kid's meals
>Eat at a variety of places pursuing whatever food you feel like at the present moment.

I think choosing anything but the third is retarded. Get it?

>another food analogy
Wew lad

The professional victim

the illusion of exclusivity

It generates (you)s

No other reason needed

>what I said was that the function of art is to be deep or profound, not that all art must be deep and profound.
Yeah, that's a huge difference there. I got it -completely- wrong. I clearly was not even in the ballpark of correct on that one.

Face it, thinking all art is supposed to be deep and profound makes you a pretentious cunt.

the only thing I can think of that is below it is modern music, because not only is it passive consumption, you don't even have to seek it out. it's blasted through public speakers 24/7

Kek I'm just saying you are insecure

deep and profound are synonyms

What does modern music mean
Most music is definitely more artistic than movies

No you're a babby that won't leave even though he isn't 'wanted' here or likes being here.

I'm pretty sure most people that have decided to seek out better films have watched their fair share of mainstream movies

Cred Forums does as well

Lmao who is wanted here?
Certainly not arrogant pricks like you who make no contributions

The alternative being "I'm so cool because I love popular things"? What exactly is your point?

Because often what is presented and exposed as popular media to consumed is watered down pandering low quality lowest denominator catered trash designed and calculated in order to make the most money.

What you call "Hipsters" are really above average intelligent people who take the effort to look for and experience high quality low exposure media usually produced by poor/unknown artists.

Once something becomes mainsteam it instantly becomes shit. This is where the term selling out came from.

I think it's an age thing. I found the older I got the broader my tastes got, from music to games to film. I can enjoy the current trendy popular shit as much as I can the super niche stuff.

>he thinks popularity and quality are inherently linked
This is why people call you a hipster. You are fine to like things before they got popular, but the instant they are popular, you think they're shit. You're a hypocrite more interested in social signaling and pretending you're more intelligent than other people than in appreciating a work on its artistic merits.

I contribute to threads on cinema(And some television). Not pleb mongoloids circlejerking over two clowns circlejerking over shit blockbusters whilst crying about how a board is bullying them.

>this whole post

>all these fucking buzzwords
>What you call "Hipsters" are really above average intelligent people
>Once something becomes mainsteam it instantly becomes shit

Holy shit if this isn't bait kill yourself

What did you think of Maesta and Innocence of Memories? Both are pretty much "super niche stuff", but just as accessible as "trendy popular shit". Based on your post you should have seen them so lay it on me, big boy

...

selling out literally means youre selling out. its not a metaphor its meant sarcastically. but idiots like you didnt get it.

>this whole post

some of the most enthusiastic film lovers are people who watch low tier 80s d-movie horror trash. Its not like these people dont know they are watching trash, its that they love the craft so much they dont care and are interested in how a movie was made on a low budget

I think this is what they mean when they claim to be enjoying it ironically. It's not that they genuinely enjoy the movie due to its merits as a film, but due to giving it the MST3k treatment, or due to the meta-context of it being a cheap or low-quality film.

But of course, hipsters take it too far, and begin to think any unironic enjoyment of the "wrong" thing is a bad thing.

You want people who value the thousands of years of evolving social and artistic standards to just now stop? And only because you feel like people who do so are "closed-minded," "contrarian," or "hipsters?"

Same. I used to be incredibly picky with media. I guess the more media you see, the more your tastes get expanded and the more you get exposed to new things. I used to seek a lot of "If you liked X, then you should check out Y..." kind of advice to find new things to watch, due to being picky, but I guess when you have more things in the X category you naturally accumulate a larger Y category too.

Bump

>I'm not a *snob*, I just *value the thousands of years of evolving social and artistic standards*.
Easy there, Professor. We're talking about a medium less than a century old. Cool your shit.

you both aged and accepted your plebeian status,how surprising
next you're gonna try and argue this is what maturity actually means

What's wrong with being a snob?

>o-oh yeah, well you're a pleb, how do you like that?

But general art and artistic standards have existed for thousands of years, you dumbass.

But hes right, OP

>Eat at a variety of places pursuing whatever food you feel like at the present moment.

This is exactly the basis of what I'm telling you I agree with. I'm saying that once the world of food opens up to you, and you have access to all of it, some people will always be able to find something that you'll want more than mac n' cheese, even if they still like it. If every time the idea of mac n' cheese comes up, something with more appeal also comes up, they'll never eat the mac n' cheese, and that's perfectly okay.

No longer eating mac n' cheese ISN'T adult; it can be the CONSEQUENCE of being an adult (i.e. acquiring faculties and experience of an adult) for some people because it creates a situation where mac n' cheese is never the most desirable thing.

>as I got old a hint of God's light struck me: you see, good and bad taste are merely spooks
>you should watch whatever is on TV
>trust me, I'm old enough

It makes you unpleasant to interact with. It makes you closedminded and dismissive of new or different things. It means your opinion is less valuable because you think social signaling is an important part of evaluating a work. Can't have the snob be seen liking something popular, lest he be confused for the unwashed masses, right? Basically, it declares you're a disingenuous shit.

So if people don't enjoy films the way you want them to, then they're hipsters?

*But I'm right
ftfy

>People seem to have this odd belief that threads or posts they don't like somehow crowd out better threads - as if Cred Forums has a finite amount of threads total and posting a "bad" thread somehow replaces a "good" thread.
But it's true. A board can only hold X number of threads at a time. A new thread for a "general", where the same posters circlejerk and shitpost over the same things, is essentially pushing away another thread (good or bad) closer to its death with every bump made. And given the nature of these generals, quick shitposts are favored over thoughtful discussion. Try making a "good" thread and it'll get pruned within the hour with 0 posts because it gets pushed aside so quickly.

Also, there aren't only 2, they're is actually quite a few. Dr Who, GoT, Big Brother, Letterbox'd, Stranger Things, /insertflavorofthemonthshowhere/

But you just posted like a disingenuous snob. So you're a snob.

And what I'm saying is that if your tastes no longer run the gamut of experience, you're narrowing your range of acceptable experience, and thus, your range of thought. Hence, it's more narrowminded.

Some people entirely outgrow the metaphorical mac'n'cheese, some people don't. It's the idea that outgrowing mac'n'cheese is necessarily part of being an adult, and that if you eat mac'n'cheese you're a manchild, that I'm attacking. If you only care to eat the highest quality cuisine from the finest establishments and nothing else, if that's your happiness, fine. I'm just going to truthfully point out then that you're the one with the problem.

If he wants to separate himself form the unwashed masses how is being unpleasant to interact with a negative? I think that's actually a tactical move on the part of snobs.

>It makes you unpleasant to interact with
For you. Other non-embryos appreciate my company

>It makes you closedminded and dismissive of new or different things
Movie snobs actively seek new experiences. They are willing to go out of their way to find new ways the medium could surprise them. That's where their hatred for the mainstream comes from: ossified, rehashed structures presented in a acessible manner to make profit.

>means your opinion is less valuable because you think social signaling is an important part of evaluating a work. Can't have the snob be seen liking something popular, lest he be confused for the unwashed masses, right?
You sound like a butthurt plebeian. This makes absolutely no sense. Kill yourself.

>Try making a "good" thread and it'll get pruned within the hour with 0 posts because it gets pushed aside so quickly.
No, your "good" thread dies because it's a thread nobody wants to contribute to, and thus, by definition, not a good thread.

no hes right, but i do understand that crying samefag is your easiest way out

>valuing your taste in media over what others may think of you makes you a snob

Well call me a proud snob.

>For you. Other non-embryos appreciate my company
Yes, I very definitely believe you. I'm sure you're the life of the party.

Thinking anything that isn't the most obscure, niche shit available is "for the unwashed masses" makes you an unpleasant person to interact with. Fuck, the unironic, non-sarcastic use of the phrase "the unwashed masses" is proof.

>valuing the popularity of media over whether or not I would personally enjoy it
*ftfy

Otherwise, the popularity of a work, what it is the "unwashed masses" are consuming, would be utterly irrelevant to you. But it isn't, is it.

So people aren't allowed to use phrases like "the unwashed masses" because they make you feel bad?

>le ad-hominem and le funny image

Wow you sure showed me, embryo. Stick to videogames, reddito

I don't recall anything about being "allowed". I just said using those phrases makes you sound like an unpleasant person.

>Thinking anything that isn't the most obscure, niche shit available is "for the unwashed masses" makes you an unpleasant person to interact with
Says who? You?

>repeating what someone said but with "le"
>immediately jumps to video games and reddit
The level of discourse you're comfortable with sure does seem to fit your patrician social status. I wish I could be as sharp and witty as you and hate popular things like you do.

Bump again

It's just that the bizarre intellectual gymnastics you employ in order to legitimize your ignorance of film are very entertaining. Are you souped for the new Star Wars? I'm sure based Rey will kick some major Empire butt again xD

What makes you think you're not the unpleasant one?

This is an anonymous imageboard where people give impressions only through their posts, and so far you've had people reply to your posts in contempt.

Given the evidence, if anyone here is the "dismissive, disingenuous shit," it's you.

...

Ah, there's the xD. I wondered what happened to it.

Enjoy eating at the same restaurant three times a day, 265 days a year. I'll be out there trying a variety of meals, including but not limited to whatever it is you're having.

I already have. I've cited exactly the dumb, condescending, snobbish shit that people tend to find unpleasant.

>I'll be out there trying a variety of meals
you mean capeshit of the month, movie-buff core (with IMDb seal of approval) and whatever is on Netflix? kek

It's not limiting experience though. High quality cuisine can incorporate pasta and cheese. If anything that's what major aspects of high quality cuisine is, it's a simple thing like mac n' cheese elevated and developed.

