Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

So here's the deal: we're left with the nail, the bloom, and the trumpet—the trio. But the trumpet? She's definitely the biggest of the bunch.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Sure, looking at life as a whole, there are no "must-dos," but you can't take that logic and apply it to tiny little subsets of modern existence. If you care about cinema, there are definitely must-see movies. If you want to be an English professor, yeah, you probably need to read Shakespeare. If you're aiming to be a jazz saxophonist, you've gotta listen to Coltrane. Whatever.

"I'm interested in British literature."
"Cool."
"I guess I have to read Shakespeare."
"Nothing is mandatory except death."

See? Using that logic in a specific conversation just makes you look like a hipster.

doesn't work for modern movies.

A: I like watching movies.
B: Then you have to watch The Godfather.
A: I like watching movies, not necessarily the ones everyone else tells me I have to watch.

It's the same thing with music. People say they love music, but they aren't listening to Rachmaninoff or Mussorgsky, and they aren't even listening to Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, or Pink Floyd—none of the stuff those specific circles consider "relevant" or "good." It just is what it is.

Him wanting to direct movies or deal with film in some capacity—whatever way he wants—is a totally different story. Professional training would handle the requirements for him.

Basically, the whole thing boils down to that crappy "you like movies, so you want to be a literature professor" logic.

Walter Grant5 said:Basically, the whole thing boils down to that crappy "you like movies, so you want to be a literature professor" logic.

🤣🤣

Walter Grant5 said:doesn't work for modern movies.

A: I like watching movies.
B: Then you have to watch The Godfather.
A: I like watching movies, not necessarily the ones everyone else tells me I have to watch.

It's the same thing with music. People say they love music, but they aren't listening to Rachmaninoff or Mussorgsky, and they aren't even listening to Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, or Pink Floyd—none of the stuff those specific circles consider "relevant" or "good." It just is what it is.

Him wanting to direct movies or deal with film in some capacity—whatever way he wants—is a totally different story. Professional training would handle the requirements for him.

Walter Grant5 said:Basically, the whole thing boils down to that crappy "you like movies, so you want to be a literature professor" logic.

It doesn't work for (modern) film. It applies to the individual (missed the point and the theme of my post).
I said "film as an art form," because "must-see" movies only exist if you actually care about film as art. Everyone likes watching movies. If someone just likes watching movies, sure, there aren't any "must-sees" for them. They can watch whatever keeps them entertained. But if you care about film as an art form, then yes, there are must-sees. My point wasn't really about movies; it was about the concept of "must-do" things in general. In specific fields, there are certain things you just have to do.

The analogy works if you quote me right (it's film as art, not just movies). Look, if you care about film as art, you have to watch the French New Wave. If you care about literature as art, you have to read Shakespeare. Period. If you don't, then you don't actually care about the art itself.

It all started with some guy acting like a huge movie buff just because he hasn't seen *The Shawshank Redemption* or whatever other cliché "essential" flick people obsess over. Like, "LOL, you call yourself a cinephile if you haven't seen this?" Give me a break. First off, there are plenty of movies out there that are objectively better when you look at cinema as an art form. Second, there’s way too much good stuff to get through if you actually care about the craft. And third, if you're actually working in the industry and not just some hobbyist, you don't have the luxury of sitting around watching every single "classic" ever made. It takes too much damn time.

btw, I care about film as an art, and I haven't seen half of those "must-see" classics. Probably haven't seen half of them either, you.

Could’ve started from the jump, but I was just reacting to a prompt so vague it basically invited the whole "might as well just die" argument.
The movies were just my way of framing it; honestly, you could've swapped them out for anything else.

Alright, fine. I thought you were actually following the logic here. Whatever. Honestly, I don't think Rob is ignoring those conditions in his post. It’s pretty obvious: "if you want to—you've gotta meet the requirements to achieve to." That's just how it works. I think Rob was throwing a little shade by saying "like he hasn't seen that movie, lol," if that's even what he meant. He really needs to just come out and say what he's thinking.

I was following her lead. When someone claimed there aren't any "must-dos" besides death itself, I tried throwing out a few examples where they actually exist. Causality got stretched way further by the guy, though—he jumped from one super specific point straight to some broad generalization about the state of the world.

