How to Read Movie News

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

-sigh- its sad knowing the videogame industry will one day turn out like this ( if not already, i blame the western market gaining control)

Will Lorus:
"A female character who is capable of beating up male enemies twice her size like they were made of jell-o but also has the appearance, physique and temperament of an emotionally-traumatized teenager. Also, she is almost totally uninformed about sex, save that she is fiercely (yet demurely) attracted exclusively to non-threatening nice guys who happen to resemble the males in the film's target audience."

At the risk of perpetuating a stereotype that all Joss Whedon fans are screaming acolytes, completely blind to criticism and logic, I can't help but take issue with this.

Is the insinuation that female characters with emotional issues and are completely normally heterosexual are not complex, challenging or strong? Ignoring the fact that this paragraph ignores all the female characters not called Buffy, and to an extent River, these things don't really hold up at all. Superman doesn't have the physique to move planets and buildings, but others in the same genre are criticised? Buffy and River are teenagers so they look like them. Buffy is perfectly educated about sex and River isn't attracted to anybody.

I honestly can't see what you're trying to say here. If anything this describes Sucker Punch more than Whedon's works. This was probably just a throw away joke which wasn't thought about deliberately which I'm taking too seriously but hey, Whedon's works get dragged through the mud undeservedly a lot and it's kind of a sore point for me.

I'm pretty sure Bob has made a passing reference or two to liking Joss Whedon, so I think this is playful criticism. Sort of like when he says Nolan's movies are exclusively male-centric and grimdark.

And I think this joke is actually rolling two Joss Whedon archetypes together to reach its punchline. Not just Buffy or River, but Buffy and Anya, and River and Kaylee.

On a separate note, the joke about the contrast between gay male and female sex was actually pretty depressing.

Reading this, I'd love to see one done on game press releases.

Gildan Bladeborn:

OhJohnNo:

JuggernautFox:

Get out of my internet.

OK, now I know I should have heard of this guy before. I wonder why I haven't.

Joss Whedon and a lot of his projects enjoy a 'cult status', especially amongst us internet folk.

Reasons why we're shocked you haven't heard of him, because we're nerds and this is just stuff we know:

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer
    Angel
    Firefly/Serenity
    Dollhouse (admittedly not his best work)
    Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Oh yes, he's also the co-writer of the new Captain America film and he's the co-writer and director of the upcoming The Avengers film. Also he writes comic books.

He also did some work on the first Toy Story. Can't remember what work exactly, but I know I saw him in the opening credits.

Irridium:
He also did some work on the first Toy Story. Can't remember what work exactly, but I know I saw him in the opening credits.

IMDb says: "co-writer". Thanks, IMDb!

MovieBob:

"The story has been updated to reflect the reality of the day-to-day modern world."

"The characters use mobile phones and talk about Facebook."

Hey Bob, you forgot, this also means:

"Lots of bought-and-paid-for product placement!"

Wabblefish:
I'm waiting for all the Joss Whedon fans to get angry despite what Movie Bob was saying is true lol

I love Whedons stuff; but still found it funny in a "it's funny 'cuz it's true" sort of way :p

Bob, you left out

"Based on true events"
A couple of people were murdered in America one time so... Texas Chainsaw Massacre!!!

OhJohnNo:
Sorry Bob... but was that meant to be funny?

I didn't find it so, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's because I don't often read film press releases (or know who Joss Whedon is), so just didn't get it. Also, it struck me as overly cynical.

Joss Whedon is a guy who shits success but networks keep giving him the finger. He made the widely successful Buffy series, As well as Firefly. He pretty much hasn't been able to get a foothold since.

"From the people who brought you ..."

This one really gets me. The amount of times I've seen some rather uninteresting film shown as being "From the producer of...".

"The story has been updated to reflect the reality of the day-to-day modern world."

"The characters use mobile phones and talk about Facebook."

