Should be fun today!

I said this on the chatroom but no DIFers saw it- Red Dawn was the first PG-13, not Temple Of Doom as was mentioned in the Mystery Men Commentary

I really don't understand how ZOMBIELAND was nitpicking. Nitpicking is "the black levels didn't match in that composite," which I won't deny we do on occasion. But it's not "the actions of these characters are inconsistent with their established personalities and the situation" or "this is a diversion from the plot that kills the film's momentum for the sake of a couple jokes, and not enough of them proportionate to the length of the diversion," or "I don't connect with these characters." Those are critiques of the film's fundamental construction with, hopefully, solid reasons given and ideally constructive opinions on what would have worked better for us.

Didn't help that Teague, who claims to like the movie the most, decided to shut up for most of it.

My criticism of this, and some other commentaries, aren't that you spoke badly of the movie. I expect criticism and analysis of what didn't work and occasionally I even agree with you. I just prefer the commentaries where's there an actual discussion with two opposite sides. The best commentaries are the ones where there is some level of disagreement on the merits of a movie.

It should be said though, that I generally don't like listening to people rip something apart, even if I didn't like it myself. I'd rather listen to someone tell me why something works than why something doesn't, but that's obviously a very subjective thing and different people look for different things in their DIF.

Also, I didn't like the new guy. Nothing against him as a person; I just didn't think he brought anything substantial to the table beyond the aforementioned nitpicking. I'm sure that's something that would improve if he does more commentaries and find that particular DIF-rythm, but there are so many other panelists which I think consistently bring the goods alredy.

Just my take on things, no hard feelings I hope.

I see where Zarban is coming from on this one, to be honest. I'll try harder to steer conversations veering off into making-fun-of-the-movie-just-cuz territory back into the traditional DIF constructive criticism in the future.

You, switch? It was Maul that brought up up the Star Trek commentary that I was responding to.

"He explicitely stated that he wanted to make a Star Trek for everyone."

Translation: He wanted to make something for the lowest common denominator. I seem to recall people generally thinking that's a bad thing.

EDIT: I realized I responded to the wrong point and that my answer above only reinforces the perception that I dislike it purely because it is new and different.

It's not that it has a new "vibe." It's that the new vibe is a stupid one. It's a vacuous, superficial, ultimately meaningless movie that, as constructed, makes no dramatic sense. New vibe? Knock yourself out. Completely thematically devoid new vibe? Not fine.

Anyway, I'm as sick of having this argument as I'm sure everyone else is of having to listen to it and it's at best tangential to this discussion. Let's move on.

I disagree with viewpoints from time to time but I've never heard anything outright idiotic and uninformed. I honestly don't care if you universally hate the movie, praise to heaven or have a debate; just as long as you do it. DiF gives me something entertaining and informative to listen to while doing shit and that's all I want from it.

So how many top secret surprise commentaries are you recording during this so called "hiatus"?

LIIIIIIIES!!!!

They've done it before!! THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN!!! DON'T BELIEVE THE PROPAGANDA!!!