Wally Ian settles a long-running debate on IMDB!

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:36 am

pinback wrote:Man, the voting on this poll is just disgraceful.

As of the time of this post... I agree with you!!!! LOLLERS!!!

by **The Ghost of Siskel** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:48 am

Good luck to you, Pinback.

Doubtful there's anything I, the ghost of film critic Gene Siskel, can do over the internet to change Ice Cream Jonsey's mind on this topic, but if there is, please, let me know.

Good luck, my thoughts are with you, fellow critic!

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:23 pm

Man, the voting on this poll is just disgraceful.

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:52 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:But I shouldn't have to go say how well-made Boogie Nights is. I don't have to go say how nice the box was that Grand Theft Auto III came in.

That's the speciousest analogy I've heard in the last four years.

I didn't like it. Ergo, it sucked.

We differ in our definitions of "sucked". "Sucked" to me means, it was a BAD movie. Not, "I didn't like it." I didn't like Requiem for a Dream, but it was a GREAT movie. Saying RfaD sucks is just ridiculous, even though just thinking about it makes me want to go buy a big mushy lunch, shovel it down, and then puke it back up again.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:45 am

pinback wrote:Probably not, no. But as a perceptive movie viewer, I can pick up at least whether it's a WELL-MADE movie, whether it is well-written, creatively and provocatively directed, well-acted, etc.

Oh.

Boogie Nights is probably well made and well written. But the "well made" thing is a bit dodgy: c'mon, what movie discussed by any of us ISN'T well made? Clerks? Fine. I'll give you clerks.

But I shouldn't have to go say how well-made Boogie Nights is. I don't have to go say how nice the box was that Grand Theft Auto III came in.

So even if it "wasn't my cup of tea", subject-matter-wise, I'm not going to go onto a public forum, where my name will be attached with the statements for time immemorial, and say that:

1. It SUCKS.
2. "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back" is a better movie than it.

I think I have realized the problem!

When I say "it sucks" I am fully saying, "I thought the movie sucked IN MY OPINION."

You think it means, "This movie sucks from all objective standpoints."

I didn't like it. Ergo, it sucked. I refuse to apologize for saying that a movie which I did not like "sucked." It did, to me. It didn't speak to me. It sucked to me.

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:07 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I have a question for Ben, however: can you honestly say that a movie dealing with a subject matter that you have complete apathy for, if not outright revulsion, can be this OMG ***** affair for you?

Probably not, no. But as a perceptive movie viewer, I can pick up at least whether it's a WELL-MADE movie, whether it is well-written, creatively and provocatively directed, well-acted, etc. So even if it "wasn't my cup of tea", subject-matter-wise, I'm not going to go onto a public forum, where my name will be attached with the statements for time immemorial, and say that:

1. It SUCKS.
2. "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back" is a better movie than it.

I mean, that would just be stupid.

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:04 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:But there are some good lines on that show

More often than not, it's funny? MORE OFTEN THAN NOT?

How about, more often than not, it's one of the most obnoxious sitcoms in the history of television?

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re-reading this thread, I see that I may have said some things last night which I regret.

I have a question for Ben, however: can you honestly say that a movie dealing with a subject matter that you have complete apathy for, if not outright revulsion, can be this OMG ***** affair for you? Is there no "type" of movie, or genre, that you can conceivably not see 'movie magic' from?

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:50 am

pinback wrote:
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Yet the show "That 70s Show" is, more often than not, funny.
There you have it, folks. That's all you have to know about your man Jonsey here.

Shut the fuck up. I hate just about every show on television with a far greater passion than you could muster if Shortcake managed to stuff a bottle of vodka up her piece and you were therefore able to simultaneously thrust away at her and it. I'm not just talking sit-coms either. I hate it all. ALL. But there are some good lines on that show, and if you are going to sit here and say otherwise you're just trolling.

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:53 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Yet the show "That 70s Show" is, more often than not, funny.

There you have it, folks. That's all you have to know about your man Jonsey here.

Let's just go ahead and shut this base down, 'kay?

by **bruce** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:38 am

The Ghost of Peter Finch wrote:I don't think anyone got that last part.

I'm mad as hell, and I want someone to blow me.

Bruce

by **Roody_Yogurt** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:37 am

Well, yes, I am still drunk, but I hardly think that Dirk Diggler's story is the most interesting in "Boogie Nights." It's the other people that I really appreciate.

And I also think "That 70's show" pretty much sucks, despite the occasional line that is undeniably funny.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:11 am

pinback wrote:So you're stating here, in this base, in front of all these people that, at least up until this very second, looked up to you and respected you, that you can judge a movie to have "sucked" simply because you weren't interested in the subject matter. Not "it was a well-made movie, I'm just not interested in the subject matter", but instead: "It sucked".

Yes. Let me give you a counter-example. As I've stated, I hate everything about the 70s, including the fact that I was born in that decade. I often find myself with a match and some hairspray, passing away the evenings attempting to burn my flesh so that those people who try to "count the rings" on my person when I inevitably die will find that those rings have been fused together somewhat, and it's likely that poor, dead, old Jonsey there was born in 1980... or even 1981.

Yet the show "That 70s Show" is, more often than not, funny.

Those associated with that production managed to rise above my objections, and that's just a silly TV show. Boogie Nights doesn't even bother to try.

Let's do a super-quick BOOGIE NIGHTS FAQ, however.

Q: Hi there! I'm --
A: No time for this.

