[deltaonezero]

Opinions about movies aren't indisputable truths.

There are things that are general truths though. Opinions held by such a high majority of people that such opinions are very close to the truth in the sense that often people talk about such opinions without using "speculative" adjectives.

I would say the things that I talk about in my post belong to those "general truths." I would also say fans of Blade Runner don't belong to the majority crowd. Their opinions are well outside mainstream and they <often> view that sort of opinion as superior. I personally view that sort of opinion as "alternative" and I despise people who view it as "superior."

Not saying you are such a person, nor many of the people on HN. But you have to admit; such a crowd does exist.

[sonofhans]

So to summarize: you despise fans of the original Blade Runner because they so often view their own opinions as superior. And you see no irony in this. Got it.

[deltaonezero]

That's very closed minded of you to say that. Because I never said this.

Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art that stands on the same level as blade runner, then I don't despise you.

If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you. I actually think you don't have the sophistication to see why mainstream cinema is just as great if not often greater then the obscure stuff.

It's easy to hate the mainstream. It's enlightenment to like the mainstream after hating it. Those elitest people are just at level 2. They don't realize there's a third level that brings you back full circle.

I would know I watched hundreds and hundreds of movies. More then your average person and I started at a very young age.

[ethbr0]

A quality that makes a film commercially successful is not automatically a quality which makes a film great art.

They're two independent concepts.

So to weight popular success in any sense when deciding artist merit is a mistake.

Popular is popular. Art is art. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

[deltaonefour]

> A quality that makes a film commercially successful is not automatically a quality which makes a film great art.

Agreed? Why are you telling me something I completely agree with?

>Popular is popular. Art is art.

The problem here is that for people like you, most of the time:

"Popular is NOT art",

it's this elitist attitude that "art" is above what is "popular" that I hate. We divide wealth into classes and now we have to divide tastes. Looks like your part of the 1%.

>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

May I ask why you decided to write some stuff in French for no fucking reason? Pretty low likelihood that I'm French or readers on HN are French so what's your goal here with putting some French here?

It's like a cartoon. You're not trying to sound elitist but your genius French kinda shows the world how elitist your headspace is. Wow French!, we're dealing with a true art critic here folks.

[mos_basik]

He's referring to a painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

I'm not art critic enough to know even half of what's been written about the meaning of this painting, but I know that it's considered significant, and I immediately recognized the reference.

Can't speak for him, but I guess the reason for including it may have been as an example of a work that was decidedly not Popular but (after much discussion) very much Art.

The other thing it could be used for is as a reminder to not mistake the map for the territory, but I don't see that fitting into this discussion so it's probably not that.

[ethbr0]

The Treachery of Images, as I understand it, is a visual/linguistic joke on the multiple definitions of being.

By distilling language down to a most basic, simplified statement, the artist (Magritte) is seducing the viewer into a first impression ("This is a pipe") and then contradicting it, on the basis that a picture of a pipe cannot be used for anything which a pipe can (e.g. smoking).

So yes, similar lines to the Borges map fable.

I included it because at a base level, parent seems to be stubborn about the definition of terms, on which it seemed to opine.

And PS, je ne parle pas français.

[deltaonefour]

>He's referring to a painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

Most people don't know about this painting nor do most people know French... I'm sure you and him are aware of that.

It could be that whatever the painting represents fits his point. But you have to look deeper then that because he is fully aware that most people on this site don't know about that painting nor do they know French. So why post it at all? His intent definitely wasn't communicating anything understandable to anyone here.

I'm Chinese, so if quoted some famous quote from Confucius, and to top if off I wrote that quote in Chinese, then of course my intention isn't communication. I know most people on HN can't read Chinese, so then why would I include the quote?

I would have included it to make myself look intelligent, educated and well versed in Chinese philosophy. This is basically the gist of what's going on here.

The alternative is he just didn't have the brains to realize this is an English site and most people don't speak french nor do they have an understanding of French paintings.

I would say the former reason is much more likely then the later.

That's why I said it's almost like a cartoon. I'm talking about elitism in movie tastes and here someone tries to counter that claim with a carbon copy circus act of exactly the snobbery I'm talking about. I don't think he picked up on it, and hopefully this explanation helps you realize what I'm talking about.