The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

[impocalyptic]

I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

It doesn't matter. The only reason she has any attention is because people keep giving it to her.

Considering that the majority of the gaming community blew up at her, I think she would appreciate a level-headed deconstruction of a damn good film.

 

[Brotherofwill]

I couldn't keep watching this...I...I just couldn't. The little video clips of the movie were enough to remind me how much I hated it.
Garbage. Garbage with multiple layers apparently, but nevertheless garbage.

...we need to go derper.

 

[1337mokro]

So you are mad at someone... because he didn't throw away his own opinion and instantly accepted the opinion of another?

So what you are mad about is that instead of saying "I am wrong" he instead says "You are wrong". Because acknowledging isn't the same thing accepting. Which is what you actually want from him.

You want everyone everywhere to agree and accept Bob's opinion because it neatly matches with your own I assume.

That's sort of the exact same thing you are mad at someone else for. You are acknowledging and accepting only Bob's opinion on this and nobody else's.

Take a second and read what I wrote. He refuses to acknowledge anyone else's opinion but his own, regardless of how well reasoned and supported it is. To acknowledge his opinion is to accept that his opinion is valid. He dismisses Bob's arguments and posits that his own as the only correct one.

He essentially called Bob wrong on the subject without actually bothering to support any of his arguments, he went the pedantic route. An opinion of a work of fiction is only valid if you can support it with reasonable arguments. He did none of these things, and decided to be a passive aggressive douchebag about it. Hence the comment.

Also, nice to see you assuming things about me already, but no, Bob's opinion on the film, while interesting, is not my own.

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

 

[daibakuha]

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

The important part of this is that the video doesn't sound egotistical. The title is just a hook to get the viewer to watch the video. Arguing over the title is just a straw man.

It's not a similar situation at all, in fact it's completely different. It's one person making a well reasoned and researched article about how some may have misinterpreted a film, and another guy just saying it sucks without any discussion as to why it does.

I dislike his post because his criticism is bad. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have the same opinion as Bob does (which as I've pointed out, I don't).

 

[Comando96]

Thank you bob.

I didn't see the film and won't ever see the film unless its on one late night, there is nothing on, my computer is broken, my internet is down, and I'm home alone.

But now thanks to you, I don't have to watch it, and have been entertained for a good 11 mins
Love Satire, though. Bob, if you can, Subsribe to the Private Eye. It would be asadly for you, very British centric but, its fourt nightly satire at its best.

 

[Gympants]

If you think that Zack Snyder sat down and made this movie, trying to convey those things that Bob mentioned, you are out of your mind.

If you stare complete darkness far enough time, you will start to see shapes. With movies, you can add any hidden subtext to any film, if you are crazy enough.

 

[SAMAS]

The oddest thing I figured about the movie was in the final Asylum scene, how when describing all the trouble Babydoll caused, no mention at all is made of the three girls who died.

 

[Markunator]

Why not? What is wrong with them? They're usually more reliable than Bob is, anyway.

They don't look any deeper than a simple plot analysis. They don't really take the time to dissect a film's message.

and being "more reliable than Bob" is a not-so-clever way of saying their opinions often match with your own. So you like them because they reaffirm your opinions.

You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.

 

[Zulnam]

I can't believe people are still talking about this crap. And it's always the guys who liked it too.

Seriously, if you enjoyed it, good for you. You didn't waste an hour and a half of your life. But please, for the sake of those of us who did, shut up about it. Why the hell do you care if half the world thinks that this "masterpiece" is a piece of crap? This isn't a cure for aids, it's a damn movie. ONE YEAR AFTER it's release you still feel the need to defend it and argue that it was good?

Real secure about yourself, guy.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

I always took it as sort of a joycian multiple characters, 1 person sort of thing, baby doll sacrificing herself to let sweet pea get away being the transition of having to grow up, become a full fledged person, while being a charicature of a person can solidify strengths and reduce weakness it is another form of enslavement. Once she got to the point where that wasn't necessary for survival, childish things were put away. Kinda what happens to most of us in our late teens-mid twenties. So through the movie sweet-pea is the nagging voice of reason, but by the end of the movie she is the person.

