Well, not entirely. But I’m cutting back significantly. Let me explain.
Our story begins here. It’s a little off topic, but this is the scenario that bleeds into my main thesis. Starting about three years ago I started to notice how much of my time in the theater was spent watching trailers. There are some chains around here that will show over twenty minutes of trailers before the start of the movie. Twenty minutes! Add to that some commercials, an ditty about buying concessions, a thank you message about keeping silent during the movie, another message from Kung-Fu Panda about not texting during the movie, a message about how great digital projection is, a show off of the soundsystem in the theater that we’re listening to DTS surround sound and another telling us the theater is TXH certified (which of course most people don’t even know what that means – they think it’s a sound system). So let’s see: I showed up to a 5:00pm screening of Spider-Man 2 at 4:40 (to ensure I’ve got a good seat and have time to pee and all that) and now just spent 30-35 minutes watching what is essentially advertising and the movie hasn’t even begun yet. So I’ve been in my theater chair for almost an hour before the opening credits roll. So now a two and half hour movie just became a three and half hour movie (a shitty one too I might add). Whew, that was exhausting! And just to throw salt on the would, I’ve already seen all these trailers (some more than three or four times) on the internet or in other movie screenings. Insert frustrated scream here.
Now I used to love trailers… still do actually. I was always disappointed when I didn’t make it to the theater in time to catch trailers. I also realize that my above rant really only applies to real film buffs who pay attention to all this stuff. When I go to movies with friends, some of whom are fairly regular movie goers, I’m always amazed that before the screening of Cloverfield that they haven’t seen the new Star Trek preview yet; even though it’s been floating around the web for a week. So I understand that the paragraph above really only irks me as an internet cinema buff. For most, the movie trailer is still something new and fresh and exciting. Fine. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that I am (and my fellow non-film buffs) are still sitting in a theater chair for a minimum of forty minutes before the movie even starts.
John Campea over at The Movie Blog has been rallying lately for assigned seating in theater in North America. As a paying customer, I have to admit that as much I hate to agree with Campea, it would be soooo much better if this were the case. There are logistic reasons why it isn’t so great for theater owners and workers, but it still stands that the above rant would not ever have to have been even written. But that isn’t really the point of this post. Though it does stem from that. Ok, onto the meat of this thing.
Where this really started for me was with red band trailers. I’m sure I’ve written about this before, but I never, never watch red band trailers anymore. If it is the first or only trailer for a film, then sure, I’ll check it out. But if I’ve already seen the green (or yellow) band trailer for a movie, I already pretty much know whether I will see the movie or not. If the movie is rated “R”, I sort of already know what to expect, so why should I watch a trailer that takes some of that R-rated material from the film and pre-presents it to me, even though I’ve already watched the regular trailer? This is mostly with comedies, so for example let’s take the latest trailer from Bruno. Here is the perfect example of ruining a movie for you. You’ve seen the original trailer, you’ve seen Borat. You’re either going to this movie or you’re not. If you’re one of the many who are going, why would you want to subject yourself to more bits from the movie? Isn’t that going to ruin it for you when you see the actual film? Everyone else will be laughing (and you may be too), but you’re also thinking to yourself, “I already saw this in the trailer.” For me, when going into a movie, I like to go in as fresh as possible. So to watch clips and trailers for a movie that you know you’re going to be seeing anyway seems like self-sabotage. In a nutshell, fuck red band trailers. They only ruin the movie-going experience.
Recently in the comments for one of our posts, someone mentioned that many trailers these days are full of spoilers. Kurt’s recent rant about how awful the TimeCrimes trailer is is just one example. For years, a classic criticism around the watercooler about many comedies is that “the funniest parts were in the trailer.” Sometimes the better comedies are able to skirt this issue (see Superbad), but many just don’t have anything else to offer, so the only way to get butts in the seats is to give away the three or four moments of comedy gold and let the sucker of an audience fend for itself.
Other times, the information isn’t even “spoilerific” so to speak. It’s just too much information and there are times when we don’t even need to bother with the movie after having seen the trailer. We get the beginning, middle and end of the movie all wrapped up in these three-minute, Cliff Notes “preview.” I believe the example given in the comments section was the trailer for Sideways. “Spoilery” might not be the right word and possibly an over exaggeration as most of the personal information about the characters derived from the trailer is given in the first twenty minutes or so of the film. On the other hand, this might actually be the perfect example of spoilery as it basically gives us the entire plot from start to finish. All the nuance and comedy is stripped away, but it’s obvious what is going to happen, to whom it will happen and how things will end up.
This last point is maybe a bad example, but it is the most personal and the biggest reason I’m avoiding trailers these days: there is no point to them. For each person this will be different and the examples won’t match. But right there is a perfect (and maybe the best) reason to avoid the trailers for movies you already know you want to see. For me, the four biggest examples right now are Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds (1), Bruce McDonald’s Pontypool(2), Robert Schwentke’s The Time Traveler’s Wife(3) and Spike Jonze’ Where the Wild Things Are(4). Four very different movies and four distinct reasons to avoid the trailers.
1) It is Quentin Tarantino. I’m a fan. There’s never been a movie of his I didn’t like… nay, love. It really doesn’t matter what is in (or not in) the trailer. I’m there. My money is already in the pockets of the studio. I did see the original trailer when it was released and even though I didn’t love it, it makes no difference; I will be in the theater opening night. So why would I watch the second trailer that was recently released? All it will do is take away from that “fresh” experience come August 21st.
2) Pontypool. I actually saw the movie last night and loved it to death. I knew I would. I knew everything I needed to know when Cinecast co-host Kurt told me all about it after a screening at the Fantasia festival a year or two back. A) It’s a movie about zombies, B) It all takes place in one room, C) Stephen McHattie is amazing in it – one of the best performances of the year and D) Bruce McDonald directs. Sold. I was pretty much sold with zombies and the rest is just icing, but the question is still begged, why watch the trailer? All it will do is sour things.
3) I read “The Time Traveler’s Wife” (twice) this past year and loved, loved, LOVED it. So no matter how cornball, no matter how bad the acting might be, no matter that the director is a first timer, I can’t wait to see how this book plays out on screen rather than my mind’s eye. I want to see another’s vision of the book. So I will avoid any future trailers from here on out.
4) If any more promotional material arrives for Where the Wild Things Are I will avoid it like the clap. The title alone is probably enough to get my money, but this movie sold me from the director’s name (Spike Jonze) and leaked photos alone. When the promotional posters (notice my comment in that post) were released… well, let’s just say it’s a good thing I have extra clean underwear at work.
So have I really stopped watching trailers? Of course not. A lot of times, particularly in the world of independent cinema, we need trailers simply to alert us of a film’s existence. But I have stopped looking at trailers (if they can be successfully avoided) for films I know I already want to see. At the very least, I avoid second comings of trailers or red band trailers that really only dole out information that isn’t necessary (at best) or spoilerific information (at worst). This is why God invented teaser trailers. A trailer that gets you excited for a movie, yet really only gives you a quick of what to expect. An aura or tone. A great example is the early trailer for Terminator 4. I mean it’s T4 for God’s sake. What more do we need than this? Answer: nothing.
This discussion currently has 68 responses.
I’m going to assign him a -3 for not directly cutting and...
June 27, 2009
I almost always like teaser trailers more than the full ones, for some of the reasons you say – they’re enough to get you excited, but not enough to spoil you or include all the best parts. I do love to see trailers in theatres, though, even if I’ve already seen them on the net. Something about seeing them big and with other people makes it more real.
On assigned seating, though, a couple of the chains out here have it (Arclight and the main Landmark theatre), and I HATE it. I simply can’t decide where I want to sit until I’m in the actual theatre space – it depends so much on how the seating is laid out relative to the screen. I ended up in the fourth row at the Landmark one time, and was crick-necked the whole time. Then I went to the Arclight Hollywood, and was dreading my second-row seat (all that was left), but it was perfect.
I guess if you went to the same screens at the same theatres enough and memorized where you wanted to be at each one…but what a pain.
June 27, 2009
I definitely get your point about trailers, though I find it very hard to stay away. The only case recently where I managed to go into a flick I really wanted to see mostly blind was MOON, I saw the first few pics that were released and I was sold, Sam Rockwell on the moon…I IN! Skipped the trailer entirely, saw a sneak of the film a few days ago, it’s really great. Just watched the trailer today, I’m SO glad I skipped it.
June 27, 2009
“As a paying customer, I have to admit that as much I hate to agree with Campea, it would be soooo much better if this were the case.”
To to FilmRot.com and listen to the first 5 minutes of Episode 42 for the proper retort to Campeas rant.
There’s no way to do this on a mass scale, and I can only imagine the bullshit fights and arguments staff would have to sort through, people showing up late because they have ‘reserved seating’ but just like at ball games people fill up the better seats that dont seem to be taken. If I worked in a theater the last thing I’d want is to have to be a Seating Referee in addition to the other shitty tasks for a crappy wage. So trailers are annoying, I think to me its a case of ‘tough shit’ – I bring my mp3 player to the theater and either listen to it until the trailers are done, or play sudoku or checkers on it.
at any general admission concert, you pay a shitload of money, and you either get there way fucking early or you bully your way towards the front of the stage, or you end up standing to the middle or back of the crowd and still cramped between people sweating your ass off. thats just how things go, unless you want to pay more for your tickets so they can hire the extra people necessary to maintain this sort of thing and just have something else to complain about.
And the big problem with reserve seating is you still have to guess how long the trailers run. I’ve missed the first few minutes of a movie a number of time assuming I had 10 minutes to kill worth of trailers to cover me.
June 28, 2009
They’ve never bugged me. I always enjoy the conversations I have before the movie starts.
June 28, 2009
Three words: Noise. Cancelling. Headphones.
oh, and a book, that is if i am by myself, but I only go to the amc chain here in Ontario if I am going to the multiplex…and they only have those blessedly silent headphones. In fact, the amc in oakville used to play movie scores while this was on and it was awesome. but lately they have gone back to top 40 radio.
June 28, 2009
There’s no way to do this on a mass scale, and I can only imagine the bullshit fights and arguments staff would have to sort through, people showing up late because they have ‘reserved seating’ but just like at ball games people fill up the better seats that dont seem to be taken.
You must go to cinemas patronized by some exceptionally rude people. I don’t like the reserved seating bit because I’m really particular about where I sit in relation to the screen and I have a hard time judging that ahead of time, but I’ve never seen anyone fight over seats or take seats other than the ones they’re assigned at any of the three or four cinemas here that do assigned seating.
But you’re right about paying more for it – the cinemas with assigned seating are $2-3 more than other cinemas in town, but it’s not just the assigned seating. They’re more upscale in general – plusher seats, better-dressed ushers, no commercials (trailers yes, commercials no), no pre-show crap music reel, they serve alcohol, etc.
June 28, 2009
Dirty Robot: THANK YOU! I said the exact same thing about MOON on a cinecast recently and Gamble attacked the hell out of me for it. Avoid the Moon trailer at all costs. The stills should be enough to inform you about the tone and style of the film. The still alone are enough to infer that this is not just another “blow em up” sfx bonanza. It is a real sci-fi thinker with ideas. Going in blind will be much more rewarding… and mysterious.
June 28, 2009
Jandy, your first point is a good one. Though I generally patronize the same 6 theaters or so, so I know exactly what each one looks like. But otherwise I think that’s a really good point.
And Kurt, yeah, if I’m by myself I’m usually listening to my iPod and playing solitaire or something. I look up and shake my head from time to time, but mostly I try to stay in my own world during commercials and trailers.
June 28, 2009
Here was my retort to Campea on pre-selected seating. Oddly enough, no one ever responded.
First off let my qualify my comments. I’ve worked in the movie theater business for close to a decade. I’ve worked for mainstream multiplexes and I currently am a manager for a Landmark theater.
i don’t see how there can be an argument against pre assigned seats.
#1 drawback to pre-selected seating. Cost. Your tickets will cost more and the theater’s staffing costs will go way up. As I’m sure many of you have noticed, online ticketing has surcharges, which means you pay more. But the theaters use third party vendors for this, so they don’t see that money, the vendor does.
Now if the argument is that pre-assigned seating will mean lower concessions sales and less advertising (as Rodney keeps insisting) that means a loss in revenue for the theater. To make up for this they only have two options, raise concession prices or raise ticket prices. Neither is good for the consumer. (And it can be argued it isn’t good for the theater either.)
As an added bonus, pre-assigned seating means the theater will have to increase staffing by a huge amount. Depending on the theater size, each one will require at least one usher on call to help people find seats and answer questions or concerns that might arise. The largest theater in my city seats 900 people, which would mean they would need to double or triple their staffing on busy nights to accommodate those crowds. Increased staffing costs means lower profit margins, lower profit margins means once again tickets/concessions need to be raised.
Also, staffing in that amount means an overworked staff which means the quality of service is likely to go down. That is an indirect effect on your movie going experience, and it isn’t a good one.
Other people have noted that pre-assigned seating doesn’t mean that people will respectfully enter the theater at a decent time. It is already a common problem that people attempt to avoid trailers and ads by coming in late to a movie, thus disrupting the feature. Pre-assigned seating not only doesn’t alleviate that, it has the potential to compound it.
If I wanted to get really negative, I could note that pre-assigned seating opens up the movie going experience to the same problems that happen with concert tickets, and that being poachers and scalpers. Though that is highly unlikely.
