>his favorite director isn't Lynch
Can we ship these kinds of people to reddit?
my favorite director is tarantino i just wish tryhards would stop talking shit about him
>>63386855
his only good movies are pulp fiction and reservoir dogs
>>63386891
shut the fuck up you fucking anoying tryhard holy shitty
sorry, von trier exists
>>63387111
Good for him.
>>63387111
>porn director
lel
>>63386855
Tarantino is one of those directors whose genius isn't really fully grasped by most of his fans or his detractors.
Django Unchained was a self indulgent mess, though.
max landis desu
>>63386797
What's the point of pretending to like boring movies just to be deep? You're not deep or unique. You're just a generic hipster. You're also missing the point of movies.
>>63387355
>2deep4me
>>63387355
>boring movies
Kek. I bet you haven't watched the Turin Horse.
>>63386797
elephant man = boring trash
eraser head = boring trash
i stopped watching his films after seeing those two
>>63387355
2deep4u
>>63387355
Stick to transformers
>>63387370
>>63387458
>"I like boring shit am I intelligent and mature yet?"
Yes we are all impressed by how indie and special you are.
Give Leguizamo a part.
>>63387466
I love Lynch and those are not close to my favorites of his. Try Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr. If you have seen Twin Peaks, definitely watch FWWM.
>>63387509
>b-boring
stick to transformers
>>63387355
>Lynch movies
>Boring
They might be incomprehensible, but they are not boring.
>>63387538
>not lost highway
uhhhhhhhh
Lynch is straight edgy fedoraism lmao
He's probably worshiped on reddit
>>63386797
HE IS BEST LESBIAN PORN FILM PRODUCER T B H F A M
>>63387577
I like it, but I like the ones I mentioned more.
anyone who thinks in terms of 'favorites' is mentally 12 years old
>>63387711
true, and same with rankings. also good numbers
>>63386797
DUDE WEIRD LMAO
>>63387568
They're incomprehensible and boring. But because edgy teenagers want to feel special, they brag about how they watch Lynch and Nolan and Kubrick. Funny thing is, no one is impressed by that. They're not looked at as intellectuals, just contrarian hipsters.
>>63387822
Why do some people react so negatively to not understanding every aspect of a story?
>>63387777
no u
>>63387822
Expert analysis
/tv/ REALLY hates not understanding Lynch films
wow
>>63387822
>incomprehensible
Erm...how?
>>63387896
autism
>>63387509
>I have the attention span of a 3 year old
That's somehow my fault.
>>63387822
You're really angry about not understanding movies, anon. That's worse than getting mad at video games.
>>63387965
>>63387822
Seems like youthful insecurity about intelligence. Some people feel intellectually threatened because they didn't understand a movie, so they attack it.
>>63388200
but why don't they rewatch the films and discuss it and learn how other people viewed it and broaden their understandment?
when I watched lost highway for the first time I was intrigued but a lot of stuff I didn't understand but I re-watched it and slowly but surely came to understand its brilliance
>>63388200
>>63388294
although i appreciate all 3 directors, this isn't necessarily true. 2001 is fucking wonderful, but it's also boring as fuck sometimes. i understand the themes, i love the 'experience' kubrick's created, but i can still "attack it" as you would call it for being dull at times and dragging on too long.
i don't jack them off because their names are big in cinematography history, nor am i being contrarian and hating on them. i just watch a movie and decide for myself.
there's good things and bad things about them, like in everything in life.
for example, the famous 2001 match cut. great idea, awful technical execution.
>>63386891
kek try again Jackie Brown is his best film if you have any taste
>>63388717
A CANDY COLORED CLOWN THEY CALL THE SANDMAN
>>63387355
Why do so many self-deluded plebeians assume that if they didn't get it, obviously no one does and is only pretending?
Lynch's films aren't even that challenging, it's just fools like you who get bored whenever someone actually expects you to use your brain.
>>63387111
His movies are the pinnacle of pretentiousness.
>you will never have Lynch's aesthetic
is there a director as effay as he is?
What would you recommend people watch, OP? Who's your favourite director?
>>63389728
how the fuck does he have that kind of hair at his age
>>63388876
TIPTOES THROUGH MY ROOM EVERY NIIIIIGHT
>>63389771
Lynch of course and I recommend they watch Lost Highway
>>63389781
fuck if i know
>and here i am trying my best with the few strains of hair that i have left at the age of 20
>>63389013
>being this pleb
>implying you can 'get' a piece of cinema
>implying there is a single valid interpretation
Cinema, like most forms of art, speaks to the individual. There is no one way to 'get' something. People who talk like this are the ultimate tryhard plebs, following paint-by-the-numbers critical interpretations instead of absorbing a film and reaching their own conclusions.
Saying Lynch's work of a disorienting pile of shit is just as valid as praising it as high-tier avant garde cinema. If it strikes someone that way, it strikes someone that way. There is no right or wrong way to react to visual art, music, and film.
>>63389909
that is insane
i'm the same at fucking 27
life is unfair
at least my favorite director is blessed
>>63389937
Shiggy
>>63386797
Lynch is overrated by plebs and underrated by pretentious faggets.
>>63389728
>is there a director as effay as he is?
Yes
He's only made one good movieEraserhead
>>63389937
you forgot video games
>>63389728
Jarmusch perhaps
>itt: People who think Lynch is deep/good
>people posting fake 'pleb' reactions to lynch just so they can feel superior to someone
you're all sucking the scum on the bottom of the filmic food chain. lynch is a gimmicky nobody with one good film
>>63386797
*is
>>63389728
>>63387597
He's not
>>63387255
>Tarantino is one of those directors whose genius isn't really fully grasped by most of his fans or his detractors.
Tell us more. Tarantino is the definition of self indulgent, Django just brought more attention to it than anyone wanted.
>>63389937
>muh reading comprehension
At no point did I imply that there is only one valid interpretation of any film. What the fuck are you even going on about?
>Saying Lynch's work of a disorienting pile of shit is just as valid as praising it as high-tier avant garde cinema. If it strikes someone that way, it strikes someone that way. There is no right or wrong way to react to visual art, music, and film.
Wow, so insightful. You mean that no one opinion is necessarily more valid than another? And that people have different perspectives? My mind is blown. You should write a fucking book.
More to the point, your response has nothing to do with my post. While it's perfectly acceptable to not like David Lynch, even though I disagree, to claim that others are only "pretending" to like it is counter-intuitive, self-involved bullshit.
And yes, it's very possible to "not get" or "get" a film, not in terms of understanding the "one true interpretation" but rather that there is something worth interpreting. Anyone who thinks Lynch's films are incomprehensible is obviously a moron.
1. Leone
2. Kazan
3. Jaws
seen
>Blue Velvet
>Mullholland Drive
>TP
what next?
1. Tarkovsky
2. Kurosawa
>>63390490
also seen FWWM
>>63390339
Not him, but I like Tarantino's self indulgence. If he gave a fuck about anyone else, his movies would be more generic. It's his straightforward and unapologetic ego that makes his stories entertaining. While sometimes (cough cough Django) it gets in the way, there are a lot of moments he creates that, were he to try and pass them off as normal or ordinary they wouldn't work. The Marcellus Wallace rape scene would be my main case, as well as some of the dialogue.
Tarantino overstylizes a ton, but that's his trademark. What could seem too outrages is able to be passed off as "so Tarantino". I don't if I'd consider that "genius" but it certainly is entertaining
>>63389937
>implying you can't get a piece of cinema
>implying there's more than one valid interpretation
There IS one way to get something. The artist's way. The artist is in a specific frame of mind and place in life at the time he creates the art, which has the intended meaning of conveying some kind of message, portraying the emotion the artist is feeling at the time of its creation.
It's fine if you look at something and find your own interpretation of it if it helps your life or whatever, but if you look at something that isn't there, you're missing the whole point.
For example, in Blade Runnerthe ending is supposedly ambiguous, leaving the audience to wonder if the main character is a human or a replicant, which is kind of cool, it's cool to leave the audience wondering and debate it and its implications or whether or not it really matters at all, but LITERALLY, if Ridley Scott says that in his mind, he is a replicant, that means HE IS a replicant in that 'canon'.
>>63390490
Wild at Heart
>>63390490
lost highway aka his best film
TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION LMAO
>>63389781
you gotta eat your quinoa
>>63386797
>his favorite director is lynch
can we ship these kind of people to reddit?
What is it about Lynch that triggers autists so badly? They come out of the woodworks literally every Lynch thread.
>>63392879
they hate what they don't understand
I just fapped to the nude scenes in Mulholland Dr.
>>63392879
It's not about people hating on Lynch.
It's a bunch of bored shitposting kids who think it's funny to label certain things as being a meme. Kinda annoying, and simply shitposting, try to ignore it.
>>63387822
>incomprehensible
are you stupid?
You've listed three of cinemas most recognized directors as contrarian choices,
the only contrarian here is you.
>>63391049
Except Ridley Scott didn't write Blade Runner.
Films aren't made by just one person, and even with auteur filmmakers, there's still loads of input from other people.What if, like you said, Scott thinks it's a replicant, but Harrison Ford thought he was a human and played it that way? Of course the director and lead actor should probably be, and probably are, on one line with this, but they don't have to be.
>>63389781
>>63389909
>>63389965
>>63393957
I'm talking about the canon of the movie, I know there's books and etc, but even in just the movie, movies are considered as art because they're generally attributed to 1 person, the "artist" so to speak, the director. Obviously there's hundreds of people who work on it, and the studios can have creative input too, but the very reason movies are recognized as art is because people have been convinced it's all about the director (again, the artist creates the art that conveys the message; if there's more than one artist and they're not on the same level, it can't be art).Ford did play it as a human, but it only helps the performance. He obviously wasn't supposed to know he's a replicant.
>>63387355
no one can be this deluded
how old are you?
>>63394126
> but the very reason movies are recognized as art is because people have been convinced it's all about the director
Yeah, people have been convinced, but it isn't actually all about the director. The script already dictates for like 50% what the movie's gonna be like. Of course that really depends on the writer and director, too.
