SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I have a confession to make: I almost never read Current Releases anymore.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

I have a confession to make: I almost never read Current Releases anymore.

Y-Hat posted:

Roger Ebert is a man held in high esteem by movie reviewers- including yourselves. The difference is that Ebert reviewed the movie, first and foremost, as a movie. A lot of CR reviews lately have been a review about what social issue's gotten under your skin that week.

PaulMorel posted:

The problem is that internet feminists/gender-benders/marxists/jingoists/lacanists/desconstructionists think they have the monopoly of the truth (the moral being relativized as social constructs) that they have found a way to eternal paradise and end of social conflicts. If you don't think like us, you are a republican/conservative/alienated/privileged white male.

Ruddha posted:

I'm a lycanthrope aroooo

PaulMorel posted:

The problem is that internet feminists/gender-benders/marxists/jingoists/lacanists/desconstructionists think they have the monopoly of the truth (the moral being relativized as social constructs) that they have found a way to eternal paradise and end of social conflicts. If you don't think like us, you are a republican/conservative/alienated/privileged white male.

Ruddha posted:

I'm a lycanthrope aroooo

theflyingorc posted:

What does this say about the patriarchy?

Effectronica posted:

That's not a problem unless you're willing to go out on a limb and say that it's impossible to be funny or communicate clearly if you're any of those things.

Is it fascism yet posted:

That was a goddamn quote, i even sourced it. franco you owe me for not having read Marx's letters.

PaulMorel posted:

I don't think that's possible. I never saw anything funny coming from radicals and fundamentalists.

PaulMorel posted:

I don't think that's possible. I never saw anything funny coming from radicals and fundamentalists.

Alejandro Sanchez posted:

PaulMorel posted:

The problem is that internet feminists/gender-benders/marxists/jingoists/lacanists/desconstructionists think they have the monopoly of the truth (the moral being relativized as social constructs) that they have found a way to eternal paradise and end of social conflicts. If you don't think like us, you are a republican/conservative/alienated/privileged white male.

PaulMorel posted:

The problem is that internet feminists/gender-benders/marxists/jingoists/lacanists/desconstructionists think they have the monopoly of the truth (the moral being relativized as social constructs) that they have found a way to eternal paradise and end of social conflicts. If you don't think like us, you are a republican/conservative/alienated/privileged white male.

th1nk posted:

I vaguely recall Black Bones mentioning that he isn't a front page writer, but there's no way I'm going back over his posts to check. Hopefully he will clarify this for us.

Beeswax posted:

And while it's funny that you respond by implying that there is some paranoid conspiracy at work, where people who complain about CR's inane analyses only do so because they disagree with the politics behind it, I'm pretty sure the people in here are pretty uniformly left-wing. It's not that people dislike leftist analysis (although they could be forgiven for being fed up with it at this point). It's that they dislike incredibly poorly conducted analysis, slathered on top of what is ostensibly a movie review. While you clearly try really hard to make your replies come off as playful and non-confrontational, it only makes you seem self-satisfied and unable to take in people's actual points.

Helical Nightmares posted:

http://time.com/3472314/gone-girl-movie-book-feminist-misogynist/

Black Bones posted:

I am definitely trying to confront what I think are bad posts.

Black Bones posted:

Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike).


Meh, it was a quick idea off the top of my head meant to serve as an example. It's certainly not a strong one.


The target audience is anyone who interested in what movies are coming out and what some goons thought about them. It is the same audience that reads other front page material, the same that reads the forums. You and me and any other terrible nerd.

I have not noticed a “marked” difference between CR and other features. The reviews are usually straight, with the occasional experiment (like the Gone Girl one) and some that outright mock the film without any attempt at review. But even the serious ones still fall within the general dorky point-of-view that is Something Awful. Sometimes they are good and I agree, other times they are good yet I disagree, and yes sometimes they are bad (like the Gone Girl one), but those aren't often enough to elicit much emotion from me. WTF D&D is pretty consistently creative and funny imo, but some of them are boring too. It happens.

Don't forget, if you don't like the CR review about it, there is usually a thread in CD where other people with widely different opinions and notions are talking about the movie.

If you don't like something, you should definitely criticize it, but try to criticize it well. A lot of the previous noise was not good criticism, because they were not attempting to explain what was wrong with the review of a given kid's movie, but just expressing endless incredulity over the fact that a kid's movie was reviewed at all.

And there are several main and sub forums on here for people to blow off steam with low effort insults, if that's all they want to do. This thread as near as I can tell is intended for constructive (or what passes for it) feedback. Now some of y'all are being coaxed into doing so, that's good!


This is what I mean about bad criticism – it appears like you didn't really read any review. The infamous Boxtrolls review (for example) discusses all of these things that I bolded. Feel free to check if you think I'm lying, which brings me to the paranoia:




Tatum Girlparts, you understood the Gone Girl thing correctly. So did I, and I haven't seen the film nor am I interested in doing so. It's one thing to fear being mislead by the reviewers, but don't you even trust yourself?

I don't really think CR is very “leftist”, the reviewers as a group seem to have both progressive and conservative opinions. And in spite of being a crazy gay retard, I'm not the one trying to ascribe weird motivations/inner thoughts to others. You could be right, but it's more likely that we can safely take them at their word. Criticizing anyone's politics is good, but ranting about vague left-wing bias, well, you should know how that comes across as.

