You are not logged in. Please login or register.
The thread that started it all.
For the record, I'm very amused with my art for this episode, and feel compelled to share.
Anyway. Video's uploadin' right now.
0:00:29 - Teague claims the original discussion began about Nostalgia Critic and Confused Matthew, when it was clearly sparked by disdain for Honest Trailers and Cinema Sins.
*DING*
No podcast is without sin; but I must say, this was much more light and enjoyable than I thought it might be, based on the tone of original thread. Good show.
Last edited by Sam F (2014-07-16 07:32:28)
+1
Re: people who avoid seeing movies for no real reason. My Dad to this day has not seen The Godfather because when it came out, he thought the filmmakers copped out by not mentioning the word "Mafia" in it. 
One form of nit-picking pedantry that's good fun is when someone who specializes in science (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Phil Plait) points out all the scientific flaws, for educational value. Naturally, this should also not be confused with film criticism. The fact that Kate is looking up at the wrong nightsky didn't hurt Titanic.
While we can forgive light-hearted action romps their science transgressions (Star Wars, 2012, Armageddon, etc), those movies that pride themselves on being serious science-fiction should expect to be closely scrutinized (Prometheus, original Star Trek movies, Gravity, Interstellar, etc).
If your budget is $100M+, how hard is it to allow a Caltech PhD student a a quick read-through? (Ridley, you arrogant tosser). Leaving English majors to write the science is one of my pet peeves of Hollywood.
Just like Trey was saying about the importance getting the plot watertight in bank heist movies, serious science fiction needs to have a science advisor on board at the script development phase.
Having said all that, if the movie works well enough to succeed telling its story DESPITE breaches of logic, of continuity, of scientific plausibility, than well done.
+1
Years ago David Letterman had a recurring segment on his show called "Limited Perspective" in which some average person with a specific job would critique a current movie. The best one I remember was a dentist who talked at length about the actor's teeth in whatever movie, and only about the teeth.
I can forgive almost anything a movie does as long as it doesn't take me out of the story.
Let the purge begin.
Anyone who (1) didn't see Edge of Tomorrow (2) did see Transformers 4, and (3) complains about the state of Hollywood, shall be rooted out and hauled before Ze Inquisition.
Great episode, guys!
Loved the episode. Great job guys.
I would call Cinema Sins "entertainment" rather than comedy or criticism. I find them pretty amusing.
I don't get your definitions of "film criticism" and "film reviewing". Virtually no one does analysis without recommendation or recommendation without analysis. Telling you whether a movie is worth watching or not is every film critic's job. Any other musing they do is a sideline.
Also, a plot hole exists independent of when you notice it. The term "Fridge logic" came way after "plot hole" and just refers to plot holes you didn't notice during your viewing of the film. A plot hole is any part of the plot that can't be explained by normal assumptions about how the world works, regardless of whether or not it bothers you.
I think The Big Sleep is probably the film Trey is thinking of. The book makes it a little clearer who shot whom and why, but the movie makes it virtually impenetrable.
This is an odd episode. You just seem to be complaining about an undefined group of people who do an undefined set of things that include pointing out continuity errors and misunderstanding the plot. Is the whole thing just a giant subtweet to Inappropriately Righteously Indignant Matthew?
EDIT: The Big Sleep graph. Who killed chauffeur Owen Taylor?
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 00:58:46)
I don't get your definitions of "film criticism" and "film reviewing". Virtually no one does analysis without recommendation or recommendation without analysis. Telling you whether a movie is worth watching or not is every film critic's job. Any other musing they do is a sideline.
I think that's an unfortunate reduction. Not all film critics are Gene Shalit, nor should they be. The job of a critic is to illuminate films to their readers, to explain what a film is and what it does and whether or not it does it well. That "sideline musing" is exactly how a good film critic tells you whether or not a film is good.
Zarban wrote:I don't get your definitions of "film criticism" and "film reviewing". Virtually no one does analysis without recommendation or recommendation without analysis. Telling you whether a movie is worth watching or not is every film critic's job. Any other musing they do is a sideline.
I think that's an unfortunate reduction. Not all film critics are Gene Shalit, nor should they be. The job of a critic is to illuminate films to their readers, to explain what a film is and what it does and whether or not it does it well. That "sideline musing" is exactly how a good film critic tells you whether or not a film is good.
