MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
Science fiction throughout the years, whether in written or visual form, has always grotesquely exaggerated the scientific and technological achievements of the future. You'd think that even science fiction writers known for their scientific accuracy and attention to detail would be good at making such predictions, but they suck, too.
Case in point, in the early 1950's Robert Heinlein published a list of about two dozen predictions he was confident would come to pass by the year 2000. He only got two right: cell phones, and that humanity would NOT be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. A couple of the others were semi-accurate, but most were just crazily off.
That's okay, though. Good science fiction isn't really about predicting the future.
It is really a shame that it didn't get recognized for sound when so many critics who reviewed the movie made a point of praising it on this point. That normally just doesn't happen. And this movie depended on sound more than most because there is literally no musical soundtrack.
What they did with the visuals was also praiseworthy since so much was done with closeups and no master shots. But the achievement there was in the edit room. Aronofsky commented a few times that the lack of masters meant editing the film together was extremely hard.
I remember watching that episode and thinking to myself, "This guy has GOT to be in more movies starting NOW!". He's really fantastic.
"Any former employee states some stuff, which doenst have anything to do with their recent statement that thos figures are perfectly fine."
They made no such statement. All they did was deny that they are the victims of bot attacks, which is a dubious claim by itself.
I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you were unable to address all the other reasons given for why user generated scores are garbage. Reality just isn't your thing, is it?
Since when is a movie about a rebellion or war between opposing ideologies not political? You are aware, are you not, that when Lucas make the first movie he had the Nixon administration in mind for the Emperor and Empire?
Yeah, because if the entire cast consists of white males everything is right in the world and of course there's NO agenda there, conscious or otherwise.
What an idiot.
Why don't we agree that you can't articulate a single thing that is faulty with this movie and never will, making you a complete embarrassment?
Why don't we agree that you can't articulate a single thing that is faulty with this movie and never will, making you a complete embarrassment?
The fact remains that this movie was a critical and financial success. Cry all you want--you're nothing but a pathetic loser.
This is just the Razzies trying to get attention. No one in their right mind thought Lawrence's performance in this film, or Arronofsky's direction, were deserving of such an insult.
Your failure to articulate a single thing bad about this film is a testament to the stupidity and illegitimacy of the entire backlash against it. Thank you for being a poster-boy for why this "backlash" is actually meaningless and is basically nothing more than dumb people being loud on the Internet.
It doesn't mater who asked what first. To a rational adult (a class to which you obviously have never belonged) what matters is whether a question is valid in the first place. Your request to "defend" the film is empty and meaningless until you give valid reasons for thinking all the praise and success it has enjoyed is unjustified for some reason. But you can't give any reasons at all, can you, little pumpkin?
Okay, then fuck off it is. Case closed.
Articulate what is wrong with the film.
Or fuck off.
"RT clearly stated that this ratings are perfectly fine."
Wrong. The former editor in chief of the site has gone on record saying that, with first hand knowledge of how the site and its users work, he does not believe it should be taken seriously as an objective measure of audience reaction.
No Internet site of any kind that is based on anonymous user-generated content can, at any time, be taken seriously as such an objective measure, and only an idiot thinks otherwise. Let me hold you hand and explain why once again. (It will still probably go right over your head.)
1. Users can write reviews and make scores without having ever seen a film, and do so before the film has even been released. Scores for TLJ started appearing before the premier.
2. They can also make multiple accounts and vote more than once to up grade or down grade a score--people have admitted to doing this. It is cheating.
3. Groups with an agenda can organize via social media to do both 1 and 2, making their influence on ratings and reviews grotesquely and unrealistically exaggerated from the reality of what most ordinary ticket buyers think. This is has been bragged about by people who have done this very thing in the case of TLJ.
4. Internet users, who have no accountability, have a bad habit of idiotically exaggerating ratings rather than making a measured, intelligent response. When you look at ratings on the IMDB, for instance, there are a completely unreasonable number of 10's and 1's given to all kinds of movies. Those ratings should be incredibly rare. Critics, who have names and reputations to defend (as well as more academic training in film studies) and who see and think about more movies than anonymous users, are a much saner, rational pool from which to get reasonable data.
5. User ratings are self-generated by motivated users rather than random samples of the population. This fact alone disqualifies them as any reliable measure of what audiences really think.
"Ha, so you can't! You can't even say anything nice about it either."
The film stands by itself with impressive critical acclaim. It needs no defense. I would refer you to any of the many positive reviews which contributed to its 90% fresh Rotten Tomatoes status if you want to see the consensus about what works in the film. Right now you haven't risen to the point of deserving anything more from me.
What you losers need to do, which you can't, is articulate what is wrong with it, citing evidence from the film itself and thinking rationally about that evidence. Then, and only then, would I need to come to the film's defense, assuming you don't partially or fully convince me you are right. Go ahead. Try me.
"I suspect you don't even like it. You just don't want to admit it. "
You are welcome to your tinfoil hat delusions. I prefer reality.
"Great work MagneticMonopole, keep lapping up this bilge because you're told to like it. Good boy."
Nobody is telling anyone to like this movie, though I seem to see a lot of losers telling people they should hate it. The fact of the matter is that Rian Johnson is a smart artist with wisdom and integrity, he did a very good (but not great) job, and I, unlike you folks, have the good taste to appreciate it. Now go cry some more.
"I literally have a thread asking for someone to defend this film and nobody has yet. Nobody."
If you could put together an intelligent, articulate argument for why the movie sucks, maybe you would deserve a response. But you people don't--you're just a bunch of idiotic cry-babies with a disturbing number of sexist pigs and racists among you. That's why I'm happy you are pissed at the movie. You don't deserve the franchise.
As I've said before, there are a lot of things that annoy me about the movie that Rian Johnson could have done better, starting with about 20 -25 wasted minutes on the casino planet. But the good far outweighs the bad, as the positive critical reception the film has received shows.
"I notice all you manage to do is to insult people who disagree with you. "
In other words, you only notice what is convenient for you to notice and ignore everything else. Got it.
"Its the worst reviewed by the ones which pay for the tickets and are the base of KKs and Disneys profit."
Sorry, cupcake, but even the people who run sites like Rotten Tomatoes have publicly admitted that the scores there are absolutely unreliable sources of information about true audience reception. We live in a world where people have bragged about using social media to organize efforts to artificially drive down the scores for this movie, so your data is pure shit.
Meanwhile, the Cinemascore, done on randomly selected ordinary people who have just seen the movie and only get to vote once, is solid. And the audiences I've seen the film with have applauded every time at the end.
But it's already established that idiots like you have no interest in objective reality, so you are welcome to your delusions. I think it is great that the Star Wars franchise is shedding morons like you. The next one will still make tons of money, since the loss of a few mindless pipsqueaks won't matter.
No don't watch him, sensitive little snowflake.
"Please argue how the legacy and accomplishments of the OT aren't ruined. "
Please articulate how they are and why anyone should share your views. It is up to you--this is your thread based on your assertions.
"Please speak to the differences between the female and male characters, particularly Luke and Leah."
All I need to say is that if the genders of all the characters were swapped there is a 100% guarantee you wouldn't have seen an agenda of any kind, because all would have been right in your world. No rational, mentally balanced, un-sexist person has the slightest issue with how gender was treated in the latest Star Wars films.
"For Star Wars TLJ though, many of the issues are not in dispute. . ."
What a joke of a claim. The first three "issues" aren't even remotely reasonable complaints. The only one that you could make a strong case for is "Plotting failures that have little buildup and ultimately lead nowhere" (i.e., the gambling planet plot), and I've even read some intelligent defense of THAT.