Fighting Over Movies on Unsocial Networks Posted by keelsetter on November 29, 2009
I recently got into a FaceBook tussle that then rolled over into my Fantasy Football League - it was like a bunch of drunk cowboys fighting their way from one room to the next. We all know social networks can be fun time-killers, but this topic resulted in over sixty posts flying back-and-forth. Time was no longer being killed slowly, it was being sucked into a huge black-hole at warp speed. My friend, who was using a picture of Fat Elvis as his profile picture on FB, threw the first punch with the following post: “Star Trek: the best science fiction movie ever made.”
Me: (Rolls eyes) Y’know, that’s EXACTLY the kind of comment I would expect from a teetering-on-the-brink of a drug-coma Fat Elvis to make. Probably after taking too many barbiturates and getting stuck on the Star Trek ride at Vegas. Fat Elvis: lol, i likes what i likes. you may be the feeeelm expert, but I am the king of sci-fi. Me: Earth to Elvis: J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek is to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as Bazooka Joe Comix is to Andy Kaufman. Or, put another way, one is inane and for children, the other is superlative and so genius it still challenges people today. King of Sci-Fi my ass. Also: your mother smells of elderberries. Third person jumps in: I’m prolly with Fat Elvis on this – 2001: A Space Odyssey bored me to tears… Me: Uh-oh. This is starting to remind me of the time I got in a fight with a Michael Bay fan. Abort. Fat Elvis: I AM THE KING OF SCI-FI! Forth person (woman) jumps in: Hate to weigh in late, but wanted to share some deep intellectual thoughts with you on this very important topic: The new Spock is totally hot.
The above FaceBook excerpts are from a thread of over twenty comments involving eight people. So far this barroom brawl was more like a Three Stooges slapfest with nothing more to show for it than maybe a poked eye or two. But Fat Elvis and me weren’t done tossing chairs around, because Fat Elvis is also on my Fantasy Football League, which has 15 members. Smack’s the name of the game in Fantasy Football, so it’s no surprise that we started swinging at each other. But arguing about movies with your Fantasy Football league is like watching a WrestleMania interpretation of Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker. At this point I should mention that most of these exchanges cannot be printed due to the graphic language and content of the messages. This was no slap-fest anymore, bottles were being broken and we were going for blood. Below are a few milder excerpts that can be printed: Tom: Sigh, as this group’s Arbiter of Cool I will have to step in: I’m a Kubrick fan, but 2001 has flaws as well as the new Star Trek. Overall it’s odd to compare Kubrick to Abrams from the getgo. It would make about as much sense to compare a tire pressure gauge to Diet Sprite. Each have their merits and there’s enough room for them to both co-exist (so-to-speak) in the same realm. So there… Peter: Kubrick = naked Nicole Kidman + orgies with masks on. Kubrick wins. End of discussion.
Hans: In 20 years, I predict the big sci fi movie of the year will be a remake of Knight Rider but set in space. It will be made by a 12 year-old whose name is simply “G,” and it will be released only to mobile devices. It will make the movie purists of the time pine for the “classic” sci-fi films directed by the greats and made for the grandeur of the medium screen — films like Star Trek by J.J. Abrams. Fat Elvis: Bah. Kubrick is nothing more than a brilliant packager of standard fare. Besides, I prefer films where you can see the director’s hand at work. Makes it more interesting. Especially when said director is butchering one of my favorite books of all time. Me: Your sentence structure is confusing. Which director butchered your favorite book of all time? Kubrick did no adaptation of See Spot Run, at least not that I know of. However, I think a case can be made for the fact that the Star Trek prequel is some kind of freely traduced version, with Kirk in the roll of Spot. Fat Elvis: I guess 2001 (the movie) was so cold because space is really, really, really cold. And the dialogue was so stilted because space is SO BORING that people get depressed and start talking to each other in inflection-less monosyllables. And the camera angles never changed because, really, which way is up in space anyway? Thank you so much, Oh Great Directeur, for stripping away standard movie making