|
You are diluting your brand, Lowtax.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
"Tumblr is already seething about this" A sentence that belongs nowhere anyone can read it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Why the hell is this piece of poo poo on the front page of a comedy website. Why. What the gently caress, Lowtax. Kick these worthless pisstards out already. Its free (or drat close to it) labor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:Its free (or drat close to it) labor. As if there aren't goons who would write reviews that are actual reviews for free. Pretty sure someone posted earlier in the thread to say they would do something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
In my humble opinion the exact moment that Current Releases tipped over into the shrill humorless Tumblr bait that it is today was when they wrote an article decrying the death of "real opinions", by which the author really means "people whose opinions aren't the same as mine". That Us vs. Them,"ugh, why can't these peons appreciate my genius?" attitude explains a lot about why they've been so blase and dismissive to any criticism no matter how constructive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:they wrote an article decrying the death of "real opinions", by which the author really means "people whose opinions aren't the same as mine".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
That attitude is basically all consuming in CD. It's loving abysmal to read anything or post there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:In my humble opinion the exact moment that Current Releases tipped over into the shrill humorless Tumblr bait that it is today was when they wrote an article decrying the death of "real opinions", by which the author really means "people whose opinions aren't the same as mine". That Us vs. Them,"ugh, why can't these peons appreciate my genius?" attitude explains a lot about why they've been so blase and dismissive to any criticism no matter how constructive. Lol, yep, no one likes his opinion because society has forgotten how to value real opinions. That's the reason no one likes reading his shrill readings of bad movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:That attitude is basically all consuming in CD. It's loving abysmal to read anything or post there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
quote:You know, like in that boardgame "Battleship." The film actually dares to suggest that you should put down your Xbox controller and play one of your grandfather's games where you might learn a lesson in humility. are you kidding me edit: Basically, these dummies have lost the point of criticism, paraphrasing Ebert - "How well does a movie do what it set out to do?" Rather than judging the Avengers on "was it a humorous actiony fun movie" he's seriously discussing the film about spandexes punching aliens as "having contempt for its audience." Straight up judging art by what it isn't rather than what it is, which is the most basic error you can make in criticism. I would like anyone who thinks like that "opinion" article to shut up for a long time. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:are you kidding me Why not have "fun" with such an article though? I imagine the majority of people were going to see Avengers anyway regardless of their opinions, and ticket sales proved that anyway. Yeah it's dumb and overwrought but I doubt anyone would've cared if he had said, "It's good go see it," or otherwise. Then again it's clear few really care what they think, so at that point what does it matter what they write? You don't have to read their articles and it's not like they're getting paid for this (I'm not sure about this actually but I figured front page writers weren't paid). If anything they're successful at getting people to talk about what they've written even if it's to tear it apart. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. Anyway it's a moot point to get on Prof. Clumsy's case because he doesn't write for CR anymore, and if last week was any indication they must actually be taking the criticism to heart since we only got reviews from Vargo and Jaydub who critique movies on the criteria you guys are demanding and for what it's worth I find they are consistently good. Also, regardless of if they're funny or not they do try to make jokes. So there's that. EDIT: I should self edit better before typing. 100YrsofAttitude fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Anyway it's a moot point to get on Prof. Clumsy's case cause he doesn't write for CR anymore, and if last week was any inclination You have to be at least 13 years old to post on the internet in the US. http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule Just putting that out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Why not have "fun" with such an article though? 100YrsofAttitude posted:No such thing as bad publicity and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
The issue with CR isn't that they're "overanalyzing" or that they're "pretentious," it's that they're trying to be critical and just being really loving bad at it. It came to a head with the Gone Girl review and for good reason, because that entire article is loving shameful. The earlier-linked article by Prof. Clumsy states two truths: 1) The Tomatometer is dumb, don't pay attention to it, like what you want to like. 2) The character with a red, white, and blue suit, with a shield patterned like the American flag, with an A on his head, probably has something to do with the country of America. ...and then he goes completely off the rails in the actual Avengers review and says that he's being blamed for AIDS or some poo poo. The Gone Girl review isn't even a review. The first rule of critical thought is basically "don't get indignantly self-righteous" and CR breaks it in spades. The Gone Girl review does almost nothing to tell you what the author thought about the movie, what they got out of it, what they think it "means," or anything like that. Up until the very last "MRAs will love it" question, I thought the author was going to praise it for how Goddamn ridiculous the movie got (which is not a bad thing.) It's a list of the things in the movie that the author was offended by. It's literally a ten-paragraph trigger warning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
reminder: clumsy quit because he was mad that his reviews would be adjacent to something someone wrote that was actually written to be funny, and succeeded
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:I personally far prefer fun (g0m) to "fun" (everyone else). That's just me, though. g0m's actually funny, he should be allowed to write more, and I hope he does. Pirate Jet posted:The issue with CR isn't that they're "overanalyzing" or that they're "pretentious," it's that they're trying to be critical and just being really loving bad at it. It came to a head with the Gone Girl review and for good reason, because that entire article is loving shameful. It's true it's only been a week, but I think that they've taken notice. Last week featured actual reviews even if they were bland. 100YrsofAttitude fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Why not have "fun" with such an article though? I imagine the majority of people were going to see Avengers anyway regardless of their opinions, and ticket sales proved that anyway. Yeah it's dumb and overwrought but I doubt anyone would've cared if he had said, "It's good go see it," or otherwise. Then again it's clear few really care what they think, so at that point what does it matter what they write? You don't have to read their articles and it's not like they're getting paid for this (I'm not sure about this actually but I figured front page writers weren't paid). quote:If anything they're successful at getting people to talk about what they've written even if it's to tear it apart. No such thing as bad publicity and all that. quote:Anyway it's a moot point to get on Prof. Clumsy's case because he doesn't write for CR anymore, and if last week was any indication they must actually be taking the criticism to heart since we only got reviews from Vargo and Jaydub who critique movies on the criteria you guys are demanding and for what it's worth I find they are consistently good. Also, regardless of if they're funny or not they do try to make jokes. So there's that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Last week featured actual reviews even if they were bland. And no, I'm not moving any goalposts here. I never wanted the things from the beginning. Sham bam bamina! fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:g0m's actually funny, he should be allowed to write more, and I hope he does. I write other articles. one went up today in fact. (http://www.somethingawful.com/news/super-smash-guide/) I don't watch movies much so I wouldn't be a very good regular movie reviewer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:This is a comedy site. There is no reason for a series like Current Releases to exist in the first place Why not? There are already reviews of video games and other nerd stuff, why should new movies be exempt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Why not? There are already reviews of video games and other nerd stuff, why should new movies be exempt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:It's true it's only been a week, but I think that they've taken notice. Last week featured actual reviews even if they were bland. It's pretty much too early to say whether they've taken heed to the criticism, or if they're just laying low from the controversy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Why not have "fun" with such an article though? Once again, I point to the old Mars Needs Moms review as an example of when this column was about just reviewing movies. That was a fresh take back then. But they kept going to the well and it's gone dry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Why not? There are already reviews of video games and other nerd stuff, why should new movies be exempt? There have been some dumb video game articles too but most of them have been mainly a joke article or a kinda nicely written thing like they did for Divinity where it was just 'here's some stupid poo poo this game let me do, that's cool, I like that games let me do stupid poo poo' and then sentence long reviews with an arbitrary score that mainly serve to show 'is this good or bad'. Like this is the closest that the video game dude came to a serious review: quote:With the orc incapacitated I carefully a barrel full of poison directly in front of him. He couldn't move, but he was surely able to see what was coming. I opted to pass on my combat turns to let the situation sink in. When the orc stood back up I used an electric spell to charge the puddle of blood at his feet, stunning him again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:are you kidding me I will defend CR's Battleship review to the death. They're right, it's a great film about trial and error, the essence of Battleship. Also the "humility" thing plays a large in the roll film tbh th1nk posted:As if there aren't goons who would write reviews that are actual reviews for free. Pretty sure someone posted earlier in the thread to say they would do something along those lines. That was me! Honestly if Lowtax paid for my drink and bunch-a-crunch I'd buy the ticket myself, but don't allow me to do this because I'm a terrible procrastinator Julius CSAR fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:edit: Basically, these dummies have lost the point of criticism, paraphrasing Ebert - "How well does a movie do what it set out to do?" Ebert was wrong about a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Ebert was wrong about a lot of things. Not about criticism as a discipline, he wasn't. Works of art should be judged on two criteria: how well they do what they set out to do, and whether what they set out to do was worth doing. There are as billion other things that can be discussed about them (including stupid death of the author personal readings), but in assessing a work this is what you should do if you aren't a big dummy
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Not about criticism as a discipline, he wasn't. Wacky interpretive reviews are fine. The ones in CR are just awful, humorless and geared toward a really narrow mindset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Lol, yep, no one likes his opinion because society has forgotten how to value real opinions. That's the reason no one likes reading his shrill readings of bad movies. It's really difficult to deride stupidity like Current Releases in such a way that you deny them the opportunity to fall back on saying things like "Yeah, it's like we care, right?" or trite, meaningless phrases like "anti-intellectualism" and still get your point across. I wish I had the rhetorical skills to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
If they cared they'd write better reviews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Not about criticism as a discipline, he wasn't. He actually really really was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:He actually really really was. Explain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Hi pls make me a film critic what's the pay Annabelle This movie is set in the 60s, a time when there was very much racism, which was really bad. However, the movie completely fails to confront racism as a really bad thing, thereby tacitly endorsing it, and instead chooses to spend the entire time focussing on souls and hell dolls, which was confusing because I'm pretty sure those aren't even real. It's a really bad racist movie but the doll made me scared sometimes. Dolls: 1/10 America's Racist Legacy: 0/10 Kinda Spooky: 6/10 Hell: Not Real Or Is It??? 4/10 OVERALL: 11/50 Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day This is a really good movie that has lots of symbols. Of the ones I counted: Alexander represents the global proletariat, his birthday party represents material fulfillment, the school system represents hegemonic first-world oppression and alienation, Dick van Dyke represents God, Celia represents women, and the whole gameing job subplot is a subtle shout-out to #gamergate. That's six metaphors and I enjoyed them all, but I have a suspicion that Celia doesn't have a dick which is erasure, and I saw a product label which is really degrading corporate shilling for an artform like Disney movies to engage in, so -10 for each of those Lots of Symbolism: 60/10 Transphobia: -10/10 Commercialism: -10/10 OVERALL: 40/50
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
That was somehow less funny than the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:He actually really really was. he won the only Pulitzer for film crit moron
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
When determining how good-bad a movie is, it's important to remember that awards are even deader than authors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:When determining how good-bad a movie is, it's important to remember that awards are even deader than authors. After you said you'd stop posting in this thread if I did, I stopped posting. Since then you have posted three or four times. I am not going to post here, but you are free to break your word like a big baby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:deader than authors
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
On the other hand, appealing to authority about the purpose of film criticism isn't the way to go here. There are numerous worthy points to be made against Current Releases without pretending that Ebert's word is somehow final.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:On the other hand, appealing to authority about the purpose of film criticism isn't the way to go here. There are numerous worthy points to be made against Current Releases without pretending that Ebert's word is somehow final. I disagreed with Ebert about tons of stuff, but if you think there's something seriously wrong with his "what movies should be judged on" mantra you are a very stupid person IMO
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:43
|
|