Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)
in Soccer ·
Ryan Hall4 said:You are the only true snob in this thread, quite literally. You lecture everyone else about elitism while embodying it yourself. You are a textbook example of a conformist snob who simply parrots whatever outdated rhetoric he picked up from his elders.
Let me clarify my point. I am referring to internet consensus—the kind of tired tropes like "Spielberg is only good for his first two films," "Tarantino peaked early," or "Robert De Niro has been washed for twenty years." While that last one might actually be true, my point stands. People use these clichés solely to mock others and inflate their own supposed sophistication. And Noah Roberts46, stop repeating the same nonsense you've already put in your film PDFs; you’re nothing but a fraud. This Spielberg line is older than the Bible, but back in my day during the 90s, using that phrase was a quick way to get laughed at by everyone else. We didn't dismiss it because it was factually wrong, but because it was a hallmark of pretension. If you say "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first," you aren't a critic—you're just a snob.
From the very beginning of this damn forum, certain people have been harping on this just to feed their own egos. It’s honestly hilarious to watch; it’s obvious Noah Roberts46 only started discovering cinema in the last year or two, and now he thinks that one specific line makes him sound incredibly cool, so he keeps repeating it. Look, I’ll admit that Spielberg’s best work might be *Jaws* or *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, but I refuse to act like some pretentious snob claiming he only ever made two good movies. No way, man. I’m perfectly fine swapping out *Duel* for *Indiana Jones* or *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* because, quite simply, they are superior films.
Even as someone who isn't exactly a Spielberg superfan, I am telling you all: please stop following the online mob. In this country, people blindly follow whatever "internet consensus" pops up, much like how they jump on bandwagon opinions regarding certain directors.
It’s the same nonsense when Noah Roberts claims "they haven't made anything good in years." This is a classic trope used by certain directors. My friend here clearly worships that overrated Scorsese guy, who built his entire career on romanticizing Italian-Americans. You could argue Scorsese hasn't produced anything worthwhile lately, but even that isn't quite right. Even if the man is a hack, any true cinephile should recognize that his films are technically well-crafted—though, of course, perception is subjective. You can't apply that logic to Spielberg. *Lincoln* is a solid film. You claim he hasn't delivered anything good in years. I’m not a huge fan of that movie myself, but what I see is stellar acting across the board, sharp Spielberg direction, and great costume design. It didn't do much for me either, but for God's sake, stop clinging to these tired internet consensuses.
And you know who says this most often? Aside from being total snobs, it's usually people who haven't actually watched many movies. They want to feel special; they want everyone to know they finally sat through a "classic," but give me a break—you've barely scratched the surface of Kurosawa or Melville. And the best part is, you can try to flip the script and call me a snob, and fine, go ahead. That's just how you deal with people like you.
Seriously, stop following these online trends. It only happens in circles like this. People recycle the exact same tired catchphrases since this forum started; only the usernames change. I never once saw those cliches coming from ruggedjackal46 or Robert Torres, who are actual cinephiles. I've enjoyed reading their takes on film since the early days. Never. But you lot, who don't know a damn thing, feel compelled to parrot these phrases. I say this as someone who isn't a Spielberg fanatic and would agree that *Raiders* is his peak, but I don't use those lines to act cool, like "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first." Bullshit. *Indiana Jones* remains one of the greatest adventure films ever made. That is a real blockbuster.
This is the same situation. Look, this first one is just pseudo-scientific New Age garbage; nothing irritates me more than movies that pretend to be profound when they have no idea what they want to be. It’s like *Coherence*. It’s the same junk as Marvel, just in different packaging. At least Marvel doesn't hide what it is. With this Scandinavian one, you can watch whatever you want, but calling bad movies "excellent" is a mistake. What exactly makes this an "excellent" film? Listen, my standards for excellence, as they should be for anyone, are high. This is based on a novel by that hollow author Jo Nesbo. His books are full of holes, and this movie is one giant, unrealistic void. Think of it as some sort of thriller. There's no supernatural element here, no superpowers—it's a serious film trying too hard to be something it isn't. I get why these are attractive to you; I call them "void movies." Sure, it's fine as mindless entertainment, but there is zero chance that such a hollow film qualifies as excellent.
It's not like you need to sit through Bergman or Vinterberg's heavy dramas, but there are plenty of genuinely good, serious Scandinavian films out there. Yeah, the *Hunter* stuff by Nesbo... 🤣 check this one out instead: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332134/. There’s no exaggeration like in *Hunter*; it’s a serious, excellent film.
For a low-budget production, this is a masterpiece: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/. Unfortunately, not many people caught this gem. There are plenty of films out there, but recommending what you suggested is like recommending Marvel movies to someone. It’s incredible how many people talk trash about Marvel and then turn around and worship that film about Jesus and bounty hunters.
Modern film culture is lacking if you think this is normal. I grew up on Hitchcock. I was raised on his work, and I state this with absolute conviction: there will likely never be a better director than the great Hitchcock. His technical skill and storytelling were unparalleled. His films aren't heavy-handed dramas, yet they are pure fantasy in how he turns simple stories into something extraordinary. Take Scorsese, for example. He’s elevated by kids who are obsessed with mobsters and gangsters. Don't get me wrong, Scorsese is a quality director, but he sold his vision to the youth, and now the youth are the only ones putting him on a pedestal. Realistically, he doesn't belong in that inner circle of the absolute greatest.
Hitchcock is everything. If you actually want to learn about cinema, watch Hitchcock. Raise your children on Hitchcock. I am being completely serious.
Hey Remam. 🙂
Your whole argument falls apart because I never said Spielberg only made two good movies. On the contrary, I actually like Spielberg; I've seen most of his work. Some people find him too sentimental, but that doesn't bother me at all. In my view, most of his films were solid or even great up until the turn of the century. I love *Indiana Jones*—those are hands down some of the best adventure movies ever made. I don't even need to waste breath on *Raiders* or *Jurassic Park*. *E.T.* and *Close Encounters* are favorites of mine, as are some of his more overlooked gems like *Empire of the Sun* and *The Color Purple*. I have no idea where you got such nonsense from; maybe you're just venting some frustration and felt the need to make a new profile just to blow off steam. What exactly is "snobbish" about saying Spielberg and Lucas's ideas aren't relevant today? Or saying that people trash modern blockbusters more than they used to because those guys used to be the ones running the show? Back in the day, someone probably trashed them too, and people would jump to their defense then. How many times did people claim Spielberg destroyed the movie industry? I certainly don't agree with that.
And again with the Scorsese stuff—your go-to move is to attack him just because he's a director I respect, purely to bait a reaction that you never successfully provoke. 🤣
Look, most people probably think his prime is over, and I'm fine with that. Just because he still makes good movies for me personally doesn't mean I'm right.
Hopefully, you can manage to reply from this new profile.
Jessica Gonzalez said:So, I guess Noah Roberts46 thinks Spielberg and Lucas aren't important. It’s pretty interesting to think the people who basically invented modern cinema don't matter. I probably shouldn't say more since it feels a bit pointless, but maybe just stick to watching something like "Rampage" with The Rock or the "Avengers" movies if you want to just switch your brain off and take a break from everything else going on.
It's hard to read your logic when you're saying "today."
By the way, Remam, you aren't a snob; you're just an idiot who puts words in other people's mouths. That's what you are. Half of what you wrote, I never even said regarding Tarantino or Spielberg. You're just a standard troll who clearly has nothing better to do with his life than troll using a thousand different accounts on a forum. Though, I'll give you this: you're clearly smart and probably know way more about film than I do—it's not hard to admit that. It's just a shame that this is how you spend your time.