please, Please, PLEASE, tell me you are not serious. With the exception of the Disgruntled Watcher, every single other person there has the ability to be entertaining and enjoyable, even when I don't agree with them.wagglelance said:
About Critics (Part 1)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What is this? Movie Bob writes articles? Why? Isn't the whole point of his show basically an article with a bunch of images and faces? I dun getit.
Wait you read ALL of the comments! Wow, you sir, ARE A TRUE HERO!! I don't really post very often myself since I'm thinking that the OP probably won't read it anyways (I barely read the first page of any comment's section). Also that and whatever productive thing I have to say is usually already said by at least a few people on the first page. Sooo...
OT: Everything you said about a critic is something I've always known, really critics are the future!
OT: Everything you said about a critic is something I've always known, really critics are the future!
Because you can see the people there that weren't there before. This isnt a strawman argument. Its observable.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Way to go Bob, now I want to see The Tree of Life but it's not playing anywhere around here, not even in the local indie theaters.
I know the Daily Mail gets a lot of flak for entirely justified reasons, but I'm going to single out Chris Tookey, one of their movie reviewers for just being beyond godawful.
Firstly, if it's in anyway an action/comedy/horror/fantasy/sci fi movie, it's awful. If it's a wanky overblown drama, ten points, extra points for period costumes and / or subtitles. huge points if it fits the Mail's agenda.
For example, Kick-Ass, teen beats up criminals - worst movie ever made, and actively encourages the knife murder of children and makes paedophiles rape babies.
Harry Brown, nice old man beats the living fuck out of teenage criminals, a witty, well crafted moral tale.
I still maintain that his review of Kick-Ass is the worst movie review I've ever seen in my life. He actively tries to link the real life murders of children with action scenes in a rather silly and obviously fantastical and unrealistic movie, stating "Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?"
No, we don't and it's not happening. It's on a par with demanding Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is banned because of child obesity, for one, it's a wild fantasy of a movie, and secondly, people's brains just aren't that easily affected.
I agree with a fair bit of what Bob writes, but even if I didn't, he's a level headed genius compared to Tookey.
Just in case you don't have enough rage in your day, a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
Don't get me wrong, he's entitled to hate the movie, and entitled to take issue with it on moral grounds, directly comparing it to snuff and child porn, however, a little overdone.
I should state for transparency, I thought Kick Ass was an excellent movie, not ground breaking or life changing,but just thoroughly fun and entertaining and didn't outstay it's welcome, and at no point since have I wanted to sexually abuse a child or go on a stabbing spree.
As for the knife crime thing (which they also criticised Heath Ledger's Joker for, for having 'knife fetishism' in the movie, what are bad guys supposed to do if they can't hurt people, just say rude things? Nope, that's out too, as Portal 2 has ably demonstrated.) maybe in the next WW2 movie we'll get scenes of Adolf Hitler deliberately not sorting his recycling before he throws it out. (Yeah I godwin'd, what of it?)
Firstly, if it's in anyway an action/comedy/horror/fantasy/sci fi movie, it's awful. If it's a wanky overblown drama, ten points, extra points for period costumes and / or subtitles. huge points if it fits the Mail's agenda.
For example, Kick-Ass, teen beats up criminals - worst movie ever made, and actively encourages the knife murder of children and makes paedophiles rape babies.
Harry Brown, nice old man beats the living fuck out of teenage criminals, a witty, well crafted moral tale.
I still maintain that his review of Kick-Ass is the worst movie review I've ever seen in my life. He actively tries to link the real life murders of children with action scenes in a rather silly and obviously fantastical and unrealistic movie, stating "Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?"
No, we don't and it's not happening. It's on a par with demanding Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is banned because of child obesity, for one, it's a wild fantasy of a movie, and secondly, people's brains just aren't that easily affected.
I agree with a fair bit of what Bob writes, but even if I didn't, he's a level headed genius compared to Tookey.
Just in case you don't have enough rage in your day, a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html
Don't get me wrong, he's entitled to hate the movie, and entitled to take issue with it on moral grounds, directly comparing it to snuff and child porn, however, a little overdone.
