Siskel deemed Blade Runner a "waste of time". This makes me appreciate the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate

Siskel deemed Blade Runner a "waste of time". This makes me appreciate the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate.

youtube.com/watch?v=euq7gvzQXJk&feature=youtu.be&t=1158

Other urls found in this thread:

rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

he was reviewing the theatrical release which is honestly quite shit, do your fucking research you retarded RT drone

you know you could have said that without being rude.
also
>muh director's cut meme

Kill yourself.

Blade Runner fucking sucks and there's no reason to get upset when someone dislikes it because it isn't high art just trashy sci-fi told poorly.

>listening to "professional" critics
>ever

I don't know much about Siskel, except he was attached to Ebert. A guy parked in the same cushy job since the fucking 60's, and the only reason he was held in such high regard was because he had sat there for so long. Circular reasoning.

They might be more eloquent in putting it, but at the end of the day it's just their opinion. Everyone has an opinion, so paying someone to have one seems quite stupid to me. Especially if you're going to elevate that opinion above others because... why? Because their opinions are better? Bollocks.

Great movie, but it really has no story arc or character development so I can see why they downthumbed it.

Siskel always had terrible opinions.

Ideally critics should offer insight and knowledge that the random guy on the street doesn't have because he hasn't seen as many films as them and he doesn't have the same interest in film as entertainment/art as critics. Good critics also can communicate to the reader or viewer why the film is good, they come up with arguments to back up their views.

Everyone of course has an opinion, but if you ask plumber joe from the street why movie X is bad, the chances are that even though he likes it or dislikes it, he can't communicate to you why. Outside of "it sucked" or "it was good".

Gen X'er here. The RT aggregate is a bullshit retcon job...almost all the critics hated it at the time, same as Carpenter's Thing.

>Gen X'er here
stopped reading

I see critics more as marketing tools. Either they like it or not it's used to influence someone else into watching it. Only thing is they can word reasons why it's good or bad. Not too mention how their popular opinions change over time where Metropolis was seen as a decent movie but now considered a masterpiece.

>stopped reading

My post, or just in general, you unemployable waste of jizz and eggs?

Thread ends here boys

Yeah, I considered that. But a lot of "plumber joes" so to speak have that skill without criticism being their job. Often it helps that they have a niche interest, so they know more about the niche than a general critic. I mean, I'm a Dick fan, so I'm not particularly hot about the movie because it tosses away large parts of the book. Critical parts.

But in the end the typical professional critic still has to answer that question: Is the movie enjoyable. Granted, Ebert was pretty good at the analysis -he certainly had enough time to become proficient- but it still came down to him enjoying the movie. And there was Ebert's famous spat about video games not being able to be art that communicated, to me at least, a fundamental lack of understanding behind the concept. So the guy reviews art for a living for 40 years, but signs away an entire medium like that? Seems more someone driven by emotion than by reason.

So, in the end, it will always be an emotional judgement. That's fine, but then we return again to the free niche reviewer, who you can bet on having the same emotional connection you have, because of that niche.

In short, I think the age of the professional critic might be over.

Ebert got triggered by Blue Velvet because Lynch cucked him with Isabella

Ebert & Siskel also got triggered by horror movies and campaigned against slasher movies because they thought they were dangerous

1. Blade Runner when it first came out was still worth seeing. Then they cut Harrison's voice over for an improved release.
2. The more recent director's cut is much better.
3. I wish Ebert had died at the same time as Siskel so we wouldn't have to deal with his crap for so long.
4. I wonder if Daredevil could cut Ben's voiceover, and make a better release.
5. Rotton Tomatoes aggregate sucks. IMDB viewers' average is much better.

Ebert also called Africa Adio "racist" despite it being a documentary showing real things. Maybe some of the narration is a little racist, but the footage damn well isn't.

It also has the only known footage of the Zanzibar genocide. Which no-one has heard of.

I dont know but as I listen to some podcasts about professional critics it seems like a community that tend to agree on things to fit in. Most of them always brought up the dumb MRA stuff for Ghostbusters which I feel should never be mentioned since it does not have anything to do with the movie. It has turned me away from alot of these types of reviews.

There are a couple YT critics/reviewers that I trust usually ones that stick to a niche. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't, but I do like the more upfront reviews and tend not to include political views in their movies.

