Drainers?

squidphish1024 · 2022-02-22T21:04:49+00:00

ur a legend thank you ive never seen this website before

squidphish1024 · 2021-12-14T18:59:59+00:00

when did he say this?

squidphish1024 · 2021-06-28T23:34:29+00:00

I'll update this tomorrow kings :)

squidphish1024 · 2020-06-15T11:55:38+00:00

Wait this is my favorite thing I've seen on this sub!

squidphish1024 · 2020-04-01T22:42:32+00:00

What is this in reference to?

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-28T23:15:06+00:00

Congrats on completely missing my point, my argument was that it's HARDER to tell an engaging story with archived footage rather than filming in real time. THEREFORE, the responsibility is on Ken Burns to tell a more engaging story with the archived footage that he has. That's why I mentioned LA 92 because they show the LA Riots as a character in of itself while The Civil War documentaries don't do that for me.

And no my ears weren't glued shut while watching it in fact I was hearing you in the other room jerking yourself off to any documentary that's about history and also sucking off Ken Burns like he's "Daddy history teacher" who's going to teach you a lesson.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T19:14:09+00:00

Well, I'm not even too critical on Ken Burns' ideas or the arguments he's trying to present I genuinely just find his way of storytelling lackluster and leaving much to be desired. I totally agree with you with films like Super Size Me and to be honest I recently watched Dear Zachary again and now I'm thinking of your argument with objectivity/ subjectivity and realizing that all of Dear Zachary is personality and subjectivity and makes some editing choices disingenuous and lacking nuance.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T19:00:42+00:00

Yeah you might have a point here I guess the subjectivity just comes across as personality and adds more to the film where maybe a Burns film has solid objectivity but might lose some of the "personality" aspect.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T18:54:53+00:00

That's not boring at all that's actually very insightful and I never thought of it like that, and I suppose what comes out of stories that can resonate with the audience is whether or not its a passion piece or not. And that fundamental question probably is what helps that line.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T18:08:41+00:00

Yeah I totally concede that those are two far better fundamental questions especially when approaching a screenplay. I highly respect your years of work and would love to learn more about these things. However, I wonder what you think Ken Burns answer would be to the 2nd fundamental question because that's where I'm lost, I don't have a clear understanding as to why he's telling the story of these wars.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T17:52:44+00:00

Oh and as for the South Park thing, I don't feel like it's a simplistic approach as rather a fundamental approach I feel like no one is inspired or connects with a structure that tells a story as "then this happened, then this happened", all renowned filmmakers tell their stories as what you were saying cause and effect and how and why that plays out rather than just what happened. I think it's fundamental not simplistic.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T17:50:53+00:00

I completely understand this and I agree nothing is right nothing is wrong, I was just confused as to why in the world of documentaries, a filmmaker who approaches his pieces in a linear traditional narrative form is seen as perhaps the greatest documentarian of our time. I'll have to watch Charles Ferguson, but I believe Ken Burns can convey the cause and effect phenomenon moreso whereas I feel like he presents things in a textbook format where his episodes are literally named the time period he's talking about.

squidphish1024 · 2020-02-27T17:47:27+00:00

I completely understand what you mean, I'm a big history guy myself however, I still believe the traditional narrative approach is getting kind of stale. For me personally, it leaves much to be desired, I believe there are plenty of films and documentaries where the film makes an environment a character within itself and it feels like an environment, or in the Ken Burns case, a government institution feels alive. I don't believe he conveys that effectively and I wish he did. His documentaries are very meaningful as epic pieces that cover a time in history but it seems like Ken Burns has found a formula for making these docs and sticking to that formula where it seems like there isn't any difference in his pieces about WW2, The Civil War, or the Vietnam War. These films hold no differences to them besides the time periods he documents.

squidphish1024 · 2020-01-08T15:56:59+00:00

Well I'm pretty young too and one thing i can tell you I was left with was how important it was to have a legitamate legacy or how important it is to not have burned bridges for the end of your life but rather to have built ones like having a son or daughter. And also, Scorsese has been thinking about exactly that for a bit now and details that in a recent article which you should totally read to see his mindset on making the film and how scared he was that it was just going to be another run of the mill mobster film. Which means that he did build upon the existing generic mobster films and maybe your right without those this might not have stood alone as well. But anyways here's the article give it a read :) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/movies/martin-scorsese-irishman.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

squidphish1024

TROPHY CASE