Walter Grant5 said:Look, I think you’re missing the point of the whole thread. And honestly, your logic is even more confusing when you drop this: "tastes differ and there's no arguing about them". If you actually know what "original" means—and I'm assuming you do—then you should realize a movie isn't unoriginal just because you found it boring.
Basically, an original film should logically be something that stands out on its own, marked by something no other movie has done before. Sure, everything is influenced by what came before, and almost nothing is 100% pure invention, but if something is uniquely recognizable, we can call it original.
Take David Lynch, for example. I’d call him an original director. Same with David Cronenberg.
Look, I already laid it out clearly—my point is obvious—we're talking about a standard, universally accepted rule...
I don't know... maybe it's just me, but I feel like we're missing the point here. It's all getting a bit repetitive—just more of the same noise without any actual substance... Critics' ratings are just one person's opinion—if they're calling some movie a "cult classic" or "groundbreaking," all I hear is that it's total shit...🤷
If you’re judging everything based on whether a movie is "special" or "original," then honestly, nothing since 1990 counts anymore—every single theme has been done to death. Even sci-fi falls under that umbrella if you think about it... I mean, we've had moonshots since 1905 or whenever that was.
