They're over-thinking this. That just made me want to go watch a funny cat video.

/Off to YouTube.

I thin "Moff" needs a hobby... and a girlfriend. Sunlight wouldn't hurt, either.

RocketRod: I thin "Moff" needs a hobby... and a girlfriend. Sunlight wouldn't hurt, either.

I think you're over-analyzing Moff's post. Why can't you just enjoy it for what it is?

It isn't that the critic over-thought and over-analyzed the film.

It is that the critic's review was farking stupid.

I don't give two shiats if someone reviews and either likes or dislikes a film, but I sure as hell feel free to reply when their comments are asinine.

What exactly is the law? That irony abounds?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the expression of the law is. Without a sweet one-liner it isn't likely to get picked up into popular internet parlance.

"And unless you live on a parallel version of Earth where too many people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world around them..."

In my life, I've hung out extensively at times with artists from New York, film school kids in Chicago, and the like. Sorry, but there is indeed a place on Earth where people are thinking too deeply and critically about the world.

There is a place somewhere between Idiocracy and High-brow performance art that I like to call reality.

lerry: SphericalTime: What exactly is the law? That irony abounds?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the expression of the law is. Without a sweet one-liner it isn't likely to get picked up into popular internet parlance.

This law is too long! It is several paragraphs.
You expect us to read the entire thing?

I think you're overanalyzing the text by reading it. Can't you just stare at it until you eyes cross and enjoy the patterns that emerge?

lerry: This law is too long! It is several paragraphs.
You expect us to read the entire thing?

What is the law?

/Who is John Galt?
//Suck it, Rand

Blah blah blah I'm outraged that somebody thinks I'm a total dork because I'm mentally jerking it over the complexities of a stupid ass movie made by James Cameron.

To quote Bill Watterson, in the context of Calvin's post-modern snowmen (which he was using to lampoon the art world), "I enjoy art, but the field sure attracts its share of pretentious blowhards." Not thinking about art is one vice. Over-thinking art is another.

That and the fact that the review in question was not actually a review of the movie Avatar. It was political threadshiatting, and racialist political threadshiatting at that, more about mapping the author's own biases onto the film than about explaining why the move was good cinema or not. (Science fiction sure seems to be doing a metric assload of navel-gazing on the subject of race lately. Which I find both ironic and facepalm-worthy, considering we are probably among the last generations of human beings for whom race will be an issue at all.)

improvius: #1 law of The Tubes:

Don't fall in love.

/If you do, you'll find out she don't love you.
//Why would I live?
///Now why would I lie?

But the review is everything I dream about...

I prefer Muff's law: "I'd rather surf the net for beaver pics than have another thread about ___________"

People who don't think there is meaning in popular culture are hilariously small-minded.

1. Put snakes on plane: Holy shiat, these people are full of themselves. They put Farkers to shame.

Geebus, no kidding. I looked around that site and thought I was back on campus, listening to some wanker in comp lit go on about a minor character in a book that no one would ever read again if the author hadn't slept with the professor at some point.

I'm not sure what the actual "law" is here to make it comparable to "Godwin's Law" or "Poe's Law", but it may be that I'm reading too much into this rant. So, Moff's Law...

... is it that no matter what, someone's going to write, "You're reading too much into this [Beyoncé video/book/sci-fi movie/whatever]?

... is it that no matter what, there are stupid people who like to not use their brains when they look at things around them?

... is it that dumbasses should STFU? Is it thus a "law" law and not a law of nature? Can we start enforcement?

... is it that internet threads can't go a page or two without people freaking out over What Art Is and How To Look At Art? If so, this law actually makes me appreciate the internet more.

... is it that we must defend the practice of applying the same standards to "high" and "low" art, and when someone disagrees, we must type SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. SHUT THE F*CK UP, and then maybe beat them physically with books about cultural studies? (I would avoid Sontag's Notes on Camp. Not heavy enough. Maybe a big Bourdieu compilation would leave more injuries.)

Whatever, I'm still on team Bruisin' Bourdieus. Although, I will acknowledge that sometimes, cultural products exist more as targeted money-making opportunities than artistic statements, and this itself is worthy of analysis.

SphericalTime: lerry: This law is too long! It is several paragraphs.
You expect us to read the entire thing?

What is the law?

/Who is John Galt?
//Suck it, Rand

Wow. Something tells me this thread's topic is not what you'd really like to be talking about. Clearly your brain can't stay off this other topic. I certainly hope you're not losing sleep over it. Maybe intellectual stimulation and having your premises challenged is too much for you to handle. You'd better stick with establishment intellectuals for the sake of your health.

/Threadjack