I understood fully what you were trying to say. You're being presumptuous to assume I didn't. I would presume that you're not the one understanding me.

First off, I was midway through reading this post when I started laughing. You actually tried impressing me with your resume. a) your "qualifications" don't make your opinions any more valid than anyone else's and; b) so what? It wreaks of desperation and snobbery when you pull that card.

Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who should debate are the ones who AGREE with one another? You stated that I shouldn't debate with you because we have different likes and dislikes. Read that over and consider it a bit.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with eating McDonald's occasionally. If you'd understood what I meant you wouldn't have mistaken me. I've seen Supersize Me (and I don't really need you assigning me homework) and there's a vast difference between what that guy did and what the average person with common sense would do. Guess what happens if you consume too much of any one food? It'll make you sick because you need MODERATION. McDonald's one time a week won't give you anything like what that guy had. He was almost on death's door by the end of that documentary from eating McDonald's for breakfast, lunch & dinner every day for several weeks straight. Try that with baked fish and you'll get Mercury poisoning (but fish is healthy, right?)

Working in film production I'm amazed at how little you understand regarding "politics" in movies. You can't just make art film after art film and expect to have a profitable company. If they all did that the industry would go belly up. But going by the food analogy, "art" films are healthy, right? That's actually where the analogy is turned on its head. The mindless actioner that lowest common denominator flocks to is what drives the industry; the reason people complained about this year's Oscars was because hardly anyone saw the "big" movies that were nominated.

Sure, YOU may have seen them, but to suggest that your opinion is somehow more valid than others is not only elitist, but it shows how willingly out of touch you are. I loved "No Country" and plan on seeing "There Will be Blood" as soon as it comes out on DVD but I can enjoy a film like "I am Legend" simply for what it is, even when I've already read the novella it's based on. I even liked "The Omega Man". All four movies have their place and because a movie like "I am Legend" gets made a movie like "Juno" can be made. That's not just me saying it, someone who really works in the industry, George Clooney, said it. He said he'll make a movie like "Batman & Robin" so the studio will in turn fund a movie they won't make money on like "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind".

Why would I see where you're coming from? What would compel me to do that? Because you've seen where I was coming from? OK, let's give that a shot. Movies like "I am Legend" are shit because producers are too busy trying to make risky, multi-million dollar endeavors appealing to a mass audience. No, no, they should keep making movies that only critics will like or see because an Oscar is due compensation in place of the money they never earned.

Yes, that makes absolute sense to me now.

And your age has nothing to do with you being a generation behind. You hearken back to music or movies from yesteryear and that only underlines today's music is not meant for you. There isn't anything wrong with that--I'm 31 and I don't like majority of the music I hear on the radio. But I didn't like majority of the music I heard in the 80s, either. That's why I don't make the mistake of saying things like music, movies or teens these days. Generation for generation none of the three are any worse.

point is i like to go see a movie, enjoy the acting, enjoy the writing and dialogue, enjoy the cinematography, and enjoy the directing.. if all of those aspects meet a certain level of enjoyment, then i'd like it.. I mean, i don't go into the movie theater and take notes, these things are just embedded in my head because of my experiences with film.. i feel that i may appreciate a certain shot that someone else may not even notice, that's just my view of it.. Some people want to go to the movies strictly for entertainment and see some explosions and sex and gun fire, and that's fine with me, but i don't think that person would be getting into a film discussion..

This paragraph sums up your arrogance perfectly. I can see a movie and enjoy all those same things (as well as a good story which you forgot about) and I can go see a movie strictly for sex, explosions and gun fire. I don't base any of my criterion for enjoying a movie on something I noticed that someone else may have missed. I enjoy it simply because I saw it- to somehow assert your perceptions over a theoretical someone else is again, arrogant. But it's great that you approve of people wanting to see a movie for reasons beneath what appeals to you, but those people also have valid opinions on film that simply can't be ignored despite how dismissive your attitude is.

Why don't you just see it from my side a moment and see how obnoxious your opinion is?

PS- Transpire was the wrong word. Coincide would have been better. But that's just me, I was an English major for 4 years until I got my BA (by the way, I'm being quasi-facetious).

Also, you completely undermined your entire argument by admitting you saw a movie you stated had holes in it, Saw. You can't on the one hand say one movie with holes in it is the problem with movies today and then proclaim another movie with holes in it was good.

So let's recap the things you did wrong here. You assumed you knew things about someone you didn't, you were drenched with a holier-than-thou attitude and worst of all you called someone "friend" you have no clue about, again, another sign of arrogance. Again, this is facetiousness on my part because I really don't care if you do any different in the future. In fact it makes it all the more easy to put you in proper context if you don't.