quote:

Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Black Bones posted:

Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard.







I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair.


I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk.

Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock:


Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo


Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.


More of the same.


Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds


They're gross!


Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness.


Don't forget, they're gross!


Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!


Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again:

- the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo)
- the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad)

*It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny.

Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I?

Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad.


Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!

James Hardon posted:

I agree with Black Bones, the guy who, as a quick glance at the first page of his post history reveals, really likes talking about Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars and how proud he is of the Venture Brothers t-shirt he paid money to buy and likely wears in public a few times a week. Honestly if you don't have the reading comprehension necessary to understand CR maybe you should go back to Reddit.

That said, excellent work as always this week by the staff. The Gone Girl review (http://www.somethingawful.com/current-movie-reviews/gone-girl-annabelle/1/) was particularly illuminating. I constantly try to explain to people that David Fincher is a hack PUA MRA misogynist but no one believes me. The review said exactly what I've been thinking in the elegant manner we've all come to expect. I was invited to see the film this past Friday and let's just say I'm glad I stayed home and watched the entire Honey, I Shrunk the Kids series instead.

Black Bones posted:

Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard.







I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair.


I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk.

Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock:


Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo


Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.


More of the same.


Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds


They're gross!


Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness.


Don't forget, they're gross!


Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!


Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again:

- the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo)
- the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad)

*It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny.

Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I?

Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad.


Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!

COBRARocky posted:

that gone girl review reads like an angry tumblr blog.

Black Bones posted:

Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard.







I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair.


I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk.

Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock:


Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo


Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.


More of the same.


Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds


They're gross!


Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness.


Don't forget, they're gross!


Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!


Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again:

- the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo)
- the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad)

*It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny.

Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I?

Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad.


Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!

Black Bones posted:

Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard.







I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair.


I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk.

Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock:


Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo


Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.


More of the same.


Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds


They're gross!


Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness.


Don't forget, they're gross!


Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!


Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again:

- the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo)
- the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad)

*It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny.

Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I?

Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad.


Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!

Black Bones posted:

Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard.







I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair.


I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors

Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk.

Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock:


Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo


Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.


More of the same.


Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds


They're gross!


Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness.


Don't forget, they're gross!


Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!


Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again:

- the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo)
- the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad)

*It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny.

Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I?

Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad.


Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!

Is it fascism yet posted:

"if a book and a head smash together and it sounds hollow, it's not always the books fault" - Martin Heidegger, Member of NSDAP

COBRARocky posted:

that gone girl review reads like an angry tumblr blog.

Some Guy TT posted:

Triticum Guzzler made a legit good post. I can cop to that. But when all the rest of you guys can do is emptyquote Triticum Guzzler without actually adding anything to the conversation, all you're doing is making it really obvious that you don't spend any time on the subforums where people have to make actual arguments if they want to be taken seriously.

Like, if you think their movie comprehension is wrong, try explaining why. If you think their jokes aren't funny, try explaining why. poo poo, dude, I liked the g0m review too. But I didn't come to the thread to post that because what's the loving point of echoing the exact same thing a dozen other people already said.

Ralp posted:

African AIDS cum posted:

They are de-tumblrfying the forums

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Ralp posted:

Cool and good. posted:

Good point, Ralp you're right. Instead of just making the same criticisms everyone else is making over and over (like "you're bad writers" or "nobody wants to hear what you have to say") I'll use a new one, which is the fact that by not attributing the Gone Girl review to anybody, you have outed yourselves as a bunch of pathetic idiots who knew this type of criticism was going to happen, but stuck with the terrible non-review anyway because you really needed to make the point that this movie written by a woman is written by someone who hates women. Thanks for listening to feedback

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

quote:

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Ralp posted:

Ralp posted:

ArfJason posted:

I was at Macy's thanksgiving parade and it was time for the balloons to pass by my street. I looked out my window and saw all those classic icons of cartoons, like spongebob, mickey mouse and he-man. Then came movie characters, and there was this loving massive balloon of the dragon from the neverending story (falcor?), and those creatures from Gremlins, among other things. After that came corporate mascots, you know stuff like Coca Cola's Santa Claus, Chester Cheetah and Tony Tiger.

But what caught my attention, was what the Camel cigarette company brought. It was an insanely gigantic Camel, seems they wanted to bring him back and make him relevant again. He stood taller than some buildings, and had a cigarette on his mouth that was thicker than a subway train.

That was the very first time I saw a bigger fag than ralp.

Crap posted:

rip to those who died

Cool and good. posted:

Good point, Ralp you're right. Instead of just making the same criticisms everyone else is making over and over (like "you're bad writers" or "nobody wants to hear what you have to say") I'll use a new one, which is the fact that by not attributing the Gone Girl review to anybody, you have outed yourselves as a bunch of pathetic idiots who knew this type of criticism was going to happen, but stuck with the terrible non-review anyway because you really needed to make the point that this movie written by a woman is written by someone who hates women. Thanks for listening to feedback

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Cool and good. posted:

by not attributing the Gone Girl review to anybody

Gone Girl review posted:

Gone Girl
by "Amazing" Amy Dunne

Chairman Capone posted:

Hmm.

Daikatana Ritsu posted:

Why was this person probated for posting the truth?

Ralp posted:

Calling the writers "a bunch of pathetic idiots" is not what this forum is for.

Black Bones posted:

Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort!

ArfJason posted:

I was at Macy's thanksgiving parade and it was time for the balloons to pass by my street. I looked out my window and saw all those classic icons of cartoons, like spongebob, mickey mouse and he-man. Then came movie characters, and there was this loving massive balloon of the dragon from the neverending story (falcor?), and those creatures from Gremlins, among other things. After that came corporate mascots, you know stuff like Coca Cola's Santa Claus, Chester Cheetah and Tony Tiger.

But what caught my attention, was what the Camel cigarette company brought. It was an insanely gigantic Camel, seems they wanted to bring him back and make him relevant again. He stood taller than some buildings, and had a cigarette on his mouth that was thicker than a subway train.

That was the very first time I saw a bigger fag than ralp.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)