Highbrow flix, low brow ramblin’s
Dan, what do you expect? The poster’s name is nbakid2000. You should post on CHUD some time. They’re slightly less retarded over there.
What exactly is nbakid2000 defending? He admits that Smith’s movies suck, yet he keeps telling you that you are wrong. I don’t understand the fascination with Kevin Smith. It seems like something 15 yr old boys get into when they’re trying to seem mature. The saddest thing about it is Kevin Smith himself. I’m pretty sure he knows he sucks - indicated by how he has basically put more energy into turning himself into a public persona via TV and internet and not putting the energy into film.
Also, “WHY DID YOU BRING A COP TO MY COMMAND CENTER?”
I think what he was defending was his ignorance.
yeah, it was one of those times where someone says something so ill informed it should be forgotten but so wrong you can’t hold your tongue.
I’d love to post on chud but i’m actually trying to go in the other direction and post on boards less. Chud is awesome but the community there seems closed off and unapproachable. How will I ever make a name for myself?
Didn’t see Die Hard or Die Trying .
He IS branching out, he’s doing Red State. Look it up.
Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.
He’s actually becoming more popular, what with all the TV gigs he’s been getting. Also, if you don’t like him “on the stage” then why don’t you just ignore it. The reason he’s “on the stage” is because people apparently LIKE him and want more of him.
When you actually know what you’re talking about, then come back and debate whether Kevin deserves what he has or doesn’t.
@nbakid2000
“Also, his movies don’t NEED to have great direction, all they are is TALKING. You don’t need great directors for scenes of people sitting at tables talking.”
You’re way way off dude. Check out Richard Linklater’s work, especially Tape. Check out any Tarrantino flick for that matter. Or Sydney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men. A great director is someone with a sense for great cinema, and they bring it to whatever they shoot.
Smith is a filmmaker of modest talents.
No one is debating whether or not Smith is a great director - he’s even said himself he’s not a good one, he just does whatever. But he doesn’t NEED to be. There is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking (which is what he does). That is the point this whole thing is about, is whether or not it matters. It doesn’t. What matters in the scene is the dialogue.
Oh and I love how you brought up Tarantino *cough* Death Proof *cough* Sure it looked nice but did it hold my attention? No. In his other films, sure they looked great, and yes they had great dialogue. But the looking great wasn’t what made the scene good.
It’s nice to have a visual enhancer to the dialogue, I’m not debating that. I totally agree. But in Smith’s movies it’s people sitting around discussing sex. Do we NEED revolving camera shots and what have you? No.
BTW, he did have that that very nice shot in Clerks II with Dante and Randall arguing (the revolving shot, which VERY MUCH enhanced the scene). But that wasn’t a typical scene either. But no one’s mentioned that yet, have they?
When I’m watching a scene of two people talking I’m more focusing on the dialogue than whether or not the shot looks pretty and exciting.
It’s not about looking pretty or exciting, it’s about knowing how suck your audience into your scene.
Tarrantino *cough* Resevior Dogs, opening scene *cough*, people sitting around tables talking about sex. That scene is classic for reasons that go way beyond a circling camera. Tarrantino knows how to block his shots and give his actors elbow room. Check out the films of Howard Hawks.
There’s a cinematic punch to anything Tarantino shoots, yup Death Proof too.
So in review; flashy michael bay style camera work in every scene? unnecessary.
the touch of a great director? always necessary.
@nbakid2000
“there is nothing wrong with taking a camera and fixing it on two people talking”
there is if you’re a shite filmmaker. I’m not saying KSmith is a shite filmmaker, just that he doesn’t know how to shoot a scene. David Gordon Green nailed it when he called Smith the special olympics of film making. He finishes the race slower but for some reason you clap harder.
I love An Evening With Kevin Smith part I and really enjoyed Clerks Animated.
That would ACTUALLY be: “there is if you’re a good/great filmmaker”. Expecting anything more from someone who’s shit would be expecting unrealistic things.
I happen to be sucked into every scene Kevin Smith does, so I don’t consider him what you do - I happen to LOVE his stuff.
I’m not sure what else you could do with the “37″ scene in Clerks besides have a camera filming two people behind a counter.
If you are debating Kevin Smith’s camera usage skills, perhaps you are missing the point in his movies…
He makes enjoyable Dick and Fart Joke Comedies, usually with some heart. If you are looking for films with deeper meaning, more power to you, but I (like many people) go to the movies to shut off my brain and be entertained. I get enough reading between the lines following the daily news…
Even Freud realized that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
EXACTLY but some people apparently need Tarantino style movies every time they view a movie. Every director has his own style - Kevin’s style (as he’s stated) is that he has no style.
The people love their kevin smith and who am I too disagree. I guess you’re right, his films don’t need to be good.
Some of us appreciate them more than others are capable of.