|
Mraagvpeine posted:I meant more like classic reviews. I think you're going to have to further define what you mean by a 'classic review'.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:Are there any "classics" in internet reviewing? Harry Knowles' Blade II review. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
There's also Neill Cumpston, who I think was really Patton Oswalt: https://urchin.earth.li/~twic/Neill_Cumpston.html His Matrix review was titled "YOU WILL poo poo"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Kunster posted:I guess you could count ClassicGameRoom and the likes of ToastyFrog there. I enjoy CGR reviews just because Mark is a lot happier and less cynical than most internet reviewers, even if he doesn't offer deep insight or anything. I also trust his word on 2600 games more than most since he was actually around when that poo poo was new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Jesus looking at the new reviews he never updated his Schtick either. Is this Channel Awesome's future in 10 years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
The thing to remember about Harry Knowles is that he began writing about movies because his back was crushed by a cart full of comic book memorabilia that ran him over as he was leaving a comic book convention. He was bedridden for a year and had only his laptop and its DSL connection for human contact or entertainment. That is also how he became morbidly obese and began wearing hawaiian shirts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The thing to remember about Harry Knowles is that he began writing about movies because his back was crushed by a cart full of comic book memorabilia that ran him over as he was leaving a comic book convention. He was bedridden for a year and had only his laptop and its DSL connection for human contact or entertainment. That is also how he became morbidly obese and began wearing hawaiian shirts. That's a pretty great origin story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I think you're going to have to further define what you mean by a 'classic review'. I was watching some old video reviews (the ones Kyle (Oancitizen) did for "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and "Trash Humpers") and afterwards I realized how many years it was since I first watched them. I started thinking that those were classic Kyle reviews, and then wondered about other people and what would be considered classic reviews for them. In hindsight, classic may be stretching it; perhaps I was thinking "memorable".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The thing to remember about Harry Knowles is that he began writing about movies because his back was crushed by a cart full of comic book memorabilia that ran him over as he was leaving a comic book convention. He was bedridden for a year and had only his laptop and its DSL connection for human contact or entertainment. That is also how he became morbidly obese and began wearing hawaiian shirts. I didn't see anything on wikipedia confirming that, but: wikipedia posted:On April 4, 2008, Knowles announced that he was diagnosed as a Type-2 diabetic.[18] In January 2011, Knowles underwent emergency spinal surgery to his T-10 vertebrae. According to Knowles, the surgery restored sensation in his legs for the first time in over 15 years, and he would be undergoing physical therapy to learn to walk again. Type 2 diabetes is what happens when you live on a diet of popcorn, milk duds and 42 oz. cokes (which Knowles probably does). But the Vertibrae problem? Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
He can't walk because 500 pounds of Moon Knight comics and Spock Space Helmets powdered several of his vertebrae. It is legitimately an origin story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The oldest stuff is text, from a time before streaming video. Here are the first internet reviews I can remember finding, back in the last century.  Paladin of Shadows series. Which John Ringo agrees with "totally and unashamedly." He even endorsed the critic's "Oh John Ringo No" charity t-shirts. It's not only a great review of a terrible series, but a great example of good sportsmanship on the Internet.Jack Gladney posted:And then there's the guy he stole his gimmick from: Joe Bob Briggs aka John Bloom, who I've been reading since he had an e-mail list for his reviews, who doesn't really count because he has pre-internet books and newspaper columns:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Wrageowrapper posted:Half in the Bag looks at the South African film Chappie starring Hugh Jackmans glorious mullet. Has Jay ever done that with his hair before? Because... nice. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I think you're going to have to further define what you mean by a 'classic review'. Obviously he's thinking of something like this DStecks posted:Has Jay ever done that with his hair before? Because... nice. Between that and the beard finally filling in, he doesn't look like a disheveled hobo living out of a garbage bin anymore. I find this almost disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I was watching some old video reviews (the ones Kyle (Oancitizen) did for "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and "Trash Humpers") and afterwards I realized how many years it was since I first watched them. I started thinking that those were classic Kyle reviews, and then wondered about other people and what would be considered classic reviews for them. In hindsight, classic may be stretching it; perhaps I was thinking "memorable". Ah, well, if we're talking old reviews that stuck with me, and that I rewatch from time to time, my favorite ones of all time would be the Transmission Awesome crossover reviews. First, there was Dragon Ball Evolution http://channelawesome.com/dragonball-evolution-the-epic-review/ And the sequel (to the review, not the movie) The Last Airbender (not Dougs) that I can't find on the freaking site. so here's the Blip link : http://blip.tv/yruleroftime/the-last-airbender-review-4929697 You don't have to know all about Transmission Awesome to watch these, there's only a couple of references to it. I also enjoy the Warrior comic reviews that Spoony and Linkara did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Comic Book Movies thread. I checked, and you were more implying it, but nevertheless retracted it. Oh yes, I remember this now. I was referring to the people in metropolis who were dying when Superman went to go save the world, and you got hung up on the word 'american' and went on a rant about how I could have said 'westerner', but actually