Yeah, a real problem for me has been the stuff mentioned above about Ebert & Siskel. I could never take a critic seriously who campaigns to ban a genre of movies. They had this to say about the director of Friday the 13th:

>one of the most despicable creatures ever to infest the movie business

Because of their OPINION. If I want to know if something is a good movie, I don't need the reviewer to moralize it for me, or to insert their politics. That makes them instantly worthless to me. It goes all the way back to reading this terrible book with Christian overtones, and realizing "someone could only think this was good if they already agreed with its message".

And yes, I too think such a culture exists among professional critics. The biggest joke has to be Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven is a Dutch director, which means he's a massive socialist. At least in America. And you could see how it took the professional critics a few years to actually get the joke he played on Heinlein. It went from being considered a schlocky B-movie, to being considered a smart commentary on fascism. I recall reading two reviews by the same publication that DOUBLED the points after they added the line "it's commentary on the book".

I have no problem with people dismissing the Blade Runner theatrical release.

Its pretty and builds an immersive world but the narration honestly kills it. Imagine apocalypse now with a dubstep soundtrack.

The final cut is among my favorite movies though.

Suicide Squad

>Zanzibar ?

>Everyone has an opinion, so paying someone to have one seems quite stupid to me
fuck you

>Especially if you're going to elevate that opinion above others because... why?
Because to become a critic back then you needed at least some kind of qualification. Siskel and Ebert weren't top of their class film-school graduates but they were at least respected journalists and presenters who saw a wide variety of stuff and always put more thought into it than the average filmgoer. At the same time their appeal was that they were accessible to these filmgoers.

Now that they're dead the standards have dropped far lower though.

You should trust Armond White. He went to film school and has seen fucking everything. He writes about movies because he knows movies.


However if there's one thing you take from this post let it be

>it's just an opinion man
is fucking wrong and harmful to culture and that you ower anybody anybody you see saying it a broken nose.

You have to understand that during the 80s movies that were just violent for the sake of it were a new and rightfully frightening thing. People still held some values and standards at that point in time.

The 70s gave us movies like Death Wish, but what people tend to forget when bringing that movie up is that it's not simply a violent movie, it's a movie about violence. It doesn't revel in death and terror for its own sake, but to explore the issues around them. Death Wish is a movie about urban decay, the meaning of 'civilized' behavior and justice. Friday the 13th on the other hand is a movie about tits and murder and gore because it'll put asses in seats.

Any critic who retroactively praises that shit is filth, the 80s is when Hollywood's soul died for good.

>It doesn't revel in death and terror for its own sake, but to explore the issues around them. Death Wish is a movie about urban decay, the meaning of 'civilized' behavior and justice
10/10 bait

Half the movie is Charles Bronson having extremely on the nose conversations where those exact issues are namedropped several times.
>what do you call people who, when they're in danger, just... run and hide
>civilized?
>no... I don't know

>we don't build anything here that turns into a slum 20 years later

>anybody tries to pull that mugging crap down here'd get blown away

Those 80s filmmakers were just more honest.

Sex&violence always sold, people were just making more elaborate excuses.

Blade Runner isn't a waste of time.
It always puts me to sleep right away!

You can call them elaborate excuses but what's important is that they forced filmmakers to at least TRY to class up what they were doing.

I'm not even opposed to tits and violence if I think it's done well, but Friday the 13th is complete trash. Lucio Fulci at least had good scores and managed to get a few genuinely decent shots every now and then.

>champion of culture
>curses and threatens with physical violence

Yeah, this is exactly the problem: Stuck up assholes who think their "correct" opinion elevates them above others.

>is fucking wrong and harmful to culture

Says the guy who can't even write proper English. How? How is it harmful to culture to not ascribe to the power of an elite to control said culture? Do you even know what the word "culture" means? It doesn't mean "things that I think are art".

>you ower anybody anybody you see saying it a broken nose.

Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.

But you fail to get the point. This isn't me saying that In the Army Now! with Rob Schneider is on the same level as Citizen Kane. It literally means what it says: It's just some guy's opinion that you don't have to agree with, and treating that guy's opinion as fact, or even as important, is ridiculous when it comes to something that, in the end, is wholly personal. And the problem with people like Siskel & Ebert in particular is that they, themselves, treat their own opinion as fact. As you do with yours. That is the worst. There is very little objectivity in art.

Also, you're welcome to try, you weedy nerd.

What? Deckard goes from just hunting replicants just 'cause and then throughout the movie he learns they have desires and wants just like any other human.

So? It's a genre that people have fun with others. There's a reason why these type of horror movies usually have conventions where fans can interact and talk about it while celebrating it. Not everything needs to be deep and insightful

Yeah, I watched the Death Wish series on TV, and the difference between the first and the last is shocking. In the first, he becomes physically sick after shooting his first dude. In the last, he's gunning down gang members with a literal machine gun. Rambo went through the same change.

But people always made movies like that. Cannibal Holocaust was already a fact well before the 80's, as were other movies like it. The entire genre they were a part of had already died by the 80's.

Hell, go back in history and you find much of the same entertainment, right alongside more high brow entertainment. To lament its existence is, frankly, quite stupid. Sure, if the lament were about the death of integrity in movies, I'd be standing right there with them. But making slasher movies go away won't magically make arthouse more popular.

psst...he's right

Same thing happened with star wars. Now everyone loves it.

>curses and threatens with physical violence
I'm sorry if I upset you.

>How is it harmful to culture to not ascribe to the power of an elite to control said culture?
Because the elite know better and we can all learn if we listen to them (or at least they should know better, depends on how you define 'elite' now).

The state of modern literature would be a shitload better if more people listened to Harold Bloom, just like movies would be better if more people read Armond White. These 'elites' know more than the casual enthusiast could ever hope to and by trying to understand their views we can get a kind of shortcut to a more refined level of understanding.

>treating that guy's opinion as fact, or even as important, is ridiculous when it comes to something that, in the end, is wholly personal
A good critic should be impersonal. Look at Armond White, his reviews rarely make it clear whether or not he liked a movie, he gives movies 'what they deserve' in his words. He'll never tell you not to see something because he thought it was bad, what he attempts to do is give you an idea of what the film does or does not do well technically as well as inform you as to the cultural significance of what's being made today.

>There is very little objectivity in art
NO! NONONONONONO! There's a LOT of objectivity in art. How else do we determine that Army Now! isn't on the same level as Citizen Kane? For their to even be levels their has to be some degree of objectivity don't you think? You have to agree, you're the one who brought up levels. You can't have levels if we run solely off of opinion. You didn't say it's your opinion that Citizen Kane is better, you implied that is simply is. That's objectivity.

>making slasher movies go away won't magically make arthouse more popular
It certainly isn't helping though. Codes of conduct for artists don't just keep muh children from seeing blood, they're meant to keep art from degenerating.

It's trash, but the problem with Siskel & Ebert is that they attached a moralistic view to it. The view that because the movie itself is bad, it must have been made by a malicious person. As if the director has some hidden, nefarious purpose. And that's an inexcusable leap of logic. It's telepathic reasoning.

>imdb
lmao@ ur very existence

>Ebert's famous spat about video games not being able to be art that communicated, to me at least, a fundamental lack of understanding behind the concept.
opinion discarded lmao

I can sympathize with the sentiment behind their rating but I think they put it badly. A better way might be Armond White's favourite meme term, 'nihilism.'

The director of Friday the 13th probably isn't a bad person. He isn't hurting anybody, he isn't out to instill bloodlust in his audience, he doesn't give a shit. That's the movie's philosophy, it doesn't have one.

you sound like a bitch

Very good posts from you user. Unfortunately it may be too late.

So what about a situation were two of your beloved "elites" disagree over the same film? How do you decide who knows better?

>There is very little objectivity in art
>NO! NONONONONONO!

yes yes yes YES. You can't even begin to argue this.

But please, try. I'm on lunch anyway.

>I'm sorry if I upset you.

You're getting ahead of yourself. No, the point is that you can't pretend to be cultured and then argue with cursewords and threats of violence. That's pretty much the exact opposite of cultured.

>Because the elite know better and we can all learn if we listen to them (or at least they should know better, depends on how you define 'elite' now).

That's kind of the crux. It's easy to assume the elite knows better because they are the elite, but the question is "why?" The explanation that they can put it in words better, and that they know things about filmmaking is a good argument, and one I support. But it must also be tested.

Of course, the question is also: Can the layman not learn by watching the artistic expression DIRECTLY, rather than through the filter that is the critic?

>A good critic should be impersonal.

That's a commendable attitude, and this Armond White sounds like an interesting critic. But more often than not, this is not the case. And it certainly wasn't the case for Siskel, Ebert, etc. etc.

