|
AriadneThread posted:maybe? i don't think, or at least hope most children don't like, have a twitch prime account though Loading Ready Run have been making internet comedy videos for over a decade now (and still are), and have banked a lot of goodwill. They also go out of their way to keep their stream chats moderated and cultivated some pretty safe and inclusive communities. The thing some of you're missing is these people aren't just watching someone play the game onscreen, the audience is actively engaging with them via chat. It's less a mentality of "I'm watching a show", and more "I'm playing videogames with my funny friend(s) onscreen". It also apparently really helps some people with anxiety and general depression chill out and cheer up a little.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
 Gunnm is really good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Nothing stays. You ever spend too long at a party, or stick around in a city after all your friends move away? Your consciousness is a dynamic event unfolding in time. Just go with it. Yes I am afraid of death, but it’s inevitable and worrying about it is as pointless as worrying about the fact of your birth. The human race is likely going to be short-lived anyway. Just enjoy that you are around when there are books and movies and dentists, and be glad you won’t have to endure the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:
I think you mean Battle Angel Alita!  Sidenote, but why the gently caress did they think using the japanese names for locations was a good idea for the deluxe editions of the original manga, when it released right after The Last Order and most people nowadays have probably read that first!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I think there's a lot of truth to the problem of the video essay as we know it, but it's not what that video narrows in on. I think Hbomb said it best and perfectly in the last version of this thread: I don't really buy this argument. All criticisms and analysis of art is subjective, that's a given, there's no getting away from that. However, there's a long history of academic work, theory, ideas etc that have been accumulated for a thousand years or more that provide a framework for people to discuss and understand art. To take the example: "Usually you want to do X. These scenes didn't do X. This is bad writing." If we flesh that out a bit, a typical argument that uses a similar structure could be "Character makes a decision. No scenes prior communicated this is something character would do. As a result decision was dramatically unsatisfying. This is bad writing" Whether that is right or wrong doesn't matter, but the hypothetical critic who wrote it is justifying their subjective opinion (that they found the decision unsatisfying) with a reason (it was not set-up prior, so the character's behavior seemed to come out of nowhere). To back up their argument they might then relate it to a previous work which does set up the decision (e.g Han Solo's decision to come back to save the day in Star Wars is set up with a character arc that shows him softening to the other characters, and a moment of doubt before he re-appears, making it satisfying). It's not so much making up rules and truth-isms, as looking at the history of narratives and trying to ascertain why a certain narrative didn't work for the critic while others do. It's not demanding that films stick to a formula, but trying to argue why one such particular film's story didn't work and using a counter-example as evidence. We have a long history of narratives to look at, and it's important to study which ones seem to have an impact on people and which one's don't. Basically, I think my main problem with that argument is that it implies that any criticism of a work must be someone just making up an objective reason to justify their subjective view, when the reality is that someone is expressing their subjective opinion and then using film academia, or the history of cinema to justify and provide evidence for that opinion. Which is not a bad thing. It is in fact, good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I don't really buy this argument. All criticisms and analysis of art is subjective, that's a given, there's no getting away from that. However, there's a long history of academic work, theory, ideas etc that have been accumulated for a thousand years or more that provide a framework for people to discuss and understand art. To take the example: Most analytic arguments don’t engage in evaluative judgments (except maybe against other scholars), which I guess is at the heart of hbomb’s complaint. He’s frustrated partially because he’s arguing that the prequels are interesting and people try to disagree with him by saying that the prequels are bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Karloff posted:As a result decision was dramatically unsatisfying. This is bad writing But you're still making a rule. You're now saying that anything that's not communicating that a character would do something makes it bad. Put another way: what's "bad writing"? And I mean that rhetorically kind of. Bad as in, not to your taste? Bad as in, in your opinion, people don't talk like that? There are various kinds of things someone can say when they mean "bad", but oftentimes on the internet all it means is, "thing that isn't to my taste" Karloff posted:Basically, I think my main problem with that argument is that it implies that any criticism of a work must be someone just making up an objective reason to justify their subjective view, when the reality is that someone is expressing their subjective opinion and then using film academia, or the history of cinema to justify and provide evidence for that opinion. Which is not a bad thing. It is in fact, good. I agree with this paragraph. However, "expressing their subjective opinion and then using film academia, or the history of cinema to justify and provide evidence for that opinion" is not what happens in a lot of these sorts of essays In that post I quoted Hbomb is talking about one of Ellis' Hobbit videos, wherein some of the criticisms are essentially just the essayist's personal taste masquerading as more "formal" criticism (like not liking the river barrel sequence for it's tone, or the love story) That, or the example of RLM highlighting Lucas' usage of shot-reverse-shot in the SW Prequels as a weapon against them when, in fact, usage of shot-reverse-shot isn't bad at all. It isn't "good" either. It's essentially absurd on its face to assign good/bad "value" to something like that. In both of those examples, those videos are using their personal taste in action sequences and editing techniques instead of talking about why they "really" didn't like the movies. Not that they're lying or anything, but for those movies the more "real" reasons are ideological; it's why Ellis' third Hobbit video is awesome and good and the best of the three imo business hammocks posted:Most analytic arguments don’t engage in evaluative judgments (except maybe against other scholars), which I guess is at the heart of hbomb’s complaint. He’s frustrated partially because he’s arguing that the prequels are interesting and people try to disagree with him by saying that the prequels are bad. Yeah it's also this. It's why Youtube film essayists could improve their game in a big way if they just talked about what they like; talking about things you like doesn't come with the baggage of trying to create "rules" that the thing you don't like breaks in order to justify your dislike of it Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Nah, blow me shitter. This is like the morons that play "B-BUH CRIME IS SO NIGHTMARISH NOW, THE WORLD SCARRRY" when violent crime rates have been dropping for a while now. Nah from a legal standpoint things are pretty bad with a lot of social and economic protections being stripped. Not to mention this economic turmoil causing a massive rise in nationalism and fascism including them taking the US presidency. But I guess people are mad at Racism online so I guess it broke even
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:I think you mean Battle Angel Alita! I'm from Quebec. so I read the french translation that keeps all the original names.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I don't really buy this argument. All criticisms and analysis of art is subjective, that's a given, there's no getting away from that. However, there's a long history of academic work, theory, ideas etc that have been accumulated for a thousand years or more that provide a framework for people to discuss and understand art. To take the example: When it comes to the whole objectivity/subjectivity thing, what I've found, or the realization I've come to is that a critique/opinion/whatever is largely rooted in subjectivity. Even if you dislike something, but try to speak positively, your real feelings may still bleed through. I feel like objectivity, while not paramount, is important to tempering a critique. For example, I don't really care for Diablo. I find it a really dull game most of the time, and I think the loot system is a pain to deal with. Simultaneously, there are elements of Diablo that I really like, and I think some parts of it are better than it successors. It bothers me, because in theory, I should really like the game, because I've played games that are similar (not Diablo-clones, mind you; I mean in more broad terms like other RPGs like Elder Scrolls or something). On top of that, Diablo is a game that loved by a lot of people, and I'd be upset at tearing down something that people have a lot of love and nostalgia over. I think it's a problem of being definitive, or authoritative. There are people who say, "Well, I liked Fallout 3 way more than New Vegas" or "I thought Dark Souls 2 was terrible compared to the first game". I don't want to be an rear end in a top hat and say that they're stupid or wrong for thinking that. Hell, there are awful games that I think are good, like Final Fantasy 8 or Mafia 3, where I think they're really interesting. At the same time, I don't want to reject the existing criticism just because I've got a different perspective on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Nah from a legal standpoint things are pretty bad with a lot of social and economic protections being stripped. Not to mention this economic turmoil causing a massive rise in nationalism and fascism including them taking the US presidency. The administration are incompetent as gently caress and one of the most massively hated we've had, who stole the election very likely literally, elsewhere it's the fleeting remnants of boomer trash getting poo poo measures passed before they finally do us the favor and die also largely in part due to fuckery like gerrymandering and voter suppression against the larger growing opposition and the ever dwindling neo-nazis trying to scrape back while they can, yet still failing because the wide swathe of their new recruits are sad pepe 4channers. It's worth being mad about, but the "NOTHING MATTERS  " poo poo is stupid.
Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:But you're still making a rule. You're now saying that anything that's not communicating that a character would do something makes it bad. No, it's not making a rule. I did not invent the concept of set-up and pay off. This is something that goes back a long time in story-telling, thousands of years even. If someone; a critic or SA poster, or anyone, says that something is badly written, it means just that, that they feel there are tangible flaws with the writing that makes the end result unsatisfying. To take your examples: Waffles Inc. posted:
In both those cases, the critics are saying a lot more than "I don't like that style, so it is bad", way much more. They are making a criticism, a cogent one, for why they feel that particular technique does not work in the context. For example, in Ellis' Hobbit essay, she isn't saying "I don't like the tone of this barrel sequence therefore it's bad", she is saying, to paraphrase, that the over the top cartoon like approach to the barrel sequence undermines the tension of the scene, which revolves around the survival and peril of the dwarves. As the dwarves seem mostly impervious to harm it makes it much less exciting, than if they had perhaps used a different tone that highlighted the danger. It's a solid criticism, and yes, of course, it is a subjective opinion. But, it is backed up with good reasoning, it provides context and comparison, and argues the case. You are not obligated to agree of course and could make a counter claim as to why the over the top humour works, and would have to provide similar context to do so. But, I think you do the video and argument a disservice when you say that it's just an ideological complaint against a certain tone. It's perfectly fine to criticize a film-making technique for being a poor choice: Yes, you can't assign a good/bad value to shot-reverse-shot, it's just a technique, but you can assign a good/bad value if you think it's a poor choice for whatever film is using it. Just like you can't assign a good/bad value for a slapstick comedy tone, but you can if you feel it's the wrong choice for a given film, like a drama about a real-life atrocity for instance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
I think Lindsay already hit the nail on the head earlier: https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis/status/988927181123272704 "But a critical essay isn’t an objective list. Subjectivity and “essay” are in no way mutually exclusive, and speaking authoritatively just means you’re confident in your argument. Like bringing tone into it at all is just... what?" So, yeah. Trying to be objective and removing yourself as much as possible from your arguments is weak as gently caress. Be more confident in what you're saying. khwarezm posted:CGP Grey seems to have turned into a major proselytiser when it comes to stopping aging and death. Saw this video earlier and honestly, I preferred his other talks on the topic. Adding a narrative, and a really childish one at that, does nothing for me and honestly just raises a whole lot of questions. Like, I don't think a personification of death would devour people whole. Death is, in my mind, impassive as gently caress. Death does not care if it gets one thousand or one hundred thousand or nothing in a day. And death would not have such an antagonistic personality. Causes of death would, like, cancer or war or disaster I could see as being pretty horrible when personified, but they don't just cause death, there's pain and suffering and they reach out to affect perfectly healthy people just by attacking loved ones. Personifying a threat makes it tangible and real and visible, which is why it's childish, because he's talking down to his audience as if they can't comprehend something that isn't physical but can affect us and the people around us in very real ways. That and he's personifying it as a threat, an active agent working against humanities best interests, when it's really not. See this is why I don't like the narrative, I can pick it apart and the actual argument he's making is lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Loading Ready Run have been making internet comedy videos for over a decade now (and still are), and have banked a lot of goodwill. They also go out of their way to keep their stream chats moderated and cultivated some pretty safe and inclusive communities. maybe it's the engagement thing i'm missing i pretty much never, ever, have the ability to watch this stuff live so the constant pauses to address twitch chat just irritate me
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:This isn’t a review thing exactly, but I guess it’s kind of Night Mind-related: DarkHarvest01, a slenderman-related youtube series from 2010 has started back up. It’s been silent since 2012 at least and was never very good. But now that the kids behind it have graduated from high school and college, maybe it will have some kind of conclusion that Night Mind will go apeshit for. I think the old series are colluding or something because EMH updated twice this month after being dead for 2 years, and Tribe Twelve is tweeting (though I think that one was still semi-active).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Usually you want to let people explain or expound their meaning for themselves rather than assume meaning which supports your already held beliefs. You guys didn't do that. Therefore your posts are bad. I watched Infinity War today with one of my brothers and afterwards he brought up Lindsay's Hobbit series and we chatted about that through the insanely generic credits music. It sounds like it's being passed around a bit on NZ social media, which is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
Karloff posted:No, it's not making a rule. I did not invent the concept of set-up and pay off. This is something that goes back a long time in story-telling, thousands of years even. If someone; a critic or SA poster, or anyone, says that something is badly written, it means just that, that they feel there are tangible flaws with the writing that makes the end result unsatisfying. If a story were to subvert the idea of set-up and pay off, for example, by expositing that the main characters are waiting for another character who then never arrives, would that story then be bad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 10:43
|
|
|
Your trap is laid on faulty premises. Waiting for Godot was entirely built around the wait, and if it happened as a mere scene added into the middle of say Jurassic Park I'd probably call it bad due to failing to intergrate the concepts laid in one part of the movie with concepts in another. Similar to the barrel scene not meshing with the other parts of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
I'm not saying all rule-breaking is good so much as not all rule-breaking is bad and much of it serves a purpose. A critic too focused on Da Rulez will end up missing the forest for the trees, which is a common occurrence when a piece of media tries something new and gets panned only to be redeemed later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 11:18
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Your trap is laid on faulty premises. Waiting for Godot was entirely built around the wait, and if it happened as a mere scene added into the middle of say Jurassic Park I'd probably call it bad due to failing to intergrate the concepts laid in one part of the movie with concepts in another. Similar to the barrel scene not meshing with the other parts of the movie. To be honest, I would pay to see Jeff Goldblum wander off in the middle of a Jurassic film to perform Waiting for Godot, devoid of context and preferably during an action scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 11:27
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Your trap is laid on faulty premises. Waiting for Godot was entirely built around the wait, and if it happened as a mere scene added into the middle of say Jurassic Park I'd probably call it bad due to failing to intergrate the concepts laid in one part of the movie with concepts in another. Similar to the barrel scene not meshing with the other parts of the movie. “Not meshing”, in your opinion. A scene “not meshing” is a matter of taste, if a scene “doesn’t mesh”, that doesn’t make something bad. I thought the scene “meshed” fine, for instance. Am I somehow formally “wrong”? Ultimately this is what I see as the problem; some folks just don’t like the scene, and in order to do more than say, “I didn’t like it”, they attempt to formalize that dislike by creating “rules” that make it seem like their taste is somehow informed by something deeper than their own taste Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
I agree that the barrel scene had a different tone than the rest of the movie, but it was also my favorite scene, with a slapstick energy far more suited to an adaptation of a book where Bilbo tricks three trolls into literally arguing until the sun comes up than most of the tonal choices present in that film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 12:37
|
|
|
a medical mystery posted:If a story were to subvert the idea of set-up and pay off, for example, by expositing that the main characters are waiting for another character who then never arrives, would that story then be bad? That's the thing we have to ask, here: what do we get in exchange for this character never arriving? What are we actually gaining by the subversion? Is it simply the inherent value of being subversive? Or is there a flat-out more rewarding story to be told in this subversion? Like, is it possible to have a satisfying narrative experience that forgoes set-up and payoff entirely and relies solely on moment-to-moment engagement? I suppose, in theory it can be done and has been done. But the fact is that if we're gonna throw out proven storytelling tools like the entire concept of setting up elements and then paying off those elements, then we better be replacing those tools with something of equal or greater value. Creators who are able to successfully break these "rules" of storytelling tend to be the ones who actually understand those rules inside and out and know how to break those rules...as opposed to, y'know, people who just don't grasp storytelling all that well and end up not telling a good story. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
For what it’s worth, the third of Ellis’ Hobbit videos is great! And I think the reason why is that it seems to have a thesis which isn’t contingent on taste, something like: The Hobbit movies were terrible for the NZ film industry and represent the worst excesses of state and corporate partnerships That’s supportable using evidence—and is! It’s a compelling video that puts forth a good case for why consumption of The Hobbit comes with some ideological baggage, which is radically different from saying, “The Hobbit films are bad movies”, which can never be more than reducible to personal taste
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
