Comments on: Shouting Match: Was 2009 a Good or Bad Year for Movies?

By: livjon

livjon — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:53:27 +0000

May be we don't have few that can be said as best but still we have some really cool movies. And The hurt locker was one of them. I was disappointed from Avtar but I can't take away the special effects and the 3D movie idea. That was really awesome.

By: ERoBB

ERoBB — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:23:51 +0000

Its not a pattern. Its using a similar structure to write off an opponents argument with a condescending single sentence. Of course you think its fine, you wrote it. But here in the comments section, where comments go, my comment is that it isnt fine. It's childish and not a way to make an intelligent argument……douche.

By: Josh Radde

Josh Radde — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:53:51 +0000

Using patterns in my writing isn't a debate tactic — it's English 101, my friend. Besides my argument was about how there were a lot of decent movies, but nothing that really blew me away. So I'm pretty sure how I presented my argument is fine…douche.

By: ERoBB

ERoBB — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:56:51 +0000

“Inglourious Basterds solidifies Tarantino as an all-time great writer-director, yet is still a deeply flawed film. Precious was touching, but is a one-time-view-only type of movie. Avatar is gorgeous but sports a fatally shallow story”

” it often is, but it’s just joke-after-predictable-joke” “Fantastic Mr. Fox was fun but very unfocused, Coraline was interesting but not really that creative”

Just a few examples of your compliment-comma-insult tactic of debate. I said “fun but flawed” as an example, douche.

By: Josh Radde

Josh Radde — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:22:30 +0000

I just did a “Find” on the word “Fun.” Twice it comes up… Once for Star Trek and once for Fantastic Mr. Fox. And the word “Flawed” is attached to neither.

But yes, I am a sneaky bastard.

By: Josh Radde

Josh Radde — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:20:32 +0000

The crux of my argument wasn't that there were more bad movies than usual, but that the good movies were underwhelming. And when you weigh everything it turns out to be a pretty weak year because there weren't many movies that clicked with me.

By: Reese

Reese — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:41:04 +0000

I'm with Paul. Sure, if you only saw Terminator or Transformers, then yes, 2009 sucked… for you. But the great stuff was great. It's a disservice to the truly great movies to say the year, as a whole, sucked due to the plethora of Paul Blarts/Chipmunks/Bride Wars of the world.

By: PaulSileo

PaulSileo — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:16:45 +0000

He is quite a sneaky bastard.

By: ERoBB

ERoBB — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:49:27 +0000

Josh, I'm gonna call shenanigans on your tactics. Just because you describe every movie with positive adjective-comma-negative adjective, doesnt mean you're proving any points.

You can't say fun, but flawed for every movie in a debate.

By: navibluecom

navibluecom — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:10:39 +0000

With technology James Cameron introduced we'll see some amazing films
Great fansite for Avatar discussion: www.Naviblue.com

By: Peter Donohue

Peter Donohue — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:28:41 +0000

Want to get really depressed? Here are some of the ideas that were changed from the first draft of Avatar.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJE...

If they had kept just a few in it would have been such a better movie!

By: Andrea Shaw

Andrea Shaw — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:17:31 +0000

I'm with Josh on this one. Pretty good movies (and I think that's pushing it) do not equal a good year. I was surprisingly underwhelmed by what was being offered this year at the theater which was disappointing because last year and ESPECIALLY the year before that were fantastic for film. I disagreed with the Academy's decision to nominate 10 films for the Best Picture category from the start, but now that 2009 is over and I see what we have to pick from, I'm not sure how they're going to fill those 10 slots. I would have to say that Up In The Air was the best film I've seen so far this year, and it doesn't even come close to matching up to the best films of previous years, as Josh said with 2007's No Country and There Will Be Blood.

What I'm really finding difficult to believe is everyone's willingness to dismiss the huge errors in Avatar just because it was visually stunning and revolutionary in the technical side of film production. I understand Paul's argument that there is no original story any more, but this was not showcased in a fresh, exciting way. It was stale and shallow, not to mention an hour too long. There were some really interesting things that could have been done in the narrative, but it stuck to an overdone blockbuster formula that makes MONEY not always quality film. Considering the time and money that went into Avatar I would think that Cameron could have come up with something better. It appears to me that artistic decisions were sacrificed in an effort to please the masses through mind numbing special effects. If Avatar was the movie that defined 2009, then 2009 was not a mediocre year for movies, but a terrible one.

I LOVE this discussion, but like I said before, I'm going with Josh on this.

By: Blazing6Shooter

Blazing6Shooter — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:46:55 +0000

Josh, I agree with you…My one disagreement? Sherlock Holmes was awesome and stands out from the crowd of crap movies.

By: Ollie White

Ollie White — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:29:00 +0000

I have to agree with Paul. This was definitely the year for sci-fi, and for that 2009 will be remembered. I recall feeling a glint of hope for the genre after coming out of Star Trek, and then crying tears of joy after District 9. 2009 was a good year.

By: Neil Miller

Neil Miller — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:14:10 +0000

Way “too”… Not 'to'.

By: Andrea Shaw

Andrea Shaw — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:08:00 +0000

Wow, thank you SO much for posting a link to that article. It was fascinating, and actually, pretty tragic. I think a lot of those changes would have made the movie better. Not fantastic, but at least an improvement.

By: blahblah

blahblah — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:04:39 +0000

you guys are way to fucking picky

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:13:53 +0000

It was a great year for movies, only an idiot would debate that. 500 Days of Summer, Avatar, District 9, Up, Star Trek, Inglourious Basterds, Moon, Mary and Max, Up in the Air, Precious, The Hangover, Zombieland, etc.

A lot better than last year, when the main stand-outs were Cloverfield and of course one of the best movies ever, WALL-E, yet they both got overlooked in favor of the inferior “The Dark Knight” just because one of its stars had died.

By: chille

chille — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:54:21 +0000

How exactly did the Hangover have weak characters?

By: Wade Durham

Wade Durham — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:42:42 +0000

I could honestly argue either side because Avatar and Inglourious Basterds will definately stand out in future years. However a lot of films deemed “award-worthy” like Precious or Up in the Air could possibly be forgettable in years to come. But history doesn't deem wether the year is good or bad. What really deems it is a manner of opinon, I loved Precious, I love Up in the Year, I loved Star Trek, District 9, 500 Days of Summer, The Hangover but a lot of the great films of 2009 like those weren't really “new” just delightful reminders that the old stuff is fantastic. One thing that this year will be remembered for is adult-child films such as Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are which have started something original in bringing out the poetry and depth of the classic kids books.

both your arguments were reasonable I agreed with both of you guys on different things and disagreed on others. I would say no one really won. It was a truly subjective year.