Are Some Creators Beyond Criticism?

[San Martin]

I'd say Christopher Nolan's pretty much above criticism. We should all suck his cock.

I think Screen Junkies said it best when they did the Honest Trailer about Interstellar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZMzf-SDWP8[/youtube]

"From the director who apparently gets a lifetime pass because he made The Dark Knight"

I loved Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Dark Knight BUT Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and Intersteller are grossly over-rated (Inception was merely good. Great effects and action but flawed writing) and are steps in the WRONG direction for him.

However, people still love everything he makes. He could release a movie of static and it would be deemed a masterpiece. He is not above criticism though as I know a few people who share that belief that the last great movie he made was The Dark Knight; 7 years ago.

Haha, I was referencing post #8. I wasn't blown away by 'Inception', but I really enjoyed 'Interstellar'. The shot of them flying in front of Saturn, which filled up the whole cinema screen, was something else. I think more of that kind of thing and less technobabble would have sealed the deal for me.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, I wasn't really trying to compare Kubrick to Elfen Lied so much as to NGE (which, I admit, had its own problems). Mostly, I thought the father in The Shining was simplistic and unrelateable. I also thought his idea of what constitutes "crazy" was a little simplistic. I like stories where the villains have humanity, and that realize that everyone has the potential to be disturbed. In that sense, while I undoubtedly think that Kubrick's work is better then Elfen Lied or Future Diary, I do think The Shining falls into the same trap of characterizing the "crazy" villain as some sort of deranged other. It's far scarier when you realize you could become like the villain, if the circumstances were right. I never felt that with a Kubrick film.

Poor characterization aside, I do acknowledge his technical genius. I just feel like those technical skills are supposed to be the tools, not the centerpiece. If the tools used to tell a story are far better then the story itself, then I consider that a weakness.

The thing you need to understand about Kubrick is that he never uses a protagonist or creates an emotional link with the characters. That's why his movies can come across as rather cold and detached. His movies are shot in a way that you never experience it from the perspective of any one character. You are simply an observer, much like how you observe people pass you by down the street.

OT: HA no, quite the opposite.

We are living in an age where the most praised works are being jumped on profusely. The general attitude in this age of internet is that anything regarded as 'amazing' or 'a masterpiece' is considered overrated shit simply because it wasn't as amazing or masterful as was claimed. Whenever a title like Citizen Kane, or 2001, or Half-Life 2 is mentioned it's now generally accompanied by the overused term 'overrated'. Every fictional work that has garnered some accolades is now overrated by default.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Nobody is beyond criticism, including yourself for (poorly) criticizing, if you get what I'm saying. It's all about not getting too worked up about opinions.

 

[SweetShark]

I watched the movie and I put a 7/10 score on Listal.
Meanwhile, I put a 10/10 score to films like Critters, Wishmaster, Stranger Than Fiction,etc.

My point is becuase one move is praised by many people, doesn't mean is untouchable. Because opinions. The problem is the people they defend a specific movie/director.

 

[GrumbleGrump]

For a gaming example, I've always felt that Hideo Kojima is apparently flawless for some reason. I kinda like his ideas, but he has a terrible habit of killing all seriousness in his games (even when he shouldn't).

 

[LordLundar]

No work is above criticism. None whatsoever. Those examples given have been criticized and critiqued for years, decades, even centuries. There are full lessons and coursed dedicated to criticizing and critiquing those works.

It's not that those arguments have been above reproach (because they certainly haven't), it's because over the course of it's existence the arguments surrounding them have been weathered countless times and they've survived their criticisms and critiques.

It's true that there are modern works that had creators and supporters wish they were above criticism and have made efforts to push that but it's largely a wish to be considered an instant masterpiece without the effort in defending said work. True masterpieces need to be criticized, critiqued, defended and justified otherwise they're nothing more than a fad that will fade away.

 

[Queen Michael]

Shakespeare isn't above reproach. There's a reason why nobody ever named Titus Andronicus as their favorite play.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The sensible part of me thinks that nothing is above criticism. The other part of me is disturbed by the idea that some people don't like Kurt Vonnegut. I mean, even when he's not writing pure brilliance he at least has the decency to be interesting.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

To quote our lord and saviour-

No, no one is above criticism. Cinematographically Citizen Kane is very good, Story wise it is really dull. Have you ever watched it? If it weren't for the plethora of camera angles and lighting effects I guarantee you no one would remember it. Now, from a Cinematographically aspect that is what's important- the lighting, the angles, the use of motion picture itself to convey effects and feelings- but the story is important too, at least from a viewer's perspective.

