Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: As you wish..

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: As you wish.. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: As you wish.. - 17/10/2011 1:13:36 PM   
waltham1979


Posts: 1257
Joined: 18/3/2008
From: San-Diago, which is German for 'Whales virgina'...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
I respect most of your comments but point out where you say "it's not my place to offer conjecture on such things" right after offering just such conjecture. You've obviously looked back through my posts so know enough about me to correctly say I've worked in advertising - and that is about the only relevant conjecture you can make. Everything else is ad hominem and thus will get you nowhere..


An error of denotation on my part, I should have phrased it as "it's not my place to offer further conjecture than what I've already said, as that can only be wild speculation" which in other words means to offer a view without some basis to substantiate said views. I purposefully wrote the conjecture bit simply to acknowledge the futility of baseless conjecture. Anything else I've written has come from simply deducing what's in front of me. And again, I made reference to comments that you have made in the past on a few occasions. Which when looked at strikes one as rather odd. There's clearly some bitterness, it could simply be disillusionment with the magazine or something more 'professionally' related - as you said both aren't necessarily mutually exclusive so I may have been right. To me, they aren't unreasonable assertions to make given what has been posted. Anything that has been posted by you here is relevant, hence why I alluded to it and there is absolutely nothing in my other posts which is ad hominem. I haven't attacked you personally nor cast any aspersions on your character. I've merely called into question your reasoning for periodically espousing your views here when you've declared that you have 'broken ties' with Empire in protest as it were (by cancelling your prior subscription for instance). I'm genuinely perplexed. What do you hope to achieve? To turn en masse the entire magazine readership against Empire here with your opinions?

"any observations I make... are based on a simple thing called evidence which I give examples of where possible."

Sure:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

I say new (1), but for the last several years the once great yardstick for film journalism has become not much more than a predictable brochure for the big movies, regardless of merit.

.......................................

I unsubscribed and stopped reading Empire long ago but I still get to hear about these embarrassing lists from mainstream media. Empire, please leave the general public alone with these pointless votes. Any Empire readers who are similarly dumbfounded please do yourselves a favour and stop buying the magazine and visiting the site (I'm using Firefox with ad-blocking so not contributing). There are alternatives none with as much influence (except AICN), better still, start a new one if you're able. We do need a local equivalent of 'Aint it Cool', something that discusses film from all eras and locations. But more importantly something that seeks out and champions independent film production in the UK/Europe as well as the big movies that actually merit discussion.

Empire is no longer for people who truly love great Films, they cater to the prattling teen/occasional movie-goer demographic and in this case it most definitely shows.


Reference


1. You chose "The New Empire" as the title for your post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: G_MAN07

T**** F*** gave 'Jumper' four stars. I ended my subscription that day.


Empire gave Star Wars ROTS four stars, Transformers and sequel 4 & 3 stars respectively.

Jumper, although a flawed film, is better than those put together..

Empire has very questionable tastes these days, which is why I hardly ever come back here.

The lunatics at AICN have better taste!

So when are you going back to T**** F*** ?


Reference

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

"..and, er, wipe our memories clear of Speed Racer"

But you gave Speed Racer 3 out of 5!

Being Shills for every genre movie that comes out doesn't come more transparent.


Reference

quote:

Notice that I don't make claims about other readers beyond referring directly to what is said here, I don't suggest that someone I disagree with is 12 years old - however tempting, and I don't claim to have superior opinions about film - I don't need to. All I have to do is respond to what is written here


On this thread thus far, but then saying so would imply that you're above name calling and the rest of it. Which is patently false as we can see here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
What are you - 5? You must not encounter words longer than 3 syllables very often.. Makes the head hurt, doesn't it just? Now I have to tailor my language for the under 10s or risk being branded an intellectual.


No-one's above such things. Whilst you state you haven't made claims about having superior opinions on film. From what you've said, you imply that you have superior taste in film.

quote:

but nothing I say isn't related to the original article which - as I've stated in the past - we are invited to comment on


Even though the article is a small piece about a newly released teaser trailer for a highly anticipated gathering of superheroes that hasn't really been done before on a live-action cinematic film? Discounting the likes of "X-men" and "Fantastic Four" who are ensemble groups rather than individual heroes.

quote:

in any case it's a little pedantic to sieve one's comments into separate forum sections.


