Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 199

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

  1. #101
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,250

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

    Depends on how professional those critics are supposed to be. If you are (eg) a political blogger, you don't exactly have any incentive to not back your political line.
    FWIW, I was talking about mere posters in my above post, not critics in the sense of pros.
    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. #102
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,359

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

    I'm a bit salty at the assumption that I meant the LOTR movies, and not the source material.

    I ain't jokin' when it comes to mah paintings ಠ_ಠ

  3. #103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    Do you really think that it is crazy nowadays to think that 3 or 4 thousand people/idiots can go to vote on a website to boycott or support a movie?
    It's certainly possible, but firstly there would need to be evidence of such "brigading" behaviour, and secondly it wouldn't be likely to go unnoticed by the püolitical opposition to the brigading party (plus a few people who'll try to be objective), which would cause an influx of viewer-submitted review that might mitigate the "tampering" at least to some extent.


    Also, think about what kind of parabola the movie critics' scores draw and what kind of parabola the scores offered by the users draw.
    You mean the temporal pattern in which the critiques were delivered?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    I find political messages in movies to be almost always badly done and to (further) detract from the film. In the internet age you cannot realistically expect people to not follow other media which may refer to a film and therefore in turn lead them to its page in services like RT or IMDB.
    Personally I find it offensive than any garbage film can be protected by being "left" or "right" in the first place.
    Exactly.


    Quote Originally Posted by saxdude View Post
    I'm a bit salty at the assumption that I meant the LOTR movies, and not the source material.
    I'm not sure you have a point here. I distinctly remember more than one professional (and semi-professional) critic saying/writing that the LotR movie adaptation were "better" than the books (usually accompanied by the condescending notion that the movies weren't very good either. I think in some circles, you're contractually obliged to hate Tolkien as well as any other attempt at fantasy and sci fi that isn't bleak, ugly, riddled with cheap effects, and populated with screwed up characters and idiotic plots). Maybe not the majority, but a significant portion of the critiques I've come across.
    Now I can think of one or two ways the LotR live action movies could be seen as better than the source material, e.g. plot structure, but about a hundred ways the books were better than the movies. And that's trying to be objective. So yeah, either those critics have very distorted point of view, or they're just being unprofessional.

  4. #104

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

    I'm not sure why I'm responding to this meaningless babble. It's not really worth my time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    If nobody is neutral, then why are you criticizing those who point out the fact? Why are you criticizing those complain of the bias of critics? It is a question to ask is why do critics all apparently have similar biases. Why are the critics biases so different from that apparently of the general audience?
    My issue isn't with the political bias of Cookiegod or any particular poster. My issue is with the post and the arguments it promotes. Why critics are different is an interesting question, but that isn't really the question being asked here. It's obvious to anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty, that the first few pages was simply critic bashing for the sake of levying yet another complaint against the "Left". Describing the arguments levied in this thread as an identification of "facts" is a little much. I had a good laugh at that one.

    The movie Citizen Kane criticizes one man, I don't see anywhere it criticizes the entire industry as a whole. I beginning to wonder if you have actually this and many of the other films you are mentioning. Exactly where in Citizen Kane is the entire media criticized, and not just the exploits of one man?
    The movie Citizen Kane shows how a single man can significantly influence news coverage to suit his own agenda. This is an obvious criticism of media. If it's not obvious to you, or if you do not see how such an argument can be made, then don't bother replying. I have no interest in discussing a film with somebody who rejects an interpretation because they are unable to understand it.

    And saying that criticism of the media has existed for a long time proves there is no real problem is like saying that people have been abusing opiates like heroin and prescription drugs for a long time, so there is no real Opiate Crisis today, it is just a myth made up by people who are into holistic medicine. The fact that criticism has been around doesn't mean that the media hasn't gotten worse,, or that the criticisms are not justified. It is a cop-out, since you are avoiding the issue as to whether the criticisms are justified - saying there were criticisms in the past does not address the issue.
    Criticism of the media is not proof of journalistic decline. Especially when similar criticism and otherwise, has existed for decades before today. Pointing out how your argument is weak, is not a cop-out. It's just something you don't want to address.

    Fox News is about the lone major news agency, and it is heavily criticized and dismissed by the left. PBS used to have conservative talk show host like Buckley, but no longer does.
    What does the lack of a conservative talk show on PBS have to do with an o overall decline in journalism? There are literally hundreds of shows that do the same thing as Buckley. Though I have to say, if Hannity wants to add any kind of gravitas to his podcast, he's going to have to start making arguments that make some sense.

    You watch CNN, you don't read it. CNN is not a publishing agency. And no, I listen to NPR everyday with the BBC for one.
    First of all, I don't understand the quip about CNN. They have a website that you can read off of. In fact, I'd recommend reading over watching unless absolutely necessary. It's faster. Second, I don't believe you.

    If Martin didn't want to get shot, he should not have attacked Zimmerman. He should have just walked home.
    Alternatively, Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him.

    And where is the real evidence any of this happened? Do you have copies of the Reddit post?
    This is a well publicized story. I’m not going to do the work for you, especially when It takes far less effort to google it and read it, than it does to post all the relevant information in text. Do your own work.

    In any case, it still isn't as bad as happened to Zimmerman, when even the President got into the act. Did Sunil lose his job,, be put on trial?
    Sunil is dead.

    And so the mainstream media needs to be held to a higher standard, since they are professionals. They were no better than the social media groups you complained about.
    They're already held to a higher standard, and they redact or correct stories that they get wrong. Especially the high profile ones. So I have no idea what you're complaining about. There is a high level of quality at large media publications.

    Your comments reflect your own bias. Sure, to someone to the left of Ortega as you seem to be, Warren would look like a conservative. The fact that you can make such a claim I think reflects more on you than the facts.
    Huh? Alright then bud. Why don't you tell me my "bias"? What are my political positions? Shouldn't be hard, seeing as how I, like many others, make them public.

    If Martin had kept on walking, he would be alive.
    Alternatively, if Zimmerman didn't follow him with a gun, Martin would be alive.

    Then you are a fool, and still would be wrong. How do you know someone wants to kill you? Are you a mind reader? What if rhe person is following you because he was adopted, and thinks you were a long lost sibling and is working up his courage to approach you and ask some questions? Or maybe he is following you because his client is thinking yournare cheating with his wife. If you wonder why there is so much violence in the US, look at yourself in the mirror.

    And what you propose would be really, really, foolish. Even if he was planning on killing you, what if the man was armed, attacking him would give him a chance to shoot you at a close, can't miss, range. And what if he was not intent on killing you, but was armed? He likely shoot you in self defense , causi the very thing you were trying to prevent. In all cases, what you propose would be the wrong course of action, and liky to get yourself killed, and it would be all your own fault.
    I would have a gun and I'd simply make him drop his. Seeing as how Zimmerman is an idiot, he'd probably try to draw at me, at which point I'd drop him.

    Martin did break the law, he assaulted Simmerman, that is why Martin is dead. The law doesn't say you can assault someone for following you.
    Impossible to determine, seeing as how Martin is dead and Zimmerman is alive. Self-defense is a valid claim, especially when some dumbass is following you armed with a gun.

