|
Well I find the CR jokes to be pretty funny, but what sets them apart from the million other reviews on the internet is that they are actually good reviews of films as well.
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Y-Hat posted:"problematic," whatever the gently caress that means. It means that there may be problems or negative aspects to the thing being described, aspects that should be thought about and discussed, possibly mocked and even argued against. This is both fun and good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Then don't read them? Instead just post a lot about how you really don't care and maybe no one will notice that you have poor reading comprehension and the front page writers will totally stop having opinions about art and politics that clearly offend you! It's possible that could happen. Good luck!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
halleys comet posted:I want the movie reviewers to be replaced by Lyle, who is not only 1000x smarter than them but, as a Maoist-Leninist, farther left as well. Then encourage Lyle (or g0m or whoever) to write for the front-page, I assume it's a combo of effort/volunteerism. In the meantime they can post their reviews in the relevant CD threads, like anyone else who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
th1nk posted:You sound upset, friend. Oh you have no idea, buddy. My many jowls quiver under my beard. quote:I am glad that Current Releases panders to the interests quote:I'm sure all those blogs with 0 comments only lacked them because their many readers quote:It's almost like protecting them from criticism for ages has only resulted in more vehement criticism  quote:The fact none of the fans of Current Releases realise or acknowledge that Triticum Guzzler's post is by far the most incisive and entertaining critique to be written as a result of it in years is a pretty damning indictment of their judgement IMO. I tell ya what; I'll take another look at Guzzler's post. I admit, I skimmed over it, cuz it looked like a weak-rear end troll that wasn't really funny, but I am defending the concept of looking at and thinking about entertainment, even children's entertainment, so I suppose I should try to be fair. quote:There's no need to have FYAD write the entire thing, but some people who aren't humorless English Lit majors obsessed with the deep, nuanced social commentary of Goof Troop would be a nice change! I laughed when you had to assert this twice. Grr it's so humorless to think about what Goof Troop could be saying about society! drat you, English Literature majors  Any Disney product is packed to the brim with meaning, and it can be fun/interesting to puzzle out. sorry but that's just how I feel, th1nk. Ok let's take a peek at this infamous warlock: Triticum Guzzler posted:The essence of the criticism of the criticism that has been ongoing, at least on my part, is that it is bad. It is not good. Good start, the simple language creates a sense that "of course it's so obvious!", made me laugh, for reals, even though I'm pretty sure the coming explanation of How It Is Bad is gonna be weak as poo poo quote:If you actually legitimately care about film, there is a good chance you do not post about it on this web site, Cool dichotomy bro. No doubt it's accurate, although it would require some counter-examples to be certain. Perhaps they will be forthcoming. quote:because if you look at the movie forum (or the book forum, etc) you see that largely there's an incredible fixation on really childish products More of the same. quote:(and they are usually products rather than films) with a corresponding lack of taste. Triticum Guzzler does not like the taste of these nerds quote:I'm sure it's an idea that's unfamiliar to you, as a grown man who wants to surgically replace his dick and balls with a coin operated motorised Donald Duck ride who is about 3 wispy chin hairs away from being a convicted rapist, They're gross! quote:but when criticism is coming from a really juvenile place about a less-juvenile subject it can seem very superficial and difficult to respect. Ha ha ha, no kidding! poo poo's getting downright meta here - I'll give Guzzler the benefit of the doubt that he/she/porpoise possesses self-awareness. quote:Some of the reviewers present as, essentially, children of varying extreme largeness. Don't forget, they're gross! quote:But even if you read what they have to say about children's movies, it's still incredibly basic analysis of a film seen through a lens of a culture who are obsessed with identity politics in all things. Holy hell, finally an actual criticism. It was hidden under all those appeals to human bodies (they're gross!) and children (they're dumb!). Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak complaint: why is "basic analysis" bad? Should they go . . deeper? And I've never got the impression of CR as "obsessed with id politics", although that could be possible, and wouldn't ya know, we're gonna get an actual example! Singular, so "obsessed" is a bit of a stretch, but still, this section of the post is showing some sincere effort! quote:For example, if you read this week's review of The Boxtrolls, all you will learn is: Even if one disagrees with the review's reasons, you'd have to be borderline illiterate to miss them. Remember, this is "basic analysis". Sir Kodiak's (who reads comic books! gross and dumb!) post already covered it, as did a cursory re-read of BigBudgetSequel's (who's fat and reviews kids movies! gross and dumb!) review, but we've already come this far so here it is again: - the movie is bad because it focuses on the least interesting character (a good criticism imo) - the villain is a mockery of drag queens, and that's bad because cross-dressers/queers are often portrayed negatively in children's media (this is kinda weak criticism*. but the reviewer does tell you why he thinks it's bad) *It's weak cuz the review doesn't really dig into the villain and how his cross-dressing is portrayed. Sounds like his slavish devotion to social-climbing has warped his body and mind, literately hosed his gender. In a movie where the main character is raised by sub-humans. There could be something interesting here, the review doesn't really explore it, but it doesn't sound like the film does either. Anyways, if the cross-dressing is really portrayed as a bad thing, it needs to be compared to similar stuff, like Bugs Bunny. Like, in the Jungle Book, when Baloo the bear dresses up as a girl-orangutan to seduce King louie. On the surface, it's just played for silly laughs. Yet the film is showing a hero disguise himself as a black transsexual to successfully subvert the power of a monarchy, while singing I wanna be like you-u-u and it's awesome as hell and where was I? Right. In conclusion: Triticum Guzzler's post has one good point buried under countless appeals to the dumbness of children, a weird amount of emotion over the bodies of strangers, vague assertions that serious/real movie discussion happens elsewhere, etc. In essence, it is not good. It is bad. quote:Thank you for reading this wearying post. As a reward, here is a picture of the cast of Duck Tales taking public transport so you can finally blast the biggest load of your life you mewling piece of poo poo idiot Scrooge prob owns the transport system, so they ride for free!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
Oh I missed this gem:Triticum Guzzler posted:Like when they allow kids to do news reports on the actual news. The implication is that children reading the news is bad. But kid's news is adorable and pretty much as informative as adult news. Hard-hitting facts about local animals!  James Hardon posted:I agree with Black Bones, the guy who, as a quick glance at the first page of his post history reveals, really likes talking about Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars and how proud he is of the Venture Brothers t-shirt he paid money to buy and likely wears in public a few times a week. The last is an exaggeration, I only wear it once a week before I need to wash it (I sweat A LOT). The rest is accurate. Ruddha posted:People quote Duncan's long post to laugh with him and tell him he's good, but peopl quote your long post to call you a homo, a fag word, to call you dumb etc which is a form of review itself and quite beautiful Yes I noticed. It is beautiful - it functions as a stark example of superior/inferior shitposting: Mine is strong and full of muscles, whereas "yer a fag" is weak nerds mad about getting sand kicked their face. Don't be a wuss, be a Hero of the Beach! TheLovablePlutonis posted:Saying that a bear disguising as a female urang-utan is equal to a black transsexual sounds like the sort of thing i'd read from Stormfront. Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. I was attempting to provide a quick example of when children's art can be cool and interesting, so I thought I'd read the characters of Jungle Book as representing the underclasses of the inner city. Like, Baloo is obviously homeless, Bagheera is a manic street preacher (a Black Panther!), the wolves/vultures are street punks, Louie is a gangster or lounge singer (jazz? I dunno, some kinda old-timey stuff), Kaa is I guess a pimp, Shere Khan a murderer of some sort, the elephants would be cops. All these groups want to claim the orphan Mowgli in some fashion. To be clearer, Baloo's culture-gender mixing is good. He is a hero, who successfully seduces Louie and topples his palace, freeing Mowgli. Chilled Cap posted:This is the level of content we're talking about. You're demanding that Current Releases' critics methodically craft intellectual arguments against the man who is insanely angry at the concept of female planes. Yes, I demand this. Are you unwilling, or just unable? After all, if Clumsy's review is sooo crazy and dumb, it shouldn't be very difficult to argue against. So far, all we have are vague appeals to it being "bad". How so, gentle goons? Like, Professor Clumsy hated the newest Godzilla iirc. So I think he's wrong about that, cuz it's easily the best movie of the year so far, but his review was helpful to me in deciding to see it. A good review is when the writer explains why they reacted the way they did to the film - so you, the viewer, can decide if it's the sort of thing that you would like to see, regardless of how they felt about it. quote:Look into your hearts. I have the heart of a warrior, and it is filled with joy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:You lose any comprehension by