>You didn't say it's your opinion that Citizen Kane is better, you implied that is simply is.

That objectivity is merely a majority opinion. I've never seen Citizen Kane, to be honest, and I don't plan to. I use it as an example because of common parlance. Americans famously regard it as "the best movie ever made", but here in Europe it doesn't have the same reputation. I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it, in fact. There is SOME objectivity in art, as I've already conceded. The brain is a mechanism, and that mechanism will be more influenced by some things than others. Of course, that's also why we're seeing absolute buttloads of movies use that orange/blue contrast. It's the contrast our brain picks out the best. Just some fluke of evolution.

But would you say that objective attention-getter is the same as objective art? You probably wouldn't. Yet there it is.

You forgot to tip your fedora.

Yes, that seems fine to me. I just don't see the point in attaching that moral value to an overt slasher film. I think it stems from the whole judging people from your own experience. These critics are used to movies with a message, an underlying point, so they project that onto something like Friday the 13th.

I will never understand how someone could hate Blade Runner. It's not like they killed Noot and Hix at the beginning.

>this guy will literally end up killing himself

>what about a situation were two of your beloved 'elites' disagree over the same film how do you decide who knows better
Discourse happens.

One side doesn't win over another usually since they probably both raise valid points. Raising a point that's completely invalid is a hard thing to do when discussing art.

>you can't even begin to argue this
But I did. The paragraph didn't end there. Look to the right of the part you quoted.

>the point is that you can't pretend to be cultured and then argue with cursewords and threats of violence
If I include actual points alongside them I don't see the problem. Now if you try to raise this point again I'll kill your family while you sleep, cuck.

>The explanation that they can put it in words better, and that they know things about filmmaking is a good argument, and one I support. But it must also be tested.
The kind of hard part is that a bare minimum of knowledge is needed to really tell if a critic's talking out of their ass. If you consume enough media and read enough stuff that encourages you to think critically you should learn enough to know sooner or later.

>Can the layman not learn by watching the artistic expression DIRECTLY, rather than through the filter that is the critic?
I don't know, show your plumber uncle 'Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors' then get back to us.

>more often than not, this is not the case. And it certainly wasn't the case for Siskel, Ebert, etc. etc.
And I don't really consider them to be good critics. Siskel and Ebert were trustworthy entertainers and consumer-guides but not experts on film. They had well above average knowledge and they could articulate their thoughts relatively well but if you want to learn about the medium there are better places to look.

>objectivity is merely a majority opinion
NO, it's the ELITE opinion. We know it's right when people who know the most agree. Not when the most people agree.

It throws out a lot of the stuff in the book. The chase after those androids is just a big setup for a point about the nature of reality and empathy. Without that it's an exciting sci-fi cop flick, and it's still kind of there under the surface, especially in Roy's famous monologue, but throughout the movie it's just sorely lacking.

>But I did. The paragraph didn't end there. Look to the right of the part you quoted.

No, you didn't. You directly addressed another user about "levels". If someone considers Army Now! to be better representative of the artform that Citizen Kane that's that. You don't determine anything. Your opinion (subjective) simply differs from his.

There is little to no objectivity in art when the very definition of teh term is so broad that to clarify it requires a subjective definition.

So, try again from first principles and argue that "there's a LOT of objectivity in art".

The aesthetic isn't that mind-blowing considering everything else Ridley Scott's made and what was coming out at the same time and it's no great piece of storytelling either. Really it's like a Phillip Marlowe story in the future with lots of neon lights.

Not hateable but certainly not a lot to love.

blade runner is wildly overrated though

>We know it's right when people who know the most agree

This fails to accomodate movies that are critically acclaimed now when they weren't on release. Over time all you have is "most agreeing" consensus.

I would put any money on the table that you've come out of a film hating it and when you've read your favourite critic's opinion you've done a total 180 turn.

You mean underrated

Wut? Why is theatrical shit?

>If I include actual points alongside them I don't see the problem.

Fair enough. I did actually respond to those points. Felt the need to point it out, though.

>The kind of hard part is that a bare minimum of knowledge is needed to really tell if a critic's talking out of their ass.

That's true. But sometimes they make it easy for us.

>I don't know, show your plumber uncle 'Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors' then get back to us.