The role of objectivity in criticism isn't to be more authoritative, it's to be able to communicate opinions and ideas in such a way that they can be engaged with and challenged, to make your analysis falsifiable with evidence from the text itself. Like how can you respond to, for example, 'the characters were unlikable', other then 'I agree' or 'I disagree'. Also, yeah, there are basic rules to crafting stories, they can be rigid or loose, but, unless there's a good reason to break them (and, usually, there isn't), art only suffers for not following them. rvm fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:“Not meshing”, in your opinion. A scene “not meshing” is a matter of taste, if a scene “doesn’t mesh”, that doesn’t make something bad. I thought the scene “meshed” fine, for instance. Am I somehow formally “wrong”? It's called explaining something... Seriously, your obsession with "rules" is really weird. You are basically just hawing back what that AV Club video said about essays being authoritative and I think Lindsay's tweets are already a pretty good response to that. An essay is a collections of (your) arguments on a certain topic, leading to a conclusion and you don't have to amend every single statement with a variation of "in my opinion". It is such a fundamental part of it, of any writing really, that it goes without saying. Almost any form of reasoning fundamentally comes down to your own, personal feelings about something, especially when it comes to anything evolving humanities, so explaining where your personal taste, for example, for something comes from, is not making up rules, it is the basis of all reasoning. But honestly, I think the entire debate is disingenuous. Taste in media is fundamentally subjective and when people try to decry some criticism as "authoritative" or falsely objective, what they are actually doing is being mad that they can't come up with better arguments to explain their own tastes. At least that is how it comes across to me, since attacking the essay format as a whole conveniently gets you out of actually engaging with any of the content of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
Still blows my mind that they chose loving Dennys to do the movie meal tie in
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I think there's a lot of truth to the problem of the video essay as we know it, but it's not what that video narrows in on. I think Hbomb said it best and perfectly in the last version of this thread: uhhh but he's "guilty" of all of that. (i don't think there's anything to be guilty of i don't see a problem with those "sins".)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
e X posted:Taste in media is fundamentally subjective and when people try to decry some criticism as "authoritative" or falsely objective, what they are actually doing is being mad that they can't come up with better arguments to explain their own tastes. At least that is how it comes across to me, since attacking the essay format as a whole conveniently gets you out of actually engaging with any of the content of it. Video essays tend to be fairly short and light on citations. Also, some people believe that, unless you add 'in my opinon' or 'I think', etc., you are expressing some Objective Truth that everyone must agree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:Still blows my mind that they chose loving Dennys to do the movie meal tie in Hobbit Hole: Graveyard of Movie Empires
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
e X posted:It's called explaining something... I agree with you! Explaining why you like or dislike things can be fun in convos with your friends, sitting around and shooting the breeze, but Youtube essays often don’t take that tone. Very rarely is it, “hey I didn’t like this movie, it didn’t jive with me and I think it’s because XYZ” More often that not, the rhetoric is: This thing is bad, for reasons that i’m going to back into based on the fact that I didn’t like it. Lindsay’s Ellis is absolutely more academically and authoritatively qualified than me in the area of film like, creation and technique. That said, the thing about art is that it’s all taste. People can jump up and down about any of the perceived technique issues of things they don’t like, but those things do not make a movie good or bad. For instance, What movies do you like that have technical or structural “flaws”? Does that matter to your enjoyment? Of course not. Also on your second paragraph I just disagree with the assertion that people are mad because they can’t articulate their reason for liking. And that’s cool! I reckon we disagree about a lot of stuff but to be real I just cannot get on board with “you’re secretly mad because you like a thing this critic doesn’t” Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Do you really want to see Moviebob's face? Because you get that in his movie reviews, and it's why his In Bob We Trust series is slightly less frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
If her twitter thread wasn't convincing enough for you, I think the Three Act video she linked to is really worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0QO7YuKKdI Her explanation of what a theory in film/culture studies here was where it finally clicked for me. The introduction to her The Whole Plate series, using Michael Bay's Transformers series as a canvas on which to paint the whole field of film studies, also goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXI__Wixas Waffles Inc. posted:Lindsay’s Ellis is absolutely more academically and authoritatively qualified than me in the area of film like, creation and technique. That said, the thing about art is that it’s all taste. People can jump up and down about any of the perceived technique issues of things they don’t like, but those things do not make a movie good or bad. For instance, What movies do you like that have technical or structural “flaws”? Does that matter to your enjoyment? Of course not. This also goes into what I understood her to mean with that recurring reference to stereotypical low-information movie watchers - that she isn't trying to say that this level of analysis matters to most movie-goers. It doesn't have to matter to your own particular enjoyment. It can nevertheless be insightful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I agree with you! Explaining why you like or dislike things can be fun in convos with your friends, sitting around and shooting the breeze, but Youtube essays often don’t take that tone. Very rarely is it, “hey I didn’t like this movie, it didn’t jive with me and I think it’s because XYZ” But what is it you want? There's no quantifiable data in art criticism, so you'll never have an objective value. Is it just the idea of people talking like they have an objective knowledge that annoys you? Because, here's the thing, that's just what makes an entertaining critic. To bring back to H Bomb, he called his Fallout 3 video "Fallout 3 is garbage and here's why" not "In my opinion Fallout 3 is garbage, and now I am going to explain why but bear in mind that this is just my subjective opinion, not any measurable fact". And in that video he criticized various narrative choices Fallout 3 made, and used an example of a different video game (Fallout 1 and 2) where the player agency was, in his opinion, better applied. Now, if you like, you could say: "Well, having very broad choices for the player character in Fallout 3 is not inherently bad, it's art, so that's just his subjective opinion that he's pretending is objective", but that's not particularly fair is it? We know it's subjective by virtue of that fact it's a piece of art criticism, the fact that he's confident in his opinion is not a bad thing, it's good. A good function of art criticism is that it can help people articulate why it is they didn't like something. I didn't like Fallout 3, and I assumed that it's just because RPGs were something I couldn't get into, but when I watched the video I was like "Ohh, there were some deep tissue problems with the game that I wasn't noticing BUT were affecting my enjoyment, I was bored, and now I understand what about it made it so dull on a narrative level, so maybe I should give another RPG a go at some point". Karloff fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 13:45
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:For what it’s worth, the third of Ellis’ Hobbit videos is great! And I think the reason why is that it seems to have a thesis which isn’t contingent on taste, something like: The Hobbit movies were terrible for the NZ film industry and represent the worst excesses of state and corporate partnerships Like, the discussion of the reuse of the Ringwraith theme wasn't about whether you thought it was a cool theme or not - it wasn't Lindsey dinging them like CinemaSins. It's presented as a piece of evidence in how badly the Hobbits were made - not how bad they are. The legal epilogue was not a divergence from the rest of the videos, it was a progression on how this terrible process which sucked for almost everyone involved that you can see through the fingerprints it leaves all over the film - regardless of whether you enjoy the film or not - had real world consequences outside of producing a film that you may or may not wish to spend 10 hours with. From my perspective, all of her points in all the parts were supported with evidence. The evidence wasn't that the films are bad, and the points weren't that the films are bad. Her individual points were that some part or parts of the films were the results of certain events outside of the films that affected its production, with the overall point being that the process of making the film was not a good one, with a product that was the result of the process and oh yeah it hosed up other things outside of just making that product so wasn't that process really really bad? All three parts are about the same thing - the only difference is that the first two focus on the effects of it on the films, and the third is about the effects of it on the country. I hope she had some hokey pokey ice cream while she was here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Arent' all reviews academic on some level I mean most of the time a truly subjective review would pretty much be along the lines of "I enjoyed it because the alternative was sitting at home doing nothing and there was nothing good on tv."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
i watched some jenny nicholson and yeah, I get why she's like. i didnt watch the star wars videos but i like her other videos because its just chill and feels like a lady just blogging which is nice
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
But, speaking of stuff I don't like about internet critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrwM8NQnC48 This is a prime example. Almost everything in it is wrong; it's just so poorly researched. The critic is just chatting nonsense (saying that they were using CGI for Godzilla's breath in the fifties, sixties, seventies when that's NOT CGI, like at all). It would honestly take five minutes to look this stuff up. But I guess when anyone can self-publish whatever video show they want, this kind of stuff is gonna happen more and more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:maybe? i don't think, or at least hope most children don't like, have a twitch prime account though Their parents have Amazon prime
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:“Not meshing”, in your opinion. A scene “not meshing” is a matter of taste, if a scene “doesn’t mesh”, that doesn’t make something bad. I thought the scene “meshed” fine, for instance. Am I somehow formally “wrong”?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2018 15:51
|
|