|
G-III posted:RLM is what happens when amateur clods with no understanding of art, politics, economics, or even human history use elementary school level pattern recognition to review things and somehow manage to get quasi-famous for doing so. Here ya go: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/armond-white
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
K. Waste posted:Does Star Wars play it lightly, or are you as an adult merely inured to its fantastic representation of conflict? 'Cause I remember being pretty freaked out by a drunk hairy bar beast getting its arm severed. Weird aliens screeched and lurched, pistols and laser swords were used liberally, as a child none of those things seemed particularly 'light' to me - they were all a part of the phantasmagoria of the films, not superficial content that I could just compartmentalize away as 'not real' or 'too amazing to be believed.' Growing up Catholic didn't help the perpetual blurring of spectacular depictions of violence and the supernatural and 'reality.' Of course all movies meant for children are made by adults constructing a category from an adult point of view. Children don't make movies. Childhood is a category constructed by adults. You're the only one asking for something more than that, like there is another way of defining genre that we can prefer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Something being "for children" only really means that it can be enjoyed by both children and adults. Except diapers I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Except diapers I guess. I'm not gonna ruin your innocence, not today anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Come on, link straight to where we want to be: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443118/rogue-one-star-wars-episode-has-jv-team-out-space haha he hates the movie and writes a lovely rant but this is great: quote:Pop art rarely expresses common spiritual and psychological needs so much as it repeatedly connects consumers to the process of cultural indoctrination ensuring their safe place in the group-think society. It’s the Pixar, Apple condition: Conforming becomes its own reward. Even if it’s called “rebellion,” it means you belong. quote:In a tired attempt at making this Death Star battle a quasi-political allegory, Disney’s screenplay hacks (including Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) cajole the Occupy generation with the phrase “Rebellion is built on hope” — uttered twice, as if Star Wars had not been appropriated by Reagan’s defense department but was now in sync with contemporary student protest. But it’s a deceptive, Machiavellian mantra. Rogue One isn’t sophisticated enough to see past the phrase’s falsehood or adult enough to dramatize the current administration’s betrayal of “hope and change” and how its media sycophants eventually lost public trust in hope or change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Something being "for children" only really means that it can be enjoyed by both children and adults. Yes. I don't mean it in a pejorative sense at all. A lot of really good movies are really good because they're made with kids in mind. Like, it doesn't mean the movies are dumb on purpose or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:https://motherboard.vice.com/read/womens-healthcare-star-wars I'm not sure I understand what point that author's trying to make here. It's clearly true that Padme didn't access the kind of reproductive health technology we have now. So? She says it's strange for a robot to say mutually contradictory things or to express confusion, but that's a total misunderstanding of what droids are. Even then, it's not a plot hole for technology in this fantasy universe to be different from ours. Also, Anakin's conviction that Padme was going to die had nothing to do with considerations about finding the best doctor and giving her good care. He doesn't understand the problem that way, as one that can be fixed with patience and trust in others. The Jedi told him to be patient about his mother, and someone actually did free her from slavery and try to give her a better life, but she died anyway, and Anakin was just barely too late to stop it. So Anakin views these visions as supernatural problems that need supernatural answers, and he has to solve them himself. Sarah finishes up by saying that depicting this failure of women's healthcare is a lazy, outdated device that perpetuates dumb superstitions and fears about womanhood. But the question "Does this work depict a healthy understanding of womanhood and feminism?" is completely orthogonal to the important question: "Does this work convey feminist themes?" The answer to the first one throughout Revenge of the Sith is obviously "no." Anakin starts off on a pretty decent footing when he sets aside his fears about getting discovered and losing his place in the Order, telling his wife how happy he is that they're starting a family together. But then his fear of losing her makes him outrageously possessive and controlling, to the point that he physically abuses her in his quest to "protect" her. Anakin himself destroys everything and everyone he ever loved precisely because of his bad attitude toward women; that gives us the answer to the second question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Nielsen posted:Come on, link straight to where we want to be: What makes it a lovely rant? You disagree with his opinion? Is it his rhetoric? I think White is a really fascinating figure in criticism, and I actually 100% agree with something he said to SlashFilm (emphasis mine) quote:We got film critics who are employed professionally by legitimate publications, and we have the world of the internet film writers. The internet has become so pervasive and overwhelming that the internet has stolen the impact and prestige and effect that traditional professional film criticism used to have. As a result of that I think that people who are now employed by the mainstream media are so intimidated by the internet