Why are you surprised? Do you agree with me? I'm curious. I could be wrong.
2001: Can this end well?
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
"Can this end well?"
I assume this will end with Confused Matthew being transformed into an oversized, screeching, bawling baby.
Oh, wait....
I assume this will end with Confused Matthew being transformed into an oversized, screeching, bawling baby.
Oh, wait....
Not surprised someone accused Matthew of wimping out. I'm sure many will.
I think it's more of a leap to assume that Matthew saw Chase's responses, announced his video responses to them, and then realized he was unable to refute Chase's claims and canceled the videos.
That seems silly.
First, getting permission from Chase is a respectful thing to do. I'd be uncomfortable using his videos without his permission from Matthew's position. Matthew is the one with the audience, he is exposing this video to more people than would have seen it otherwise. It's a courtesy to get permission to expose the video to a much wider audience than would have otherwise seen it. Is it wrong to do it without permission? No, because anyone that would be angry doesn't understand how publishing a public video to YouTube works, but it is a tip of the hat to a fellow creator.
Second, the attacks and straw man's that Chase were using were laughable, embarrassing, and physically tiring. I only expected him to develop an argument of any worth because people in this thread were able to sit through the videos and Matthew wouldn't have bothered responding at all if there was effectively no argument. I expect that terrible sniping and logic was happening throughout all the videos in between these potentially good arguments Chase was using. I imagine it'd be tiring, at the least, to deal with that for an hour and a half worth of videos.
Well, I don't know. I see your point.
However, while Chase makes some misstatements - many of which were early on and Matthew called him on them - as well as others (not realizing that CM's Howard the Duck analogy was pure sarcasm, and also summarily dissing LOTR), he really does state things as they are, that CM's review of the film barely qualifies as a review. It is shallow and close-minded for all the reasons he gave.
How do I know for sure that Matthew himself knows that this is the case? Well, in the comments below CM's trailers for his response to Chase (the whole videos are on CM's site, but he puts little announcement videos on youtube proper), Matthew admits (after someone calls him on it) that he was wrong to tell people to shut the film off rather than sit through the stargate sequence. So he backtracked, severely, just on that one point, and who knows how far he'd backtrack as he got deeper into Chase's analysis. In his original review he said to the viewer "turn the damn thing off. Listen to me and don't listen to anyone else!" with such ferocity, and now that some youtbe viewer in the comments section called him on it, he admits that he is wrong.
And, just days later, he cancels the response altogether!
However, while Chase makes some misstatements - many of which were early on and Matthew called him on them - as well as others (not realizing that CM's Howard the Duck analogy was pure sarcasm, and also summarily dissing LOTR), he really does state things as they are, that CM's review of the film barely qualifies as a review. It is shallow and close-minded for all the reasons he gave.
How do I know for sure that Matthew himself knows that this is the case? Well, in the comments below CM's trailers for his response to Chase (the whole videos are on CM's site, but he puts little announcement videos on youtube proper), Matthew admits (after someone calls him on it) that he was wrong to tell people to shut the film off rather than sit through the stargate sequence. So he backtracked, severely, just on that one point, and who knows how far he'd backtrack as he got deeper into Chase's analysis. In his original review he said to the viewer "turn the damn thing off. Listen to me and don't listen to anyone else!" with such ferocity, and now that some youtbe viewer in the comments section called him on it, he admits that he is wrong.
And, just days later, he cancels the response altogether!
And lo and behold, those quick "trailer announcement" videos are gone
I disagree.
Meh, people can admit they overdid it during an argument/debate. It's the sign of a healthy one, in my opinion. Because he is willing to pull back isn't a sign of weakness like you seem to make it. But, if it makes you feel better and help you feel like 2001's honor and integrity have been saved!
I get the feeling Chase was not approaching the argument/debate in any healthy way. At least I did from his first two videos. Maybe he actually starting speaking like an adult at some point.
Personally, I would still say the 10 minute stargate sequence is terrible, terrible bullshit padding. That's probably the worst sequence of the film if I had to pick.
He did cancel the responses... Remember?
The full length videos are still up on Matthew's website for the time being: http://confusedmatthew.com/matthewchase.php
Last edited:
I really think you should watch Chase's review response as a whole. Or just listen to it in the background. Without that, this discussion seems to end where Chase's review begins, and I want to discuss it with you.
