I very often see tweets and other impressions of movies from audience members who (I think) are just trying to sound more “enlightened” then they really are. When I go to see a major blockbuster type of movie like a Dr. Strange or Jurassic World or something, and i’m there on opening night, i’m not looking for plot holes and continuity issues with previous movies and bad CGI and weird prop errors. That stuff might be noticed on a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th viewing, but not in the theater at the opening night showing in a crowd.
Yet I still see audience members tweeting on the way home from the theater complaining about all of those things. It’s like these people don’t want to actually enjoy a movie - they only go to nitpick.
And yet, all that said, the audience reactions on the whole are still more reliable than critical reactions to me. Critics are too caught up in their film-school educational biases to honestly review movies for entertainment value (which is the only thing that matters for a movie - is it entertaining. I don’t care about cinematography or lighting or how much the special effects cost or whether the costumes are all perfectly period-accurate. I just want to enjoy a movie.
more than likely. i read the hobbit and liked it all except the ending. went on to lotr and it was… it wasn’t difficult or cumbersome… just dry, i guess? a bit flat? i dunno. dude’s a linguist and one of the most well regarded authors of all time, so i’m not exactly in a position to criticise his writing. it’s the ubiquity of his influence that bothers me more.
in terms of the critics/audience reaction question: i’m more inclined to read a trusted critics thoughts than listen to some random chump (they could be anybody!), but i’ll generally just watch whatever looks or sounds interesting to me.
Critical reception. I don’t trust the masses when it comes to film. We got 10 Fast and Furious plus 1 spin off film and Bladerunner 2049 won’t get a sequel. It tells me everything I need to know.
I tend to trust those who like the overall genres that I like, but I don’t trust the word of anybody absolutely. The masses are whiners and the critics are smug sticks in the mud. My own sense of taste far exceeds that of 90% of the populace, so I’ll count on my own, thank you very much.
Morbius made over 100,000,000 dollars in the box office and there are ten Fast movies. Audiences are fucking morons who lack media literacy and any capacity to actually review something properly.
What? Religion is the high point of lame event the ostensibly cool religions like Satanism are kind of lame. Also according to your post in the Ask HMF thread I thought Godzilla was your religion.
What? That is stupid and that notion would assume that your polytheistic religion isn’t made of different gods with varying spheres of influence between them but that all of the gods are functionally the same power level and have the same broad sphere of influence.
No, it does assume that, and that different gods had to be assigned to different things because of, what would seem to me, a great lack of commitment in the psyche of the person who made them up.
Imagine going up to @Norseman and telling him that the main literary work of his old gods and his national heritage is the supposed result of theological commitment issues or going up to a Native American and saying that their collective inability to have a common shared earth creation myth like an Abrahamic religion betrays a lack of dedication.
Your logic is going on the assumption that a polytheistic religion is a singular creation of a single person that is unalterable or composed of a singular and incontestable canon when that isn’t broadly true.
it’s the ubiquity of his influence that bothers me more.