And honestly? There really aren't any must-dos. Even death isn't exactly a requirement, if life isn't either.

Look, there’s no such thing as a "must-do." You just roll with whatever the situation throws at you. If you actually have to tell someone they *have* to do something, then it’s clearly not a must-do. Period. If it were truly mandatory, they wouldn't be able to function without it—but hey, look at them, still breathing and doing fine without following that little social rule.

Robin Fox2 said:The author of this is Zuco, and we all know his work isn't worth much... the same applies to European cinema, particularly those Swedish dramas and such. Honestly, I’d rather sit through a regular MLS match than endure one of those... unless you're talking about French films, because they actually make incredible movies, especially horror. The best horror film I've ever seen was French.

Check this out

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

Then let me know if you still feel the same way...

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess I just can't wrap my head around anyone voting for the Republicans. Every other party has its flaws, sure, but they seem to be actually working for their spot through current policies or ideas, even if those ideas aren't always great. Maybe the progressives are chasing some kind of utopia and being a bit misleading, but at least they aren't leaning on past glories from decades ago to justify where they stand today.

I'm with you there. We can talk about how incompetent the Democrats are all day, but once you stack up all their scandals—the local officials, the shady travel expenses, the whole mess—it honestly looks like child's play compared to what the GOP did with major banks like JPMorgan Chase, causing over a billion in damages. If you factor in the selling off of big energy assets, the highway construction kickbacks, and the massive corporate embezzlement schemes, then we're talking about real damage...

And when you look at who the GOP actually considers "experts"—people like those old-school lobbyists and disgraced politicians—it's enough to give you chills. You've got party leaders caught up in massive fraud, guys with questionable ties to old intelligence agencies, and assistants who faked their credentials at the academy... And their economic plans? They barely did anything besides suggesting tunnels to nowhere, cutting budgets ruthlessly, messing with Federal Reserve laws, and threatening huge tax hikes on big business. Compared to them, the previous administration looked like geniuses...

It’s just such a shame we don't have a solid third party to turn to...

Look, I already said there’s no such thing as a "must-do" in general. But things change when you get into the weeds. Terms like "must-do" or "must-see" are pretty abstract anyway—if they weren't, skipping them would literally kill you, which isn't how language works. They're just colloquialisms. Take an English professor, for example. You could totally be one without ever touching Shakespeare. It's doable. But for a professor of English lit, Shakespeare is still a must-read, even if that specific guy never actually cracked the book. He didn't drop dead from it, so it's still a must-read.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Look, I already said there’s no such thing as a "must-do" in general. But things change when you get into the weeds. Terms like "must-do" or "must-see" are pretty abstract anyway—if they weren't, skipping them would literally kill you, which isn't how language works. They're just colloquialisms. Take an English professor, for example. You could totally be one without ever touching Shakespeare. It's doable. But for a professor of English lit, Shakespeare is still a must-read, even if that specific guy never actually cracked the book. He didn't drop dead from it, so it's still a must-read.

Fair point. Still a pretty extreme analogy, though. Comparing a literature professor to someone who just likes movies—it's a stretch.

And "must-read" or "must-see" is basically just some sacred cow. Like, "you're a loser if you haven't seen this..." Well, newsflash, maybe I haven't. So what if I haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption? No big deal.

Absolute classic

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081573/

Look, there’s absolutely a "must-see" category for a reason, and it’s not some elitist way to mock you or whatever, it’s just meant to be a roadmap.
It’s honestly no different than if you didn't know your basic geography, like which major US cities are capitals or even where the continents are located.

And honestly, trying to compare us to people living thousands of years ago is just plain ridiculous; obviously, our general knowledge base is massive compared to them, and having some fundamental baseline is important, but just because you haven't seen *The Godfather* doesn't mean you're uncultured or haven't watched a ton of great cinema, it just means you haven't seen that specific movie yet.

I feel like I’ve already crossed everything off my "must-watch" list... I've seen all the classics and the essential heavy hitters, so now what? Where do I even go from here

Is it really possible to underestimate how much fun a movie like You Don't Mess with the Zohan can be?

Amanda Evans2 said:I feel like I’ve already crossed everything off my "must-watch" list... I've seen all the classics and the essential heavy hitters, so now what? Where do I even go from here

other ☕

Solved