JCC Movies are no longer Quotable

image isn't showing Ken . But it might be my computer , I'm never sure , still , loving the irony of an invisible silent movie quote .

edit - ah there it is now

 

cut out... his ass?!?!

 

Game over, man, game over!

 

I can't believe he's gone .

 

In 1980, there are 116 movies tracked by Box Office Mojo in terms of receipts/money made. 2017? 735. We are just over indicated with content. I love to see what the count of TV shows there were in 1995 and compare that to today were there are basically over 500 TV shows. All that content btw just leads to pop culture behind spread so much that there is a nitche for everyone therefore what is a "classic line" for one person is not for the other because not nearly as many people see the same films.

 

pop culture behind spread, probably the worst butter substitute.

 

I'll take behind spread over margarine any day of the week.


- Last Tango In Paris, 1972

 

Well yeah, if it's over indicated.

 

That's not flying! That's falling, with style!

 

Problem: I hear SW fans say that. I don't hear any non-SW fans say it. SW fans are going to quote any line from any SW movie (or most SW movies depending on which ones they like and don't like)

I would think to be a Memorable Quote, it has to be heard from people who aren't necessarily fans of the movie's franchise and applicable in every day life, so lines like 'We have a Hulk' or 'Wakanda forever' wouldn't count either.

Probably the biggest one and most recent is indeed 'Let it go' from Frozen. Everyone gets the reference and it can be said in every day life by almost everyone. Wasn't a franchise at the time of its release and when it was being quoted. Perfect example.

 

I'm questioning any fan that puts AOTC before ANH. Unless that fan had strangled itself with the umbilical chord in the womb.

Hypothetically speaking of course.

 

NO CAPES!!!

 

@SuperWatto:

I am so glad you posted. It seems like you have a lots of points of confusion we could clarify.

1. You said that you "said nothing" about art. The word in the post is not art. It is "fiction." But fiction is clearly a subset of art. It is certainly a work of the human imagination. Represented as Venn (or Euler) diagrams, one would be nested entirely inside one another. They are so highly similar, in fact, that I'd apply the exact same arguments to the service of their term. Could you clarify what in fact your actual objection is here?

2. You have repeatedly asserted that I meant to say "reflects." I do not. As I've stated several times in this thread, and is generally acknowledge, art is not only a product of culture but helps to shape and influence that culture going forward. Thus, when I argue it is degrading our cultural discourse, I literally mean that the manner in which it is influencing the culture is negative or degrading. That's not a matter of "reflection." That's a matter of effect. Are you confused about the relationship between art and culture? Are you unaware of examples where a piece of art did more than simply "reflect" the state of the culture but actually helped drive it?

3. You labeled the discussion as "americentrism." This is, again, incorrect. We were discussing contemporary films I know it may be surprising to many, but films actually compete on a global marketplace. This is a major metric that is now tracked, and many Hollywood franchises that tank in the United States are carried on their profitability in other countries. Several films include several elements (locations, characters, plot devices) that are each designed to appeal to different populations. Movies produced with a global audience in mind and consumed in this fashion can certainly be discussed in terms of their global effects as art. Were you previously unaware of this trend? As I said, it is a rather new trend, and casual moviegoers may not have realized the transition.

 

I see what you mean now. You really meant it. I didn't realize it because it's so aloof to me.

I'll grant you this: if Hollywood movies have somehow become more unquotable and their lingo less elevated (which I wouldn't know because I hardly watch them), then sure, that in itself may have some impact on how people deal with each other.

The reason I didn't understand that that's what you were arguing is that I think that influence is perhaps large on these boards, perhaps present in the US, but wholly negligable in the wider world.

Edit: besides that: language, as everything, has always changed, and our great-grandparents would frown upon some of the things we write. If a language renders itself insufficient, it dies and another language takes its place. Tenses fall off. Addressments. Quotable movie lines? But the English language remains vibrant and adaptable. And that's just one language. I don't think there's any veracity in the statement that discourse itself degrades; on the contrary, I think it's being perfected, ever since it was invented.

 

You hardly watch movies. That is not true of the general population. American film and television dominates the entertainment landscape of most of the globe, in addition to domestic film and tv series of wherever they are. Speaking from my own experience here in Norway, American fiction easily makes up half of people's entertainment consumption, if not more. To claim that behaviours, attitudes and discourse witnessed in the fiction that most people consume on a daily basis in no way affects the behaviours, attitudes or outlook of the people consuming it, particularly young people, is a... let's say daring claim.

 

"discourse degrades". Do you agree?

 

I can't believe it's not butter !

Stop saying discourse !
pervert .

 

That depends on the premise that the change is negative. I'm not entering that discussion. I'm taking issue with your claim that the effect is negligible. Maybe it's because I'm younger than you, but I can clearly tell from my surroundings that people are continuously affected by the media they consume in large and small ways in their everyday lives, and about half of that media is American. Whether it degrades or not is beside the point; the idea that media consumed daily, and targeted mainly at adolescents and younger people, has a negligible effect on people is a bold claim.

 

No I'm saying any negative effect on their discourse (sorry gez) is negligable.

 

I wouldn't know. I'm not in an environment where I would hear kids and adolescents talk, and media mostly affects them. Older people are in a way already shaped. But you're probably right.

 

I think media affects mannerisms (like quoting movies), not actual discourse.

 

Why is the rum all gone?

 

also let's not forget the main reason we quoted movies was not the act of quoting itself (basically a microcosm of the Ready Player One experiment) but because of what that quote conveyed. Since the meme basically does the same thing in a less context dependent way, we've merely found another mechanism to express ourselves. ​

 

I a serious, and don't call me Shirley.