Formless wrote: ↑2019-12-22 05:15am
loomer wrote: ↑2019-12-22 02:42am
Formless wrote: ↑2019-12-22 01:45am
Do you really want me to answer that question? Because arguments could be made for any one of those things...
in a car dominated world.
Since the basis for your 'don't say to drink at the movies' argument is in no small part down to 'people might drunk drive'? Yes. Yes I do. All those situations create the same risks, so please, do explain why you don't hold the idea of a pub to the same standard, unless you do.
Oh, you misunderstand me, loomer.
I was implying I
do hold them to a similar standard.
ALL of these institutions contribute to the drunk driving problem in this country. All of them. And because we have a fucked up relationship with alcohol in this country that goes back even to the 19'th century and earlier, and our cities and suburbs are barely walkable (and often flat out dangerous to pedestrians, or just anyone without a car), its hard for anyone to really consider
not driving a valid option for getting around town even when drunk off your ass. Or
especially when drunk. The only difference is that the staff of a bar are (theoretically) trained to know when you are shitfaced, but that doesn't help much. You gotta get home somehow, and home is often miles away from where you are right now. Better trust that your designated driver didn't get shitfaced when you weren't looking!
Europe doesn't have this problem only to the extent that many of the major cities predate cars, so of course they are walkable. Its practically the whole reason tourists go there. Similar story goes for some countries like Japan. America (and Canada!) is just shit unless you are on the East Coast.
Good. At least you're internally consistent.
Drunk people can in fact be quite quiet, which I know you're having trouble processing due to your own selection bias ('drunk people won't shut up' certainly seems to suggest that the primary criteria you're using to judge are talkability and boisterousness, which are only two of the possible experiences of intoxication, and as it happens, are two of the most obvious. I suspect your thinking goes a little like this: 'Drunk people won't shut up; this person is not talking a lot; this person is not drunk' and thus eliminating any quiet drunks you have ever observed.) Further, you seem to be confusing 'it's a fun movie to watch drunk, take a bottle with you' for a demand or endorsement that people drink to dangerous excess rather than knowing their own limits. Smell, of course, can be an issue so you're quite right there, which is why you pick seats that aren't jammed next to someone who isn't part of your group as part of the general principle of having consideration for others.
It's almost as though your argument hinges around deliberately misconstruing a general 'it's a fun movie to watch drunk' for 'drink without any regard to personal responsibility, safety, or the experience of others'. But I'm sure you wouldn't be deliberately building that strawman, would you?
No, my argument is based on "your behavior is hardly universal, and drunks often don't realize just how loud or obnoxious they actually are." Because the problem with drunk people is that their judgement is impaired, including their ability to judge how fucking shitfaced they are, and to judge how they look and sound to other human beings. You need feedback from people who were sober at the time, like a trusted (but
honest) friend. You think its okay because you think people don't notice you drinking in the theater, but you can't realistically say how many people
actually noticed some people are particularly sensitive to the smell of hard liquor). A lot of people don't want to make a fuss so they can't be blamed for being obnoxious themselves. And I don't care if there are other kinds of asshole behavior that also happens at a movie theater, one asshole doesn't make another asshole less of an asshole by their presence or absence. Just be respectful of the other patrons, and don't plan on doing something stupid. Whatever your normal IQ is, if you down whisky you become an idiot. That's almost literally how alcohol works.
People who are drunk are drunk, yes. But congratulations: That doesn't mean that every drunk person acts the same way. If they did, life would be a lot more predictable. Also, I think you're confused at the level of drunk we're talking about here, because you keep talking about being shitfaced, about being idiots, and so on. That isn't the level I'm suggesting, but it is very telling that you take 'take a bottle' to mean 'drink to excess to the point you're utterly out of control' at every turn.
I also, as it happens, don't really consider those kids or the guy laughing to be assholes. It's part and parcel of the cinema experience. The reason I raise them is to point out that you can have drunk people who are
less disruptive than ordinary sober conduct in a cinema. Now, as it happens, I did have a trusted, honest, sober friend with me who I'd trust to pull me into line if I was being disruptive. They felt no need to, nor did anyone else take the slightest visible notice.
We agree that you should be respectful of other patrons. Where we disagree is your ludicrous notion that a few drinks is inherently going to make someone disrespectful - or at least, more disrespectful than the ordinary annoyances of people laughing loudly or excited children.