 

[1337mokro]

Well ask yourself this. Bob titled his video as "You are wrong about sucker punch". Doesn't that sort of imply that Bob sees his opinion as the only valid one and any other opinion as flawed?

It's sort of like arguing that someone who likes beef and refuses to eat anything else somehow is different from a guy who made a video titled "I like chicken and refuse to eat anything else".

They are both equally bad and it really just sounds like you don't like his opinion or him sticking by his opinion simply because it isn't Bob's opinion. Kind of a bit of a double standard. With a bit I of course mean allot.

The important part of this is that the video doesn't sound egotistical. The title is just a hook to get the viewer to watch the video. Arguing over the title is just a straw man.

It's not a similar situation at all, in fact it's completely different. It's one person making a well reasoned and researched article about how some may have misinterpreted a film, and another guy just saying it sucks without any discussion as to why it does.

I dislike his post because his criticism is bad. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have the same opinion as Bob does (which as I've pointed out, I don't).

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's sort of like his "PC gaming is dead" episode which basically entailed nothing more than "PC gaming is going portable". It's kind of a low brow thing to do, but hey he is on the escapists where content is titled in the most nerd baiting way possible. Not to mention that the rather weak "Your opinion is valid to" section is sort of undermined by the other 8 minutes of "My opinion is more valid than yours" bits.

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I agree, Bob, and I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't. I thought this was all rather obvious.

Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

I have a better idea! Watch this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6264-Anita-Sarkeesian-The-Monster-Gamers-Created

Seen it. And I mentioned her because she blew up over this film as opposed to when she was talking about recurring tropes in games where she was quite calm.

It doesn't matter. The only reason she has any attention is because people keep giving it to her.

Considering that the majority of the gaming community blew up at her, I think she would appreciate a level-headed deconstruction of a damn good film.

I think the internet would appreciate it if people stopped bringing her up. Good of the many and all that.

 

[daibakuha]

I really hate doing this line by line shit, but here it is:

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's a strawman because it has nothing to do with the argument. You bring it up in an attempt to discredit Bob's opinions.

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

That's still not valid film analysis but at least it's more concise. He could have just posted "I disagree, for XYZ reasons" instead of flat out calling an opinion wrong without any other arguments to back it up. Doing so on the other video does not excuse acting like a douchebag here.

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

I'm noticing a trend with your posts, I post something, then you put words in my mouth and strawman to try and prove that some asshole on these forums is somehow correct for being a douchebag. Quit putting words in my mouth and making this about something it's not, I've already said what makes a criticism valid.

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

His are valid because they come from well reasoned concise arguments, this other guy's are not because they don't. Is it really that hard to understand the difference?

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's a total false equivalency to compare film crit to colors. Color isn't an art. In art you have to explain why you like or dislike something in order for it to be valid criticism.

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

He was being a jerk, I called him out on it. I've seen this poster do this before, so I responded with harsh "criticism" of my own. I don't care if he changes his opinion or not. Maybe he'll think twice before deciding to act like a douche? I don't really care either way, if he does and I see it, I'll call him out again.

 

[daibakuha]

You are completely wrong about the Spill Crew; they do dissect a film's message. Thing is, they didn't think this film had a message to dissect, they just thought it was a gigantic, sexist, pretentious, badly soundtracked pile of shit. And no, I like them because they are great film critics, not because they reaffirm my opinions. Question: did you even listen to their review? I'm not responding back to you until you do.

Yes I have, and I've listened to several of their reviews before. They almost never go deeper than a simple plot analysis, unless it's blindingly obvious.

The whole thing sounds incredibly unprofessional too, it sounds more like a group of guys joking about movies than it does legitimate criticism.

 

[1337mokro]

I really hate doing this line by line shit, but here it is:

Well of course it is completely different one is a video made by a reviewer that you enjoy watching and the other is a random guy. In your mind the video is elevated above being an opinion and becomes a disputable fact, like the baiting title, which you call a strawman, which I call a shameless attempt at getting more views.

It's a strawman because it has nothing to do with the argument. You bring it up in an attempt to discredit Bob's opinions.