This one though, reminds me of one of the Thor trailers I saw. Finishes up with some girl pulling out her phone to take a photo (presumably of Thor poncing about without his shirt on) and saying "oh, this is totally going up on facebook" or something to that effect. Just so we don't forget that Facebook exists in this films world as well, which makes it modern. Until everyone moves on to the next big social networking fad and forgets about FB.

omegawyrm:

I'm pretty sure Bob has made a passing reference or two to liking Joss Whedon, so I think this is playful criticism. Sort of like when he says Nolan's movies are exclusively male-centric and grimdark.

And I think this joke is actually rolling two Joss Whedon archetypes together to reach its punchline. Not just Buffy or River, but Buffy and Anya, and River and Kaylee.

On a separate note, the joke about the contrast between gay male and female sex was actually pretty depressing.

Yeah, I figured the comment was more in jest than serious criticism, yes I see what you're saying about blending a bunch of characters to reach the punchline.

Ignoring that comment which obviously rubbed me the wrong way, this was pretty good. I roll my eyes every time a film is advertised as 'from the producers of' or 'with executive producer...' when there are a dozen other executive producers as well. I did find that Statham line very funny though.

Gildan Bladeborn:

OhJohnNo:

JuggernautFox:

Joss Whedon and a lot of his projects enjoy a 'cult status', especially amongst us internet folk.

Reasons why we're shocked you haven't heard of him, because we're nerds and this is just stuff we know:

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer
    Angel
    Firefly/Serenity
    Dollhouse (admittedly not his best work)
    Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Oh yes, he's also the co-writer of the new Captain America film and he's the co-writer and director of the upcoming The Avengers film. Also he writes comic books.

You've forgotten Alien: Resurrection. Proof that not even the venerable JW is perfect... (though pretty darn close)

Sigourney Weaver falls in love with an alien, does that make the alien the target audience? :O

You forgot one...

How to read movie news:

A cynical attempt by an online film critic to cast himself as, well, a cynical online film critic in order to make his reviews seem more "edgy". A token number of jabs will be taken at pop culture sacred cows that are currently cool to take jabs at. The race card will be played, but exclusively against white people, because they make for an acceptable target, and retconning a character to be something other than white is multiculturalism.

serata:

You've forgotten Alien: Resurrection. Proof that not even the venerable JW is perfect... (though pretty darn close)

Sigourney Weaver falls in love with an alien, does that make the alien the target audience? :O

I think everyone would probably be better off forgetting that movie, but I was simply being selective, for much the same reason I didn't bother mentioning that he co-wrote the screenplay for the film Waterworld (though he went uncredited for that one, heh).

MovieBob:
MovieBob: How to Read Movie News

Movie studios keep using these words, but they do not mean what you think they mean.

Read Full Article

Two words best sum up this article;

Oh snap!

From now on I will reference this list whenever a new movie comes out just to see how bad the execs are trying to cover it up.

So what - did I just pass Film Critic school?

Because none of that double-speak was new to me.

Some of these feel sort of ironic coming from you, but whatevs. It's true most of the time. It's interesting how much of entertainment news is made up of stock phrases that mean absolutely nothing yet are reported on as if they did.

Joss Whedon has done some good stuff. He has also written Alien 4 which is an unbelievable piece of shit.

The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

Will Lorus:

At the risk of perpetuating a stereotype that all Joss Whedon fans are screaming acolytes, completely blind to criticism and logic, I can't help but take issue with this.

Yeah... It's not that I mind people lampooning directors I like... I love Tim Burton's work, and the crack at him was true and made me laugh.
But "sexually inexperienced", demure Whedon characters? I'm sitting here, trying to think of one, and all I can remember are all the prostitutes, assassins and soldiers that he has written. The only sexually innocent character that I can think of is River, but she is essentially a child.

Is he really accusing a man who wrote a show about a futuristic brothel of writing sexually innocent characters? What? There are loads of other things we could make fun of Mr. Whedon for, but that was just DUMB.

