And then you go and accuse them of *forcing* you to do something? How very gallant of you.Ghengis John said:
How DARE you make me read these inane posts.
Ten Movies That Will Never Be
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
How DARE you make me read these inane posts.
They're all not bad as a dig at Hollywood's skewed stories, except for that last one.
Most importantly, I can't help but feel that the implicit idea that a life filled with technology is somehow superior to a simpler lifestyle that works is a little too much of a "White" opinion in itself. In fact it might hit a sore point with many people who know how entire cultures have been wiped out by colonists who believed that it was their right and responsibility to bring the "primitive" cultures "up" to their level. And the result was widespread suffering, even for adopters who found their immune systems unable to cope with the diseases that the city-dwellers brought with them.
I understand that it's not a real pitch, but I had to point out that it embodies a point of view which many may still find objectionable. For the record in my post I was primarily thinking about the colonization of Australia and how the Aboriginal Australians suffered because of it, but I can't imagine the story is unique to them, particularly as it was kind of a thing the British did, during the days of the British Empire.
Not only do I feel that it is an extremely unlikely development (and in opposition to the attitudes of traditional people I know) I feel that dying in the city would be more likely; There's no way that someone experiencing a city for the first time would find it "good". Granted we are talking about "The Big City" as opposed to A Big City, but the benefits are almost impossible to notice when you are dying of the first disease you come in to contact with. Again I suppose it depends on which particular group of "primitive" people we are talking about and how well evolved their immune systems are, but you still can't get people living that traditionally to be at home with technology within a space of time that short.MovieBob said:
Most importantly, I can't help but feel that the implicit idea that a life filled with technology is somehow superior to a simpler lifestyle that works is a little too much of a "White" opinion in itself. In fact it might hit a sore point with many people who know how entire cultures have been wiped out by colonists who believed that it was their right and responsibility to bring the "primitive" cultures "up" to their level. And the result was widespread suffering, even for adopters who found their immune systems unable to cope with the diseases that the city-dwellers brought with them.
I understand that it's not a real pitch, but I had to point out that it embodies a point of view which many may still find objectionable. For the record in my post I was primarily thinking about the colonization of Australia and how the Aboriginal Australians suffered because of it, but I can't imagine the story is unique to them, particularly as it was kind of a thing the British did, during the days of the British Empire.
I don't even understand the premise of this one. If one believes in some sort of all-powerful deity and the concept of an afterlife, I doubt the mechanics of entering into said afterlife are so rigid that you end up there the moment you die. If we're going with the Judeo-Christian God, then he's omniscient and omnipotent, and knows the future. He's hardly going to let your soul into heaven then facepalm when the doctors yank you back into the real world, is he?
In short that, that pitch could be drastically shortened to "A man injured in a crash dies on the operating table for several minutes. Upon awakening, he changes his entire belief system for no good reason."
Wasn't talking about the wheat. Have no problems with tinkering if the right safety precautions are observed.JMeganSnow said:
I misread what you meant there. I thought you meant anyone who opposed was a scare monger. But I guess I'll take kind of stupid over really stupid any day and try to make the rest up with charm.
Who says chivalry is dead? But thanks for reading them.JMeganSnow said:
Movies without horribly offensive/backwards cliches that harm the image of non-white Americans or otherwise pander to said white Americans? PFFT.
Also: #8, I know I've seen the movie being described here minus the ending. The whole bit about automotive repairs confirmed it. ALSO magical black man.
Also: #8, I know I've seen the movie being described here minus the ending. The whole bit about automotive repairs confirmed it. ALSO magical black man.
*sigh*
I'm about sick, even in satire, of people mocking, belittling, or denigrating my faith. I don't go around preaching about God to people. In fact, I'll openly admit that as far as spreading the "gospel" goes, I'm a pretty Lousy Christian.
But this condescending, smug, "we know better even though we don't actually know shit because we've never been given a reason to personally to put our faith in something we can't see, even though there are plenty of sciences we put our faith and trust in simply because we're arrogant enough to claim we know everything about the universe because some of it happens to be follow consistent rules or laws."