I should state for transparency, I thought Kick Ass was an excellent movie, not ground breaking or life changing,but just thoroughly fun and entertaining and didn't outstay it's welcome, and at no point since have I wanted to sexually abuse a child or go on a stabbing spree.
As for the knife crime thing (which they also criticised Heath Ledger's Joker for, for having 'knife fetishism' in the movie, what are bad guys supposed to do if they can't hurt people, just say rude things? Nope, that's out too, as Portal 2 has ably demonstrated.) maybe in the next WW2 movie we'll get scenes of Adolf Hitler deliberately not sorting his recycling before he throws it out. (Yeah I godwin'd, what of it?)
I love this. "Someone I don't know made a sweeping generalisation that includes me, and thus made me the butt of an obvious joke. Excuse me, I must be getting all up in arms on an internet forum." Shining example of a first world problem.Fiz_The_Toaster said:
I think you can do both, to be honest. In the end it should be up to individual critics to decide whether they want to concentrate on explaining their pure enjoyment, or analysing it for a deeper experience, or do both at once. The thing you have to be aware of is, not everyone wants to see a film for 'artistic value', sure: but for some people, like myself, a sense of artistic value is what makes the film 'enjoyable'.OhJohnNo said:
I think the key with critics of any medium is to accept that they're human beings with different tastes and opinions, and try to find one who you largely agree or identify with rather than trying to mould them all in your own image.
Why yes, I am serious. I am not a fan of TGWTG. The site feels like 4Chan trolls made some videos and up them up on the internet. Now other 4Chan trolls follow them and giggle along with the cheap characters and crappy jokes. If thats your cup of tea that is fine. But I prefer a mug of China Black.goliath6711 said:
Hmm... I don't really know how to take that or if you are mocking me. I will say, yes, I don't like it. I'm not getting all up in arms, it just pisses me off, and I was just stating my issue with him which is my opinion.Shamanic Rhythm said:
Do I like being the 'butt of an obvious joke'? No, but I will take it has his opinion and that doesn't mean I have to like it.
So I guess this is everyone's chance to have their own conversation with Bob, huh? Meh, I'll wait till an aricle with less traffic.
Pretty sure these weren't the complaints I see aimed at you continually in each weeks comments section
They are usually about how you use strawman arguments or generally have no idea what your talking about
Take Other M, you called people who didn't like it racists, ignoring the fallacies in your own argument and used that as some sort of dumbass excuse to prove yourself right
Or when you said PC gaming was dying because.... people bought 500 other products that do one part of what a PC can separately and that is a good thing... because of something
Do you see the issue? If you really read the comments each week, you should very well understand what the issue is, but instead your using arguments that were NEVER aimed at you
But hey,using complaints that were never aimed at you in the first place is the best way to make it seem like your coming from the moral high ground right? Right?
They are usually about how you use strawman arguments or generally have no idea what your talking about
Take Other M, you called people who didn't like it racists, ignoring the fallacies in your own argument and used that as some sort of dumbass excuse to prove yourself right
Or when you said PC gaming was dying because.... people bought 500 other products that do one part of what a PC can separately and that is a good thing... because of something
Do you see the issue? If you really read the comments each week, you should very well understand what the issue is, but instead your using arguments that were NEVER aimed at you
But hey,using complaints that were never aimed at you in the first place is the best way to make it seem like your coming from the moral high ground right? Right?
I don't know about you, but I spent most of my school life getting ripped on for one thing or another, I hang out with people who make me the butt of the odd joke or generalisation, and there is a such a thing as light hearted humour that may have SOME grounding in truth, but when directed at you is generally not intended to be serious. Such is the case with the kind of humour in Bob's reviews: I can guarantee he doesn't mean it seriously that you are "the worst kind of person." There is also something you might want to learn about called 'hyperbole'.Fiz_The_Toaster said:
Well, that pretty much says it all. If this is already going on, then I'm apparently wrong, and it will be business as usual which I'm fine with despite piping up, as I do wind up tuning in pretty much every week. I was thinking that the editors were spending most of their time with the text articles.Susan Arendt said:
Your happy with his product, and if your reviwing it, and deciding to pay him, it is after all your site, and your call.
The only bit I'm going to say, without the intent of starting an arguement I know I can't win, is that I think your misunderstanding my intent, perhaps because I conveyed by thoughts badly. I am not talking about forcing Bob or anyone to fit solidly within a given philsophy or not offend anyone, what I'm talking about is professionalism. There is a differance between being a critic and/or reviewer and being a bit irreverant about it, and using what is supposed to be a critique column on a specific subject as an attack platform.
I guess what I'm getting at is that if you pick up say "The New York Times" and read a review of a movie, you don't expect a rant about a movie that reviewed eight months ago, or an attack on the people who watched said movie knowing some of those people are your readership. To some extent I also look at what brought down Imus (well brought down is probably too strong a term, he's out there in private radio, and recovered nicely last time I checked). Basically the guy got a free hand, tons of complaints were filtered, and eventually it just got to the point where he dropped one straw too many the the guys paying him wound up with little choice in having to let him go, despite all the money he was making them. I believe that straw was some slurs thrown at a women's basketball team (Rutgers). We might disagree on how relevent examples like that are to this kind of discussion. In the end it comes down to where you wind up drawing the line, and how often you let people step over it.
It's your site, you don't have to agree with me. Obviously I don't see it as a big deal as I choose to continue to call your site and listen to these reviews. However when a topic like this comes up, I'm going to toss my opinion out there. There is apparently more oversight going on here than I thought, though in the end I guess I do think there should be more, and that it would actually improve the site. In the end it's not something I'm going to leave the site over though, or get into a knock down, drag out fight with the staff running a site I like to patronize (which is why I care enough to say anything to begin with).
Hopefully I'm conveying this correctly, and apologies for any distress I caused you.
Are you serious? I really hope you just worded what you were trying to say in a sloppy manner, because calling your friends and family "lowbrow, ignorant, and frustratingly "average joe" is judgmental at best and flat out cruel narcissism at worst.Azaraxzealot said:
Honestly, posts like that just kind of suck the life out of me. I try and summon the energy to post a well worded response, but the result is almost always universal, in that I end up having a 12 page argument with someone who will never change their opinion. But hell I actually feel so greatly about that comment I'm going to do so anyway.
Why can you not just live and let live? Why is it that just because something appeals to the masses more than the minority it automatically becomes a lazy cheap cash-in? Yes, the creativity department may be a bit lacking because they have a preset basis to work off of, but that's because it has already been proven to work. If they made a Shawshank Redemption 2, or a Titanic 2, would you call it a cheap cash-in? If it was good with its own merits, I highly doubt that you would.
Yet in that regard, it would be no different from the Call of Duty 6's and Transformers 2 that you see today. It took a formula that works and built upon/emulated it because they knew it had a prior positive response. I'm all for innovation and grand new changes, but if that's all that movie companies did, they would probably all just go out of business and have nothing to work off of within years.
And don't you dare say that they are lazy cheap cash ins. I personally know people who have worked directly in the productions of movies such as I am Number 4 and Suckerpunch, movies that people with your kind of attitude chalk up as lazy stupid teenage movies with no redeeming factors. Well you know what? They poured their heart and souls into making that movie, and then have people like YOU bash it simply because it wasn't up to your standards?
Who the fuck are you to classify these movies as lazy, cheap and stupid? Who the fuck are you to praise other movies that have received just as much attention and care from their creators as others, but simply appeal to you more?
But then again that's just the human condition isn't it. We all believe what we want, and 99 percent of the time, your view is the one that is uncorrectable and just. I'm probably wasting my breath... fingers here, but I implore you to simply look at your own post and think before typing. It may be easier on the Internet to just say shit without thinking about it when it comes to more serious topics, but that doesn't mean in any way that you shouldn't give thought about it. Lord knows that if this were the case in real life Fox news wouldn't have a reason to exist anymore.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so please don't take offense if it comes across as that. The same thing happened to me growing up and most of the time it wasn't by my friends and it wasn't funny, so you must excuse me. I do have a sense of humor, I'm not made of stone, but not when it comes to something as subjective as that. I don't like it when people get insulted for thing something that not everyone does, and vice versa. I know what a hyperbole is, it's one of my favorite usages, but when he says it I can't really tell if he's joking or not some of the time, and that's my problem, i.e. personal stupidity at the moment.Shamanic Rhythm said:
Generalizations do have some truth in it, but you also risk having a gourmet meal of foot when it doesn't apply to someone.
