tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post7826986606589379785..comments2024-02-16T14:01:23.523-05:00Comments on THE B-MOVIE CATECHISM: INTERMISSION: WORD GAMESEegahInchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13055947542189758831noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-74075442773979988862008-11-05T12:12:00.000-05:002008-11-05T12:12:00.000-05:00You know what I always wondered about Fatal Attrac...You know what I always wondered about Fatal Attraction? After they put the kid to bed... did they go ahead and eat the rabbit?EegahInchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13055947542189758831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-44740481879432189672008-11-03T23:12:00.000-05:002008-11-03T23:12:00.000-05:00I guessed Fatal Attraction for most of them (exc...I guessed <I> Fatal Attraction </I> for most of them (except the last one), and was kind of disappointed when I got 0% right. But when I continued to read and learned you were using the Vatican list, I understood why my answer was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Then again, it's late at night, and a lot of the big words get lost on me.Larry Denningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06015803653090711740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-34293680203857112452008-10-31T10:26:00.000-04:002008-10-31T10:26:00.000-04:00I guess I'm gonna have to give in and read some O'...I guess I'm gonna have to give in and read some O'Brien's stuff so I'll know better what I'm talking about when he comes up. Like I've said before, if all of the comments I've read about his philosophy on dragons is correct, then I'd disagree with him there. I just don't see that particular imagery as irredeemable. His rating system, however, appears as useful as any other. I suppose, like any critic, you have to match O'Brien's take on previous movies with your own impressions, and that should guide you on how much you trust his opinion on future releases.EegahInchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13055947542189758831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-14391249319370567022008-10-31T00:13:00.000-04:002008-10-31T00:13:00.000-04:00I've always liked Micheal O'brien's categories...A...<EM>I've always liked Micheal O'brien's categories...</EM><BR/><BR/>Auggh!!!<BR/><BR/>The problem with O'Brien is not that he tries to categorize, but that he comes up with unfair interpretations of works he doesn't like in order to make sure they land in the categories he wants. He sometimes does that with his dragon fixation--for example, he gives a rather wild interpretation of <EM>Dune</EM> based largely on his bizarre claim that the sandworms of Arrakis are more-or-less dragons.<BR/><BR/>But that just demonstrates that O'Brien's categories, while perhaps useful, are not absolutes. For example, I put <EM>Harry Potter</EM> in his category 2, whereas he apparently puts it in category 4 or maybe 3.D. G. D. Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346583340543997976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-48298134832328693212008-10-26T19:47:00.000-04:002008-10-26T19:47:00.000-04:00I have to admit I haven't read O'Brien yet. I know...I have to admit I haven't read O'Brien yet. I know he gets picked on some over at The Sci-Fi Catholic for some of his views on Dragon imagery, but that's about it. <BR/><BR/>That being said, his rating system seems reasonable enough. Remonds me of the fun I had a few months back on the Strange Culture blog cordially arguing with some non-religious types over the legitimacy of Christian based movie ratings systems.EegahInchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13055947542189758831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-76661830545597879272008-10-24T21:15:00.000-04:002008-10-24T21:15:00.000-04:00Yes! Very good angle for presenting your answer.Yes! Very good angle for presenting your answer.PaperSmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08813068522979861687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34344059.post-71462955251005938302008-10-24T09:09:00.000-04:002008-10-24T09:09:00.000-04:00I've always liked Micheal O'brien's categories tha...I've always liked Micheal O'brien's categories that he offered to parents when evaluating kid lit, and I think it can be applied to all kinds of entertainment consumption:<BR/><BR/>1. Wholly good. No problems.<BR/>2. Flawed or problematic in places, but fundamentally good.<BR/>3. Appears good, but fundamentally bad.<BR/>4. Wholly bad. Morally offenseive with no redeeming value.<BR/><BR/>I'd suggest few things are either #1 or #4, so we have to slug through the stuff that straddles the fine line between 2 and 3. It seems that 3 is actually worse than 4 because 4 is nakedly awful whereas 3 is deceptive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com