|
SA's own K.Waste does incredibly dope and good film criticism and gets like, sub 300 views, so y'all should peep his newest and watch all the old episodes; basically the high water mark for what Youtube film criticism should be imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTjDk37W6c
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Arguing which of two review series that cover movies that range from merely fine (Hobbit films) to actually good (prequels) is pretty funny given that the actual film criticism from RLM and Ellis is pretty lame One is “this standard movie shot selection makes the movie bad” and the other is “I didn’t like that they added characters that weren’t in the book” Stunning insights there At least Ellis’ third video covered the industry stuff and it was very cool and good and she doesn’t make videos with creepy rape dungeons
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Keep in mind the Waffle here has zero insight into the prequels and merely regurgitates what other people have said before him. Ok op
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Conal Cochran posted:Who is your favorite internet reviewer and how did you discover them. Definitely gotta go with Hbomb and K.Waste. I really dig the way Hbomb constructs and edits his videos; I could watch a billion hours of him. K.Waste's vids are probably the most thoughtful film criticism on Youtube Even though they're not a reviewer per se, I really like the channel Just Write, as well--I've read a couple books on storytelling that have come up in their videos John Murdoch posted:I'm usually not one to really narrow down absolute favorites, but Mark Brown's Game Maker's Tool Kit is probably the channel I'm most consistently interested in. Every episode is a big warm hug of exploring game design. Yes!! Game Maker's Toolkit is so loving good! I wish he had a more regular updating schedule--highly, highly recommended
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
Leal posted:Hell, I watched a few TIHYDPs after Phil became a full time streamer and my god, the guy makes a career off people who are cool seeing someone mess with controls for 20 minutes. I'm definitely not a typical stream watcher, but during, say, an SGDQ or AGDQ I definitely have the stream up all day on an extra monitor while I'm working My guess is that kids and teenagers who are really into streaming tune in at the scheduled times the way that people used to for TV shows
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
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 posted: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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted: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. Well, kinda not? I mean, I don't think the purpose of criticism is to "rank" art by varying levels of "quality" if that's what you mean. I think criticism is rad and cool and a great way to talk about films, books, music, visual art, etc and furthermore, that the "purpose" of criticism (so much that there is one) is not to say "this is good" or "this is bad". IMO we can and should talk about art and its critics more deeply than "this movie is bad". And I reckon you agree! A good example of that is, for example, Ellis' third Hobbit video. Stood up on its own, it is a criticism of the art that isn't a qualitative criticism, and that's awesome  Out of curiosity, what are some things that you look for when you determine the "quality" of a film, apart from your own enjoyment? Ghostlight posted: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. I get you, and point taken, and I think we just disagree is all
Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Apr 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Trojan Kaiju posted:Discussion of the cultural context around a work is very important and really interesting but "a discussion of a works merits and faults" is literally the definition of criticism. Boiling it down to "this is good/bad" is a massive oversimplification of what is a major part of criticism. I totally agree OP! That said "discussion of merits and faults" doesn't mean art necessarily has "differing levels of quality" A Gnarlacious Bro posted:Somebody mentioned 'Waiting for Godot' and I find that it remains one of my all-time favorite plays because it can be felt as a commentary on so much of the human experience. I find it really funny how whenever the anxiety of their wait gets to Vladimir and Estragon they engage in criticism of themselves, each other, and even the very world around them to pass the time and generate temporal meaning. 'Waiting for Godot' is pretty rad I think, and a lot of the Theater of the Absurd influences a lot of modern works that I think are good, like Martin McDonagh. If you like Beckett and haven't already done so, you should check out Brecht as well (speaking of resonating even more strongly today), 'Mother Courage' seems especially relevant Terrible Opinions posted:"This movie is bad" isn't very valuable, but "this is why this movie fails to connect with most people in the way it intended or the way they wanted it to" is a bit of a mouthful and it's much easier to say "here's why this movie is bad". Ah I get you! This makes sense. I guess where I disagree is that saying the first thing means the same as saying the second thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Trojan Kaiju posted:"This is good/bad" is a layman's way of getting to "this is why this succeeds/fails." I don't think you're wrong in every case, but I think for most people, "this is good/bad" means "I didn't like/I like this thing" "Succeeding" and "failing" are independent of a person's enjoyment of a thing, if it's possible for art to "succeed" or "fail" at all Arcsquad12 posted:For people who are bored by this conversation, Mark Brown has a Game Maker's Toolkit episode out. hell yeah
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Alaois posted:I'm glad we traded out botl with botl but whinier and with even less concrete beliefs y'know, I wasn't gonna bite on this hook because I don't know you OP, maybe you're having a bad day or something, who knows. but like, maybe chill? what provoked this?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:The point of the video seemed to be justifying a deeper examination of media beyond simply mocking it, because it has cultural significance and reveals something about both society and the creator. I don't disagree with that because it's patently correct and worthwhile, but that same patent correctness makes the method by which it is established seem supercilious. Because this is what everyone who cares about media criticism already knows? Right? I mean, you've been on the internet right? There are absolutely people who think that things they don't like ("this is bad") are not "worthy" of discussion and criticism. Hell, even things that they like! You've heard people say, "just shut your brain off!" right? That's them saying, "don't think about this, I want to ignore the cultural significance" This new Hbomb vid seems like, "all art is worthwhile to discuss and all art is meaningful, even if you don't like it"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Augus posted:so uh I had no idea this was a thing I mean, these sorts of games are a bit silly but the biggest thing is that Harry Potter is absolutely not primarily for children anymore. I would bet money that the most avid players of this HP game are like, 23. That doesn't make its business model good or anything, but we don't have to "think of the children!!!!" this particular game
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
It’s funny to think back to the RTS era because I essentially played them as a 4x (C&C, Red Alert, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Homeworld, Dune, etc) in that the fun for me was building a fully kitted out base and then trashing the AI with a swarm of the coolest units I especially liked when you could build things like walls and roads because then you had a sort of city building game too If I ever went online I always gravitated towards “2v2 NO RUSH” or something like that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
I usually just lurk the thread but I'm so astonished by "plays are bad" as a take that I had to weigh in. Like, not to cast aspersions on ya' OmanyteJackson but to be totally frank, I desperately hope you're not in a position of any policy-making power because everything you're saying is frightening and dangerous to the arts Yours is the voice that would strip public schools of music and theater programs, and the humanities requirements from undergrad. Theater is a powerful storytelling, humanzing and empathetic art form, and you should seek out more of it. Shame on you for your position, from the bottom of my heart.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5auJOBC828&t speedrunning and this video are dope that said, in response to the last 5 minutes of the video I have a suggestion for my boy hbomb: you should check out sports as well! the whole narration about the zelda runner and everything reminds me of, say, one run down, bottom ninth, two outs; or a free kick 25 yards out in the 89th minute in a draw game; a faceoff in NHL overtime, etc etc part of what I, too love about speedrunning is the passion, and if you're a lover of passion and personal stakes, it's hard to beat sports (even esports!) more nerds should watch sports they're good
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I really like Jon Bois' videos, which kinda manage to show me how much fun being really into sports can be, and I'm glad someone did that for me. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
40-Degree Day posted:What's your thesis for a prequel defense? not hbomb obviously but i've always thought a really interesting framing for a video about the prequels would be the power of "memes" (or even proto momes, since the prequels predate "true" meme culture) to shape the perception of things in nerd communities to the point where people don't like a thing before even watching it even if I limit myself to instances where I've talked about the prequels to people offline, the amount of folks who maybe watched the movies once a decade ago and are simply misremembering things they "don't like" is kind of astonishing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