"Layman" doesn't translate to "stupid person". It simply means someone not trained, in this person that corresponds nearly exactly with someone outside of that "elite" we keep mentioning. And with movies we have the extreme luxury that the laymen can consume the full product just as easily as the elite does, which I feel makes the position of the elite much more precarious. After all, there is no more entry required into their intellectual realm than simply understanding the movie and putting it into words rather eloquently.

>And I don't really consider them to be good critics. Siskel and Ebert were trustworthy entertainers and consumer-guides but not experts on film. They had well above average knowledge and they could articulate their thoughts relatively well but if you want to learn about the medium there are better places to look.

Good point.

>NO, it's the ELITE opinion. We know it's right when people who know the most agree. Not when the most people agree.

I should have clarified: The majority opinion within that elite.

However, I felt my point about scientific objectivity was interesting. As with the example, objectively it's best to use many orange/blue colour schemes. But I think artistically, it's not. So what about this difference between subjective art and objective science? Can we also say that, for instance, a certain type of shot can be scientifically explained to draw forth certain feelings in the viewer? If so, should that shot always be used in certain situations?

More like Pleb Runner amirite

Okay, how's this?

Art is the application of technical skill for the sake of expression. What skill is applied and what's being expressed can vary but I think that generally it's possible to judge whether or not somebody's done a good job of it.

Take Death Wish for one example.

Technically I think it's a well made movie, though I'm not an expert so you can try to overturn these points I'm raising but I think generally they're the right ones. The shots are well composed and technically pleasing, the story hits the right notes of 'terror and pity' to satisfy Aristotle's definition of tragedy, which I think is the best one, the score did a good job of conveying the idea of pressure, which ties into the theme of urban decay and overall the story and the film as a whole did a great job of exploring the issue of violence in modern america, which was the creators intention.

Is that a satisfy attempt at 'objective' criticism to you? On the other hand you could say that Rob Schneider in one of his movies (I won't put myself through actually recalling one) is intending nothing more than to make me laugh and is doing a poor job of it due to timing, delivery and every other element of good comedy generally not being well executed, making his work objectively bad.

I tried, this stuff is hard.

Also, it's In The Army Now One of the capital letters fell off in the original post. And apparently I just added that exclamation mark because I thought it belonged there. And also, it's with Pauley Shore instead of Rob Schneider.

It's not a very good movie. But it does have a genuinely strong female character everyone is always clamouring for, these days. So that's a point in its favour. Played by Lori Petty, from Point Break. Recently watched it again, and kept wondering where I'd seen her/heard her voice before. It was in this.

It's not a good movie. Don't watch it.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

>This fails to accomodate movies that are critically acclaimed now when they weren't on release
I accommodate that by saying that most critics are fickle faggots who fly where they see the wind blowing. Popular critical consensus is literally run by memes.

>I would put any money on the table that you've come out of a film hating it and when you've read your favourite critic's opinion you've done a total 180 turn.
They can't make me enjoy something I hated or unenjoy something I liked. And as I said, good critics shouldn't be able to tell you what to like or dislike, only get you thinking.

>with movies we have the extreme luxury that the laymen can consume the full product just as easily as the elite does
I don't know about that, you replied too quickly to have shown uncle Boris my Parajanov flick. I imagine that even many enthusiasts of the medium struggle to consume many movies simply because they lack the knowledge to completely appreciate what they're seeing.

What you've written here is like me saying that anybody who can read can appreciate 'Finnegans Wake.' I could read fluently when I was 6 but even now that shit fucks my head.

The position of the elite is precarious I do agree, especially since so many professional critics in my opinion ARE 'laypeople' but

>understanding the movie and putting it into words rather eloquently
is often anything but simple. I always try to respond in text-walls on Sup Forums as mental exercise. Actually thinking out why exactly I like and dislike what I do can be quite strenuous at times.

>the majority opinion within that elite
Here's where things get complicated. I'd go on to argue here that there's 'elite' then there's ELITE. Unfortunately too many critics in my opinion don't know what they're doing and go by feeling while only a minority actually apply expert knowledge of the subject matter to reach their conclusions.

>scientific shots
this is a thing, low shots make people big and strong for example

>I imagine that even many enthusiasts of the medium struggle to consume many movies simply because they lack the knowledge to completely appreciate what they're seeing.
>What you've written here is like me saying that anybody who can read can appreciate 'Finnegans Wake.'

