I'm older than all of you guys? poo poo, I need to get it together.
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2012 14:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:14 |
|
quote:John Cho... shows up to point out how much more successful he is than anyone else
|
# ? Apr 8, 2012 22:02 |
|
Y-Hat posted:Holy poo poo, that's amazing. Now I want to see this. Just so we're clear, that doesn't literally happen in the film. Though it would have been hilarious if it did.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2012 07:17 |
|
Fans of Current Releases should also check out wagthemovie.net where I'll be contributing regularly and some of these other mooks might pop up from time to time as well.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2012 11:22 |
|
Sheldrake posted:October Baby discussion? Why not. Actually my first reaction to the whole thing was "imagine the irony of them going to medical school to be able to do abortions." I am not the demographic here and am going to some religion's hell. Vargo posted:In Thomas Kinkade's memory, here's the review I wrote of Thomas Kinkade's Christmas Cottage. I am waiting for the front page article on this news item. They got on Levi pretty drat quick.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2012 15:24 |
|
I haven't been checking Facebook this weekend that much due to hockey. Are we going to get a column this week?
|
# ? Apr 16, 2012 08:41 |
|
It'll be up on Wednesday.
|
# ? Apr 16, 2012 15:13 |
|
Well, here it is. Yes, I know.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 13:00 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Well, here it is. Yes, I know. You just had to create a 49.1 score just to make Cabin In The Woods have a higher score than Breaking Dawn Part 1, hadn't you? Also, I'm glad Battleship gets a positive review. It really does feel different than many other summer blockbuster or alien invasion films. Sometimes it's even like a Harry Turtledove story; the aliens have some technological limitations such as the notable lack of ranged weaponry for their foot soldiers.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 13:08 |
|
Out of curiosity, is the don't do this at home spiel at the end of the Stooges supposed to be a haha joke or is this supposed to be a semi-earnest plea to the children?
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 13:11 |
|
After reading the Battleship review I have no idea if Prof. Clumsy actually liked the film or if the positive review was just a joke. I seriously have no idea if it was parody or not.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 15:47 |
|
Schwarzwald posted:After reading the Battleship review I have no idea if Prof. Clumsy actually liked the film or if the positive review was just a joke. I seriously have no idea if it was parody or not. It was not.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 16:13 |
|
There's no doubt in my mind that the good Professor was being sincere. My question is: couldn't they have done all of the good things that they did in the movie without aliens?
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 16:34 |
|
Y-Hat posted:There's no doubt in my mind that the good Professor was being sincere. My question is: couldn't they have done all of the good things that they did in the movie without aliens? Why are aliens so distasteful to you?
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 17:35 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Why are aliens so distasteful to you? But if they successfully conveyed the messages of the board game without falling back on that, then that's a bigger accomplishment.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 18:50 |
|
Haven't seen the film, so I'm not sure how accurate this is, but spaceships are often considered to be more nautical than land-based (even if they're neither), so really the film is about two navies fighting each other. One just doesn't happen to be terrestrial. There's also the issue of acceptable targets for the enemies to be. Aliens have always been a good substitute for whatever color Menace (yellow, red, brown) we're fighting at the time.
|
# ? Apr 18, 2012 20:13 |
|
The aliens are clearly a setup for the sequel.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 01:00 |
|
I love it when things I say to Vargo wind up in Vargo's reviews. Makes me feel special.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 01:32 |
|
Gyges posted:Out of curiosity, is the don't do this at home spiel at the end of the Stooges supposed to be a haha joke or is this supposed to be a semi-earnest plea to the children? No, it's 100% sincere. The only thing that's a joke about it is that they hired a well built, semi-shirtless man to play Peter Farrelly, and that's a joke which requires you to know what the Farrelly brothers look like in order to get it. So, no one got it. I myself was thinking "Wow, Peter Farrelly is pretty ripped" until I got home and looked on IMDB.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 01:32 |
|
Aliens are a politically safe enemy, which is why they're flavour of the month for blockbusters like this. You can have Americans fighting aliens without having to imply that you're itching to go to war with anyone. In the specific case of Battleship, the major theme of learning by doing is strengthened by having the antagonists be aliens. In one scene, Cal returns to the shack where his colleagues were killed so he can salvage a radio. Once inside, an alien spots him, lets him take the radio and expresses a casual interest in his spectacles. You can't do that if they're Germans, they wouldn't let him leave alive and they know what spectacles are.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 23:06 |