Always happy to come to the youtuber thread to see impeccable filmmaking criticism such as *checks notes* "long scenes are bad" it's just another flavor of, "this thing wasn't to my particular taste so I'm going to invent a phony reason that sounds more legit" why is it not merely enough to not like something? why must it also be bad?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:It fails to accomplish the filmmaker's goals if we're talking about the star war prequels still then that's incredibly untrue also, aside from that, art doesn't need a "goal" movies do not need a "goal"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Death of the author does not mean that authors do not have intent, nor that failing to accomplish it is not a failing on their part Even granted this, "failing to accomplish [their intent]" does not mean that the art is bad
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Sure its untrue if we ignore the production team from Lucas on down's obvious and public discomfort and disappointment with them, and the re editing of them for additional releases. Do people not bother watching the bonus discs in their DVD's? it's probably not a good idea to continue star war chat in this thread; I think the larger idea of whether or not an artist's execution of their "intent" is important to the "quality" of the art is fair game for this thread, but more in depth star war chat probably isn't right for here, and I'm sorry for keeping that going the CD star war thread is pretty solid though if you want to repost your response there
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Ah yes, take it to the CD Star Wars thread, definitely not so that the dozens of other broke brains can shout him down for not thinking that the prequels are god's gift to mankind. if you're implying no one in the CD star war thread dislikes the prequels then I think you'll be fairly surprised
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:If you're doing something and it's making you miserable and you're constantly being brought down, isn't that the point where you have to step back and look at everything you're doing and decide if it's even worth it? Is the platform worth having to deal with that? I don't really know how to phrase this question in a sensitive way, or how to make clear that I'm genuinely curious about the emotional state of these content creators and whatnot and not just saying this to be a dick or anything That said, is the anxiety and depression and whatnot stemming from the very real offline dangers like doxxing and phone calls and all of that, or is it from the more generalized dislike? I only ask because I saw Lindsay Ellis tweet this https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis/status/1039010810826117120 And I thought, "well yeah, isn't that every public figure ever, in the history of the world?" Is the general idea that Youtubers and whatnot don't see themselves as public figures in the same "tier" as actors and athletes and politicians? And are thus more harmed by haters? In a kind of roundabout way I'm trying to key in on why a famous content creator like Hank Green or Lindsay Ellis would give a drat that someone on the internet hates them. Does Chase Utley give a poo poo that I hate him? Likely not. Is that anxiety that Green or Ellis have couched in a desire to both create content that gets millions of YT views but also not be a public figure? Should Youtubers be "prepared" to be public figures in the same way that a pro athlete or blockbuster star should? Again, in an ideal world, people wouldn't be dicks to anyone ever. And again, I absolutely understand that doxxing and physical threats of violence are very real and must be awful to have to live with. Maybe a better question would be: "Could Youtube content creators find valuable lessons in how to deal with these stresses from other celebrities?" Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Zedd posted:I don't disagree there could be a lot to learn from how bigger celebs do it, but I think the main difference is that your audience is in a way your employer, so you can't pull back from it like an actor can to an extent. This is a super good point; well said
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Calico Heart posted:Hey all. I played Nier: Automata and thought it was a silly anime robot game and then, suddenly, had spent 80 hours in it and made a video where I talked about it for 20 minutes in relation to Hegel's hypothesis on the origin's of self-consciousness. Just wanted to say I enjoyed this video! Nice work OP
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Weirder than thinking the prequels are good - to me - is the idea of disagreeing with the claim that Plinkett isn't a well structured critique of a film that sets out a hypothesis and progresses toward examining the fundamental flaws that make up the entire sequence of people talk until action scene introducing toy but largely a series of individual rebukes of the film(s) that owes its notability to happening to have a technical veneer lent to echoing the inarticulated emotional conclusions of its waiting audience. Incredible "structured critique" such as *checks notes* ...shot-reverse-shot is bad????