that it seems, when you read mainstream published film critics, that they’ve simply given up being film critics, because they’re afraid of losing readership, because they’re afraid of losing their jobs, probably because publishers and editors simply want to get readers and appease readers, rather than inform and instruct readers. And I think that leads to a kind of anarchy where there are very few people writing about film who know what they’re talking about and who are rigorous about having standards in film. The anarchy, I think, comes from the the fact that in mainstream media and the internet, most people who are writing about films are simply writing from a fan’s perspective instead of a truly critical perspective. So what used to be termed “film critics” now is almost meaningless, because you just got a free-for-all of enthusiasms rather than criticism. Like, whether you agree or disagree with his take on R1, it's at least interesting and not some facile plot summary that passes for film review.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
I don't think that the RLM review of Rogue one is necessarily wrong. But the problem is that Rogue One is sufficiently good in certain areas that the criticism levelled can fall flat. The thing about the prequels is that they're an absolute garbage fire. (No you can't persuade me otherwise, yes I've read the arguments and I don't think they work.) Even if they're not, they're perceived to be an absolute garbage fire by most people, so when criticism is levelled at them on basically any facet it tends to ring true. The thing is when Plinkett outlines what he thinks is required for a good movie and says that Rogue One has none of those criteria, I don't necessarily disagree. The problem is that I don't think those are necessary criteria for a good movie. By Plinkett's logic for example, The Raid is a bad movie, even though it's probably the greatest martial arts movie released in the 21st century. This is because Plinkett dismisses all action as basically being the same, when in my opinion Rogue One's third act is one of the best shot and paced action scenes I've ever seen in a film. But further to that, even if the characters don't get much work, I think Rogue One's plot is weirdly enough, more about the Death Star than anything else. Almost every scene is pointedly there to display the absolute horror a weapon like that produces, from the intimate, or seperating an engineer from his family to the indiscriminate, the destruction of an entire city to kill a traitor. That's why I was invested in the finale, because they'd done such a good job of showing why the plans themselves were so important. What's happened here is that my criteria are different to RLM's and as such we have different views.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Why would anyone read those paragraphs when you admit to being unwilling to accept arguments in return?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:What makes it a lovely rant? You disagree with his opinion? Is it his rhetoric? I find it fascinating also, but he also comes across as an old muppet when he says stuff like "I can't believe we're watching a puppet dying" etc. And the tangents on "diminished masculinity" haha whatever. I don't disagree with him, he makes valid points but he also comes across as someone going in to that film expecting "something" while let's be honest, it's p much forgettable tripe for everyone who's not a SW fan. And yeah he's on point about the film critics, it's why I always have a blast picking out the negative reviews on RT when the consensus is that "it's good" because that's untrustworthy in an age where most films are utter poo poo. I guess that ties into him saying "people have given up reviewing seriously" and I think yeah why bother reviewing R1 in this way since nobody reads it or cares enough (fans see it, the rest ignores by default), well it's to our pleasure at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Why would anyone read those paragraphs when you admit to being unwilling to accept arguments in return? Did you even read what he wrote
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
"Professional enthusiasm."
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Of course all movies meant for children are made by adults constructing a category from an adult point of view. Children don't make movies. Childhood is a category constructed by adults. You're the only one asking for something more than that, like there is another way of defining genre that we can prefer. Film genre does not mean what you think it means, which is derived from common sense essentialism. (Note: I have not said that you view the "quiddatative" qualities of "kids movies" as pejorative.) Film genre is a critical category implying the syntactic and semantic relationships between films. Film genre does not refer to a preternatural 'essence' - the "quiddatative" quality of a single work - but to the rhetorical, cultural, and political narratives which emerge from patterns of films. What you are referring to is not children's movie as genre - you are confusing critical terminology with market-demographic terminology. (This is the same problem people run into with "grindhouse" movies, which is now a home-video niche market.) When you and Lucas refer to children's or kid's movies, you are both referring to the marketplace, and to vague prejudices about what kinds of spectacles are 'for kids,' as opposed to Rogue One, which doesn't realize it's a kids movie and is trying to "make it adult." Except not, because when folks attempt to clarify how this is done, they end up just clarifying that Rogue One's depictions of violence and conflict are consistent with previous Star Wars films. Rather, folks are criticizing the film for their own self-awareness as adults about political and cultural metaphors, which were also always a part of Star Wars. Children's film is a film genre. Only one of the Star Wars films qualifies even partially as a children's film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I