You know, if you don't care for religion, cool, have at it! That's your life. But why is it EVERYONE deserves "tolerance and respect," from homosexuals to serial killers, but no, not CHRISTIANS.
I'm just starting to decide to distance myself from this sort of thing. Its a shame, but I'll probably start avoiding your work Bob in the future, if this sort of attitude persists.
Not that you'd care, apparently.
I'm about sick, even in satire, of people mocking, belittling, or denigrating my faith. I don't go around preaching about God to people. In fact, I'll openly admit that as far as spreading the "gospel" goes, I'm a pretty Lousy Christian.
But this condescending, smug, "we know better even though we don't actually know shit because we've never been given a reason to personally to put our faith in something we can't see, even though there are plenty of sciences we put our faith and trust in simply because we're arrogant enough to claim we know everything about the universe because some of it happens to be follow consistent rules or laws."
You know, if you don't care for religion, cool, have at it! That's your life. But why is it EVERYONE deserves "tolerance and respect," from homosexuals to serial killers, but no, not CHRISTIANS.
I'm just starting to decide to distance myself from this sort of thing. Its a shame, but I'll probably start avoiding your work Bob in the future, if this sort of attitude persists.
Not that you'd care, apparently.
Hmmm, I dunno.
WHAT
A story that needs to be told, that too many people don't want to hear.
Okay... so what is the movie about?
This is fucking brilliant. (By which I mean, 'I know your article is about dumb pitches to highlight the stupid things Hollywood keeps doing, but this one would actually be a great movie if it was an actual pitch.')
Yawn.
Like two entries above, I can see this actually working.
So essentially you're not happy that vapid films about fake character growth that serve only to reassure people who already agree with the central message are only made by religous folks, but you want to see atheists/agnostics doing this as well. If you ask me, you'd lose the best thing of being an atheist.
Only if in the end he fails because his people's culture are protected by a government that's deadly afraid the culture will die out if modern things are introduced to his people, and he ends up disgraced and exiled from his village, where he is known as a traitor, and dies in the Big City as a hobo.
WHAT
If you scrambled the gay scenario with the scientist scenario, I'm thinking you'd get something startlingly close to And the Band Played On [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/]. Thoughts?
As much as I may hate to admit it, I actually wouldn't watch some of these. I thought to myself as I read each one, "I wonder what the trailer would look like?" And that's when I realized that a lot of these ideas sound boring me.
I go to the movies for escapism. And this sounds like watching two hours of real life.
By the way, the fact that the idea is "Something original" does not mean it will be "something good." I remember watching Milk for the first time and thinking it was something original, and I thought it was terrible (of course, not Josh Brolin though).
I think what we need are more movies that address ideas in an interesting manner. Science fiction can address so many issues, it's ridiculous.
I go to the movies for escapism. And this sounds like watching two hours of real life.
By the way, the fact that the idea is "Something original" does not mean it will be "something good." I remember watching Milk for the first time and thinking it was something original, and I thought it was terrible (of course, not Josh Brolin though).
I think what we need are more movies that address ideas in an interesting manner. Science fiction can address so many issues, it's ridiculous.
Good to see the trademark Bob sensitivity to other viewpoints at work. Most of this article is thinly-veiled projecting and jabs at people and institutions Bob doesn't like. This isn't so much "I'd like to see these movies" as it is "believe what I believe so we can all sit around and nod at each other and stroke our egos." It's important to understand this isn't even the article it purports itself to be: it's a slam paper in disguise. These aren't serious pitches-Bob knows better than anyone some of these ideas would be friggin' boring.
As for the "satire" defense, satire is funny. Parody is funny. This, like many of Bob's videos (not hyperbole, I'm always happy to produce numerous examples), is more of Bob banging it into his audience's heads that he is right and you are either right for agreeing or TOTALLY WRONG FOREVER for disagreeing.
