BANE?

This is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of some.

I know that I like Elite Squad 2 more than the first, but I often wonder if that is not just because it is a much easier and more palatable film, especially for a progressive.

Zero Dark Thirty was a film I appreciated in many senses but took issue with its advocacy of torture, which many government figures claimed was very inaccurate factually.

>>66827408
It did not really advocate for torture, It just acknowledged that it Happened.

>>66827408
>Zero Dark Thirty was a film I appreciated in many senses but took issue with its advocacy of torture, which many government figures claimed was very inaccurate factually.

desu I think special praise needs to be given to Bigelow for her pretty objective handling of sensitive issues in ZDT and The Hurt Locker. It ain't perfect but nothing ever will be and the fact that those films were criticized equally from both the left and the right is a pretty good sign to me.

>>66827088
>I'm aware that /tv/ is thousands of different posters with thousands of different beliefs but it can't be denied that there are trends that dominate the board

That's because whenever something 'controversial' happens involving film or television /pol/ decides to come here to talk about it because the janitors keep cucking them out of their own board.

Generally the 'message' of a film is the least important part of it, and having an agenda to begin with only hurts it overall, whether it's to save the kikes or to gas them.

People who can't get over their own personal bias in judgement of a film are pleb faggot tourists and fuck you for making a thread about them.

>>66827088
I can admit I like shit. It's just what I like, can't forcefully change it, it just happens over time. When I was a kid I didn't like pizza but I liked ketchup. Nowadays I don't like ketchup but I like pizza. I liked The Brak Show as a teenager and now I think it's annoying. Tastes do change but you can't just force yourself to like something


My favorite movie is Zoolander, every bit of it is funny and works for me, but I can see that it's just awful and shameful fun. It's okay, it was at least made, somebody else besides me thinks this way so it's not like I'm weird.
12 Angry Men is a better movie that makes more sense and I do like it, just not as much

>>66827756

(You)

>>66827088
I think I can, I recently watched for the first time Jud Süß.
I despise veemently nazis and I found the message terrible and the propaganda nauseating, yet I can't help but find it a beautiful shooted movie.

>>66827088
>>66827679
>trends that dominate the board

The reason /pol/ shit posting on this board is worth discussing is because the trends that dominate this board are not decided by the majority of the userbase. There is a small and incredibly vocal userbase that does not come from /tv/ that decides the climate of the board by spamming their beliefs and the mods allow it because the users have realized that they can thinly tie anything to film discussion.

A thread entitled "HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG GAS THE JEWS RACE WAR NOW" with a hundred replies from /pol/ posters would get modded but the same exact user will post an image from Shindler's List with the text "MUH SIX MILLION" and would get the exact same hundred responses from the exact same /pol/ posters and the mods allow it.

>>66827902
>There is a small and incredibly vocal userbase that does not come from /tv/
Nope, /tv/ has been around a lot longer than /pol/ and /pol/s userbase is filled with people who came from other boards like /tv/ and /a/ and /tg/ or wherever. It's not like they discovered 4chan through /pol/ and then decided to branch out. They were on their interest board already when /pol/ got added

"Objective quality" is meaningless.

I'm struggling to think of a film that I rejected on a political basis like that. A movies politics are as much a part of it as the characters and cinematography, if I don't agree with the message than its as much of a fault as if I don't like the story.

>>66828005
Sure, but /pol/ empowered all those types to post about it here.

>>66828005

Why are you pretending 4chan's user base has been here since day one? If you think a fuck ton of /pol/ posters aren't redditers who migrated there in the last year or two you're delusional

>>66828065
>"Objective quality" is meaningless.

So you could argue that Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, the Godfather, etc. are objectively low quality films?

>>66828115
No, I don't really follow that sentence.
What I meant is that you can tell me Citizen Kane is the best movie ever for X Y and Z reasons, but I personally don't like it that much and thats all that matters to me. My subjective response is more important to me than whatever criteria you set for something to be "objectively" good

>>66827902
It's not worth discussing because of the age old adage that is as true today as it was in the beginning, and as ignored today as then too.

Don't feed the trolls.

>>66828005
>/tv/ has been around a lot longer than /pol/ and /pol/s userbase is filled with people who came from other boards like /tv/
The majority of /tv/ users who were around when /pol/ was created aren't the majority of people using /tv/ right now, Anon. And the majority of /pol/fags using /tv/ aren't people who started on /tv/ and went to /pol/.

Do you think it's a coincidence that we were flooded by /pol/shit just after the janitors and mods started pruning the shit out of their board?

>>66828214

So your answer is yes. You believe it would be theoretically possible to hold the opinion that the films that anon posted are low quality and that opinion is no more or less valid than a professional film critic's.

>>66828115
He's saying the exact opposite. You can't argue that they're objectively low quality for the same reason you can't argue they're objectively high quality.

I personally think he's wrong, but at least understand what the nigger's saying.

>>66828348
Learn what objective means.

>>66827088
it's quite simple anon. My opinions are the only ones that matter. Everyone else can go fuck themselves.

>>66828348
>You believe it would be theoretically possible to hold the opinion that the films that anon posted are low quality and that opinion is no more or less valid than a professional film critic's.
Sure. I don't see anything controversial there

>>66828409

I agree with this anon. About his opinions, not mine.

I liked The Motorcycle Diaries even though it was communist propaganda

>>66829303

How was it propaganda?

Anons only post racist /kuk shit to be edgy

>>66827088
you see how the film makes its message, and thus the quality of the film is dependent on how its message is told
like how schindlers list basically bashes you on the head how evil the nazis are and how poor the jews are, thats bad

>>66830019

What is bad about portraying a horrible situation realistically?

>>66827088
Because unlike modern-day liberal propaganda it isn't obnoxious hamfisted garbage

>>66830174
>realistically
spielburg movies are never "realistic"

Wait, why would anyone be opposed to 12 Angry Men? It literally just advocates for due process and innocence until proven guilty.

>>66829877

>just a prank

>>66830319

Make a thread about it later and you'll find out what a sjw tumblr cuck Fonda is pretty quick

>>66830274

That's not really true. One of his greatest strengths is his ability to tackle different subjects with the necessary tone. Obviously Indiana Jones or 1941 or Hook is gonna be lighter or cartoony but true stories like Schindler's List, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies, etc are handled with the realism the subjects deserve

>>66830441
Fonda should be glorified for telling people to wake up and not just slurp up whatever dumb shit the government tells you to believe.

>>66830572

The suspect was specifically mentioned to be not white which means if you entertain the notion that he's innocent you're the one slurping down the agenda

>>66829877

There's no difference at this point