Danny Vliet “won 2015 Emmy for "Best in Interactive Media" as a Production Coordinator on Bravo's The Singles Project.”
I worked at Sbarro when I was 14 and Olive garden is the best authentic Italian food in the world.
It seems worth mentioning that was a juried award, determined by a panel of professionals in each respective peer group.
Deliberations include an open discussion of each entrant’s work and, at the end, voters are asked to answer the question “Is this entry worthy of an Emmy award – yea or nay?” Only those with unanimous approval win.
Sure, but 'production coordinator' is not exactly a job which requires an extensive knowledge of and ability to critique film on a level higher than most people.
"Yeah I served in the Navy. The Old Navy"
As someone else with a film degree, there are movies that are far longer and have far more dialogue. Stop trying to make that into an elitist thing. Or go watch Jeanne Dielman on repeat until you can’t get off to high brow cinema any more
As someone who doesn't have a film degree, I'm surprised that the degree doesn't teach OP that movies are subjective.
As someone with a film degree, I can safely say film buffs are among the most gatekeeping of gatekeepers, right along metalheads (which I also am). "Subjective" is not a word in their dictionary.
It's true with any art.
Art is something so heavily based in opinion that you don't actually need any formal knowledge or training on the subject whatsoever to have an opinion on it.
This leads to every know-nothing shouting their opinions because all opinions are "equally valid" in this context of subjectivity. After all if you watch a lot of TV, you must know a lot about it right?
Have had this when I tell people I'm not into Gojira. "But they're some of the most talented and technically proficient musicians!"
Ok. I didn't say they werent skilled. But like damn I don't like the way their shit sounds.
If your movie is far longer than 3 hours, it's practically a miniseries.
Lonesome Dove fits that bill and it's fantastic.
"Sometimes doing the right thing costs ya a few feet of good rope."
I need to go back and re watch that. Wonder if it ever made it off of VHS
Old movies rarely make it to the big name paid streaming services, but I just checked and you can watch it for free on Tubi, PlutoTV, and Freevee.
I don't normally watch westerns, but I might check it out.
The movie Gettysburg is 4 1/2 hours long. My wife and I couldn't make it through it when we saw it in the theater.
As the overeducated on the subject child of someone who founded a film history department at a major university, I'm less qualified, but I agree with you 100%.
And Avengers: Endgame was 3 hours long and had tons of dialogue, so if that's the criteria for 'too highbrow for the normies,' then the bar is set pretty low.
Oh this is cool. What's your favorite movie as someone with refined tastes
Its possible that people appreciate different things about movies and that arguing about subjective interpretation of art is pointless regardless of the qualifications.
But he specifically said that not everyone has to like it.
It is possible something is objectively very very good (depending on the criteria picked) but is still disliked by many. Similar with a lot of stuff happening around the fight against the speed of climate change.
But he specifically said that not everyone has to like it.
He said not everyone can handle it, implying there's something with people that don't like it.
There's this irritating Emperor's New Clothes thing with movies and TV lately where creators can make the most boring stuff imaginable, and then when people say it's boring you simply imply they aren't smart enough to understand it.
Good point.
And to add to my previous point: even if he has objective criteria, they are worthless if he doesn't specify them.
I would actually even argue that with movies the subjective rating is part of its objective success. You can do everything by the book and still lose if no one likes it.
I mean I have zero issues with a 3 hour movie. Oppenheimer was not masterfully written and at some points the directing was plainly bizarre.
It was a good movie but it's not a movie I would go out of my way to see again. 90% of it was just taken from his wiki page - it wasn't deep or insightful.
Again, good movie, definitely doesn't make my top 5 or top 10.
I have issues with a three hour movie if I'm watching it in theatres. Unless there's an intermission
They don't do intermissions in movies anymore for some reason. I don't know why. I think it's a good idea.
Depends where you go. There's a local (not franchise) theatre in my town that still does them. I've heard from euro friends that it's not common on their home continent as well.
I mean, just because you won awards for your own shows doesn't mean your opinions on other people's movies are more valid than anybody else's...
Sometimes certain Academy Award nominated actors can still be in bad movies...😞
Yes, but the implication is that they don't know what they are talking about. All art is subjective. Nothing they said was invalid.
Yeah, no. I have no problem with a dialogue-driven 3-hour cinematic tour-de-force. Oppenheimer was not that.
Also, let people like (or not like) things.
Sorry Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings extended edition trilogy is the best movies of all times.
Tell me you haven't Killer Bean Forever without telling me you haven't seen Killer Bean Forever
A degree nor an emmy award makes your opinion matter more on a movie. Especially when you're just claiming these things and not backing them up.
This is not the first time I see one of these. The format: X says something. Z puts X's something into question. X supposedly owns Z by revealing how awesome they are.
Why this got me triggered?
Maybe the format. No problem here. Someone else likes this and this is why it gets posted and upvoted. No surprise there.
Maybe the content. In making aesthetics, judgments, we're mostly guided by affections. Trying to own an aesthetic discussion with degrees or prizes is... well, an aesthetic.
Because we all know instances of very knowledgeable people making questionable aesthetic judgements. What makes their judgement questionable is OUR relation to the object in question.
It's this personal relation to the object that structures the whole jugement. This, as people correctly say, it's... subjective.
So, here the proof is like that at many levels. First the level of the meme. You like this format? If yes, you move to the next level. Then the movie itself. If you loved it, you love to hear others praising it to the skies. Finally, the so-called credentials presented here. You consider an Emmy a great award? If feel it is, than you feel vindicated, feeling this is a great argument.
It is not. It's a subjective display of affections masquerading as an argument.
The only other person in the country with the same name as me, due to an unusual last name, won an Emmy. My bios which use my real name usually say, "no, not the ____ who won an Emmy." I only met him once, but we got along swimmingly.
Emmys are not as impressive.
Posts of people not realising the person they’re talking to, is the person they’re talking about.
Acceptable examples include:
Discussions on any topic are encouraged but arguements are not welcome in this community. Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
The posts here are not original content, the poster is not OP and doesn’t necessarily agree with or condone the views in the post. The poster is not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.
Rules:
This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:
Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.
PLEASE READ LEMMY.ORG’S CITIZEN CODE OF CONDUCT: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
PLEASE READ LEMMY.WORLD’S CODE OF CONDUCT: https://lemmy.world/legal
