CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › How to become a total film snob

How to become a total film snob

Started by Richard Hernandez13 · · 👁 5 views · 43 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Richard Hernandez13David Edwards83Melissa Moore32lonemarlin40fadedsailor932driftingowl27ASusan Wright12Michelle GonzalezRichard Howard2Kate TorresAmanda Nguyen5redowl90Ronald Morales51Peter Ortiz4Michelle Ward10Terry Gray60Jason Chavez32Elizabeth Ruiz65Linda Parker2silentpuma7Mark Smith56Sandra Lee
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#1 ·
Well, I suppose it’s finally time for me to start a thread of my own here.
I have to admit, I actually swiped this concept from the music forum, but honestly, so much of what applies there translates perfectly to the seventh art. So, let's dive in:

To you people, Hollywood is basically the incarnation of evil.

Your only real defense against Hollywood is European cinema.
And by "European cinema," you mean everything from the films of Asia and Africa to those of Southern and Central America—though you conveniently exclude Australia just because they speak English over there.

Whenever someone posts a "greatest films of all time" or "best director ever" list that feels a bit too predictable, you immediately tear them apart, calling their taste pedantic or academically sterile.

Then, just a few posts later, you’ll drop your own list which is just as pedantic and academically sterile (but, of course, it’s *your* version of it!).

You’re the ones starting threads like "The death motif in early Italian Neorealism" or "A comparison of semi-subjective framing in the works of Pier Paolo Pasolini and Michael Powell."

When you watch a movie, you don't cry, and heaven forbid you show any actual emotion that a normal human being might feel. No, when you watch a film, you simply a n a l y z e it.

Special effects are pure evil. A movie with special effects is, by definition, a bad movie. Generally speaking, any film where the technical aspects are too prominent (think frantic editing or heavy sound and visual stylization) is considered trash because you believe film is an organic art form—that the image on the screen is actually just a projection of a person's mind inside a dark room, emitting light through... well, you know.

If someone starts a thread about a movie you happen to hate, you’ll jump in after every single person who says they liked it to post a comment with the diametrically opposed opinion. By the end, most of the replies in that thread will be yours.

Whenever someone takes a stance on a film that contradicts yours, you demand they defend it with logic. You, however, never bother to argue your own point because your opinion is just an indisputable fact. You only feel 100% certain of your position once someone else has explicitly proven you wrong.

When you find yourself in a heated debate with some IMF bureaucrat over a film, your ultimate trump card is simply pointing out that you saw the movie before they did.

In your world, the adoration for a film is inversely proportional to its box office success. You especially despise that one movie with the ship and the iceberg (you won't even dignify it by mentioning its name).

Whenever you spot a thread populated by IMF types with mediocre knowledge of film history, you "innocently" chime in with a few posts mentioning obscure directors and indie flicks. You patiently wait for their reaction—which is usually something like "And who are you supposed to be?"—before you descend upon them like a predator.

You create threads about films and directors that almost nobody has heard of, specifically intending for no one to reply, so you can maintain the myth of yourself as the ultimate authority on cinema.

To anyone who might feel a little called out by this, please know that I’ve included a few of my own flaws in this list as well.
😁
David Edwards83 David Edwards83 Member
16 messages
joined May 2003
#2 ·
And then, of course, there's the big one—the hair.
Melissa Moore32 Melissa Moore32 Active Member
127 messages
joined Jan 2004
#3 ·
You might as well have titled this thread "How to be a total jerk."😁
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#4 ·
Shoot! And here I was hoping I wouldn't be quite so obvious about it!😁
lonemarlin40 lonemarlin40 Member
41 messages
joined Nov 2006
#5 ·
Melissa Moore32 said:You might as well have titled this thread "How to be a total tool."😁

You really thought it wasn't obvious?😁
Like you were just analyzing her alone. But whatever, there are plenty of other people just like that, not even gonna list them all.
Anyway, you've got the point!😉

p.s. Same goes for those people who claim they don't wear jeans because "only hicks wear denim." Total snobs. You gotta have some of that in the film world too.😁 😉
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#6 ·
Alright, here’s one more thing to add to the pile:

Whenever your take on a movie doesn't line up with what some big-shot critic is saying, you immediately jump to accusing them of being "too subjective" in their review. Meanwhile, your own opinion is somehow perfectly objective—even though it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that your perspective is just as biased since it's your own view.

Honestly, it’s one of those things about this film forum that gets under my skin more than anything else. Let's get this straight: there is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVE CRITICISM! Film criticism is, by its very nature, subjective.
Sorry for the rant, but I just had to get that off my chest...
lonemarlin40 lonemarlin40 Member
41 messages
joined Nov 2006
#7 ·
Richard Hernandez13 said: So, basically, OBJECTIVE CRITICISM DOESN'T EXIST! FILM CRITICISM IS SUBJECTIVE.