That's not what film critics, or theater critics, or food critics do for a living. They review their thing and tell you if it's good and you should seek it out; yes, good ones go more in-depth than JUST that, but so what? They're ALL "film critics". You're trying to redefine people's jobs to suit your notion of what those words mean.
There's a term for what you like, and that's "film analysis". That's done by film professors and fan commentators for the most part, and part-time by film critics in essays they eventually publish as collections in a book.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 01:09:26)
Zarban wrote:I don't get your definitions of "film criticism" and "film reviewing". Virtually no one does analysis without recommendation or recommendation without analysis. Telling you whether a movie is worth watching or not is every film critic's job. Any other musing they do is a sideline.
I think that's an unfortunate reduction. Not all film critics are Gene Shalit, nor should they be. The job of a critic is to illuminate films to their readers, to explain what a film is and what it does and whether or not it does it well. That "sideline musing" is exactly how a good film critic tells you whether or not a film is good.
So...basically what FIYH does then?
Teague...do you guys consider yourself critics?
There's a term for what you like, and that's "film analysis". That's done by film professors and fan commentators for the most part, and part-time by film critics in essays they eventually publish as collections in a book.
And OUR term for that is "critique". 
" The spaghetti carbonara at Olive Garden is really tasty. You'd probably like it. But the desserts are overpriced"
- a restaurant review
"The tarragon overpowered the lamb, which clearly needed another five minutes in the oven, and the pairing of new potatoes with quinoa only emphasized the lack of flavor in both. Incidentally, although this dish was touted as a new dish, is actually the same dish the chef debuted ten years ago at his restaurant in Boston."
- a restaurant critique
Critiques are far rarer than reviews for the simple reason that most people don't want or need that much information on whatever the topic is, and rightly so.
Meh. Those are both something that would be written by a "food critic". One food critic would just be better paid.
I still think you're trying to make a distinction where there is none in the real world.
Gene Shalit's byline says "film critic" just like Pete Travers'.
Again, film ANALYSIS is a thing that exists, and that seems to be what you're really describing, but that's not generally done by film critics. They don't even indulge in spoilers, let alone analyze the structure of a film in depth like you guys do.
Nevertheless, your point is taken that there is thoughtful critique of films and casual critique or review, and that one is better than the other.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 01:53:03)
I completely disagree. You're creating a distinction where I don't think there necessarily is one. Plenty of film critics (I'd argue the majority of them) engage in film analysis.
AND ANOTHER THING as long as I'm in a bad mood for no reason....
I can hardly stand to read Film Crit Hulk. It's not just the silly persona or the fact that that persona doesn't actually write the way the comic book Hulk talked. It's also stuff like this, said about Django Unchained:
Tarantino makes a lot of films about uneasy power, the humor in wickedness, and the subjective perspective. And these are all to great import, the clashing of a history’s worth of cinematic amalgamations to create the new myth. Put simply, having Django doing Gene Autry’s horse tricks is not a mere reference, its codified language that's meant to usurp traditional roles and blow the doors off convention.
His bad guys are funny, and he shows you things from a particular point of view. You hear that? That's the clashing of a history's worth of cinematic amalgamations! New myths being created here, people! Django is now a figure of legend! Dress up like him for Halloween!
But let me put this "simply": blah blah blah codified language of some kind blah blah blah usurp unspecified traditional roles blah blah blah. Is he trying to say that Django is a black guy instead of a white guy?
I'll tell you what clashes in Django Unchained: that third act resolution that turns into a fucking Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 04:02:04)
I completely disagree. You're creating a distinction where I don't think there necessarily is one. Plenty of film critics (I'd argue the majority of them) engage in film analysis.
No film critic regularly writes the kind of things the WAYDM panel says. You can't really analyze a film when you're worried about giving away the plot. Their review may say there are problems in the third act, but they can't go much further than that.
Just look at the way this forum wrote about "that scene" in Gravity. You can't say much about why it doesn't work and the degree to which it weakens the film and why without giving away a major twist.
Again, I'll certainly allow that there are good film critics and bad. But there's no real-world distinction between the job of "critic" and "reviewer".
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 02:22:48)
Doctor Submarine wrote:I completely disagree. You're creating a distinction where I don't think there necessarily is one. Plenty of film critics (I'd argue the majority of them) engage in film analysis.
No film critic regularly writes the kind of things the WAYDM panel says. You can't really analyze a film when you're worried about giving away the plot. Their review may say there are problems in the third act, but they can't go much further than that.