I'm not going to argue that they intend it to be viewed drunk, nor did I suggest you should - I said I'd like to see some proof that filmmakers intend their work to be viewed only by the sober. I understand you have difficulty with reading comprehension, but that's okay, we all have our crosses to bear. I make and have made no argument Abrams has said 'oh yeah, this film should only be watched while drunk'. You, however, are arguing that he intends it to be seen sober and sober only - something that you bear the onus of proof on, as you are the one making a specific, contestable statement of fact.
Then you are once again making a strawman argument, and a silly one.
Am I? Because from what I can see, there's no strawman involved at all. You advanced that the state of mind intended was sober - as you acknowledge - and I challenge that this is the only possible state of mind the filmmakers could have intended an audience to possess. How, precisely, is there a strawman when you yourself acknowledge the factual accuracy that you stated that the state of mind intended is sobriety? You do know what a strawman is, right?
I only said that any opinion about the film made while watching it drunk is meaningless, and the state of mind the filmmaker intended you to view it in is sober because of course it is, that is the default state of being!
It's nice of you to agree that you have asserted that the only state of mind the filmmaker could intend was sober. This, of course, excludes the possibility that they were ambivalent as to sobriety, which I consider more likely to say the least. It seems rather unlikely that Abrams sat down and went 'You know what, I don't think drunk people will watch this film'.
They aren't going to bank on a film specifically for binge drinkers, it would be a stupid risk.
Certainly, and no one has said they should.
Its meaningless because most people just aren't going to watch the film that way, and also because everyone reacts to alcohol differently-- yes, everyone, I am an extreme example, but the "loud VS quiet" dichotomy shows that its not just me. Some people will find it unpleasant while drunk, not because of the movie's qualities, but because of how alcohol effects them. They may find other movies good to watch while drunk, but not this one. Hence, the opinion is meaningless or at least useless to everyone but you.
This is two points that you've managed to somehow conflate together. First, that a perspective from someone who drinks is meaningless because 'most people just aren't going to watch the film that way', and second, that this in some way ties in to the 'intended state of mind'. I will not bother with the latter further as you have failed to meaningfully demonstrate that your position - that the filmmakers intend audiences to be sober - has merit. As for the former? It may surprise you, but most people retain their ability to form meaningful judgment and opinion after several drinks. That opinion may be coloured by the euphoria and relaxation of alcohol (two effects that are near universal) but this does not render them meaningless. It especially does not render the opinion and judgment 'it's an okay film, but fun to watch drunk' meaningless.
It is in fact a necessary prerequisite of this latter opinion - a position that can be meaningfully taken given that alcohol affects most people in a predictable, similar way - that the speaker have done so for it to not be supposition. Now, you might argue that this renders it useless for 'most people', but it nonetheless remains a valid response to 'I don't know if I'll like it'. Consider it thus: 'I don't know if I'll like it.' 'It was fun to watch drunk, that might help you enjoy it too?' The latter, of course, contains an unspoken assumption, and may thus be restated: 'It was fun to watch drunk (I experience intoxication in a typical way; e.g., after a few drinks I relax and feel good) - maybe that'll help you enjoy it (if you also experience intoxication in a typical way: that is, after a few drinks, you relax and feel good)?'
Do you see how this perspective and judgment is not in fact meaningless, but a valid response to concerns about the film being terrible? Further, you may have noticed that I've been making comments on other elements in the film as they take my notice. I formed these judgments will moderately intoxicated, but I'm reasonably sure they'd hold up if I was sober. Why? Simple - contrary to your belief, drinking does not turn someone into a totally different, idiotic being. This takes place only at the further reaches of excess, and the amount I typically drink at a film (around six drinks over two hours, frontloaded and then maintained over the runtime, maybe with a pint at the pub down the street beforehand) at my tolerance leaves me with most of my judgement intact for the purpose of film enjoyment (if not for certain other behaviours). Thus I can still say 'the little memory guy was a nice touch but his second appearance was gratuitous' with a fairly good basis for believing I would feel the same if I had been sober. Likewise, I can say 'I enjoyed the cavalry charge for its sheer audaciousness, but I did wonder why they didn't just blow up the tower from a fighter instead' - which is accurate - with the same reasonable basis to believe I would feel the same if I had been sober.