conventions… thereby turning a novel overflowing with suspense and wonder into the storytelling equivalent of a trip to the DMV (with a quick stop at the post office first to buy some stamps). Me: Arthur C. Clark was not just the author of the book, he was also the co-writer of the script with Kubrick and closely involved at all levels in the execution of the film. Fool. To say 2001 had pacing flaws is like saying that Beethoven’s 5th needs a bit more speed-metal during the slower parts. I give up. Talking about this with you guys is akin to talking evolution with creationists. You’re not just convinced that dinosaur looks good with a saddle on it, you are proud of it. Fat Elvis: Anyone with your background in FEEEEELLLLM should know that most novelists fail miserably when it comes to writing for the stage and screen. Clarke was no exception. Tom: I stand by what I said: 2001 was amazing in scope but it had pacing flaws. It also had an ending no one (including Arthur C. Clarke himself) could fathom and would make David Lynch go “dude, that third act was, like, ‘what the f–k?’…” Me: You are delusional. The ending of 2001, like all great art, is open to various interpretations – but, granted, these require engaging in several cerebral exercises. (Your brain clearly skipped class and is now risking a failing grade.) For those who care, here is a good overview (which also talks about the ending): http://www.dvdsavant.com/s2444spac.html Fat Elvis: DVDSavant is a communist muslim website… pacing flaws = geek speak for BORING TOM: (Stares at Keelsetter like Gene Hackman in The Poseidon Adventure just before he closes the door on the doomed ballroom partygoers as the water starts to break through the glass. Oh why weren’t they smart enough to climb up the Christmas tree?) Hans: This should settle things: Did 2001: A Space Odyssey have its own waffles?  I think not. Case closed. Me: Hans, 2001: A Space Odyssey had better than that. It had a monthly line of comics put out circa 1976 by the highly-esteemed Jack Kirby. Case closed – in yr face, punk.
 Mike: Jack Kirby’s efforts had nothing to do with the movie, you moron. I am also the king of comics. You think I’m trolling, but I have thousands of packed away in plastic stacked in waterproof boxes in my attic. Do your homework, Keelsetter. Right now you’re just flailing. Me: &%$#$@$!, Mike…. are you telling me that Eggo’s had something to do with Star Trek? We were talking merchandise tie-ins, that is all. You are correct about one thing, though: I am truly flailing about – flailing in the shallow waters of your murky intellect.
Trevor: Can’t we all just get along! Surely we can all agree that the best thing about 2001 is this:
27 Responses Fighting Over Movies on Unsocial Networks
Posted By cgeye : November 30, 2009 2:38 pm I went through this heartache when my online friends went for the pretty, and conveniently ignored the casual genocide that gave the narrative a faux gravitas. Also, the loss of the people who were by no means perfect, but gave ST the IDIC ethos (sure, Roddenberry wanted pendant sales, yadda-yadda-yadda….) only existed to make Spock free of his Pon Farr obligations, so he could mack on his chocolate honey-dip without regret. Suffice it to say I now back away from any discussions of this film, because I can’t afford the stress on my adrenals. Posted By kingrat : November 30, 2009 3:48 pm Hilarious piece! Reminds me of the best graduate seminar BS I ever heard: that Kubrick’s BARRY LYNDON had to be boring because Kubrick was trying to show that the 18th century was boring. Posted By Keelsetter : November 30, 2009 4:47 pm In a college film class I had a great prof who reminded us all that the word “boring” could also be used in the sense of “drilling into,” and ergo mean “penetrating.” I would submit that 2001: A Space Odyssey falls under this category. To submit yourself to the spell Kubrick is weaving is to open yourself up to something sublime. Most people who I talk to who say 2001 is boring have never seen it on the big screen or have some form of A.D.D. (which is, admittedly, becoming more pervasive in this age of Google and cell-phone addiction). For me it’s a deal-breaker. If I’m dating somebody and they tell me 2001 is boring, I’m outta there. Not that this threat carries any weight on my Fantasy Football League – but they’re all a bunch of ugly hairless apes anyway. Posted By Garry : November 30, 2009 10:16 pm One of the main reasons 2001 trumps Star Trek: No %$&^(#@ CGI! Posted By jbryant : December 1, 2009 6:51 am There’s not a boring frame in 2001. It’s also quite funny (though I’ve got many strange looks for suggesting this, mostly from haters of course). Posted By chris : December 1, 2009 4:11 pm don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek. But, Star Trek isn’t science fiction. It’s Sci-Fi. For those wondering about the difference: science fiction takes the science seriously and extrapolates based on actual scientific knowledge out there. Good science fiction will not contradict itself or the science involved rather it theorizes, rationally, an extension of known scientific knowledge. Sci-Fi merely uses the trappings of science without the reality of it to entertain. 