The point is more that the ease of consumption is so great that those people who CAN appreciate it in the way it was intended, will. When you get down to it, a movie is a selfcontained product that does not require any additional knowledge as its entry-level requirements. Yes, that means a lot of people don't "get" it, but a lot also do. To quote Ratatouille: "Not everyone can be a great cook, but a great cook can come from anywhere".

>is often anything but simple. I always try to respond in text-walls on Sup Forums as mental exercise. Actually thinking out why exactly I like and dislike what I do can be quite strenuous at times.

Yes, I know the feeling. I'm way too into a certain television series, and have also written mountains of text about WHY it's my favorite television series. Then again, I do that as a layman and consume other opinions of other laymen on the topic. I might look up what your Armond White has to say, though.

>this is a thing, low shots make people big and strong for example

I know. But the point is, is this scientific method compatible with art? In short, will every movie end up looking the same when everyone starts using the same tricks that we have scientifically determined trigger impulses in the brain? I used to study psychology, and there's a whole mess of things you could get into, here. Maybe not a useful major, but definitely an interesting one. But if we strip away the scientific component, theoretically, will we have anything left that will be considered the artistic component? And what will it be?

Also isn't there a badass elevator scene in the book where deckard meets another blade runner and they each suspect the other is a replicant??

That's an entire sequence in the book. Another replicant hunter, sent from another police station that Deckard has never heard of. Of course, Deckard starts wondering if maybe he isn't a replicant himself. As does the other hunter.

The other police station is staffed entirely by replicants who falsely accuse Deckard, but the other replicant hunter is not a replicant himself. According to the tests, at least.

What also caused him to wonder that, was that in that police station there was a replicant who didn't even know he was one and helped Deckard against the other replicants

Blade Runner did suck. It's a 5/10 movie that somehow got propped up as a masterpiece

It's an island ffs. I spent 3 weeks vacationing there, it's pretty much paradise. Learn geography, asshat.

>puts me to sleep

Some of the finest visuals ever put to film with a godlike soundtrack to boot? You're a pleb. It may in fact be the last proper film made in Hollywood.

>those people who CAN appreciate it in the way it was intended, will
I don't see what this has to do with movies or criticism or accessibility or anything. It's just a fact. People who can understand things understand things.

Have I missed the point.

>selfcontained product that does not require any additional knowledge as its entry-level requirements
For entry level that's fine, but I think that whether or not somebody is able to 'get' it is more important than you're making it out to be. If they don't get it then what was the point? Anybody can sit in front of a screen for 90+ minutes but if they aren't able to internalize or appreciate anything they're seeing why bother?

>to quote Ratatouille
I don't understand why. Not anybody can be a great appreciator of art, it's a skill not a talent. Harold Bloom was a nobody born with some kind of borderline autistic quirk of memory that lets him remember virtually everything he's ever read but that's not what makes him a great authority on the subject and not where he derives his great appreciation of the medium. Harold Bloom knows and loves literature because he's probably studied it more than anybody else on the planet.

>is this scientific method compatible with art
Kind of, I think it works as shorthand to easily convey certain ideas and feelings but there's no objectively perfect way to do anything simply because no two good movies should be trying to accomplish the exact same thing.

> In short, will every movie end up looking the same when everyone starts using the same tricks that we have scientifically determined trigger impulses in the brain?
I think we're already far closer to this than you might think. I think that anybody who really knows their stuff should be able to identify a movie's genre based on a couple of shots with no context.

not always but he was pretty shit with the pop culture hits

ebert had some terrible reviews also

one more, I ran out of room

>if we strip away the scientific component, theoretically, will we have anything left that will be considered the artistic component? And what will it be?
I think that there are a lot of movies around that, if they don't exactly do this, at least come closer than anybody else will short of actively trying to avoid convention.

I'm thinking of directors who operate on a purely emotional and visceral level. Directors like Sogo Ishii (Burst City), Derek Jarman (Will You Dance With Me?) and Shinya Tsukamoto (Tetsuo the Iron Man). They were known for making things up as they went along and throwing all the rules of film-making out the window the moment it went against their whims.

There's little to nothing calculated, conventional or scientific about their work and now you've got me thinking, does this mean that their work is a purer or more raw form of art than movies produced through conventional production processes? When Ridley Scott makes a movie he assembles a crew and goes through a structured process to tell a story that has an audience and satisfies his existing artistic desires. Ishii on the other hand just had cameras and some punk-rocker friends and started putting chaos to film.

