• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Oscar Thread

It definitely wasn't awful...but you either love it or hate it I think...like a lot of MacFarlane's stuff
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Built in fan base. How have American Dad and the Cleveland show stayed on the air for so many years?
Click to expand...

this is a ridiculous assumption. Family Guy has what, 5mil viewers a night? If this was true, The Simpsons Movie would be the highest grossing movie of all time.
 
BostonDeac said:
this is a ridiculous assumption. Family Guy has what, 5mil viewers a night? If this was true, The Simpsons Movie would be the highest grossing movie of all time.
Click to expand...

Seth McFarlane has a huge built in fanbase for his work. Single episode ratings don't dispel that at all. Having Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis helps a lot too.
 
Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a cunt, right? #Oscars2013
— The Onion (@TheOnion) February 25, 2013

Onion took a lot of heat for that tweet and had to publicly apologize. Never seen them break character before.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Faith is the belief in a story you can't prove true, that's nearly the definition of the word. How do you not notice the characters in the film that blatantly represent your disbelief and lack of faith? You're given a fantastical, epic tale of survival for 90 minutes, but you willingly dismiss that story for a thrown together 2 minute alternative, because you need something more believable. The truth in the film is that neither story can be corroborated, so you're still using faith in believing either one. The book and the movie leave the choice open. Maybe stick to critiquing the visual elements of film.
Click to expand...
You seem very pissed that I didn't like it. The movie is empty. It has nothing of substance to say. It's incredibly simple. Which makes sense, it was based on a children's book. But don't pretend like it's some profound work of art. I get what the movie is saying, and it's unmercifully pounded down our throats. And how I wish it was only 90 minutes, but alas it was 127 minutes. And in the finale, where the actor delivers every line like it's the most profound thing ever said, the message is spelled out with head-smacking literalness. All style (which is pretty jaw-dropping at times) that represents nothing, because when it comes down to it, the film ultimately makes the biggest mistake you can make when it comes to the thematic material, it tells rather than shows. Which again makes sense because it was adapted, rather poorly, from a children's book full of easy morality and simple massages.
 
Marquee Moon said:
Only time I laughed was when he pulled out of the parking lot, almosy got into an accident, and said, "sorry tweeting," or something like that
Click to expand...

You didn't laugh when he was in the bag and said "I can hear the fat kid running..."

That was pretty dandy
 
Anyone play Unicorn Apocalypse yet?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a cunt, right? #Oscars2013
— The Onion (@TheOnion) February 25, 2013

Onion took a lot of heat for that tweet and had to publicly apologize. Never seen them break character before.
Click to expand...

Lame. There's been way more objectionable (and still hilarious) content from them in the past.
 
WakeFanatic said:
And in the finale, where the actor delivers every line like it's the most profound thing ever said, the message is spelled out with head-smacking literalness.
Click to expand...

And MDHD just smacked you over the head with the message again because you didn't like the movie.

Just finished the book - the beginning was boring. Enjoyed the survival at sea with a Tiger part of it. The message is simplistic garbage. But pretty obvious the second story is what actually happened. If the author didn't want that to be obvious he 1) wouldn't have included the part with the carnivorous island that is nice to people during the day but eats them at night and 2) wouldn't have the second story be so specific, so in line with what happens in the first story, and include such horrific events related to him and his family -- why not just have it be a boring I got lost at sea story? It seems pretty clear that Pi just created the first story as a coping mechanism for what actually happened to him. And that completely ruins the simplistic message of the movie.
 
WakeFanatic said:
You seem very pissed that I didn't like it. The movie is empty. It has nothing of substance to say. It's incredibly simple. Which makes sense, it was based on a children's book. But don't pretend like it's some profound work of art. I get what the movie is saying, and it's unmercifully pounded down our throats. And how I wish it was only 90 minutes, but alas it was 127 minutes. And in the finale, where the actor delivers every line like it's the most profound thing ever said, the message is spelled out with head-smacking literalness. All style (which is pretty jaw-dropping at times) that represents nothing, because when it comes down to it, the film ultimately makes the biggest mistake you can make when it comes to the thematic material, it tells rather than shows. Which again makes sense because it was adapted, rather poorly, from a children's book full of easy morality and simple massages.
Click to expand...

