A Wrinkle in Time (DuVernay 2018)...

[Irish]

I know you don't care, but are you kidding? Culture writing is already relentlessly positive because everybody wants to be liked and everybody is selling something.

Why would you want to hear from anyone with a wobbly sense of integrity? Or who didn't respect the filmmakers enough to tell the truth? Or who was mostly interested in placating their readers?

It sounds like you'd rather read press releases than film criticism.

[Watashi]

I'd honestly rather see a failed ambitious project like A Wrinkle in Time than a bland shot-for-shot remake of an animated film.

I'm looking forward to it. I hope it's critical failures doesn't scare Disney away into adding more live-action adaptations to the release schedule.

[Skitch]

It sounds like you'd rather read press releases than film criticism.

Not at all. I'm saying there's not the slightest lack of people online waiting to shit on every film. Likewise to the ridiculous extreme, are you suggesting that if you don't hear piles and piles of hate from every source they lack credibility?

[Irish]

I'd honestly rather see a failed ambitious project like A Wrinkle in Time than a bland shot-for-shot remake of an animated film.

Absolutely agree.

I'm saying there's not the slightest lack of people online waiting to shit on every film.

Nobody is talking about the response from the rank and file. We're talking about professional critics.

[transmogrifier]

....if you don't hear piles and piles of hate from every source, they lack credibility?

TIL I do not lack credibility.

[Skitch]

Nobody is talking about the response from the rank and file. We're talking about professional critics.

A voice that since the internet, regular people care less and less about. Only people like us care what critics think. We are a minority, as evidenced by the box office, time and time again.

Look all I'm saying is I don't care if a critic chooses to skip publishing a negative review. Most critics are forced to watch everything, and I don't care who you are, not every film is for everyone. No film critic has a desire to see every film.

Edit: I care way more about what you have to say about a film than any paid critic.

[transmogrifier]

I find that "professional critics," such that they are, have become increasingly hive-mindish as time passes; with instantaneous reactions to movies commonplace now, nuanced or conflicting takes on movies are quickly washed away in the avalanche of critical consensus (which seems to be less and less about actual cinematic artistry and story-telling skill and more and more centered on cultural representation, references to past cinematic artistry, and basic meta-ness), with the added bonus that any conflicting takes that arrive later can be dismissed as a backlash and ignored. Even on here, which is a pretty reasonable place - even when you are all wrong (The Last Jedi and Black Panther are just bad films, front to back) - many love to dismiss negative takes as being evidence of crankdom or backlash. Thus perpetuating the hive mind.

[MadMan]

Unless TLJ and Black Panther are not bad films imo...never change, trans.

[MadMan]

I'd honestly rather see a failed ambitious project like A Wrinkle in Time than a bland shot-for-shot remake of an animated film.

I'm looking forward to it. I hope it's critical failures doesn't scare Disney away into adding more live-action adaptations to the release schedule.

I fully agree with you, Wats. Feels weird to post that.

[MadMan]

This is all I see now...

That is hilarious.

[Watashi]

I find that "professional critics," such that they are, have become increasingly hive-mindish as time passes; with instantaneous reactions to movies commonplace now, nuanced or conflicting takes on movies are quickly washed away in the avalanche of critical consensus (which seems to be less and less about actual cinematic artistry and story-telling skill and more and more centered on cultural representation, references to past cinematic artistry, and basic meta-ness), with the added bonus that any conflicting takes that arrive later can be dismissed as a backlash and ignored. Even on here, which is a pretty reasonable place - even when you are all wrong (The Last Jedi and Black Panther are just bad films, front to back) - many love to dismiss negative takes as being evidence of crankdom or backlash. Thus perpetuating the hive mind.

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself this trans.

[Irish]

I find that "professional critics," such that they are, have become increasingly hive-mindish as time passes; with instantaneous reactions to movies commonplace now, nuanced or conflicting takes on movies are quickly washed away in the avalanche of critical consensus (which seems to be less and less about actual cinematic artistry and story-telling skill and more and more centered on cultural representation, references to past cinematic artistry, and basic meta-ness), with the added bonus that any conflicting takes that arrive later can be dismissed as a backlash and ignored.

Agreed. Social media exacerbates the problem but: Most critics are stringers and stringers can't be too contrary without fear of losing the gig.

(I think the profession died when U.S. pubs fired their staff writers and traded arts criticism for celebrity news. It's become a world of Buzzfeed Entertainment over nextgen Roger Eberts or Gene Siskels.)

[transmogrifier]

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself this trans.