I think that what I'd call the difference between 'artistic' and 'scientific' production is the filtering of ideas through the creative process. There's no purer form of expression than giving your raw thoughts to somebody, through images or words or sound or whatever, and that's what these 'punk' directors did, they didn't stop to consider what their audiences would think, they just acted. While a 'scientific' filmmaker will consider their options and give you a calculated creation aiming to get a certain reaction out of you or to fulfill a specific desire within them.

Scientific film-making isn't inherently not or less expressive or artistic, but free-style, uncalculated film-making is in its nature inherently expressive and artistic.

>Have I missed the point.

I don't think so. Maybe we just agree while we think we don't.

>Anybody can sit in front of a screen for 90+ minutes but if they aren't able to internalize or appreciate anything they're seeing why bother?

Because art can be enjoyed on multiple levels. The point is, however, that there's no necessary specific knowledge or education for this. It's available, but the product is self-contained. So, conceivably, all that you need to understand the product completely is there.

>Harold Bloom was a nobody

That's what that quote means, though. Doesn't sound like he's some blueblood critic who attended the right schools and knew the right people. That's the difference between this stuff, and, say, physics. If you want to be a physics superstar, you need that formal education from day one. But in movies (and books) the entire thing is self-contained. Maybe such an education would help someone make sense of them, but the barebones needs are... well, nothing except the product itself.

>Kind of, I think it works as shorthand to easily convey certain ideas and feelings but there's no objectively perfect way to do anything simply because no two good movies should be trying to accomplish the exact same thing.

The crux probably lies in the difference between using cheap tricks to trigger audiences into giving you their money and using the same techniques to actually get a point or narrative across.

>I think we're already far closer to this than you might think.

That would certainly explain why I haven't felt moved to go watch a movie in ages.

Interesting viewpoint. But what happens when you put those chaotic movies to the scientific test, to see whether their shots line up with what we know gives a viewer a certain feeling or idea? Will they still be "scientifically good"? Or is there another component that makes them good?

>the product is self-contained
I get what you mean by this. Critics aren't strictly necessary, but I still think it's harmful to dismiss them. If not professionals or elites I think that many of them should at least be considered very well informed and articulate fans. Do you consider well informed and articulate fans of things to be worthwhile authorities? They can't preach truth at you but they can probably get closer than most in many cases.

>the difference between using cheap tricks to trigger audiences into giving you their money and using the same techniques to actually get a point or narrative across
I agree that there's no real hard rules here. It'd have to be judged case by case whether using an established technique is being cheap or smart.

>That would certainly explain why I haven't felt moved to go watch a movie in ages.
I think that pretty much every genre Hollywood is comfortable with has grown completely stagnant at the moment. The only options I see are to look outside of Hollywood and/or outside of genre.

I think that if these chaotic movies are put to the scientific test and line up with what is already establish then we could take that as proof that the 'scientific' ideas on what is effective in film are correct. If somebody who doesn't know of or care for the rules and conventions but still ends up following them intuitively then they must be right.

They're still scientifically good I suppose, but at the same time they work as a distinct expression of that creators raw output. It can just happen to align with what others do, which is perfectly understandable considering how rare it is to see something utterly unique in film, or any medium really.

Why do you save pictures of 5/10 girls you know on facebook

Huh

>but I still think it's harmful to dismiss them

Ah. Well, I was speaking in memespeak, for better or worse. I suppose I meant to imply that the "professional" status of someone like Siskel means fuck-all in terms of his opinion. It stands on its own. So, in relation to OP's statement, it means he shouldn't worry about it. Siskel is a professional critic because of background, circumstance and, yes, certain skills. But none of that means that his opinion on the quality of a film can't be incorrect.

>Do you consider well informed and articulate fans of things to be worthwhile authorities?

I suppose that goes back to the niche argument. Often fans can be better authorities than professionals, in their specific niche, because they obsess over it. They might lack other qualities, but they tend to have the knowledge down. I mean, I'd trust a slasher fan's knowledge on Friday the 13th over that of Siskel & Ebert, to name an example.

>I agree that there's no real hard rules here. It'd have to be judged case by case whether using an established technique is being cheap or smart.

Well, I guess we've found a use for critics after all!

>I think that pretty much every genre Hollywood is comfortable with has grown completely stagnant at the moment. The only options I see are to look outside of Hollywood and/or outside of genre.