There's no way to argue with your opinion, it's based on nothing but a condescending view of your own intelligence. I did my best at interpreting what the author/director/screen writer created. You've done nothing but trash the film and tried to clumsily paint your "review" as intellectual, while your posts about this film, and past films we discussed have been even more intellectually vapid and hollow then you're currently claiming this movie is. Hey, while you're at your computer, why don't you tell me what the message was, since it's head-smackingly literal. Please don't tell me that story telling is a metaphor for faith again. That sentence doesn't mean anything.
 
Last edited:
PhilliesDeacs said:
Lame. There's been way more objectionable (and still hilarious) content from them in the past.
Click to expand...

i think it was only inappropriate because they said the C-word and not 'brat'.

...i mean, i agreed. i thought she was kind of a brat.
 
I think its impressive she won a gold medal AND got nominated in the same calendar year.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
There's no way to argue with your opinion, it's based on nothing but a condescending view of your own intelligence. I did my best in interpreting what the author/director/screen writer created. You've done nothing but trash the film and tried to clumsily paint your "review" as intellectual, while your posts about this film, and past films we discussed have been even more intellectually vapid and hollow then you're currently claiming this movie is. Hey, while you're at your computer, why don't you tell me what the message was, since it's head-smackingly literal. Please don't tell me that story telling is a metaphor for faith again. That sentence doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...
There's no interpreting needed with the movie. What you posted before is exactly what it's about. Usually, with a good movie, there can be debate about what it's saying. Life of Pi is like a sermon, it's preaches at you. And yes, it is a metaphor for storytelling as an act of faith, where you must have faith to believe in even the most fantastical story. According to adult Pi, because neither account changes the basic facts (regardless, the ship sank, his family died, and he survived), the particulars are unimportant—and thus, like the Bible, one should always choose to believe in the "better story." A simple (and rather stupid) message, built up as something profound.
 
I hate Family Guy and all the dumb spinoffs, but saw in the theater and thought it was hilarious. Now I was on the tail end of a five day 4th of July bender in Austin, and saw the movie with a couple of friends, while consuming beers. So the environment, pus my impaired brain function, could have played a part in my thought process.

Anyways I saw it again like a month ago and it was okay. Definitely loses a lot of its humor during the second viewing. Not sure if its the kind of movie that will be re-watchable.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ted was amusing for what it was. Some very funny jokes and I liked the cast. But definitely nothing more than a good diversion.
 
WakeFanatic said:
There's no interpreting needed with the movie. What you posted before is exactly what it's about. Usually, with a good movie, there can be debate about what it's saying. Life of Pi is like a sermon, it's preaches at you. And yes, it is a metaphor for storytelling as an act of faith, where you must have faith to believe in even the most fantastical story. According to adult Pi, because neither account changes the basic facts (regardless, the ship sank, his family died, and he survived), the particulars are unimportant—and thus, like the Bible, one should always choose to believe in the "better story." A simple (and rather stupid) message, built up as something profound.
Click to expand...

In order for Pi's storytelling to be an act of faith as you call it, his story would have to be imagined. Never in the movie, or the book, are you told that his first story wasn't real; You're assuming that, and that is why your "review" sucks. You're painting the entire film as shallow based on a simple, shitty assumption that you've made, an assumption which is based on 5 minutes of movie time. This isn't the Usual Suspects. In the universe of this film, the author and screenplay writer are in charge of what is true and what isn't, not you. You watched 120 minutes of a fantastical journey that was never represented as anything less than fact, yet you were willing to dismiss it at the first opportunity for a sad, harsh alternative. The author expected you, and wrote you into the novel. The author has made it clear, post publishing, that there is no certain truth in the novel, either story could be reality. Just because you choose the shitty more "realistic" story, that doesn't make Life of Pi a bad film. The presence of faith in life, the ability to color your own world fantastically or not, is a rich subtext for a film, but it can be easily missed of course, by those who are just searching for reasons to criticize.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=124838&page=3

