|
Fans posted:Yeah we can still make fun of Ben Kuchera's headlines. Don't let them take something wonderful from us. I don't know about video reviews, but Hope Chapman (JO) does written review work for ANN, and two of their other reviewers, Gabriella Ekens and Nick Creamer (who has his own website), seem to be good people who do solid work.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:How do you feel about Bennett the Sage? I like him. When he's on his game he can absolutely nail a review. And when he isn't, usually the stuff he's reviewing is weird enough to make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:How do you feel about Bennett the Sage? Sometimes his opinions feel fairly skewed (see NGE and Grave of the Fireflies), but at the very least he explains himself and his contextualizing of certain topics is at least entertaining. A lot of the anime he reviews is stuff I've never/probably don't want to watch, so I think that's what makes it fun and helps bring to light some anime from the 80s-00's that would have gotten lost over time due to new stuff coming out every year that follows new trends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I know it was from page one but:SatansBestBuddy posted:I'd like to suggest Folding Ideas. He's not a very frequent producer, averages about one episode every two months, but he's one of the very, very few that can write a review that can make you think about a movie in new ways, or able to watch it again with a more critical eye and see film in a new light. His episode on End of Evangelion is my personal favourite, the way he deconstructs the movie is like watching open heart surgery, cutting right through the surface of the movie down to the heart of what it's trying to say. Thanks. I just finished Evangelion/End of Evangelion like a week ago and that really pieced everything together. I wasn't aware of the fan/otaku outcry over the broadcast ending or the subway attacks. I think I might actually sit through End of Evangelion again now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
It's weird to me that people who sat through the slog that was Evangelion would get upset about the broadcast finale. They were by far the best two episodes in the series and actually succeeded in actually using their run time rather than get bogged down by filled and repetition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Abrams ultimately OK'd the STID script despite not writing it himself. He could have said "No, this sucks." While I blame a lot on Orci/Kurtzman; Abrams could have demanded something better but didn't. From a structure/plot standpoint, virtually everything was wrong and incoherent about STID. I can't single out one or two things because it'll give everything else too much credit. And that's not counting the whitewashing. Part of the joke of STID is that the institution has always been super racist - Khan is a genetically-manipulated superhuman from the Federation's dark past, and the punchline is he's the whitest guy ever. It's riffing on how despite the unity of humanity and the federation is a happy smiley postracial wonderland we promise, it still has higher ups mostly consisting of old white dudes and is mostly preoccupied with how it's going to start a war with The Space Foreigners. In several of the best shots in the movie, Kirk and Khan/the Enterprise and the Vengeance are shot as if they were looking in a mirror at each other (and in several cases Kirk is literally looking through a reflective surface at him). The film is saying 'from a slightly different perspective, Kirk is already this crazy dude and his "science ship" is already capable of killing thousands.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Part of the joke of STID is that the institution has always been super racist - Khan is a genetically-manipulated superhuman from the Federation's dark past, and the punchline is he's the whitest guy ever. It's riffing on how despite the unity of humanity and the federation is a happy smiley postracial wonderland we promise, it still has higher ups mostly consisting of old white dudes and is mostly preoccupied with how it's going to start a war with The Space Foreigners. This is pretty good. Can you explain to us why the Transformers movies are actually strokes of genius and how Dark of the Moon is a sequel to Spielberg's Duel?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
That's unfair, due to SUPERMECHAGODZILLA's sheer volume anything Hbomberguy says will be plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Beefstew posted:This is pretty good. Can you explain to us why the Transformers movies are actually strokes of genius and how Dark of the Moon is a sequel to Spielberg's Duel? Edit: nvm misread the post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Beefstew posted:This is pretty good. Can you explain to us why the Transformers movies are actually strokes of genius and how Dark of the Moon is a sequel to Spielberg's Duel? Yeah, that reading is sure super out there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Part of the joke of STID is that the institution has always been super racist - Khan is a genetically-manipulated superhuman from the Federation's dark past, and the punchline is he's the whitest guy ever. It's riffing on how despite the unity of humanity and the federation is a happy smiley postracial wonderland we promise, it still has higher ups mostly consisting of old white dudes and is mostly preoccupied with how it's going to start a war with The Space Foreigners. I know this might come off as overly hostile but what is it like to have to look at every single thing and find a grand metaphor for something larger? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe and sometimes a poo poo movie is just a poo poo movie not a grand deconstruction of our societal feelings about race and the place of minorities in it and etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