    Doesn't matter why Zimmerman was following Martin, what Zimmerman did was not against the law. Even if he was not on formal patrol, he was in his right to walk up and ask a strange man what he was doing in the neighborhood. Martin was not in hisnright to beat up on Zimmerman simply because he didn't like Zimmerman following him. And if Martin was scoping out houses to break in later that is highly relevant, since it makes Zimmerman right to follow him.

    If Martin didn't want to get shot. He shouldn't start beating up on Zimmerman as he did. He should have walked home, and then complained to the police. Contrary to what you think, you don't have the right to beat up on someone simply because you don't like them. If you are afraid for your life, you run away, knock on a neighbor's door, you don't start beating up on some one, because they might be armed and you could shot. Even if they didn't intend anything bad fornyou, you could still get shot. Which is what happened to Martin, which makes the shooting Marin's own fault due to his poor judgment.
    No, actually it does matter. As noted by the judge, the jury, the police records that show the call. The fact that Martin took a less optimal decision, doesn't make the situation his fault. Afterall, if Zimmerman simply stayed home, nobody would've been shot.

    Highly relevant. Since Martin is the one who started the fight. Following someone is not necessarily a crime, beating up someone is.
    Self-defense isn't a crime.

    One again you are wrong. The Constitution does govern criminal procedures, and rules of evidence, and can supercede local laws if they are in error. If it was a local matter, then what was Obama and his minions doing getting invovled? The rules of marriages are determine by local state law, but that did nott prevent the US Supreme Court from overturning local laws that are not regulated on national level by invoking thr Constitution.
    First of all, that's not exactly what the Constitution does. Second, you're not actually refuting anything I said. Third, that Obama quip is utterly irrelevant. Just like the majority of your post that has no veered from film critique into Zimmerman, Constitutional Law, and your limited understanding of film.

    Once again you demonstrate that you haven't actually seen the film you you are talking about, and you demonstrate both your lack of knolwdge and arrogance.
    You do realize that when you say, "Once again you demonstrate... your lack of knowledge and ignorance" you come off really bad? Not only are you annoying me, but quite frankly, you're veering on insulting people. Over film.

    1. Luke did not out fly Vader. Vader was all set to destroy Luke if Hans hadn't interfered. Getting yourself blown up is not proof of your superior flying ability.
    He didn't blow up, and Vader clearly missed. Because you know, space magic.

    2. Luke was an experienced pilot back home, Rey had never fought with a light saber, totally different. It was specifically said in the film the X-Wings were not that much different from the crafts Luke had flown back home. I have rented out lots of different cars, and have had no problems even though I might never had driven that type of car before. Again you appear to be parroting comments by others as if by rote memory, like a person who doesn't understand Arabic memorizing Arabic Koranic passages
    Rey is clearly an experienced fighter, but perhaps you missed it. Wouldn't put it past you to watch a movie inattentively. Also, I'm not sure just how cross applicable skills in flying a speeder is to flying an X-Wing. Finally, I don't even remember that being said in the movie, timestamp it for me. So no, your excuse is invalid.

    3. Luke was in the prime of life. Darth was an old middle age man who had been severely injured. His artificial limbs might not have been as good as Luke's natural ones, not as fine as a control as Luke's natural limbs. That could advers my effect Vader's flying even with the Force. No one but younsaidnDarth Vader was the best pilot in the fleet.
    Actually the fact that Darth Vader is a fantastic pilot has been established over 6 movies now, as well as various media outside of the film. But even within the film, Vader displays mastery over his spacecraft and superiority over lesser pilots, shooting down several X-Wings personally.

    4. They were flying straight at top speed down a narrow corridor. Not much fancing to be done.
    It's space. Also, he can pull up, just like the pilots before him. Finally, the corridor was pretty wide, especially for a single starfighter.

    5. Leia specifically said they were allowed to escape, so they could track the Falcon back to the Rebel base. No Mary Sue invovle here, and Hans and Leia were as.much responsible for the escape as Luke. It was Leia who got them out while trapped at the jail cell. It occurred to neither Luke nor Hans to escape that way, and it probably didn't occur to the Death Star planners that an escape prisoner would be armed and escape that way either. And without R2, they would have been crushed anyways. R2D2 mY look like your standard droid, but it is not, as the movie makes plain.
    In the very next scene with Vader and Tarkin, they said it was a risk and that the escape wasn't planned. You don't know what you're talking about.

    Again, nothing Mary Sue about it. The only time Luke demonstrates anynreal force ability is using it to target thr Death Star, nothing comparable tonwhat Rey did in thd first
    Huh?

    No, you the one who doesn't. Running when outnumbered does not mean you are not a Mary Sue. What makes her a Mary Sue is her repearsd ability to demonstrate Force powers and abilities equal to the best Force users with no training. She holds here own aagainst Kylo WI no training on using a light saber at all. Luke was an experience pilot, the movie said so, and his X-Wing may have been faster and more manueverable than the Tie figure used by Vader.

    And it is not just the lightsaber battle. She used Jedi abilities and mind control to escape from being restrained , having no training whatever. That is being a Mary Sue..
    The movie didn't say so, Rey does not display force power and abilities equal to the best users. Her use of the Force in the film was spontaneous, inexperienced, and haphazard. That's not being a Mary Sue, that's space magic being space magic.

    In the first movie, Kylo was not trying to recruit her, and she still new him. In the second movirle, she defeated the guard who would have been the most experience and best troops available, and they were most certainly trying to kill her.


    Most Star Wars fans of the original intensely disliked thr idea of Midi-Chlorians as well, and think the Force Awakens and the other 2 following movies were greatly inferior to the original trilogy. However if does not conflict with anything in thr other movies. Tatoonie where Anakin was living was outside rhr Republic, and the Jedi have only aurhority within the Republic. For all we know, maybe every child in the Republic is tested.

    ou are clearly defending the new trilogy because you like the agenda it pushes. I don't see Rey having any intimacy issues, I don't see Rey having any real personality at all, as a matter of fact, and which is a complaint I have made before. And yes, she is very feminist, she is typical of the new feminist who insist on showing they can be as macho any man. I don't agree with your assessment.

    PS - Poe is portrayed as a dangerous irresponsible hot head, who needs the wisdom of women to contain him. The giraffe neck woman treats him as a child, refusing to answer his very reasonable request. The movie is sends rhe message "Trust Women". Feminist to me.
    Kylo literally offered to teach her at 1:56:20. In the second movie Rey was already taught by Luke Skywalker before she leaves.

    Please, tell me more about this mythical agenda the New Trilogy pushes. What are its goals? What does it argue? What does it say about the current world?

    If you can't see Rey having an internal conflict, I'm really not sure what to tell you. Then again, you also asked me how Citizen Kane criticizes the media, so who knows how you watch movies and what you get out of it.

    PS: Poe is like the most badass character in the show. I also think its hilarious that you can see how Poe needs the wisdom of women to contain him, but somehow Rey having intimacy issues is beyond you. Lul

    The Force Awakens was a lot like rebooted, but greatly inferior version of original, but the second movie went out of its way to be different from the Empire Strikes Back.

    1. Instead of undergoing training by a wise and experienced Jedi, Rey is told to get lost by an embittered old man. Luke gets invovled in a climatic but pointless fight at the end of the movie, Yoda never leaves his home.