I find this remark particularly abrasive. I can't work out whether it's supremely ignorant, arrogant or both. Clearly it's too much of an inconvenience for you to post comments which aren't pertinent to the article in the relevant forum sections. Strange seeing as most people are able to do so. Thankfully the Empire moderator team are quite lenient on such things.

quote:

I'll have to respect your opinion on Iron Man 2 - I can't argue with that, and you mention Mark Kermode - who's brilliant and I rarely disagree with but I take issue with Kermode on the Dark Knight which is Just a good Film - not a patch on Heat - but it's a Film based on a Comic not a Comic Book Movie. Sin City, 300, Watchmen, Batman and Robin are Comic Book movies. Nolan's Batman is very much rooted in the language of cinema with virtually no Comic style. The reason it's so highly regarded is that they went to great lengths to create a believable world and to detail how a person with enough money might go about becoming a masked vigilante. It succeeded massively because it is a Film 1st and foremost which anyone can relate to.


"Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are still comic book films, they just have a very tight narrative and a thoroughly well crafted central character (with very good supporting characters and actors). There's a certain nuance to those realities which are seldom seen in most comic book adaptations. Nonetheless, they are still that -- comic book films -- strip them of all the carefully layered elements and you'll see it. Those films still have big set-pieces with the inevitable action climax. They still feature eccentric characters who live out outlandish lifestyles or who like to concoct hairbrain schemes. The villains still chew-up the scenery and twizzle their non-existing moustaches. Not to mention, the plot is driven with rather quite contrived sequences that certainly belong to the comic book staple. What you're referring to is merely style. Schumacher and Burton liked to go a little over-the-top with camp and flamboyance. Whilst Nolan & Goyer preferred something more introspective and perhaps abstract. By the way, "TDK" was heavily influenced in parts by certain graphic novels - chiefly: "The Killing Joke" and "The Long Halloween". The former was written by Alan Moore who also wrote "The Watchmen", which is one you stated you did not like and was actually faithfully adapted on screen. The clever thing about the Batman films and I don't think this was some artifice conjured up by Nolan and Goyer is that the two Batman films are effectively stealth comic book films. At first glance, they have the versimilitude of not being comic book films as they avoid many of the trappings that have appeared in that genre but nonetheless they still carry a number of elements from their literary source. Good as those films are, "TDK" had virtually no humour and compared to "Iron Man" - it had no levity and no sense of fun.

quote:

Film Snobbery? If you like - but it's a damn sight better than what you get from Comic Book puritans or any kind of fanboy. For example I love Star Trek especially the idealism and the infinite possibilities for the story, but I hate the way some Trekkies squabble over 'canonical detail'. A kind of dull puritanism that helped homogenize the various shows and Films over the years - There were still great stories - well told, but by the end of Enterprise and Nemesis, Trek had become impenetrable to a wider audience. Then along came Abrams and Lindelof to blow away all preconceptions creating the most enjoyable blockbuster in many years. They did this by putting Film First.


Actually there are a few 'fanboys' or what you could call 'comic book enthusiasts' on this forum whom I shall not name as I don't want to drag them into this discussion that actually aren't like that and bring a lot of understanding and incisive thought when it comes to discussing such characters.

The Star Trek franchise originally failed because the old tv producers rehashed the same tired storylines. Not only that, the series became mired with so much 'technobabble' that the language of the characters became nearly indecipherable and therefore created a massive barrier to any would-be newcomer. What Abrams & Co did was to simply go back to the root of the franchise which was the most accessible and popular in the Star Trek franchise and give it a young and contemporary face. "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" is another example of a successfully done Star Trek film (perhaps "First Contact" is another one).

quote:

Back on topic, the fact that the Avengers film is upon us is obvious enough from the lead outs in all the recent Marvel movies as well as reams of commentary online - let alone this trailer - which only confirms my expectations. What we rarely get is a critical eye on the thing beyond superficial comment on the 'high hopes' for the movie. Surely it is Empire's raison d'Ítre to offer a little analysis on the state of Film today and maybe put their stories into context? This article is pure promotion for a movie that's not out till next April. This suggests nothing more than some Empire writers are Comic Fans and don't care when most Comic Films turn out to be rubbish. I never say that Empire is on the corporate shill - just that they've massively promoted Comic Movies for years - ignoring the possibility that most people probably don't care about Comics but do care about good movies.