CM reminds me of the guy who'll stand up, in a public forum, and say whatever whacky shit enters his brain and never thinking that the day will come when someone will call him out on it. And be smarter about it.
CM wimped out, plain and simple. He made many idiotic assertions about the movie, "nothing happens!", "the story hasn't started yet", "take out the music from this scene", etc, etc, etc, and got his ass handed to him.
Chase could certainly be annoying, but he seems far more knowledgable than CM about the art of motion pictures....and I think CM knows this and realizes that as the debate continues, he'll end up backtracking more and more.
And this BS about needing permission to use video? It's covered by fair use, and the recent ruling on copyrights makes it clear that using clips in a review are perfectly legal. It's no different than movie clips on a review show. Ditto for the "he's got a much larger audience" BS. This guy is a faux movie reviewer on the internet for god's sake! CM's just a shmuck with a microphone, not some guy with a television show.
CM wimped out, plain and simple. He made many idiotic assertions about the movie, "nothing happens!", "the story hasn't started yet", "take out the music from this scene", etc, etc, etc, and got his ass handed to him.
Chase could certainly be annoying, but he seems far more knowledgable than CM about the art of motion pictures....and I think CM knows this and realizes that as the debate continues, he'll end up backtracking more and more.
And this BS about needing permission to use video? It's covered by fair use, and the recent ruling on copyrights makes it clear that using clips in a review are perfectly legal. It's no different than movie clips on a review show. Ditto for the "he's got a much larger audience" BS. This guy is a faux movie reviewer on the internet for god's sake! CM's just a shmuck with a microphone, not some guy with a television show.
I agree with you on all points.
Matthew decided after all to continue the response. Part 3 is on his site.
This is a somewhat bizarre thread. I don't know why I even came in here to read it. But after having looked some things over, I have to now ask...
FSM, are you really Confused Matthew incognito trying to drum up activity on this review site?
FSM, are you really Confused Matthew incognito trying to drum up activity on this review site?
No, I'm not.
The reason I started this thread is because 2001 is a divisive movie. It maybe one of the only hard sci-fi pictures out there, a picture that, while obviously having fantastical elements in it toward the end, is not comic-booky or fantastical in its feel or approach. Indeed, the end of the film was meant to be seen as profound, not fun, as most fantasy films tend to view their material. I believe that the film shows a split in its audience, one that, on the surface, seems to be generational; one one side, there are older viewers who could really appreciate how far forward it, as well as as the original Star Wars film, catapulted SFX and the art of visual story-telling, and newer viewers, who grew up already used to seeing better SFX all the time. But that is short-sighted, because there are quite a few young people who enjoy 2001.
I am not Confused Matthew (obviously, because I disagree with his view. Scratch that, I agree with everything that he said about 2001, but I think he is being obstinate and thick-headed about the film and can't see that it should not be viewed in the same way you'd view a regular film with plot, characters, etc.) nor am I Chase, but I do feel that the debate between the two of then can serve as a microcosm of a more serious debate about science fiction film-making of the past and what it has become.
The reason I started this thread is because 2001 is a divisive movie. It maybe one of the only hard sci-fi pictures out there, a picture that, while obviously having fantastical elements in it toward the end, is not comic-booky or fantastical in its feel or approach. Indeed, the end of the film was meant to be seen as profound, not fun, as most fantasy films tend to view their material. I believe that the film shows a split in its audience, one that, on the surface, seems to be generational; one one side, there are older viewers who could really appreciate how far forward it, as well as as the original Star Wars film, catapulted SFX and the art of visual story-telling, and newer viewers, who grew up already used to seeing better SFX all the time. But that is short-sighted, because there are quite a few young people who enjoy 2001.
I am not Confused Matthew (obviously, because I disagree with his view. Scratch that, I agree with everything that he said about 2001, but I think he is being obstinate and thick-headed about the film and can't see that it should not be viewed in the same way you'd view a regular film with plot, characters, etc.) nor am I Chase, but I do feel that the debate between the two of then can serve as a microcosm of a more serious debate about science fiction film-making of the past and what it has become.
^It is kind of bizarre.
Although if this much attention can be given to Internet reviewer/entertainers like CM, it means the field is clear for my four-or-five-month-late thread, "Kickassia? More Like Suckassia, Amiright?"
A Sarah Palin impression? That's riding the fucking curve, man. Fifty people involved with that, and evidently not one said it was a bad idea. It's true: evil triumphs when good remains silent.
I've seen Palin impressions in pornography that were funnier than Lindsay Ellis doing Tina Fey, doing Sarah Palin, doing meth.
Although if this much attention can be given to Internet reviewer/entertainers like CM, it means the field is clear for my four-or-five-month-late thread, "Kickassia? More Like Suckassia, Amiright?"
A Sarah Palin impression? That's riding the fucking curve, man. Fifty people involved with that, and evidently not one said it was a bad idea. It's true: evil triumphs when good remains silent.
I've seen Palin impressions in pornography that were funnier than Lindsay Ellis doing Tina Fey, doing Sarah Palin, doing meth.
Why is the first instinct the assumption that I am being disengenuous
^^^ Not entirely sure. I guess when you "emplore" people to read someone else's blog to prove to everyone how you disagree with them, it seems, I dunno, kinda flamey-spammy to me. Why would you care about someone else's worthless opinion so much? And why would you want everyone else to care as much as you?
That, and when I think about 2001, "divisive" is not even in the top 1000 words I would use to describe it. I would agree with you that it is a profound movie in many respects and, yes, a little bit psychedelic and trippy there at the end. But divisive?
No.
The particular adjectives you assign to this manifesto you've assembled, coupled with some other odd wordings makes me think you are either this other person looking to pull people to this other site to see what all the hubbub is about to start boosting your hit-counters, or if you're not CM, you're looking to start a one-man flame war/crusade with someone else who likely isn't even a member of this board.
You are a fellow Rear Admiral, so it's clear that you've been around here a while, which would make me lean towards giving you the benefit of the doubt. But either way...it's kinda odd, dude. Sorry...nothing personal...just...odd.
That, and when I think about 2001, "divisive" is not even in the top 1000 words I would use to describe it. I would agree with you that it is a profound movie in many respects and, yes, a little bit psychedelic and trippy there at the end. But divisive?
No.
The particular adjectives you assign to this manifesto you've assembled, coupled with some other odd wordings makes me think you are either this other person looking to pull people to this other site to see what all the hubbub is about to start boosting your hit-counters, or if you're not CM, you're looking to start a one-man flame war/crusade with someone else who likely isn't even a member of this board.
You are a fellow Rear Admiral, so it's clear that you've been around here a while, which would make me lean towards giving you the benefit of the doubt. But either way...it's kinda odd, dude. Sorry...nothing personal...just...odd.
I thought about clicking the links,but instead I watched Dr. Tran for the 12th time.
HERE COMES...DR TRAN!
HERE COMES...DR TRAN!
137th Gebrig, I have to look at your post in reverse order.
No film is divisive in and of itself, describing what happens in it. I obviosuly meant whether or not sci-fi fans and filmgoers in general think it is a good film. That is divisive, and the points made by Confused Matthew and Chase illustrate the main divide in the views of the audiences of the film. I posted this thread and pointed to both video blogs to serve as a microcosm for just how divisive the film actually is.
I appreciate it.
No film is divisive in and of itself, describing what happens in it. I obviosuly meant whether or not sci-fi fans and filmgoers in general think it is a good film. That is divisive, and the points made by Confused Matthew and Chase illustrate the main divide in the views of the audiences of the film. I posted this thread and pointed to both video blogs to serve as a microcosm for just how divisive the film actually is.
I personally don't care about Confused Matthew's particular opinion, and I don't care about Chase's either. I don't know either of them. But I do care about the role the film has had in film-making and culture.
I got to about 4 min on the first of these videos when i found myself becoming intensely distracted by a pen that was sitting under the monitor.
Really...this what we've come down to? Discussing opinions, not of we the douche bags or douche bags we know or douche bags we frequent the same discussions with...but two random douche bags on YouTube who like to pretend their opinion matters?
Well, I guess as long as people start threads about them on other boards, they do.
Humanity is doomed.
Well, I guess as long as people start threads about them on other boards, they do.
Humanity is doomed.
Similar threads
