Return To: Board Index | Movie-Specific

Ratings--WTF?

For posts related to a specific film -- beware of spoilers o ye who dareth enter!
Stewball
Posts: 2963
2056 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby Stewball » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:29 am

90sCoffee wrote:I'm sorry but this reeks of old man yells at cloud. Firstly, since when did films NOT have political affiliations? It may not be as obvious as when Hollywood or the British film industry was pumping out propaganda pieces between the 30s to the 70s but they always have. If your reason for disliking them is finding some vague attempt at a political connection then that's a sad way to filter out film and it shows a lack of critical sense. If you're influenced by a film based on its "covert social manipulation" then that's on you. I can guarantee there's at least one recent film any given person likes which has had funding drawn from either the US military or some media conglomerate with an agenda.


Quit going out on a tangent. I didn't say films shouldn't have a political agenda. The point of the OP was criticizing critics for slamming or supporting a film for one stated reason, when it was actually for another reason. IOW hypocrisy.

[quote}Speaking of which, not to defend CNN or PBS but exactly what is not 'fake news' to you? They all have agendas to push, you're just on a different side of the agenda based on the one you follow.[/quote]

Denzel stated it pretty clearly. Maybe someday you'll actually read it. But for the record, "not fake news" is unbiased, non-fabricated news.

Stewball
Posts: 2963
2056 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby Stewball » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:30 am

CosmicMonkey wrote:"I don't like political movies" = "I am unable to recognize the inherent political biases that are present in every piece of media, and therefore only notice it when it's both very obvious and in direct opposition to my only personally held political biases, biases which, due to a lack of self-awareness, I probably don't even recognize in my self."


????

Stewball
Posts: 2963
2056 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby Stewball » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:32 am

undinum wrote:As far as dumb what-ifs go, if the left, in the years since the appearance of the internet, had accorded even a fraction of the energy/resources expended in criticizing the political biases of media to criticizing the inherent biases of the technology of that media, the likelihood of certain monstrous calamities would surely have been minimized.

And yet we still persist under the insane delusion that sandwiching our culture's essential discourse in chunks between a live-feed of a baby panda cage and a low-res GIF culled from a television sitcom has no effect on its significance.


???????? on steroids.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 312
911 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby CosmicMonkey » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:50 am

undinum wrote:
CosmicMonkey wrote:"I don't like political movies" = "I am unable to recognize the inherent political biases that are present in every piece of media, and therefore only notice it when it's both very obvious and in direct opposition to my only personally held political biases, biases which, due to a lack of self-awareness, I probably don't even recognize in my self."

As far as dumb what-ifs go, if the left, in the years since the appearance of the internet, had accorded even a fraction of the energy/resources expended in criticizing the political biases of media to criticizing the inherent biases of the technology of that media, the likelihood of certain monstrous calamities would surely have been minimized.

And yet we still persist under the insane delusion that sandwiching our culture's essential discourse in chunks between a live-feed of a baby panda cage and a low-res GIF culled from a television sitcom has no effect on its significance.


Okay, interesting thesis, you have my attention, but I'm not sure if I understand what you mean? Please, expand on your thoughts. What are the inherent biases in the technology, for example? and what monstrous calamity in particular are you referring to?



And, stewie, and I mean in this in the nicest way possible, I truly do, but I (and I know I speak on behalf of other users too) find your writing style to be really incoherent and difficult to follow. You connect A to D, assuming your reader already knows points B and C, and are then act outraged when people misunderstand the point you were originally trying to make. You can't write cuneiform on the chalkboard and then be upset when the entire class fails the test. I know the two of us have a fundamental difference in beliefs and values that will probably never be bridged, so it surprises me to be saying this, but, for the sake of your own writing, you should really work on trying to articulate on your train of thought in a way that others can actually understand easily, because, tbh, I don't think most of understand more than 50% of what you've been saying.

Stewball
Posts: 2963
2056 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby Stewball » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:01 am

CosmicMonkey wrote:
And, stewie, and I mean in this in the nicest way possible, I truly do, but I (and I know I speak on behalf of other users too) find your writing style to be really incoherent and difficult to follow. You connect A to D, assuming your reader already knows points B and C, and are then act outraged when people misunderstand the point you were originally trying to make. You can't write cuneiform on the chalkboard and then be upset when the entire class fails the test. I know the two of us have a fundamental difference in beliefs and values that will probably never be bridged, so it surprises me to be saying this, but, for the sake of your own writing, you should really work on trying to articulate on your train of thought in a way that others can actually understand easily, because, tbh, I don't think most of understand more than 50% of what you've been saying.