Yeah, I suppose. Occasionally there's a nice movie, and there's always movies you haven't seen. I'll have to look. Kind of grew used to other people doing that for me. When I did it myself, I tended to look for action or comedy, because of this one retard friend who handles any kind of non-action, non-comedy so poorly that you'd think it's a mental handicap. This dude couldn't handle Oldboy, for fuck's sake. Legit said it was one of the worst movies he'd ever seen. Fuck me, I'm not the most highbrow consumer, but this guy...

>I think that if these chaotic movies are put to the scientific test and line up with what is already establish then we could take that as proof that the 'scientific' ideas on what is effective in film are correct. If somebody who doesn't know of or care for the rules and conventions but still ends up following them intuitively then they must be right.

It'd be an interesting experiment.

>Often fans can be better authorities than professionals, in their specific niche, because they obsess over it. They might lack other qualities, but they tend to have the knowledge down
I think that in a perfect world this is what film critics would be. As sad as it is I think that there are at least a decent amount of critics working right now who don't love movies, and in fact might not even be that fond of them at all and just kind of fell into the job with generic journalism qualifications.

Armond White, I know I love using the guy as an example but he's just that great, says that film critics shouldn't be consumer guides, they should be people who write about movies because they know movies. A critic should know what they're talking about backwards and forwards but at the same time be professional enough to remove themselves from what they're talking about and try to give their readers/viewers something informative rather than a raw opinion.

It sure would be interesting. But it would be hard to really test. You'd have to find an acclaimed 'punk' style film which is thematically similar to an acclaimed 'conventional' one and see if there's any kind of overlap in how they convey the same or similar ideas.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of critics who don't actually like movies. It's kind of an oversaturated profession, from the looks of it. And in that respect they're no better -and often worse- than the enthusiast with an IMDB account. And the enthusiast with a YouTube account is often more professional than a lot of professionals. TotalBiscuit did an interesting video about that a few years ago, when the entire debate of the video games press was raging. I rewatched it after the No Man's Sky debacle, and it was stingingly relevant.

>look up Armond White
>actually Armond Black

I imagine he has a lot of Curb Your Enthusiasm gags going on in his life.

>You'd have to find an acclaimed 'punk' style film which is thematically similar to an acclaimed 'conventional' one and see if there's any kind of overlap in how they convey the same or similar ideas.

I guess I should watch some punk style films and see what it's all about. Then I can keep this in mind.

Thanks for the discussion, by the way. It's been enlightening. I'll remember Armond White, too.

I might look for that TotalMemecuit video.

Thank you for the discussion too. It's always nice to occasionally get some real discourse going on Sup Forums. I have to sleep now but I feel like this thread went places.

The video is mostly relevant to gaming media, which can be stunningly incompetent, but the point about enthusiast press is interesting. It's a bit of a rant, though. In case that isn't your thing.

Have a good night.

>It's kind of an oversaturated profession

It is because of the low barriers to entry. It very tough to stand out and get eyeballs so quite a few go at movies from "different angles" or create characters (2 guys in a video repair shop) to attract viewership so they can make money giving opinion.

In the information age, the abundance of information mixed with the over abundance of opinion on that information has created an à la carte business of consuming information people want to hear/believe in.

Imo the need for movie critics is slowly coming to an end because of ease people can access the content. I don't need someone to tell me if I might enjoy something because I can use a digital service to quickly watch and make that determination myself.

> Rotton Tomatoes aggregate sucks. IMDB viewers' average is much better.
Fuck out of here pleb.
> I wonder if Daredevil could cut Ben's voiceover, and make a better release.
You're either extremely stupid, or joking.

>>muh director's cut meme
It's common knowledge that the studio fucked over Blade Runner, you retard. They forced Harrison Ford to do shitty narration and they forced Ridley Scott to add a happy ending that didn't make sense and shit all over the themes of the film.

Reminder Ebert gave the final cut of Blade Runner a perfect 4/4.

rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982

>The aesthetic isn't that mind-blowing considering everything else Ridley Scott's made and what was coming out at the same time
This is completely wrong. First of all, Blade Runner is by far Ridley Scott's most gorgeous looking film. Only Alien comes close to matching it. Second of all, it was very groundbreaking when it came out. It was the very first cyberpunk film.

love this reddit thread!