How do we know the reviewers have a “perceived social obligation” and are “outraged”, that they decided a movie was “problematic” before they saw it? It's far more likely they enjoy watching and thinking about film, and call problems as they see them.


How do you determine this merit? I hope you don't use “pre-approved” opinions


There's that paranoia again. They are colluding with the “leftist” hivemind! I bet that gamer girl is involved somehow, perhaps she cuckolded the film industry as well!


Your first reading is actually pretty good. The second falls apart, but you did that on purpose.

“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” - Freud
“Yeah? And sometimes it's just a big brown dick in your mouth!” - Carlin

Actually, both the psychologist and comedian are wrong (or only half right). It's always both. And that's ok, seriously. Penises are good. Vaginas too for that matter. Fear them not, goons.


More paranoia. If someone is actually saying they are the end-all be-all of anything, that's life giving you a big hint: ignore this person. Your silly Speed analysis is great, and not dumb at all. Of course you are free to say that it is, as I am free to say that it isn't. No one is silenced, unless they silence themselves. Don't give in to weakness.

Masturbating is fun and healthy (don't overdo it though. I shouldn't have to say that, but y'know, nerds).

And I never said the Jungle book was about King Louie (this is what im talking about when I mock reading comprehension). It's about Mowgli becoming a man. Louie is definitely the most interesting villain, as opposed to the tiger and snake, but the story isn't about him. His quest for weapons of mass destruction is a subplot, at best. But it wasn't a strong reading, as I admitted, so whatever


DUDE! Someone should tell the mods/admins! WE CANT THEY'RE PART OF IT! What?! Alas, we did not heed the warning of Nolan's Batmen

Senior Woodchuck posted:

From what I understand, a lot of the "advice" is stuff that the heroine actually does in the movie.

Black Bones posted:

Lottery of Babylon posted:

What do you think a good post looks like?

Chilled Cap posted:

oh poo poo, another post by Black Bones - i've got to read this and address his points!

Black Bones posted:

On this page, goatse.cx made one that is accurate. In the last few, woozle wuzzle got me pretty good with the Billy Madison video, that was legit. If I see any others I'll let ya know!

edit:


I think you should! But you probably won't. c'mooooooon Chilled Cap, be a sport!

Chilled Cap posted:

oh poo poo, another post by Black Bones - i've got to read this and address his points!

DARPA Dad posted:

you mean the villain?

quote:

I am obviously not a good enough writer

quote:

for the front page,

quote:

nor do I even want to be.

quote:

I will strive to post better here on the forums though.

quote:

I was defending the front page because

quote:

I enjoy it a lot for the most part, and I think that most of the criticisms being offered in this thread are weak.

quote:

This

quote:

does not mean that the front page writers shouldn't be criticized

quote:

anymore than those criticisms cannot be criticized.

quote:

Most of the complaints

quote:

are saying

quote:

that CR is mostly bad

quote:

but it's actually mostly good.

quote:

And that's honestly

quote:

how I truly feel,

quote:

just like I'm 99.9%

quote:

sure that when the writers say something

quote:

it is their actual opinion being expressed.

quote:

To assume that they don't really mean it, but are just pandering for "upvotes" or "pre-approved applause",

quote:

well, that seems weird and paranoid.

quote:

Even if it's true,

quote:

it's pretty irrelevant as a criticism.

quote:

Just deal with the opinion,

quote:

it shouldn't be very hard,

quote:

especially if it's a bad one.

quote:

I am implying

quote:

that some of the criticisms

quote:

have been paranoid

quote:

not that there is an organized subterfuge going on behind them

quote:

The "they can't really mean it" nonsense.

quote:

Meant seriously or in jest

quote:

that's weak

quote:

As are variations if "it's dumb your dumb" etc.

quote:

Yeah, the Gone Girl review was poor analysis, but

quote:

I think CR is generally better.

quote:

Maybe the in-character format played a part too.

quote:

A good criticism of that specific review would be to

quote:

post something like that Time review as comparison - that was really good!

quote:

The CR one really wasn't hard to figure out though

quote:

, and I really don't understand the anger it caused.

quote:

I do aim for playful, since this is the internet,

quote:

but I am definitely trying to confront what I think are bad posts.

quote:

Sorry if that comes across as smug,

quote:

I'm working on it.

quote:

edit:
Here's the Time review, in case anyone missed it

Senior Woodchuck posted:

As for the review, I don't know what to say. I got from it (a) that the reviewer hated the movie and (b) why, even without looking at the score box. A more traditionally structured review might have been easier for some to digest, but it probably would have said about the same things.

N. Senada posted:

ha ha, what's going on in here?

woozle wuzzle posted:

No, if all a review had to say is that the reviewer hated the movie, and the "why" is because the reviewer is not a smart person, then it wouldn't be critical analysis of film that any adult would want to read. I guess you're the target audience which is more of an indictment of the column than anything else. Also, you can keep talking like the Triticum Guzzler thing didn't happen, but all I hear is the stuttering excuses of George McFly after Biff catches him in the diner.