Isn't a 'prepared statement by a business' the same thing as a 'fusion of an information dump... and spin control'

I don't think anyone isn't aware of the generic and uninformed advertising of a press release, but very informative entertaining and funny as always Mr. Bob:)

Jenx:
That's why nobody fucking reads movie news and actually believes anything they say there.

If only that were true...

Evilmonkey25:
If anyone want to see an accurate movie about Rio go see a movie called The Elite Squad 1 and 2, the first even won the golden bear.

It might look like it's a little to fantasious to be true, but it is real! Really! Even that violence is not everything around here (it happens only in the favelas, and they aren't so common as the midia makes looks like) but it make a very accurate portrait of my country.

Ok, you really need to get out of your house more often, dude. Ou pelo menos ler uns jornais, xará.

Squarez:
Welcome to the world of the British cinema goer. Where we apparently live in a society where everyone wears a suit and bowler hat at all times, drinks tea, speaks with a ludicrously posh accent, everyone knows the Queen and we all by default evil.

It's been a long while ever since I've seen this stereotype, even in the form of parody. Much less from british cinema itself.

Don quixote's mule:

Frozen Donkey Wheel2:

2. Kind of an alarming amount of accusation of racism towards Hollywood.

Hollywood is weirdly racist. Movie bob was exaggerating a bit but there really is a fear in the movie industry about honestly portraying race or sexuality. For some reason movies have to be divided up into movies for White people, movies for Black people, or movies for some other minority. They RARELY ever have a minority character and less so a minority lead that doesn't have some stereo typical trait.

This being largely true, those accusations should damn well be alarming.

cgaWolf:

Wabblefish:
I'm waiting for all the Joss Whedon fans to get angry despite what Movie Bob was saying is true lol

I love Whedons stuff; but still found it funny in a "it's funny 'cuz it's true" sort of way :p

Very much so. I still many of the characters he wrote quite interesting, but oh it's so true.

Though Firefly really stands out, it almost doesn't look like a Joss Whedon thing.

Harry Mason:
Yeah... It's not that I mind people lampooning directors I like... I love Tim Burton's work, and the crack at him was true and made me laugh.
But "sexually inexperienced", demure Whedon characters? I'm sitting here, trying to think of one, and all I can remember are all the prostitutes, assassins and soldiers that he has written. The only sexually innocent character that I can think of is River, but she is essentially a child.

Also a trained and violent assassin.

If it hasn't been said already:
Somebody needs to make one of these for video game press releases.

beema:
If it hasn't been said already:
Somebody needs to make one of these for video game press releases.

that's a good idea. might give it a try :)

EDIT: just found http://investor.ea.com/releases.cfm which is EA's official press releases. I'm gonna see how many times they say the word "epic". :)

A good funny article, its good to see a video maker not using his column to go into detail about his latest video or to defend a statement made in it (part of the reason I stopped really caring about extra punctuation).
But whats with all the Jason Statham and Vin Diesel jokes?
Anyway you did miss the point made by Hankman
"Visualy Stunning" = "We forgot to give it a plot"

Also a few of my own:

"From the mind of M Nigh Shiyamalan." = "Five years ago you would have lost your shit at this statement but now you just cancelled the booking you made 10 seconds ago."

"[insert statement about the massive budget here]" = "Avatar spent MONEY and so we decided to spend MONEY too because MONEY = WIN!"

"A unique visionary director." = "You'll spend most of your time saying 'huh' but if you get it you can be the movie guy in your office."

"Sophisticated." = "English people."

"From the writers of Scary Movie" = "No I can't believe they are allowed to make movies anymore either."

"Starring [martial artist 1] in his most explosive fight scene yet, with [martial artist 2]!" = "Hey everyone look, fight of the century going on over here! PLEASE GOD MAKE THEM LOOK!"

A Princess Bride reference on the main site page linking this article?

Whoever did this: thank you, a treat well appreciated! That film deserves more credit.