don't think that the RLM review of Rogue one is necessarily wrong. But the problem is that Rogue One is sufficiently good in certain areas that the criticism levelled can fall flat. Is your take that there are certain films beyond criticism? I'll be honest, your post reads like it's three or four steps removed from "it's a popcorn movie!". I don't think you're saying that, necessarily, and yes, obviously people have different tastes in things--but I don't think it's true that some movies are beyond criticism. Also it's pretty lame that you simply say that people's posting about the prequels "doesn't work" without elaborating at all on what doesn't work for you and why. Nielsen posted:I find it fascinating also, but he also comes across as an old muppet when he says stuff like "I can't believe we're watching a puppet dying" etc. Oh I agree 100% about that, but at least he's saying something, y'know? To return it back to Star Wars directly, the distilled down essence of why I adore the prequels and was so unimpressed with TFA (and R1 to a lesser extent, although there are facets that I think are cool) is because even though they have some flaws, they're interesting. And at the end of the day I think that an interesting and fascinating "failure" is better than a rote "success". It's why Gods of Egypt is hilarious and awesome and why Speed Racer is incredible and why the prequels are great
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Did you even read what he wrote Of course I didn't. I said so in my post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:It's why Gods of Egypt is hilarious and awesome and why Speed Racer is incredible and why the prequels are great The prequels are basically Tim and Eric movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The prequels are basically Tim and Eric movies. Nothing in the prequels is as good as Chef Goldblum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Nothing in the prequels is as good as Chef Goldblum. Revenge of the Sith is essentially identical to "A Song for Mommy", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6gqPvmKxPE
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
The prequels are the Poop Tube, D-Pants, and the Cinco Apple. Respectively
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Sure, you have to have your teeth taken out to enjoy Phantom Menace, but wow, it's so convenient!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Film genre does not mean what you think it means, which is derived from common sense essentialism. (Note: I have not said that you view the "quiddatative" qualities of "kids movies" as pejorative.) How is this concept of the critical category not also essentialist or within capitalism? There is no outside of capitalism. Of course Star Wars has politics: it's reactionary like all fairy tales. What tastes gross to me is when a movie decides to throw a crying, dirt-smeared ethnically coded child into a battle involving space lasers and knee-high pig people, or to have the space-laser battle be the battle of Algiers but then right after a fantastical blind kung-fu man saves everyone. It's useless to use a stupid-rear end fantasy setting to say anything about real-world imperialism, especially if you're being so gutless as to avoid having the fantasy rebels be tainted by association with the terrorist label, so why crib poo poo so closely from horrors currently unfolding all around us as if anyone involved actually gives two shits about children being burned to death by tanks or drones? This is my subjective aesthetic judgment speaking. None of that means that Star Wars is somehow outside of politics, but it is a different sort of movie even though I agree with you that it has the same conservative politics, as do most movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Jar Jar Binks is essentially the child from The Tin Drum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
We can actually talk really concretely about why things go wrong. RLM's Plinkett complains that Rogue One doesn't function as a standalone film because there is no explanation of who Vader is. The film 'makes no sense' without context. What they somehow miss is that decontextualization very deliberately transforms the Vader image into this arch-demonic Prince Of Hell sort of character. Like they somehow miss that he's in a lava castle, has utterly inexplicable magic powers, and is being prayed to by the main villain. What could it possibly mean? Demon-Vader is simultaneously recontextualized as an obvious counterpart to Saw - but one who is hopeless because he has nothing like the Erso family. Enormous emphasis is placed on Vader's isolation. In this same way, RLM somehow miss that the entire film is about the authentic light side of the Force. The Holy Spirit binds this fractured community of outcasts and allows them to move mountains. The Dark Side is consequently, implicitly, defined as 'the entire rest of the universe.' Their complaint that the film only makes sense if you know the canon reveals that they can only evaluate films in terms of canon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What tastes gross to me is when a movie decides to throw a crying, dirt-smeared ethnically coded child into a battle involving space lasers and knee-high pig people, or to have the space-laser battle be the battle of Algiers but then right after a fantastical blind kung-fu man saves everyone. It's useless to use a stupid-rear end fantasy setting to say anything about real-world imperialism, especially if you're being so gutless as to avoid having the fantasy rebels be tainted by association with the terrorist label, so why crib poo poo so closely from horrors currently unfolding all around us as if anyone involved actually gives two shits about children being burned to death by tanks or drones? This is my subjective aesthetic judgment speaking. None of that means that Star Wars is somehow outside of politics, but it is a different sort of movie even though I agree with you that it has the same conservative politics, as do most movies. hear, hear!