attempting to argue every point with your own separate points, and such stilted hard-to-read messes simply make you seem shamefully autistic or schizophrenic. Fair enough, I won't break up individual posts anymore, although I do worry about some of y'alls ability to figure out what I am responding to, since a common complaint seems to be that CR is allegedly unclear or duplicitous (while simultaneously being too dumb or basic, even to the point of being childlike). Effectronica posted:It's amazing how your subversive "reading" comes within the orbit of deliberate choices by the filmmakers and camp readings without ever actually touching them. Meh, it was a quick idea off the top of my head meant to serve as an example. It's certainly not a strong one. th1nk posted:If I may make one further request of your brilliant analytical mind and stunning, nay, inspiring grasp of the appeal of various mediums, who would you consider the target audience for Current Releases, and how does this audience compare to that of the rest of the front page? If you believe they are similar, could you explain the ways in which both appeal to this audience, with a focus on current releases. In this case, I would also be interested to hear whether or not you would agree that there is nonetheless a marked difference in tone between the two, and then ask why this does not affect their target audiences. If they are not similar, what are your arguments as to why this inconsistency is superior to the relatively consistent tone used by the vast majority of similar websites, and how large would you consider these two audiences relative to each other? The target audience is anyone who interested in what movies are coming out and what some goons thought about them. It is the same audience that reads other front page material, the same that reads the forums. You and me and any other terrible nerd. I have not noticed a “marked” difference between CR and other features. The reviews are usually straight, with the occasional experiment (like the Gone Girl one) and some that outright mock the film without any attempt at review. But even the serious ones still fall within the general dorky point-of-view that is Something Awful. Sometimes they are good and I agree, other times they are good yet I disagree, and yes sometimes they are bad (like the Gone Girl one), but those aren't often enough to elicit much emotion from me. WTF D&D is pretty consistently creative and funny imo, but some of them are boring too. It happens. Don't forget, if you don't like the CR review about it, there is usually a thread in CD where other people with widely different opinions and notions are talking about the movie. If you don't like something, you should definitely criticize it, but try to criticize it well. A lot of the previous noise was not good criticism, because they were not attempting to explain what was wrong with the review of a given kid's movie, but just expressing endless incredulity over the fact that a kid's movie was reviewed at all. And there are several main and sub forums on here for people to blow off steam with low effort insults, if that's all they want to do. This thread as near as I can tell is intended for constructive (or what passes for it) feedback. Now some of y'all are being coaxed into doing so, that's good! quote:there is only the barest minimal attempt, or sometimes none made at all, discuss cohesion, plot development, believable characters, cinematography, or overall enjoyability. I don't think the reviewers in question are capable of discerning these things past their outrage. it seems like it must be very exhausting and upsetting to be these people, and see attacks on personal freedoms everywhere you go, and I don't particularly want to be a part of their world view. it's the reason I prefer to go to comedy websites instead of blogger's personal manifestos. only now, for some reason, they seem to be part of the same thing. This is what I mean about bad criticism – it appears like you didn't really read any review. The infamous Boxtrolls review (for example) discusses all of these things that I bolded. Feel free to check if you think I'm lying, which brings me to the paranoia: lesbian baphomet posted:Very many of the excepts posted in this thread read as though the reviewers are perhaps not giving you insight into their real emotional responses at all, but rather giving you a canned and exaggerated outrage out of a perceived social obligation, or a college essay-style response upon later reflection with respect to their well-meaning but often misplaced political views. And both of those tell me nothing about how well a movie might appeal to me, since they are too fake to be meaningful. Corridor posted:this is a good post, and should be read by everyone. the reviewers who writes these articles obviously went into the movie with the thought foremost in their minds: what here is going to be problematic? then the review is written from the place of fear and anger that this thought inspired. the reviews have nothing to do with feminism and equality, and everything to do with fear and overreaction. Tatum Girlparts posted:Ok I'm going to try to honestly explain the problem with this poo poo. Tatum Girlparts, you understood the Gone Girl thing correctly. So did I, and I haven't seen the film nor am I interested in doing so. It's one thing to fear being mislead by the reviewers, but don't you even trust yourself? I don't really think CR is very “leftist”, the reviewers as a group seem to have both progressive and conservative opinions. And in spite of being a crazy gay retard, I'm not the one trying to ascribe weird motivations/inner thoughts to others. You could be right, but it's more likely that we can safely take them at their word. Criticizing anyone's politics is good, but ranting about vague left-wing bias, well, you should know how that comes across as. How do we know the reviewers have a “perceived social obligation” and are “outraged”, that they decided a movie was “problematic” before they saw it? It's far more likely they enjoy watching and thinking about film, and call problems as they see them. Chilled Cap posted:It is fine to explore the themes, messages, and symbolism behind a movie if the movie merits this sort of exploration. How do you determine this merit? I hope you don't use “pre-approved” opinions Chilled Cap posted:Every review uses deconstructionism from the point of view of a humorless, hyper-sensitive identity politician with all of the pre-approved progressive opinions. ... the truth is that all of the reviewers are completely indistinguishable from each other. They all seem to get mad about the same perceived identity politics missteps regardless of the content of the movie they are reviewing; I honestly doubt they disagree about one single political position between them. There's that paranoia again. They are colluding with the “leftist” hivemind! I bet that gamer girl is involved somehow, perhaps she cuckolded the film industry as well! John Dyne posted:Captain America seeing a building collapsing in a mirror? The director is showing how he blames AMERICA ITSELF for 9/11. Giant robot urinating on a cop? Obviously the model of the car is meant for the upper-middle class so this is symbolic of their hatred of blah blah bullshit and farts. Clumsy never realized that sometimes a cigar is a cigar, or that you will always find meaning where you look for it. It's a common thing with artistic criticism. Your first reading is actually pretty good. The second falls apart, but you did that on purpose. “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” - Freud “Yeah? And sometimes it's just a big brown dick in your mouth!” - Carlin Actually, both the psychologist and comedian are wrong (or only half right). It's always both. And that's ok, seriously. Penises are good. Vaginas too for that matter. Fear them not, goons. theflyingorc posted:seem to consider the mental exercise of mapping films to weird alternate readings as not just a fun mental exercise (what if Star Wars is really about the War of 1812!?), but perhaps as the end-all be-all of film analysis. More paranoia. If someone is actually saying they are the end-all be-all of anything, that's life giving you a big hint: ignore this person. Your silly Speed analysis is great, and not dumb at all. Of course you are free to say that it is, as I am free to say that it isn't. No one is silenced, unless they silence themselves. Don't give in to weakness. Masturbating is fun and healthy (don't overdo it though. I shouldn't have to say that, but y'know, nerds). And I never said the Jungle book was about King Louie (this is what im talking about when I mock reading comprehension). It's about Mowgli becoming a man. Louie is definitely the most interesting villain, as opposed to the tiger and snake, but the story isn't about him. His quest for weapons of mass destruction is a subplot, at best. But it wasn't a strong reading, as I admitted, so whatever Rannos22 posted:This is quite literally in the rules for the movie forum and a big reason for why it has gone just as far off the rails as the movie reviews for the front page. The lunatics are running the asylum. DUDE! Someone should tell the mods/admins! WE CANT THEY'RE PART OF IT! What?! Alas, we did not heed the warning of Nolan's Batmen
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
'Reading' only looks difficult friends, it's actually pretty easy once you get some practice at it. Good luck! edit: Keg posted:If I wrote several 1000+ word posts trying to show off to goons that I'm rather smart and also a very good writer, I would not use parentheses every few sentences. I am none of these things. Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
th1nk posted:I vaguely recall Black Bones mentioning that he isn't a front page writer, but there's no way I'm going back over his posts to check. Hopefully he will clarify this for us. I am obviously not a good enough writer for the front page, nor do I even want to be. I will strive to post better here on the forums though. I was defending the front page because I enjoy it a lot for the most part, and I think that most of the criticisms being offered in this thread are weak. This does not mean that the front page writers shouldn't be criticized, anymore than those criticisms cannot be criticized. Most of the complaints are saying that CR is mostly bad, but it's actually mostly good. And that's honestly how I truly feel, just like I'm 99.9% sure that when the writers say something, it is their actual