Empire's only raison d'etre is to be accountable to their readership, people who actually pay and therefore contribute towards its continual existence. Not some anonymous face on the internet who it seems no longer has a vested interest in the magazine and does not support it in any way. And certainly not someone who makes out as though they know what's best for film and film-goers. Whether you like it or not, Empire's largely serving up what their readership wants and that's fine by me. To be fair to them, they get the balance right because there's all sorts of films being released - independent and big studio films - and they have to cover all of that with every issue. I don't see anything wrong with certain individuals on the Empire roster who share and therefore reflect the enthusiasm for such films. God forbid it actually shows they're in touch with their readership.

quote:

By the way is it really that hard to figure out how to sort out the reviews - surely you don't take everything literally? Obviously they don't have to amalgamate the reviews of all the staff - but at least run the reviews by a few people who've seen it to make sure it squares with some kind of consensus otherwise you have reviewer bias representing Empire as a whole. I'm quite comfortable with Mark Kermode's reviews because clearly they are the opinions of Mark Kermode - not the BBC as a whole.


Please, don't try and condescend me. You've made the point before about Empire's review system and these are the sort of replies you've had:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guinevere

Ok, so I know professional reviewers are writing for a wide audience but come on! We can't expect them to be some kind of communist automaton who's going to have completely universal taste!


Reference

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
Sadly what you might not appreciate is that every 'big' film gets the same posts over and over again. And the point is simple - a 'review' is the reviewers opinion, it is not an objective committee decision on the quality of a film. That's the same with reviews everywhere.

The standard comment for an Empire Admin thread is irrelevant - this thread is for the review and discussion of the film the review relates to. If you disagree with any opinion on the thread, or simply wish to give your own, then watch the film and do that.

If you want to discuss Empire's policy on reviewing generally, then that is off-topic in this thread. Use search and you will find a thread discussing it and 5 star films in general in Empire Online. Please use the existing thread.


Reference


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Conceptual argument on the nature of reviews and the apparent confusion on what the word opinion means†- Empire Magazine forum please.

And please leave this thread for people who've actually seen the damn film or would like to discuss it. I'm not sure you entirely appreciate how unfair this is to them.


Reference


The amusing thing is you said I was being too literal when in the past you've asked:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
The question is does everyone else at Empire Towers hold a similar view....? The corollary questions remain, who reviews the reviewers? How does Empire decide which individual's review makes the print? Is it a representative opinion of the entire staff, or do they draw lots?


Reference

How else should I answer your question? The points I made in the previous post still apply. Whilst the reviews are 'professional' opinions, they are still opinions nonetheless. Informed by the individuals knowledge of film and ability to critique a film and offer some sort of insight into its characters, plot and the rest of it. Not all opinions will be congruent with one another and simply out, you may not always get a consensus. Seeing as though you have numerous reviews, interviews, articles, features etc to be prepared every month. I don't see how the staff will always have the time to have a nice little 'confab' in the coffee room for each film. It's just not workable.

quote:

I hope that one day a Film magazine or website will look at recent movie history and try not to be overly excited about every new blockbuster that's coming out - you end up feeding into the hype and it encourages the corporate studios to make more bad movies - surely that is reason enough to become more inquiring.


At the end of it, no-one's compelling you to stay here if you feel so disheartened with Empire. Why don't you try and set-up a magazine of your own or a forum where you can share you appreciation for the films you like with other similar people. Rather than continually show up here, taking pot shots at Empire's credibility and integrity and getting into disputes with its members, whom you have disparaged on a number of occasions. Another thing, if we had tempered our enthusiasm for each of these blockbusters and abstained. We would not have come across films such as "TDK" and "Iron Man". There's another (bound to be) great Batman film coming out next year and a possibly interesting Spider-Man film. Hardly anything to moan about.

I apologise to the rest of the forum.


Emyr Thy King I salute thee!!


_____________________________

I just wish stuff like, I don't know, the slow & systemic CRATERING of this country could inspire the same call-to-arms as Batman casting

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 91
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: As you wish.. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.047