Of course, in regards to 'any filmmaker [intending] their film to be viewed while intoxicated', that's easy. Stoner comedies are meant to be enjoyed by, well, stoners. I'll leave you to fill in the blanks on what kind of mental state much of their humour is meant to be appreciated in.
I will grant stoner comedies as a special case where that is how the director hoped the audience would watch it. I don't get it, but at least with pot you can rely on stoner culture to get you half way towards a meaningful difference in the quality of the experience, and the rest is because psychedelics have more reliable effects on perception than booze. I know my dad finds things in That 70's Show to be hilarious that go over my head-- and he doesn't even need to be high, he just knows what its like and I don't.
Alcohol's effects are actually pretty reliable. It's just the outward manifestation of these effects is more unpredictable, but its role as a relaxant, depressant, and euphoric is pretty much solidly predictable. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't be nearly as fond of it as a society.
I don't need to watch it twice to venture the opinion that 'it's an okay film, but fun to watch with a bottle of whiskey' because I watched it with a bottle of whiskey and, shocker, that was my experience. You'll notice that I have largely confined my commentary on it to that, and not 'well, it was a shit film to watch sober but great to watch drunk' or even 'the only way to watch it is drunk'. But again, it's pretty funny that you seem to think the only correct way to watch a film is stone sober or your opinion doesn't matter.
Yeah, I'm going to say NO to that qualification of yours. Right from the moment TRR asked for opinions, you were saying to watch it drunk, as if you knew it would be bad when sober. Then reiterated that opinion in the post I first quoted. But as you have only watched it once, that opinion is rather useless to the rest of us, which is why I found it frustrating. I'm here for a similar reason to TRR, and I knew it hasn't been out long enough for you to have likely seen it twice yet. Yet you still think its best to watch it drunk... it comes off like you are biased against watching the film any other way, because from the moment you stuffed a bottle of whisky into your coat, that was the only way you ever intended to watch it.
I have explained above why a 'watch it while drinking' is not, as you seem to think, a useless opinion, but rather one built on both experience and a reasonable supposition as to the film's quality. But let's examine the 'you knew it would be bad when sober'. I expected it to be a bad film, because it's a JJ Abrams Star Wars and I have low expectations as to the quality of his films. I enjoy them for the visuals and the atmosphere, not the scintillatingly complex and deep plots, and I act appropriately. This is what we can call a 'bad film' - but one still worth watching, because it has that to commend it. I'm reasonably sure if I bought a second ticket and went to see it sober, I'd come away with the same opinion: 'This was more fun to watch with a bottle of whiskey, but it's okay, I guess?' My suggestion to TRR was thus based on a perspective I arrived at both from a rational beginning point ('Am I likely to enjoy this film more sober or with a drink? Why?') and from a confirmed experience that, well, it was a fairly dumb film, but a fun one, which are great to drink during.
Of course, I could be wrong, and it could be hailed as a scintillating exercise in intellectual stimulation of the highest order in a few weeks once the fanboying and hating dies down. I rather doubt it, however, and I have enough trust in my ability to watch cinema to have a corresponding trust in my judgement of the film.
So, you will excuse me if I give Vympel or Tev or Ray245's opinions more weight, because even if they are diverse in their conclusions, they didn't go in intending to dull the experience with booze.
And you are free to do so. You'll notice that I have at no point insisted my view is the only one - just that hey, it's a fun film to watch drunk.
Okay. Demonstrate the number of fatalities that take place from people driving home from the cinema drunk.
Are you being serious? No one keeps track of the data based on where the drunk drivers are driving to or from, because there is no reason to treat drunks driving home from the theater as a special category. They behave the same way on the road as any other drunk driver, and until you give evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to think they plan their nights differently from people coming home from the bar or from a night club. They are all dangerous drivers, and they are all equally likely to make the same dangerous choices. So for anyone who isn't a dipshit, general road fatality statistics will work just fine.
That, by the way, works out to one drunk driving fatality every
48 minutes in the United States according to the
NHTSA.
I think you'll find they do keep track of data based on where drivers are departing from and travelling to in many jurisdictions. This is necessary for a number of reasons - insurance claims, liability, backtracing any potential criminal liability, and public health. You will find studies, for instance, that examine comparative drink-driving rates after sporting events versus background, in areas where late night bars are open versus those where there are early closings, and so on.
The reason I asked you to demonstrate that drunk cinemagoers are a category of special concern is because, as far as I'm concerned, you seem to be under the impression that I have advocated for people to go to the cinema, get drunk, and then drive home. I haven't done so, and the only reasonable way to impute such advocacy would be for cinemagoers to especially choose to drive rather than take public transportation or walk, and so it seems to me that you must possess evidence of their constituting such a category of special concern that would make my comments knowing of or reckless in regards to this special prevalence of drunk cinemagoers. In the absence of such a special category, then you are simply upset that I recommended someone drink at all, period, as that is all I have done - a statement that can in no way be reasonably inferred or imputed to condone engaging in any additional conduct, let alone conduct as dangerous as drunk driving.
By the way, I'm not part of something you think is a problem when it comes to road fatality statistics. I took public transit back and walked there. At no point was I responsible for operating a motor vehicle or in a position to distract a person operating one. Any road fatality statistics involved would have more likely involved me as a sober pedestrian, which would be an entirely different issue.
You are, however, clearly part of the cultural problem, which in turn feeds into the drunk driving problem. The fact you asked for specific road statistics for theater patrons VS all other drunks shows your bias towards seeing this behavior as harmless, whereas the actual statistics don't lie, it absolutely has a harm we can quantify. This is a large scale issue, obviously, but for every individual who knows how to get home without a car, there are probably twenty who drink and drive anyway, and they don't understand the difference between you and them. Because its actually a very small (if important) difference.
Sure. But here's what I keep getting at: In order to make this argument, you need to presuppose that my suggestion can be reasonably inferred or imputed to include the idea of drinking dangerously nd/or preceding the operation of a motor vehicle. This is not the case, and no reasonable person could conclude that it is. So no - I'm not part of the 'cultural problem' unless you consider responsible alcohol consumption in public venues a problem in and of itself. This is so because my direct participation precluded such dangerous behaviours and because no part of my suggestions can reasonably be inferred or imputed to include any recommendation to the contrary.
It is not dissimilar to crying about fires when suggesting someone light some candles for a romantic evening. I would not ordinarily expect to need to include the unspoken clauses as explicit ones - to say 'well, why not surprise her with candles (making sure to avoid any flammable materials near them, keep water nearby, and be prepared to act quickly if one topples over)?' rather than just 'why not surprise her with candles?' Similarly, I do not expect to need to say - as you seem to feel is necessary - 'Take a bottle to watch this film, it's a good one to watch drunk (but make sure not to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated)' to otherwise presumably responsible adults aware of the need for safe practices and conduct when intoxicated.
You're truly divorced from reality if you think people will smuggle a bong in rather than smoking it before they go or just having a spliff outside, dude. Like, really. That is the most absurd thing you could throw out, and it shows exactly why no one is going to take you seriously as you clutch at your pearls.
You know what, I don't give a flying fuck. You want to nitpick reasons to insult me, but the reality is this. I work retail in Colorado, and trust me, while I have never seen someone light up in the store (we would kick them out and they know it), I absolutely smell it on people all the time. And I'm not hypersensitive or anything, all of my coworkers smell it too, and we all find it unpleasant because it smells like a dead skunk. And not from close up, several feet away. It doesn't matter whether you are smoking it inside or outside, it lingers on you just as badly as tobacco (which also smells like hell's anus, by the way). Especially if its fresh. The problem is that after a while, you go nose-blind to any smell that lingers on you for too long. Its famously why people don't notice their own BO. So don't act smug, either way you smell like you encountered a skunk, and its rude to the other patrons (not to mention, technically illegal to do it in public even now).
It's not really nitpicking when you put them front and center, my friend. I don't need to do the careful searching and exclusion to suggest a mistake on your end when it's right in the middle, and it's an especially inappropriate label when I also address the rest of your point. I will make fun of you when you say dumb shit.
Now, as for the smell? I'm not nose-blind to the smell of tobacco or marijuana, nor, as a rule, to alcohol. I know for a fact a pretty good number of the audience were stoned for RoS when I saw it because I saw them outside smoking a joint. While in the cinema, there was no trace of the scent. It works quite similarly with liquor: The scent drops off quite quickly outside of close proximity unless there's been a lot of it, it's been metabolized, or you're consuming it from an open vessel. Coffee, as it happens, works similarly but with less tendency to cling to the imbiber - you can notice the difference by sitting five feet from someone with an open cup versus five feet with a closed lid. One is immediately obvious, the other is not.
