4 ms·

> That doesn't conflict with anything I've claimed. It absolutely does - you said "His stuff is 90% atmosphere" and "weird for the sake of weird", both complet

> That doesn't conflict with anything I've claimed. It absolutely does - you said "His stuff is 90% atmosphere" and "weird for the sake of weird", both complete nonsense.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> It absolutely does No, it doesn't. His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere. Those things are not at all mutually exclusive. > both complete nonsense. Not really, it's more that you're likely offended in that I'm reducing so significantly a work you clearly find a lot of meaning in and enjoy discussing.
- squidsoup 2y ago
  > His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes. If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't. The AIs also disagree with you. I asked Claude "what are your thoughts on this statement: "Lynch will be one of the easier things for an AI to replicate given his thing is weird for the sake of weird and being deliberately vague about it. His stuff is 90% atmosphere." and it responds: "I disagree with this characterization of David Lynch's work. While his films certainly feature surreal and dreamlike atmospheres, reducing them to "weird for weird's sake" misses their intricate emotional and thematic coherence. Lynch's work often explores deeply human experiences - trauma, desire, identity, and the dark underbelly of seemingly idyllic Americana - through a distinctive visual and narrative language that draws heavily from dreams and the subconscious mind. Films like "Mulholland Drive" and "Blue Velvet" aren't merely atmospheric exercises, but carefully constructed works where the surreal elements serve specific narrative and thematic purposes. Take "Mulholland Drive" - its dream logic and narrative fragmentation directly reflect the protagonist's psychological state and Hollywood's destructive impact on identity. The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core. I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness - it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades. The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes. The problem here is you are confusing your own subjective interpretation with objective meaning and intention. > If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't. I've been studying and writing about film for about 20 years, lol. I've also made a few films. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I didn't think critically, nor does it mean I'm wrong. > The AIs also disagree with you. LOL! What do you think that proves? Honestly? They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense. > The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core. He makes waking dreams. Dreams are defined by weirdness. So it's perfectly in line with making a dream to be weird for the sake of weird, hell, it's basically a requirement. > I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness Some of the AI produced trailers are already unintentionally pretty Lynchian. > it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight v His personal obsessions are well known and recurring in his films, so easy for an AI to draw from. His cultural critiques are superficial at best, and never the main point, but again is for an AI to draw from an imitate. I would say there was psychological insight so much as there is psychological exploration. > expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades. Yes, this is what I referred to as being weird for the sake of weird. > The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions. That also doesn't conflict with anything I claimed earlier. Where we disagree is how deep his films are. You think they're something truly insightful with a lot of thought behind them, I disagree and see it as closer to a Scrotie McBoogerballs situation.
    - squidsoup 2y ago
      > They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense. Pretentious is reducing the work of one of the most highly acclaimed film makers of our time to “weird for the sake of weird” and “lol an AI could make that”. Really insightful criticism. Pretentious is suggesting his work has no substance ("90% atmosphere"), when a poll by BBC Culture of 177 film critics from 36 countries named Mulholland Drive the best film of the 21st century. There are plenty of directors whose works that I don’t personally appreciate but I would never be so arrogant to suggest an AI could reproduce them.

> That doesn't conflict with anything I've claimed. It absolutely does - you said "His stuff is 90% atmosphere" and "weird for the sake of weird", both complete nonsense.

ruthmarx 2y ago

> It absolutely does No, it doesn't. His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere. Those things are not at all mutually exclusive. > both complete nonsense. Not really, it's more that you're likely offended in that I'm reducing so significantly a work you clearly find a lot of meaning in and enjoy discussing.

squidsoup 2y ago
> His work can have recurring themes and still be weird for the sake of weird and mostly atmosphere Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes. If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't. The AIs also disagree with you. I asked Claude "what are your thoughts on this statement: "Lynch will be one of the easier things for an AI to replicate given his thing is weird for the sake of weird and being deliberately vague about it. His stuff is 90% atmosphere." and it responds: "I disagree with this characterization of David Lynch's work. While his films certainly feature surreal and dreamlike atmospheres, reducing them to "weird for weird's sake" misses their intricate emotional and thematic coherence. Lynch's work often explores deeply human experiences - trauma, desire, identity, and the dark underbelly of seemingly idyllic Americana - through a distinctive visual and narrative language that draws heavily from dreams and the subconscious mind. Films like "Mulholland Drive" and "Blue Velvet" aren't merely atmospheric exercises, but carefully constructed works where the surreal elements serve specific narrative and thematic purposes. Take "Mulholland Drive" - its dream logic and narrative fragmentation directly reflect the protagonist's psychological state and Hollywood's destructive impact on identity. The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core. I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness - it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades. The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > Everything "weird" in his work serves the narrative and those themes. The problem here is you are confusing your own subjective interpretation with objective meaning and intention. > If you had spent any time thinking critically about any of his films you would understand that, but you clearly haven't. I've been studying and writing about film for about 20 years, lol. I've also made a few films. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I didn't think critically, nor does it mean I'm wrong. > The AIs also disagree with you. LOL! What do you think that proves? Honestly? They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense. > The "weird" elements aren't arbitrary but emerge organically from the story's emotional core. He makes waking dreams. Dreams are defined by weirdness. So it's perfectly in line with making a dream to be weird for the sake of weird, hell, it's basically a requirement. > I think AI would actually struggle to replicate Lynch's work precisely because it's not random weirdness Some of the AI produced trailers are already unintentionally pretty Lynchian. > it's a complex interweaving of personal obsessions, cultural critique, and psychological insight v His personal obsessions are well known and recurring in his films, so easy for an AI to draw from. His cultural critiques are superficial at best, and never the main point, but again is for an AI to draw from an imitate. I would say there was psychological insight so much as there is psychological exploration. > expressed through a unique artistic vocabulary he's developed over decades. Yes, this is what I referred to as being weird for the sake of weird. > The "atmosphere" in his films isn't just surface-level strangeness but rather the manifestation of deeper themes and emotions. That also doesn't conflict with anything I claimed earlier. Where we disagree is how deep his films are. You think they're something truly insightful with a lot of thought behind them, I disagree and see it as closer to a Scrotie McBoogerballs situation.
  - squidsoup 2y ago
    > They are just regurgitating opinions like yours, many of which are overly pretentious defensive nonsense. Pretentious is reducing the work of one of the most highly acclaimed film makers of our time to “weird for the sake of weird” and “lol an AI could make that”. Really insightful criticism. Pretentious is suggesting his work has no substance ("90% atmosphere"), when a poll by BBC Culture of 177 film critics from 36 countries named Mulholland Drive the best film of the 21st century. There are plenty of directors whose works that I don’t personally appreciate but I would never be so arrogant to suggest an AI could reproduce them.