Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 166
- 0
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last week @Lizzardspawn asked why none of the sequels to the first two Terminator or Predator movies have been any good. Having only seen the first Predator and Terminators 1 and 2, I wasn't really in a position to comment on the inferiority of the sequels, but offered my two cents anyway based on my secondhand knowledge of Terminators 3-6. This got me thinking about Terminator 2 and I ended up reading the entire Wikipedia article (and the sub-article dedicated specifically to its special effects). Last Friday we sat down to watch a torrented version of the rerelease for Blu-ray which includes all of the cut scenes. It still looks great, although annoyingly there were a few points in the first half of the movie in which the colour grading would change dramatically in consecutive shots (I don't mean consecutive scenes: I mean consecutive shots in the same location), which was distracting and a rather glaring oversight for a rerelease apparently overseen by Cameron himself. It also ends with the corny, sentimental ending I criticised last week, rather than the "open road" ending from the theatrical release. But all that aside, the film still holds up, many of the visual effects still look positively jaw-dropping thirty-five years later, and the film is a true landmark in action films.
This got me thinking about my favourite action films, in no particular order:
Are there any recurring patterns here? Nostalgia obviously plays a major role: several of these films (Speed, The Rock, Terminator 2) were films I watched repeatedly on VHS as a child. Relatedly, there are no entries from this century (excepting the marginal case of The Matrix Reloaded, which I'm counting under The Matrix). Every film is also American: I've heard great things about Asian action cinema, but both times I tried watching Hard-Boiled I turned it off about half an hour in.
What would you say your favourite action films are? Are there non-American action films that I really must see? Are there any from this century that I really ought to check out? (Before anyone mentions John Wick: I will concede that its action sequences are expertly choreographed and filmed, but when I watched it a few years ago I came away feeling distinctly underwhelmed, finding it stylistically confused and at odds with itself.)
*Rumour has it that no other than Ellen deGeneres was the frontrunner for the role. I feel quite confident that, had they gone with this, it would have derailed the entire film.
Tommy Lee Jones can Act and ends up being the protagonist in almost all his movies. Harrison Ford kinda shows up, and kinda showing up and being Harrison Ford turns out to work sometimes. I could probably count on one hand the number of times it's worked since 1983, though.
I've only seen a half dozen or so Tommy Lee Jones movies, but you'd think that would be enough to prove to me that he can act, and yet I have to say it wasn't. It did prove that he could act the hell out of one particular fantastic character archetype (highly competent authority, caring in actions but very sparing with warm words, clever with a little dry wit but otherwise blunt and no-nonsense), but that's not always the same thing. Can you suggest anything I should watch that exhibits more range from him? (Please don't say "Batman Forever"...) Some of my favorite movies to watch for the first time were ones in which a popular-but-typecast actor goes way outside of their prior comfort zone (e.g. Jim Carrey in "The Truman Show", Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins" or "Kindergarten Cop") or at least plays a part where their usual comfort zone is just a small facet of a more complex character.
It's been many years since I saw it, but he was a villain in Under Siege and I remember him being noteworthy. Also the villain in Blown Away, but again many years since I saw it (edit - I remembered now that his accent was really bad, though). I think Cobb would count for him playing against type.
Three Burials and Valley of Elah might be too similar to the authority role you describe.
I've never seen a Steven Seagal movie and I always figured if I did it'd be "Under Siege", but man, even the (VHS release?) trailer on IMDB excitedly sums it up as "Die Hard on a battleship", and IMHO the Die Hard On An X genre is a pretty risky one. There are some decent TV episodes that got enough mileage out of just putting familiar characters into that situation, but for a movie you've got to have some great idea on top of the "Die Hard" premise to make it feel like anything other than a cheap knock-off.
"Cobb" I'd never heard of before, though, and it looks surprisingly interesting. The trailer alone makes me think I was too skeptical of Tommy Lee Jones. Thanks!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link