And yes, it is amusing that all reviewers end up using similar phrases to lubricate their faulty logic towards lampooning things that they don't want to do well and praising that which they do want to do well.

It's all just a way of avoiding being accused of lying, while not exactly speaking the truth. And yes, that's cynical, but commercially written reviews ARE subject to special interests all too often. Free online public reviews can be, too.

Hot Madness:
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

I dunno about Bob passing himself off as an objective critic, he tends to go back and forth on that one. Just count the number of times he says 'from where I sit' or similar statements in his shows. He also readily acknowledges his fanboy biases.

I would say this article is more satire than anything, I'm fairly sure Bob wouldn't be excited for the upcoming Avengers movie if he hated Joss.

Hot Madness:
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

Ahahahhahah, no he doesn't. Especially since critique and reviews, by definitions are subjective. Thanks for the laugh, though.

"Fantastic/stunning visual effects!"

"Who cares about plot, acting, character development or any other form of actual substance. Check out our CGI firework display!"

Seriously, as nice as it is to see what a computer can do these days, but this is pretty much the whole "gameplay vs graphics" argument we sometimes get on the forums here. Only idiots will fall for this, if your plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings or acting more clunky and wooden than a mahogany mech then people will notice.

Captcha: Strangely normal.

What?

"Starring Vin Diesel."

"Jason Statham said no."

OUCH. Damn, movie Bob, thats cold.

AC Drawings:

Hot Madness:
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

Ahahahhahah, no he doesn't. Especially since critique and reviews, by definitions are subjective. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Bob himself did say something about "the illusion of journalistic objectivity" once, but ironically he was distancing himself from the concept at the time.

AC Drawings:

Hot Madness:
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

Ahahahhahah, no he doesn't. Especially since critique and reviews, by definitions are subjective. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Not really. On the one hand yes, a critic will have a subjective opinion on a film, and they will have subjective reasons for them, thats just a given, and its for that reason that people keep on coming back to that critic, to hear their opinion. That said however, that doesn't mean reviewers don't have to be objective. While most certainly a predominantly subjective thing, there is an objective part to it, something that Bob has failed at. Now when I say objective, I mean two things:

1) There is being objective in the sense of not liking a movie but understanding that others may. By this I mean recognizing that your fans, your audience, who share a similar taste in movies that you do may also like movies you hate or hate movies you like. Now this is obvious to any critic, but an "objective" critic in this sense will possibly acknowledge this audience and may suggest either a) if the movie would be good for them or b) similar movies that the critic actually liked that the audience may as well that is related to the reviewed movie. Bob used to do this, but recently he has turned from an "objective" critic (subjective opinion, able to recommend to others with differing subjective opinions) to the subjective counterpart, in this case either ignoring this audience all together or only acknowledging them to make fun of them and insult their own tastes. In short, even when reviewing subjectively if you can still treat an audience with differing tastes with respect and offer them some suggestions, then that makes you an objective critic, but if you treat an audience with differing tastes with little respect or even just insult them for no constructive reason, then you are a subjective critic. In this case Bob would try to call himself an objective critic, in the sense that he has stated in a recent interview that with the exception of the few times he has said to definitely see a movie, he feels guilty when someone says they will or wont see a movie based on whether he liked it or not (as he is in this case thinking of his audience and how his words affect them), yet him insulting his own audience for watching a movie or for not watching a movie shows that he is actually going against an objective stance that he himself tries to keep himself to (meaning he is passing himself off as an objective critic yet is in fact purely subjective)

2) There is being objective in how one defines their subjective opinions. In other words, while someones opinion on a movie may be subjective, that subjective opinion should act as their objective look on other movies. If for example then if one were to review two different movies, it would stand to reason that their reason for liking one and hating the other would be based off of a previous understanding of that critics preferences. If there is one thing that Bob has done poorly at while reviewing it is this part. Bob frequently will praise one movie and scorn another, with the reasons he liked the first movie being the exact same reasons he hated the second. As in both movies featured particular aspects that Bob talked about, in one case acting as the reaon he liked a film and in the other the reason why he hated it. This would be fine if he explained why it works in one film and not in the other, but most often he doesn't, rather he just simply says what he likes and doesn't like (and more recently who he holds grudges against). This too is where Bob would fail at being an objective critic, as he is no longer even following his own standard of what makes a good movie, he instead alters his standards when it best suits his needs, with no explanation to the audience as to how he got to that train of thought.