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 13:25
|
|
|
Most people don't actually know why the dislike the SW prequels because a) they haven't seen them fully through in forever; b) the nerd consensus at the time was shaped by then 20 year olds who didn't want a kid and a woman front and center; c) star wars makes people crazy the only reason RLM's creepy dungeon videos on the prequels were as successful as they were is because they lent terrible "criticism" a veneer of legitimacy; now everyone has distributed talking points they can parrot god forbid someone like hbomb go, "um those RLM critiques aren't...good?" Dapper_Swindler posted:its because he fell into that weird culture war stupid hole of "well if the chuds hate it, it must be the most amazing thing ever and goodest thing because the other side hates it, there for anyone who doesn't like it is outright immoral". its kinda disappointing. also, i liked that movie too but its not to spite some moron online. what on earth what makes you think this 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:did you see how many people went ape poo poo over the TLJ review. hell people called RLM alt right monsters because of it. Hbomber was probably the nicest one. isn't it possible that people just disagreed with their views on TLJ? StealthArcher posted:No no; you don't understand. The self-described intellectual has spoken. what on earth OP
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:"Most people don't know why they dislike things they dislike, truly, I am the arbiter of why thing considered bad was good actually" Waffles Inc. posted:what on earth OP it's true that many people do not know how to articulate why they don't like some of the art they don't like you've never heard anyone say, "I just didn't like it" and then not be able to explain the reasons why? how else do you describe that?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Read the collected tweets. They are a dozen or so pages back. It’s different then “we disagree with your opinion on the movie” also I didn’t agree fully with the rlm video about Tlj but I don’t view it as some conservative attack on progressive values like a bunch of people did. oh word? i missed those and can't find em here in the thread fwiw you could be right and I think that it's a shame that where one stands on TLJ seems to be a political ideology on the internet now
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Either way saying someone liked or disliked a movie for motives that imply they are fake is really weird. Maybe people actually think the prequels are bad/good. The content is bad. For instance, re: the prequel videos: - The opening exercise of describing OT characters and PT characters is heavily biased towards the demographics of people in the videos and also the pop culture saturation of the OT; describing PT characters with the same kind of easy trope-y shorthand is just as easy as it is with the OT (also even if you couldn't, and they were "right" about that point, it wouldn't make the movie bad) Here in the Internet Personality + Review thread i believe it is right and correct to say that their reviews are bad criticism
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That’s the weirdest one to pick as they are correct, you honestly can’t get much character from any of the episode one characters. they're not correct tho? and yes, you can? Echo Chamber posted:Anyway, the worst prequel defense is the revisionism. The fiction that people loved them until RLM came along. this is not a fiction. the opposite is the fiction. simon pegg is a shithead here, he's yelling at a kid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4TX6x2WLgk spaced was made in 1999 Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Sep 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Ooh, let me try: I mean what else can I say aside from, "i disagree?"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Wait are you arguing people loved the prequels when they came out, because regardless of how you feel about the movie that is objectively not true. they clearly did? have you met: - children - critics - offline people whoever this nobody is Roger Ebert posted:What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine. go offline sometimes OP
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I personally find figuring out whether or not a person is voicing an opinion in good faith very useful. it's unreal to me that online people are so flummoxed by people talking about the prequels that they think it's an elaborate fiction, or trolling the popular narrative does not always reflect the reality. for instance, this review of ANH reflected a popular opinion in 1977 that fell out of fashion over time Variety's review of ANH in 1977 posted:And then there is that distressing thing called the Force, which is not a flat-footed allusion to New York’s finest but Lucas’s tribute to something beyond science: imagination, the soul, God in man. It is what Ben Kenobi passes on to Luke, making the receiver invulnerable, though it hardly protected the giver’s skin. It appears in various contradictory and finally nonsensical guises, a facile and perfunctory bow to metaphysics. I wish that Lucas had had the courage of his materialistic convictions, instead dragging in a sop to a spiritual force the main thrust of the movie so cheerfully ignores. Still, Star Wars will do very nicely for those lucky enough to be children or unlucky enough never to have grown up. Here's the WSJ's take on ANH Wall Street Journal in 1977 posted:There's something depressing about seeing all these impressive cinematic gifts and all this extraordinary technological skills lavished on such puerile materials. Perhaps more important is what this seems to accomplish: the canonization of comic book culture which in turn becomes the triumph of the standardized, the simplistic, mass-produced commercial artifacts of our time. It's the triumph of camp; that sentiment which takes delight in the awful simply because it's awful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 03:18 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Waffles wins arguments by assuming that everyone argues in bad faith at all times. Mainly by assuming that everyone who is talking in this thread now wasn't a literal child when the prequels came out. Like maybe my memory is incredibly faulty, but pretty much everyone turned on the prequels not when the RLM reviews came out years later, but when Attack of the Clones came out and was super boring, and right on the heels of another much better "event" movie in Lord of the Rings. maybe online people "turned" on AOTC but let's look at two sets of reviews and see if we can determine which set belongs to TPM and which belongs to AOTC   my point is not that I think everyone is arguing in bad faith, but that what actually happened fell down some sort of meme-inspired memory hole
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 16:10
|
|