Do you have to taste watered down beer to avoid being close-minded? When you find yourself returning to high quality cuisine the difference isn't eating lobster bisk vs maruchan ramen; it's maruchan ramen vs. ramen prepared by a top quality chef.

Those, and also others as well. Why do you think other people limit themselves to only one kind of experience? Do you not realize you're the odd one out, not everyone but you?

>Those, and also others as well
hahahahahahahahah

You're not far off the mark in a way. It is really good to be able to enjoy a wide range of experiences.
On the other hand, it is good to be able point out the difference between "subjectively good" and "objectively good". While there is no definitive "objective ideal" when it comes to art, there are absolutely definite good aspects. For example, obvious CGI is bad, because it exposes the production process. Some acting is hammy and contrary to the writing. Sometimes the director or cinematographer makes poor camera decisions that keeps things out of frame or focus that should be in a shot for artistic or narrative purposes. These things are objectively bad, their opposites are objectively good. In all art, there is also objective good in innovation, and technical advancement. This is sort of getting into the "philosophy of art" though, and you should really read a little Aristotle or Kant on aesthetics, even Schopenhauer for more in depth discussion of that.
Understanding that, it's helpful when you're evaluating a film to try and decide whether you like or dislike it based on the content or the form, and whether you like it based on things outside of genuine art criticism (for example politics or nostalgia).

All that being said, if you like everything indiscernibly, then your opinion is valueless, for the simple reason that a critic with no criticism is just a sycophant.

Are you fucking retarded, the guy I was replying to used to phrase "unwashed masses".

Lobster bisque tastes like slimy nothing, and maruchan ramen is sometimes just what hits the spot. It reminds me of when I was younger.

>b-b-but nostalgia isn't legitimate
Yes it is.

>almost an hour
>nothing

Once again its proven that its nothing but a meme
>i da watch da both!!

If you're doing something because it makes you feel like a child I don't anything wrong with people calling you a manchild for it. It sounds pretty reasonable actually.

>On the other hand, it is good to be able point out the difference between "subjectively good" and "objectively good".
Like most forms of art, just because art is subjective doesn't mean it's 100% subjective - there are technical elements which can be done well or poorly, and measured in objective terms.

I'm merely suggesting that there are good examples to be found in every medium and every genre, and limiting yourself arbitrarily to only a few of those is a bad thing. It would be a reduction to the absurd to say that means one should like as many things as possible regardless of their technical quality, or that not liking something is by itself bad. I'm merely saying that we shouldn't take not liking something as a good thing in and of itself.

>If you don't watch this one specific thing, then you only like the most popular lowest common denominator things!
Once again, hipsters are all nonconformist in the exact same way.

There are literally countless documentaries, movies, TV shows, miniseries, short films etc out there, the idea that anyone who claims to watch things other than the mainstream will automatically have seen one or two names picked at apparent random is retarded.

"Younger" meant college, not kindergarten.

Furthermore, the idea of fondly remembering something from your childhood makes you feel like you are a child is retarded.

If liking what I like and disliking what I dislike makes me narrow minded hipster then let me be the biggest fucking hipster. I will never like something I dislike or dislike something I like just to fit a bullshit category.

But you don't understand it like OP does, dude. You only dislike popular things to be cool! Google "social signaling" and get #rekt

If your tastes are just naturally narrow, fine, cool. Good for you. Do you want a fucking cookie or something?

What makes you a hipster is pretending being more closedminded and having narrower interests makes you better, or wiser, or more appreciative of the medium.

>feel like a child

Watching something that gives me a sense of nostalgia doesn't make me feel like a child, it just makes me remember good times from when I was one. Do you really not comprehend the difference?

>the embryo thinks he's open minded because he ingests several different types of trash

kek I wish I was this deluded

Even if you're a shit-eating mouthbreather who likes everything, you have to be "more discerning" and choose what to spend your time with. There are too many videogames out there and you won't be able to play all of them in a lifetime, you essentially need to pick your poison. So stop blaming others for what you do yourself, you elitist prick.

I'm not complaining about people who only select games they'll want, to use your metaphor. I'm complaining about people who only play grand strategy games because everything else is for unwashed, lowest-common-demoniator, plebeian embryos.

Damn OP btfo

Nostalgia is usually associated with a desire to return to the remembered state. What you're describing is more like "reminiscing".

dictionary.com/browse/nostalgia
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nostalgia

Quantity ≠ Variety

Yes, and I meant variety, not quantity.

That pic is older than the internet.

So's this one.

kys OP

>I'm not complaining about people who only select games they'll want, to use your metaphor. I'm complaining about people who
Whoa, watch out the elitist is complaining about a "certain" demographic. Why are you such a hipster, user?

Is this one of those "get the last word in" things at this point?