    2. The Rebels successfully escape in Empire Strikes Back at the beginning of the movie, and for most of the movie the Rebel fleet is not part of the action. In the TLJ the escaping Resistance fleet makes up most of the central part of thr movie, and in the end the Resistance fleet was all but destroyed, with only a handful of people escaping, including thr totally incompetent leadership then led the Resistance to destruction. After 20+ years of fighting, thanks to Leia's incompetent leadership the Rebels/Resistance is down to just one ship , which technically wasn't even a Resistance ship at all. Way to go Leia.

    3. In the Empire Strikes Back, the Emperor is alive and still very much in charge. In the TLJ the First Order Leaders is dead, and essentially the inferior Darth Vader wanabee is in charge.

    So exactly how is The Last Jedi a cut and paste the link he Empire Strikes Back? Because they both have TIE Fighters and Star Destroyers?
    Uh huh. I don't think you should comment on film, you don't seem to possess the ability to understand or analyze them. Here's how The Last Jedi is similar to The Empire Strikes Back.

    1. Both films show Jedi training done by a grump teacher who eventually dies.

    2. The Baddies, track down the remnants of the Rebel Alliance (comically both iterations are led by Leia) but fail in destroying them.

    3. Both Luke and Rey face a choice and a realization about themselves.

    To be fair, the New Trilogy isn't identical to the Original Trilogy, but the plot structure and the themes are. Certainly there are more and different characters, but its not exactly a radically different vision in the way the the Prequels were.

    What did I make up about the New Trilogy? Give specific examples.
    That Rey is apparently a super badass that can do everything. That the movie is step one of the Feminist plot to rule the world. That the movie is lazily written. Honestly pretty much anything you write about the New Trilogy, since you haven't actually watched them very well.

    No it hasn't. I have knocked down everyone of your arguments.
    Ah yes, you did school me about how the Internet came into existence around 25 years ago, and not 20 years ago as I originally stated. Other than that, you didn't do any knocking.

    No, because I have shown you are wrong lots of specific examples to show you are wrong.
    Such as...?

    The Internet has roots going back before the World Wide Web, back into the 1980's, so you are not largely correct. While the Internet has become synonymous with the World is Wide Web, they are still not the same.
    ARPANET was founded back in 1969, but the Internet did not functionally exist even in 1995. So no, I am largely correct and quite frankly, I was polite enough to not press the issue. If you want to discuss the exact origin of the Internet, take it up in the VV instead of trying to play of "gotcha" by engaging in intellectual pedantry.

    Already answered and refuted. You hadn't backed them.up to me before, this is the first time I am seeing them. Since earlier in this post, ai have already explained it, I will just repeat the main point - Luke didn't outfly the Darth Vader. (PS, Luke had R2-D2, which qualifies.as a computer) And using some Force ability is ok, Luke might have been able to blow up the Death Star anyways even without the Force. He seemed confident ofnhis ability when the pilots were told of their task. And Luke had some training by Obiwan in the first movie, and he had Obiwan's voice to instruct him when blowing up the Death Star, Rey had none of that. And she was using far greater and more sophisticated Force abilities than Like had even in Empire Strikes Back, despite Luke having far more training.. So no Gary Sue. But definitely Mary Sue for Rey.. Does Luke defeat Vader in a lightsaber battle despite Yod's training? No, he gets whipped by Vader, believable. But in the 3rd movie after some time has past, and Luke has been continuing his training as Yoda instructed him to do, he manages to defeat Vader. Again no Mary Sue.
    Huh? All I'm seeing is a bunch of excuses for Luke's obvious Gary Stuness.

    Rey - was able to lift a lot of Boulders with no training from Luke, and not much time on her own to train herself. Mary Sue.
    How does that make her a Mary Sue? She's clearly gifted.

    Rey - defeat trained guards with her lightsaber so no training. Again, a Mary Sue
    Which ones? In Snoke's room? Luke already trained her.

    Rey - able to use the Jedi mind trick to escape with no training. Again a.Mary Sue.
    How does that make her a Mary Stu? As noted before, she's clearly gifted, and it was spontaneous.

    Rey - able to use the Force to unlock and escape her confinment in the first movie, no training. Again, Mary Sue.
    Same as above. I don't see how this makes her a Mary Sue.

    Since most of the media is leftist, most of the critics would likely be too, as I previously said. Critics are not uniformly distributed, the 9O+ % rating of TLJ proves it. If they are all voting the same way, then it is legimatd to speculate why. If there any conservative movie critics these days, I haven't seen them. But then, you think Warren and a the other Democrats are center-right. Naturally you are going to be denying you are a Social Justice Warrior. Admitting what you are putting out is propaganda makes the propaganda less effective.
    Proof that most of the media is leftist?

    Proof that most of the critics are leftist?

    Proof that I am a Social Justice Warrior?

    Proof that I think Warren is center-right?

    The information could still be available, even if Rotten Tomatoes did not exist. Just more work to find, is all.
    ...? And?
    Last edited by Love Mountain; November 02, 2019 at 08:04 PM.

  5. #105
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,359

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

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I'm not sure you have a point here. I distinctly remember more than one professional (and semi-professional) critic saying/writing that the LotR movie adaptation were "better" than the books (usually accompanied by the condescending notion that the movies weren't very good either. I think in some circles, you're contractually obliged to hate Tolkien as well as any other attempt at fantasy and sci fi that isn't bleak, ugly, riddled with cheap effects, and populated with screwed up characters and idiotic plots). Maybe not the majority, but a significant portion of the critiques I've come across.
    Now I can think of one or two ways the LotR live action movies could be seen as better than the source material, e.g. plot structure, but about a hundred ways the books were better than the movies. And that's trying to be objective. So yeah, either those critics have very distorted point of view, or they're just being unprofessional.
    You're reading too much into my LOTR jab. I don't have a point, I just don't like LOTR (the books or the movies) or Star wars, but I tolerate you guys liking it, as you guys should tolerate these critics .

    I ain't jokin' when it comes to mah paintings ಠ_ಠ

  6. #106

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

    You're a heathen sax. Those are classics man! Classics!

  7. #107

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

    Quote Originally Posted by saxdude View Post
    You're reading too much into my LOTR jab. I don't have a point, I just don't like LOTR (the books or the movies) or Star wars, but I tolerate you guys liking it, as you guys should tolerate these critics .
    I think Star Wars is massively overrated, too. But the thing is, professional art critics should leave their personal preferences at the door and judge a product by its merit. And for some reason, hardly any of them seem to have grasped that concept, despite it being the standard in other professions.

  8. #108
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,649

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

    Six pages and you have not yet remotely proven that the work of film critics is influenced by their (miraculously shared) political ideas. One thing if I should grant you (you're welcome): no doubt most movie critics are not illiterate rednecks (or its equivalent outside of north america).
    Last edited by mishkin; November 04, 2019 at 05:45 AM.

  9. #109
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,250

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

    I don't think most movie "critics" (assuming they somehow are serious and/or not just some blogger/youtuber) are "leftist". If anything, they are either hacks or shills for some establishment; no one (who isn't equally biased, and just right-wing) would seriously describe people like Hillary or Biden as "leftist" either, imo.
    Also, imo the "SJW" thing isn't particularly leftist either; it just happens that it ties to general ideas of the left due to an unrealistic plea to "equality". Eg I would describe Bernie as leftist, but not garbage like TYT or NBC clowns.
    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










  10. #110

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    I don't think most movie "critics" (assuming they somehow are serious and/or not just some blogger/youtuber) are "leftist". If anything, they are either hacks or shills for some establishment; no one (who isn't equally biased, and just right-wing) would seriously describe people like Hillary or Biden as "leftist" either, imo.
    Whether you describe people like Hillary or Biden as leftist or not depend where on the political spectrum you sit, would it not? I certainly would not call them conservative, and while I know people like Bill Maher have called the Democratic party primarily conservative centrist, that statement reveals more about Bill's own bias than the reality. And I think your statement reflects your own bias as well. Perhaps by European standards, where actual Communist parties are major political players, Biden and Hillary are not leftist, but American has different standards.

    And while I don't think critics are part of some "conspiracy" to promote leftist views, I think their views, which are primarily leftist by American standards, is reflected in their opinion. It is precisely that they share a generally leftist view which is why their opinion is so divergent from the general audience. Despite the media's attempt to show America as much more left leaning than it is, America is actually much more conservative than Hollywood types and the media wishes to believe. Which is why they couldn't understand how Trump won, since reality did not correspond to their fantasy beliefs. I think that the American public is largely split.




    Also, imo the "SJW" thing isn't particularly leftist either; it just happens that it ties to general ideas of the left due to an unrealistic plea to "equality". Eg I would describe Bernie as leftist, but not garbage like TYT or NBC clowns.
    Again I have to disagree with you. SJW (Social Justice Warrior) really defines the left, at least in the US. The fact not one of the mainstream media types like NBC, CBS, and ABC ever brought up the case of Roderick Scott during the Zimmerman trial is proof of the mainstream media's commitment to "social justice". Not once did the mainstream challenge the false claims in the Zimmerman trial "that if the roles had been reversed, the outcome would have been different". As a matter of fact, the roles were reversed, years before Zimmerman, and the outcome was same - the black neighborhood watchman was acquitted of shooting an unarmed white student multiple times, killing him, an this years before Zimmerman. That most people are ignorant of the situation is entirely due to the fact that the case of Roderick Scott did not promote the SJW agenda the media is committed to.

    The same in the case in the trial of Officer Mohammad Noor for killing an unarmed white woman in her pajamas. Unlike the trial of Amber Guyger, which received lots of attention by the mainstream media, Noor's trial and guilty conviction received no publicity at all. Again, because it does't fit the SJW narrative, the mainstream media like CNN and NBC does not cover it to a fraction of the amount that it covers when a black person is shot by a white person. When it is a person, black or white, is killed by a black person or black officer, it is not covered. Just as the media did not cover the brutal torture and murder of the white couple of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. And if you don't know their names, it rather proves my point about the US media being committed to SJW agenda, doesn't it? Black Lives Mstter, but only if it is a white that kills a black, Black lives do not matter for the 90% of blacks killed by other blacks. Again, this is not a statistic the mainstream media like CNN or NBC, or CBS will tell the public, because it doesn't fit the SJW agenda.

    (Most whites are killed by other whites, but at a slightly lower percentage, i.e, more whites are killed by blacks, than blacks by whites, but in either case it is not large. In 2013, out of 2491 murders for Blacks, 2245 of the murders were black and only 189 were white. Out of the 3005 murders of Whites, 2,509 were by other Whites, and 406 were by Blacks. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ender_2013.xls )

    Southern Whites of the Jim Crow South of the 50's genuinely believed they were not racist and in fact were quite tolerant, just as many Muslims do today, despite all the restrictions many Muslims countries have against non Muslims. So many SJW deny they are in fact SJW.

  11. #111

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    I'm not sure why I'm responding to this meaningless babble. It's not really worth my time.
    Sure you know the reason. You simply don't like the proganda of the critics and the media being exposed. That is why you respond.


    My issue isn't with the political bias of Cookiegod or any particular poster. My issue is with the post and the arguments it promotes. Why critics are different is an interesting question, but that isn't really the question being asked here. It's obvious to anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty, that the first few pages was simply critic bashing for the sake of levying yet another complaint against the "Left". Describing the arguments levied in this thread as an identification of "facts" is a little much. I had a good laugh at that one.
    Cookiegod didn't really post any particular political bias, but you certainly have, multiple times. It was the people who responding to Cookiegod who proposes a political bias for the obvious difference is that the critics view and that of the general audience. It is obvious to anyone reading what you wrote can see you personal bias in the matter. And for all your claims you didn't like the Force Awakens and the Last Jedi, you constant defense of them, and criticism of the original series reveals your actions do not match your words.


    [quiote=]
    The movie Citizen Kane shows how a single man can significantly influence news coverage to suit his own agenda. This is an obvious criticism of media. If it's not obvious to you, or if you do not see how such an argument can be made, then don't bother replying. I have no interest in discussing a film with somebody who rejects an interpretation because theThere ay are unable to understand it. [/quote]

    Bull. Citizen Kane was about one man, not the media in general I have asked you to support what you claim by providing specific examples from the movie, but you have refused to do so, instead repeating the same baseless claim over and over. Discussion of the media and newspaper industry plays very little role in the movie, it is mostly about Kane and his life.

    Criticism of the media is not proof of journalistic decline. Especially when similar criticism and otherwise, has existed for decades before today. Pointing out how your argument is weak, is not a cop-out. It's just something you don't want to address.
    Criticism of the media in the past, is no proof that the media hasn't gotten worse and more bias in recent years. It is you are guilty of the cop-out, since you know I can easily rip to shreds any example you give.


    What does the lack of a conservative talk show on PBS have to do with an o overall decline in journalism?
    It means everything. It means that PBS doesn't even have to make a pretense of objectivity that it felt necessary in the past, demonstrating its bias and and the general media's bias as well.

    PBS constantly boast how more objective it is because it does not require ads.


    Second, I don't believe you.
    And I don't believe you either when you claim to have watched the original Star Wars trilogy either.


    Alternatively, Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him.
    Zimmerman was not breaking the law following Martin, but Martin was guilty of breaking the law by assaulting Zimmerman. Contrary to a view of a SJW like yourself, you don't get to decide by yourselves what is legal and not legal. The claim that Martin was acting in self-defense is nonsense. Contrary to the lack of honesty and logic by SJW like yourselves, people don't assault other people with their face and nose on the other person's fist. And a person like Martin, in the prime of life, wouldn't be fearing a shorter, overweight, out of shape person like Zimmerman, which he could easily outrun if he chose to. Nor could Martin have been fearing a gun, because if Martin had seen the gun, he would have attacked that first, only an idiot or SJW would punch someone if the face while the other person has the gun. All the facts point to Martin attacking Zimmerman. Zimmerman acted rightly in self defense.

    And again, you demonstrate the bigotry and bias of SJW like yourself, when you condemn Zimmerman, but do not apply the same standard to Roderick Scott. In every way what Scott did was worse - Zimmerman fired once, Scott multiple times. Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground, Cervini hadn't even touched Scott. Scott knew whe was walking into a dangerous situation, and could have stayed in the safety of his house, but differently grabbed his gun, knowing he might use it, in what he knew could be a dangerous situation. In contrast, Zimmerman had no reason to assume Martin would turn violent as he did, otherwise Zimmerman would have had his gun out and shot Martin before Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman and began punching Zimmerman and pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. If you had any integrity at all, you would condemn the actions of Scott even more so than Zimmerman, but you don't, because as a true SJW, you have 2 standards, you don't apply the same standards to everyone.


    This is a well publicized story. I’m not going to do the work for you, especially when It takes far less effort to google it and read it, than it does to post all the relevant information in text. Do your own work.
    I have. I know what the BBC claimed, but listening to the BBC everyday on NPR, I don't trust the BBC. It is exactly the kind of story the BBC would love to invent. In any case, the strive Sunil's family went through only lasted a few days, maybe a week, and nothing like the months of hell Zimmerman went through (and Roderick Scott did not, because SJW are incapable of applying the same standards to everyone). And it is not the same thing having some members of Reddit and having the entire national media and the President of the US and his minions out to get you, as was the case of Zimmerman.


    Sunil is dead.
    Not, as you rather imply, due to the Reddit campaign. He was already dead before he was accused of being part of the Boston Marathon Bombing, and so, unlike Zimmerman, was entirely unaffected by the accusations.


    They're already held to a higher standard, and they redact or correct stories that they get wrong. Especially the high profile ones. So I have no idea what you're complaining about. There is a high level of quality at large media publications.
    And being professionals, they should be held to a higher standard. In any case, retracting a story when you are caught being wrong isn't very impressive or noble thing. And the issue is not some much the false facts, but the constant failure to report "the whole truth" and nothing but the truth, as the old swearing in court says. The mainstream media doesn't report the whole truth. When you make white cops shooting unarmed blacks as part of the national agenda, but do not do the same from black cops shooting unarmed whites, or white cops shooting other unarmed whites, you are not reporting the "whole truth" When you don't let the public know that the roles had been reversed, and yet the outcome was still the same, as in the case of Roderick Scott and Zimmerman, you are not reporting the whole truth either.

    The sins of omission can be as great as the sins of commisson.



    Huh? Alright then bud. Why don't you tell me my "bias"? What are my political positions? Shouldn't be hard, seeing as how I, like many others, make them public.
    Easy as pie. When you condemn Zimmerman, but don't condemn Roderick Scott, you show your personal bias. When you defend the bias of the NEA where 97% of their support goes to Democrats, and call the Democrats rightist centrist, you show your bias. When you deny the bias of the mainstream media, you show you bias, When you claim Rey is not a Mary Sue, but insist Luke is a Gary Sue, you show your political bias.


    Alternatively, if Zimmerman didn't follow him with a gun, Martin would be alive.
    Or Martin would already be dead by now, since murder by other blacks is the number one cause of death of young black males like Martin. Given Martins obvious violent nature - he did attack Zimmerman, and Martin was suspended from school, showing Martin had a violent nature that like would have gotten him into trouble sooner or later.

    Martin is dead because he decided to attack what he thought would be an easy target, an out of shape, pudgy older man, and unfortunately for the hot head Martin, his victim proved arm. Martin is deadly only because he chose to assault Zimmerman. Had Martin just walked home, he would have remained alive that night.

    I would have a gun and I'd simply make him drop his. Seeing as how Zimmerman is an idiot, he'd probably try to draw at me, at which point I'd drop him.
    So you go around armed, do you. Nice to see SJW hypocrisy at work, criticizing conservatives for advocating allowing citizens to be armed, but then taking advantage of that to arm yourself. I guess it is only wrong if conservatives and law abiding citizens arm themselves, it is ok for liberals and criminals to arm themselves.

    Make the situation his fault. Afterall, if Zimmerman simply stayed home, nobody would've been shot.
    And if Martin had walked home and ignored Zimmerman, nobody would have gotten shot. If Martin hadn't gotten himself expelled, nobody would have gotten shot.

    And if Scott had stayed in his house, or backed away instead of firing his gun, nobody would have gotten shot either. But since that shooting supports you SJW agenda, you support the Roderick Scott killing, because Scott was black.

    Self-defense isn't a crime.
    Exactly, which is why Zimmerman was acquitted.

    Just like the majority of your post that has no veered from film critique into Zimmerman, Constitutional Law, and your limited understanding of film.
    Just like the majority of your post about Zimmerman has veered from film critique. The Zimmerman example merely demonstrated the bias that the media has, and by extension, the bias the critics who work for the media likely have as well.


    You do realize that when you say, "Once again you demonstrate... your lack of knowledge and ignorance" you come off really bad? Not only are you annoying me, but quite frankly, you're veering on insulting people. Over film.
    Right back at you. You chose to accuse those who criticize the critics as having a political agenda, so it is fair to to do the same to you and accuse you also having a political agenda.


    He didn't blow up, and Vader clearly missed. Because you know, space magic.
    No Vader missed because Hans Solo shot him. The same jamming that blocked the sensors on the X-Wing could have also blocked the sensors on the Imperial forces as well, allowing a small ship like the Millennium Falcon to sneak up undetected.

    Rey is clearly an experienced fighter, but perhaps you missed it. Wouldn't put it past you to watch a movie inattentively.
    I didn't miss it, because it wasn't said. No one ever praised Rey for her fighting skills, you show me where that was specially said. Further, street fighting skills like Rey possessed would not help her to master the use of a Jedi. Simply because you are good a street brawling, does not automatically make you a master fencer, an expert with the saber or the katana as you imply. Once again you have to invent facts to justify your claims.

    Luke was praised for his piloting skills by Obiwan himself in the first movie, and in general piloting skills in one type of aircraft carryover to other aircraft as well. Just look at the career of Chuck Yeager. He demonstrated excellent pilot skills in his P-51 piston plane, and in completely different test vehicles.

    Also, I'm not sure just how cross applicable skills in flying a speeder is to flying an X-Wing. Finally, I don't even remember that being said in the movie, timestamp it for me. So no, your excuse is invalid.
    Anakin was good at pod racers, but he also proved good at flying space fighters. Unlike street fighting skills, which do not carryover into fencing skills, Luke piloting skills would carryover to flying other craft. The X planes that Yeager flew were nothing like the P51 that he flew in the war, but he proved to be good in the X-planes as well. That is why they let Yeager become a test pilot.


    Actually the fact that Darth Vader is a fantastic pilot has been established over 6 movies now,
    Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance and how little you really know. Anakin demonstrated he was a good pilot, but Darth Vader was severely injured, and he demonstrated good piloting skills in one movie (the original Star Wars movie), but no one said he was great. However, Luke being in the prime of live, and not injured like Vader, and inheriting Vader/Anakin's ability, would have been just as good a pilot, probably even better. Vader seemed somewhat clumsy with his artificial limbs, and they probably were as limber as natural limbs, which would adversely affect his flying ability. Bottom line, what Luke did in the first movie was entirely believable, what Rey did was not.

    But even within the film, Vader displays mastery over his spacecraft and superiority over lesser pilots, shooting down several X-Wings personally.
    And Luke also displayed his ability too, also shooting down several X-wings. Vader's kills were done in corridor which restricted the ability of the X-wings to maneuver. Luke's kills were done when the TIE fighters had the entire freedom of space to maneuver, making those much more difficult kills.


    It's space. Also, he can pull up, just like the pilots before him. Finally, the corridor was pretty wide, especially for a single starfighter.
    Again, you don't seem to have actually seen the movie. The corridor was not wide, pretty narrow, and the movement of the X-wings was very restrictive, just allowing a little movement from side to side and up and down. Nor could Luke pull up, because if he did he wouldn't be in attack formation to launch his proton torpedoes to start the chain reaction. The need to be actually bomb precisely really restricted Luke's movement, he had to be steady on the final run to hit the target.

    In the very next scene with Vader and Tarkin, they said it was a risk and that the escape wasn't planned. You don't know what you're talking about. [
    Which proves the exact opposite of what you assert, and once again proving you are the one who doesn't have clue what they are talking about. Tarkin confirms that it was part of the plan to allow them to escape and he also confirms it was Vader's plan. Once again you invent things, Tarkin never said that the escape wasn't planned (by the Empire), but says exactly the opposite, that it was Vader's plan. He merely said it was risky, but had it worked, the Rebellion would have been finished - nothing ventured, nothing gained. And it almost worked - had Luke been just a few seconds slower, or Hans hadn't decided to come back, the plan would have worked. The Empire was mere seconds away from total victory.


    The movie didn't say so, Rey does not display force power and abilities equal to the best users. Her use of the Force in the film was spontaneous, inexperienced, and haphazard. That's not being a Mary Sue, that's space magic being space magic.
    Sure Rey demonstrate force powers similar to experienced Force users. The fact she demonstrates these powers without training makes her Mary Sue:

    1. Rey was able to undo the locks on her restraints, similar to the way that Obiwan was able to undo the force shield locks to get at Darth Maul, without any training. Mary Sue

    2. Rey was able to lift heavy rocks, just like Yoda, in TLJ, with just one lesson. Luke, despite both Yoda's and Obiwan training, was not able to lift such a group of heavy rocks, and despite all Yoda's training, which was far, far more than what Rey got. Once again, Rey was a Mary Sue.

    3. Rey uses a Jedi mind trick on the guard, again without any training. Luke only uses the Jedi mind trick in the 3rd movie, after training by both Obi-wan, and Yoda, and only after continuing his lessons as a instructed by Yoda, and having completed his skill as a Jedi as Yoda said. Once again, Rey was a Mary Sue.

    Once again, you are completely wrong, as you always are.

    Kylo literally offered to teach her at 1:56:20. In the second movie Rey was already taught by Luke Skywalker before she leaves.
    But Kylo didn't teach her, Rey rejected his offer, nor was there time in the movie for Kylo to train her, nor was he ever shown training her. And Rey received only one lesson from Luke, and Luke only offered 3 lousy lessons, which only one of them was shown being completed. While Yoda did question training Luke, it was only a brief moment, and Yoda waa really yanking Luke's chain, and illustrating Luke's deficiencies. After a few comments, Yoda committed himself wholeheartedly into training Luke, which Luke never, ever did for Rey. The offer of a mere 3 lessons was pathetic.


    Please, tell me more about this mythical agenda the New Trilogy pushes. What are its goals? What does it argue? What does it say about the current world?
    It pushes the SJW agenda. The superiority of women, the inferiority of men. The men are shown as either irresponsible, immature boys like Poe, or totally useless male characters like Finn, who has to be rescued by a woman in the movies stupidest and pointless scenes. The bad buys are almost all white males, a bunch of whinny babies like Kylo and General Hux. While Vader and the Emperor were truly menacing, Hux and Kylo are just whinning, and Supreme Leader Snope a toothless tiger, easily killed with no problem. Only bad guy on the First Order's side you could respect was Plasma, who of course was a woman.

    The fact Kennedy wore a T-shirt that said the "Force is female" and a virtually all female staff says it all.


    If you can't see Rey having an internal conflict, I'm really not sure what to tell you. Then again, you also asked me how Citizen Kane criticizes the media, so who knows how you watch movies and what you get out of it.
    You could actually provide examples to back up your claims. Like Citizen Kane, you just make assertions you refuse to prove. In the case of Luke, you see the dilemma that Luke has between listening to the advice of people whom he trust most in the world, Yoda and Ben, or following his own hear to rescue his friends. He accepts their decision that if he leaves, he can expect no help from them without complaint. It shows Luke's maturity, Rey shows no such growth in the TLJ.

    Luke also finds he has been lied to, and the father he always looked up to was Vader. Vader wants Luke to join him for the noble cause of bringing order to the galaxy. On top of the lie he suddenly found out he was told, Vader's offer must have been tempting, but Luke manages to reject it. Rey faces no such temptation, an offer from a whining, treacherous person like Kylo who didn't hesitate to kill his own boss was easy to resist. Rey remains 2 dimension in both movies, showing no personal growth. Luke went from being a bored farm boy who just wanted to get off his lousy planet, to a mature Jedi master in the 3rd movie. Luke is a much more experience fighter in the Empire Strikes Back, he is no longer the panicky kid who was saying "There coming in too fast!" Rey on the other had, is whooping and cheering like a immature teen while blowing up and killing people in the Tie Fighters, and shows no sorrow at all over the fact that 99.99% of her friends and the Resistance has been killed. What is there to celebrate?

    PS: Poe is like the most badass character in the show. I also think its hilarious that you can see how Poe needs the wisdom of women to contain him, but somehow Rey having intimacy issues is beyond you. Lul
    Poe is a token white male hero, who is shown to be immature and irresponsible, and is there to show the superior wisdom of women who managed to destroy the entire fricking Resistance Fleet, except for one lousy ship that wasn't even a Resistance Fleet ship to begin with.


    Uh huh. I don't think you should comment on film, you don't seem to possess the ability to understand or analyze them. Here's how The Last Jedi is similar to The Empire Strikes Back.
    Right back at you. You should shouldn't comment on a movie you clearly never watched for yourself, and don't know, but based your comments clearly on the comments of others.

    1. Both films show Jedi training done by a grump teacher who eventually dies.
    Again, you don't know the Empire Strikes Back. Yoda does not die in the Empire Strikes back, and Luke is more than grumpy, he is a a bitter old man, quite different from Yoda. Yoda is neither bitter nor disillusioned like Luke, nor did Yoda talk about the Jedi must come to the end. Not the same at all.

    2. The Baddies, track down the remnants of the Rebel Alliance (comically both iterations are led by Leia) but fail in destroying them.
    Again, completely wrong. The Rebels completely escape, the Resistance Fleet is completely caught and destroyed to the last ship (the Falcon wasn't a Resistance ship technically.). In no universe but yours, are they same.

    Also, the Baddies were tracking the Resistance Fleet in The Last Jedi, they did not have to track them down, they were following them all along. The Baddies did have have to track down the Rebel Fleet in Empire Strikes Back, but unlike TLJ, the Rebel Fleet managed to escape. Opposites are not the same.

    3. Both Luke and Rey face a choice and a realization about themselves.
    Like what? Luke turned down the offer of a father he never knew, after being lied to. Rey only had to turn down the offer by a certified whining pyscho. Easy choice.

    Luke had the choice of completing his training as advised by those he had the greatest respect, or go rescue his friends without help on his own. What similar choice did Rey make like that. Luke learned who his father was, Rey still didn't learn who her parents were, only that they did not matter. Luke's father, in contrast, mattered very much - nobodies and the number one henchman in the galaxy are not the same thing at all.

    To be fair, the New Trilogy isn't identical to the Original Trilogy, but the plot structure and the themes are. Certainly there are more and different characters, but its not exactly a radically different vision in the way the the Prequels were.
    No the New Trilogy isn't the same. The original trilogy was classic, cutting edge science fiction movie that broke new grounds, and was heavily influenced by time tested mythology and classical works like Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" The New Trilogy is just crap promoting a SJW agenda.

    That Rey is apparently a super badass that can do everything. That the movie is step one of the Feminist plot to rule the world. That the movie is lazily written.
    Glad you finally admitted the truth.


    Ah yes, you did school me about how the Internet came into existence around 25 years ago, and not 20 years ago as I originally stated. Other than that, you didn't do any knocking.
    The start of the internet was before 1995. Once again, you confused t he WWW with the Internet. Once again you are know nothing, but too arrogant to admit you are wrong. By the 1980's, the Internet was going international.

    The Internet began to penetrate Asia in the 1980s. In May 1982 South Korea became the second country to successfully set up TCP/IP IPv4 network.[80][81]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...s_the_Internet

    The 1982 is significantly before 1995.



    So no, I am largely correct and quite frankly, I was polite enough to not press the issue. If you want to discuss the exact origin of the Internet, take it up in the VV instead of trying to play of "gotcha" by engaging in intellectual pedantry.
    So no, you were completely wrong. The Internet had already spread even to Asia by 1995. Once again, completely wrong. Look up the history of the Internet before you continue to embarrass yourself with your ignorance.





    How does that make her a Mary Sue? She's clearly gifted.
    No, she is clearly a Mary Sue as I have given numerous examples. She is a Mary Sue, because unlike every other Force user, she does things without being trained. Even Anakin needed training, which Rey did not. Mary Suism to the max.


    Which ones? In Snoke's room? Luke already trained her.
    Luke gave her one lesson, none involving a light saber. One lesson is not training.


    Proof that most of the media is leftist?
    The reporting on Zimmerman trial and the lack of reporting on the Roderick Scott trial. The reporting on the Amber Guyger trial, and the lack of reporting on the Mohammad Noor trial. The failure to report vital statistics and important facts.

    Proof that most of the critics are leftist?
    They work for the media. Their praising of crap like the TLJ and Ad Astra.

    Proof that I am a Social Justice Warrior?
    You call Democrats conservative. You defense of the Zimmerman trial, and failure to hold the same standard to Roderick Scott. Your denial Rey is a Mary Sue. You saying that the NEA giving 97% of their support to Democrats doesn't prove the leftist bias of academia.

    Proof that I think Warren is center-right?
    You called the Democratic Party center-right. Since Warren is a major leader of the Democratic party and therefore the Democratic Party represents her values, you are implying she is center-right
    Last edited by Common Soldier; November 04, 2019 at 09:17 PM.

  12. #112
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,250

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

    ^Thanks, indeed the US does seem more to the right than Europe (apart from some special cases)
    But I doubt Hillary/Biden or similar are in any meaningful way leftist, politics-wise, unless you factor SJW issues where (I suspect) they do it as a means to have an audience/voting pool, not out of honest belief in the values. While to me Bernie does seem authentic in wanting actual change in the economy, and seems to not focus on race but financial conditions (albeit the black minority in the US is so populous that it does make sense to treat some of its own problem separately when possible, I suppose).

    I don't care about either left or right, but do care about honesty and integrity. In current times it seems that some left leaders represent that, eg Bernie and Corbyn, imo.
    I detest fakes who just pretend to support something out of calculation, and also dislike those who just are kneejerk
    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










  13. #113

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Sure you know the reason. You simply don't like the proganda of the critics and the media being exposed. That is why you respond.
    What propaganda? Who's the master mind? Is it Degeneres, by any chance?

    I'm not going to respond, because it's honestly too hard to follow. It's hard to follow a bunch of nonsense about Mary Sues, feminist agendas, and media conspiracies.

  14. #114
    saxdude's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    House of Erotic Maneuvering
    Posts
    10,359

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

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I think Star Wars is massively overrated, too. But the thing is, professional art critics should leave their personal preferences at the door and judge a product by its merit. And for some reason, hardly any of them seem to have grasped that concept, despite it being the standard in other professions.
    You can't leave personal preferences at the door, both in general and especially with regards to art, absolutely everything is subjective. At best you can pay lip service to certain qualities of a production, but ultimately you can only speak by way of what you feel, and that adds it's own value to the critique, audiences with shared tastes will sympathize.
    So long as the preferences are stated openly I don't really see the issue.

    I ain't jokin' when it comes to mah paintings ಠ_ಠ

  15. #115
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,591

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

    Jeez Louise, not everything in life is about politics or political leanings, or at least they shouldn't be. Whatever happened to just appreciating art for art's sake or questioning the motives of people for their individual, unique opinions about select pieces of artworks? Unless of course it's a work commissioned by Hitler when he was an art student!

    I wonder if someone would even interpret my decision to delay watching this Joker film until it hits Netflix with some political motive, instead of me just not caring about clown stuff, or being all that eager to see yet another DC Comics character on the big screen after all the market saturation. I hear the movie's gotten enough good reviews at least, so I'll give it a watch, way after the fact.

    As for the whole politics thing, from my American progressive perspective, I think Warren's policies, while overall progressive, aren't as much so as Bernie Sanders and I don't think she's as realistic as him in terms of how to implement them, whether it's single-payer healthcare or anything else. Sanders also just appeals to blue collar working class dudes in general due to his FDR style rhetoric about a new deal for the American worker, whereas Elizabeth Warren's wonky schoolteacher appeal only goes so far. I know to a Republican Hillary or Biden might seem to the left (especially certain issues they care for the most like guns), but that's laughable to someone like me and I view them as basically 90s style GOP Republicans and fiscal conservatives who finally think gay marriage is okay or that climate change is bad enough to make a few incremental changes. They're certainly not progressive enough in my view if they don't care about the issue of addressing middle class US families going broke due to medical bankruptcies, something people in other developed nations like Canada don't have to worry about ever because that's freaking unheard of over there in the quaint & quiet Mounty maple syrup land of socialism.

    I also think SJWs on Twitter are annoying and will beat people over the head who say Cleopatra was black instead of Greek, so make of that what you will.

    But that's a conversation for another thread.

  16. #116
    Cookiegod's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    1,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Jeez Louise, not everything in life is about politics or political leanings, or at least they shouldn't be. Whatever happened to just appreciating art for art's sake or questioning the motives of people for their individual, unique opinions about select pieces of artworks? Unless of course it's a work commissioned by Hitler when he was an art student!

    I wonder if someone would even interpret my decision to delay watching this Joker film until it hits Netflix with some political motive, instead of me just not caring about clown stuff, or being all that eager to see yet another DC Comics character on the big screen after all the market saturation. I hear the movie's gotten enough good reviews at least, so I'll give it a watch, way after the fact.