"[Insert Actress] sheds her squeaky-clean image!"

Do people actually say that? Cripe, what tripe.

That last one was the bes.t I wish he'd do something original again, that'd be cool.

"Screenplay by Joss Whedon!" - quite possibly the best laugh I've had in a while.

I rarely ever see Facebook mentioned in movies, other than the movie that was ABOUT Facebook.

Eternal_Lament:

AC Drawings:

Hot Madness:
The problem with Bob is that he consistently pases himself off as an objective critic, while undermining his positions with clear biases that really hurt what credibility he has: See the comparisons already made in this thread about Sucker Punch for an example.

Ahahahhahah, no he doesn't. Especially since critique and reviews, by definitions are subjective. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Not really. On the one hand yes, a critic will have a subjective opinion on a film, and they will have subjective reasons for them, thats just a given, and its for that reason that people keep on coming back to that critic, to hear their opinion. That said however, that doesn't mean reviewers don't have to be objective. While most certainly a predominantly subjective thing, there is an objective part to it, something that Bob has failed at. Now when I say objective, I mean two things:

1) There is being objective in the sense of not liking a movie but understanding that others may. By this I mean recognizing that your fans, your audience, who share a similar taste in movies that you do may also like movies you hate or hate movies you like. Now this is obvious to any critic, but an "objective" critic in this sense will possibly acknowledge this audience and may suggest either a) if the movie would be good for them or b) similar movies that the critic actually liked that the audience may as well that is related to the reviewed movie. Bob used to do this, but recently he has turned from an "objective" critic (subjective opinion, able to recommend to others with differing subjective opinions) to the subjective counterpart, in this case either ignoring this audience all together or only acknowledging them to make fun of them and insult their own tastes. In short, even when reviewing subjectively if you can still treat an audience with differing tastes with respect and offer them some suggestions, then that makes you an objective critic, but if you treat an audience with differing tastes with little respect or even just insult them for no constructive reason, then you are a subjective critic. In this case Bob would try to call himself an objective critic, in the sense that he has stated in a recent interview that with the exception of the few times he has said to definitely see a movie, he feels guilty when someone says they will or wont see a movie based on whether he liked it or not (as he is in this case thinking of his audience and how his words affect them), yet him insulting his own audience for watching a movie or for not watching a movie shows that he is actually going against an objective stance that he himself tries to keep himself to (meaning he is passing himself off as an objective critic yet is in fact purely subjective)

2) There is being objective in how one defines their subjective opinions. In other words, while someones opinion on a movie may be subjective, that subjective opinion should act as their objective look on other movies. If for example then if one were to review two different movies, it would stand to reason that their reason for liking one and hating the other would be based off of a previous understanding of that critics preferences. If there is one thing that Bob has done poorly at while reviewing it is this part. Bob frequently will praise one movie and scorn another, with the reasons he liked the first movie being the exact same reasons he hated the second. As in both movies featured particular aspects that Bob talked about, in one case acting as the reaon he liked a film and in the other the reason why he hated it. This would be fine if he explained why it works in one film and not in the other, but most often he doesn't, rather he just simply says what he likes and doesn't like (and more recently who he holds grudges against). This too is where Bob would fail at being an objective critic, as he is no longer even following his own standard of what makes a good movie, he instead alters his standards when it best suits his needs, with no explanation to the audience as to how he got to that train of thought.

Thanks for elaborating Eternal, your post is what I meant to say and failed to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here