Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 200

Thread: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

  1. #61
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,248

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    I think film critics just shouldn't dictate your opinion anyway. If I remember correctly, one of my favorite childhood movies, Starship Troopers (1997), was panned globally on its release. 20 years after release, people are finally starting to appreciate the film as much as me. Or perhaps it took several terrible movies and spin-offs to make the original look much better. Anyway, the point is, critics can get it wrong, and even if they don't, you should have your own opinion anyway.
    TBF, the original ST was rather too wild a parody of the source material, and no one could take it seriously as a movie... But the gore was awesome
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  2. #62
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,628

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Great movie, the fun thing is the people who take it seriously today. Speaking of Verhoeven, I recently read that a revision of Showgirls might be necessary (I am not kidding).

  3. #63

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    TBF, the original ST was rather too wild a parody of the source material, and no one could take it seriously as a movie... But the gore was awesome
    As a child I thought the special effects and the gore was awesome. As an adult I thought the social commentary and satire is remarkably pertinent to those living in authoritarian countries.



    While this seems quite silly and misleading to a Westerner, you'd be surprised at the reactions of Russians or Chinese. They're either offended by the insinuation that their regime use similar rhetoric, or in agreement with some of the themes of the film. I imagine that this film would have wider appeal if it was screened during the height of the Cold War.

  4. #64
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Sounds more like Thucydides writing about Sparta than the totalitarianism of North Korea.

  5. #65
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,248

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Robocop1 is still a lot better as a satire of authoritarianism



    I'd buy that for a dollar
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  6. #66
    AqD's Avatar (~‾▿‾)~
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    10,006

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Dude, it's not about people having different opinions, it's about one specific entire demographic (film critics) having a completely different opinion than another demographic (audience). And the latter having LESS refined taste than the former I'd get. THE OPPOSITE I do not get.
    Did you not notice they're very biased toward Star Wars? The stories are laughable, characters behaving funny and battle scenes quite average.

    Otherwise they're rather into sadistic movies I think, and animations.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Neither of those things happened. What I did was point out the hypocrisy in your rhetoric.

    As you said, you're asking for art to be criticized regardless of politics. Yet in this very thread, you, and the people "agreeing" with you, attribute the mixed critical reception of Joker and the near universal critical praise of The Last Jedi to political correctness of, the obviously insinuated, left-wing critics who have no taste in art. I'm also not sure where I ripped stuff out of context. I copy-pasted pretty much the entirety of your argument. You weren't exactly subtle or nuanced in your point.
    Moreover, I demonstrated that more than half of the negative reviews of the first page criticize the movie on its artistic merits, and made it a point to de-emphasize the alleged "alt right" political message of the film. So I'm not sure if you actually didn't read the reviews and simply jumped to conclusions, or if you're simply being dishonest.
    While he critics cite "artistic" reasons, and use that as their justification, that isn't their real motive, and many critics are not likely to openly admit they did not like the movie because it did not push the right politics and social values.

    After all, you have accused the those who have criticized the movie crittics of being motivated by a political and social agenda, yet those critics have crittized the judgement of critics on artistic grounds. So you are displaying a double standard here, saying that the fact the critics claimed reasons were artistic proved they did not have a social agenda, but then turn around and dismiss those who criticized the critics as being politically motivated despite their giving artistic justifications too.

    The fact is the media and academia, of which these critics are part of, has increasingly lacked objectivity and is biased, and more an agent of propaganda than news. While you may deny it, the facts of reporting onnthings like the Trayvon Martin shooting speak for themselves. Though off repeated, that "if the roles had been different the outcome would have been different", the fact is the roles were different and yet the outcome was the same. Years before Summer a black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott short and killed a white honor student, Cervini, who, unlike Martin, hadn't even laid a finger on Scott. The pictures the media showed of Martin was of a much younger 13 year old, not the much larger 17 year old Martin actual was. The picture of Zimmerman that the media chose to portray was of a laughing Zimmerman not the battered Zimmerman of the police photo. And there was a time NBC rigged a GM truck to explode to prove a safety defect they could not find, and did not confess until GM caught them at it. Nobody at NBC was fired, they merely reassigned the people responsible. Incidences like these are merely the time media was caught. Few would have GM resources to track down and expose the lie, and the media has no doubt gotten better at covering their tracks.

    So given the environment the crittics are working in, it would not be surprising they share in the biases found there.




    It seems to me that art is already being judged on its own artistic merits. It's just that a certain subset of the population, including you, are unhappy with the assessment given by "professional" critics and attribute the discrepancy between your opinion and theirs to politicization of the medium, rather than a simple difference in opinion. I think the criticism of the new Star Wars trilogy is fairly damning in my accusations, considering that the New Trilogy and the Original Trilogy are essentially the same exact movies with different characters. The lack of originality is precisely the source of my dissatisfaction with the new films, but not because Rey is a Mary Sue, the plot not making sense, or simply "the movie being bad". This thread reads like bad cliche.
    The point is that movies are not being judged are their artistic merits. You argument about the recent Star Wars movie undermines your claim. Your criticism od lack of originality is something the critics could spot, so why didn't they? Why did they rate so highly a movie that in your same was the same as the original with just different characters? It is because Rey was a Mary Sue that contributed to the film being poor. Using a Mary Sue abilities and other plot devices to create tension and save your characters is lazy film making, and the fact the critics could not spot what was obvious to others says a lot about either their agenda or ability.

    Movie critics these days seem to want movies to be propaganda to push social values and political views, and propaganda seldom makes good movies (although it can, it is rare). Movies are for entertainment, but that is not the critics views these days. Example of Stormship Troopers is an example. The movie was panned originally, but now that it is percieved as pushing the correct social values, by satirizing the toletarian government, it is now being praised. Same movie, but what what matters is the right political and social views are being expressed

    And if the critics are consistently different from what the general audience likes, then these critics are essential worthless. The role of most movie critics should be a guide to what movies audiences will like, otherwise they have no purpose, and right now they are not a reliable guide to what a general movie going might like.

  8. #68
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,248

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    I never was a fan of SW. In fact I never watched all of the original trilogy (likely have watched all of the Empire strikes back, though).
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  9. #69

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    I think film critics just shouldn't dictate your opinion anyway. If I remember correctly, one of my favorite childhood movies, Starship Troopers (1997), was panned globally on its release. 20 years after release, people are finally starting to appreciate the film as much as me. Or perhaps it took several terrible movies and spin-offs to make the original look much better. Anyway, the point is, critics can get it wrong, and even if they don't, you should have your own opinion anyway.
    People do have their own opinion, but critics opinions can influence what movies to see. People do not have time to see every movie that comes out, and a good rating can encourage people to see.a movie, and a bad rating can discourage people to see a movie.

    I saw Ad Astra mainly on the strength of its positive rating from critics 84%, and it was a bad movie. If I had known about the only 44 % audience score, I would have skipped the movie. You really don't know about a movie until actually see it for yourself, but critics are supposed to prevent you wasting time and money on turkeys like As Astra, not encourage you.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    While he critics cite "artistic" reasons, and use that as their justification, that isn't their real motive, and many critics are not likely to openly admit they did not like the movie because it did not push the right politics and social values.

    After all, you have accused the those who have criticized the movie crittics of being motivated by a political and social agenda, yet those critics have crittized the judgement of critics on artistic grounds. So you are displaying a double standard here, saying that the fact the critics claimed reasons were artistic proved they did not have a social agenda, but then turn around and dismiss those who criticized the critics as being politically motivated despite their giving artistic justifications too.
    You're gonna have to articulate your thoughts a little better for me. In what way am I displaying a double standard?