Jim Sterling ran into a similar problem with people's reaction to his review of FFXIII. They claimed it was too "subjective" and all about "his own opinion." Well, this is his purely objective follow-up review http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml
I can certainly understand using the comments count to gauge the popularity of each video.. However, a few of your segments have felt like intentional flame bait, just to bump that number up. A fact I've called you out on before.
As for the points at hand, I cannot find fault with any of them. However I think there's more to the arguments than what you brought up. For example, being an elitist itself isn't a problem. What is a problem are certain people who use their elevated knowledge of a subject matter to look down their nose at anyone who enjoys something less artful.
For example, your favorite target: The Expendables. No, it wasn't a good movie, by any stretch. It was pretty terrible, which is exactly what I expected. And you know what, I enjoyed it. I passed on it during it's theatre run, but rented it and watched it with some buddies, MST3K style.... and we had a blast.
In contrast, I absolutely LOVED your review of 2012. Comparing good film making to bad, explaining a bit of shot composition and artistic styles... that is what a good "elitist" should be capable of. In other words: less about "look at me I'm awesome" and more about helping others understand why you're so awesome, with the hope that they will agree with you and climb to your level of awesomeness, so that one day films like Scott Pilgrim won't get crushed at the Box Office.
Well that turned into more of a ramble than planned. I think I've been watching too much Yahtzee
As for the points at hand, I cannot find fault with any of them. However I think there's more to the arguments than what you brought up. For example, being an elitist itself isn't a problem. What is a problem are certain people who use their elevated knowledge of a subject matter to look down their nose at anyone who enjoys something less artful.
For example, your favorite target: The Expendables. No, it wasn't a good movie, by any stretch. It was pretty terrible, which is exactly what I expected. And you know what, I enjoyed it. I passed on it during it's theatre run, but rented it and watched it with some buddies, MST3K style.... and we had a blast.
In contrast, I absolutely LOVED your review of 2012. Comparing good film making to bad, explaining a bit of shot composition and artistic styles... that is what a good "elitist" should be capable of. In other words: less about "look at me I'm awesome" and more about helping others understand why you're so awesome, with the hope that they will agree with you and climb to your level of awesomeness, so that one day films like Scott Pilgrim won't get crushed at the Box Office.
Well that turned into more of a ramble than planned. I think I've been watching too much Yahtzee
Your criticisms of movies I can trust, most of the time. You let the popularity, or lack thereof, get to your reviews way too much perhaps, I'm thinking particularly of the Scott Pilgrim/Expendables saga.
On games, however, I take what you say with a pinch of salt. You far too frequently let your personal feelings override any sort of geniune criticism. The Halo: Combat Evolved? Big Picture being a great example of that. I get that you don't like it, but at least address it's actual flaws rather than take something endemic to most games (varied enemies, monotonous protagonists) and pin it on this one for no reason.
In fact, between Yahtzee's bizarre multiplayer principles, your bias, and Extra Credits focus on games as art, a geniunely fun multiplayer game series with an admitedly lackluster single player campaign can't be properly criticized. Maybe that's what Jim was for, but he sure screwed that up.
/rant.
On games, however, I take what you say with a pinch of salt. You far too frequently let your personal feelings override any sort of geniune criticism. The Halo: Combat Evolved? Big Picture being a great example of that. I get that you don't like it, but at least address it's actual flaws rather than take something endemic to most games (varied enemies, monotonous protagonists) and pin it on this one for no reason.
In fact, between Yahtzee's bizarre multiplayer principles, your bias, and Extra Credits focus on games as art, a geniunely fun multiplayer game series with an admitedly lackluster single player campaign can't be properly criticized. Maybe that's what Jim was for, but he sure screwed that up.
/rant.