Re: An Idea Part 3: Same $h!t, Different Thread

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:42 am

And by the way, I bet that Kennywood is a fun place to go to but the film makes it look like just another boring state fair with careless employees.

Edit: well, this is another fine mess that I've gotten myself into. I guess that I was just trying to say that Silverado and Adventureland are overrated.

by Keyser Soze Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:16 am

Buscemi wrote:In The Cowboys, there really isn't a main character. They are a collective (for another example, see Walter Hill's films). In Silverado, there is no collective. And the plot is all over the place.

And anyone can figure out the meaning of the word pretentious. Just watch any Hollywood-made indie-styled film in the last five years.

Also even if I were from Pittsburgh, I would still hate Adventureland and I would still hate the way that they poorly used the settings. They could have easily set the film in Disney World or Busch Gardens and it would still be the same film. Apparently this was the intention because the film doesn't make you want to visit Pittsburgh any time soon. If you've got a film set in a certain area, use the damn area instead of making everything look the same.

For someone who claims to know as much about movies as you do, you really seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. You see Adventureland did not take place in Pittsburgh. That is just where it was filmed. Greg Mottola worked at an amusement park on Long Island as a kid called Adventureland, but it's not there anymore so he couldn't film it there. He chose Kennywood because he attended Carnegie Mellon University and remembered Kennywood from his days here. And what you seem not to be able to grasp is that the location of the film had nothing to do with it. The only setting that mattered was the amusement park itself so it did not matter where it was located. Did it matter where Breakfast Club was located? Did it matter where Sixteen Candles was located? Did it matter where Superbad was located? NO Just like those movies, Adventureland was supposed to take place in Anytown, USA where we all grew up with that local, small time amusement park which is why it couldn't be Disneyland or Busch Gardens because those corporate themed parks are nothing like the mom and pop run places that Mottola was lovingly trying to emulate, but I'm guessing that since they don't show movies at them that you've probably never been to one.

You also seem to fail to grasp that the movie took place in the 80's not in present day. It wasn't intended to be a tourist board travel guide to the city. It was intended to remind Mottola of what it looked like when he resided here in the 80's. Kennywood is a great place to go. I'm pretty sure there is not one other human being on the planet that saw the movie that would make the assumption that they have careless employees there because of what they saw in Adventureland. Mottola also couldn't show any of the modern day rides that they have there because, again, the movie took place in the 80's when said rides did not yet exist.

I'm not even going to touch your point about the Cowboys becaue now you're just grasping at strraws, and by your response, you have only confirmed my suspicions that you have no idea what the real definition of "Pretentious" is. How you comin' with that definition of "Straw Man"?

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:22 am

Someone in the film is actually seen wearing a shirt that says "Adventureland, Pittsburgh, PA" and the studio where Mister Rogers was shot was mentioned (an extra also appears wearing a Jack Lambert jersey). So yes, it is indeed set in Pittsburgh.

As for your "straw man" definition, I believe that in arguments that no one is right and no one is wrong. Thus, they can never end. However, it sure is fun to have one.

And on pretentious, the definition is too complex to explain. But movies like Garden State, Adventureland and the acting of Michael Cera have made it easy to explain. sunny

by Keyser Soze Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:46 am

Buscemi wrote:Someone in the film is actually seen wearing a shirt that says "Adventureland, Pittsburgh, PA" and the studio where Mister Rogers was shot was mentioned (an extra also appears wearing a Jack Lambert jersey). So yes, it is indeed set in Pittsburgh.

As for your "straw man" definition, I believe that in arguments that no one is right and no one is wrong. Thus, they can never end. However, it sure is fun to have one.

And on pretentious, the definition is too complex to explain. But movies like Garden State, Adventureland and the acting of Michael Cera have made it easy to explain.

No one in the movie was wearing a shirt that said "Adventureland, Pittsburgh, PA" They had all of the shirts available for sale at our local theaters including the Games, Games, Games ones of which I own 2. Yes, someone was wearing a Jack Lambert Steelers jersey, but you are obviously unfamiliar with Steeler Nation that encompasses all 50 states and about 100 other countries. Check out an away Steeler game on TV sometime, and you will see more Steeler jerseys in the crowd than the home team's. It's amazing how you know more than Greg Mottola, the guy who made the movie because in multiple interviews, he makes sure to mention that the movie is supposed to be taking place at an amusement park in his hometown, but hey, why would I take his word over yours?

As for Straw Man, it means that when you have no basis for arguing your own point, you try to deflect the argument onto something else. In this case, the original point of the argument was what a piece of claptrap Inglorious Basterds was. Because you were not able to refute that starement with any validity, you chose to attack my points by using my liking of Adventureland as a way to prove your case.

As for Pretentious, the definition is not too complex to explain. That's just the kind of thing you say when you don't really know what a word means.

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 am

You have no validity either. No one has any validity. Words are words.

Speaking about words, why do people sue other people for libel? That is a violation of First Amendment rights. Words are words. People shouldn't be sued for saying bad things about other people. If one doesn't like it, take matters into your own hands.

by Keyser Soze Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:49 am

And this argument now comes to a close boys and girls

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:59 am

We are all out of order. You, me, your third cousin twice removed. Nobody wins, nobody loses. We are all a bunch of inconsiderate fucks with live day-by-day, laughing at the different people.

Meanwhile...

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard **.5/****

Compared to the Summer 2009 comedies, this is middle of the pack. The film isn't very mainstream and would probably do better with the arthouse set and older audiences (as in, 30 to 40-somethings). Ving Rhames and Craig Robinson give the best performances in the film. Will Ferrell makes a hilarious cameo as Jeremy Piven's dead best friend. Kathryn Hahn can sell me a car any time. Ed Helms is a terrible villain. And for once, Ken Jeong doesn't play a character that is a stereotype. The film could have been better had they done it with a bigger budget and with a better director (this seemed to me like a good project for Jody Hill and Danny McBride rather than TV veteran Neal Brennan) along with a few rewrites to the script (once again, Hill and McBride). Also, the ending could have been better.

by BanksIsDaFuture Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:49 am

Did you stay through the credits?

"You don't wanna know what happened in Qurque"
"Actually, I do..."

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:51 am

No. What happens in the credits?

by **silversurfer19** Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:07 am

Keyser Soze wrote:And this argument now comes to a close boys and girls

BOOO!

I was waiting for the stoning to begin.

by **Buscemi** Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:10 am

He probably would have cut my tongue off.

by undeadmonkey Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:01 am

Personally I can't wait to see adventureland and I have absolute zero interest in seeing ingloriuos basterds

by **silversurfer19** Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:10 am

Adventureland was one of my favourite movies this year. I was happily surprised by it. And it didn't feel pretentious in the slightest.

by becs Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:47 pm

Jesus Busc, whats going on with you lately? You used to disagree alot of the time, but respectfully so, lately it just seems like you are out to pick fights about anything and everything where opinions differ from yours...

Buscemi wrote:And on pretentious, the definition is too complex to explain. But movies like Garden State, Adventureland and the acting of Michael Cera have made it easy to explain.

I'm pretty sure the reason Keyser wanted you to look it up, is so that you would see the picture of QT next to Pretentious in the dictionary. Whether you want to face it or not (I as neither a fan nor a hater of QT am qualified to say), he fully fits the bill.

anyway... I haven't seen any movies lately, anyone seen Julie & Julia? Kind of considering that, though I've been told I MUST see D9.

by Keyser Soze Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:05 pm

Becs - The Mrs. saw both Time Traveler's Wife and Julie and Julia the other day and gave both of them an 8/10. She said to really make sure you do not go and see J and J on an empty stomach.

by Keyser Soze Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:07 pm

Two quick hits on this fine Monday morning.

District 9 8/10 Not much more I can add that hasn't already been said. I can definitely see a sequel with a much larger budget in the near future.

Lars and the Real Girl - 7/10 Not a great movie, but a good one. Ryan Gosling is turning out to be one versatile actor.

by W Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:35 pm

Keyser Soze wrote:Ryan Gosling is turning out to be one versatile actor.

Yeah, I used to watch him on some sci-fi USA show (4400) and I thought he'd be one of the bigger actors in Hollywood eventually. It doesn't really look like its going to happen even though he's got the chops, though.

by becs Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:58 pm

Ryan Gosling already had The Notebook and Murder by Number out by the time The 4400 started its run, so he was pretty famous at that point. I too am a big fan of the show, but Gosling was not in it. You may be thinking of Chad Faust? The only tv Gosling has done that I know of is Young Hercules.

by W Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:04 pm

becs wrote:Ryan Gosling already had The Notebook and Murder by Number out by the time The 4400 started its run, so he was pretty famous at that point. I too am a big fan of the show, but Gosling was not in it. You may be thinking of Chad Faust? The only tv Gosling has done that I know of is Young Hercules.

Yep, I f'ed that one up...

by NSpan Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:54 am

well, that was fun

by Keyser Soze Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:07 am

NSpan wrote:well, that was fun

Wasn't it? drunken

by Keyser Soze Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:22 am

Buscemi wrote:You have no validity either. No one has any validity. Words are words.

Speaking about words, why do people sue other people for libel? That is a violation of First Amendment rights. Words are words. People shouldn't be sued for saying bad things about other people. If one doesn't like it, take matters into your own hands.

And sometimes people apparently use words just to hear themselves talk. You didn't honestly ask why people sue other people for libel did you? And they should just take matters into their own hands? Honestly, what color is the sky in your world (Or should I say ceiling in your basement?)? And in just another example of how you throw words around without apparently knowing their meaning, I'll let you know that you can't be sued for Libel for saying bad things about people. That is called Slander. For it to be Libel, it has to be in print.

And so ends our lesson for Monday, August 24th.

If words are just words, why isn't it a violation of your first amendment rights when you get arrested for shouting fire in a crowded movie theater? (See, I figured if I referenced movies, you might get it)

by **BarcaRulz** Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:27 am

Keyser Soze wrote:
Buscemi wrote:You have no validity either. No one has any validity. Words are words.

Speaking about words, why do people sue other people for libel? That is a violation of First Amendment rights. Words are words. People shouldn't be sued for saying bad things about other people. If one doesn't like it, take matters into your own hands.

And sometimes people apparently use words just to hear themselves talk. You didn't honestly ask why people sue other people for libel did you? And they should just take matters into their own hands? Honestly, what color is the sky in your world (Or should I say ceiling in your basement?)? And in just another example of how you throw words around without apparently knowing their meaning, I'll let you know that you can't be sued for Libel for saying bad things about people. That is called Slander. For it to be Libel, it has to be in print.

And so ends our lesson for Monday, August 24th.

If words are just words, why isn't it a violation of your first amendment rights when you get arrested for shouting fire in a crowded movie theater? (See, I figured if I referenced movies, you might get it)

Nah. He'll just tell you how if it was upto him he would make changes to your post like he has done with every movie imaginable.

by Keyser Soze Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:29 am

BarcaRulz wrote:

Nah. He'll just tell you how if it was upto him he would make changes to your post like he has done with every movie imaginable.

Good point

by **geezer9687** Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:52 am

Single greatest discussion ever had here or at the other place. I've never seen anyone get so thoroughly schooled. Holy shit Boush how red is your ass after being spanked so hard? Perfect use of the "Straw Man" portion of your argument Keyser. That was my favorite part. You kept calling him out and he did it for a solid block of 6 consecutive posts! Fucking awesome!

by Sponsored content