|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's the review he's waited his entire life to write. It's actually kinda lackluster in that way. It's more like the however-much episode of "White throws shade on 'the Obama effect.'l
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
It's definitely clip show Armond White but he has his blood up about it so it was a nice breezy read. Maybe I'm biased because it reads like something I would write.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
What's the dude's deal? It seems like every review he writes is one contrary to popular opinion. Is he a contrarian? Troll? An under-appreciated genius that won't be recognized in his lifetime? All of the above?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
How many other critics are talked about by name on here? It's a gimmick that works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:From what I remember, the BBC did at least threaten legal action against CBS when Elementary came out, but backed out for obvious reasons. Yeah but I thought that because they approached the BBC specifically about adapting Sherlock for America and then went dark (probably when some executive realized it was in the public domain and they could just rip off the premise outright) and came out with Elementary a while later
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:How many other critics are talked about by name on here? It's a gimmick that works. It's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's poo poo. It is, but it works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
It does not work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Elements of White's critique sound like they're attacking these movies from the left, but he frequently leaves off actually identifying and discussing oppression. And I don't know how the gently caress he'd resolve that with being a black guy who works for the National Review, the magazine that was founded to whine about the Civil Rights Act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
I noticed that. I mean, he's not wrong about the democratic party co-opting identity politics and exploit it to get more votes and to deflect criticism but every time he comes close to finishing his points, he moves on. He talks about the film without talking about it. It's pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It does not work. I mean what part of it are we talking about here. The gimmick absolutely 100% gets him those page views. I've seen White pop up in conversations where I'd least expect it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It does not work. SMG is a forums treasure, it works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
I get it, CP. I get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It's poo poo. CelticPredator posted:It does not work. CelticPredator posted:Nope. I’M NOT OWNED! I’M NOT OWNED!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Even when I don't agree with Armond White on a film (Which is most of the time) it at least makes me think about why something worked for me when it didn't for him. That's more interesting to me then a lot of these other critics online that feel like they just keep regurgitating the same few points on any given movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
I appreciate Armond White in the same way I appreciate the dude in the Statue Of Liberty outfit flipping an arrow sign outside of a tax return joint: you make the drive interesting, but I'll be hosed if I'm going to stop and put my well-being in your hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Armond White is against everything, which means he's right quite a bit, but then again if I just started shooting people in the street I'd be improving the world in a lot of cases and I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea except possibly the NRA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Elements of White's critique sound like they're attacking these movies from the left, but he frequently leaves off actually identifying and discussing oppression. And I don't know how the gently caress he'd resolve that with being a black guy who works for the National Review, the magazine that was founded to whine about the Civil Rights Act. Money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:I’M NOT OWNED! I’M NOT OWNED! I think Celtic Predator's point is more like: yeah, we now know the guy's name so I guess his shtick "works" in that regard. But we know his name because we all think he's a loving idiot, so how well does it really "work"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
The man gets a paycheck so I think it works. Also I bet he sleeps deeply and contentedly
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 13:00
|
|
|
Before Black Panther played, there was an Infinity War trailer showing a climactic battle taking place in Wakanda. Then I remember that almost a year ago I saw Get Out, a movie about white people having ulterior motives when they're nice to black people. edit: The plot of Black Panther reminds of Man of Steel, but this time General Zod is more explicitly Osama bin Laden. The MSJ fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Zod was more of a genocidal dictator than a terrorist
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
If anybody in that movie is Bin Laden, it's Chris Meloni
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Zod was more of a genocidal dictator than a terrorist He's just a true believer in the scientific fascism that doomed Krypton in the first place, the flip side of Jor-El.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
He was trapped by the same system Kal escaped, a man literally bred for the sole purpose of defending Krypton and its people. It so happened that his conclusions about how to best defend Krypton were contrary to the ruling government's wishes. I see Zod in MoS as closer to a machine than a living person. From beginning to end, he was trying to serve the purpose for which he was created.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:I’M NOT OWNED! I’M NOT OWNED! No one was owning me, and I just like insulting the man or putting down his accomplishments. I really hate him. He lacks sincerity in his work and tries to rile people up. People who do that are complete trash of the highest order and I can’t believe people here like his work. No wait, i can believe that and it actually bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:He lacks sincerity in his work This is rich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:He was trapped by the same system Kal escaped, a man literally bred for the sole purpose of defending Krypton and its people. It so happened that his conclusions about how to best defend Krypton were contrary to the ruling government's wishes. He was such a believer in the caste system that he was incredulous that Jor-El was even capable of handily beating his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:No one was owning me, and I just like insulting the man or putting down his accomplishments. I really hate him. He lacks sincerity in his work and tries to rile people up. People who do that are complete trash of the highest order and I can’t believe people here like his work. All of your insults are just “He sucks” that you don’t elaborate on. Why do you think he lacks sincerity? I agree that he certainly seems to enjoy being a contrarian, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:No one was owning me, and I just like insulting the man or putting down his accomplishments. I really hate him. He lacks sincerity in his work and tries to rile people up. People who do that are complete trash of the highest order and I can’t believe people here like his work. There are legitimately lovely things Armond White has done - heckling filmmakers of movies he didn’t like is awful, his Get Out review is pretty atrocious, and I’ll never be able to reconcile his identity with the fact that he writes for the National Review - but the fact that you can’t come up with any of them and only nod in agreement when other posters bring them up says a lot, mainly that you only seem to be down on the dude for his reputation as a contrarian - one that, as we established in the last conversation about him, isn’t really earned. Of course, when we established that, you just said you didn’t care and made several more white noise posts about how you didn’t like him. White is definitely on the opposite side of most critics, with his position as a black gay conservative, but it’s not like we’re talking about Milo Yiannaopoulos reviewing movies here. He’s not a fascist. He’s not worth shutting out of the discussion. Even in his Black Panther review, I only agree with half of it - the other half he spends complaining about Obama ever being president - but it’s worth trying to at least understand the things you dislike before you decide whether or not they deserve to be silenced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Who is silencing Armond White?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
"Silencing" is probably the wrong word but when you call someone "trash of the highest order" I think it's safe to say that you're going to be automatically dismissive of whatever points they might ever make
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Even if I disagree with his working for the National Review, White is amongst the best critics working right now at visible outlets because he says interesting things instead of a plot summary What he writes is often actual thoughtful criticism
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Even if I disagree with his working for the National Review, White is amongst the best critics working right now at visible outlets because he says interesting things instead of a plot summary It’s big of you to “disagree with his working for the National Review”. What a meaningless and clumsy stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:"Silencing" is probably the wrong word but when you call someone "trash of the highest order" I think it's safe to say that you're going to be automatically dismissive of whatever points they might ever make Yeah. The heckling poo poo, The Get Out stuff made me dislike him so much more than just being a rotten tomatoes algorithm breaker. (Which doesn’t matter, but it’s just the intent doing it so it breaks the score irks me. ) The guys work just gives me douche chills. Like when I read the latter works of Devin Faraci. Like there’s something deeply off about the guy and I can’t stand it. It’s like how you guys feel about Whedon or Sorkin. It’s just off putting in a visceral way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
The National Review shouldn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
sponges posted:It’s big of you to “disagree with his working for the National Review”. What a meaningless and clumsy stance. Uh how? gently caress the National Review
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The National Review shouldn't exist. Seriously. We already have a "mainstream media" that collectively abrogated its responsibilities as the Fourth Estate two decades ago; neocon libertarian chucklefucks don't need anyone to carry their water for them. Edit: Haha, Jesus, I just looked up the history of the Buckley family (the creator of the National Review used his dad's oil money to start the magazine). What an absolutely loathsome bunch of people. Timby fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Whatever your thoughts on Armond, more critics should have the audacity to have The Chronicles Of Riddick be one of their first comparisons in a review in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:10
|
|