My opinion is that the joke is funny, not that the film is bad. I don’t have an opinion of the film, though I do think the twelve year shoot is inherently pretentious if it isn’t good.
That’s a dumb thing to think. If it isn’t good it’s not pretension, it’s just a failed experiment.
I suppose you’re not wrong, I just find it pretentious in an attention grabbing sort of way. Look at me, I spent a long time shooting this movie, now give me oscars.
So anytime a filmmaker wants to experiment with the filmmaking process it’s pretentious and attention grabbing? You don’t think it’s an interesting concept at all?
As for “now give me Oscars,” that’s ridiculous. This kind of thing is right in Linklater’s wheelhouse and he never gets nor (I would presume at this point) expects Academy recognition.
I guess it just seemed that way to me. It was a big marketing point IIRC.
It wasn’t. The movie wasn’t even really marketed all that much. The 12 years thing was all word of mouth.
Thing is, the movie is good.
Some beg to differ. But I won’t argue about the quality of the film since I ain’t seen it.
Exactly mfm’s initial point.
But mfm’s point is moot because I was never commenting on the quality of the film. I made a joke about people who think you aren’t allowed to dislike it because people were disagreeing with Handman about Birdman being better.
Nobody thinks people aren’t allowed to dislike it.
EDIT: I also think that it’s important to throw in here that you keep using the word “some” to refer to the critics that don’t like Boyhood, but you’re obviously specifically referring to one entity, which is two reviewers, one of whom disliked it and the other thought it was a mixed bag and then that same entity obviously later played up their negative review to a hyperbolic extent for attention and comedic effect. I don’t even like the movie that much, I just don’t like the RLM worship, and the reason I hate the RLM worship is because I actually really like RLM and don’t like the attitude of most of its fanbase.