    The fact is the media and academia, of which these critics are part of, has increasingly lacked objectivity and is biased, and more an agent of propaganda than news. While you may deny it, the facts of reporting onnthings like the Trayvon Martin shooting speak for themselves. Though off repeated, that "if the roles had been different the outcome would have been different", the fact is the roles were different and yet the outcome was the same. Years before Summer a black neighborhood watchman Roderick Scott short and killed a white honor student, Cervini, who, unlike Martin, hadn't even laid a finger on Scott. The pictures the media showed of Martin was of a much younger 13 year old, not the much larger 17 year old Martin actual was. The picture of Zimmerman that the media chose to portray was of a laughing Zimmerman not the battered Zimmerman of the police photo. And there was a time NBC rigged a GM truck to explode to prove a safety defect they could not find, and did not confess until GM caught them at it. Nobody at NBC was fired, they merely reassigned the people responsible. Incidences like these are merely the time media was caught. Few would have GM resources to track down and expose the lie, and the media has no doubt gotten better at covering their tracks.

    So given the environment the crittics are working in, it would not be surprising they share in the biases found there.
    You are aware that criticism of the media has been present for its entire existence? In fact, the film I brought up earlier, Citizen Kane is a movie about a man who manipulated public opinion through his influence as an owner of a newspaper. Or perhaps, to make the message more palatable to a conservative, one can look back at the way newspapers covered the Civil Rights Movement, or the Casey Anthony case, if you want to be more recent. In short, newspapers and publications get it wrong all the time, there's plenty to be criticized, but I do not see an instance where we are experiencing a major decline of quality journalism. Quite the contrary, social media and Internet has disrupted major news publications and traditional print to a point where only the largest remain. While this has implications for diversity of viewpoints, the impact of technology has made media publications like CNN, NYT, and WaPo even more important as a source of quality journalism and I don't think that demonization and overwhelming criticism is beneficial in any way whatsoever.

    One can only look at how Reddit handled the Boston Marathon witch hunt to realize the important role traditional media publishers play. The term "Fake News" and the mass of hysteria it has spawned over journalism has produced nothing positive. Instead, I have to defend film critics in threads like this. Or I suppose I could just accept that the leftist Academia has infiltrated every level of society and are slowly preparing a Communist revolution.

    The point is that movies are not being judged are their artistic merits. You argument about the recent Star Wars movie undermines your claim. Your criticism od lack of originality is something the critics could spot, so why didn't they? Why did they rate so highly a movie that in your same was the same as the original with just different characters? It is because Rey was a Mary Sue that contributed to the film being poor. Using a Mary Sue abilities and other plot devices to create tension and save your characters is lazy film making, and the fact the critics could not spot what was obvious to others says a lot about either their agenda or ability.
    How does my argument about the new Star Wars trilogy undermine my claim? And the accusations that Rey is a Mary Sue is just lazy fanboyism over the unrealistic pedestal that the original Trilogy is put on. The criticism levied against the New Trilogy has me wondering whether anybody here actually watched the original Star Wars.

    Movie critics these days seem to want movies to be propaganda to push social values and political views, and propaganda seldom makes good movies (although it can, it is rare). Movies are for entertainment, but that is not the critics views these days. Example of Stormship Troopers is an example. The movie was panned originally, but now that it is percieved as pushing the correct social values, by satirizing the toletarian government, it is now being praised. Same movie, but what what matters is the right political and social views are being expressed

    And if the critics are consistently different from what the general audience likes, then these critics are essential worthless. The role of most movie critics should be a guide to what movies audiences will like, otherwise they have no purpose, and right now they are not a reliable guide to what a general movie going might like.
    Movie critics are people being paid for their opinion. If you feel "burned" by the critics, I think the solution is rather simple. Find a critic who's opinion you respect and let the inform your choices. For reference, I am a big fan Roger Ebert, and with his passing, his website. I also like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann from YouTube. Some of my friends like IMDB reviews, and others listen to AngryJoe. I've also taken several film classes when I was in college, and the 4th edition of Looking at Movies: Introduction to Film lives on my shelf. I'm really tired of constant exclamations that we live in an age of encroaching leftism, that journalism is declining, that critics are trying to make us all feminists. All that sounds like entitled that I hear from Baby Boomers about how their generation was "the greatest". It wasn't, it isn't, it's unoriginal and constant moaning about it is ing annoying. Get over yourselves.

    Also, another film that has mixed reviews but one I absolute love is The Mummy released in 1999. So if we could talk about movies film critics got wrong instead of why leftism is ruining Film, that'd be great.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    You're gonna have to articulate your thoughts a little better for me. In what way am I displaying a double standard?
    My comments were not addressed to you, unless you are posting on this forum under more than one id.

    However, the issue is self evident. The poster has repeatedly accused those who complain about the movie critics as being politically motivated, which exactly the same thing these critics accuse the movie critics. The poster was guilty of exactly the same thing he was complaining about of others. Wouldn't that be a case of double standards?


    You are aware that criticism of the media has been present for its entire existence? In fact, the film I brought up earlier, Citizen Kane is a movie about a man who manipulated public opinion through his influence as an owner of a newspaper.
    Randolph Hearst was something like 80 years ago, and was just one man. In addition, there are fewer newspapers and such, the traditional "media" is much more concentrated.

    Or perhaps, to make the message more palatable to a conservative, one can look back at the way newspapers covered the Civil Rights Movement, or the Casey Anthony case, if you want to be more recent. In short, newspapers and publications get it wrong all the time, there's plenty to be criticized, but I do not see an instance where we are experiencing a major decline of quality journalism.
    Again, you are talking about a generation ago, most of those journalist have long since retired. Those guilty of the decline in journalism or sympathetic to the agenda that that is trying to be pushed are naturally not going to be see or admit there is a decline in the quality of journalist.

    Quite the contrary, social media and Internet has disrupted major news publications and traditional print to a point where only the largest remain. While this has implications for diversity of viewpoints, the impact of technology has made media publications like CNN, NYT, and WaPo even more important as a source of quality journalism and I don't think that demonization and overwhelming criticism is beneficial in any way whatsoever.
    People have the traditional media like CNN unreliable source of news, with thhem leaving out pertinent facts of a story, and so they increasingly are forced to rely on the internet to get all the important facts that CNN leaves. Out. The Trayvon Martin shooting is just one of a number of examples where CNN and the traditional media left out critical information in their reporting. You may call that "quality reporting", but I do not. You don't think that the criticizing is beneficial because it means that people will rightly develop a skeptical and won't just blindly accept whatever story they are selling, and that upsets you. Too bad. The criticism of the media is healthy and beneficial, people should just not blindly accept whatever the media chooses to report, but to look for more and look for the entire context of a story.

    {quote=]
    One can only look at how Reddit handled the Boston Marathon witch hunt to realize the important role traditional media publishers play. [/quote]

    Exactly how was it a witch hunt? The fact that the bombers got caught? The fact that people who supported the bombers were held accountable?

    The term "Fake News" and the mass of hysteria it has spawned over journalism has produced nothing positive. Instead, I have to defend film critics in threads like this. Or I suppose I could just accept that the leftist Academia has infiltrated every level of society and are slowly preparing a Communist revolution.
    What hysteria? So rigging trucks to explode and showing those explosions on TV without telling people you rigged them to explode isn't fake news? What it seems to me is you defend the right of propaganda being treated objectively instead of being called into question.

    The leftist academia has infiltrated the public education system. Most teachers are definitely to the left, and may schools very much push a social agenda that is often at odds with the parents. I remember hearing a friend's child repeat "Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie", repeating the indoctrination they received at school. No, Trayvon was shot because he was beating up Zimmerman, a fact the media did its best to down play. I have seen first hand what could only be called propaganda at the public schools I visited. While I could see posters of the horrors of the Nazis concentrations mounted on the walls of the schools, I found no mention of the rape of Nanking, or the Rape of Manila, or the Japanese medical experiments, but there was mention of the horrors of the atomic bombings. (The people killed in the fire bombing raids of Dresden and Hamburg, of course were equally not mentioned.)



    How does my argument about the new Star Wars trilogy undermine my claim? And the accusations that Rey is a Mary Sue is just lazy fanboyism over the unrealistic pedestal that the original Trilogy is put on. The criticism levied against the New Trilogy has me wondering whether anybody here actually watched the original Star Wars.
    Again, since I never addressed any comments to you, are you posting under more than one id?

    Anyways, your comments and criticisms have me wondering whether you have ever seen the original trilogy, at least in a movie theater. Being a Mary Sue is lazy story telling at its worst, something the new trilogy repeatedly demonstrates. Range limitation, which was never an issue in all the previous 8 Star Wars movies, suddenly becomes an issue upon which the entire plot of The Last Jedi revolves around. To save the day, hyperspace ramming, which didn't exist in the previously 8 movies, suddenly is invoked because the TLJ script writers were too lazy to come up with a more realistic, natural way to save the day. Yes, it is lazy story telling. And it is because of the political agenda of the TLJ that you have such lazy agenda. I saw a "Force is Female" T-shirt on Kathleen Kennedy. I never seen a "Force is Male" T-shirt, and in all the previous movies the Force was neither male nor female, it was Kennedy who convert Star Wars into a feminist agenda. The same people who criticized TLJ liked Rogue One, so it undermines the claims of defenders like you have made.

    Ask yourself, how could critics universally praise a movie that even in the words of one defender, just a rehash of the original trilogy? That some critics might like it, I get, but almost all of them?

    The original Star Wars were so successful because they built on time tested themes. It is acknowledged that Lucas was influenced by Joseph Campbell's "A Hero with Thousand Faces" , which talk about the time proven themes that have proven powerful for thousands of years. The new trilogy is inferior because instead of being built on themes that have been proven powerful and influential for thousands of years of history, it is built on the political correctness and arrogance of those pushing a particular social agenda. Naturally you prefer the new trilogy, since to you it seems pushing the right social agenda is the only thing that matters.

    Now, a movie can propaganda and still a good movie - Cassablanca certainly was propaganda for the Allied cause, yet still a good movie. Triumph of the Will is still a very arresting movie, even though the cause it promotes is horrible. But it takes a lot of skill do that, and almost all of the time, the movie suffers when pushing a certain social agenda becomes the main focus. The criticism of TLJ was precisely because the quality of the movie suffered because the people making it were more interesting in pushing certain ideas than in making a good, entertaining movie.

    Movie critics are people being paid for their opinion. If you feel "burned" by the critics, I think the solution is rather simple. Find a critic who's opinion you respect and let the inform your choices. For reference, I am a big fan Roger Ebert, and with his passing, his website. I also like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann from YouTube. Some of my friends like IMDB reviews, and others listen to AngryJoe. I've also taken several film classes when I was in college, and the 4th edition of Looking at Movies: Introduction to Film lives on my shelf. I'm really tired of constant exclamations that we live in an age of encroaching leftism, that journalism is declining, that critics are trying to make us all feminists.
    Easier said than done, given that the vast majority of critics like movies like Ad Astra, trying to find the few out of hundreds or thousands who's opinions are obviously not worthwhile is difficult.


    Again, the issue you avoid is that it isn't just one particular film that is being complained about, but a growing trend, where the critics consistently differ from what the general audience rated in a film. Films, like Starship Troopers, critics suddenly re-assess and praise when they think it is projecting the right (i.e., theirs) social agenda.

    Now, if you are arguing that the perception is simply wrong, that just because on a couple of high profile movies the critics differed from the audience does not actually indicate a longer term trend, I can understand that. Do you have any evidence that these wide differences between the critics and audience perceptions only apply to a few movies, or is no worse than it has ever been?

    that I hear from Baby Boomers about how their generation was "the greatest".
    Really? Who said that? I haven't heard that from any Baby Boomers I have met. There was a book called the "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw about the generation that faced by the Depression and World War 2, and I would believe it of them. Before my time, thought.

    It wasn't, it isn't, it's unoriginal and constant moaning about it is ing annoying. Get over yourselves.
    Same for the Millennials, and Generation X, or what ever generation making the claim - that claim should be made by others. Perhaps you should get over yourself. It is most annoying to be criticized for simply having ones own ideas.

    Also, another film that has mixed reviews but one I absolute love is The Mummy released in 1999. So if we could talk about movies film critics got wrong instead of why leftism is ruining Film, that'd be great.
    I liked the 1999 Mummy too, and this another film where the audience gave in a higher rating than the critics, 75% versus 59%. While I would never rate the 1999 Mummy as a great film, it was still a good, fun film to watch. But that was 20 years, today the Mummy would have lucky to get 50% or less approval ratings by critics.

    i think the critics idealism is exactly why they get the ratings wrong, that was what the thread was about (and note, I did not create the thread). It seems an increasing amount of the time, critics and audiences have a widening gulf on what they consider a good film. If you reject the idea that is is related to the critics left leaning orientation is the cause, then what is you proposed cause? I am open to hear your suggestions as to the cause. The impression I got from those who were defending the critics is that "shut up, you are just ignorant peasants who don't know any better" for likely movies the critics disliked.

  12. #72

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    My comments were not addressed to you, unless you are posting on this forum under more than one id.
    I just got a name change.

    However, the issue is self evident. The poster has repeatedly accused those who complain about the movie critics as being politically motivated, which exactly the same thing these critics accuse the movie critics. The poster was guilty of exactly the same thing he was complaining about of others. Wouldn't that be a case of double standards?
    There's nothing self-evident here. Everybody is politically motivated, even those who claim they are "neutral". The only thing you've done here is state the obvious.

    Randolph Hearst was something like 80 years ago, and was just one man. In addition, there are fewer newspapers and such, the traditional "media" is much more concentrated.
    I'm not exactly sure how this addresses anything.

    Again, you are talking about a generation ago, most of those journalist have long since retired. Those guilty of the decline in journalism or sympathetic to the agenda that that is trying to be pushed are naturally not going to be see or admit there is a decline in the quality of journalist.
    I'm not sure how this sentence supports itself. My point is that journalism has been much worse in the past, that accusations of decline have existed in the past, and that "fake news" has existed for centuries, not simply a "generation ago". Media today is under far more scrutiny and self-regulation than before. So if there is a decline in journalism, I'm not seeing it.

    People have the traditional media like CNN unreliable source of news, with thhem leaving out pertinent facts of a story, and so they increasingly are forced to rely on the internet to get all the important facts that CNN leaves. Out. The Trayvon Martin shooting is just one of a number of examples where CNN and the traditional media left out critical information in their reporting. You may call that "quality reporting", but I do not. You don't think that the criticizing is beneficial because it means that people will rightly develop a skeptical and won't just blindly accept whatever story they are selling, and that upsets you. Too bad. The criticism of the media is healthy and beneficial, people should just not blindly accept whatever the media chooses to report, but to look for more and look for the entire context of a story.
    The Internet didn't exist 20 years before. CNN and traditional media have gotten it wrong before, and they'll get it wrong in the future. I don't see any kind of trend here. Criticism of news media covering a subject matter is fine, there is a distinction between criticism, and theorizing that there is a long-term decline of journalism.

    And just to make it clear, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to the Trayvon Martin case. I thought that even was covered just fine.

    Exactly how was it a witch hunt? The fact that the bombers got caught? The fact that people who supported the bombers were held accountable? What hysteria?

    So rigging trucks to explode and showing those explosions on TV without telling people you rigged them to explode isn't fake news? What it seems to me is you defend the right of propaganda being treated objectively instead of being called into question.
    Uh huh. Clearly you don't know what I'm referring to.

