Spunkie wrote:Anderson directed Rushmore, Aronofsky haven't directed any fully accomplished movie. I guess I'm not hanging for Aronofsky's next movie, while next Anderson is at least welcome.
Aronofsky hasn't directed a fully accomplished movie? Because Black Swan wasn't nominated for Best Picture?
This is how I see Black Swan: "The final destination Black Swan sets for itself is it's own trapping. Aronofsky is at the prime of his craft, yet the rarely seen quality of craftsmanship doesn't do more than bluring the line into a smudge. Representations of becoming/discovery of gender are led astray with childishly designed thriller sequences."
Cool story, bro
But, still, to say that Aronofsky hasn't made an accomplished movie is a completely outlandish statement. Forget the massive amount of acclaim Black Swan received, The Wrestler alone appeared in numerous Top 10 of 2008 lists, has a 7.49 average tier from over 4,500 rankings, and boasts a 98% on rotten tomatoes among critics. If that isn't saying something, then I don't know what is.
But, still, to say that Aronofsky hasn't made an accomplished movie is a completely outlandish statement. Forget the massive amount of acclaim Black Swan received, The Wrestler alone appeared in numerous Top 10 of 2008 lists, has a 7.49 average tier from over 4,500 rankings, and boasts a 98% on rotten tomatoes among critics. If that isn't saying something, then I don't know what is.
I didn't say acclaimed, I said fully accomplished. I like all the films Aronosky shot to a certain degree and used to believe he will deliver his vision a few films ago. Now I think he doesn't have one, he's one of the best craftsman around though.
I prefer Aronofsky. Requiem and The Wrestler were great films. Only seen Andersons Life Aquatic and Darjeeling and did not get the hype. Fell asleep watching Fantastic Mr Fox. Guess i don't get his humour.
But, still, to say that Aronofsky hasn't made an accomplished movie is a completely outlandish statement. Forget the massive amount of acclaim Black Swan received, The Wrestler alone appeared in numerous Top 10 of 2008 lists, has a 7.49 average tier from over 4,500 rankings, and boasts a 98% on rotten tomatoes among critics. If that isn't saying something, then I don't know what is.
No, it isn't saying something. "A bunch of random people agree with me!" is never a valid or convincing argument. It's just the populist fallacy.
Outside the tiny bubble of critics and people arguing about films on the Internet, several times more people loved "Twilight" than enjoyed "Black Swan". According to your logic, this makes "Twilight" better, right?
ShogunRua wrote:No, it isn't saying something. "A bunch of random people agree with me!" is never a valid or convincing argument. It's just the populist fallacy.
So what's a valid or convincing argument? Every other way than the above would be subjective/qualitative. So there is no way anyone is going to win the argument.
A valid or convincing argument would be a valid or convincing argument about the director's film(s). A valid or convincing argument would not be pointing and saying "hey, there is a vague agreement among a certain subset with what I think!"
Oh, and opinions on movies are mostly subjective. There is very little that is objective in any film discussion using any metric.
Anderson. He's one of my favorite directors and I've liked or loved every single feature he's done. I love his humor, style, and originality. He waits long enough between movies where his schtick doesn't get old to me. If anything, whenever I see he has a movie coming out it always jumps to the top of my imaginary "Most Anticipated" List.
Aronofsky I'm hit or miss with. The only thing I truly loved was The Wrestler. The others I've seen were mostly enjoyable (well Requiem for a Dream isn't really enjoyable) but not anything I need to see again.
