Two words best sum up this article;MovieBob said:
Oh snap!
From now on I will reference this list whenever a new movie comes out just to see how bad the execs are trying to cover it up.
How to Read Movie News
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Oh snap!
From now on I will reference this list whenever a new movie comes out just to see how bad the execs are trying to cover it up.
Some of these feel sort of ironic coming from you, but whatevs. It's true most of the time. It's interesting how much of entertainment news is made up of stock phrases that mean absolutely nothing yet are reported on as if they did.
Joss Whedon has done some good stuff. He has also written Alien 4 which is an unbelievable piece of shit.
Joss Whedon has done some good stuff. He has also written Alien 4 which is an unbelievable piece of shit.
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.
Yeah... It's not that I mind people lampooning directors I like... I love Tim Burton's work, and the crack at him was true and made me laugh.Will Lorus said:
But "sexually inexperienced", demure Whedon characters? I'm sitting here, trying to think of one, and all I can remember are all the prostitutes, assassins and soldiers that he has written. The only sexually innocent character that I can think of is River, but she is essentially a child.
Is he really accusing a man who wrote a show about a futuristic brothel of writing sexually innocent characters? What? There are loads of other things we could make fun of Mr. Whedon for, but that was just DUMB.
Isn't a 'prepared statement by a business' the same thing as a 'fusion of an information dump... and spin control'
I don't think anyone isn't aware of the generic and uninformed advertising of a press release, but very informative entertaining and funny as always Mr. Bob
I don't think anyone isn't aware of the generic and uninformed advertising of a press release, but very informative entertaining and funny as always Mr. Bob
If only that were true...Jenx said:
Ok, you really need to get out of your house more often, dude. Ou pelo menos ler uns jornais, xará.Evilmonkey25 said:
It's been a long while ever since I've seen this stereotype, even in the form of parody. Much less from british cinema itself.Squarez said:
This being largely true, those accusations should damn well be alarming.Don quixote said:
Very much so. I still many of the characters he wrote quite interesting, but oh it's so true.cgaWolf said:I love Whedons stuff; but still found it funny in a "it's funny 'cuz it's true" sort of wayWabblefish said:
Though Firefly really stands out, it almost doesn't look like a Joss Whedon thing.
Also a trained and violent assassin.Harry Mason said:
that's a good idea. might give it a trybeema said:
EDIT: just found http://investor.ea.com/releases.cfm which is EA's official press releases. I'm gonna see how many times they say the word "epic".
A good funny article, its good to see a video maker not using his column to go into detail about his latest video or to defend a statement made in it (part of the reason I stopped really caring about extra punctuation).
But whats with all the Jason Statham and Vin Diesel jokes?
Anyway you did miss the point made by Hankman
"Visualy Stunning" = "We forgot to give it a plot"
Also a few of my own:
"From the mind of M Nigh Shiyamalan." = "Five years ago you would have lost your shit at this statement but now you just cancelled the booking you made 10 seconds ago."
"[insert statement about the massive budget here]" = "Avatar spent MONEY and so we decided to spend MONEY too because MONEY = WIN!"
"A unique visionary director." = "You'll spend most of your time saying 'huh' but if you get it you can be the movie guy in your office."
"Sophisticated." = "English people."
"From the writers of Scary Movie" = "No I can't believe they are allowed to make movies anymore either."
"Starring [martial artist 1] in his most explosive fight scene yet, with [martial artist 2]!" = "Hey everyone look, fight of the century going on over here! PLEASE GOD MAKE THEM LOOK!"
But whats with all the Jason Statham and Vin Diesel jokes?
Anyway you did miss the point made by Hankman
"Visualy Stunning" = "We forgot to give it a plot"
Also a few of my own:
"From the mind of M Nigh Shiyamalan." = "Five years ago you would have lost your shit at this statement but now you just cancelled the booking you made 10 seconds ago."
"[insert statement about the massive budget here]" = "Avatar spent MONEY and so we decided to spend MONEY too because MONEY = WIN!"
"A unique visionary director." = "You'll spend most of your time saying 'huh' but if you get it you can be the movie guy in your office."
"Sophisticated." = "English people."
"From the writers of Scary Movie" = "No I can't believe they are allowed to make movies anymore either."
"Starring [martial artist 1] in his most explosive fight scene yet, with [martial artist 2]!" = "Hey everyone look, fight of the century going on over here! PLEASE GOD MAKE THEM LOOK!"
A Princess Bride reference on the main site page linking this article?
Whoever did this: thank you, a treat well appreciated! That film deserves more credit.
And yes, it is amusing that all reviewers end up using similar phrases to lubricate their faulty logic towards lampooning things that they don't want to do well and praising that which they do want to do well.