    Wiki
    In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, Tripathi was one of several people misidentified as a suspect by users on social media. On April 16, 2013, one day after the bombings, a Redditor with the username "OOPS777" created a subreddit with the intention of consolidating the information surrounding the events of the bombings in an attempt to identify the culprits of the attack.[3] By Wednesday, April 17, over 3000 people had joined the subreddit in order to crowdsource the investigation of the evidence.[4] At 5:00 p.m. on April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's published photos of the suspects believed to be involved in the bombings.[5] Soon after, another redditor named Sunil as a plausible suspect after asserting a resemblance between the suspects in the FBI's pictures and Sunil, who had gone missing a month before the bombings. Although this behavior violated the subreddit's rule that prohibited naming suspects without evidence, the moderators did not delete the post because they were inexperienced and struggling to cope with the influx of posts on the thread. To further the speculation behind Tripathi, a woman claiming to be his classmate tweeted that she too thought Tripathi represented a suspect in the FBI's photographs.[6]

    Soon after the release of the photos, people began trying to contact the Tripathi family, through phone calls on ABC News, as well as angry messages on Tripathi's Facebook page, dedicated to finding Sunil.[7] At 11 p.m. on the same day, the real bombing suspects (Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev) shot and killed a police officer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department.[8] The following day at 2:45 am, a redditor Tweeted: "BPD has identified the names: Suspect 1: Mike Mulugeta. Suspect 2: Sunil Tripathi."[9] This caught the mainstream media's attention after BuzzFeed reporter Andrew Kaczynski shared a tweet that named Sunil as the primary suspect from his personal Twitter account.[10] According to the BBC, Tripathi had soon become the "standout suspect" on social media before the FBI identified the real suspects to be the brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.[11] Sunil was found dead on April 23.
    The leftist academia has infiltrated the public education system. Most teachers are definitely to the left, and may schools very much push a social agenda that is often at odds with the parents. I remember hearing a friend's child repeat "Trayvon Martin was shot because he was wearing a hoodie", repeating the indoctrination they received at school. No, Trayvon was shot because he was beating up Zimmerman, a fact the media did its best to down play. I have seen first hand what could only be called propaganda at the public schools I visited. While I could see posters of the horrors of the Nazis concentrations mounted on the walls of the schools, I found no mention of the rape of Nanking, or the Rape of Manila, or the Japanese medical experiments, but there was mention of the horrors of the atomic bombings. (The people killed in the fire bombing raids of Dresden and Hamburg, of course were equally not mentioned.)
    Leftist academia didn't infiltrate anything, that's a conspiracy theory.

    Trayvon Martin was shot because Zimmerman followed Martin. You know, I really find it ironic that somebody who criticized "the media" of improperly covering the Trayvon Martin case, leaves out the precise details that made the shooting so controversial.

    Anyways, your comments and criticisms have me wondering whether you have ever seen the original trilogy, at least in a movie theater. Being a Mary Sue is lazy story telling at its worst, something the new trilogy repeatedly demonstrates. Range limitation, which was never an issue in all the previous 8 Star Wars movies, suddenly becomes an issue upon which the entire plot of The Last Jedi revolves around. To save the day, hyperspace ramming, which didn't exist in the previously 8 movies, suddenly is invoked because the TLJ script writers were too lazy to come up with a more realistic, natural way to save the day. Yes, it is lazy story telling. And it is because of the political agenda of the TLJ that you have such lazy agenda. I saw a "Force is Female" T-shirt on Kathleen Kennedy. I never seen a "Force is Male" T-shirt, and in all the previous movies the Force was neither male nor female, it was Kennedy who convert Star Wars into a feminist agenda. The same people who criticized TLJ liked Rogue One, so it undermines the claims of defenders like you have made.

    Ask yourself, how could critics universally praise a movie that even in the words of one defender, just a rehash of the original trilogy? That some critics might like it, I get, but almost all of them?

    The original Star Wars were so successful because they built on time tested themes. It is acknowledged that Lucas was influenced by Joseph Campbell's "A Hero with Thousand Faces" , which talk about the time proven themes that have proven powerful for thousands of years. The new trilogy is inferior because instead of being built on themes that have been proven powerful and influential for thousands of years of history, it is built on the political correctness and arrogance of those pushing a particular social agenda. Naturally you prefer the new trilogy, since to you it seems pushing the right social agenda is the only thing that matters.

    Now, a movie can propaganda and still a good movie - Cassablanca certainly was propaganda for the Allied cause, yet still a good movie. Triumph of the Will is still a very arresting movie, even though the cause it promotes is horrible. But it takes a lot of skill do that, and almost all of the time, the movie suffers when pushing a certain social agenda becomes the main focus. The criticism of TLJ was precisely because the quality of the movie suffered because the people making it were more interesting in pushing certain ideas than in making a good, entertaining movie.
    Ray is as much of a Mary Sue as Luke Skywalker. I'm also not sure why hyperspace ramming is bad because it "didn't exist in the previously 8 movies". Star Wars Episode I had Qui-Gon Jinn justify his interest in Skywalker because of his "midi-chlorian" amount, a manufactured plot device that's the definition of "lazy storytelling" and is also why many fans hate the mechanic, and not because they were never mentioned in the previous films. Calling the New Trilogy a product of "feminist agenda" is just some hilarious, kool-aid .

    For the record, I don't prefer the New Trilogy, but I enjoy the way you've jumped to conclusions.

    Easier said than done, given that the vast majority of critics like movies like Ad Astra, trying to find the few out of hundreds or thousands who's opinions are obviously not worthwhile is difficult.
    Ah, clearly the masses are wrong and the critics are right? And this is based on what "objective" criteria?

    Again, the issue you avoid is that it isn't just one particular film that is being complained about, but a growing trend, where the critics consistently differ from what the general audience rated in a film. Films, like Starship Troopers, critics suddenly re-assess and praise when they think it is projecting the right (i.e., theirs) social agenda.

    Now, if you are arguing that the perception is simply wrong, that just because on a couple of high profile movies the critics differed from the audience does not actually indicate a longer term trend, I can understand that. Do you have any evidence that these wide differences between the critics and audience perceptions only apply to a few movies, or is no worse than it has ever been?
    I'm arguing that critics are allowed to have their own opinion and they're by no means unanimous one way or another. The entire existence of Rotten Tomatoes proves that point, a score between 40-75% often indicates a range of opinions that disagree with each other. So no, while some critics are unhealthily concerned with feminism, social justice, or whatever, the vast majority of critics don't give two . And this is obvious from simply reading different movie reviews.

    Really? Who said that? I haven't heard that from any Baby Boomers I have met. There was a book called the "The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw about the generation that faced by the Depression and World War 2, and I would believe it of them. Before my time, thought.
    Baby Boomers blaming millenials for literally everything is such a common occurence that its a trope in and of itself.

    Same for the Millennials, and Generation X, or what ever generation making the claim - that claim should be made by others. Perhaps you should get over yourself. It is most annoying to be criticized for simply having ones own ideas.
    I have no idea why you're directing this at me. This sentence is completely detached from everything I've written. Perhaps you should read what I'm saying, instead of talking past me.

    I liked the 1999 Mummy too, and this another film where the audience gave in a higher rating than the critics, 75% versus 59%. While I would never rate the 1999 Mummy as a great film, it was still a good, fun film to watch. But that was 20 years, today the Mummy would have lucky to get 50% or less approval ratings by critics.
    The Mummy was a bad movie by its technical standards even during its own time. The fact that many find it entertaining doesn't mean it's not a bad movie. And I have no idea how your claim is remotely certifiable.

    i think the critics idealism is exactly why they get the ratings wrong, that was what the thread was about (and note, I did not create the thread). It seems an increasing amount of the time, critics and audiences have a widening gulf on what they consider a good film. If you reject the idea that is is related to the critics left leaning orientation is the cause, then what is you proposed cause? I am open to hear your suggestions as to the cause. The impression I got from those who were defending the critics is that "shut up, you are just ignorant peasants who don't know any better" for likely movies the critics disliked.
    I think you should stop bashing critics. If you don't like a movie, bash the people who made it instead of people who enjoyed it or disliked it and formed their own opinion about it.

  13. #73
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,274

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Critics are subject to different influences when judging a film. To get the job they usually have to be journalists (and in my experience journalists are dishonest scum). They probably have a degree related to media or art criticism and their appreciation will be shaped by that Paedogoguey. Maybe they acquire left wing brainwashing too, maybe the (((universities))) are controlled by un-American groups. I doubt it's a sinister plot, unless it's Disney who seem to have successfully spoiled the recent DC movies before their release with online campaigns of Putinesque villainy. How many people hated Batfleck before it saw the light of day?

    Some of the public may may share a few criterion with the tiny critical community but represent a more diverse group. Many don't care that Joker has a hard time cramming in a story between the mass of movie and comic book references. European critics seemed to have loved the density of references (even the hamfisted Chaplin stuff) but it probably wasn't discussed much in Tulsa.

    Comic book movies are shackled with childish heroes and crass premises. Every time someone tries to make a comic book hero movie they break a lot of nerds hearts. This one hasn't, maybe it gave too much fan service to the nerds and not enough to the art crowd?

    This film tries to be arty, or at least wink at movie and comic book history, and the star does a great job depicting mental illness ( in the league of Ledger and way ahead of Nicholsons lazy pantomime) but it's been done. I can see why a critic might love it or hate it. I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons for a critic to differ from me.

    i like old Arnie movies. I can watch Rob Schneider(shut up, he's funny), lots of people pay to see Michael Bayfilms, crappy Bond films, I think there was an emoji movie and two or three films with minions. We're not all seeing films for the same reasons, and art is not the highest priority in the industry.

    I like Phoenix as an actor. He is one to watch. This wasn't a film that needed to be made, just a studio throwing stuff at the wall to see if it stuck. "Make something more like Nolan, the kids loved that" They lore s incompatible with the last and the current gen of films, I don't expect more in this vein unless Batfleck etc are being dumped and they're starting again.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  14. #74
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,248

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    I don't think a sequel to this Joker would work anyway.
    The film worked - to the degree it did - because it isn't a superhero movie.

    Tbh it might have been a little better if it wasn't tied to the Joker/Batman verse at all.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  15. #75

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    The only political commentary that this movie might have is a low key criticism of austerity, and its effects on society, and individuals. IN case individuals like Arthur, when they stop getting their medication, and conditions to be stable, because of budget cuts and such. But even so it is just a background with little emphasis on the movie, given there are other stuff that society brings upon Arthur, to push him to the place he needs to be to become joker.
    Everything else is joker being wronged by society, and also being a psychopath which is nothing really new. And i personally struggle to find what is so scandalous about it.

    Yes a film about a villain, has its villain doing horrible things, isn't that part of the appeal? what is so scandalous about it?

    Imo there is literally nothing to be triggered about this movie. It is a good comic book movie, for a change. And people lose their minds just for the sake of clicks, to generate buzz and to fuel this current culture war.

  16. #76
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,274

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Its possible for this (or any film) to be "good' in a number of ways. It was expensive, it had excellent 1970's production values, the bit where they played a Garry Glitter song for Joker's "arrival" was epic (fancy using such a tainted evil bit of music to let you know this guy has crossed the line, a bold effective bit of film-making) but as a coherent narrative the film was a failure, the narrative gaps were enormous (we already knew he was evil because spoiler spoiler spoiler). Its was trying to bridge a gap between a fantasy villain and a plausible real world. I think Nolan did it better and that wasn't a great film either.

    I could go on for hours about how I appreciated the little nods to other media (and I'm no expert, I've just read Miller and seen some Chaplin and Keaton). I googled it last night and some kid is getting stick online because he saw a parallel when the Joker takes a ride in a cop car through a riot with Heath Ledger as the Joker riding in his car drinking in the night wind, I am persuaded its a real reference. We have Miller's pearls (referenced by Nolan too), Cesar Romero's little shuffles, I think we get a brief glimpse of a Harlequin lookalike, there's a lot there. The movie geeks (they like factoids, as opposed to nerds who like sort of science stuff like frame rates (and they'd be thrilled by the technical aspects of the Joker too) , is that right?) would be delighted I am thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    The only political commentary that this movie might have is a low key criticism of austerity, and its effects on society, and individuals. IN case individuals like Arthur, when they stop getting their medication, and conditions to be stable, because of budget cuts and such. But even so it is just a background with little emphasis on the movie, given there are other stuff that society brings upon Arthur, to push him to the place he needs to be to become joker.

    Everything else is joker being wronged by society, and also being a psychopath which is nothing really new. And i personally struggle to find what is so scandalous about it.

    Yes a film about a villain, has its villain doing horrible things, isn't that part of the appeal? what is so scandalous about it?

    Imo there is literally nothing to be triggered about this movie. It is a good comic book movie, for a change. And people lose their minds just for the sake of clicks, to generate buzz and to fuel this current culture war.
    There was a little frenzy on the paedophile sites and given they've been involved in some livestreamed mass shootings the clickbait factory lapped it up.

    Given its an origin story for a famous antagonist it makes little sense in isolation. It would be like Homer writing an epic called "Young Minotaur"...wait now I have an image of Jim Parsons as Zeus...dammit...
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #77

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    So, a question for our resident Supreme Gentlemen: is the new Joker flick actually White Genocide, brought to you by Cultural Marxists? Come on boys, make me laugh.
    Optio, Legio I Latina

  18. #78

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I just got a name change. £
    Ok.


    [Quote[]
    There's nothing self-evident here. Everybody is politically motivated, even those who claim they are "neutral". The only thing you've done here is state the obvious. [/Quote]

    You are projecting your own motives onto others. Why you clearly have a pitifal agenda, and are biased and are not neutral, that is not necessarily so of others. Well at least you finally admit your as are biased and as politically motivatdd as you accuse those of whoncomplai about the critics being.

    But your claim.rhat "no one is neutral" as an excuse of yourn own bias is a cop out.

    I'm not exactly sure how this addresses anything.
    Because your exams of Hearst was another copy out. Imply things have always been like this, which is not true. Hearst was a particularly poor to of journalism, and the media has not always been as bad as it is now as you imply.


    I'm not sure how this sentence supports itself. My point is that journalism has been much worse in the past, that accusations of decline have existed in the past, and that "fake news" has existed for centuries, not simply a "generation ago". Media today is under far more scrutiny and self-regulation than before. So if there is a decline in journalism, I'm not seeing it.
    Naturally, since journalism today is promoting and progandizing the political views you support. The.fact you resort to an example that was better.part of 100 years ago, shows how weak your argument is. An exams of an acknowledged low point in American journalism is not proof there isn't a decline today.


    The Internet didn't exist 20 years before. CNN and traditional media have gotten it wrong before, and they'll get it wrong in the future. I don't see any kind of trend here. Criticism of news media covering a subject matter is fine, there is a distinction between criticism, and theorizing that there is a long-term decline of journalism.
    Way too mild a censor to outright fraud to only say "they got it wrong". The Internet did exist 20 years ago. It was the World Wide Web that didn't. By 1995 the Internet was fully commercialized. It is because of your ignorance that makes your opinions so wrong. And they seldom get it wrong do the favor of the rightz it is always getting wrong in favor of the left.

    And just to make it clear, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to the Trayvon Martin case. I thought that even was covered just fine.
    Of course you don't. Have you ever tried to independent my evaluate the facts for yourself, instead or merely believing what the media says? I'd you have tried to verify the facts yourself, how do you know the coverage was find? Did you know that.a black neighborhokd watchman Roderick Scott killed an unarmed white student Cerivini years before Trayvon was shot, and Scott was acquitted? Does not revealing that fact seem fine to you? It doesnt to me, not with the media constantly repeating on things would be different if the racial roles were reversed. Well, guess what, the roles were reversed, and despite the mantra, the outcome was the same.



    [Quore=]
    Uh huh. Clearly you don't know what I'm referring to. [/Quote]

    Duh, I already said I didn't know what you were talking about, so why don't you stop repeating what I said and explain it?

    Is this your explanation? You can't explain it in your own words? Note it is a Wikipedia article based on what the mainstream media says. No real evidence in anything the article says, and s lot of claims like this were invented by the media and others to prove how badly Muslims were being treated when they weren't. No pasted examples of proving the claims made.


    Leftist academia didn't infiltrate anything, that's a conspiracy theory.
    No, it is realify. The National Education Association, the teachers Union, is okne of the top unions in political givings have 97% of their campaign contributions ro Democrats and the rest to independents. You can claim academia is not totally biased to to the left, but the facts speak for themselves. Academia is neither neutral nor unbias you imply. And you just got done saying thstnno one is neutral. But when all the bias is to one side, that is a n issue, since there is no balance.



    Trayvon Martin was shot because Zimmerman followed Martin.
    Not, Martin was shot because he was physically attacking Zimmerman, nor because Zimmerman followed Martin. Had Martin not been assaulting Zimmerman, Martin would not been shot. Contrary to the media says, there is no laws against Zimmerman walking up and asking Martin, who was a stranger to the neighborhood, what he was doing in the neighborhood, especially when they had been having a rash of break-ins recently. Zimmerman following Martin gave no excuse for Marin to physically assault Zimmerman, and Martin, who was taller, stronger, and in better shape than Zimmerman, had no fear of Zimmerman and to claim Martin couldn't have outrun Zimmerman is such a lie that doesn't need refuting. Nand despite the media and your assertions, hounding assault a person with your face on his fist, only someone with a total contempt of the truth and logic would claim that, like the media and the prosecutor.

    Zimmerman was in his right as a neighborhood watch to ask what a stranger was doing in the neighborhood and night. Again, that does not give Martin the right to knock Zimmerman down, and start beating on him. Every bit of physical evidence supported Zimmerman's story. If Martin had just walked away, he would be alive today - Martin was not shot in the back.


    You know, I really find it ironic that somebody who criticized "the media" of improperly covering the Trayvon Martin case, leaves out the precise details that made the shooting so controversial.
    And I find it really ironic that aomeon defending the media has clearly spent no time actually looking up the actual facts of the case and verify for themselves whether the media did in fact correctly report all the facts. Since you don't seem to be aware of the actual facts of the case.

    1. Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as the grass stains on Zimmerman's back and sounds on the back of his head confirm. If you are fear for your life, you don't jump on a guy after you have knocked him down and start beating on his face why he is pointing a gun at you, especially when you are a young man in the prime of life and your opponent is an overweight, out of shape middle aged man.

    2. Martin was in a strange neighborhood because he had been suspended from school.foe reasons the school refuses to say, stealing perhaps, or fighting? Martin's locker was tound with woman's jewelry that 'he was holding for a friend" and a long screw.driver (useful fo prying up windows or doors) from one report I read.

    3. We have only the word of his parents that the reason Martin was out to get a bag of Skittles. How father is hardly going to admit that his son was out casing places to break into. And if Martin had a been guilty of stealing and breaking in before, the media and the police will make sure all those reports are destroyed and no one ever learns of them

    4. The Gunpowder residue on Martins clothes showed Martin had been shot at close range, but the residue pattern also showed Martins clothes were not resting on his skin at the time he was shot, which could have only happened if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and leaning over Zimmerman whole punching Zimmerman in the face and pounding his head on the ground, just as Zimmerman said.

    5. The US Constitution allows the right for self defense id ones life is.in dangers and any reasonable person who can think for themselves will agree that a person insuch a situation is justified to think his life is in danger.


    Ray is as much of a Mary Sue as Luke Skywalker.
    Again, you are totally wrong and don't know what you are talking about. I suspect you are merely repeating the claims of the media you have read.

    A..Luke had training by both Obiwan ans Yoda, while Ray essentially had no training at all, and yet was able that only the most experienced Jedi could do, lift all those boulders up at the end. Despite Yoda's training, Luke couldn't do in the Empire Strikes Back - he needed Yoda to lift his X-Wing out of the swamp.

    B. When Luke went up against an experienced Force used like Earth Vader, he got his ass kicked in the Empire Strikes Back, despite his training by Yoda, which was far more training than what Rey got. Rey, in contrast, was completely an to hold her own against experience Force users in both films with no training. She is a Mary Sue.

    C.. When Luke beat Vader in the 3rd film, he had been continuing his lessons on his own for some time, and you wonder if Vader's heart was really into destroying his own son - Vader may have secretly wanted.Luke to win. But in the end, Luke had to be bailed out by Vader against the Emperor.

    So how is Luke a Mary Sue like Rey? Do you understand what a Mary Sue is?

    Did you ever actually watch the original trilogy? You don't act.as if you had.




    I'm also not sure why hyperspace ramming is bad because it "didn't exist in the previously 8 movies". Star Wars Episode I had Qui-Gon Jinn justify his interest in Skywalker because of his "midi-chlorian" amount, a manufactured plot device that's the definition of "lazy storytelling" and is also why many fans hate the mechanic, and not because they were never mentioned in the previous films. Calling the New Trilogy a product of "feminist agenda" is just some hilarious, kool-aid .
    Again, the fact issue of hyperspace ramming has to be explained demonstrates you don't really understand the problems with the films or the critics.

    If hyperspace ramming was a real thing, then a the Rebels had to do was take a Rebel cruiser and have droid hyperspace ram it into the Death Star to knock the Death Star cannon out of commission. A single X-Wing should be able to hyperspace ram a Star Destroyer to knock it. You could have droids pilot the X-Wing, it wouldn't need great piloting skills. You would expect such a tactic to be used all the time.

    As.I explained explqined, when you see Kathleen Kennedy's staff and almost all the dozen or so people are women, and when you need her wear a shirt saying "The Force is Female", you shouldn't be surprised that The Last Jedi became such a feminist piece of crap. You think the claim is hilarious because, as was shown, you don't know any better. (Internent was around 20 years ago, despite your ignorant obelief otherwise.).

    For the record, I don't prefer the New Trilogy, but I enjoy the way you've jumped to conclusions.
    You have already said you didn't like the New Trilogy because it was unoriginal. Since you don't seem to like the originas based on what you said, it is not surprising you don't I like the New Trilogy. But I never accused you of liking the New Trilogy, I accused you of supporting the values the New Trilogy was promoting, something different. I love itnthsr you are the one who is jumping to conclusions, not me. Of though to be fair, since no one has seen the 3rd movie of the New Trilogy, neither of us can say whether we really like or or not.



    I'm arguing that critics are allowed to have their own opinion and they're by no means unanimous one way or another.
    I haven't revoked their right to an opinion, Ibut I have the right to expose it as the bias piece of propaganda it is. And 90+% rating is pretty much unanimous. There is not the diversity you want to imply.

    [Quote]
    The entire existence of Rotten Tomatoes proves that point, a score between 40-75% often indicates a range of opinions that disagree with each other. [/Quote@]

    But I am talking about.scores of 84% to 94%. Those numbers don't indicates a ranges od.opinion as you claim. At 94%< there is hardly any disagreement among the critics, except on minor and obviously irrelevant points.

    So no, while some critics are unhealthily concerned with feminism, social justice, or whatever, the vast majority of critics don't give two .
    Says you. But you have been shown to be consistently wrong - wrong about the Internet not existing 20 years ago, wrong about the Trayvon Martin case and the case, wrong abour Like Skywalker being a Mary Sue just like Rey, wrong pretty much on everything.

    And this is obvious from simply reading different movie reviews.
    Since you think the Internet didn't exist 20 years ago, when it most certainly did, your opinion really doesn't count for much.


    Baby Boomers blaming millenials for literally everything is such a common occurence that its a trope in and of itself.
    How about you provide actual facts that back up you claims. You keep making assertion after assertion. Without anything to back up and support what you say. I have shown you to be consistently wrong. You claim that Luke Skywalker is a May Sue "just like Rey". Did you point out all the ways Luke was a Mary Sue like.Rwy? No, you did not, you just made an unsupported assertion, as a you other claims are.

    Again, provide me with quotes from Baby Boomers who are blaiming Milleniala for everything. I havent seen it personally myself, and if it is as common as you claim, you should have no problem providing such proof.

    I have no idea why you're directing this at me. This sentence is completely detached from everything I've written. Perhaps you should read what I'm saying, instead of talking past me.
    Seems self evident to me. You said it,.didn't you?


    The Mummy was a bad movie by its technical standards even during its own time. The fact that many find it entertaining doesn't mean it's not a bad movie. And I have no idea how your claim is remotely certifiable.
    What specific technical standards are you saying were bad? Are you saying the specificials effects were bad for rhe time? Exactly how, what in particular? Again, you are making assertions without any specifics to back them up. Saying "bad technical standards" is pretty vague and generic. Do you have some specifics you can give as examples?


    I think you should stop bashing critics. If you don't like a movie, bash the people who made it instead of people who enjoyed it or disliked it and formed their own opinion about it.
    Why, are the critics personal friends of yours? If people.are selling out their opinions due to either ideology or influence from the studio, shouldn't they deserved to be crificized? I'd they can bash or praise a movie, can't I do the sams.ro them? My issue isn't that the critics have an opinion, but they all have the same opinion. I have proposed a theory as to why, but you haven't provided any facts to convinced me I am wrong.

    I wi concede that maybe the bias I think I am seeing is just an illusion, thar ai am.making a judgment based on a few movies, and that rhrre is no more difference between general aduienfe opinions and critics than what there was in the past, if is just thanks to Rotten Tomatoes we are more aware of it
    Last edited by Common Soldier; October 22, 2019 at 10:17 AM.

  19. #79
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,248

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    I am not seeing much of a left-wing angle here. I mean, yes, there is the blatant "The poors are clowns", but not even the current politicians are quite so open about their hatred (regardless of likely believing this crap).
    On the other hand, the Joker character seems to be closer to the so-called "incels", which supposedly ties to "right-wing" (not that I personally view 'incels' as right-wing or really a thing to be politicized).
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  20. #80

    Default Re: Seriously... What's wrong with film critics?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    I am not seeing much of a left-wing angle here. I mean, yes, there is the blatant "The poors are clowns", but not even the current politicians are quite so open about their hatred (regardless of likely believing this crap).
    On the other hand, the Joker character seems to be closer to the so-called "incels", which supposedly ties to "right-wing" (not that I personally view 'incels' as right-wing or really a thing to be politicized).
    Nah you got it wrong Kyriakos. The idea here is that film critics, who are of course, Leftist, are accusing The Joker of appealing to right-wing incels. This whole thread is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    You are projecting your own motives onto others. Why you clearly have a pitifal agenda, and are biased and are not neutral, that is not necessarily so of others. Well at least you finally admit your as are biased and as politically motivatdd as you accuse those of whoncomplai about the critics being.

    But your claim.rhat "no one is neutral" as an excuse of yourn own bias is a cop out.
    It's not a cop-out, and if someone on this board is going to claim to be "neutral" I'm just going to laugh. The only cop-out here is the accusation that I'm being political, which boils down to an ad hominem.

    Because your exams of Hearst was another copy out. Imply things have always been like this, which is not true. Hearst was a particularly poor to of journalism, and the media has not always been as bad as it is now as you imply.
    It wasn't a cop-out. Im starting to think you don't know what a "cop-out" actually means. The point is that Citizen Kane clearly demonstrates that criticism of of the media has existed well before 2016. Centuries, in fact.

    Naturally, since journalism today is promoting and progandizing the political views you support. The.fact you resort to an example that was better.part of 100 years ago, shows how weak your argument is. An exams of an acknowledged low point in American journalism is not proof there isn't a decline today.
    Journalism today promotes and propagandizes a variety of different views. Fox News supports conservative agenda, Mother Jones support liberal agenda, Breitbart supports the "gay frogs" agenda. I'm also not sure how my example demonstrates the "better part" of 100 years ago. Quite the contrary, the magnitude of yellow journalism was a lot worse 100 years ago. Most major news outlets today are a lot more subtle.

    Way too mild a censor to outright fraud to only say "they got it wrong". The Internet did exist 20 years ago. It was the World Wide Web that didn't. By 1995 the Internet was fully commercialized. It is because of your ignorance that makes your opinions so wrong. And they seldom get it wrong do the favor of the rightz it is always getting wrong in favor of the left.
    Seldom favor the right - you really don't read anything besides CNN do you? Though I imagine you only read CNN to look for things to criticize them with, which is a little funny to me.

    Of course you don't. Have you ever tried to independent my evaluate the facts for yourself, instead or merely believing what the media says? I'd you have tried to verify the facts yourself, how do you know the coverage was find? Did you know that.a black neighborhokd watchman Roderick Scott killed an unarmed white student Cerivini years before Trayvon was shot, and Scott was acquitted? Does not revealing that fact seem fine to you? It doesnt to me, not with the media constantly repeating on things would be different if the racial roles were reversed. Well, guess what, the roles were reversed, and despite the mantra, the outcome was the same.
    Why does any of this justify Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin with a gun? If Zimmerman wants to claim self-defense, he shouldn't be following someone.

    Duh, I already said I didn't know what you were talking about, so why don't you stop repeating what I said and explain it?
    I'm not sure why you're asking me to explain it when I literally did just that by quoting the relevant parts of the article.

    Is this your explanation? You can't explain it in your own words? Note it is a Wikipedia article based on what the mainstream media says. No real evidence in anything the article says, and s lot of claims like this were invented by the media and others to prove how badly Muslims were being treated when they weren't. No pasted examples of proving the claims made.
    I quoted the relevant sections of the Wikipedia article because it's fairly self-explanatory, but since you seem to be having difficulty understanding this, I'll explain. Following the Boston Marathon bombing, social media identified Sunil Tripathi as a suspect. Reddit users quickly crowdsourced information in an attempt to identify and find the suspects of the bombing. After FBI released pictures of the suspects, Reddit users thought there was resemblance between Sunil and pictures of the suspects. Since this activity got massive attention and quickly spread through Reddit and social media, Sunil's family was constantly contacted and harassed by various people who thought Sunil was a perpetrator. After the real perpetrators were caught and killed, Sunil was also found dead a little later.

    What this demonstrates is that non-traditional media outlets and amateur journalism can very easily get it wrong and this can lead to horrible consequences. The reason why mainstream outlets are important is because of their experience and high level of public trust to tell the truth in a responsible manner. While criticism of the way these media giants cover news, and their occasional hiccup is valid and important, dismissal of media outlets as simply mouthpieces of ideologies and propaganda is not only inaccurate, it's dangerous.

    No, it is realify. The National Education Association, the teachers Union, is okne of the top unions in political givings have 97% of their campaign contributions ro Democrats and the rest to independents. You can claim academia is not totally biased to to the left, but the facts speak for themselves. Academia is neither neutral nor unbias you imply. And you just got done saying thstnno one is neutral. But when all the bias is to one side, that is a n issue, since there is no balance.
    This would be relevant if the Democratic Party was actually "leftist", but they're not. In fact, Democrats like Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly may as well be Republicans in all but name. In fact, the entire Democratic Party can be described as center-right. The only thing you've shown us, is that Republicans are remarkably poor at appealing to educators.

    Not, Martin was shot because he was physically attacking Zimmerman, nor because Zimmerman followed Martin. Had Martin not been assaulting Zimmerman, Martin would not been shot. Contrary to the media says, there is no laws against Zimmerman walking up and asking Martin, who was a stranger to the neighborhood, what he was doing in the neighborhood, especially when they had been having a rash of break-ins recently. Zimmerman following Martin gave no excuse for Marin to physically assault Zimmerman, and Martin, who was taller, stronger, and in better shape than Zimmerman, had no fear of Zimmerman and to claim Martin couldn't have outrun Zimmerman is such a lie that doesn't need refuting. Nand despite the media and your assertions, hounding assault a person with your face on his fist, only someone with a total contempt of the truth and logic would claim that, like the media and the prosecutor.

    Zimmerman was in his right as a neighborhood watch to ask what a stranger was doing in the neighborhood and night. Again, that does not give Martin the right to knock Zimmerman down, and start beating on him. Every bit of physical evidence supported Zimmerman's story. If Martin had just walked away, he would be alive today - Martin was not shot in the back.
    Zimmerman wasn't on neighborhood watch, and he follow Martin in his car, before losing sight of him and attempting to find him on foot. If Zimmerman stayed home instead of pursuing his own warped view of vigilante justice, Martin would be alive. Police records corroborate this event.

    And I find it really ironic that aomeon defending the media has clearly spent no time actually looking up the actual facts of the case and verify for themselves whether the media did in fact correctly report all the facts. Since you don't seem to be aware of the actual facts of the case.

    1. Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as the grass stains on Zimmerman's back and sounds on the back of his head confirm. If you are fear for your life, you don't jump on a guy after you have knocked him down and start beating on his face why he is pointing a gun at you, especially when you are a young man in the prime of life and your opponent is an overweight, out of shape middle aged man.

