|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 29, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -5
I still don't see the point of movie critics. Everyone has different tastes, so it seems redundant for a single person to try and review something for a mass group of people who all have different ideas. I have worked professionally as a critic and removing the industry relevant elements of it, every review SHOULD answer two questions: 1. Who is this for? 2. Would they like it? Any other information is a bonus, so any review that doesn't achieve that has failed as far as I'm concerned. That is what the point of a review is. |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on May 29, 2017 11:32:23 GMT -5
I still don't see the point of movie critics. Everyone has different tastes, so it seems redundant for a single person to try and review something for a mass group of people who all have different ideas. I have worked professionally as a critic and removing the industry relevant elements of it, every review SHOULD answer two questions: 1. Who is this for? 2. Would they like it? Any other information is a bonus, so any review that doesn't achieve that has failed as far as I'm concerned. That is what the point of a review is. In that case, I can't remember the last successful attempt at a review I saw. Nowadays they just seem like personal opinion pieces. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 29, 2017 11:34:21 GMT -5
I have worked professionally as a critic and removing the industry relevant elements of it, every review SHOULD answer two questions: 1. Who is this for? 2. Would they like it? Any other information is a bonus, so any review that doesn't achieve that has failed as far as I'm concerned. That is what the point of a review is. In that case, I can't remember the last successful attempt at a review I saw. Nowadays they just seem like personal opinion pieces. Famous critics end up being known for their writing style more than ACTUALLY doing their job, even some of the greats like Roger Ebert. If you read magazines or websites with no-name writers you're much more likely to get actual criticism. There is also the issue with payola in the industry (hello IGN). |
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on May 29, 2017 11:56:26 GMT -5
Unsurprisingly, Baywatch was dead in the water. Heard it only made 26 million. This is another thing that critics brought up saying that the movie bombed, and Rock showed his lack of movie/promoting knowledge. Saying the movie made 30% of it's money back is great for 26 million on a 75 million dollar budget and not opened internationally, but fails to realize that doesn't include the extra 40+ million the studio spent to promote the movie, meaning the movie is still nearly 100 million in the hole. So unless the movie kicks complete ass overseas, this movie will tank critically & financially. Don't laugh. But I remember hearing how ridiculously popular Baywatch was in China |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 29, 2017 12:07:40 GMT -5
At best, with the strongest praise you could give it, Baywatch was gonna be "enjoyably stupid".
I'm not really sure what he expected. Though I will say that many critics should acknowledge the type of flick they're watching and rate it as such.
If I was critiquing something professionally, I think that's something I'd try to keep in mind: Did a movie succeed in what it was trying to do/be? Take that and judge it on its own merits. E.G. I love say Casablanca, and I love Varsity Blues. Quality-wise there are worlds between the two. The latter is objectively a stupid movie. BUT it achieves what it set out to be and is fun as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on May 29, 2017 12:16:28 GMT -5
At best, with the strongest praise you could give it, Baywatch was gonna be "enjoyably stupid". I'm not really sure what he expected. Though I will say that many critics should acknowledge the type of flick they're watching and rate it as such. If I was critiquing something professionally, I think that's something I'd try to keep in mind: Did a movie succeed in what it was trying to do/be? Take that and judge it on its own merits. E.G. I love say Casablanca, and I love Varsity Blues. Quality-wise there are worlds between the two. The latter is objectively a stupid movie. BUT it achieves what it set out to be and is fun as a result. When I did reviews for a while, it's how I approached it. Like, if I went to see Bad Neighbours (Neighbours to you Americans) and went in there expecting a "mature" comedy, I'd judge it as a mature comedy. Now, Bad Neighbours sucked because it tried way too hard, the jokes didn't work and everyone involved deserved better but I didn't go in there expecting something nuanced. If I do go see Baywatch (and I probably won't because, really, it looks like someone got the wrong idea about what made 21 Jump Street worked except with a more recognisable IP), I'd judge that as though it's...well, trying to take Baywatch in what they thought made 21 Jump Street worked. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 29, 2017 12:18:41 GMT -5
I thought Neighbors was alright. Rogan/Efron's respective likeability helped a lot.
Sequel sucked.
But yeah, exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on May 29, 2017 12:25:36 GMT -5
Oh, I know I'm in the minority with that film. Always hated as a critics when I am (I came out of La La Land AND Whiplash not being a fan when almost of my critic friends loved both).
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 29, 2017 12:31:41 GMT -5
The sequel should be a crossover with Thunder In Paradise.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on May 29, 2017 12:38:49 GMT -5
I love silly comedies (To a point) but this movie blew
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 14:35:59 GMT -5
If I was critiquing something professionally, I think that's something I'd try to keep in mind: Did a movie succeed in what it was trying to do/be? Take that and judge it on its own merits.. That's exactly what movie criticism should be and pretty much what NOBODY does. Partially because everyone's trying to get their gimmick over and/or they don't really know HOW to review a movie they just want to talk about their reaction to a movie vs actually analyzing it. A few sites/reviewers actually still do that to a degree, but the overwhelming majority I've read are more about "Why isn't this movie like these other movies I like?!?!?" or they're playing "armchair movie exec" and worrying more about the film's place in the shared universe or who they should've casted etc etc. Which, at face value is fine in terms of just blogging or making a click-bait-y reaction piece, but in terms of actual movie criticism it falls well short. It's more like what you and other posters have said: Analyzing whether or not the director succeeding in executing their vision and assessing who this movie is for and whether or not they'll enjoy what it's offering. |
|
|
|
Post by Potayto Potato on May 29, 2017 15:40:10 GMT -5
Eh everyone needs to realize something:
enjoying the lowest level of comedy (cheapest possible jokes, simple setups, simple onedimensional characters, trivial story, no emotional connection) like Grown Ups 2 (just an example, stuff like White Chicks also applies) does say something about one's taste and preference.
