The difference between Dos and Doc

Doc has made several accusation towards my taste in films and I will react to this in the order they were given and then sum up, the differences between him and I and our taste in films. As usual, this post will not be funny. The only difference between this and my normal posts is that I will not try to be funny.

Argument Number1:

"First, how can a man who claims to have the best DVD collection in the world see only 9 movies in a year?! 2 of those movies were cartoons, 1 was based on a cartoon and 2 were based on children's novels. Fact: Dos's DVD collection is childish."

Rebuttal Number 1:

The amount of movies someone sees in a year has nothing to do with the quality of their DVD collection. Perhaps a person does not enjoy going to the movies, or perhaps they had a hard year in getting to the movies, or perhaps there was no movie in that year that struck his fancy. At any rate, I really do believe that these two facts are unrelated. Now, some of the movies I saw were cartoons or fall into the genre of children films and both of these genres are well represented in my DVD collection. This is true. Furthermore, I find nothing wrong with this. Just because a film is animated or was intended for younger viewers does not mean it is a bad film or one which is not worthy of being seen. Like other genres, all they are is types of film and there are good and bad ones. Doc does not mention his affinity for the Ninja Turtle Movies or superhero cartoons which would put him in the same boat as me. This is beyond the fact that there are some undeniably amazing cartoons/children films out there. No one would deny the greatness of The Muppet Movie or Fantasia or The Lion King, just to cite a few. His argument is insulting to anybody who enjoys a good film which was also suitable for children.

Argument Number 2:

"Perhaps if it were 1984 he would have a pretty impressive collection. But this is 2011 Dos! They still make movies and as someone who claims to like movies and have an impressive collection of his own you gotta take the time to go see some new stuff. 2010 was pretty weak movie wise, I will give him that. But to only see 9 movies and half being kid fluff is unacceptable."

Rebuttal Number 2:

I do not know what the 1984 comment means as there are plenty of films and TV shows in my collection made after this date. I would submit that the bulk fit into this latter category. Also, Doc agrees that 2010 was a weak year for movies. Why should I waste my time and see a movie that I have no interest in or is poor just because it is new? There are plenty of older films out there to be discovered which may be more meaning full than ones that just happen to come in the year that it happens to be. As far as the "kid fluff" comment, please see my above argument and I will contest that none of the animated films which I thoroughly enjoyed were "just fluff."

Argument Number 3:

"The Fighter. Which he had no interest in when I spoke to him about it and now he does? C'mon man."

Rebuttal Number 3:

As I told Doc, and he chose not to include here, the idea of The Fighter did bore me. This was because it seemed like just another boxing movie. Then I learned that the director was David O. Russell, whose previous films have all been excellent and I have seen every one. Once I learned this, I did develop an interest in seeing the film. If I am guilty of anything it is being bored of boxing films and not actively looking up who directed this one.

Argument Number 4:

"Dos will argue that he sees the classics and rare films. Well, I lent him a classic. Has he watched it yet? No, no he has not. I let him borrow The Honeymooners and he cant take 20 minutes out of his busy day to watch one episode. I watched a lot of his crap (Labyrinth) in the hopes that he would make good on his promise and watch the Honeymooners. So when he comes back saying he watches mostly classics we will all know he is a dirty liar."

Rebuttal Number 4:

Yeah, I do see classic and rare films. I enjoy them and find them interesting. The Honeymooners is not a film. Furthermore, I never asked Doc to watch labyrinth. I told him he would hate it and he said that he wanted to see it anyway. Labyrinth is not a great film, it is a film that I enjoyed when I was younger and like watching it due to its oddness and my own memories. Oh yeah, and Doc's argument about me not enjoying classics because I like the Honeymooners makes no sense.

Argument Number 5:

"Another thing, Jackass 3D was very funny. "

Rebuttal Number 5 and Conclusion on the Differences between Dos and Doc:

I am sure that Jackass would make me laugh if I saw it and I have seen enough of the previous Jackass movies to "know that it is about." However, it is very hard to say that this is a great movie. It is what it is, a bunch of people doing ridiculous pranks to make you laugh. Yes, you will laugh. However, it is not a great movie. I defy Doc to find it on the top of any legitimate critic's list of the best movies of 2010. It won't be because it can't be a great movie based on the nature of what it is. I am all for non-linear films and some of my favorites qualify as this, however, these are filled with ideas and not disgusting pranks. Finally there is a difference between Doc and I which underscores this whole post. Doc just takes whatever he is given in the entertainment world and filters out what he enjoys. There is a lot more out there that must be searched for and read about. The most fascinating and enjoyable films I saw in 2010 were not in the theaters. They were works of art that were challenging and I had to actively seek out. I apologize Doc for not being one of the sheep who will go to the movies and pay their money no matter what is playing. There is much more enjoyable, fascinating and challenging films out there in the world that did not rank among the big money makers of 2010.