|
The plot to the Three Stooges movie sounds amazingly like the plot to the Three Stooges NES game.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 04:11 |
|
Vargo posted:No, it's 100% sincere. The only thing that's a joke about it is that they hired a well built, semi-shirtless man to play Peter Farrelly, and that's a joke which requires you to know what the Farrelly brothers look like in order to get it. So, no one got it. I myself was thinking "Wow, Peter Farrelly is pretty ripped" until I got home and looked on IMDB. Well, then it's inclusion utterly confuses me. I mean, I can understand Jackass having a disclaimer, those are real people doing real things and getting famous for it. But the Stooges? That's like putting a disclaimer on Looney Toons. Warning do not saw Florida off of the US or run into painted tunnels, we're what you'd call experts.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 06:23 |
|
Gyges posted:Well, then it's inclusion utterly confuses me. I mean, I can understand Jackass having a disclaimer, those are real people doing real things and getting famous for it. But the Stooges? That's like putting a disclaimer on Looney Toons. Warning do not saw Florida off of the US or run into painted tunnels, we're what you'd call experts. That was kinda what I meant when I said that I was going to complain about it, then decided it wasn't worth it. But remember, it is entirely possible that a 7-year-old kid watching this movie has NO IDEA what cartoon violence is. Except for that new flash cartoon that started last year, the Looney Toons haven't been on TV for nearly a decade, and modern cartoons, even good ones like Phineas and Ferb, tend to shy away from the ultra-violent slapstick. So, if that's the price we have to pay for some eye-pokes, then I'll take it. At least they had the decency to tap it at the end of the movie instead of the beginning.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 06:39 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Aliens are a politically safe enemy, which is why they're flavour of the month for blockbusters like this. You can have Americans fighting aliens without having to imply that you're itching to go to war with anyone. In the specific case of Battleship, the major theme of learning by doing is strengthened by having the antagonists be aliens. In one scene, Cal returns to the shack where his colleagues were killed so he can salvage a radio. Once inside, an alien spots him, lets him take the radio and expresses a casual interest in his spectacles. You can't do that if they're Germans, they wouldn't let him leave alive and they know what spectacles are.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2012 18:56 |
|
Johnny Walker posted:I think another reason is there's just no real military match for the American military out there. The Cold War ending ruined the idea of someone attacking us like in Red Dawn or whatever. So we need more powerful fictional enemies or movies like this just couldn't be made. The irony of course being that in the Red Dawn remake, it's tiny little North Korea that conquers the US.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2012 22:07 |
|
The Avengers: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/current-movie-reviews/avengers-safe.php
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 10:10 |
|
Here, since I imagine you're going to get a lot of this in the coming days, I'll try and say it in a relatively polite way: Is it really the best review to get the guy who didn't like the previous films to review the culmination of the films? It seems like one of those situations where the reviewer would be predisposed to not like it. Of course, to be fair, having someone who immensely enjoyed the previous films isn't exactly unbiased going into the final one either. So it's kind of like one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. To keep this post from being entirely pointless, I saw your review on Thor and Iron Man 2, but what was your opinion on Captain America? Because if you didn't like that film I may have to take offense because that was a legitimately great film, superhero genre notwithstanding. edit: Also Avengers was merely another salvo in the right wing rhetoric against keeping Americans dull and blaise. DUH. And Black Widow represents the war on women. Or something. Zelder fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 29, 2012 |
# ? Apr 29, 2012 18:41 |
|
I haven't seen Captain America and probably never will.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 19:07 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen Captain America and probably never will. You are missing out. I think Captain America is lots of pulpy fun, and is the most successful at integrating the universe poo poo, making it important, rather than just "Hey, this is stuff that will be cool in a movie or two"
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 19:25 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen Captain America and probably never will. Where you forced to review this one then, Clumsy? What's the reason of doing it you're going to act like a sullen teenager dragging his feet, bemoaning the existence of everything in the franchise?
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 19:27 |
|
Clumsy lives in England, England got Avengers this weekend. It's really that simple, folks.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 19:59 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:I haven't seen Captain America and probably never will. Well that's an...oddly combative stance for a person who reviews movies to take.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:02 |
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Clumsy lives in England, England got Avengers this weekend. It's really that simple, folks. And somethingawful.com sorely depends on the traffic generated by a single super-urgent review of a movie that (most) of its forum members won't be even able to see for another week? Maybe I'm crazy, but wasn't the whole point of these reviews to entertain with wit or insight? It's not like its particularly entertaining reading about someones contempt for the experience (unless it's a talking animal movie of course) when they're just going to rehash what's been said of previous entries anyway.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:28 |
|
EDIT: The point of the movie reviews is... to review movies, and throw a few jokes in there("the local car and light post population" was funny). You weren't entertained because... you learned he didn't like it, and you automatically took a stance against it. As they say in the Political Comics thread, How do you complain about bias when you yourself are MADE OF BIAS? Meltman posted:Where you forced to review this one then, Clumsy? What's the reason of doing it you're going to act like a sullen teenager dragging his feet, bemoaning the existence of everything in the franchise? Once again, I have to point out to you guys that Ian changes his mind about movies he thinks he's not going to like all the time. Ian reviewed this movie because he's in England, and England got it before we did. Plain and simple. He also reviewed it because he's a drat good critic, even when I disagree with him. He went into it some bias which he was considerate enough to identify in the first paragraph, but I'm typing this while wearing Captain America pajamas under a Captain America poster looking at tattoo shops to have the shield printed into my arm. There's probably a little bias there, as well. There's no such thing as an unbiased writer. The best writers, though, acknowledge their bias and work around it, which Ian has done time and time again. If there was something there to change his mind, it would have. And if you look at his review, having not seen the movie, nothing in it seems too out there. Complaint 1: There are too many protagonists to balance. This is likely to happen when there are seven main characters to a movie. A lot of people have expressed doubts about Whedon's ability to handle this. That is probably a legitimate complaint. Maybe I will feel differently when I see it, but it's definitely a concern. Complaint 2: Loki is useless as a villain. Again, this is something that is entirely possible. If Loki spends most of the movie in a prison cell/apartment then yes, he's probably being underutilized. Again, I might disagree, but it's not too far-fetched to believe. Complaint 3:The film is actually some regressive right-wing ideals with some strange post-9/11 commentary. As we've pointed out in the Avengers thread, EVERY MARVEL MOVIE is about war and weaponry, and we're talking about a movie where a guy dressed in an American flag has to save a bunch of people from exploding skyscrapers in New York City. I'd be pissed if there WEREN'T this commentary. There are political implications in this movie that Ian took offense to, just like I took offense to the political implications in Mars Needs Moms. Then he reported on it. This is what critics do. Look, I may not always agree with Ian, but there is no doubt that he is the best critic on the team. This was a well-written piece that made points which weren't too outrageous. He had justification for his opinion, and that makes this good criticism, not dragging your feet like a teenager. Go see the movie, since you're going to, then come back here and tell us why he's wrong instead of throwing fits that someone didn't like something you think you're going to like. Y'know, like a teenager. Vargo fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Apr 29, 2012 |
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:33 |
|
I thought you took offense to the incredibly regressive, oddly heteronormative, and down right implications of Mars Needs Moms, not necessarily the political implications (true that those kind of ideologies are associated with certain political parties, especially in America, but that doesn't necessarily make them political ideologies). That's not an attack on Clumsy's review, just a question. Though he really should see Captain America. Not that it'll change his mind on The Avengers, but because it is a great film.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:42 |
|
Zelder posted:
This is true. EDIT: Except the third act. I kinda felt Cap fell apart in the third act.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:56 |
|
Vargo posted:Look, I may not always agree with Ian, but there is no doubt that he is the best critic on the team. That is an amazing thing to read about yourself, imagine an already good Sunday made infinitely better. As for my comment about never seeing Captain America, I probably should have stuck an "unfortunately" in there because it seems that if I miss something at the cinema it takes me a long time to catch up with it, mostly due to an intensive project I'm currently working on. I really think Joe Johnston is an interesting director and I'd like to see what he does with the material, also Chris Evans' performance as Captain America in The Avengers was pretty good. I know my review is going to be controversial, but the fact that I disliked it and other Marvel films does not change the fact that I fully engaged with the film and made points based purely on film language in my review. I have yet to see a single other critic do anything other than declare it a vacuous yet perfectly entertaining blockbuster. If that's what you want in a review then go read Alex Zane.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 20:57 |
|
I never argued that he was wrong in his subtext reading (I agree, right-wing-AMERICA-gently caress-YEAH!!-blablabla is my reading too), nor did I intend to imply that since he didn't like the movie, I thought the review itself was bad. I am not invested in a piece of pop-culture to the point someone's 'attack' on it becomes an attack on me. If you actually read what I wrote, there is never disagreement with the points raised. In fact, I don't even discuss them because the movie just came out 3 days ago. What I did argue, however, was that his bad attitude permeated everything about the review, to the point he (possibly) overlooked more interesting things that I had not seen during the movie, and thus it became a trip report that wasn't interesting/entertaining to read (the local X population is a good joke, though). The very reason I'm even arguing this in the first place is because I agree he IS good: The recent Battleship review presented an interesting point that completely skipped me. Another that comes to mind is the Skyline piece, which are actually both movies I found myself abhorring. So you can see how it is my personal opinion (tm) that he should've let someone else review the movie, if he (IMO, based on his opening paragraph and language throughout) wasn't going to give his all to it. Or maybe I'm just taking the internet too seriously, who knows? Maybe I'm just throwing fits here since any criticism means I'm 15 anyway. EDIT: whoops, took to long to respond. I stand by what I say, though. Meltman fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 29, 2012 |
# ? Apr 29, 2012 21:16 |
|
Now now, we're all friends here. Let's get along. I just disagree, and am even a little hurt by, the assertion that I did not give The Avengers "my all". I'm proud of that review, I worked hard on it and it is entirely sincere and, I think, completely fair.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 21:23 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:14 |
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Now now, we're all friends here. Let's get along. Sorry about that, then. It's all good.
|
# ? Apr 29, 2012 21:28 |