    As for the whole politics thing, from my American progressive perspective, I think Warren's policies, while overall progressive, aren't as much so as Bernie Sanders and I don't think she's as realistic as him in terms of how to implement them, whether it's single-payer healthcare or anything else. Sanders also just appeals to blue collar working class dudes in general due to his FDR style rhetoric about a new deal for the American worker, whereas Elizabeth Warren's wonky schoolteacher appeal only goes so far. I know to a Republican Hillary or Biden might seem to the left (especially certain issues they care for the most like guns), but that's laughable to someone like me and I view them as basically 90s style GOP Republicans and fiscal conservatives who finally think gay marriage is okay or that climate change is bad enough to make a few incremental changes. They're certainly not progressive enough in my view if they don't care about the issue of addressing middle class US families going broke due to medical bankruptcies, something people in other developed nations like Canada don't have to worry about ever because that's freaking unheard of over there in the quaint & quiet Mounty maple syrup land of socialism.

    I also think SJWs on Twitter are annoying and will beat people over the head who say Cleopatra was black instead of Greek, so make of that what you will.

    But that's a conversation for another thread.
    I 100% agree with your first statement. Thing is though that you kinda misinterpret how the discussion went.

    The very point of the opening post was that art should be judged on its own merits. As for politics, it barely mentioned it, as follows:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod
    The movie does not make any easily discernable political statements.
    [...]
    The superheroine Rey has zero flaws, as political correctness dictates she needs to fulfill both the female and male archetypes of a hero.
    Then cue the people who'd start throwing baseless accusations at you: Oh, you want neutral, honest reviews? You must be alt right then!

    Then going full circle and claiming the art critics were being fair and politically neutral. Which first of all was hilarious, given that several of the example criticisms given actually themselves referred to and acknowledged their political bias, and secondly was a self-contradicting circle-jerk. One cannot dislike these movies without being right wing, yet at the same time, the reviews were completely apolitical.

    One has to give kudoes to the very guy starting with the right wing accusations for making this observation:
    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    God, for a totally apolitical movie, its fans can't stop making references left and right.
    The Spanish inquisition would be proud of him: "You're a heretic!" "No I'm not!" "For a non-heretic, you talk a lot about herecy!"

    Thing is, I pointed out multiple times that art can have political messages and one doesn't have to agree with them to acknowledge its artistic merit.

    I specifically mentioned Wagner and his horrible, disgusting political views, which he did put into his operas. You can rest assured that most of 19th century Europe wasn't much into "free love" (between siblings!) and revolution (maybe more into the blood purity thing). This nevertheless didn't stop them from giving his operas rave "reviews" and making them a huge success. So how can it be that 19th century society Europe was more open minded with regards to art than our age?

    I would, for the very same reason, give a movie a very bad review if I agreed with the political message, but found it poorly made.

    In other words: The moment for example a lesbian batWOman™® (emphasis added by the show) starts beating up baddies to the very subtle tune of "I am a womaaaaaaan...", or female comedians make poorly regurgitated jokes about absolutely nothing than their vaginas, in the opinion of mishkin & Co., this absolutely shields them from any criticism whatsoever.

    You can still find it good and be apolitical, but you can't cringe because of the poorly regurgitated plots/jokes without being alt right.

    This is what this all devolved to. All from me pointing out the very interesting discrepancy between user & critics reviews and not even thinking about left and right wing at the time of writing the OP. Which is why I basically stopped posting here, for it is a waste of time.

    Except that now I have some recent examples that made me lulz:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    .







    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    No one cares what Derc has to say.

  17. #117
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    In other words: The moment for example a lesbian batWOman™® (emphasis added by the show) starts beating up baddies to the very subtle tune of "I am a womaaaaaaan...", or female comedians make poorly regurgitated jokes about absolutely nothing than their vaginas, in the opinion of mishkin & Co., this absolutely shields them from any criticism whatsoever.
    I thought we had already talked about how Roten Toamtoes worked and why it was not a very reliable source. 72% of the critics who have seen it (43) find it acceptable. That's all that score means, let me know when it get the category of "Certified Fresh".

    Metacritics. Batwoman metascore: 60.

    Nop, I won't even bother to see it. If you have watch it, please go ahead, criticize it as much as you want, I will not contradict you unless you start to generalize and talk about (i.e.) why feminism is a cancer for today's society.

    I have read Céline, Hamsum, Lovecraft or Mishima (and many other differently polemic authors) and have enjoyed their work despite disagreeing with their political ideology. I have enjoyed many films that exude conservative, fascist and even racist values. For the last time, please leave the empty verbiage and present a work that can be considered great and has been reviled by critics clearly for its political or social content.

    PS: The Birth of a Nation (1915) is considered a great film by most critics. Go look for its rate in Rotten Toamatoes.
    Last edited by mishkin; November 06, 2019 at 05:46 AM.

  18. #118
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,250

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

    Hamsun and Mishima aren't even political in their work... Celine is known for one novel, which itself didn't survive on the merits of political views expressed, while Lovecraft is known not for his racism but being good in producing horror.
    Nothing in those can even superficially be compared to having movies that are not at all subtle in their political message. In effect you are trying to compare works which survived despite politics of their creators, to movies that exist largely to present boring politics
    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










  19. #119
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    12,649

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Hamsun and Mishima aren't even political in their work... Celine is known for one novel, which itself didn't survive on the merits of political views expressed, while Lovecraft is known not for his racism but being good in producing horror.
    Nothing in those can even superficially be compared to having movies that are not at all subtle in their political message. In effect you are trying to compare works which survived despite politics of their creators, to movies that exist largely to present boring politics
    discrepancies with what you say regarding those authors aside, I was saying that I, general audience and proffesional movie critics we are not some kind of Inquisitors who throw anything that smells like heresy at the stake.

    What "movies that exist largely to present boring politics"?
    Last edited by mishkin; November 06, 2019 at 07:27 AM.

  20. #120
    Cookiegod's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In Derc's schizophrenic mind
    Posts
    1,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    I thought we had already talked about how Roten Toamtoes worked and why it was not a very reliable source. 72% of the critics who have seen it (43) find it acceptable. That's all that score means, let me know when it get the category of "Certified Fresh".

    Metacritics. Batwoman metascore: 60.
    I have not claimed that the latest two examples (Batwoman & Lilly Singh) have enough reviews for them to be statistically viable in any ways. But in a general sense you're wrong when you deny rotten tomatoes scores any validity.

    I take it you have never worked much with statistics. Binary classification is huge in statistics and in machine learning in particular. Spoiler alert, I do. As your claim is made even regarding movies that have around 500 observations, the answer has to be no, your claim is false.
    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    I will not contradict you unless you start to generalize and talk about (i.e.) why feminism is a cancer for today's society.
    See, the funny thing is that I never made such a claim. That has not stopped you and others to accuse people of wrong-think in this thread. I have a dislike of people of any totalitarian mindset, which you are espousing.
    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    I have read Céline, Hamsum, Lovecraft or Mishima (and many other differently polemic authors) and have enjoyed their work despite disagreeing with their political ideology. I have enjoyed many films that exude conservative, fascist and even racist values.
    And yet it's impossible to point out the statistically very significant divergence in audience vs reviewers scores without being accused of wrong-think by you.
    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    discrepancies with what you say regarding those authors aside, I was saying that I, general audience and proffesional movie critics we are not some kind of Inquisitors who throw anything that smells like heresy at the stake.
    That's a nice claim you make here, though completely disproven by your own attitude in this very thread.
    .







    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    No one cares what Derc has to say.

Posting Permissions

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