2001 is good science fiction. Whither it’s boring is up to the viewer. The latest Star Trek is Sci-Fi, entertaining Sci-Fi, but Sci-Fi nonetheless. Posted By Richard Harland Smith : December 2, 2009 12:18 pm I got into a similar Facebook imbroglio recently (which spanned 74 replies) about the original Night of the Living Dead versus the 1990 remake. It wasn’t my page or my conversation initially but I had to jump in when one poster proclaimed that “the original Barbara was AWFUL” and the new Barbara (new in 1990, of course) was better because she was a Feminist ass-kicker. I tried to keep my Irish down, especially given that film is primarily about fantasy and make-believe, but the denigrating of what I take to be one of the Best Horror Characters Ever (by virtue of the fact that her catonic, infantile response to the horrific seems informed by something other than wish fulfilment) was too much to let slide. Happily, horror know-it-all Kim Newman swiftly came to my rescue… ME: I would counter that the original Barbra HAD it awful and the sad thing is that we never really get to know the real Barbra because the events of the Night of the Living Dead took that away from her. (We kind of see a flash of her character in the cemetery but I doubt very much that Barbra is herself around her asswipe of a brother.) Barbra is a perfectly tragic character, moreso than Ben because Ben, like Harry, sacrifices his humanity in the end and pays for it. Barbra on the other hand is a total innocent and her regression to a childlike state is the heart and soul of NOTLD. Turning the character into a “feminist avenger” in the remake adds NOTHING to the story other than make people feel good, which really isn’t why we come to something called NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Barbra’s character arc, if you can call it that, is beautifully rendered by an actress whose relative inexperience (certainly on film) was turned into an asset. RESPONSE: Wow. I really didn’t see all that. Good analysis, but the original actress was terrible. I like the avenging Barbara because she kicks ass and doesn’t act like a victim. KIM NEWMAN: The 1968 Barbra was a unique character then, and remains unusual: she has a credible, human reaction to an unbelievable situation and becomes catatonic. It’s one of the things the film does which distinguishes it from what came before: a character acts like a real person, rather than a movie heroine. The 1989 Barbra is a wish-fulfilment fantasy, a movie heroine rather than a real person. We might hope we’d act like her in a crisis, but most of us would curl up on a sofa and be unable to cope. Similarly, those irritating folks in The Blair Witch Project might not be good company, but genuinely behave like people do when things go wrong. RESPONSE: The 1990 Barbara may be a wish fulfillment, but I find her much more engaging as a character, more charismatic and more fun. She was also the only survivor. As much as I’ve enjoyed the in depth analyses of the 1969 Barbara, I;m sorry, I just don’t see it. Don’t wish to offend fans of the original–I just liked the kick ass approach to the character that the filmmakers envisioned. At this point, I just gave up. “I just don’t see it” pretty much covers it anyway. But like you, Keelsetter, I find it funny/odd/maddening that people come to a purposely challenging genre looking to be comforted, coddled and pumped up when the purpose of the idiom is to thwart our expectations, to frustrate and break us down so that we will in fact be stronger. Posted By keelsetter : December 2, 2009 1:36 pm AND let’s not forget that the original NOTLD did, in fact, have one heck of a feminist message (imho) insofar as it showed the perils of domesticity via Hellen Cooper – wife of Harry – who gets stuck in the basement thanks to her husband and is ultimately killed by their own daughter (with a