I did actually read his posts and he did give arguments as to the why's of his conclusion that Bob was wrong. It was a two parter after all so you should at least have looked at the other video to. It wasn't much but it was something.

That's still not valid film analysis but at least it's more concise. He could have just posted "I disagree, for XYZ reasons" instead of flat out calling an opinion wrong without any other arguments to back it up. Doing so on the other video does not excuse acting like a douchebag here.

So now we come to the conclusion that you don't consider someone else's opinion valid.... unless they make 2 videos worth of explaining and argumentation. That's kind of much to ask right? In the end I saw two arguments for why this guy didn't like the movie.

He felt that it was shifting moods rapidly not sure what it wanted to be, in his words schizophrenic, and that in the end everything that happened in the movie was pointless.

That's two arguments. So when DOES an opinion become valid? At 5? At 6? 10?

I'm noticing a trend with your posts, I post something, then you put words in my mouth and strawman to try and prove that some asshole on these forums is somehow correct for being a douchebag. Quit putting words in my mouth and making this about something it's not, I've already said what makes a criticism valid.

The the thing is opinions are never valid besides the value you ascribe to them. So again you value Bob's opinion because reasons of your own and don't value his opinion because reasons of your own. You don't really need an argument to disagree or wave someone else's opinion.

His are valid because they come from well reasoned concise arguments, this other guy's are not because they don't. Is it really that hard to understand the difference?

It's like saying I have to give clear arguments why in my opinion Blue is a nicer colour than Yellow. It's just my preference. You can make arguments that Yellow is a more natural colour, that it matches my eyes, thank you for that compliment, but in the end the arguments are pointless BECAUSE it is an opinion.

It's a total false equivalency to compare film crit to colors. Color isn't an art. In art you have to explain why you like or dislike something in order for it to be valid criticism.

It's kind of silly to go attacking people over it. In the end what do you gain? You don't change his opinion. You don't do anything except maybe root him in his opinion a bit more.

He was being a jerk, I called him out on it. I've seen this poster do this before, so I responded with harsh "criticism" of my own. I don't care if he changes his opinion or not. Maybe he'll think twice before deciding to act like a douche? I don't really care either way, if he does and I see it, I'll call him out again.

How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?

Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?

The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.

 

[daibakuha]

How does a title skew someone's opinion? If I title my video "I hate Sucker Punch" would that give a wrong representation of my opinion? Please. It is good though that you finally dropped the pretense and simply came out to say "I replied to this guy cause I just didn't like how he acts". There we go. The truth is so much easier to say isn't it?

the title of the video has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Also how is colours not like film because film is art???? In fact the absence of colour in a film can be a stylized option. So colours can indeed be art or a part of art. What do you call a painting if not an arrangement of colours expressing an image?

Color is a tool used by artists to express themselves, it isn't art by itself. The color blue isn't art, blue used in a painting, in conjunction with other colors is art. Color by itself isn't creative, it doesn't have a theme, it's just a color.

The fact is very simple. You didn't like the guy, so you replied to him. But it wasn't because Bob's opinion was better because it had arguments (some people will think it was horrible because of the same arguments that in your eyes make it good). It was simple an ad hominem to the guy.

I don't like him because of the way his "opinion" is expressed, I don't think it's a valid criticism and he was being a jerk. It has everything to do with how he presents himself.

 

[Sylveria]

Bob's psuedofeminism soap-box must be getting some bowing by now considering how often he is getting up on it these days.

 

[JonnWood]

Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

Which makes her right, but not in the way she intended, I think.

 

[PapstJL4U]

I can't believe people are still talking about this crap. And it's always the guys who liked it too.

Seriously, if you enjoyed it, good for you. You didn't waste an hour and a half of your life. But please, for the sake of those of us who did, shut up about it. Why the hell do you care if half the world thinks that this "masterpiece" is a piece of crap? This isn't a cure for aids, it's a damn movie. ONE YEAR AFTER it's release you still feel the need to defend it and argue that it was good?

Real secure about yourself, guy.

A person, who rages in Caps and anwsers to a topic he/she doesnt like and bitches about how he/she is confronted with a subject he/she could have avaoided easily, talks about insecure. x)