    2. Martin was in a strange neighborhood because he had been suspended from school.foe reasons the school refuses to say, stealing perhaps, or fighting? Martin's locker was tound with woman's jewelry that 'he was holding for a friend" and a long screw.driver (useful fo prying up windows or doors) from one report I read.

    3. We have only the word of his parents that the reason Martin was out to get a bag of Skittles. How father is hardly going to admit that his son was out casing places to break into. And if Martin had a been guilty of stealing and breaking in before, the media and the police will make sure all those reports are destroyed and no one ever learns of them

    4. The Gunpowder residue on Martins clothes showed Martin had been shot at close range, but the residue pattern also showed Martins clothes were not resting on his skin at the time he was shot, which could have only happened if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and leaning over Zimmerman whole punching Zimmerman in the face and pounding his head on the ground, just as Zimmerman said.

    5. The US Constitution allows the right for self defense id ones life is.in dangers and any reasonable person who can think for themselves will agree that a person insuch a situation is justified to think his life is in danger.
    1. I would definitely jump a guy if he's been following me for ages and I think he's going to kill me.

    2. It's irrelevant why Martin is there. He did not break any laws.

    3. We have multiple witness accounts and actual police reports as well as Zimmerman himself to tell us that Martin was not breaking into any house when he was killed. Zimmerman deliberately follow him and caused the incident to occur.

    4. That's pretty irrelevant considering that Zimmerman followed Martin.

    5. The US Constitution is irrelevant, as it is local codes, laws, and circumstantial evidence that determines what constitutes self-defense.


    Again, you are totally wrong and don't know what you are talking about. I suspect you are merely repeating the claims of the media you have read.

    A..Luke had training by both Obiwan ans Yoda, while Ray essentially had no training at all, and yet was able that only the most experienced Jedi could do, lift all those boulders up at the end. Despite Yoda's training, Luke couldn't do in the Empire Strikes Back - he needed Yoda to lift his X-Wing out of the swamp.

    B. When Luke went up against an experienced Force used like Earth Vader, he got his ass kicked in the Empire Strikes Back, despite his training by Yoda, which was far more training than what Rey got. Rey, in contrast, was completely an to hold her own against experience Force users in both films with no training. She is a Mary Sue.

    C.. When Luke beat Vader in the 3rd film, he had been continuing his lessons on his own for some time, and you wonder if Vader's heart was really into destroying his own son - Vader may have secretly wanted.Luke to win. But in the end, Luke had to be bailed out by Vader against the Emperor.

    So how is Luke a Mary Sue like Rey? Do you understand what a Mary Sue is?

    Did you ever actually watch the original trilogy? You don't act.as if you had.
    A. Luke had never flown an X-Wing in his life before blowing up a Death Star. He had no military training and no experience in espionage before breaking into a military installations and rescuing a valuable prisoner.

    B. Rey was against an injured and delirious Sith who had no intention of killing her. In fact, she was on the run the majority of the fight. You have no idea what a Mary Sue is.

    C. It's a little ironic that Vader's heart wasn't really into it, but when Kylo Ren explicitly tries to get Rey to join him, she defeats him fair and square.

    Again, the fact issue of hyperspace ramming has to be explained demonstrates you don't really understand the problems with the films or the critics.

    If hyperspace ramming was a real thing, then a the Rebels had to do was take a Rebel cruiser and have droid hyperspace ram it into the Death Star to knock the Death Star cannon out of commission. A single X-Wing should be able to hyperspace ram a Star Destroyer to knock it. You could have droids pilot the X-Wing, it wouldn't need great piloting skills. You would expect such a tactic to be used all the time.

    As.I explained explqined, when you see Kathleen Kennedy's staff and almost all the dozen or so people are women, and when you need her wear a shirt saying "The Force is Female", you shouldn't be surprised that The Last Jedi became such a feminist piece of crap. You think the claim is hilarious because, as was shown, you don't know any better. (Internent was around 20 years ago, despite your ignorant obelief otherwise.).
    If Midi-Chlorians were a thing, the Jedi should be blood-testing every child in the galaxy. So no, you're just manufacturing reasons to not like the New Trilogy. Yeah, "Feminist Star Wars". I can see how Poe Dameron's character is so feminist. Or Rey's constant self-doubt and intimacy issues. Very 3rd wave Feminist. This is silly .

    You have already said you didn't like the New Trilogy because it was unoriginal. Since you don't seem to like the originas based on what you said, it is not surprising you don't I like the New Trilogy. But I never accused you of liking the New Trilogy, I accused you of supporting the values the New Trilogy was promoting, something different. I love itnthsr you are the one who is jumping to conclusions, not me. Of though to be fair, since no one has seen the 3rd movie of the New Trilogy, neither of us can say whether we really like or or not.
    Actually I like the originals. I don't like the New Trilogy because it's a literal copy-paste of the originals. You need to stop making stuff up about the New Trilogy.

    I haven't revoked their right to an opinion, Ibut I have the right to expose it as the bias piece of propaganda it is. And 90+% rating is pretty much unanimous. There is not the diversity you want to imply.
    You haven't exposed anything. Every single thing you said has been refuted.

    But I am talking about.scores of 84% to 94%. Those numbers don't indicates a ranges of opinion as you claim. At 94%< there is hardly any disagreement among the critics, except on minor and obviously irrelevant points.
    And...?

    Says you. But you have been shown to be consistently wrong - wrong about the Internet not existing 20 years ago, wrong about the Trayvon Martin case and the case, wrong abour Like Skywalker being a Mary Sue just like Rey, wrong pretty much on everything.
    I'm wrong because you claim I'm wrong?

    Since you think the Internet didn't exist 20 years ago, when it most certainly did, your opinion really doesn't count for much.
    Okay, sure. I simply said 20 years because it was a simple estimate that's largely correct. If you want to be pedantic and precise about the date, yes the World Wide Web was launched in 1995, or 24 years ago. How childish.

    How about you provide actual facts that back up you claims. You keep making assertion after assertion. Without anything to back up and support what you say. I have shown you to be consistently wrong. You claim that Luke Skywalker is a May Sue "just like Rey". Did you point out all the ways Luke was a Mary Sue like.Rwy? No, you did not, you just made an unsupported assertion, as a you other claims are.
    But I did back them up. How is Luke Skywalker capable of outlfying Darth Vader, the best pilot in the Galaxy, without a day of training in an X-Wing? How is Luke Skywalker capable of blowing up the Death Star, without the aid of a computer no less? Yes, I know, Space Magic, The Force. In other words, Gary Stu that's necessary to make the plot compelling.

    Again, provide me with quotes from Baby Boomers who are blaiming Milleniala for everything. I havent seen it personally myself, and if it is as common as you claim, you should have no problem providing such proof.
    I can't take you seriously if you're going to claim you haven't seen it.

    Seems self evident to me. You said it,.didn't you?
    No, I didn't.

    What specific technical standards are you saying were bad? Are you saying the specificials effects were bad for rhe time? Exactly how, what in particular? Again, you are making assertions without any specifics to back them up. Saying "bad technical standards" is pretty vague and generic. Do you have some specifics you can give as examples?
    The character are cartoonish, the special effects are comedic, the plot was often incoherent. If you want to discuss the movie, make another thread. I'm not going to type out two more pages of an already, fairly long post.

    Why, are the critics personal friends of yours? If people.are selling out their opinions due to either ideology or influence from the studio, shouldn't they deserved to be crificized? I'd they can bash or praise a movie, can't I do the sams.ro them? My issue isn't that the critics have an opinion, but they all have the same opinion. I have proposed a theory as to why, but you haven't provided any facts to convinced me I am wrong.
    You have yet to show me how critics are selling out their opinions. Critics have masses of different opinions. Just like there are feminist critics, there are also conservatives, christian, military, etc. It's both, disingenuous to clump critics into one group, and to claim that they're all leftist SJWs.

    I wi concede that maybe the bias I think I am seeing is just an illusion, thar ai am.making a judgment based on a few movies, and that rhrre is no more difference between general aduienfe opinions and critics than what there was in the past, if is just thanks to Rotten Tomatoes we are more aware of it
    Rotten Tomatoes was founded 20 years ago. So no, this information was always available.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •