Fine. I think that Greengrass is gimmicky; you think his gimmick makes his films preferable to all other films in the same genre (noone is using exclusive tighht closeups and deliberately shaky handheld camera tro the extent he does). You were happy to talk about FMJ a few posts ago, but now that it leads to a contradiction, you exclude it as not relevant to the discussion.
But I'm not excluding it. You're trying to present it as somehow tripping me up, and I really don't see how it does. It's not like I'm trying to "hide" from FMJ as that it proves absolutely nothing "wrong" about my opinion, nor is that even possible. You're essnetially trying to treat this as a debate where one of us is going to come out over the other, and I'm not sure why. Is my opinion really that disagreeable to you?
QUOTE
"War" movies are different from "action" movies. I don't see why of course, since they after all deal even more than most action films with "real" situations, and the handheld work, with the archaic lenses, was employed specifically to emulate WWII combat footage. But whatever.
I don't think you'd have to look to far to find most people would distinguish war films from action films a la the Bourne,
Die Hard or Indiana Jones films. It's kind of surprising and odd to me that you would lump those type of films and war films together, but hey, to each their own.
QUOTE
Incidentally, I only mentioned it after you introduced SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS, which favoured handheld doc-style camera work amid other styles.
Yes, I brought them up to ask other people here what they thought of them because of my overall point of how surprised I am at how so many people seem to out and out loathe any significant use of the "shaky cam" in films and I wanted to see if that extended here to projects that typically by and large beloved like SPR and BOB. I wasn't trying to some divert or explain my way out of anything...I was simply curious of everyone else's opinions when it comes to shaky cam use in those films. You'll notice that's why I also brought up
Traffic, too. I didn't bring up any of those films to somehow prove anyone wrong...I was simply curious to see if anyone's vitriol for this filmmaking style extended to other acclaimed projects.
QUOTE
Apparently you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place,
What? That's ridiculous. Now you're telling me what I should and shouldn't bring up when it comes to discussing what we each prefer when it comes to how films are shot and edited?
QUOTE
and no, I'm not trying to "catch" you at anything.
Could have fooled me. You very quickly left behind any attempts to have a discussion about our different positions on shooting styles to focus on attempting to trip me up and somehow find "proof" that my opinion is wrong(?). You may not think you're doing it, but I'm here telling you as the person you're responding to that that's how it's coming across repeatedly, and I fail to see what it accomplishes. If you refuse to recognize that, well, I can't control that.
QUOTE
Of course when we're talking about opinions neither of us can be "wrong," but anyone can use spurious arguments when trying to prove a point. I was just calling you on one.
I don't belive so at all, nor do I see why such a thing is even necessary. Nothing of what I've brought up is supposed to "prove" me right, so I don't see how I can even have an "Argument" in the first place. I'm simply presenting everything as "hey, this is a style of filmmaking I tend to prefer; I love it's use in these films; what do the rets of you think?" Apparently you're not going to even entertain the idea that I simply wasn't getting my point across clearly or that you misunderstood me. I don't see why that isn't option since we're simply discussing personal opinions on filmmaking as opposed to having some kind of debate where one person needs to prove the other wrong or deceitful. I have absolutely no reason to try and backtrack or lie or evade or whatever else you think I'm doing here because we're just talking about movies! I've explained my opinions up until this point and will happily continue to do so and would love to continue discussing those topics with you, but I don't appreciate the continued dissection of my posts as opposed to the subject at hand as if you need to somehow "prove" that my (non-existent) argument is flawed and therefore less valid. Again, I didn't think we were having that type of debate and don't see why we should over a subject as personal opinion-driven and subjective as this. I apologize for any confusion or miscommunication along the way and I'll definitely try to be more clear from here on out.
This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 14 August 2007 - 10:17 AM