Judging by the responses so far, three have understood it and you and one other say you don't, and neither of you point to anything specific. Your talk about A to D indicates you do understand what's going on, you just don't like it that I assume people will make the proper assumptions. You appear to be guilty of what you're accusing me of doing.
If you're sincere in your criticism, why no specifics?

monclivie
Posts: 42
4456 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 7:01 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby monclivie » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:12 am

Stewball wrote:So why does an outstanding movie like Roman J. Israel, Esq. get lousy ratings (R/T 55/65), while another middling teen girl coming-of-age repeat, Lady Bird, gets maxed out (R/T 100/90). And just for control purposes, Thor running during the same period, racked up a 92/88.

Answer: Other people like the second and third one more. It has nothing to do with politics.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 312
911 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby CosmicMonkey » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:22 pm

You know, instead of getting defensive and throwing it back in my face, the mature response would be say something along the lines of "Thank you for your input, I'll try to keep it in mind for the future." but okay, whatever dude.

True, I could have offered specifics and didn't, but I am struggling with chronic mental illness, and only have so much energy in a day. Even offering my constructive criticism was a favour to you. You are not entitled to a random stranger on the internet to perform the thought labour and emotional labour to make you a better person or better writer. That is something you need to do for yourself. I mean, politely asking for specifics is fine, but acting as if it's something I have to do for you as part of my criticism just reeks of entitlement.

Also, you can expect people are able to "make the correct assumptions", or you could realize that most people in the world don't have the same experiences, education or worldview as you do, and won't necessarily have the context necessary to make the assumptions that you think are logical. So including the context for those assumptions is important for any writer, if they want to be understood by as many people as possible, (Although, I'm not sure if that is actually what you want, which is okay, I guess, I mean, in the end it is your work, but if that's what you choose to do you can't then be frustrated when people don't understand what you're trying to say.)

Anyways, you can accept what I'm trying to tell you or reject it, I don't care, I've exhausted all the energy I want to for the time being.

Stewball
Posts: 2963
2056 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby Stewball » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:46 pm

monclivie wrote:
Stewball wrote:So why does an outstanding movie like Roman J. Israel, Esq. get lousy ratings (R/T 55/65), while another middling teen girl coming-of-age repeat, Lady Bird, gets maxed out (R/T 100/90). And just for control purposes, Thor running during the same period, racked up a 92/88.

Answer: Other people like the second and third one more. It has nothing to do with politics.


Thor, yes, no telling why it was rated so high. But the other two, definitely. Of course I'm using the broader SJW definition of political, which is going to find it's firmest support among professional critics and the hangers on who need to be told what to like...and think. But one thumbs up for not being in Cosmic Monkey's "I just can't imagine what you're talking about" camp.

Speaking of which:
Cosmic Monkey wrote:You know, instead of getting defensive and throwing it back in my face, the mature response would be say something along the lines of "Thank you for your input, I'll try to keep it in mind for the future." but okay, whatever dude.

True, I could have offered specifics and didn't, but I am struggling with chronic mental illness, and only have so much energy in a day.


OMG, you're playing the victim/pity/couch potato cards all at once, yet you seem to be able to string rational sentences together, and on more than one occasion. But, out of the mouths of babes or the devil hissef', I accept the Truth as the Truth. But you have to at least put a tenth of the effort that you've expended on attempts at intimidation. BTW, after your first post I did re-read mine to see if I could see what you might have been alluding to, but no joy; ergo the request for specifics which still lies in a coma awaiting resuscitation.

You are not entitled to a random stranger on the internet to perform the thought labour and emotional labour to make you a better person or better writer. That is something you need to do for yourself. I mean, politely asking for specifics is fine, but acting as if it's something I have to do for you as part of my criticism just reeks of entitlement.


No, it's the only thing that gives your argument credibility. Start there if that's all the energy you have--a tip from me to you, gratis, no guilt or contrition required. But next time you post a screed without specifics, and someone calls you on it, don't expect them to respond to arrogance with politeness. I never respond with more than what was dealt to me.

monclivie
Posts: 42
4456 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 7:01 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby monclivie » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:39 pm

No doubt that SJW disease is common among the critics, but still, judging by trailers, regular people reviews etc., I'm sure that Lady Bird is more likeable movie for the so-called general audience (including me) than Roman.
Stewball wrote:
monclivie wrote:
Stewball wrote:So why does an outstanding movie like Roman J. Israel, Esq. get lousy ratings (R/T 55/65), while another middling teen girl coming-of-age repeat, Lady Bird, gets maxed out (R/T 100/90). And just for control purposes, Thor running during the same period, racked up a 92/88.

Answer: Other people like the second and third one more. It has nothing to do with politics.


Thor, yes, no telling why it was rated so high. But the other two, definitely. Of course I'm using the broader SJW definition of political, which is going to find it's firmest support among professional critics and the hangers on who need to be told what to like...and think. But one thumbs up for not being in Cosmic Monkey's "I just can't imagine what you're talking about" camp.

BillyShears
Posts: 74
4225 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:56 pm

Re: Ratings--WTF?

Postby BillyShears » Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:41 am

I only follow Paxton's reviews tbh


Return to “Movie-Specific”