Originally posted by Disco Stu:
I am always amused by your arguments when you resort to using the excuse of being a full time student and worker. You have brought it up on a number of occasions, and it's always when you don't feel the need to justify your argument. Not that you're not either a full time student or a worker, but you seem to have plenty of time to go into detail on other more mundane topics. I respect the fact that you probbaly would have little time for argument, but since you never demonstrate a lack of time for discussion in other topics, this seems more like an excuse than anything.
Yes, I've used the excuse before, and shall continue to in the future, as long as it's valid. If you can show me a thread in the recent past (post June 2001) wherein I have gone into the kind of extreme, lengthy detail regarding a film that the others in this thread have, then I'll eat my shoe. I post often, yes, but not in J.R.R. Tolkien detail. ***sighs*** I guess our mutual amusement at each others' consistent and constant excuses remains solid (e.g. Disco Stu's one criticism of every film he sees as poor" "It takes itself too seriously!"
). Allow me to ask, must every opinion of mine result in a pissing contest between the two of us? I grow weary of it...
Oh, and Filmmaker, it might be time to watch CE3K again. The movie is still good, but its naivete is almost disturbing. Even Spielberg, in the documentary, points to a huge flaw that he can't understand 25 years later. How should we feel about a man who abandons his wife and kids (they leave him, but he barely seems to notice) to go look for a mountain he has visions of? CE3K still acheives the awe and wonder it was after, but it seems so removed from reality (and I'm not talking about believing in UFO's) at this point, as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents.
Spielberg does not call it a flaw, but an area of the plot that he no longer relates to as a parent. It isn't his, my or your job to set the morality of CE3K in some kind of stone--that, along with all factors of any given work of art, must remain open to interpretation. As a young man with laser sites set on my future career, but no children at home, I still relate intimately with CE3K--that could change in the future as my life goals alter, but that doesn't minimize CE3K's value or impact any more than not enjoying Disney films the way I did as a child negates their inherent value. Your complaint is actually worthy of a good chuckle--("CE3K...seems so removed from reality...as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents")--so now you're criticizing a film because it doesn't take itself seriously enough??? So much for your famed consistency. Better yet, don't answer that--frankly, this thread is already in danger of being derailed as it is, and the idea of butting heads with you yet again on the virtues of this film or that, when it's woefully clear that our aesthetic preferences are as different as night and day, holds all the appeal of visiting the dentist to me. This thread is about RUSHMORE--let's keep it that way, and if my sparse thoughts on the film strike you as unwarranted or invalid, I'll live. Let's move on...