That all being said, pre-assigned seating certainly has its perks, and in theory could work well. But the amount of infrastructure that needs to be added, both at the physical plant and online, means this is a major cost to theaters that they are unlikely to absorb on their own. That means it has to get passed on to someone, and in all likely hood that is the consumer. I don’t like higher prices, and pre-assigned seating will raise prices. Its up to the individual on whether they think the cost/benefit is enough to go ahead with it.
As an aside, if you are regularly sitting in line 2+ hours to watch a movie you really need to plan better and have no one else to blame but yourself. Mainstream movie theaters do not like sell outs, and as such it is quite easy to find times where the theater will not only not be full, but you won’t have to camp out to see your movie, thus wasting your time. You don’t have to see movies at midnight, nor do you have to see them at 7pm on Saturday. Sundays are great days to see movies, as the attendance drops like a rock. Saturday afternoons are likewise slow, and any time during the week you have no risk of being in a crowded theater, let alone a sell out. Simple common sense and a tiny bit of planning will save you not only hours of time that you would be spending in line, but also save you money.
June 28, 2009
Watching the Moon trailer doesn’t spoil anything. The reveal in the trailer happens 10 minutes into the movie. If your psyche is that fragile, don’t watch movies.
Sam Rockwell on the moon
Jesus, how about a spoiler alert?
The whole whining about spoilers is so fucking stupid. People only complain about the spoilers they don’t like, never about any of them that actually convince them to watch a movie. The Hangover is a perfect example, a movie that spoils all sorts of jokes in the movie, yet you don’t hear a single complaint about Zach Galifinakis carrying around a baby in all the trailers, posters and leaked stills. Why? Because the imagery helps convince people to give this movie a chance.
Spoilers are inherent in advertising, so if Andrew is going to avoid trailers to avoid spoilers, then by default he needs to avoid posters, stills, summaries, even the movie titles as all inherently involve spoilers. All so he can go into a movie totally cleansed of any outside interference. For a person running a movie site, the concept is utterly ridiculous.
June 28, 2009
The fact that he’s on the Moon is not a spoiler of course. It’s what he finds there, how he finds it and what it is. It seems like the movie would be so much better without that knowledge before hand. It does not happen in the first ten minutes. The whole time I’m watching the movie, I don’t want to be thinking, “ok, he’s going to find it soon.” Lame.
June 28, 2009
The fact that he’s on the Moon is not a spoiler of course.
Sure it is. Its a major plot point of the story, of which couldn’t exist (specifically most of the undertones of being so close to what he desires but still so far away) at any other location in the universe.
What he discovers is a relatively minor plot point, as the themes existed before and after the discovery. Heck, you could have still made MOON without his discovery, hitting all of the same beats that occur, but you can’t make the film without it taking place on the Moon.
But you are choosing to gloss over it, because you don’t mind that that portion of the film is spoiled. You instead focus on something that occurs in the first act, and is by no means told as a twist at all. Without seeing the trailer you would still know what was going to happen, and you would still have a length of time in which you are wondering if he will discover what you already know. It is inherent in the story telling, and blaming that on the trailer is missing the point of how the tale is being told. You are supposed to know. You are supposed to wonder. You are supposed to question.
Why?
Because that is one of the primary themes of the whole damn film.
And yes, you do know about the discovery 10 minutes in. Its when the first seeds of doubt are planted. The film isn’t a mystery by any means, and asking for the trailer to treat it as such is a disservice to the film. It would be like wanting the trailer of Drag Me to Hell to make it look like a serious horror film, rather then what it truly is, just because you wouldn’t want to “spoil” that the film is funny.
And once again, if you are now no longer watching trailers to avoid spoilers, then you should be avoiding one sheets, stills, cast information, even titles, all so you have have your perfectly isolated viewing experience. Of course you should stop watching other movies as well, because you wouldn’t want the film to be potentially spoiled by the fact you might have seen the same movie done better. And of course stop writing reviews, as those spoil films for others. Can’t be part of such a viscious cycle now, can we? Might as well shut down the whole site. Then, and only then, can Andrew be content.
Seriously, this whole concept is like listening to a 2 year old whining about its pacifier. Grow the fuck up before I put you in time out!
June 28, 2009
I guess the question Matt, is not Moon. The question is the point of more and more trailers. Why would anyone who is planning on seeing “Inglorious Basterds” want another trailer to come out? Especially a red band one. Haven’t we seen enough? Worse is when the studio released these 5 minute clips. I usually post them, but I don’t watch them. I know I’m going to see Inglorious Basterds already, so why would I want the theater to show me more and more clips from the movie. What’s the point? Doesn’t that remove some of the freshness of the movie? I mean why not watch all the clips and trailers and hijacked parts from YouTube and then just not see the movie. I guess I just don’t see the point.