"A. Dear Sarah, I leave it to the reader to choose which is the better story. It can go both ways. Pi survived with Richard Parker and then, confronted with the skepticism of the Japanese, and wanting his suffering to be validated, to be accepted, he creates another story, the story without animals. That's one reading. Or Pi and his mother and the French cook and a Taiwanese sailor survive, it turns into a butchery and Pi invents the story with animals presumably to pass the time and to make acceptable the unacceptable, that is, the murder of his mother by the Frenchman and Pi's killing of the Frenchman. Both stories are offered, one is on the outer edges of the barely believable, the other is nearly unbearable in its violence, neither explains the sinking of the ship, in both Pi suffers and loses his family, in both he is the only human survivor to reach the coast of Mexico. The investigators must choose and the reader must choose. When the investigators choose the story with animals, Pi answers "And so it goes with God." In other words, Pi makes a parallel between the two stories and religion. His argument (and mine) is that a vision of life that has a transcendental element is better than one that is purely secular and materialist. A story with God ("God" defined in the broadest sense) is the better story, I argue, just as I think the story with animals is the better story. But you choose."
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
In order for Pi's storytelling to be an act of faith as you call it, his story would have to be imagined. Never in the movie, or the book, are you told that his first story wasn't real; You're assuming that, and that is why your "review" sucks. You're painting the entire film as shallow based on a simple, shitty assumption that you've made, an assumption which is based on 5 minutes of movie time. This isn't the Usual Suspects. In the universe of this film, the author and screenplay writer are in charge of what is true and what isn't, not you. You watched 120 minutes of a fantastical journey that was never represented as anything less than fact, yet you were willing to dismiss it at the first opportunity for a sad, harsh alternative. The author expected you, and wrote you into the novel. The author has made it clear, post publishing, that there is no certain truth in the novel, either story could be reality. Just because you choose the shitty more "realistic" story, that doesn't make Life of Pi a bad film. The presence of faith in life, the ability to color your own world fantastically or not, is a rich subtext for a film, but it can be easily missed of course, by those who are just searching for reasons to criticize.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=124838&page=3

"A. Dear Sarah, I leave it to the reader to choose which is the better story. It can go both ways. Pi survived with Richard Parker and then, confronted with the skepticism of the Japanese, and wanting his suffering to be validated, to be accepted, he creates another story, the story without animals. That's one reading. Or Pi and his mother and the French cook and a Taiwanese sailor survive, it turns into a butchery and Pi invents the story with animals presumably to pass the time and to make acceptable the unacceptable, that is, the murder of his mother by the Frenchman and Pi's killing of the Frenchman. Both stories are offered, one is on the outer edges of the barely believable, the other is nearly unbearable in its violence, neither explains the sinking of the ship, in both Pi suffers and loses his family, in both he is the only human survivor to reach the coast of Mexico. The investigators must choose and the reader must choose. When the investigators choose the story with animals, Pi answers "And so it goes with God." In other words, Pi makes a parallel between the two stories and religion. His argument (and mine) is that a vision of life that has a transcendental element is better than one that is purely secular and materialist. A story with God ("God" defined in the broadest sense) is the better story, I argue, just as I think the story with animals is the better story. But you choose."
Click to expand...
Okay, you have completely misread my entire argument, and are putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say I chose to believe in the story without animals? Where did I ever say I chose either story! And what the author said that I have in quotes, that's exactly what I said about storytelling being a metaphor for faith. Believe me, I fucking get this simplistic fable's message. You can choose to believe in what you want, and a life with imagination is better than one without it. That message was delivered 1,000% better in another adaptation of a children's book, "Where the Wild Things Are," and they did it with out all the preaching and air of pretention.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top