Now, let's look at the other part. They will absolutely serve alcohol at showings of non-R rated films in gold class theaters (in fact, right now I can book a gold class ticket for a midday showing of ROS and pre-order a beer as part of it. They just won't serve it to kids or teenagers. You seem to be operating, again, under the confused idea that 'drinking at the cinema is fun' necessarily equates to 'everyone gets to drink, including teenagers'. Or are you more concerned that the mere reminder liquor exists will drive teenagers into a drunken frenzy?
No, I was going by memory. I don't know what the rules are at the theaters in your location. But where I live, they won't let you bring in ANY outside food or beverage, and most of the theaters don't serve alcohol to my knowledge. So the ONLY way to drink in them is to smuggle it in. I know of only one possibly exception to the rules about booze, but that was an... interesting theater, in that it was also a restaurant setup. They served you dinner as you watched the movie (you got a table and everything), so obviously no bringing your own food or drink. I can't remember if alcohol was on the menu, but it might have been. Then again, the only movie I ever watched there was District 9.
Yes, most cinemas have that policy. It is standard practice to ignore it for all sorts of things - drinks, candy, etc - to avoid snack bar pricing. I'm fortunate enough to live in a town that doesn't give a shit (you can walk in with whatever you like so long as you aren't obviously taking the piss and it doesn't disturb other patrons - in fact, the only time I ever saw someone get stopped was for trying to eat fish and chips) but this, of course, is beside the point. You made the claim that cinemas that serve alcohol won't serve it at non-R rated viewings (and, charitably, special adults-only viewings of non-R rated films) and this is simply not true. You also haven't demonstrated why it is so utterly unspeakable that someone might enjoy a beer or a cocktail, as these cinemas offer, in the same space teenagers and children may be watching a film, provided they do not disturb their experience.
Congratulations, I also don't drive for health reasons. Did you think you were the only person who has to walk places because they're a cripple, fuckhead?
You do realize that "cripple" is a slur, right?
You do realize that I'll call myself whatever the fuck I like, right?
I'm a cripple. I hobble about with a cane.
I'm not looking for pity, I'm looking to give people like Galvatron context. Our argument isn't just being read by the two of us. I don't know you, and I do not know your health problems like the back of my hand. But I also don't expect many people know me that well, either. But I do find it hilarious that in one post you both champion yourself for not being part of the drunk driving problem, only to later admit you don't drive at all.
Well, when you suggest I'm part of the problem of drunk driving, yes, I think I will champion myself as not being part of it. Not driving makes it rather simpler but it does not erase the fact that my conduct does not contribute to the risk of alcohol-related traffic accidents.
No, I can think of it as plenty normal not to take a bottle. Indeed, I often don't - just for films where I can pretty much guarantee it's going to be more fun than not, at showings where there'll be plenty of space to avoid sitting near people who aren't part of my group, and with company to share with. I don't find your opinion offensive at all, as it happens, other than your rather bizarre attempt to paint me as a drunk driving apologist. Perhaps you mistook my firing back on you for coming in hot as being offended - if so, that was a mistake on your end.
You came in hot. I fired back. I never did call you an apologist for drunk driving, but you do come off as an apologist for public drunkeness, which feeds into the same. The trick is to realize they are related, and that one is harmful because of the other. You seem in denial about this. This, more than your habits, more than your personal behaviors, more than your debating tactics, more than your belief that drinking whisky in the theater isn't rude, is what gets me fired up.
You seem to be confused (yet again). Your very first post in this thread was you coming in hot at me. Before that, we hadn't had an exchange at all. Here, let me link it to you:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=168882&start=75#p4092244
You came in hot, I fired back - not the other way around. Or do you not consider calling someone a dumb repetitive twat coming in hot, I wonder? Now, I do defend people's right to enjoy alcohol responsibly in public venues provided they don't disrupt the experience of others. I dispute that this necessarily creates drink driving because it is, you will note, a defence of people's right to enjoy alcohol responsibly - something that necessarily precludes operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. Maybe if you hadn't decided to try and justify getting your fee fees hurt that I'd dare recommend someone treat RoS as a dumb film enhanced by alcohol by going on your insane rant about how this makes people drink drive, you'd be capable of understanding the distinction.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
