Dullest Film Ever

[Epona]

Could probably do with a better overview though , as well as not interpretating an art film literally

All I said initially was that I didn't like the film. I am allowed to not like the film. Or is that not allowed? The feeling I am getting right now is that it really isn't allowed for me to not like the film, and I'm going to be treated horribly as a result of not liking it. Is that OK?

 

[Sea Star]

Thank you.
The other one that is shit is The Green Mile.

I hate that!!!

 

[Spymaster]

This is mostly another "acclaimed/ popular films I didn't like but will get attention for dissing" rather than the "dullest film ever" thread.

Not really.

There are many thousands of dull films and to list them would be impossible as well as completely subjective. So, what people are doing is mentioning well known films that they've found dull which is the only way the thread can work given that there's no universal consensus on what constitutes a dull flick.

 

[Spymaster]

The thing is, you can name a lot of wars you were taught in school. The fact is that there is little physical evidence of warfare on the remains of prehistoric people. We all know about the Napoleonic war, the 100 years war, because that is the sort of thing we are taught in school, no-one is taught that virtually no prehistoric remains have been found showing injuries that would have been sustained from combat.

So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc?

Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?

 

[Spymaster]

or you could read the john gray article i link to

Read some but it's longer than I thought. Will read it properly tonight but it looks like I'll have to read Pinker's stuff too.

 

[Pickman's model]

So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc?

Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?

i'd have thought that advances in medicine no longer make number dead a worthwhile comparison.

 

[Pickman's model]

Read some but it's longer than I thought. Will read it properly tonight but it looks like I'll have to read Pinker's stuff too.

1000+ pages of bollocks? save yourself the time.

 

[Epona]

Not really.

There are many thousands of dull films and to list them would be impossible as well as completely subjective. So, what people are doing is mentioning well known films that they've found dull which is the only way the thread can work given that there's no universal consensus on what constitutes a dull flick.

Now see I thought The Postman was the epitome of dull films (over 2 hours long and nothing happens), but my OH loves it for some reason (I can live with that, as long as he never tries to make me sit and watch it with him). There really is no consensus.

 

[Epona]

So your suggestion is that there were fewer wars in pre-history. What about 1000 years ago? 500? 400 ... etc?

Again, how are you defining violence? By the numbers of people killed? How about by the likelihood of being violently dealt with (but not killed) for transgressing rules? How about incidents of rapes and beatings? Torture?

1000 years ago isn't fucking prehistory, ffs...

 

[Spymaster]

I think I know a bit more about prehistory than a lot of people here though.

Again, you called bullshit on OU's suggestion that the world is less violent "than it used to be", but he didn't mention pre historic times.

There needs to be some definition here.

The world has most certainly been less violent in the last 10 years than it was in the 10 years preceding 1945, for example.

 

[Spymaster]

1000 years ago isn't fucking prehistory, ffs...

Err, precisely!

 

[Epona]

Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Eraserhead - I like Lynch, but I find Eraserhead incredibly dull

 

[Spymaster]

Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?

I'm pretty sure we all do.

What's your point?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?

Before Dinosaurs invented Bic pens?

 

[Epona]

I'm pretty sure we all do.

What's your point?

Go on then, no-one has said what they mean by prehistory other than mentioning spurious and debated periods of supposed conflict. If "we all do", then tell me what it is

 

[Epona]

Points will be deducted for cut and pastes from wikipedia!

 

[Reno]

Do none of you seriously know the definition of prehistory?

Still doesn't change the fact that your dismissal of the "premise" of 2001 on behalf of the fact that no combat injuries have been found on prehistoric, humanoid fossils is pants, because the film depicts no combat and does not claim to be historically accurate (the alien monolith should be a clue!).

You can lord your degree in ancient history over us till you are blue in the face and it still has nothing to do with the film.

 

[Spymaster]

Go on then, no-one has said what they mean by prehistory ...

Why? It's moot.

You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent than it used to be. That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.

Do you think the 1990s were more or less violent than the 1940s?

How would you compare the violence of the 2000's against that of 1900s?

Last year v the year before?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

One Million Years B.C.

That was dull.

 

[Epona]

Why? It's moot.

You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent than it used to be. That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.

Do you think the 1990s were more or less violent than the 1940s?

How would you compare the violence of the 2000's against that of 1900s?

There are more people in the world engaged in war now than there were in the 1940s. We may not have been in a state of declared war in the last few years, but there are more people than ever engaged in the profession of killing and dying. At least back when I was a kid stuff was at least acknowledged by the general public as a war after a few years (Vietnam), these days we just try to pretend it isn't happening.

 

[Spymaster]

There are more people in the world engaged in war now than there were in the 1940s.

Define "engaged in war".

 

[Epona]

Define "engaged in war".

You really are starting to come across as a bit naive.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why? It's moot.

You're the only one who's banging on about pre-history. Others have stated that the world is less violent than it used to be. That isn't necessarily referencing pre-history. It could be referencing recent history.

Do you think the 1990s were more or less violent than the 1940s?

How would you compare the violence of the 2000's against that of 1900s?

Last year v the year before?

As far as recorded history is concerned the amount of violence and war has been steadily declining over a time scale of centuries. Despite Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto and Phil Collins the 20th century was mankind's least grisly century since records began.

 

[Spymaster]

You really are starting to come across as a bit naive.

Am I?

I'm simply asking you to be clear in your assertions.

By "engaged in war" do you mean the number of people under arms? The number of people fighting? The number of people affected by fighting? What?

You've said that there are more people engaged in war now than there were in the 40s, during which at least 50 million people were killed in war, let alone engaged in it.

So what are you saying?

 

[Spymaster]

As far as recorded history is concerned the amount of violence and war has been steadily declining over a time scale of centuries. Despite Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto and Phil Collins the 20th century was mankind's least grisly century since records began.

I'd have agreed with this before this thread.

Now I've got some reading to do!

 

[Epona]

Am I?

I'm simply asking you to be clear in your assertions.

By "engaged in war" do you mean the number of people under arms? The number of people fighting? The number of people affected by fighting? What?

You've said that there are more people engaged in war now than there were in the 40s, during which at least 50 million people were killed in war, let alone engaged in it.

So what are you saying?

There hasn't been a war-free year in decades now. Oh sure, I understand that some of them are not "officially" wars - like Vietnam was a police action or somesuch, and maybe you would classify this decade as having been largely free of war so far if you found enough names to call all the conflicts to make them something other than war. Because I don't see it like that at all, there has not been peace.

 

[Spymaster]

There hasn't been a war-free year in decades now. Oh sure, I understand that some of them are not "officially" wars - like Vietnam was a police action or somesuch, and maybe you would classify this decade as having been largely free of war so far. Because I don't see it like that at all.

I don't either. But I still don't get where you're coming from with "more people engaged in war now than in the 40s". That's clearly nonsense unless you're using a unique definition of "engaged in war", which is why I'm asking what it is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd have agreed with this before this thread.

Now I've got some reading to do!

Steven Pinker has written about this and done some number-crunching, based on the likelihood of a man to die a violent death at the hands of another man. Using that measure, he plots a steady decline up to the present day.

Be interesting to see figures for non-combatant deaths, but given that many empires didn't pay soldiers in the past, giving them official pillaging rights upon victory, I'd guess those have also been in decline over the longer term.

 

[Hulot]

Last Tango in Paris is tedious in the extreme.
Barton Fink vies with Lost In Translation in terms of insulting the audience with a drawn-out set-up for a punchline that's oh-so-clever-cleverly withheld.