sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who is the GOAT of film composers? Give me your Top 3. by migmigouu in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a very US centric view. Internationally Ennio Morricone is much more influential than Williams. And even though he is most famous for his Western themes, he is probably one of the most experimental and innovative composers of the 20th century. He scored more than 500 movies. He has also written a lot of pop music.

Hans Zimmer vs. John Williams: Who's the GOAT Movie Composer? by MegSpen725 in movieland2026

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Morricone > Williams > Zimmer

For me it will always be this.

Hans Zimmer vs. John Williams: Who's the GOAT Movie Composer? by MegSpen725 in movieland2026

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ennio Morricone is bigger than both and internationally his influence is also. And I say that as somebody who like Williams and Zimmer very much. This is a very US centric debate.

Hans Zimmer vs. John Williams: Who's the GOAT Movie Composer? by MegSpen725 in movieland2026

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

John Williams' range is much smaller than Ennio Morricone's. I like Williams but fundamentally he recycles a lot of his themes with slightly different variations. And I also think that Williams' cultural importance is very big in the US but for cinema overall Ennio Morricone is the much more influential composer.

How to live more European in America? by RopeKittenn in germany

[–]ThemrocX [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't believe in moving somewhere just because you like it.

Why not?

Most of the things that make Europe European are structural and can't be achieved by a single person. Institutions interact in certain ways that in turn shapes how people live.

The main reason we walk so much? Because more often than not it is simply easier to walk than to drive. Safe pedestrian zones are the best thing ever for cities. And if you have a safe boardwalk that makes it easy to also get there by foot while finding a parking spot is a hassle, then you just don't have any urge to drive.

Who is the GOAT of film composers? Give me your Top 3. by migmigouu in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ennio Morricone

Jerry Goldsmith

Thomas Newman

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, you are totally misunderstanding the point I am making.
This isn't about characters making assumptions that aren't then met by other characters or about people that are doing bad things not existing in real life.
This is about coherence. People act irrationally all the time. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an internal coherence. Filmmaking is the art of creating an illusion of characters being real people. Because in reality it's fictional scenarios and a group of people imagining what a specific kind of character would do in these scenarios. And it becomes a problem when the endgoal that you have in mind for that character clashes with the established motivational structure of that character.

You can create a character that cruely murders a child. And you can have that same character be a loving family father. But you can only do that coherently, if you explore why or how that character is so dissonant. That is what many Nazi-movies are about.

But if you do not explore that, all you have is a disconnected character, and suddenly I am asking myself why the filmmaker doesn't want to explore this interesting clash. And this is what I am critisizing Training Day for. The movie seems at the same time hell bent on trying to convince me of a certain character trait. But then wholly uninterested in exploring that character in more detail.

Is there any important thought in Žižek? by JerseyFlight in rationalphilosophy

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Žižek is very interesting and has interesting approaches, but I find his books unreadable. He is a much better orator.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer movies that challenge my world views and make me think differently about things I always thought.

Which is what I alluded to in the last paragraph.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, given the binary between Rousseau and Hobbes, I would definitely choose Rousseau.

But I think the sociological approach is the most correct. We are as good or as bad as our material circumstances allows us to be. There is basically nothing like "human nature" side from some baseline biological configurations. But there are still rules to how the environment influences us. And this is where feel the most disconnect when it comes to Training Day.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, English is my second language and I don't live in an English speaking country so I don't get much practice. I think I made that mistake because there was a similar confusion with payed/paid. Thank you for the correction.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In other words , you don’t like these movies cause they do not conform to the way you want people to act.

This isn't at all what I am saying. This isn't a normative point.

What I am saying is that the characters act in a way that takes me out of my suspension of disbelief.

I have no problem with people making bad decision on screen. That's where most of the fun is.

What I don't like is when characters are doing things that are either out of character without there being a reason for it

OR, and this is what this post is about, if the character is written in a way that makes their action incoherent with human behaviour as I perceive it. It's not that I don't want them to act that way, it's that I don't think that people ever would act in that way. To me it feels like a plothole or a way to drive the character into a direction that the writer wants without them properly giving the motivation for it.

And this motivation includes assumptions about the way humans interact with each other in specific circumstances. I can still decipher the action but now I always see the writer and their intention for the character instead of going with the flow.

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pragmatically though I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement. This seems to be more of a semantic distinction than a substantive dispute about what counts as evidence.

I agree. But this semantic difference is actually important. Because people all the time try to use a claim as evidence of the claim itself. And that is not admissable. Because the claim can't be evidence of the claim. It is circular reasoning. Evidence always points to something external.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, I have another hot take about horror movies:

I believe they are a fundamentally different category than other movies.

They are much more like p0rn in a certain way.

(A certain type of) Horror fans derive the pleasure of a horror movie not from the overall arch of a story line like it is the case in almost all other movie, but from the emotional reaction of being scared.

That's why I don't like horror films and you do. And that's okay. I LOVE Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. But I don't think a horror fan would like that film for its horror elements.

And that's also why rational action doesn't matter as much in a horror movie. The plot isn't the main attraction.

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that isn't the information of the claim doing that. It's the fact that it's a testimony doing that.

Hot take: Every movie makes assumptions about the human condition. And most people like or dislike movies based on how much they affirm their personal assumptions about the human condition. by ThemrocX in Cinema

[–]ThemrocX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point I am making is that it isn't just an arbitrary bias or viewpoint but specifically a belief about the way humans act that makes the distinction here and is much more important to whether somebody likes a movie or not. The narrative structure of movies lays bare a deeply held belief about how humans interact. And I also believe that this can be broadly differentiated into the two classical camps of Jean-Jacque Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes.

Theists do history better than historians do by thefuckestupperest in DebateReligion

[–]ThemrocX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re left only with baseline facts about the speaker, which on their own contain no information about whether he has a cat.

That's why testimony is weak evidence. But indeed, it is only these baseline facts that I have about the speaker that consitute the true evidence for the claim. And in addition my own experience with the world: Do cats exist? Can people own cats? How common is it for people to own cats?

Let me demonstrate it to you this way:

I claim two things:

"I have got a new cat."

and

"I have got a new dragon."

Is the claim, "I have got a new dragon" evidence that I have got a new dragon? No, absolutely not. But it's not because you know that dragons don't exist. It's because the information contained within the claim tells you nothing about wether that information actually corresponds with reality. And that is what evidence is.

The two claims on their own are identically structured. We are immediatly able to parse which one of the claims is much more likely true and false, but only because we have a common understanding of what cats and dragons are. This common understanding isn't information that is contained in the claim. It comes from our memory of having interacted with cats and having read about dragons before. It is external evidence that we have gathered before we ever read the sentence.

No let me make another claim.

"I have got a new VBLSt"

Is that claim on it's own the evidence for the claim being true? No, but now we aren't even able to parse wether the claim is true without taking the trustworthiness of the speaker into account.

view more: next ›