It's all just a way of avoiding being accused of lying, while not exactly speaking the truth. And yes, that's cynical, but commercially written reviews ARE subject to special interests all too often. Free online public reviews can be, too.
Whoever did this: thank you, a treat well appreciated! That film deserves more credit.
And yes, it is amusing that all reviewers end up using similar phrases to lubricate their faulty logic towards lampooning things that they don't want to do well and praising that which they do want to do well.
It's all just a way of avoiding being accused of lying, while not exactly speaking the truth. And yes, that's cynical, but commercially written reviews ARE subject to special interests all too often. Free online public reviews can be, too.
I dunno about Bob passing himself off as an objective critic, he tends to go back and forth on that one. Just count the number of times he says 'from where I sit' or similar statements in his shows. He also readily acknowledges his fanboy biases.Hot Madness said:
I would say this article is more satire than anything, I'm fairly sure Bob wouldn't be excited for the upcoming Avengers movie if he hated Joss.
Ahahahhahah, no he doesn't. Especially since critique and reviews, by definitions are subjective. Thanks for the laugh, though.Hot Madness said:
"Fantastic/stunning visual effects!"
"Who cares about plot, acting, character development or any other form of actual substance. Check out our CGI firework display!"
Seriously, as nice as it is to see what a computer can do these days, but this is pretty much the whole "gameplay vs graphics" argument we sometimes get on the forums here. Only idiots will fall for this, if your plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings or acting more clunky and wooden than a mahogany mech then people will notice.
Captcha: Strangely normal.
What?
"Who cares about plot, acting, character development or any other form of actual substance. Check out our CGI firework display!"
Seriously, as nice as it is to see what a computer can do these days, but this is pretty much the whole "gameplay vs graphics" argument we sometimes get on the forums here. Only idiots will fall for this, if your plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings or acting more clunky and wooden than a mahogany mech then people will notice.
Captcha: Strangely normal.
What?
Bob himself did say something about "the illusion of journalistic objectivity" once, but ironically he was distancing himself from the concept at the time.AC Drawings said:
Not really. On the one hand yes, a critic will have a subjective opinion on a film, and they will have subjective reasons for them, thats just a given, and its for that reason that people keep on coming back to that critic, to hear their opinion. That said however, that doesn't mean reviewers don't have to be objective. While most certainly a predominantly subjective thing, there is an objective part to it, something that Bob has failed at. Now when I say objective, I mean two things:AC Drawings said:
1) There is being objective in the sense of not liking a movie but understanding that others may. By this I mean recognizing that your fans, your audience, who share a similar taste in movies that you do may also like movies you hate or hate movies you like. Now this is obvious to any critic, but an "objective" critic in this sense will possibly acknowledge this audience and may suggest either a) if the movie would be good for them or b) similar movies that the critic actually liked that the audience may as well that is related to the reviewed movie. Bob used to do this, but recently he has turned from an "objective" critic (subjective opinion, able to recommend to others with differing subjective opinions) to the subjective counterpart, in this case either ignoring this audience all together or only acknowledging them to make fun of them and insult their own tastes. In short, even when reviewing subjectively if you can still treat an audience with differing tastes with respect and offer them some suggestions, then that makes you an objective critic, but if you treat an audience with differing tastes with little respect or even just insult them for no constructive reason, then you are a subjective critic. In this case Bob would try to call himself an objective critic, in the sense that he has stated in a recent interview that with the exception of the few times he has said to definitely see a movie, he feels guilty when someone says they will or wont see a movie based on whether he liked it or not (as he is in this case thinking of his audience and how his words affect them), yet him insulting his own audience for watching a movie or for not watching a movie shows that he is actually going against an objective stance that he himself tries to keep himself to (meaning he is passing himself off as an objective critic yet is in fact purely subjective)
2) There is being objective in how one defines their subjective opinions. In other words, while someones opinion on a movie may be subjective, that subjective opinion should act as their objective look on other movies. If for example then if one were to review two different movies, it would stand to reason that their reason for liking one and hating the other would be based off of a previous understanding of that critics preferences. If there is one thing that Bob has done poorly at while reviewing it is this part. Bob frequently will praise one movie and scorn another, with the reasons he liked the first movie being the exact same reasons he hated the second. As in both movies featured particular aspects that Bob talked about, in one case acting as the reaon he liked a film and in the other the reason why he hated it. This would be fine if he explained why it works in one film and not in the other, but most often he doesn't, rather he just simply says what he likes and doesn't like (and more recently who he holds grudges against). This too is where Bob would fail at being an objective critic, as he is no longer even following his own standard of what makes a good movie, he instead alters his standards when it best suits his needs, with no explanation to the audience as to how he got to that train of thought.