I think Ernst Lubitsch is the greatest director, but Rob Reiner is my favourite.
>This is Spinal Tap
>Stand by Me
>The Princess Bride
>When Harry Met Sally...
>Misery
>A Few Good Men
>>63386891
>his only good movies are pulp fiction and reservoir dogs
You'd give every one of his other movies less than a 5/10? That's pretty harsh, senpai.
>>63387822
>Lynch and Nolan and Kubrick
gr9 b7
>>63388697
You have to watch 2001 with the understanding that a lot of the shots we consider "slow" now blew people away back when it was released. It was as much a tech demo as it was a movie for kubrick. Is that cause for criticism? Maybe, but it was anything but a technical failure.
>>63390649
I think you're definitely right but the conclusion to come to is "tarantino is uniquely entertaining" and not "tarantino is the number uno greatest director". I think people on this board just get annoyed when he gets a bit too much credit.
>>63393957
Like how tom hardy said he meant "I am a big guy for you" but it was written "It would be extremely painful for you"
>>63394270
Name one movie you think is 'art' but has absolutely no individuality in 'direction' (like if the movie was directed by a robot) but an outstanding script.
The prime example of why a director is so important is Blade Runner. I saw that movie recently for the first time and at least about 80% of its appeal comes from Scott. I'm not saying he designed every single bit of the way the city looks, for example, but he oversaw it all and approved it to fit his vision. He gave directions to the actors, he positioned the camera, he oversaw the editing. Blade Runner IS Scott.
The scriptwriter is also important but in a good movie, they're on the same plane 99% of the time, that's why the movie works. They both 'get' the point of it and have a single common vision.
>>63387466
Reddit!
>>63390649
Agreed.
I'm seeing the Hateful Eight tomorrow, couldn't have more of a hard on.
>>63394392
I understand that, but
>a lot of the shots
>blew people away
The first 20 mins where it's just nature shots and dudes in monkey suits blew people away?
Look, it was cool when they show the monolith, it was cool when he hit the bones in slow-motion with the cool music, it was cool when they showed outer space with the cool music, it was cool when they showed the sci-fi gadgets and tech.
IT WAS NOT fucking cool when they fucked around for 20 minutes on the monkeys, did a terrible parody of a match cut to the future, did literally 2 minutes uncut of a skype call then 4 minutes of a conversation in a BLANK hallway (it has some cool tech in the background but we've already seen all of this before) and that entire conversation is summed up by "some shit is fucked up", which is literally what they say 10 minutes later in the meeting, not to mention by this point a lot of the space shots are just boring 'WE ARE SLOWLY LANDING' shots, and do you really need to see the stewardesses walk aaaaaall the way up a wall in a single shot with it being obviously fake by her juttery walk movements? Then they stand on the moon for a while and look back and forth at each other like in a comedy, then the monolith again, then the actual movie starts.
Then, still, some of the shots take too long (but it's reasonable at this point). Then, near the end, LITERALLY 10 minutes of 'woooo, spooky effects', which even in '68 would get someone bored. Then, even the final stuff where Dave transcends space and time and even humanity takes too long.
In summary: A lot of the takes are too long and the way it's edited is jarringly bad. It's, in my mind, a technical failure, as far as movie structure, pacing and editing. Any movie that makes me look at the running time and think "fuck, there's still 40 minutes to go" while viewing it is a technical failure to me.
>>63395279
is this bait? you understand the movie came out before we even landed on the fucking moon
>>63396131
I know. I always put myself in the frame of mind of the time the movie came out, but don't tell me the movie is great through and through. I watched The Great Escape (from '63), it's slightly longer than 2001 and not once did I have to look at the runtime while watching it.
>>63391049
i bet you think tony soprano wasn't killed at the end of the series
>>63390339
>>63390649
>>63394512
I look at Tarantino the same way I look at Wes Anderson. Both are super self-indulgent and never stray too far from their trademark styles. People that love them will continue to love them, people that hate them will only hate them more with each passing film.
>>63387355
You think Lynch is pretentious? Wait until you get into later day Godard, kiddo.
>>63398776
At the very least Wes pulls from Czech and French new wave. Tarantino is literally some ignorant manchild. He's not a filmmaker. He's a flickmaker.
>>63386797
I just watched Fire Walk with Me last night, and it was awful, awful trash.
He's an ok director but his work is hit-or-miss and he's overhyped as fuck by 2DEEP4U hipsters.
Some of us aren't edgy tryhard fucks.
Terrence Malick's films are infinitely better.
>>63389844
JUST TO SPRINKLE STARDUST AND TO WHISPER
I like some of Lynch's stuff. I've yet to dislike a Coen film though. Woody Allen and Linklater tie for second.
>>63395279
The technical accomplishments of this film are so far beyond your comprehension, and you have the attention span of a gnat.
>>63394311
>grnine bseven
>>63386797
What are his essential movies? Also which should I watch first and which later?
Only one i've seen of him is lost highway and it was great