Just look at the way this forum wrote about "that scene" in Gravity. You can't say much about why it doesn't work and the degree to which it weakens the film and why without giving away a major twist.
If you're a good critic, sure you can. Most critics do exactly that, and there's more to film analysis than just story analysis. I don't know which critics you're reading but you're conflating an entire profession with its simplest members.
Here's a randomly selected example: A.O. Scott's review of Closed Curtain. Published in a major newspaper and it's not just telling you whether it's "good" or not.
Zarban wrote:No film critic regularly writes the kind of things the WAYDM panel says.
If you're a good critic, sure you can.
Here's a randomly selected example: A.O. Scott's review of Closed Curtain.
That's a good review. Here is the sum total of analysis in it (that is, the author's interpretation of the film rather than facts from the press kit or recounting of the plot):
This could be the start of a mystery.
Some of that mixture of defiance and whimsy is present ... but it is also edged with melancholy and fatigue.
“Closed Curtain,” as its title suggests, draws on theater as well as film for inspiration.
The outside world intrudes...
Then again: She might be a figment of his imagination, unless both of them are figments of the directors’. These things might both be true...
“Closed Curtain” [unfolds] in an intriguing limbo of deniability, subverting both its own existence and its officially mandated nonexistence. (This actually makes sense in context; I'm not suggesting Scott is a bad writer.)
For the viewer, this conundrum is both troubling and amusing. On one level, the film ... is a mischievous, Pirandellian entertainment. It is also an allegory, dark but not despairing, of the creative spirit under political pressure, and of the ways the imagination can be both a refuge and a place of confinement.
Notice how Scott does not actually answer any of the questions he raises. Is this film a mystery? Are some of the characters just figments of another's imagination? Scott doesn't hazard a guess, not that analysis MUST provide a definitive answer to any questions the film raises, but it usually suggests one.
EDIT: On second thought, some of that probably IS from the press kit.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 04:00:28)
But that's the point! He's engaging with his audience and laying down tracks for their trains of thought when seeing the film. He's offering context for analysis without giving too much away, allowing his readers to make up their own minds but giving them questions to contextualize their own approach. And it's admittedly limited, because this is a small film and he's only got so many words to talk about it.
I think you're being extremely unfair to film critics by reducing the entire field to nothing more than consumer reporting.
This is an odd episode. You just seem to be complaining about an undefined group of people who do an undefined set of things that include pointing out continuity errors and misunderstanding the plot. Is the whole thing just a giant subtweet to Inappropriately Righteously Indignant Matthew?
I found this episode to be an incredibly frustrating listen, for much the same reasons I had problems with your last film criticism episode but to an even greater degree. Seriously, my mind almost went into a tail spin when you started complaining about people who point out errors without actually knowing what they're talking about. None of you guys engages very much with any sort of film review or film criticism, let alone the plot hole film criticism you're supposed to be talking about. So why not follow Brian's advice and say, "I don't know."
+1
I think you're being extremely unfair to film critics by reducing the entire field to nothing more than consumer reporting.
I don't know what you're arguing here. Some film critics are better writers? Some engage in a little analysis? So what?
The panel claimed that there is a difference between "film criticism" and "film review", and there simply isn't. Virtually everyone who does them is called a "film critic". The degree to which some film critics engage in film analysis in their reviews is moot in that argument.
The fact that I maintain that critics don't really analyze films (beyond saying they exude a certain feeling or offer "a history’s worth of cinematic amalgamations") is a separate argument. Disagree if you want, but that AO Scott review wasn't persuasive.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 03:27:53)
I think the idea that film critics don't analyze films is absolutely absurd, and the idea that film analysis and film criticism are mutually exclusive is even more so. That's what I'm arguing. You're lumping a lot of critics in with one specific style of criticism that is certainly not all-encompassing.
I think the idea that film critics don't analyze films is absolutely absurd, and the idea that film analysis and film criticism are mutually exclusive is even more so. That's what I'm arguing. You're lumping a lot of critics in with one specific style of criticism that is certainly not all-encompassing.
I've already demonstrated that your example of a critic's version of film analysis is very limited and superficial. You've already admitted that a film review is too short for much analysis.
I've also already allowed that film critics sometimes write analytical essays and compile them into books, altho that's not their main job.
I don't know what the problem is.
Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 03:31:06)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