Shakespeare has written some really trite shit, and some shit that most people consider awful (Go read Titus Andronicus. Go fucking read it. There is a reason no one talks about it.) Most people remember Shakespeare for his 4 great tragedies, and Romeo and Juliet, but none of these works are impeccable- especially from a production standpoint. In King Lear, there is a scene where the earl of Gloucester (Who has been blinded) is going to throw himself off a cliff, he passes out as he swoons, only to be saved by his son whom he banished three acts earlier. This scene is notoriously awful when it is staged- because how the fuck do you stage someone falling off fucking cliff on a stage, but actually having them pass out and caught before they actually fall? He uses language very well, but he's not above criticism.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Not even God/The Emperor of Mankind/Celestia/Great Spaghetti Monster/Batman are/is beyond criticism. If it exists, it can be judged and found wanting. Until any one thing can meet and exceed the imagination of all 7+ billion of us, criticism can and should exist.

Which while I'm at it, Erupoa and pencils, go fuck yourself.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I'll just join the choir: No. I fracking love Hayao Miyazaki's movies, but I'll be the first one to say Howl's Moving Castle was a hot mess and The Wind Rises was dull and a waste of animation (it really did not need it). I can think of works of fiction I can't find anything to criticize about, but that doesn't mean they can't be criticized by others.

The only scenario where I could see someone being beyond criticism if the creator him/herself has such faith in their work and has in their eyes executed everything they've ever done so perfectly that they simply won't find any criticism legitimate and never take any points to heart. And I just described a crazy person there, so there goes that.

 

[TwistednMean]

Shakespeare has written some really trite shit, and some shit that most people consider awful (Go read Titus Andronicus. Go fucking read it. There is a reason no one talks about it.)

Whoa, hands of Titus! It's my favourite revenge tragedy if all time! It's grotesque, sure, but calling it "shit" is a lot like calling Heart of Darkness "racist".

Also, what so you mean by saying that no one talks about it? I for one studied it in college along with Spanish Tragedy.

I don't think there is an artist beyond criticism, but I certainly don't like people trying to diminish works of art, based solely on their personal preference or political agenda. These are not valid criteria for art, they never were and never will they be.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

In King Lear, there is a scene where the earl of Gloucester (Who has been blinded) is going to throw himself off a cliff, he passes out as he swoons, only to be saved by his son whom he banished three acts earlier. This scene is notoriously awful when it is staged- because how the fuck do you stage someone falling off fucking cliff on a stage, but actually having them pass out and caught before they actually fall?

I was going to stay out of this, but...the entire point of that scene is that Edgar tells Gloucester that he's being led to the top of a cliff, but it's actually a moderately-tall ledge at best. Gloucester almost catches on, even:

GLOUCESTER

When shall we come to the top of that same hill?

EDGAR

You do climb up it now: look, how we labour.

GLOUCESTER

Methinks the ground is even.

EDGAR

Horrible steep.

And he doesn't get caught before he falls--he actually falls, but only a few feet, and the impact knocks him out for a few seconds, because he's old and not in the best of shape after being tortured. Edgar then comes and revives him, and the play goes on from there.

If you want actual ridiculous Shakespeare, try King John, the history play that leaves out the Magna Carta, the only thing that 99% of people remember King John for.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'd like to formally criticize everyone in this thread for criticizing others.

For shame.

For. Shame.

 

[MonsterCrit]

God created the Universe the earth and all life and things in it... and we still haven't stopped criticizing him.

Seriously though Shakespeare is considered great now..... but you may have wanted to check what was being said about him by his contemporaries. Same for most of these films. It's the emperor's new clothes effect.

No creator is safe from criticism. if there are any who think that just pop their names here and the internet shall teach them otherwise.


TO THE FORUMS MY BREATHREN! LET SLIP THE TROLLS OF LOL.

 

[Pax Romana]

Sorry deleted, talking about criticism in general not just media as in the OP so probably veering off topic. Sorry

 

[happyninja42]

No, nobody is above criticism when they put something out into the public for review/consumption. Not much else to say about it really.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Well, I consider some works to be above MY criticism, but even James Cameron - creater of The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Aliens, The Abyss and True Lies, a director I admire and would probably build an alter to if I had the space, isn't above being told he fucked up.

Constructive criticism is how we learn, and I'm a huge fan of it but those who wish only to fling their shit may visit a zoo and go to the monkey cages, your ilk are of no use to anyone.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

This seems a ridiculously obvious question that would tempt sarcasm from even the shyest lemming. That is my half baked criticism of this OP, at least.

If you were to ask a Christopher Nolan fanboy that they would say he's totally immune to criticism because he's some godsend of film making and we should all suck his cock.

Weirdly specific...

I'd say Christopher Nolan's pretty much above criticism. We should all suck his cock.

I think these two posts need to be together. It's almost like a half satirical Metacritic page now. Enjoy!