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:We can actually talk really concretely about why things go wrong. It's a nice series of images.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Is your take that there are certain films beyond criticism? I'm not saying that Rogue One is beyond criticism, I'm unsure of how people have got to that conclusion. I agree with the critique of Rogue One presented by RLM. The characters are thin and the story is lacking in places. However, Plinkett simply dismisses the action as being the same as any other Blockbuster we've seen, when to me the choreography and specifically the way it's shot to make you feel as if you're part of the combat puts it head and shoulders above almost anything I've seen from the genre. This is punctuated by the casual brutality of the deaths of named characters which is just something that's very unexpected from anything within the Star Wars franchise. I don't think you can dismiss action in a movie as having no purpose without characters you care about, Plinkett thinks you can. The division of our opinions on this point is unlikely to be a reconcilable one so we disagree. I have elaborated on my thoughts about the prequels at length many times in this thread. What happens is a circular argument where neither side gives ground and I'm exhausted by it. Arguments about Rogue One at least are new and potentially different to what we've seen before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I hated that the not human robot got a full character death scene. Why would the filmmakers give a toaster a death scene. Makes no sense. No one in the universe would ah e cared an appliance died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
I thought everything about RO kinda sucked until the attack on Eadu The score being the worst offender. It sounded like parody. The story being choppy and rushed until they left Jedha. Forced morally grey stuff What should've been done: Jynn should've been with Saw the whole time working under him. Bodhi is captured and tortured as Saw becomes increasingly paranoid, making Jyn disillusioned with Saw's brand of rebellion. Bodi delivers message from Madds. Imperials raid Saws hideout, Jyn + Bodi captured and sent to jail. Rebels stage a jailbreak. Jyn, Bodi meet Cassian + K2SO. Cherrut and Gunner Man, also escaping, join the gang after proving their combat prowess. Then resume film as was screened. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
First third of the movie definitely felt like 3 different movies edited together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Jar Jar Binks is essentially the child from The Tin Drum. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
I too take all my film criticism cues from the character of an angry shut-in sex maniac and serial killer. Plinkett: Star Wars was bad I gently caress my cat You: *nods sagely, takes notes* SuperMechagodzilla posted:
They are bad at talking about film deeper than the most surface level. "Spring Breakers has no subtext" - a thing said by them, unironically. Stick to watching them get drunk and talk about weird VHS poo poo people send them. weekly font fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:First third of the movie definitely felt like 3 different movies edited together. Yeah same The weakness of the first act weakened the second act
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
The film basically should a been The Dirty Dozen
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Maybe it was at one time. I think literally linking Jyn to the Death Star worked tho. Let me rephrase. The first third was choppy and the plot was a bit all over the place but I liked the story it told a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Taken out of context, if you know nothing about Star Wars, Chirrut's chanting about the Force just seems like a weird religion with no real world basis Then you see Vader use the Force to choke a guy from across the room
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Nielsen posted:I find it fascinating also, but he also comes across as an old muppet when he says stuff like "I can't believe we're watching a puppet dying" etc. I posted him in response to another poster lamenting the absence of actual critical analysis from "film critics". He is absolutely the best mainstream 'film critic' in that tradition still writing. Whether or not he loved or hated Rogue One is beside the point and not at all related to what he was writing about (which was the point the other poster was lamenting in the first place as to the state of film criticism).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Danger posted:I posted him in response to another poster lamenting the absence of actual critical analysis from "film critics". I know, but to talk about Star Wars some more I figured why not go straight to his R1 review.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Just started reading this, but the first thing that came to mind is Dune Messiah. Herbert wrote the sequel to Dune as a deconstruction of the hero myth in the first book, so naturally it's all about Paul's reign going to poo poo. The primary reason for this happening is that Paul has foreseen that Chani will die giving birth to Leto II and Ghanima, and Paul cannot bear to lose her (even allowing Princess Irulian to get away with secretly feeding her contraceptives) despite the fact that the lack of an heir is the root cause of the problems facing his empire. Before TFA I was really hoping a Star Wars sequel would go this direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Something I've just realized, Luke and Leia still don't know who their mom was. There were only a few people that knew about Anakin and Padme and they're all dead. Unless Obi-Wan wrote about it in his journal he left for Luke. But there's a comic where Leia goes to Naboo and she never mentions that she is the rightful Queen of Naboo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
