About Critics (Part II)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

So I'm wrong because I liked the first Transformers, another thing to add to my list.

Calling religious people stupid is also unnessecary.

SonicWaffle:

RJ Dalton:
So no, the "left/right question" does not really get argued outside of the United States.

Really? Funny, that. I live in England, and I've heard it plenty of times. People equate 'traditional values' with conservatism - I've even read a book by a conservative columnist who puts much of the blame for what he calls the "disgusting state of the country" on Richard Dawkins and his ilk, because if more people went to church the world would be a better place. People with these views often, but not always, seem to be drawn towards the Conservative party, quite possibly because they heard the word 'conservative' and it sends up a red flag rather than because they agree with the politics.

The difference here is that the distinction doesn't seep through to mainstream politics quite so much. We don't bisect our populace and then spend our time hating everyone on the other side for everything we perceive as "leftist" or "far-right". My point was that, while America makes the left/right divide the heart and soul of its political landscape, the same divide still occurs elsewhere albeit with less people paying attention.

intheweeds:
We have three major parties in Canada. More if you count the Green Party and Bloc Quebecois. No not everyone in the rest of the world argue about left/right.

See above :-P

You will notice I said "not everyone in the rest of the world". Key phrase being "not everyone". I know exactly what i said. Thanks though. :)

i don't know why but i read this like a yahtzee post. i blame this on the sleaping pills.

PlasticTree:
"Pseudo-science "Global Warming doesn't exist" documentaries".

..

That sounds horrible.

It's like "Inconvenient Truth," but with an alternative opinion.

I really couldn't tell you why i like transformers.

I understand why it sucks, but everytime i put it on i still enjoy every minute.

Movies aside, I couldn't agree more on your left/right analysis.

Why is it that everything must fall into one of the predesignated groups. Gun Rights, Religion, Abortion, the Middle East wars, Gay Marriage, etc... if you favor small government and lowered taxes leaning towards a laissez-faire approach, then you you're obviously a righty. As such, you must be a gun nut who feels abortion is a crime against humanity, and you love the wars, you hate gay people and love Sarah Palin. Or, you're an oil tycoon.

And if you favor a larger government with more oversight and higher taxes to pay for subsidized programs like universal health care, then you are obviously a lefty. As such, you are a gun hating communist hippy who loves abortion, is probably gay, and lives on welfare.

Repeat as nasuem for whatever other stereotypes you like

sigh

To quote, well, you: "This. Madness. Has. Got. To. Stop." (also facepalm x7)

Going back to movies: Not every movie needs to be good. In fact, I would argue that bad movies make the good ones even better. Just like bland food, bad sex and ugly clothing can make you notice the good variants thereof. If every movie you saw approached "masterpiece" level, it would cease to hold meaning.

That being said, I think our line up of bad movies needs to get better. I'm all for an occasional silly romp, talking dog movie or explosion extravaganza. It's nice sometimes, when you can miss 5 minutes of a movie, and not be completely baffled as to what's going on. But that shouldn't give studios a license to pump out absolute garbage. I shouldn't be forced to say "wtf am I even looking at? OH GOD MY EYES. What are you doing to my eyes," as was the case with Human Centipede, and both Transformer movies.

that's interesting about your response to the 'switching off your brain' thing.

as far as critics go, you've always seemed much more a fan of sleazy 'cheap' B movies than the usual. (GI Joe, Piranha 3D, and 2012 come to mind)

honestly, its probably what I like most about your reviews. there are non intellectual movies, and there are just plain stupid, shitty movies. and you've always been good at drawing the line.

Okay, you defeated me on that one, I'll come back once I've thought about the point of splosiony movies a bit more.

I always gauged you as a liberal right on the political spectrum. I don't think I've ever seen much from you to suggest otherwise. It's pretty much the only standpoint on the right side of the spectrum that I actually respect (although I do find it tends to support a lot of self-centred reasoning, and even worse is full of lots of people who claim to be liberal right and are actually just douches who want to be richer at the expense of others). One of the largest flaws in American politics is the right side of the spectrum makes no sense. People who follow a book which explicitly tells them not to build up material wealth, pay taxes happily and to serve every moment of their lives for the good of others, as best as they can, complain about paying money to the government.

People who argue, they should be free to do with their money as they choose, argue that in every other walk of life, from education, to child birth, no-one should be allowed to choose. Oh except for the ability to shoot other people. Because violence and threats was how Jesus survived ... oh wait no he chose to die instead.

So yeah. I consider you to be from the sensible cohesive side.