👍
Go ahead and keep shouting, man. Honestly, sometimes you just gotta let it out.😉
fadedsailor932 fadedsailor932 Active Member
101 messages
joined Oct 2004
#8 ·
..you nailed it, Richard Hernandez13🙏

...since my job involves watching tons of movies, I honestly don't give a damn where they come from or who directed them. Sure, I'll subconsciously perk up if I see a big-name director's name, but if the movie hits, it hits. Doesn't matter if it's from Hollywood, Bollywood, Europe, or outer space...
People in Europe (and everywhere else) realized they can't compete with Americans when it comes to those massive production budgets, so they just try to make "different" sound better. I mean, let's be real—you aren't going to make a "blockbuster" action flick with a million bucks. I've sat through plenty of European cinema and half the time I’m either lost, bored, or just being condescended to. Most of the time, I just want to unwind or be entertained—I get enough heavy stuff in my actual life...
95% of films are American
95% of people watch them
45% of that group will complain and trash the movies, yet they still watch them anyway
5% act like high-brow critics and debate things like the "death motif in early Italian Neorealism"
driftingowl27 driftingowl27 Active Member
89 messages
joined Dec 2002
#9 ·
2+2=5 👋
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#10 ·
driftingowl27 said:2+2=5 👋

Don't you think that should have been the title of the new Radiohead album?
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#11 ·
Sometimes, even just trying to pin down what snobbery actually means feels like a lost cause.😁 😉
Susan Wright12 Susan Wright12 Member
19 messages
joined May 2003
#12 ·
Richard Hernandez13 said:
When you're stuck in some heated, ego-driven debate with an IMF drone about a movie, your absolute "gotcha" moment—your ultimate trump card—is just claiming you saw the damn thing before they did.

Honestly, I'm convinced that's just a classic trait of those American intellectual snobs. It’s like this total atavistic leftover from the old socialist era that just won't die out.
Michelle Gonzalez Michelle Gonzalez Member
38 messages
joined Nov 2004
#13 ·
All of this brings to mind a question once posed to Akira Kurosawa:
They asked him why he chose such a particular, highly specific framing in one scene of "Kagemusha" (I can't quite recall the exact details of their inquiry). One might simply answer—Style. And then there is the matter of it being a 'period piece.'
But in truth, wasn't that the only way to frame the shot without some massive "Sony" billboard looming in the background, tearing through the sky from a building right next to the highway?
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#14 ·
Wasn't one of Akira Kurosawa's absolute favorites actually "Officer and a Gentleman"?
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#15 ·
Well, Richard Hernandez13, bravo, you hit the nail on the head. It’s always been obvious, really, but nobody ever has the guts to say it out loud. Hell, I catch myself feeling that way sometimes too, but one must face reality... what is, is...

A question stemming from all this: why do people in film circles reflexively assume that anything "alternative" is inherently superior to the "mainstream"? Is there some unwritten rule? Some sort of psychological trick at play?
driftingowl27 driftingowl27 Active Member
89 messages
joined Dec 2002
#16 ·
Richard Howard2 said:So, looking at all this... why do people in movies always act like "alternative" is automatically better than "mainstream"? Is there some unwritten rule? What's the logic there?


It’s because once you realize that "mainstream" stuff is basically built on a massive pile of recycled templates, there's a pretty high chance most of it is going to be exhausting, predictable, and just plain boring.

That doesn't mean "alternative" stuff is free from tropes or that it's inherently good by default, though.
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active Member
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#17 ·
Templates are everything. That’s basically the secret sauce behind Apple and Mercedes-Benz, isn't it?

Those people actually understand the assignment—just feed everyone the exact same thing under a different label and suddenly everything is perfect. Respect.
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#18 ·
"The mainstream is always sucking ideas from the underground, just as much as the underground draws inspiration from the mainstream."

I can't quite put my finger on who actually said that, honestly. Does anyone here happen to know?
driftingowl27 driftingowl27 Active Member
89 messages
joined Dec 2002
#19 ·
Richard Howard2 said:Templates are absolute perfection.


Like I said before: 2+2=5
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 RegularOP
269 messages
joined May 2004
#20 ·
Bobba Fett said:Templates are honestly the way to go. I mean, isn't that basically the secret sauce behind the success of brands like Apple and Mercedes-Benz?

But wait, weren't those exact same templates and clichés actually the absolute favorite playground for filmmakers during the postmodern nineties?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads