|
Looking forward to seeing Magic Magic when it comes out in France next week. We've been pining for a good horror/thriller and that seems right up our alley; Michael Cera just makes it better having just finished the 4th season of Arrested Development.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Be forewarned: I can't stress enough that Magic Magic is not a "fun" horror/thriller. There's very little violence to speak of, but it's about as uplifting as Requiem for a Dream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll second that Magic Magic is an extremely not enjoyable movie. It's a movie where you go through and extremely unpleasant experience with a group of unlikable people. It's a really good movie but there's also a high chance that you'll hate after you watch it and only start liking ti later once you've been able to process it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Oh that's fine. That's perfectly fine. Since I had on planned on seeing it after the first few paragraphs of the article I never finished it so I'm not sure what was said in the rest. The beginning intrigued me enough. Trailer's pretty good too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Jay Dub posted:You have no earthly idea how much this still bothers me. I emailed their submissions editor like five times asking about the application I submitted. When he didn't respond, I started emailing RT/Flixster corporate. Still nothing. I looked and looked and looked for the right email to contact, thinking if I just submitted the right query to the right person they'd figure it out, but never found anything useful. Not even a phone number to call. It's clear to me that Rotten Tomatoes does not want to be contacted for any reason about anything. We petitioned to get on the Tomatometer too, and got the same reaction. Granted, HanCinema is not as big a site as Something Awful, and we were skirting closer to the minimum requirements, but it still smacks of suspicion to me that they don't even have a courtesy rejection later. I think their page about submitting to the Tomatometer is just for show and in reality you get on the Tomatometer by someone at RT corporate asking "hey do you want to be on the Tomatometer". Just another reason not use the site, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
A lot of who they pick is based on if you write for an approved (i.e. big) site or are in film critic societies (usually because you wrote for a big site, or enough smaller sites someone noticed you and let you in the club. I won't name names, but I know a few sites that get almost nothing in traffic that are on RT because the owner is in the OFCS or one of the regional film critic groups because of their past associations - though a few I have no idea how they qualified for anything as they are terrible. SomethingAwful is not really known for film (and if it is, it's the bad movie reviews) and I doubt RT is chomping at the bit to let you in. Critics used to get "disapproved" after they left their big job if they weren't big enough on their own, though I don't know if that still happens (and I am guessing it requires telling RT as such, and why would you do such a thing? - unless you were the website disassociating yourself from the author)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Well...I feel bad for asking, but I want to know what's up with the Kick-rear end 2 (not being) review(ed).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
Vargo posted:We re-submitted again this year, and are waiting on the judgement now. Word is at least some other people who applied are getting acceptance letters now... EDIT: and I see on twitter the responses for the CR crew are also in. =( Tars Tarkas fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
I got the other letter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Word is at least some other people who applied are getting acceptance letters now... Oh, so they send out acceptance letters too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
If you guys really want to get into the OFCS, here is my advice: 1) Go through their list of members. 2) Find those who aren't complete insufferable twits. 3) Make friends with them. Comment on their blogs, respond to their tweets, and don't ever badmouth any other OFCS member because that might be someone's best friend, no matter how incredibly awful or dumb their writing. Critics societies are about who you know, not how good or popular you are. You're at a disadvantage, too, because you don't tow the 'Blockbusters (except for Marvel movies) are awful! All independent cinema is perfection!' line. Also, try and spread your writing out to other sites and attend film festials, while keeping a central place where you can link to or promote it from. I know a bunch of you have your own places that you don't keep updated, so it may be worth it to try and keep up with that. And, yeah, I just told you a bunch of advice that I certainly didn't take myself, but this is just from observing the people I've known from blogging who've gotten in. They're either good friends of others or smart, outgoing community builders. I'm afraid that just seems to matter more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Vargo posted:This may or may not actually be true. Joe petitioned to be included on Rotten Tomatoes like a year and a half ago (at the time, he was the only one of us who was numerically eligible) and they just never replied. Not even a rejection. Three of us were also turned down from the Online Film Critics Society last year, but those guys at least offered some constructive criticism (except the one who said my work was "straightforward, rudimentary writing with nothing to recommend.) We re-submitted again this year, and are waiting on the judgement now. I checked both aggregator sites to be sure SomethingAwful.com was not on the publications lists before I posted that. Also, I originally drafted something like, "oversight or lack of awareness," meaning even if they didn't know about you at all, they aren't going to let you in once they do. People don't have to be intimately familiar with Something Awful to know that these reviews don't belong on Rotten Tomatoes (or Metacritic). They're SA articles appearing on (twisted) comedy site Something Awful. One of your critics/personae operates under the pretense--I'm assuming it's a pretense--that he is reviewing movies from our future and somehow the reviews are getting back to our time! Then there is the crown jewel: the Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 review. I'm not deriding that. I would rather read that than a real, straight movie review. I also realize--and endorse--the importance of not breaking kayfabe to the Something Awful culture. Furthermore, I don't object to Current Releases trying to get into Rotten Tomatoes, and that's precisely because it doesn't belong there: it would be a great trick on its own as well as being a deft way to criticize that site (as I sense at least some of you hold it in low regard), not to mention the long-shot havok you might try wreaking with the tomatometer. As I pretty much said before, though, if the RT gatekeepers are on the ball you won't get it, and that seems to be the case so far. I realize it's a bit impolite to squeeze the clown nose on your face just to remind everyone it's there, but, uh, there it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Onomarchus posted:I'm not deriding that. I would rather read that than a real, straight movie review. I also realize--and endorse--the importance of not breaking kayfabe to the Something Awful culture. Furthermore, I don't object to Current Releases trying to get into Rotten Tomatoes, and that's precisely because it doesn't belong there: it would be a great trick on its own as well as being a deft way to criticize that site (as I sense at least some of you hold it in low regard), not to mention the long-shot havok you might try wreaking with the tomatometer. As I pretty much said before, though, if the RT gatekeepers are on the ball you won't get it, and that seems to be the case so far. That's really what started us down the path to applying to these sites in the first place. It was mostly just to see if we could do it. Dangling the carrot of mainstream acceptance forced us to step up our writing game, and there's no question the four of us are much better writers today than we were the day we started. That said, I think it'd be fun if one or all of us found our way to Rotten Tomatoes for the very reason you mentioned. Not just to skew the percentages or poke holes in the process, but to throw some curveball blurbs to the casual review readers. Though it would've been much more interesting if RT hadn't gotten rid of user comments. The comments on a blurb like Clumsy's World War Z review ("It's powerful and brilliant. You'll all hate it.") would have been a brilliant spectacle in and of itself. Sheldrake posted:If you guys really want to get into the OFCS, here is my advice: I agree with every word of this, and it's something I know I'll have to get on the ball with if I want even a chance at the big leagues, but all I can hear is Happy Gilmore in the back of my head: "Ohh, so you mean no fun."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
I'm curous whether it's the style of the reviews or just the Something Awful moniker that's keeping you from getting in. Television Without Pity and AV Club are on there, but I tried actually reading some of their reviews and they were...well, kind of bland. Not bad, exactly, but not what I'd expect from a blurb that mentions those sites as the source.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
In Percy Jackson 2, after referencing some TV show that the kids have never heard of, Nathan Fillion says "Well, the best TV shows always wind up getting cancelled." *HUGE WINK TO CAMERA* I'd like to think he was talking about Drive, but I know better than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
I wonder, do the writers put stuff like that into their scripts when they learn that Nathan Fillion is coming and he goes along with it, or does Nathan Fillion play a part in getting those references into the script? Also, I really enjoyed your Mortal Instruments review, Vargo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Number 36 posted:I wonder, do the writers put stuff like that into their scripts when they learn that Nathan Fillion is coming and he goes along with it, or does Nathan Fillion play a part in getting those references into the script? I was wondering the same thing, and if I had to venture a guess, I would say that, especially with a weaker director, it's probably pretty easy for Fillion or someone else on-set to say "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if he said ______" and then convince the director to leave it in. I'm sure it was ad-libbed, is what I'm saying. And Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
I was wondering why I felt so uncomfortable with how sexuality was presented in Kick-rear end 2. Clumsy really captured what was so disgusting about the portrayal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
quote:There are hints of They Live and, of course, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers in the story, but little of their style. With bizarre wrestling-inspired fight scenes and lengthy monologues taking up so much of the film's running time, it is understandable that fans of the previous two films may be left disappointed. Um I believe I've found a contradiction here. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
The Prof's review of Percy Jackson posted:I feel pretty confident in stating that if I ever have to teach them about Greek mythology, Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is not the film I would use to do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Crediting Clumsy with Jay Dub's review. Maaaan, we gotta get that fixed. There's an error in the SA upload system that lists all of the names under the name of the person who uploaded it, which is always Clumsy. The extra names are added later. By the way, Clumsy, The Stanley Tucci caption is friggin hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:I wouldn't use anything that can be considered "family entertainment" as a teaching tool for Greek mythology. There are plenty of hosed-up things in it. Actually, the most irritating thing about these drat movies is that the books are actually really well done YA fiction that don't shy away from the less savory aspects of myth without wallowing in it. When I read them for a teaching reading course, I actually had to dig some references out in Hamilton's Mythology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Vargo posted:Maaaan, we gotta get that fixed. I just read the Kick-rear end 2 review (I usually read them all at once but I was reading them in between Breaking Bad commercial breaks), and my actual thought before reading the paragraph about the Night Bitch scene was, "Well, the depictions of women in this movie are pretty drat bad, but at least it doesn't have corrective rape." Shoulda quit while I was ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
You know, it's a crying shame that Mortal Instruments is flopping at the box office, because can you imagine what it would be like if the film was extremely successful? We could all say that we're living in a world where the most popular book and the most popular film in recent memory both have their roots in fanfiction. Also, fun fact, apparently in the film regular humans are called "Mundanes". This movie is so precious. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
dijon du jour posted:You know, it's a crying shame that Mortal Instruments is flopping at the box office, because can you imagine what it would be like if the film was extremely successful? We could all say that we're living in a world where the most popular book and the most popular film in recent memory both have their roots in fanfiction. But the most popular film in recent memory DOES have its roots in fanfiction:  All Marvel/DC comics are fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
Vargo posted:All Marvel/DC comics are fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
The problem with 50 Shades of Grey and Mortal Instruments is that they take the poorly crafted surface of fan fiction without capturing its ethos. Free! and Adventure Time are the far superior fanfic-influenced media.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
dijon du jour posted:You know, it's a crying shame that Mortal Instruments is flopping at the box office Considering that many of the things brought up as problematic in the review do not occur in the book, (she does react to her memory tampering, she doesn't have to 'dress up (down)' to meet Magnus, Magnus does not go to raves/clubs, Alec's crush on Jace does not come out of left field, etc.), it flopping is not a shame at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Another thing about that review is that it said the Twilight movies were "accidentally amazing." The impression I got from reading the CR reviews of those movies (since I'll probably never watch them) was that they were an over-the-top mockery of the subject material by design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
I only just realized that Mortal Instruments: City of Bones was supposed to be a mainstream release. The reason? There's been lots of promotion of it in Korea, but here the title is Shadow Hunters. I don't mean that it translates into Shadow Hunters. It is, in fact, those exact same identically pronounced English words just written in the Korean alphabet. Apparently whoever was in charge of the localization here decided that people would be more likely to watch the movie if the title bore some resemblance to what the movie was actually about. Someone with even elementary English will get what a Shadow Hunter is. I'm a fluent native English speaker and I have no idea what the hell a Mortal Instrument is supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Wait, are you telling me this movie is not, in fact, about instruments that are capable of dying going to a city made out of bones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
The title of TMI:CoB is sooo random for the movie itself. The City of Bones only shows up for one scene and nothing really happens there. You could cut the entire thing out and it wouldn't effect the movie in any way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Another thing about that review is that it said the Twilight movies were "accidentally amazing." The impression I got from reading the CR reviews of those movies (since I'll probably never watch them) was that they were an over-the-top mockery of the subject material by design. The jury is still out on that one, really. It probably is a mockery-by-design, especially the last two films, but we're not 100% sure if and when it started. It is, however, certain that if there is a joke, Taylor Lautner is not in on it. dijon du jour posted:Wait, are you telling me this movie is not, in fact, about instruments that are capable of dying going to a city made out of bones? You're thinging of The Brave Little Toaster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Vargo posted:The jury is still out on that one, really. It probably is a mockery-by-design, especially the last two films, but we're not 100% sure if and when it started. It is, however, certain that if there is a joke, Taylor Lautner is not in on it.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Vargo, I'm glad you enjoyed Getaway, because I had pretty much the same take on it. Yeah, a lot of it is pretty terrible, but in the end it doesn't really matter because the action is drat fun and makes up most of the movie anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
You're Next was great. Not exactly what I'd expected but just a nicely made fun movie. Great music, and I quite liked the many allusions it made to previous horror movies. Cannot stop listening to Looking for the Magic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
I don't know if you're supposed to take a movie with a character named "Brent Magna" seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
In response to Marty's minority report, I just want to preemptively state that I find A Serbian Film every bit as repugnant as I Spit on Your Grave 2. I will never watch either film again. But at least A Serbian Film is about something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
So, wait, do you just provide the words and then Professor Clumsy arbitrarily arranges the editing, layout and minority reports and you don't actually find out what the articles look like until they're posted come Sunday? Or were you just chomping at the bit to write that because Marty's statement is funny and you only care that your fellow goons know whether or not you like A Serbian Film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:So, wait, do you just provide the words and then Professor Clumsy arbitrarily arranges the editing, layout and minority reports and you don't actually find out what the articles look like until they're posted come Sunday? Or were you just chomping at the bit to write that because Marty's statement is funny and you only care that your fellow goons know whether or not you like A Serbian Film? Clumsy (Or Jay Dub if Clumsy's not around) is the main editor, and he gets final say in the layouts as well as writing all of the captions, though sometimes Garbage Day goes through and cleans up afterwards. As for the actual contents, every week we put our stuff into a Google Docs file that each of us can see and edit and add MRs and ask for clarifications on, but since it's usually done on a Saturday morning, we don't each always have time to look over things before they're done. Sometimes we just submit our piece and go on. To answer your question, with few exceptions, most of the time the rest of us don't know what they look like until they're uploaded, no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 09:28
|
|