opinion being expressed. To assume that they don't really mean it, but are just pandering for "upvotes" or "pre-approved applause", well, that seems weird and paranoid. Even if it's true, it's pretty irrelevant as a criticism. Just deal with the opinion, it shouldn't be very hard, especially if it's a bad one. Beeswax posted:And while it's funny that you respond by implying that there is some paranoid conspiracy at work, where people who complain about CR's inane analyses only do so because they disagree with the politics behind it, I'm pretty sure the people in here are pretty uniformly left-wing. It's not that people dislike leftist analysis (although they could be forgiven for being fed up with it at this point). It's that they dislike incredibly poorly conducted analysis, slathered on top of what is ostensibly a movie review. While you clearly try really hard to make your replies come off as playful and non-confrontational, it only makes you seem self-satisfied and unable to take in people's actual points. I am implying that some of the criticisms have been paranoid, not that there is an organized subterfuge going on behind them. The "they can't really mean it" nonsense. Meant seriously or in jest, that's weak. As are variations if "it's dumb your dumb" etc. Yeah, the Gone Girl review was poor analysis, but I think CR is generally better. Maybe the in-character format played a part too. A good criticism of that specific review would be to post something like that Time review as comparison - that was really good! The CR one really wasn't hard to figure out though, and I really don't understand the anger it caused. I do aim for playful, since this is the internet, but I am definitely trying to confront what I think are bad posts. Sorry if that comes across as smug, I'm working on it. edit: Here's the Time review, in case anyone missed it Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:What do you think a good post looks like? On this page, goatse.cx made one that is accurate. In the last few, woozle wuzzle got me pretty good with the Billy Madison video, that was legit. If I see any others I'll let ya know! edit: Chilled Cap posted:oh poo poo, another post by Black Bones - i've got to read this and address his points! I think you should! But you probably won't. c'mooooooon Chilled Cap, be a sport! Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
A wise philosopher once said, "Be careful what you wish for, because you just . . might . . get it." Plane represents those who think CR is over-analyzing. Girl symbolizes those who think it's too basic. Unified in their impotence, they combine into Girl-Plane, and confront Reviewer-Buu! "You're not good, you're bad" they cry, hoping they will not be asked to explain. "How so?" ponders Reviewer-Buu. "No! Don't think about children's art, it has no merit!" Girl-Plane rumbles, burning with the flames of indignation. "You dumb gay baby!" But Reviewer-Buu does not hear Girl-Plane, for he has been considering his pre-approved opinions. He smiles. Next stop, upvote city. The screen wipes to black, sparing the viewer the sight of Reviewer-Buu drawing Girl-Plane into his all-encompassing review embrace, absorbing her into his gross bubblegum flesh. Roll credits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Alejandro Sanchez posted:Actually, the opposite reading is true, and it's an animated .gif of you getting owned for our entertainment. Then why is Reviewer-Buu portrayed as triumphant over Girl-Plane?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Rival posted:He isn't. You seem to have pulled this notion directly out of your rear end. Then why is the last frame before the credits his smile? That and the text imply that he is enjoying the confrontation. If you have a better reading, go ahead and make it. It's fun!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
systran posted:can someone ban or probate black bones? I'll tell ya what, systran; I'll stop posting if you will.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:Ban anyone who tries to post anywhere else. This, but unironically. Babe Magnet posted:Women aren't objects Same.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
systran posted: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. Dude, you gotta say something like "Deal" or "Challenge accepted m'lady", otherwise how am I supposed to know you've agreed to the terms? It's too late now, I'ma talk about Blade Runner Effectronica posted:For that matter, in a case like that, there's generally often a stronger answer and you can determine it from the rest of the movie. In the case of Blade Runner, it (arguably) weakens Deckard and the movie if he's a replicant. I dunno if it would weaken it - the whole point is that it doesn't matter, there's no real difference between people and replicants.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
I read Current Releases and so do you! Of course, I do so because I enjoy them on the whole, not sure why y'all do it if they're so terrible. Is masochism really that much fun? Sham bam bamina! posted:You posted both of these things in complete earnest. All my posts are earnest. I'm looking forward to see what CR thought about Fury.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 06:50
|
|