I think your Twilight review wasn't very good at pointing out the objective problems (it amounted to, this movie suggests that people shouldn't have sex. How sick and wrong is that ?!!) and the Transformers one was more lol Michael Bay sucks, you're a douche for liking this movie. But other than those two one offs you're pretty good at providing reasoning for a lot of them. Super 8 review sounded fantastic at that

Ell Jay:

PlasticTree:
"Pseudo-science "Global Warming doesn't exist" documentaries".

..

That sounds horrible.

It's like "Inconvenient Truth," but with an alternative opinion.

But The Inconvenient Truth uses facts (also, a lot of retorics, but that's a different topic). How does that work when you hardly have any concrete, useful facts at your disposal? Just more retorics, or..?

I tend to think that Moviebob is like the movie equivalent of a porn star. Sure they make a good show, are a lot of fun to watch. But they have had that hallway violated more times then a Muslim's civil rights in an American airport, and that has led to them being somewhat Jaded and overly critical in there department of expertise. At the end of the day most critics become over indulged in there field and lose sight of the old joys of going to the movies.

Do I think that old grind-house cinema would ever measure up to Movie Bob's Standards? I don't think so. And yet it lead to entire mainstream genres, heck lets go back to Metropolis. One of the first ever sci-fi movies that over a hundred years old. Out of my favorite film ascetic, German expressionist, and some of the scenes by today's standards are horrible, such as the fight scene at the climax. But still it has a very interesting feel and I enjoy watching it.

At the end of the day I probably ignored most of the the things he addressed in my comments. And likewise he should probably ignore all my critisms. I'm just a budding film student/maker and at the end of the day, I still enjoy watching all of Movie Bob's shows.

GrungyMunchy:
Good points, but you could pass on calling stupid to religious people. That really passes as stupid in itself.

Actually, I don't really get your double standard. Racist remarks pass as injustice, but bashing religious people doesn't? Do you need to be reminded that the declaration of human rights, you know, the thing you've defended time and time again, defends the equality of both races and beliefs?

It baffles me how people can be so unconsciously hypocritic about their own remarks.

I'm glad someone else realizes this. What follows is a response to one of the facebook comments on the article itself, left by a religious person who felt offended by the article

I know what you mean. This sort of stuff pisses me off. When MovieBob gets up on a soapbox about something, I can always tell something is going to be said that's either stupid or offensive, and then bitch about these EXACT FAILINGS in others.

I don't believe a magical space ghost poofed chickens into existence, but evolution/natural selecton is still a flawed enough theory that it shouldn't come as any surprise certain people aren't willing to latch on, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence we have for evolution. Just because you are reasonably certain you are correct isn't an excuse to be a dick. This goes for both sides!

Furthermore, while there is plenty of evidence for the existence of global warming, there is still a significant amount that suggests natural phenomena. You can't accept one side's evidence then clap your hands over your ears and shout "lalalala" to the other's and claim you know what's going on. Willful ignorance is one of the things you were bitching about, wasn't it bob? Hell, when I was little, I remember everything getting blamed on "El Nino", the magical ocean current that would destroy us all.

You know what? fuck it. I had a lot more to say, but this pigheaded too-big-for-his-britches little internet celebrity isn't worth discussing. He's proven time and time again he is incapable of discussing anything that he disagrees with with anything but contempt, and when he thinks he's secure in his fandom, he does things like this that expose him as a pompous, condescending tool.

I need to just stop bothering with his crap on the site.

MovieBob:
And everything is assumed to line up on one "side" or the other - even if something doesn't actually have anything to do with the size and/or reach of federal power, i.e. the only qualifiers for whether or not something is politically liberal or conservative.

The only part of either article I disagree with. The stuff about size or reach of federal power has always been a smoke screen and nothing more, right from the days when the defeated Confederacy started pretending their cause had been about "states' rights." For something to be politically conservative, it has to be about reaction, a hobby horse for some group that feels itself and its privileges somehow threatened by America's development as a society (which is what made it home to evangelical Christians who felt "left behind*" by increasing secularism, segregationists bewildered that anyone would think white supremacism a bad idea, wealthy businessmen who never forgave FDR for saving capitalism by way of social programmes**, and so on). The "big government" rhetoric is only in place because it sounds nice and abstract and freedom-ish and because most of the real causes behind it don't sound too appetizing when spelled out openly as what they are.

What's "liberal" in American terms is vaguer; it's either something that the "conservatives" have collectively decided to hate (or been told they should hate), or something that's part of the Democratic coalition which basically tries to cobble together a politics from whoever it can get to sit in the same room long enough.

* Heh. See what I did there?

** Is that about "size" of government? Of course not. Virtually none of those same businessmen complain about the size of the military-industrial complex, or intrusive spying programs, or the war on drugs. "Size" of government is just a euphemism for how they want government used; to make them money, and not to limit the ways in which they might choose to make money. Oh, and to bail them out if they fail to make money. Screw you, taxpayer!

8-Bit_Jack:
You know what? fuck it. [snip]

Oh, that incivil MovieBob. I do declare! How dare he upset all these nice, polite people with the having opinions and such? After all, just look at how nice and civil they all are, and what illuminating and constructive commentary they provide! Why, I'll bet this @8-Bit_Jack gentleman could even tell us where MovieBob called "religious people" stupid -- the blind among us only saw him call "Creationism" stupid, and while I admit the last time I checked "Creationists" did not represent all "religious people," I'm sure there must be some sense in which pretending otherwise makes 8-Bit and others like him look upstanding and just in their judgments of the situation. Alas, it seems we shall never know.

Ell Jay:

PlasticTree:
"Pseudo-science "Global Warming doesn't exist" documentaries".

..

That sounds horrible.

It's like "Inconvenient Truth," but with an alternative opinion.

The kind of "alternative opinion" called, in common parlance, a lie. Sort of like the Flat Earth Society's "alternative opinion" about cosmology.

BobDobolina:

8-Bit_Jack:
You know what? fuck it. [snip]

Oh, that incivil MovieBob. I do declare! How dare he upset all these nice, polite people with the having opinions and such? After all, just look at how nice and civil they all are, and what illuminating and constructive commentary they provide! Why, I'll bet this @8-Bit_Jack gentleman could even tell us where MovieBob called "religious people" stupid -- the blind among us only saw him call "Creationism" stupid, and while I admit the last time I checked "Creationists" did not represent all "religious people," I'm sure there must be some sense in which pretending otherwise makes 8-Bit and others like him look upstanding and just in their judgments of the situation. Alas, it seems we shall never know.

A good number of times, actually, in various pieces of work. And you are right, he does have a right to his own opinions and you have a right to keep listening to them. I also have the right to voice my dissatisfaction with MovieBob's increasingly self-righteous rants and to NOT bother listening to them anymore.

Also, twitter is stupid. Stop putting @ where it doesn't belong.

BobDobolina:
The stuff about size or reach of federal power has always been a smoke screen and nothing more, right from the days when the defeated Confederacy started pretending their cause had been about "states' rights."

And what was it about, slavery?

8-Bit_Jack:

BobDobolina:
The stuff about size or reach of federal power has always been a smoke screen and nothing more, right from the days when the defeated Confederacy started pretending their cause had been about "states' rights."

And what was it about, slavery?

Energon cubes.

I kid. Yes, of course, slavery. The Confederates made this inescapably super-clear in their proclamations of war (and in the lead-up to the conflict), they only got squeamish about it when they lost.

8-Bit_Jack:
Also, twitter is stupid. Stop putting @ where it doesn't belong.

Uhhh, that was a typo. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

BobDobolina:

8-Bit_Jack:
Also, twitter is stupid. Stop putting @ where it doesn't belong.

Uhhh, that was a typo. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Suuuuuure. You twitter-advancing scum. STOP TRYING TO CORRUPT OUR CHILDREN.

And no, the civil war wasn't about slavery.

The south fought on fear that the bearded man would come and make them all poor, and the north fought because them uppity southerners sure can't have their way!

No one in power cared about slavery, and had South Carolina not LOST THEIR SHIT following Lincoln's election, the deplorable exploitation of blacks would have continued happily, despite the vocal protest from the Abolitionist movement. As to whether or not it'd have been solved eventually or continued today, I can't say (and neither can you, don't bother trying).

Slavery was a catalyst for a long-brewing conflict between the north and south. To say that the war was entirely or even mostly concerned over the issue of slavery is a fallacy.

And yes, twitter (and facebook) are surely the footsteps of doom

8-Bit_Jack:
The south fought on fear that the bearded man would come and make them all poor

Indeed. BY ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

Actually, what the South was deathly afraid of was that the North would isolate and prevent the expansion of slavery, which the South mistakenly assumed to be the indispensible cornerstone of its economy, and thereby doom the institution to a slow death. Which in fact was what the North was doing and intended to do. (Nobody assumes the North's motives were all butterflies and rainbows. It's just that the South's motives were even less defensible.)

The real irony was that the South was actually extraordinarily successful fighting its cause by political means, and was obviously doomed to failure on the battlefield, but went there anyway.

We had a thread that wound up being about this a while ago, a Confederate flag thread I think. I'm off to bed but I'll see if I can dig it up tomorrow, there were a ton of links posted there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 66590)