How are you guys hearing that for the first time lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Tracula posted:I know this might come off as overly hostile but what is it like to have to look at every single thing and find a grand metaphor for something larger? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe and sometimes a poo poo movie is just a poo poo movie not a grand deconstruction of our societal feelings about race and the place of minorities in it and etc. Hate to say this but even poo poo movies are trying to impart some kind of message to the audience, intentionally or not. Which feels really weird to say, cause this is the critics thread, unless you're just reading the posts and not watching any of the shows it should be pretty obvious. Like, reading between the lines of the script, shot, directing, and marketing of a movie is the better part of these people's job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
And as an important aside, is there really anything wrong with analyzing the subtext and message of a movie? I get if it isn't your cup of tea but that's not really a reason to tell someone else not to do it. Even the blandest summer blockbuster is a reflection of the culture Hollywood tries to promote, the societal values they want to teach, and the values we as an audience want to see
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Yeah, those are fair points and I was being a bit too harsh  It just does get tiresome at points to see SuperMechaGodzilla-ish posts about films sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
The only problem I really have with Hbomberguy is that his analyses are almost always explaining why some work you think is sexist or racist is really a clever satire or criticism of racism or sexism. I suppose I should admire the optimism to some degree. However, (and while I hate these terms for being overly confrontational, I can't think of any better ones here) it can feel like what people mean when they say "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" etc. "No, let me explain to you why this work you find problems with is really okay. Nothing is wrong. Ignore the beheadings and keep your eyes forward." I don't think he's a bad person, but the apologetics can get questionable at times. E: I mean, there's not anything too wrong with that specific reading, I agree about the "mirror" filming, but it's part of a pattern. Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Yeah, those are fair points and I was being a bit too harsh Hbomberguy is a self-professed SMG wannabe so your exasperation is understandable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:How are you guys hearing that for the first time lol. Stuff reminds me of this poo poo. (Edit: Removed the whole thing about Khan, realized what Hbomb was getting at) Kunster fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Part of the joke of STID is that the institution has always been super racist - Khan is a genetically-manipulated superhuman from the Federation's dark past, and the punchline is he's the whitest guy ever. It's riffing on how despite the unity of humanity and the federation is a happy smiley postracial wonderland we promise, it still has higher ups mostly consisting of old white dudes and is mostly preoccupied with how it's going to start a war with The Space Foreigners. The joke is that Hollywood is outrageously racist, and it's played on everyone who isn't white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Jsor posted:The only problem I really have with Hbomberguy is that his analyses are almost always explaining why some work you think is sexist or racist is really a clever satire or criticism of racism or sexism. I suppose I should admire the optimism to some degree. However, (and while I hate these terms for being overly confrontational, I can't think of any better ones here) it can feel like what people mean when they say "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining" etc. "No, let me explain to you why this work you find problems with is really okay. Nothing is wrong. Ignore the beheadings and keep your eyes forward." Regardless of personal politics, when it comes to reading a film or any text, you can only read the film you have. My initial point was that while the whitewashing is bad, the film itself as-is has a lot to say about institutionalised racism, or at the very least continues to function as a text. Abrams could be a literal racist and would still have made a film conducive to being read as efficient criticism of a predominantly-white institution. A casting decision being bad doesn't make the film itself unreadable as a piece of art. Secondly, the original character was a mexican in brownface, playing a rather stereotypical Indian Sikh in flamboyant clothes. There's a compelling argument that Space Seed was one of the most actually-racist stories in original trek. Can you imagine how people would feel if the same thing had been done in STID? Thankfully Khan's appearance was changed in Wrath to remove the hosed up makeup stuff - which even further complicates the idea of fidelity to some 'original character' when the original has already been altered. I also personally don't like how most of the nonwhite characters people think of in sci fi series tend to have been villains. Something feels messed up there. Kunster posted:Stuff reminds me of this poo poo. Tracula posted:I know this might come off as overly hostile but what is it like to have to look at every single thing and find a grand metaphor for something larger? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe and sometimes a poo poo movie is just a poo poo movie not a grand deconstruction of our societal feelings about race and the place of minorities in it and etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:There aren't enough roles for poc, on that everyone agrees. I'll even go one step further and claim that revising Hollywood enough that more nonwhite people are cast in roles, or even a close to proportional split, wouldn't actually do enough to counter the actual problems that lead to institutions being like that in the first place. The problem is systemic. Much like how, after the end of feudalism, the class system remained - just now the poor could theoretically enter the class with the power. I bring this up because this is exactly the problem we are seeing here. No-one on the star trek team is racist as far as I know - Benedick Cumberbinch was just big at the box office. This primary motivation is a lovely self-perpetuating cycle that must be combated directly, not by simply trying to make all ethnic faces equally profitable or complaining on the internet about a movie you probably still gave people money to see. Jesus Christ it absolutely is racism to cast a white man because that is economically expedient, and to use economic expediency as an excuse to avoid thinking more carefully about your choice. Why was there no mexican who "just happened to be popular at the box office"? Nothing "just happens." Everyone involved in casting Star Trek is racist because they use their lack of race hatred to justify perpetuating a racist system as "just the way things are." That is racism and they are responsible for it. You can stop being a part of the problem by acknowledging the stupid things about your favorite movies instead of justifying them. You don't even have to stop liking them. Just say, "that's stupid" when the movie does a stupid thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Much like how, after the end of feudalism, the class system remained - just now the poor could theoretically enter the class with the power. I bring this up because this is exactly the problem we are seeing here. No-one on the star trek team is racist as far as I know - Benedick Cumberbinch was just big at the box office. This primary motivation is a lovely self-perpetuating cycle that must be combated directly, not by simply trying to make all ethnic faces equally profitable or complaining on the internet about a movie you probably still gave people money to see. The class system predates feudalism, yo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Jesus Christ it absolutely is racism to cast a white man because that is economically expedient, and to use economic expediency as an excuse to avoid thinking more carefully about your choice. Why was there no mexican who "just happened to be popular at the box office"? Nothing "just happens." Everyone involved in casting Star Trek is racist because they use their lack of race hatred to justify perpetuating a racist system as "just the way things are." That is racism and they are responsible for it. BravestOfTheLamps posted:The class system predates feudalism, yo. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Everyone involved in casting Star Trek is racist because they use their lack of race hatred to justify perpetuating a racist system as "just the way things are." That is racism and they are responsible for it. They're racist because they don't hate another race? You're gonna have to explain that one because that doesn't make a lick of sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:They're racist because they don't hate another race? You're gonna have to explain that one because that doesn't make a lick of sense. He's saying they're racist because they're perfectly happy to perpetuate a system that privileges one racial group over others. None of them would say "we cast Benedict Cumberpatch because he is white" but in practice "we cast Benedict Cumberbund because he's a big name star who will do well at the box office" has the exact same result: people of color don't get major rolls because they aren't "bankable stars"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:They're racist because they don't hate another race? You're gonna have to explain that one because that doesn't make a lick of sense. There's a common misconception that racism is just hatred of other races, or having racist feelings. Like there's a thread about Antiquity that I frequent. I once said that the Romans were racist, and people became incensed at the notion, because Romans didn't necessarily hate other peoples. That the Romans were genocidal imperialists with a usually homogenic ruling class (for most of its existence) didn't matter. What mattered whether they feeled themselves to be frothing racists. Racism is apparently not something you can do, it's just something you feel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Kunster posted:Stuff reminds me of this poo poo. This train of thought is dumb as poo poo but man poo poo like that comic bug me too because it's just one big lazy 'nope not gonna put any thought at all into things I consume FART'. Also using Poe for that is pretty loving great, there's a reason most lazy assholes stick to generic 'the drapes are blue' jokes instead of accidentally using a dude who used tons of metaphors and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Jesus Christ it absolutely is racism to cast a white man because that is economically expedient, and to use economic expediency as an excuse to avoid thinking more carefully about your choice. Why was there no mexican who "just happened to be popular at the box office"? Nothing "just happens." Everyone involved in casting Star Trek is racist because they use their lack of race hatred to justify perpetuating a racist system as "just the way things are." That is racism and they are responsible for it. You just agreed with him, this thread is whacky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Vicas posted:He's saying they're racist because they're perfectly happy to perpetuate a system that privileges one racial group over others. None of them would say "we cast Benedict Cumberpatch because he is white" but in practice "we cast Benedict Cumberbund because he's a big name star who will do well at the box office" has the exact same result: people of color don't get major rolls because they aren't "bankable stars"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
On the subject of the thread Brad Jones announced his new animated show, it about Lloyd being a P.I. investigating insane cases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Like, yeah even though I'm not a racist it would be pretty racist of me to move into a predominantly white upper class neighborhood so my kids can go to a good school.
Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Kunster posted:Stuff reminds me of this poo poo. Actually that person is also wrong. Poe just enjoyed writing literary markov chains onto pieces of paper. Any resemblance to reason or conscious thought is purely accidental.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:You are saying the same thing that I am saying and recognising the same problem. Perhaps I should have put 'not formally racist'. I simply attribute the problem to the larger system that allows these problems to continue, rather than the actual views of any participant. The real failure of our current society is that its problems persist in spite of almost no-one wanting them to be there. It would almost be a relief if it turned out the STID crew were all klansmen or something. Well yeah, but you seem to be using it to ignore the big problem with race in the movie as not meaningful. Your argument that Khan is part of a sly critique of his movie-specific culture comes off as a little disingenuous if it's premised on the claim that American racism in 2015 is so complicated that we have to wait for some kind of systemic solution to address it. A big part of colorblind racism is that the lack of good roles for nonwhite actors becomes a self-fulfilling problem: casting more nonwhite actors helps to make nonwhite people more visible and seem as normal a presence as white actors. Systemic causes don't disqualify human action, and human action can be as simple as not explaining away a racist thing when you find one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Spoony released part 2 of his Massacre at Central High review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwOS75B4UyI. It is actually very well put together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Like, yeah even though I'm not a racist it would be pretty racist of me to move into a predominantly white upper class neighborhood so my kids can go to a good school. No, it would be racist of you to vote against a millage increase that would give more of your taxes to schools in poor neighborhoods if you justified your choice by saying that the people in those poor neighborhoods had just as much of a chance to be rich as you and so must just be hopeless causes who deserve their poverty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Well yeah, but you seem to be using it to ignore the big problem with race in the movie as not meaningful. Your argument that Khan is part of a sly critique of his movie-specific culture comes off as a little disingenuous if it's premised on the claim that American racism in 2015 is so complicated that we have to wait for some kind of systemic solution to address it. Your point appears to be that the film, by existing in a racist system, is 'infected' with racism, and literally everyone involved in casting Star Trek is racist because they didn't personally take a stand against capitalism itself. I take the opposite approach. People are generally good, but are oppressed both directly and ideologically by a system which should be destroyed. This is largely the message of STID. Khan is a nice guy when you're on his side and cares deeply and violently for his own people. This behaviour, if extended to accommodate the multitude, has the potential to actually change something. The potential to do something much bigger than solve racism by casting a mexican as a villain in a science fiction film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
On the subject of whitewashing - how bad should I feel about the fact that, despite her being white, I actually think that Scarlett Johansson is otherwise a really good fit for Ghost In The Shell's Motoko Kusanagi? Like, is it in poor form for me to even think she could do that character justice? I've been turning that over in my head ever since her name first came up in association with the role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
So Moviebob reviews 50 Shades of Grey and enjoys not needing to affect a sophisticated accent anymore. The Boston is in full swing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I didn't say anything about Khan being a sly critique. I said Khan, the villain, is literally a product of the 'good guys', the federation, trying to create a 'more pure' version of itself, and he is played by the whitest man in the world, and offered a link between these two things: Much like how 'standards of beauty' will make editors photoshop a woman to be whiter, the Federation sat down and made a superman who looks like that. I wonder who came up with the designs for this artificial man? Could they perhaps be like all the old white men who run starfleet? Yeah, Khan is literally the creation of the Paramount accounting department though. No reading of the movie can ever adequately explain that because readings of the film only address the world inside of the film instead of the real world that made it. Reading racism in the fictional Federation is always ignoring the problem because American racism is what actually made the Federation racist. The entire problem with institutional racism is that you can be a basically good person and still make things worse by not paying attention and just always doing the easiest thing. It's silly to think that people are evil or bad for participating in a racist system, but it's perfectly reasonable to hold them accountable for doing an easy thing that's lazy and bad instead of doing something more thoughtful. Whether the movie turns out good or not--whatever metric you want to use for that--isn't even the issue when you're talking about issues of race in film, but for what it's worth I really don't think JJ Abrams' Khan is helping anyone think critically about racism. And I don't get that Khan and his people are a race at all in the American understanding of the term because they're exactly as white and beautiful as everyone else. It's not a critique of Captain Kirk to point out how he's pretty like Khan: it's a critique of the system that makes these lovely, thoughtless movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:43 |
|
|
Plus on a plot level Khan predates the Federation and was I guess the result of eugenics? Which means that he's the result of a bunch of people in the movie universe's version of the 1970s deciding to select for certain traits when choosing a spouse. Does that say anything coherent about why he's as beautiful as Chris Pine, who's a regular American in 2200-whatever? I don't know, but Khan still seems like a megalomaniac who cares about keeping his people together because as their king he owns them and loves their devotion. Not exactly a great claim for the value of multiculturalism imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 23:04
|
|