This is just life in Obama's Galaxy, Ewing.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
This is just life in Obama's Galaxy, Ewing.
Paul is right. I'm out.
Well, obviously comedy is subjective.
Okay but misogyny kind of isn't.
Those two lines aren't comedy, they're typical fanboy misogyny dressed up as "humor."
No, they are running gags. In comedy videos.
Explain how these are mutually exclusive please.
I wouldn't be sharing an opinion on them if I hadn't watched any. I've watched a couple. Point stands. Those two lines aren't comedy, they're typical fanboy misogyny dressed up as "humor."
CinemaSins don't do reviews, they do comedy shows based on nitpicking.
'Scene does not contain a lapdance' or 'Hermione is not old enough to be hot in this scene' are not serious movie criticisms.
The fact that they aren't serious doesn't make them NOT movie criticisms. It just makes them BAD movie criticisms. Which is kind of the whole point.
And are all their videos as creepily misogynistic as those two quotes? Yikes.
Eddie wrote:Like Paul gets real skittish about Taxonomy of film, I get very aggravated about Taxonomy of film reviews (for some weird reason, and I get that it's weird). All I know is that I appreciate this BECAUSE of the immersive connection, the deep dive into the film. I can't say I see the same with CinemaSins and the ilk.
Jeez, can we please, please leave CinemaSins out of this? Can we please stop finding fault with them for not meeting a high standard as movie reviewers when they aren't movie reviewers? They're not even in the same ball park, largely because they're not even trying to be. They're playing a different game, yo. Leave it alone.
If that's not possible, can we at least concede that there are a wealth of other people out there doing (actual) movie reviews who (actually) are terrible, and that, for the purposes of moving this discussion forward, they might be a better target? Continuing to go back-and-forth debating the point in this thread as well seems like a massive waste of time to me.
Would love to know who you're referring to specifically. As far as I'm aware, CinemaSins is kind of the nadir of online film talk.
If I found the trailer insufferable, is there any chance I'll like the movie? Or is it just the same thing for 2 hours?
Watched this tonight and loved it. There were several shots that made my jaw drop, particularly the shots of the corpse in the car underwater. Thanks, Eddie!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great episode, guys!
I just don't get it. #confused #wtf #popularhashtagsopeoplewillseewhatisay #swag
Like any social network, Twitter is only as good as the people you follow. I happen to follow a lot of very smart/fun people, so I get a lot out of it. There's a whole other massive side of the website full of dumb people, but I don't go there because why would I?
Does anyone want to talk about "unpopular opinions" as a concept? Personally, I love 'em. I spent too long shutting out the voices of anyone who disagreed with me. I think we need dissent to put our own opinions in context. If someone wants to argue the artistic value of the Transformers films, I'm all ears.
I have no comment, except that Twitter as a thing needs to fucking die. It's like there's some group of people in a room, and they keep coming up with worse and worse ideas for social networking / social media bullshit, and people keep falling in love with them until the next thing they come up with , which is an even worse idea, but people still fucking love it.
Myspace sucked balls, Facebook sucks balls, G+ sucks balls, Twitter sucks balls. Is the goal to make things as impenetrable and disorganized as possible? Because, holy fucknuggets, they've won.
Counter-point: Twitter is the best social network of them all and it has improved my life immeasurably.
I didn't care for Blue Ruin much, but I can definitely see why people like it. Very slick movie.
GOTG has the Marvel label. It'll open big, or at least modestly big.
Really? Weird, I've only ever heard people talk about in the "Wonderful World Of Filmographical Curiosities" way.
Strange.
It's definitely a cult favorite, then.
Clue, from what I remember of it, is cute. You can definitely feel it's low budgety-ness, and you definitely shouldn't try to take it seriously. It's one of those movies that's remembered for being sort of weird and off the wall, and because "How da f- do you make a movie out of a board game??", that it just sort of got a reputation as being one of "those" movies.
But highly regarded...not so much.
I've never seen it, but I've constantly heard people rave about how great it is. So it's definitely highly regarded, at least in my experience.
SNOWPIERCER:
Meh meh meh meh MEH. Seems far more interested in cool details than the larger picture. The details are almost cool enough to make up for it, though. And the ending (minus the last 2 minutes) is killer.
LIFE ITSELF:
I sobbed.
I squint my eyes at Avengers and Batman passing both tests, but, admittedly, I don't remember them very well.
I thought this too. I had to squint a bit harder to see that they're actually on a different colored background, meaning that they only pass the Mako Mori Test (for Black Widow and Catwoman I assume.)
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.