Q: Er... right. Hrmpf. Would "Boogie Nights" have been made better if Clarence Boddiker were in it?
A: Well, it certainly couldn't have been any worse!

YOU suck. How about that?

"I disagree, your excellency." -- Financial Advisor, Civ II

I think you're a brilliant guy,

Awww.

the funniest mufucka and all that,

Awwww!

and the closest friend I have who I have not, technically, met, but your opinion on this matter is not particularly provocative to me, so YOU suck.

Awwww-- waitaminnit.

You SUCK. MINUS TEN STARS.

I thought your scale only went to five, and presumably negative five, for those really special films and, presumably, those really especially versed in the art of "suck."

by **pinback** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:04 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:You're asking me what I thought of Boogie Nights. I thought it sucked. I thought the subject matter was uninteresting.

So you're stating here, in this base, in front of all these people that, at least up until this very second, looked up to you and respected you, that you can judge a movie to have "sucked" simply because you weren't interested in the subject matter. Not "it was a well-made movie, I'm just not interested in the subject matter", but instead: "It sucked".

YOU suck. How about that? I think you're a brilliant guy, the funniest mufucka and all that, and the closest friend I have who I have not, technically, met, but your opinion on this matter is not particularly provocative to me, so YOU suck.

You SUCK. MINUS TEN STARS.

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:57 pm

pinback wrote:So if you felt similar disdain for the Mafia, you're going to tell us that The Godfather sucked?

See what I'm saying here?

No.

You're asking me what I thought of Boogie Nights. I thought it sucked. I thought the subject matter was immature and uninteresting.

(And before I get abuse for comment due to the fact that I called one of my own characters "Porn" -- my intent was to develop the attributes of his personality that showed what an attention whore he was, and not because he was into pornography or anything. I think it's safe to say that I don't go around making dick jokes in the writings I release to the general public.)

I don't care about the 1970s. There was a complete lack of style and the people just look ridiculous. It grates on me to have to watch a film created in the 90s or the 00s that goes back and tries to replicate what everyone looked like back then. I "get" nostalgia and everything, but when you're not nostalgic about a certain decade the response given instead is contempt.

The director, according to IMDB, also made a film at the beginning of his career called "The Dirk Diggler Story." The fact that this guy thought that Dirk's tale was so fabulous that it just had to be made twice really causes the eyes in my head to roll about. I can accept that the movie is made well and has great production values and so forth, but Jesus -- it's about some guy with a big schlong who drops the hammer on some chick while the Bandit there looks on. That's not compelling. I can handle uncompelling movies, but when it is simultaneously not amusing, then what's the point? What's the point, Pinback?!?

There is a user on this BBS who constantly asks what the "magic" of certain events or situations is. I think I understand and get what the "magic" of Boogie Nights is supposed to be, it just doesn't interest me.

by **pinback** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:40 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I hate all aspects of the pornography business, (er, except one, natch) I hate being reminded that those aspects exist, and I certainly hate the "magic" of exploring and learning about the porn business.

So if you felt similar disdain for the Mafia, you're going to tell us that The Godfather sucked?

See what I'm saying here?

Have you ever seen two movies, back-to-back, and hated every single person you encountered in both of them? Well, I did.

fart

hehehe

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:35 pm

I hate the 70s. And all the kitch and "LOL BELLBOTTOMS" nonsense and 70s revival that goes along with it.

I hate movies based in California, especially Hollywood.

I hate(d) Markie Mark.

I hate all aspects of the pornography business, (er, except one, natch) I hate being reminded that those aspects exist, and I certainly hate the "magic" of exploring and learning about the porn business.

Therefore, there was no way I was going to like Boogie Nights. Its subject matter and characters were completely uninteresting to me. I could not be made to care about them. Apparently it's well made and well directed and so forth. That's great. I don't harbor the movie any sort of ill will. But actively despising so many components of the film -- hell, seeing how there is a strong and active member of the populace that looks down upon:

1) Science fiction flicks
2) D&D flicks
3) Comic book flicks
4) At least in the case of the Academy, comedies

... Then I'm not going to feel too lousy about my own -- minor by comparison -- disdain for porn documentaries shot during the 70s.

For what it's worth, I saw Boogie Nights right after seeing Studio 54 for the first time. Have you ever seen two movies, back-to-back, and hated every single person you encountered in both of them? Well, I did.

by **pinback** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:23 pm

Boogie Nights is better than 90% of Kevin Smith's stuff based solely on its content and writing. Once you include aspects such as, oh, I dunno, "filmmaking", it's not even close.

Robb, you're a good guy, and you seem to mean well, but the entire artistry of moviemaking is lost on you. Even the diest-hardest Kevin Smith fans admit his filmmaking is perfunctory at best, serving only to deliver the dialogue and characters he creates. Which is fine, no problem, some good characters and dialogue, all that.

But he belongs in a list of great filmmakers with P. T. Anderson like a Twinkie belongs in a list of great pastries.

Meaning, I enjoy a Twinkie myself from time to time, but get the fuck real, will you?

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:17 pm

You're still drunk, right?

by **Roody_Yogurt** » Tue Jul 01, 2003 11:08 pm

I'm sorry but "Boogie Nights," with its whole character study aspects, is more interesting than 90% of the stuff that Smith has released.

Wally Ian settles a long-running debate on IMDB!

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Wally Ian settles a long-running debate on IMDB!