shouldn't have said that either because of immigration(?). This was all to get around the basic joke I was making, that posters in the thread were really pissed off that Superman abandoned people and flew away - even though it was to save literally the entire planet. I guess I could have said 'people of metropolis', but what I wrote sounded better at the time. When I retracted the word, in the hopes you'd deal with the actual point of the post, you said 'your posts have improved my opinion of the movie' - strange, you didn't mention that part. Puppy Time posted:HBG I like you but you keep making a lot of erroneous assumptions about what other posters are thinking and saying, and then barfing out textwalls based on that. Speaking of idiot fuckers who are wrong and I am smart, if you think Man of Steel is dour looking, you will pay for your crimes in my gulag:        Man of Steel is dope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Oh yes, I remember this now. I was referring to the people in metropolis who were dying when Superman went to go save the world, and you got hung up on the word 'american' and went on a rant about how I could have said 'westerner', but actually shouldn't have said that either because of immigration(?). This was all to get around the basic joke I was making, that posters in the thread were really pissed off that Superman abandoned people and flew away - even though it was to save literally the entire planet. I guess I could have said 'people of metropolis', but what I wrote sounded better at the time. When I retracted the word, in the hopes you'd deal with the actual point of the post, you said 'your posts have improved my opinion of the movie' - strange, you didn't mention that part. There's two macguffins to blow up. One is in the middle of the ocean and an easy airborne kill. The other in a densely-populated city and much tougher to take down. They sent Superman to the one out in the ocean  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:There's two macguffins to blow up. One is in the middle of the ocean and an easy airborne kill. The other in a densely-populated city and much tougher to take down. They sent Superman to the one out in the ocean They sent Superman to the one on the other side of the world while they used the magi-tech worm hole machine that was just miles away from the city macguffin. Unless you think the Malaysian(Indonesian?) armed forces are going to fair better than the US military against alien super tech. Also the one they sent Superman to destroy was the one actually terraforming the Earth, while the US took on the regular alien space ship. It was a pretty reasonable plan. Especially since relaying all the necessary information to the militaries in the Oceania area would take longer than Superman just flying there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I think Superman should have let Zod live at the end, see; maybe put him in the Kryptonian ship so his powers won't work or something. But then, in the sequel, Lex Luthor releases Zod, and this time Superman decides he made a mistake last time, so he kills Zod, which was all part of Luthor's plan to discredit Superman. Then Batman decides he needs to take him down. And that's the third movie. I guess that probably would have been a darker direction to take it in. It's probably just as well I don't write the Superman movies. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
IDK how old stuff has to be to count as "classics" but for videogame stuff I generally think of Broken Pixels, which was pretty ahead of it's time. I don't really think most of his stuff stands up but Seanbaby's been plugging away at the cynical videogame reviewer game since the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Oh yes, I remember this now. I was referring to the people in metropolis who were dying when Superman went to go save the world, and you got hung up on the word 'american' and went on a rant about how I could have said 'westerner', but actually shouldn't have said that either because of immigration(?). This was all to get around the basic joke I was making, that posters in the thread were really pissed off that Superman abandoned people and flew away - even though it was to save literally the entire planet. I guess I could have said 'people of metropolis', but what I wrote sounded better at the time. When I retracted the word, in the hopes you'd deal with the actual point of the post, you said 'your posts have improved my opinion of the movie' - strange, you didn't mention that part. "Rant"? Okay, sure. And sorry for, uh... not summarising the tangential discussion more when it wasn't the point? Yes, your posts certainly improved my opinion of it - I no longer think the movie is morally reprehensible, I just think it's bad movie. quote:actual point of the post People in glass houses, Hbomberguy. People in glass houses. e: Seriously, trying to throw my old posts back at me in some half-hearted effort to own me is kind of futile when discussion has kind of moved on months ago. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Speaking of idiot fuckers who are wrong and I am smart, if you think Man of Steel is dour looking, you will pay for your crimes in my gulag: While those are good looking pictures, the colors are still kind of washed-out, although way less than in the horrendous 3D version. Superman deserve Technicolor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
So having never seen MoS, why does kid-Clark whear a cape and do a Superman pose? I remember it in the teaser trailers and wondering this, do they show him reading comic books and wanting to be a superhero? Are there already superheros in that universe? Does he have Alan Scott's autograph on his copy of Green Lantern or something? Or is it just mindless "IT'S loving SUPERMAN!!!" imagery?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
When it comes to pre-AVGN "classic" review stuff, my gold standard has always been Matt's writing on the ol' X-Entertainment. His stuff was (and still is, I guess) this pleasant mix of corny "kids joke book" humor, childlike enthusiasm and a supernatural ability to find obscure 80s toys, merchandise, video and even food (he was doing Brad Tries long for Brad, just in written form and usually with pictures of He-Man action figures). I still occasionally read his breakdowns of old Macy's Day Parades. His site was also THE place to find video of old 80s commercials pre-Youtube. Matt's got a new site called Dinosaur Dracula. It's not quite as fun, there's less of a sense of "look at this treasure I found!" and more "here's a video on Youtube," but it's still enjoyable. He also does the rare video review, mostly around Halloween. The guy's pretty much perfected the awkward pause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Alacron posted:So having never seen MoS, why does kid-Clark whear a cape and do a Superman pose? I remember it in the teaser trailers and wondering this, do they show him reading comic books and wanting to be a superhero? Are there already superheros in that universe? Does he have Alan Scott's autograph on his copy of Green Lantern or something? The answer being, because teaching someone to be willing to risk their life to save a dumb animal, and to love them, is the highest moral good. We are dumb animals, but need to love each other anyway. 'Superman' is just a vessel for that simple lesson, and always has been. The conflict in Man of Steel is the conflict between bartenders, oil rig workers, IHOP workers, schoolchildren, newspaper columnists, and soldiers against the system that oppresses them all collectively and threatens to eventually destroy the world. The antagonist is a machine that threatens to 'turn the world into Krypton'. Krypton, symbolically, is already present on Earth in the form of drones, wage slavery, continued actual slavery, and so on. The message is the same as the one in STID: The only way 'out' of the true causes of conflict is to learn to love everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Alacron posted:So having never seen MoS, why does kid-Clark whear a cape and do a Superman pose? I remember it in the teaser trailers and wondering this, do they show him reading comic books and wanting to be a superhero? Are there already superheros in that universe? Does he have Alan Scott's autograph on his copy of Green Lantern or something? While capes and hands on hips as a pose have become associated with Superman in our world, they did predate Superman. Knights, nobility, kings, Robin Hood and others have all worn a cape. Hands on hips is a pose that is associated with confidence, power, heroism, and assertiveness. For us they've largely become linked with superheroes, but there's an underlying reason that they adopted those to begin with. Also, yes it associates him with Superman for the audience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:It's a flashback right at the end of the movie, explaining why Pa Kent knew his son was destined to be a hero. It's a kid with tremendous powers pretending he has a cape and demonstrating a love for 'lesser animals' (read: us), designed to answer the question 'why did Kent risk his life to save the dog earlier?'  You're attributing way more thought into it than someone like Zack Snyder is capable of, please stop. The real answer is that it was Superman imagery because it looked cool to Zack Snyder. Much like how he spends the whole movie trying to make the audience believe that Clark is a god and a force of absolute good and then has him engage in wanton destruction of the town and city without even an attempt to move the fight with Zod and his goons somewhere where people can't get hurt because he wanted a big epic fight scene in a collapsing city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Asuron posted:
You're arguing based on what your mental construct of the director intended as opposed to what the film shows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Asuron posted:You're attributing way more thought into it than someone like Zack Snyder is capable of, please stop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're arguing based on what your mental construct of the director intended as opposed to what the film shows. I literally gave an example of of how two things in the movie conflicted terribly with one another, one of which was probably the most important point throughout the entire film. PiedPiper posted:Snyder wasn't the one who wrote the script, though. Yes I'm aware, but he also has a great amount of influence over how the film is made you know?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Asuron posted:I literally gave an example of of how two things in the movie conflicted terribly with one another, one of which was probably the most important point throughout the entire film. Okay, you're doing both. But I agree with you about the wanton destruction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Asuron posted:
Zod was the one driving the fight into the city. Superman did make at least one attempt to move the fight, but since Zod also was a god it didn't do much. Plus the fight was actually pretty brief.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Asuron posted:
Clark was fighting someone with the power to fly into space. Trying to 'take it somewhere else' wasn't possible, even on the tactical-realism level you're pushing. Zod was trying to keep it near people so he could hurt Clark. That is his motivation, hence the part where he says 'I am going to kill everyone just to spite you'. It also, like Lamps said, doesn't matter what Snyder thinks. He could well be a drooling idiot and it doesn't matter. The film is the film. Since Superman is not real, the collateral damage must be read as a metaphor. You're witnessing the destruction of 'the system', in order to save the people inside it. There's a scene where Clark is all 'hey ma your farm got destroyed' and she doesn't give a poo poo because people matter way more - this is the point. This conflict is still violent and still threatens the people inside it, and I like how the final fight is almost painful to watch, in terms of speed and aesthetic. It's a representation of the horrifying and difficult side of revolutionary struggle without sugar-coating it by having it take place somewhere safe or shooting it so Superman looks like an objectively heroic person. Think Godzilla '14, where in order to combat the enemy and save the world, Godzilla's emergence from the water causes such a massive displacement that dozens or even hundreds of people drown. The film didn't do that to make Godzilla look like a bad guy or accurately represent the water-displacement effect such a large creature would objectively create. It did it because the film is calling for revolutionary struggle, and the death of the nuclear family. Saving the world might well threaten people and you might have to snap someone's neck. A real hero is someone who is willing to do this - and even feel genuinely bad about it! - but to reserve this option until it becomes the only one. Superman coulda straight up killed Zod straight away but thought he could just beat him into submission. The film takes that little extra step most Supeman media doesn't take, and asks 'but what if they won't stop?'
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Asuron posted:
Media can invoke meaning other than what the author intended. This is literally what Death of the Author means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
It's easier to say Zack Snyder is a hackfraud and everything that appears on screen is by accident or projection of the viewer. I think he's a fantastic filmmaker with room for a lot of growth. He certainly knows how to shoot a movie but he took some things for granted with Man of Steel that I think he should have shown more of. Some of the deleted scenes would have solved that problem perfectly but he left them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
What do the deleted scenes show?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
poparena posted:When it comes to pre-AVGN "classic" review stuff, my gold standard has always been Matt's writing on the ol' X-Entertainment. His stuff was (and still is, I guess) this pleasant mix of corny "kids joke book" humor, childlike enthusiasm and a supernatural ability to find obscure 80s toys, merchandise, video and even food (he was doing Brad Tries long for Brad, just in written form and usually with pictures of He-Man action figures). I still occasionally read his breakdowns of old Macy's Day Parades. His site was also THE place to find video of old 80s commercials pre-Youtube. Matt's an awesome guy as well, so throw my recommendation there too. In a similar vein, I've always enjoyed I-Mockery's movie reviews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
My newest requested review is up on "Who is Bugs Potter?" by Gordon Korman, a book whose main protagonist is completely blind to everyone's feelings and get's everything he wants without consequence. I hate you, Bugs Potter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
For the "classic reviews" entry, there's The Filthy Critic: http://www.filthycritic.com/. I'm honestly shocked the site's still around, I would have laid money on having to go to an archive.org dive there. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Mr. Plinkett where inspired by him. (I also wouldn't be surprised if RLM had never heard of some guy on writing reviews in the late 90s and swearing a lot)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Miss Wallace posted:Matt's an awesome guy as well, so throw my recommendation there too. In a similar vein, I've always enjoyed I-Mockery's movie reviews. Matt is a real sweetheart and his writing really resurrects the feeling of what it is to be a kid watching a CBS special presentation with that old spinning logo, or what it feels like to get a new weird toy. It's the only time I've ever really been seduced by nostalgia and not cynical or dismissive of it. I've been reading him since 2000, and it's been fun to see him grow up before my eyes and sharpen his voice by writing silly things each week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Zod was the one driving the fight into the city. Superman did make at least one attempt to move the fight, but since Zod also was a god it didn't do much. Plus the fight was actually pretty brief. Not really. The first time they face off he literally slams Zod into the nearby town and then proceeds to keep the fight there even though at one point he's literally fighting in a diner with lots of other people crouching around them. They just keep slugging it out until he gets blown through a wall. The second time he just punches Zod into every building he sees. I mean on its own this shouldn't be that big a deal right? But that's the problem with the movie , the tone is all over place. They try to glorify Superman as a hero but he never really does anything heroic other than beat Zod and causes more destruction by keeping it in the area. In the Avengers you had the same type of city wide destruction but you had multiple scenes where the Avengers were helping citizens, trying to move fights way from them and making that the priority. Superman is never shown to be doing any of that except to save Lois Lane repeatedly when she falls from the air which just clashes with everything the movie tries to portray him as. Jimbot posted:It's easier to say Zack Snyder is a hackfraud and everything that appears on screen is by accident or projection of the viewer. I don't think he's a hackfraud . I think attributing anything deep to his work like the destruction of the city being seen as "tearing down the system "and saying that's what Zac intended to begin with is disingenuous, especially when all his other work have always been really shallow.The guy follows the rule of cool, he likes big explosions, he likes heavily choreographed fights, he likes slow- mo fight scenes and that's is absolutely fine in my book but lets not pretend it was anything deeper than that. MonsieurChoc posted:Media can invoke meaning other than what the author intended. This is literally what Death of the Author means. I think individually you can take away a different meaning from a work and more power to you, because that's always a interesting discussion where you see what people took away from the authors work. But attributing those meanings to the work and saying that's what the author must've intended in the first place is different to that and really silly in my opinion. Asuron fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 05:00
|
|