Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
There are some really good commentaries, and some really bad ones.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre has a really good one with Tobe Hooper and Gunnar Hansen. Day of the Dead has a pretty good one with George Romero.

William Friedkin doesn't do commentaries very well, he tends to just describe the action that is happening on screen.

Some commentaries have moderators that try to keep the conversation on point for the listeners' benefit.

Definitely agree here.

There are even some commentaries that give me more of an appreciation of the film.

I tried to listen to ACs once or twice but I couldn't bring myself to do it for a whole movie.

I just find myself not caring why directors chose to shot that scene from this particular angle or actors explain what childhood memory they used to method act for this particular moment.

Either I like a movie as it is or I don't, no explanation in the world is going to change that.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
When I have listened to audio commentaries, I found that they were distracting and took away from my enjoyment of the film.  Because of that, I never listen to them.  I honestly don't get why that is so hard for you to understand.

Maybe because when you listen audio commentary, watching the film isn't the main thing. You should focus on listening the audio commentary instead trying to "enjoy the film". Picture is there only to support audio track, not other way around.

BTW, I never listen audio commentaries, they just aren't for me, but I still can't get your point of "distracting the film".

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting movie_madness:

Quote:
In page 2 of this thread, you did write "I never listen to audio commentaries."  So maybe you should pay attention to what you write instead.

I do pay attentiont to what I write and what I wrote was correct, I never listen to them...please note that saying that I never do something doesn't mean I never have.

"I never listen to them" means you never *ever* listen to them.  It does not imply in anyway that you have or may have listened to them.  E.g.  The sun never sets in the east.  That's because it never ever sets in the east.  When someone says that, does he imply the sun MAY HAVE set in the east??  See the difference now?  Can you just admit that you misspoke so we can get this annoying side argument over with?

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe you meant to say, "I rarely listen to audio commentaries."

No, I meant to say exactly what I said.

Quote:
But if you rarely listen to them, the question remains: how would you know what most audio commentaries are like?

I never said I knew what most audio commentaries are like, only that I don't find them pleasurable.

Quote:
Or maybe you ONCE listened to them often, but have stopped listening to them altogether.

I wouldn't say often, but I have made the attempt and it just wasn't for me.

Quote:
I'm not being condescending, just searching for a reason for your dislike of audio commentaries that actually makes sense, instead of the one you've given: they remind you of people talking in a theater.

And that comes across as quite condescending.  When people talk in the theater, it is distracting and takes away from my enjoyment of the film.  When I have listened to audio commentaries, I found that they were distracting and took away from my enjoyment of the film.  Because of that, I never listen to them.  I honestly don't get why that is so hard for you to understand.

I GET that you don't like listening to commentaries.  My point is maybe you just haven't listened to a good one yet.  Maybe you have such a great foundation of film knowledge that listening to them wouldn't be necessary?  Or maybe you prefer reading books about film instead of listening to comments about films?  Or maybe you just don't like the speaking skills of the some of the commentators?  If you had given one reason like the above, it would have made sense to me.  Instead, your reason is it reminds you of people talking in a theater.  Now can you see why it doesn't make sense to me?

Quoting movie_madness:

Quote:
"I never listen to them" means you never *ever* listen to them.  It does not imply in anyway that you have or may have listened to them.  E.g.  The sun never sets in the east.  That's because it never ever sets in the east.  When someone says that, does he imply the sun MAY HAVE set in the east??  See the difference now?  Can you just admit that you misspoke so we can get this annoying side argument over with?

You are correct, it implies nothing of the sort, however, because I didn't include the word 'have' prior to the word 'never', it doesn't rule it out either.  Can you just admit that you jumped to the wrong conclusion so we can get this annoying side argument over with?

Quote:
I GET that you don't like listening to commentaries.  My point is maybe you just haven't listened to a good one yet.  Maybe you have such a great foundation of film knowledge that listening to them wouldn't be necessary?  Or maybe you prefer reading books about film instead of listening to comments about films?  Or maybe you just don't like the speaking skills of the some of the commentators?  If you had given one reason like the above, it would have made sense to me.  Instead, your reason is it reminds you of people talking in a theater.  Now can you see why it doesn't make sense to me?

Why does it have to make sense to you?  Why can't you just accept the fact that, for reasons that are my own, I don't like listening to them?  I honestly don't understand why it is so important to you that my reason, for not listening to them, fit in to what you believe is acceptable.