Not challenging yourself in the least, not caring the least about the effort put in the presented product, not having a bit of standard does say alot about you
No offense
Also I'm sure Rock thinks his movies are good, as I said he's far from bright, has his talents (mainly making money and looking like a, well, rock), but shouldn't be the guy to declare standards for the quality of movies
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 29, 2017 16:37:18 GMT -5
Rock has a degree in criminology and physiology. Not bad for a guy who supposedly isn't "bright"
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 29, 2017 16:52:41 GMT -5
Occasionally enjoying a stupid comedy doesn't say anything about one as a human being. That's frankly a little stupid. And while I'd agree that if that's solely the art you take in, that you're missing out on a wide variety of movies and art; that doesn't make someone who does less of a human being either.
Judging those that do MAY paint you as a bit of a douche to those around ya.
No offense.
In all seriousness, acting like the media you consume somehow makes you 'better' than others is painting yourself like the Rob Gordon character from High Fidelity pre-him realizing what his life was lacking.
Being that guy doesn't make ya enlightened.
|
|
|
|
Post by I'm Team Bayley and Indi on May 29, 2017 17:38:47 GMT -5
Eh everyone needs to realize something: enjoying the lowest level of comedy (cheapest possible jokes, simple setups, simple onedimensional characters, trivial story, no emotional connection) like Grown Ups 2 (just an example, stuff like White Chicks also applies) does say something about one's taste and preference.Not challenging yourself in the least, not caring the least about the effort put in the presented product, not having a bit of standard does say alot about you No offense Also I'm sure Rock thinks his movies are good, as I said he's far from bright, has his talents (mainly making money and looking like a, well, rock), but shouldn't be the guy to declare standards for the quality of movies and maybe sometimes people just want to switch off their brains once in awhile or if they are having a bad day. Enjoying the lowest level of comedy says absolutely nothing about the person at all, I have defended numerous "bad" comedies on here, you just never know what might connect with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on May 29, 2017 17:53:08 GMT -5
Eh everyone needs to realize something: enjoying the lowest level of comedy (cheapest possible jokes, simple setups, simple onedimensional characters, trivial story, no emotional connection) like Grown Ups 2 (just an example, stuff like White Chicks also applies) does say something about one's taste and preference. Not challenging yourself in the least, not caring the least about the effort put in the presented product, not having a bit of standard does say alot about you No offense Also I'm sure Rock thinks his movies are good, as I said he's far from bright, has his talents (mainly making money and looking like a, well, rock), but shouldn't be the guy to declare standards for the quality of movies One of my favorite comedies is Step-Brothers, which is just gloriously dumb. If you haven't seen the film in my sig, go watch it (in quality arthouse theaters right now, joins the Criterion Collection in July) and then holla back about challenging films. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on May 29, 2017 18:34:13 GMT -5
Eh everyone needs to realize something: enjoying the lowest level of comedy (cheapest possible jokes, simple setups, simple onedimensional characters, trivial story, no emotional connection) like Grown Ups 2 (just an example, stuff like White Chicks also applies) does say something about one's taste and preference. Not challenging yourself in the least, not caring the least about the effort put in the presented product, not having a bit of standard does say alot about you No offense Also I'm sure Rock thinks his movies are good, as I said he's far from bright, has his talents (mainly making money and looking like a, well, rock), but shouldn't be the guy to declare standards for the quality of movies I don't think it says anything about one's taste and preference aside from that you happen to like Grown Ups 2. It's the "in" thing to do to equate movie (or music) preferences with who you are as a person and how acceptable you are to society, but... it's just a movie. It's not important in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on May 29, 2017 18:49:48 GMT -5
I can't tell you the last time I cared what critics or other audience members thought of something.
Probably because I've never cared what anyone else says about things I like or dislike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Potayto Potato on May 30, 2017 0:34:43 GMT -5
Rock has a degree in criminology and physiology. Not bad for a guy who supposedly isn't "bright" eh plenty people have such degrees. Learning everything by hard (or, in other cases, payola) isn't that challenging |
|
|
|
Post by Potayto Potato on May 30, 2017 0:37:06 GMT -5
Eh everyone needs to realize something: enjoying the lowest level of comedy (cheapest possible jokes, simple setups, simple onedimensional characters, trivial story, no emotional connection) like Grown Ups 2 (just an example, stuff like White Chicks also applies) does say something about one's taste and preference. Not challenging yourself in the least, not caring the least about the effort put in the presented product, not having a bit of standard does say alot about you No offense Also I'm sure Rock thinks his movies are good, as I said he's far from bright, has his talents (mainly making money and looking like a, well, rock), but shouldn't be the guy to declare standards for the quality of movies One of my favorite comedies is Step-Brothers, which is just gloriously dumb. If you haven't seen the film in my sig, go watch it (in quality arthouse theaters right now, joins the Criterion Collection in July) and then holla back about challenging films. iirc I enjoyed Step Brothers. I also love Workaholics and IASIP, it's just "silly" done really well, with plenty "love" for the details and characters All that toilet humour done bad in GU2 is just plain dumb, boring, bland, simple. No idea what's even slightly entertaining about that. If you want a good sperm joke, watch Community episode "Cooperative Polygraphy" |
|
