That Gen Xer who thinks solid well made genre movies are high art

>that pretentious snob who thinks movies and TV shows that try to be realistic are inherently superior

Attached: 1463356031732.gif (480x324, 663K)

it's wrong to call people names

T2 is to this day the greatest use of practical effects and for it's time the best use of minimalist cg effects. It is art.

Robocop is the most Soulful movie there.

that would be me

ESB is second best it by no means sucks but A New Hope is simply a perfect movie for what it sought out to be and it never misses a beat.

You call that flubber shit minimalist?!

>blows up one truck
>greatest practical effects of all time

From top left to bottom right.
>6/10
>7/10
10/10
8/10
9/10
7/10

I saw 3/6 when they were released

Attached: 1530319437953.jpg (400x400, 23K)

>for what it is
You forgot to finish the sentence.

That chick on the right is hot.

See that helicopter flying under the freeway overpass? That's a helicopter flying under a freeway overpass.

t. retard who doesn't understand how well made these movies actually are.

But it's your (bad) choice. You're missing out on great movies.

I saw T2 6 times in the cinema. Teenage me loved that film.

I was 10 when it was released and the nuclear bomb scene gave me nightmares

OP doesn't care, because he doesn't know. Therefore he can't appreciate.

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

>focuses on pyrotechnics and ignores the makeup and animatronics

>that one mirror shot where there would include a reflection of the camera man except there is no mirror, the actress's twin sister is on one side; she on the other, one manipulating the prop robot dummy Arnold's mechanical parts, the other with the real Arnold mimicing her movements and pretending to be her reflection

>absolute genius way to get an impossible shot

How would you define art? There is no point in arguing if everyone has a different deffinition. Would you say commercial entertainment can´t be art or that genres can´t be art? A genre can be taken by a director and display authorism markings that transform a specific movie into something unique more akin to art. Technical proficiency and knowledge alone would not make something art, i agree, but a certain style of cinematography or particular narrative form could. The genre is both container and limiter but a good director can change that.
It is another issue if the movie resonate with the audiences or not, namely if a movie becomes popular. I reckon the consequence of popularity is, most often than not, linked to trying to replicate the commercial success (which can lead to sketchy attempts and subpar imitations if the producers or even the director himself don´t get what elements of the original film worked. Which BTW do not take any merit from the original movies).

I am not sure if i would call those movies on your post art as the marks of enunciation on those are hidden hollywood style but i wouldn´t say movies like that can not be art. In any case those where far better than the trash produced these days.

ok

>How would you define art? There is no point in arguing if everyone has a different deffinition. Would you say commercial entertainment can´t be art or that genres can´t be art? A genre can be taken by a director and display authorism markings that transform a specific movie into something unique more akin to art. Technical proficiency and knowledge alone would not make something art, i agree, but a certain style of cinematography or particular narrative form could. The genre is both container and limiter but a good director can change that.
>It is another issue if the movie resonate with the audiences or not, namely if a movie becomes popular. I reckon the consequence of popularity is, most often than not, linked to trying to replicate the commercial success (which can lead to sketchy attempts and subpar imitations if the producers or even the director himself don´t get what elements of the original film worked. Which BTW do not take any merit from the original movies).
>I am not sure if i would call those movies on your post art as the marks of enunciation on those are hidden hollywood style but i wouldn´t say movies like that can not be art. In any case those where far better than the trash produced these days.

Attached: neckbeard.webm (640x360, 1.78M)

fuck "high art"

Don't think so, chief

Movies aren't high art by definition. By the very nature of all the paid actors and crew, all of the technology involved in making, from the cameras, to the spots, the editing equpment, etc. They are a commercial product. The best they can aspire to is to be well-crafted products.

I know you only watch superhero movies but just pretend occasionally that you don't before you post.

You left out the Avengers

Does that gut even have a beard on his neck? Looks like he just has it on his chin.

that's not what people are talking about when they speak of genre trash