[001]
95.34.47.192
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This trope is horribly pretentious. It assumes that all these films are made solely for the reason of winning Oscars (which I strongly doubt for the wast majority of them). If you make a serious, slow movie that will not do to well economically and is emotionally taxing to work on you are obviously insincere and can only, possibly be doing it just to win Oscars? But if you make a big, dumb, blockbuster that brings you ton of cash then you are the epitome of sincerity? Because that is the sentiment I get from this article.
to:
This trope is horribly pretentious. It assumes that all these films are made solely for the reason of winning Oscars (which I strongly doubt for the wast majority of them). If you make a serious, slow movie that will not do to well economically and is emotionally taxing to work on you are obviously insincere and can only, possibly be doing it just to win Oscars? But if you make a big, dumb, blockbuster that brings you ton of cash then you are the epitome of sincerity and DoingItForTheArt? Because that is the sentiment I get from this article.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
And why are people complaining that these films supposedly (as one commenter above put it) \
to:
And why are people complaining that these films supposedly (as one commenter above put it) \\\"bash viewers over the head with what emotions they should be feeling\\\". ALL art does that. A good comedy tells you to laugh. A good action film tells you to be entertained. A good tragedy tells you to feel sad. The primary language of art is to transmit emotions. Films that fail that are one ting: boring. But why is it a bad thing when a sad film is \\\"manipulatively\\\" making you feel sad, when it\\\'s not a bad thing when a funny film is manipulatively making you laugh or a horror film is manipulatively making you afraid?
