when your reasons for not wanting to are fucking stupid why shouldn't she call you out? this is a public forum, don't post if you don't want the things you say criticized.

and there have not been any major technological advancements in film since the 60s anyway. nothing that has affected the quality of the image anyway--except digital video, which is shittier. i don't see where you are informed to talk about the "low-quality-ness" of older films (the 60s isn't even that fucking old) given you admittedly haven't watched many.

http://www.rawkblog.net/wp-content/u...ork-Orange.jpg
passable. it had some spellbinding moments and also much of the opposite. glad i saw it, but it is far from a favorite.

yeah you should have gone with let the right one in from your list

I've made some edits:

I find movies from the 60s to be of a lower quality. That's just my opinion. People also like to write-off pop punk and nu metal as a genre of music being of a lower quality, and on some of those I disagree. I don't care if I'm less refined for not liking old films, whatever, it's my opinion. I didn't directly try to offend somebody by quoting them or anything, I just stated my opinion...

If it's a least favorite genre, then why can't you say it's boring if you find it boring? I mean who cares? I find a lot of jazz boring, despite it's cultural significance...

What, that they're boring? How can you possible argue that?

Haha maybe you don't find CGI to be an improvement but I challenge you to watch Congo and then Jurassic Park back-to-back and tell me they shouldn't have employed a little more CGI in the former...

what do you mean by low-quality? as in the film artists of the 1960s created work that was of a lower artistic quality? or are you talking about the actual recording of the image...like the image is of a lower quality?

Entertainment quality, since that's what I go for in a movie. In my book it's to entertain me, so it's competing against things like a baseball game or video games and not so much paintings or music...

boring is the absolute lamest criticism you can give a film. you get from a film what you put into it, if you engage a film and watch it actively rather than passively it will not bore you. if it does that is your fault, generally. i'll leave room for empire as an exception.



i don't find cgi to be an improvement particularly. or at least i don't watch many films that extensively use cgi, so i don't find it missing in older films. but certainly lack of cgi forced older films and directors to be more creative.

well film is an art-form just like music is, and popular films bastardize the medium in the same way popular music does generally. if you can appreciate talented music and musicians why would you not also appreciate talented filmmakers?