Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Neddy Seagoon
Oct 12, 2012

Hi, Everybody!


AriadneThread posted:

maybe? i don't think, or at least hope most children don't like, have a twitch prime account though
i follow loading ready live and they've been doing more and more streaming stuff over the years because it really pays apparently! people just throwing money at them to watch them play video games in real time, and like... good for them sure, but people really want to watch that?
i don't think it's just like, kids or a small collection of adults funding it all either seeing as they'll get people mailing them packages from all over the drat world as 'thanks' for their video game streams, sending them literal pounds of candy, or collections of hats.

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MonsieurChoc
Oct 12, 2013

Every species can smell its own extinction.






Gunnm is really good.

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



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.

Neddy Seagoon
Oct 12, 2012

Hi, Everybody!


MonsieurChoc posted:



Gunnm is really good.

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!

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013



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:

HBOMB:
This is a problem with the 'pseudo-objective' approach in much modern media analysis. It takes what are ultimately subjective complaints (I didn't personally like this scene for reasons that are complex and relate to my personal relationship with the books and previous film adaptations, a relationship that's ultimately very common to internet nerds who watch films) and attempts to justify them in the form of overly simplistic truth-isms that actually only deflect from the core reasons why people didn't like the film.

"Usually you want to do X. These scenes didn't do X. This is bad writing."

Like oh wow, you've found the formula, professor, it's a real shame Peter Jackson and the hundreds of people who worked on it didn't think to ask you for the One Weird Trick To Make Film Good. Oh, wait, you actually just wrote a bunk rule that renders hundreds of critically acclaimed films bad and fundamentally undermines the loving concept of art. Almost 110 minutes of 2001 a space odyssey, of the best films ever, are bad now.

If only there was an alternative approach, where you think more about why people think things, instead of less.

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.

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



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:

"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.

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.

Waffles Inc.
Jan 20, 2005



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 02:15 on Apr 25, 2018

CharlestheHammer
Jun 26, 2011

YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!


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.

It's almost like the world at large and the declining bad things are just more visible 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

MonsieurChoc
Oct 12, 2013

Every species can smell its own extinction.




Neddy Seagoon 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!

I'm from Quebec. so I read the french translation that keeps all the original names.

Max Wilco
Jan 22, 2012

I'm just trying to go through life without looking stupid.

It's not working out too well...

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:

"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.

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.

Yardbomb
Jul 11, 2011

What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?



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 02:32 on Apr 25, 2018

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013



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.

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"



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 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

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.

SatansBestBuddy
Sep 26, 2010

by FactsAreUseless


I think Lindsay already hit the nail on the head earlier:

https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis...927181123272704

"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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

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.

AriadneThread
Feb 17, 2011

The Devil sounds like smoke and honey. We cannot move. It is too beautiful.




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.

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.

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

Linear Zoetrope
Nov 28, 2011

A hero must cook

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).

Ghostlight
Sep 25, 2009

maybe for one second you can pause; try to step into another person's perspective, and understand that a watermelon is cursing me





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.

CYBEReris
Dec 15, 2007



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?

Terrible Opinions
Oct 17, 2013





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.

CYBEReris
Dec 15, 2007



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.

Stahlgeist
Nov 19, 2009


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.

Waffles Inc.
Jan 20, 2005



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 11:24 on Apr 25, 2018

I Before E
Jul 2, 2012

"Why yes, this is a tie with dollar signs on it.

Jealous?"





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.

BrianWilly
Apr 24, 2007

There is no homosexual terrorist Johnny Silverhand

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?
Well, that instance would still be a set-up and a pay-off, just in a different direction. The quality of which would be determined by whether this subversion was as narrative satisfying or coherent as if the story were played straight.

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 11:53 on Apr 25, 2018

Waffles Inc.
Jan 20, 2005



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

rvm
May 6, 2013


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 11:57 on Apr 25, 2018

e X
Feb 23, 2013

cool but crude


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”?

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

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.

Calaveron
Aug 7, 2006


Still blows my mind that they chose loving Dennys to do the movie meal tie in

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014




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".)

rvm
May 6, 2013


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.

Playstation 4
Apr 25, 2014


Unlockable Ben

Calaveron posted:

Still blows my mind that they chose loving Dennys to do the movie meal tie in

Hobbit Hole: Graveyard of Movie Empires

Waffles Inc.
Jan 20, 2005



e X posted:

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.

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 12:27 on Apr 25, 2018

Sarcopenia
May 14, 2014


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.

Sometimes.

Occasionally.
I've never seen him or listened to his stuff because the first thing I heard about him was that he was literally a proponent of eugenics.

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

I'm the babyliberal, gotta love me!


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.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013



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”

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.

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 13:20 on Apr 25, 2018

Ghostlight
Sep 25, 2009

maybe for one second you can pause; try to step into another person's perspective, and understand that a watermelon is cursing me





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

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
I didn't see any substantive difference in the thesis presented in the third part than in the first two. That is, I did not take the first two parts at all to be a criticism of The Hobbits as bad films - yes, they were films Lindsey clearly didn't think were as good as they should have been - but all of the specific arguments I can recall were very clearly presented from the perspective of how The Hobbits were made influencing the why of The Hobbits Bad (Subjective ofc). Tonal shifts were discussed in context of the need to stretch the story to incomprehensible length, changes to the characters from the book were mentioned alongside the need to have those characters be more developed because they needed to have character arcs people were engaged in throughout the movie because it's no longer just Bilbo's baker's dozen adventure. The whole thing is virtually punctuated by her mentions of studio interference; narrative pressures both in length, scale, and tone; and generally what a clusterfuck the actual act of accomplishing the movie was.

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.

Monk E
May 19, 2009


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."

Tired Moritz
Mar 25, 2012

wish Lowtax would get tired of YOUR POSTS

(n o i c e)


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

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013



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.

corn in the bible
Jun 5, 2004

Oh no oh god it's all true!


AriadneThread posted:

maybe? i don't think, or at least hope most children don't like, have a twitch prime account though
i follow loading ready live and they've been doing more and more streaming stuff over the years because it really pays apparently! people just throwing money at them to watch them play video games in real time, and like... good for them sure, but people really want to watch that?
i don't think it's just like, kids or a small collection of adults funding it all either seeing as they'll get people mailing them packages from all over the drat world as 'thanks' for their video game streams, sending them literal pounds of candy, or collections of hats.

Their parents have Amazon prime

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Terrible Opinions
Oct 17, 2013





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”?

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
It's good to see that your stance is that art cannot have differing levels of quality. You may want to leave a thread primarily for discussing critics and criticism.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply