|
>1) Absolutely refuse to be honestly critical of anything
>that they grew up with, even if they were 5 years old when
>they saw said film/show, and couldn't honestly evaluate
>whether or not it was good, or shit.
This one's been going on. Reminder: Lots of the folks here were young teens when Pulp Fiction came out.
>2) PTPers make their mind up about 50% of a movie before
>they've seen it.
This is starting to get less true than in the past... but you start to detail the possibility behind that later. This one is sometimes true, but it's very hard to break yourself of right away. Usually, when I find myself guilty of this, I like to watch the movie again a year later. Sometimes (like with Batman Begins), you're able to distance yourself more after the initial excitement has worn off.
>3) PTPers are starting to love/hate things solely because of
>how smart it makes them SOUND.
Well, this certainly can become true. I think it has a lot to do with what critics are enjoying, because that's what draws viewers who want to see smart movies in, and critics tend to enjoy irony more than they enjoy earnestness. Hence why Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and more get critical love-- and it's why movies like Jackie Brown and Jersey Girl didn't take off with critics or audiences, because folks like their ironic directors to STAY ironic. It's easier to be detached and sound smart when talking about ironic film than earnest film.
Now, I felt Rushmore toed that line nicely... I'm a big fan of Rushmore. BUT I have felt many of Wes Anderson's other films have been derivative and overly ironic to the point where you can't connect with the characters at all, and yet critics and fans flock. I think what you're saying is somewhat true, but I think it's tied directly to what critics are responding to, because "critics sound smart --> it's smart --> there's smart stuff to talk about --> I'll sound as smart as the critics."
And it's unpopular to say X2 is better than The Dark Knight for the same reason. No one compared X2 to Heat, or called it an "epic crime saga." It's nothing but nonstop fun, flawlessly executed, earnestly delivered. The Dark Knight has the showy performances, the epic length, and the director pedigree to make critics slob on the knob, which then conversely immediately makes people think it's smarter than it is, so they're smart for liking it and for comparing it to Heat and other epic crime sagas.
>4)PTPers Pick ONE OR TWO big budget stars/directors that you
>like,and then use them to claim that you're not a hater of all
I think that has more to do with Depp individually choosing quirky big-budget roles or indie flicks than it does with folks loving big-budget stars and directors on the reg. I'd say most PTPers either love big Hollywood bonanzas fairly consistently (I fall under that category, for better or worse) or they leave their heart in the arthouse scene for the most part. Maybe this qualifies for a few posters, but I think the Johnny Depp stuff specifically got you riled up, you posted that he's a big sell-out who made Disney ride films, and the people who couldn't really provide a rebuttal to that posted, "Well... they made lots of money!"
>5) You change your views of things as they become popular.
>Things are cooler to you when they are less popular.
Ehhhhh, this is true sometimes. It certainly wasn't true of The Dark Knight. It certainly wasn't true of either Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds. If anything, I think that over time, people tend to find things they did like to be less cool rather than the other way round. Of course, you have your nuts that will break down some Stanley Crouch essays on the brilliant film of their choice years later, but I think more people can criticize Pulp Fiction now than could at the beginning of the decade on this board.
But maybe this is what you're saying, just inversed-- "You change your views of things as they stay popular. Things are less cool to you when they are more popular." Or something.
But again, I don't think that applies to everyone... certainly to several, but most of the posters here are pretty "Listen To Your Heart" when it comes to movies, and use the popularity or lack thereof to simply fan the fire of their own arguments to their convenience: "Everyone else loves this movie, so I must be doing something right!" "Americans are stupid brainwashed hillbillies, of COURSE that movie is popular... I'm with the smart people who see it how it REALLY is." etc.
>PTP, I beg of you:
>
>Look at the Latte in the mirror.
>
>Ask her to make a change.
>
>And no message, could have been any clearer.
>
>If you wanna make the board, a better place, take
>a look at your Latte and then make a chaa-aaange.
>
>
>Oooh!! (C) GOAT
This place is still better than the Lesson. The pleas that are copped there know no bounds. Sure, pleas are copped here-- it's a critical board, it's gonna happen. But the people over there are lunatics quite often. Hence why my post on Animal Collective not being that good turned triple plat. Hence why my post on On To The Next One being one of the hottest joints on BP3 nearly went plat with angry folks. Hence why my calling out Mos Def for having shitty beats went plat with indignance. People just love to argue for the sake of arguing-- the art of music criticism exists solely for the purpose of being contrary.
Movie critics knows folks are going to see what they're going to see regardless of reviews, so 65% of them stay honest to what they believe. Music critics use their persuasive powers to try to rebel against everything popular, and try to encourage folks to listen to an Albanian scream yodeler accompanied only by a gong for 2 hours, because in shitty indie music, music critics hear the empty sadness of their own unpopular upbringings, and only get through the day-to-day by attempting to feel superior to literally everyone. Literally. Everyone. If Pitchfork wrote movie reviews, they would pan every movie with a budget of over 20 million dollars. Every last one. But music is an industry that rarely makes money nowadays, so lots of low-budget, low-quality, artsy-fart content hits the market on the regular. Movie industry folks are at least smart enough to know what will make them money, so even 98% of the worst things that hit theaters are unintelligent, mishandled attempts at entertainment. Bad indie music doesn't even attempt to entertain, yet it will still get an 8.whatever on Pitchfork. It's why this article is so fucking hysterical, cuz The Onion's never been truer: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8
I'm glad to see the re-appearance of the Latte metaphor.
My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
