Cameron has become a painter that enjoys painting the background and gets annoyed when he has to deal with figures.

I dig the crunchiness of Popeyes strips. Of the fast food fried chicken places, I think Popeyes is the best when done well. The issue I’ve found is most Popeyes are beyond scattershot when it comes to quality.

I remember thinking the Leon/Mathilda relationship was odd. Then I saw an extended cut and it was flat out pedo creepy. Besson is a creepy groomer. It kind of ruined the movie for me. I can’t even watch the American edit.

Most people who say Dogs ripped off City on Fire never watched City on Fire.

Which he expressed by dropping the N word on Donald Glover?

And when he asked Kurt to pay him back after Kurt hit it big, Cobain laughed at him. Which is one of the things that made me think Kurt Cobain was an asshole.

We now have the polar opposite of all the posts where some person watched a highly regarded show and then posts “I finally watched X and it sucked!”

I think people who vote on these things associate it with Breaking Bad and Breaking Bad won a shitload of awards. So they mentally figure “eh, it’s someone else’s turn”.

Seinfeld, Arrested Development, Parks and Rec, South Park

“It’s not the same as censorship because it’s not altering anything whatsoever.”

Sure it is. Let’s say a person writes a story. The writer dies. Academia and such say the story is about X. People are taught that the story is about X. The author’s papers and such show the story isn’t about X at all. But Academia and people taught the story is about X aren’t going to stop. They will continue pushing that the story is about X. The “meaning” is now that the story is about X.

Tolkien said, multiple times, that he thinks allegory is bullshit. That hasn’t stopped people from reading all sorts of shit into his works and trying to paint him as things like racist because of it.

“Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don’t impede someone’s original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. “

I have no problem with that position. My issue is when people attempt to assert control over a work and think their position should overrule the position of the creator.

“To me this is profoundly limiting and I’d be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people’s imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.”

Why does someone else’s imagination have power over another’s work? That work has been produced and established. And you believe, out of some idea of righteous subservience, that the creator should have no say once the statue is struck from the marble? It wasn’t a collaborative effort.

The artist created something. The artist knows what went into the work and why the curves and lines interact the way they do. To say that they have no say once the final stroke is struck is to disenfranchise them. “Death of the Author” is a theory that assets control over the creative by the non-creative. It says the consumer should have more say than the creator because the consumer consumes. I think a big reason so much storytelling sucks these days is because of academia pushing bullshit like “Death of the Author”.

“ Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. “

I don’t know how to break it to you but you are arguing from the censors position. A censor will say that they have the right to change and interpret a work as they see fit because the government/business gives them that power. You are just arguing from the position of a “fan” that wants the same power for different reasons.

“Do you think intention is all there is to meaning?”

I believe creative intent is the real thing and everything else brought to the table takes secondary position. Asserting that applied “meaning”, which is interchangeable depending on a myriad of things, takes precedence is to passively assert control over creative works. Which is bullshit.

“I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn’t think of themselves or outright disagrees with (“

Sure. And if I read the author say that the interpretation was incorrect, I’d abandon it because that’s what you do when you acquire new knowledge that makes your previous position obsolete.

If the author says nothing, for example Tarantino in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, they want the reader/viewer to speculate.

“Writers who don’t feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer’s.”

You are calling someone a control freak for not allowing others to control their work. Pot/kettle and all that.

So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right? If you personally like something, it belongs to you. Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, the story belongs to you.

We aren’t arguing semantics. Guy Ritchie movies aren’t dark comedies. Monty Python has done darker shit that Guy Ritchie.

And, tbh, if you take are looking for a movies “tone” from a trailer, you don’t realize that trailers are not made by the filmmakers. They are made by outside companies.

“Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? “

Because they created it. If they create the characters and the storyline, they know both and can speak of meaning and intention. Denying that is an attempt to assert power and control over something you don’t deserve power or control over.

“Death of the Author” is the ultimate appropriation of the creative by the non-creative. It’s baby boomer bullshit.

Guy Ritchie isn’t dark humor. It’s more traditional British crime comedy.

Neither Ritchie movie was dark. Snatch has moments but it isn’t dark.

The dialogue and several scenes in In Bruges are comedic. The interactions between Ken and Harry are funny. Going out drinking with the racist little person was funny. If you didn’t think the ending was dark humor, you may not enjoy dark humor the way you think.

And the tone and genre you wanted was a darkly humorous movie about criminals. And that’s what it was.

You said you wanted “dark humor” and now lament the lack of “wacky comedy”?

That trailer tells you exactly what the movie is going to be like. It just focuses on Farrell because Americans know him way more than Brendan Gleeson. Especially back in that time.

It was a dark humor comedy that involved criminals.

Bullshit. “Death of the Author” is the ultimate form of appropriation. You are eliminating the creator from their creation so you can repurpose it to something you prefer.

Halloween is from the Celts. Christmas wasn’t stolen from the Celts. Christmas wasn’t stolen from anyone. I wish people would actually read history rather than regurgitate what they see on YouTube and read on the internet.

Saudis will pay it.

The film presents Saladin as a sweetheart, which he wasn’t. He was your typical(for the time) General/Conqueror type. Though I often wonder whether the utter shittiness of the Franks in the levant made him look better to modern eyes.

And it avoids the real reasons Saladin wanted Jerusalem. Which were economic and had nothing to do with religion. Islam didn’t give a crap about Jerusalem until Saladin gave it a reason to.