gardening utensil – if memory serves). Man, that is just packed with all kinds of frightening messages regarding the perils of patriarchy. As to the remake (shakes head slowly…) all the messages that the original NOTLD unfolded cinematically were literally spelled out in the remake by the characters. It’s almost like the filmmakers had said: “Welp, now that audiences have gotten stupider I guess we should have some dialogue here where we remind them that humans are as bad as the zombies.” As if though the audience were also made of zombies. Now (uh-oh) as to BLAIR WITCH – dude, let’s not go there. I know you’re a big fan and myself a major detractor. Which means you and I alone could probably make the previous 2001/NOTLD spats looks like a Telletubbie hugathon by comparison. I give kudos to BWP for capturing genuine horror (the act of terrorizing the clueless cast who knew to keep the cameras on themselves was, in fact, a masterstroke of genius). And its box-office success clearly shows it connected with the audience of its time, many being weaned on reality tv, etc. But for me, on an artistic level, on an intellectual level, on oh-so-many-other levels, that “film” was a dud. Posted By Al Lowe : December 3, 2009 12:25 am How about a little zombie humor to lighten things up? I assume you know that a zombie is a strong rum drink. In some now forgotten movie the Ritz Brothers enter a bar and order. One says to the bartender “Three zombies.” (I got that one from Halliwells Who’s Who in the Movies, as edited by John Walker.) Posted By keelsetter : December 3, 2009 10:09 pm Har! Okay, Al, for that one we press the button here: But, really, instead of “rimshot” it should be “rumshot” (to the head). Posted By rhsmith : December 4, 2009 1:50 pm Now (uh-oh) as to BLAIR WITCH – dude, let’s not go there. I know you’re a big fan and myself a major detractor. Which means you and I alone could probably make the previous 2001/NOTLD spats looks like a Telletubbie hugathon by comparison. As I’m sure you feel about 2001 (and I’m a fan myself), I’m confident that the consent of enough critics and writers of note who agree with me about The Blair Witch Project balance out the boos. Different strokes for different folks – it’s what keeps the old world spinning. Posted By Ziggy : December 6, 2009 2:53 pm I totally agree. I was like wtf were they thinking? Posted By tfister : December 10, 2009 1:41 am “Not that this threat carries any weight on my Fantasy Football League – but they’re all a bunch of ugly hairless apes anyway.” At least I’m an ugly hairless ape in the playoffs – unlike you. Posted By keelsetter : December 10, 2009 1:43 pm Of course you do, Tom. (Dude, I can see the I.P. address comes from Starz.) Posted By Fat Elvis : December 10, 2009 1:45 pm What I actually said was Communist MUSLIN Web Site, in reference to the Fark.com meme of the same name. Get a clue, morans. Posted By Fat Elvis : December 10, 2009 1:48 pm “don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek. But, Star Trek isn’t science fiction. It’s Sci-Fi. For those wondering about the difference: science fiction takes the science seriously and extrapolates based on actual scientific knowledge out there. Good science fiction will not contradict itself or the science involved rather it theorizes, rationally, an extension of known scientific knowledge. Sci-Fi merely uses the trappings of science without the reality of it to entertain. 2001 is good science fiction. Whither it’s boring is up to the viewer. The latest Star Trek is Sci-Fi, entertaining Sci-Fi, but Sci-Fi nonetheless.” Complete. And. Total. Bull. Star Trek is classic Space Opera, which falls under the science fiction umbrella genre. Just because it isn’t Steam Punk doesn’t mean it belongs on the SyFy channel. Posted By Fat Elvis : December 10, 2009 1:50 pm “In a college film class I had a great prof who reminded us all that the word “boring” could also be used in the sense of “drilling into,” and ergo mean “penetrating.” I would submit that 2001: A Space Odyssey falls under this category. To submit yourself to the spell Kubrick is weaving is to open yourself up to something sublime. Most people who I talk to who say 2001 is boring have never seen it on the big screen or have some form of A.D.D. (which is, admittedly, becoming more pervasive in this age of Google and cell-phone addiction). For me it’s a deal-breaker. If I’m dating somebody and they tell me 2001 is boring, I’m outta there. Not that this threat carries any weight on my Fantasy Football League – but they’re all a bunch of ugly hairless apes anyway.” So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying your secret sexual fantasy is to be “drilled into,” or, “penetrated” by Kubrick? Posted By Fat Elvis : December 10, 2009 1:52 pm “There’s not a boring frame in 2001. It’s also quite funny (though I’ve got many strange looks for suggesting this, mostly from haters of course).” Assuming you’ve destroyed your cingulate gyrus by huffing too much paint while in feeelm school, I can see why you’d think that. But for most of the general movie-going public, BO-RING. Posted By Fat Elvis : December 10, 2009 2:09 pm “Not that this threat carries any weight on my Fantasy Football League – but they’re all a bunch of ugly hairless apes anyway.” keelsetter fancies himself a guardian angel (ala Wim Wender’s “Wings of Desire”)whispering over my shoulder in the movie theater, relating obscure and totally uninteresting facts about Kubrick’s life and approach to feeelm, all the while wishing he could JUST GET OUT OF HIS HEAD FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AND ACTUALLY ENJOY A FRIGGIN’ MOVIE FOR A CHANGE like all the hairless apes he is trying so hard to guide and protect. Posted By XYFLTom : December 10, 2009 3:26 pm “Hairless Apes?” I defy you to find a more erudite group than your fantasy football league, even within the warm, real-world-shielding confines of academia, Mr. Keelsetter. Want proof? The entire exchange that you deemed necessary to post on this blog? YOU WERE TROLLED. And man, do you deliver. Of course Kubrick is awesome. Pacing issues for 2001? Sure, but overall a landmark piece. Posted By keelsetter : December 11, 2009 10:14 am My apologies to TCM readers who are now being subjected to rants from the hairless apes on my Fantasy Football League. Okay, guys – I’m letting you hijack the thread… but only to a point because it’s gotta stay PG-13, dig? As to “pacing issues,” Tom, I have serious “pacing issues” with your emails. But I think we can both agree that, yes, you are a troll. Posted By Alex : January 13, 2010 5:58 pm As the photographer of the Star Trek Eggo photo, I have absolutely no value in this discussion (though I’m a fan of both 2001 and the Star Trek ‘verse). But I’ll weigh in anyway ;-) Seems to me Tom’s got the right of it with this comment: “It would make about as much sense to compare a tire pressure gauge to Diet Sprite.” I might not parse them as *that* different – but it’s certainly an oranges-to-apples question. Leave a Reply |
MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
Archives
Featured Sites
Popular terms
3-D
Actors
Actors' Endorsements
Animation
Anthology Films
Awards
Books on Film
British Cinema
Character Actors
Chicago Film History
Cinematography
Classic Films
College Life on Film
Comedy
Comic Book Movies
Czech Film
Dance on Film
Digital Cinema
Directors
Disaster Films
Documentary
Drama
Early Talkies
Editing
Educational Films
European Influence on American Cinema
Exploitation
Family Films
Film Composers
film festivals
Film Noir
Film Scholars
Filmmaking Techniques
Food in Film
Foreign Film
French Film
Gangster films
Genre spoofs
Guest Programmers
HD & Blu-Ray
Holiday Movies
Hollywood lifestyles
Horror
Horror Movies
Icons
independent film
Italian Film
Literary Adaptations
Martial Arts
Melodramas
Method Acting
Mexican Cinema
Monster Movies
Movie Books
Movie locations
Movie Stars
Music in Film
Musicals
Outdoor Cinema
Parenting on film
Polish film industry
political thrillers
Pornography
Pre-Code
Producers
Race in American Film
Remakes
Road Movies
Romance
Romantic Comedies
Russian Film Industry
Scandals
Science Fiction
Screenwriters
Semi-documentaries
Short Films
Silent Film
silent films
Social Problem Film
Sports
Sports on Film
Stereotypes
Straight-to-DVD
Studio Politics
Suspense thriller
Swashbucklers
TCM Classic Film Festival
Television
The British in Hollywood
The Hungarians in Hollywood
The Irish in Hollywood
The Russians in Hollywood
Theaters
Underground Cinema
VOD
War film
Westerns
Women in the Film Industry
Women's Weepies |
submit
TM & © 2008 Turner Classic Movies, A Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.
Tcm.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network.
Glenn Erickson over at DVD Savant would get a big laugh out of being called a “communist muslim” website (as if those two words ever existed next to each other in a sentence before). But if it sends them more traffic, what the heck. Trevor’s closing comment/clip puts everything into perspective and renders everything before it interplanetary flotsam.