Like Jandy, I like teasers and stills. I like movie posters that give me an idea what the movie is about. I don’t need the entire plot spelled out for me. I think Kurt’s review of “Pontypool” flirts with spoilers. I’m glad I avoided all til after seeing the movie. I wouldn’t want to watch the movie for the first time knowing the cause of the “infection” the whole time. That takes aways some of the intrigue. At least for me.
June 28, 2009
Why would anyone who is planning on seeing “Inglorious Basterds” want another trailer to come out?
Because it builds excitement and anticipation for the film ie – buzz. Hell, I like the second trailer a lot more then the initial teaser for IB. It gives a better representation of the film, and hints at just how good it can be. Why wouldn’t I want that?
Doesn’t that remove some of the freshness of the movie?
So then you must never rewatch films, because of the lack of “freshness”. Good films are good regardless if you have already seen the movie 20 times or zero times. This notion that an entire movie can be ruined because you watched 10 seconds of an incomplete scene, or a 5 minute clip is ridiculous to me and lacks weight, as most people would agree that films that have re-watch value are exactly what you want in a movie. Something that increases in value with each viewing.
I usually post them, but I don’t watch them.
You don’t see this as hypocritical? If you don’t think that sort of information has value, then why post it?
Also, this idea that you show up to a film 20 minutes before start time then complain about having to sit through ads and trailers is totally on you. Its easy to avoid trailers. Just like it is easy to avoid crowds. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out. You don’t have to show up 20 minutes before showtime, nor is the theatre or the studio forcing you to do so. You are doing it of your own valition, so to shirk responsibility and then complain about trailers seems to be an entirely disengenuous argument. One that removes personal responsibility from the viewer, and puts in on the theatre instead.
June 28, 2009
And just so everyone knows, I just went and double checked the MOON poster, and it flat out “spoils” the very same thing Andrew is complaining about the trailer spoiling.
June 28, 2009
@ so if Andrew is going to avoid trailers to avoid spoilers, then by default he needs to avoid posters, stills, summaries, even the movie titles
fuckin matt gamble, the fuck?
June 28, 2009
andrew, this is the thread you shouldnt have time for
June 28, 2009
In favor of the 500th thread involving you, Goon and Henrik arguing over semantics? Fuckin rusty james, the fuck?
June 28, 2009
@ Fuckin rusty james, the fuck?
that’s clever, you’ve taken something I said. But then you said it. Zing!
What semantics were being discussed in that thread Matt? Give examples?
I suspect that challenge will go unheeded as you struggle in vain to approximate something a clever person might say.
June 28, 2009
“I’m really particular about where I sit in relation to the screen and I have a hard time judging that ahead of time”
Perfect point, unless you’re given a ‘map’ when you’re selecting a seat like when booking an airline seat, you’re taking a risk.
June 28, 2009
I hear you on not watching trailers. I have been having similar thoughts myself lately. I have been known to get to cinemas very early to ensure I see the trailers before the film.
I posted a similar, if slightly less exasperated, topic on my blog here: http://www.herartmystories.com/2009/06/trailers-and-teasers-to-watch-or-not-to.html
Ultimately I agree with you about not watching trailers for films I know I will want to see. Just this week I’ve had to avoid watching the trailer for The Box, which I have been in anticipation of for something like 2 years, ever since I read about the project in Fangoria…
June 28, 2009
Also, I dont know about anyone else, but depending on how full the theater is, I sit differently… I like having the seats in front of me empty if possible, and if I’m seeing something likely to be crap, I’ll put myself far enough away from others that my friends and I can nudge and whisper without bothering anyone else.
June 28, 2009
They don’t need to BE black to be black stereotypes.
Semantics. That you are spelling it out doesn’t mean you aren’t discussing it.
The twins are stereotypical black people. I think anybody claiming otherwise is stupid and/or an apologist.
Semantics, with ad hominem attacks to boot. Boy, you guys sure are enligtened.
Necron99 aka damndirtyape makes my skin crawl. He’s a horrible person.
Says the guy who is pro rape! Awesome!
Henrik, be fair – Andrew didn’t instigate the political discussion in this thread.
More semantics. This is where it gets good though. Where the three of you argue about who started what and if it should be ended, because since Andrew decided to step out of the fray you three couldn’t decide who to target next and just turned on each other.
Even when he’s backing out he throws out a lame parting shot.
Rusty taking the high ground by engaging in exactly what he is complaining about Andrew. Wheee!!!
Jesus Christ, I’m just saying that whether or not Andrew owes anyone any response, he said he’s backing out, so if that just leaves us bickering with each other over some meaningless bullshit, then the thread to me begins sucking shit.
Which is has. Thread shittified.
But no, Rusty wants everyone to come back to this where he can throw shit on everyone and act like he is top dog. Yet everyone else on the site is a troll compared to him. Oh yeah, and the first line is once again discussing semantics.
Which Rusty says never happened.
Because he said so.
June 28, 2009
I suspect that challenge will go unheeded as you struggle in vain to approximate something a clever person might say.
BTW Rusty, I’m still waiting for some actual constructive discussion from you in the thread rather then blatant baiting. Andrew made a claim that he doesn’t want to watch trailers because they spoil the movie. I took his argument to the logical conclusion, in which he must then remove all spoilers, and you throw a garden variety hissy.
So are you going to contribute, or once again ruin a perfectly good thread with your ignorant and worthless juevenile statements?
June 28, 2009
Rusty didnt say the last quote, I did.
I stand by my comment
The thread actually did move on, but thanks for dragging us back to square one.
June 28, 2009
@ BTW Rusty, I’m still waiting for some actual constructive discussion from you in the thread rather then blatant baiting.
I do not have an opinion about which trailers Andrew should watch.
And I agree with his point that trailers are filled with spoilers.
June 28, 2009
Okay, I think I get what Matt was trying to prove now. It went over my head for a second.
What I find weird though is Matt and Rusty going after each other over trolling/semantics, when most of the time I find both of you guys so similar to each other in the way you argue.
June 28, 2009
Matt, a “semantic argument” is an argument over one’s choice of words.
For instance if you said “Rusty you idiot, I didn’t say you were having a semantic argument! I said you were arguing semantics!
That would be an example of arguing semantics.
Honestly you would’ve been better off doing the thing were you avoid the challenge and just repeated my turn of phrase again.
June 28, 2009
Furthermore, to my recollection the only person I’ve called a troll on this site is Matt Gamble.
http://www.rowthree.com/2008/01/03/2007-as-strong-as-we-thought/
If you’d like to defend that textbook example of trolling then I’m willing to listen. And I can admit when I’m wrong.
Otherwise, suckit.
June 28, 2009
FIGHT
FIGHT
FIGHT
FIGHT
June 28, 2009
@ What I find weird though is Matt and Rusty going after each other over trolling/semantics, when most of the time I find both of you guys so similar to each other in the way you argue.
You know what Goon, honestly I’ve noticed that myself. And I can even take that somewhat as a compliment because he comes off much better on the podcast (sometimes) and when he’s sincere he can make a good case and be persuasive. I don’t doubt he’s decent folk IRL.
But in the comments the big difference between us is that for all my combatitiveness I’m always sincere. And if I’m not always polite I at least attempt to get what others are. I’m not glib or disingenuous.
Gamble is rarely sincere. He’s always sniping with some factually inaccurate inflamatory snide remark and then running away cackling. He talks a good game but it’s all straw manning and evasion. Even more than Henrik I feel like you can’t have a conversation with the guy.
He shows up to the Wrestler thread, shits all over the movie for no reason, adds nothing. And if I recall later admitted he actually liked the movie. Whatever Matt.
June 28, 2009
@ FIGHT
FIGHT
FIGHT
FIGHT
Remember the fight in Dazed & Confused where Adam Goldberg’s strategy is to sucker punch Niki Katt and then run away….
That’s how I imagine Matt Gamble.
June 28, 2009
I dont know guys, I mean seriously – half the time when I remember something one of you has posted, I have to doublecheck because since I find you so similar, I don’t remember who said what.
But that latter thing is totally true and more unique to him than you – he does the argument equivolent of a driveby very often.
June 28, 2009
“Remember the fight in Dazed & Confused where Adam Goldberg’s strategy is to sucker punch Niki Katt and then run away….
That’s how I imagine Matt Gamble.”
I laughed.
June 28, 2009
Damn, I’m going to have to watch DAZED & CONFUSED again. I do not recall a Nicky Katt vs. Adam Goldberg smackdown.
June 28, 2009
really? its one of the big scenes of the movie – Katt is the gearhead greaser dude, Goldberg the nerd, his plan fails and gets pummeled until London breaks it up. Goldberg cries like a little bitch.
“I got a couple of good hits in didnt I?”
and then McConaughey makes off with the redheaded afro chick Goldberg came with.
June 28, 2009
Matt, I think you’re just trying to push buttons now. With you at least I can laugh it off. I mean, your argument that Moon takes place on the moon is a spoiler is like saying that when I say that Pulp Fiction takes place in L.A., that’s a spoiler. Lame argument. And again, I’m not really talking about spoilers. I am mostly talking about just seeing a bunch of clips and story out of context. I know for a fact I’m going to see Inglorious Basterds. So I don’t want to see a ten minute scene from the movie before going in. I’d much rather see the movie fresh. You wanna watch a clip so you can snicker to yourself and say, “here comes the part where he gets hit in the head. Just watch. Here it comes. Right…. now.”
I’d rather not know what’s coming.
June 28, 2009
I think Gamble you are confusing semantics with a fairly common and necessary act of clarifying positions, something kind of important to do to get to a place of common ground, and perhaps a novel concept for you, who has his opinions prepackaged and untouchable.
June 28, 2009
Has anyone noticed on the podcast that a number of times kurt is having a long speech that Gamble will start trying to get Andrew into another seperate discussion while Kurt is still talking?
June 28, 2009
Matt, I think you’re just trying to push buttons now. With you at least I can laugh it off. I mean, your argument that Moon takes place on the moon is a spoiler is like saying that when I say that Pulp Fiction takes place in L.A., that’s a spoiler. Lame argument.
Pulp Fiction can take place in almost any major metropolitan area. Any city that has a decent crime element fits. MOON has something inherently written into the story, the concept of a man desperate to see his family, and who can stare at where they live on the horizon every day, yet can never reach them. Its purgatory, and that is written into the actual story. Having him stationed anywhere else doesn’t provide the same dramatic effect and fuel his desperation like being that close, but that far away, does by him working on the Moon. And that isn’t even going into the massive amount of religious (specifically Jesus) imagery and metaphors used throughout the film. The film has to be set on the Moon, making that a spoiler.
And once again, you are complaining about something that is fully revealed in the first act and is hinted at within the first few minutes. Their is a reason why it is used in the marketing materials, its the hook that makes people interested in just where the story will go. They aren’t revealing things in later acts, just the initial confrontation of the film. Your argument is that the film should simply be marketed as Sam Rockwell in space. No confrontation. No questions. No nothing. Just have him walk around and talk to himself in the trailer and people will go. Sorry, but that just won’t sell the film, nor is it an accurate representation of what the film is, meaning it would be a poorly marketed film, which again would draw complaints.
June 28, 2009
I think Gamble you are confusing semantics with a fairly common and necessary act of clarifying positions, something kind of important to do to get to a place of common ground, and perhaps a novel concept for you, who has his opinions prepackaged and untouchable.
No Mike. Rusty, Henrik and Goon were discussing whether or not someone fell into the definition of racist. That is a semantic argument, especially when it considers someone (Michael Bay) that they have no actual knowledge of his thought processes, no direct association with nor his involvement with the script.
On top of that, they all used their own biases and meanings to infer upon Bay what he meant by his film. They have no way of proving anything, so instead resort to supposition and innuendo to “prove” their points. And of course, when some guy disagrees with them over there, they run over here and call him a racist. At least Goon actually confronted him with the question, while Rusty, the guy who is never disingenuous, merely saved any remarks for the safety of RW3.
And an example of Rusty’s lack of disingenuous nature:
I don’t see what the blacks have to complain about ARGLEBARGLE they’re just mad because it’s true!
did you what letterman said about Bristol Palin that’s the real outrage!
Clearly Rusty, you never resort to anything but honest and open discourse with a complete disregard for hyperbole or sarcasm. Good on you.
June 28, 2009
“Henrik and Goon were discussing whether or not someone fell into the definition of racist.”
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOWELLSHEET
Absolutely none of your ’semantics’ selected quotes had anything to do with the definition of racist or racism.
Most pathetic reton gymnastics display I’ve ever seen on this site, ever.
June 28, 2009
Changing the Subject Fallacy FTL, Matt
June 28, 2009
Has anyone noticed on the podcast that a number of times kurt is having a long speech that Gamble will start trying to get Andrew into another seperate discussion while Kurt is still talking?
Wow, the claws are coming out now ladies. Funny enough, Andrew is typically the one who asks me a question about whatever film Kurt is talking about, usually to see if I have seen it or some other info, he’s just better at covering his mic.
Who’s got the next nitpick?
June 28, 2009
Absolutely none of your ’semantics’ selected quotes had anything to do with the definition of racist or racism.
First one is describing whether or not the robots were black or not. Why? Because it was part of the discussion on whether it was a racist stereotype.
Other then that, it is part of a totally different argument from Rusty, one in which he claimed their was never any semantic statements/arguments made at all in the thread. I’m not the one performing gymnastics, you two are. I never made any claim that those I listed were the only ones, so any inference would be on you.
Try harder guys. Maybe next time you’ll place.
June 28, 2009
“Wow, the claws are coming out…. Who’s got the next nitpick?”
In that spirit:
Maybe someone other than you and James would comment on (or for that matter, listen to) your podcast if you had time for people other than to fuck with them… poorly.
June 28, 2009
You retcon so well you should write for Lost.
June 28, 2009
Maybe someone other than you and James would comment on (or for that matter, listen to) your podcast if you had time for people other than to fuck with them… poorly.
Way to rip on James. He had two family members die this week. Want to go piss on their graves while you’re at it?
June 28, 2009
You retcon so well you should write for Lost.
Touche.
June 28, 2009
“Way to rip on James. He had two family members die this week. Want to go piss on their graves while you’re at it?”
I forgot that I was omniscient, that this is somehow relevant to anything, and that I can actually take your word for it.
June 28, 2009
@ At least Goon actually confronted him with the question, while Rusty, the guy who is never disingenuous, merely saved any remarks for the safety of RW3.
What the fuck is your problem.
In both that same FJ thread and when he’s posted here I’ve confronted Necron/Dirty Ape directly. It’s are quoting one of my responses to him but also claiming I refused to confront him face to face.
Do you just use words randomly? There’s nothing disingenuous about that quote you excerpted. Someone in that thread did say all black were like that.
Are you having some nervous breakdown right now?
June 28, 2009
It’s [weird that you] are quoting one of my responses to him but also claiming I refused to confront him face to face.
June 28, 2009
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7251/olympix.jpg
I is artist
June 28, 2009
lulercoaster, goon
June 28, 2009
I love you guys.
June 28, 2009
I can’t believe Goon made a Douche Olympix and I didn’t feature. What were the odds.
June 29, 2009
By the way, how am I pro rape(?)
June 29, 2009
I wouldn’t sweat it Henrik. I think he just had a “spell”
June 29, 2009
Let the record show that Andrew said nothing about pro-rape. I don’t know where that came from.
Tomorrow’s Cinecast is sure to be… interesting.
June 29, 2009
Has anyone noticed on the podcast that a number of times kurt is having a long speech that Gamble will start trying to get Andrew into another seperate discussion while Kurt is still talking?
Have to agree with Gamble on this one. Not sure what this is about. Matt’s response is correct. Sometimes I’ll just whisper something like “who is Danny McBride?” or “the lotion is not for jacking off” or something else whilst Kurt is talking. I’ve never noticed Matt trying to change the subject – unless maybe an opportune moment presents itself for some (not so) comic relief.
June 29, 2009
well Matt said you instigate things and cover your mic and he doesnt and that could very well explain things. Just trust me that it happens, I notice it every time. It’s the Row Three ‘distracting background’ equivolent of Greg’s heavy breathing.
June 29, 2009
It was Matt who said I was pro-rape, I agree that it came out of nowhere!
I am not pro rape. It must be horrible to be raped.
June 29, 2009
“I am not pro rape.”
Then don’t rape.
June 29, 2009
“well Matt said you instigate things and cover your mic”
That’s a load of bullshit. I never “instigate” anything silently during the show. Yes I will cover the mic and whisper something, but it is usually just a technical thing or just quiet clarification about something I don’t understand. It isn’t really meant to be “secret.” I just say it quietly as to not throw off Kurt’s talking/concentration. It is never anything of importance or significance.
June 29, 2009
lets use this as a common frame of reference, empty semantics is when you are doing essentially the political equivalent of a filibuster, when you are interrupting the flow of progressive debate by saying “no I didn’t say that” when those things you didn’t say are inconsequential to the thrust of the debate.
like you are talking about racial stereotypes and describing a guy who has a gold tooth but the person said gold chains, and you stop everything to quibble over something as inconsequential as that.
Sorry, Rusty, but whether Palin is a fanatic or the mouthpiece of fanatics doesn’t one bit change the thrust of the argument that you asked for liberal examples of this behavior. The same public behavior is the same, irrespective of pinpointing exactly what Palin does in her private life or in different contexts… you spent several paragraphs emphasizing one context.
June 29, 2009
I’m anti rape in almost all scenarios with the exception of fanboy childhoods.
June 29, 2009
“Then don’t rape.”
I don’t!
July 27, 2009
[...] Why one person has stopped watching Movie Trailers. (RowThree) [...]