Oh, absolutely. Healthy, sports-playing, religious men in honest relationships with women manage to get insulted in most every episode/article he writes.Akalabeth said:
As for the "satire" defense, satire is funny. Parody is funny. This, like many of Bob's videos (not hyperbole, I'm always happy to produce numerous examples), is more of Bob banging it into his audience's heads that he is right and you are either right for agreeing or TOTALLY WRONG FOREVER for disagreeing.
Wanna know the irony? Some of the movies you mentioned HAVE BEEN MADE(intentional?)
Also, that many of your movie pitch ideas kinda sound, a little, okay VERY cheesy and cliche. Just stick to reviewing movies, man. Though you haven't really been doing THAT either for the last two weeks, lol
Also, that many of your movie pitch ideas kinda sound, a little, okay VERY cheesy and cliche. Just stick to reviewing movies, man. Though you haven't really been doing THAT either for the last two weeks, lol
I've think I've figured out Bob's problemSamurai Goomba said:
Here's the thing. In debate? Being right means next to nothing. Most people don't grasp this till later in life.
No, what matters is being able to convince people you are correct. Using strawmen arguments or refuiting oposition wiht "No, ur dumb" does not really win people over to your side
Take this [http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2011/08/six-more-opinions-likely-to-be.html] little gem he wrote recently.
Really Bob? Really? Who pissed in your cornflakes?
I think when he's talking about movies, he knows his stuff. But politics? Eh, not so much. He tends to abuse the soap box, so to speek.
But then again, I'm only a pedestrian. So what do I know.
I'd laugh, but some of these pitches I'd actually like to see, so I'm a little sad.
The last one about "The Artifact", though... I recall this one part of a series called One Piece. These "Adventurers" shall we say, lead by a strong, intelligent man, arrive at an island full of strange natives that, since their village is overrun by a disease that can't be cured, decide to sacrifice the daughter of the village's strongest warrior to their "God", a giant snake. The leader kills the snake, and his crew is threatened to be killed, but the man offers a cure to the disease in exchange for his crew's safety. After many trials, the man and the warrior become close friends, the villagers are cured, and it turns out there's a city of gold nearby in which the adventurers are allowed to help themselves. Suddenly, the villagers refuse to talk the the adventurers, even the warrior is upset and won't talk to them. This is because they cut down these trees, which are said to contain the lives of those who have passed away in the village. The lead man, regretting his decision to cut down the trees without informing the village, decides to leave the island where the villagers live, and leave all the gold from the golden city there as a sort of apology. It's only until after he left that the villagers realized that those trees were actually RESPONSIBLE for the incurable disease they've suffered. The warrior, feeling great grief, shouts out the the adventurers ship, promising they'll meet again.
Later on, half of the island is blown into the sky, and the adventurer is branded as a liar and executed for "fooling" the king he lead to the island.
Sad, isn't it?
The last one about "The Artifact", though... I recall this one part of a series called One Piece. These "Adventurers" shall we say, lead by a strong, intelligent man, arrive at an island full of strange natives that, since their village is overrun by a disease that can't be cured, decide to sacrifice the daughter of the village's strongest warrior to their "God", a giant snake. The leader kills the snake, and his crew is threatened to be killed, but the man offers a cure to the disease in exchange for his crew's safety. After many trials, the man and the warrior become close friends, the villagers are cured, and it turns out there's a city of gold nearby in which the adventurers are allowed to help themselves. Suddenly, the villagers refuse to talk the the adventurers, even the warrior is upset and won't talk to them. This is because they cut down these trees, which are said to contain the lives of those who have passed away in the village. The lead man, regretting his decision to cut down the trees without informing the village, decides to leave the island where the villagers live, and leave all the gold from the golden city there as a sort of apology. It's only until after he left that the villagers realized that those trees were actually RESPONSIBLE for the incurable disease they've suffered. The warrior, feeling great grief, shouts out the the adventurers ship, promising they'll meet again.
Later on, half of the island is blown into the sky, and the adventurer is branded as a liar and executed for "fooling" the king he lead to the island.
Sad, isn't it?
