i have no reason to attack you... you're just totally missing out.

If you didn't want to be attacked for your (misguided, idiotic, wrong... pick your adjective) opinion, why would you even post that?

Wow, you're all (except for Billy of course) a bunch of intolerant, narrow-minded people aren't you? You just can't fanthom that someone might have a different opinion to yours, so you call that person a shit, you say his opinion is idiotic.

Snack - So predictable.

Trixster - opinions are subjective, there is no such thing as "wrong" or "right". Of course I don't expect any of you to understand that.

It bores me to death.

woah

teehee

Pol Pot will be so happy!

You see kid if you dislike something its quite alright, when you tell everyone who does like it that they are sheep or to fuck off then I'm afraid you are leaving yourself open.

So your complaining about people attacking about the fact you probably didn't understand 2001 and you come back with that?\

Damn glass houses!

I haven't told everyone they're a sheep. I said "I ain't no sheep", which (and I explained this) meant that I (ME, not everyone else, I don't care about everyone else) will not like this film just because everyone else does. And I clearly said fuck off to those who are planning on attacking me for my opinion, not to everyone who likes this movie.

And calling me kid won't accomplish anything.

But you are a kid your like 16 I think. You are very defensive I must say!

Tell you what don't want people to "attack" you then next time add something constructive to the debate other then throwing aggressive words around as a shield.

I apologize if anyone was offended by what I said. All I want is my opinion, and myself, to be respected.

I don't think 2001 is a movie that everyone can enjoy, so a few people hating it, even on a movie board (where tastes tend to be better) doesn't surprise me. When it came out, it received its fair share of hate, and there are loads of people who expect different things out of a movie than what this offers. Because really, it has some of the most anti-movie-structured storytelling of any movie I've seen. The changing of who the main characters are, wooden acting, weird editing, very little dialogue, the fact that few answers are offered to the many questions asked... I absolutely adore the way Kubrick handled all of these things, but I understand why some people would be left scratching their heads at what they watched.

So you are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald's son?

Being a new member, you're probably not aware that the "Everyone's A Critic" forum is for reviewing films, not other long time KJ members...

Even as a new member I am able to read. And after all, this forum for discussion, isn't it?

When it comes to an opinion of a form of art, yes, there is no such thing as right or wrong.

dp & wakerofwinds 4eva

...what?

Then it is my opinion that you are a retarded, moronic, obnoxious fool.

It's just my opinion! You can't criticize me for that!

The answer is movies serve different purposes. IMO, is 2001 greater than Iron Man in artistic/creative relevance? YES. Is it more entertaining? NO. There's no harm in thinking Iron Man > 2001 because the second is boring, and thus valuing entertainment over artistic value. Some think 2001 is more entertaining than Iron Man (a minority)... but the entertainment reaction is subjective and a total right brain/non analytical function anyways. Which is true for judging film in general, how a film sits and connects with a person, how much their personal unique tastes are satisfied, etc. is HUGE. This unique emotional connection is essential in judging art. To think otherwise is simply wrong from a psychological standpoint

I judge films on an artistic/directoral/etc. perspective, there's things for me that make movies good and bad, part of that entertainment value. But the trick is that's according to me, not everyone. Lots of people here don't like Funny Games... IMO it's a great piece of film, but I suppose it just doesn't sit with their taste of the goods and bads of film like it does mine

The problem with the snob club, is that not only do they claim a definitive good/bad scale for film, but then state THEY are the authorities of it, because they've seen more old and foreign films. In reality they're just the loudest voices in the room. Btw Mr. Price has seen more old and foreign movies than anyone here and he has 'mainstream taste'. What do you make of that? He's just 'wrong'? According to what criteria?

I'm not turning into another Doubt thread btw. I promise. This will be my last post on the subject.

Well, this forum has really turned into a mass of idiocy lately, has it not?

Shack has spent too much time reading DP posts.

and 2001 is far more entertaining than Iron Man, which is barely entertaining.

The world needs more DP07's!

Anyways I like debate and contrasting theories and perspectives on stuff a lot... so forgive me if I can't help myself when oppurtunities arise...

I don't see what's not so entertaining about 2001. Not all entertainment comes from the visceral. But if we're talking visceral thrills, compare say TDK vs. 2001, not Iron Man, which dragged and would have been pretty boring without the lead.

I am not a form of art.