Case in point. When I explained why I didn't like Black Panther, your first and only response was to ask why I watch Marvel movies. And here you are again, doing exactly the same thing, only now in pictorial form.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Regarding the online criterati, I'll repost what I said a little over a year ago:

...one of the most salient points is the one you've all raised - that all these author bylines say, "Has been watching movies for 10 years" or whatever - is probably the biggest issue I see with film analysis/blogging/reviewing (and a lot of cultural refraction), which is that there's no sense of discipline or pedigree or even that a critic has "paid their dues." This in large part comes from the fact that the internet has enabled anyone with a voice and sufficient time to bust out these analyses/blogs/reviews (I should know, I have a blog in my signature). It is more important to build your brand than it is to develop the talent you're trying to sell.

I've honestly been bewildered by the social media victories of video reviewers like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckman, which is tangentially related since they're video reviewers, but they're maybe related to this whole kooky dynamic, because if you actually listen to them (as opposed to passively digesting and waiting for keywords like "I liked [X element]"), they have almost nothing interesting to say. Similarly, there's this enormous groundswell of Rotten Tomatoes reviewers who've emerged out of the nether regions of pop-cult media sites, none of whom, again, seem to be speaking with any degree of concision, maturity, or insight.

[Grouchy]

Case in point. When I explained why I didn't like Black Panther, your first and only response was to ask why I watch Marvel movies. And here you are again, doing exactly the same thing, only now in pictorial form.

Well, it is a bit weird that you rush to see them because you've already seen eighteen of them and by your own admission you haven't really enjoyed any of them. You're entitled to think they're all bad, of course, but it does make me wonder what your drive to watch films actually is.

Unlike most people on this site, I have a skeptical attitude towards film criticism. Of course Kael, Ebert, the Cahiers crew, Spoto, Wood, etc. were great and expanded many people's understanding of the medium. But most film critics "with credentials" have very little worthy thoughts to offer besides snark and convoluted sentences. Even Ebert had appalling moments where he seemed to pretend not to understand a film or re-told the plot in confusing ways. On the other hand, some critics "without credentials" like that MovieBob guy, are actually extremely intelligent and articulate. Most of them aren't, of course.

[transmogrifier]

The most annoying thing with the semi-professional film criticism community and the hardcore film fan communities is their total lack of self-awareness. While they are pumping out endless articles or posts criticizing cry-baby Star Wars fanboys, or fuddy-duddy Academy members, or woman-hating Ghostbusters trolls as various forms of groupthink critical thought, they seem incapable of appreciating that they themselves are as susceptible to developing their own insular modes of thinking and rejecting anything that challenges that thinking - and maybe even more so, given that their entire profession revolves around intense communication with each other in print and in person.

I mean, the mechanism behind it is pretty easy to understand. Critics can come to enjoy a movie for whatever reasons they like, but for me hive minds start with how groups respond to conflicting ideas. Once they start dismissing them out of hand as an inherent problem with the person making them (as Wats loves to do), then those conflicting thoughts start to become less salient, and then the group is free to start embracing the process of developing homogeneity in thought by starting to align their REASONS for liking or supporting something, as opposed to simply sharing a common interest. So we get a situation now where Rian Johnson can throw in allusions to Kurosawa and many critics deem this to be “A Good Thing” with very few actually making any argument for why the simple act of referencing another film/filmmaker is worthy of praise. (I’m sure some have, but many do not, and could not. Much like asking your typical rank and file voter to explain why immigration is good or bad - some could articulate a position, but many just accept that it is good/bad and that is the extent of their consideration.)

[transmogrifier]

Well, it is a bit weird that you rush to see them because you've already seen eighteen of them and by your own admission you haven't really enjoyed any of them. You're entitled to think they're all bad, of course, but it does make me wonder what your drive to watch films actually is..

(a) Off the top of my head, at least 7 of them I’ve rated 60+, which is positive, so it’s not my own admission at all, (b) my wife likes them, (c) I like to participate in cinematic conversations, and Marvel is at the center of mainstream big budget cinema.

But that aside, why is it on me to justify what I watch beyond the fact my views are often different from the general consensus? Is it because you assume I do it to explicitly hate them so that I can get attention? As if it were some, I don’t know, personal flaw I have?

[Irish]

On the other hand, some critics "without credentials" like that MovieBob guy, are actually extremely intelligent and articulate.

Dude. C'mon. MovieBob's entire head is made of potato.

(c) I like to participate in cinematic conversations, and Marvel is at the center of mainstream big budget cinema.

I feel like this point is a big consumerist trap ("FOMO," etc) and I've consciously been trying to ween myself off it.

[Skitch]

, (b) my wife likes them,

Not that you have to explain it in the first place, but this strain of conversation stops at this point for me. I totally understand.

[Watashi]

trans, I think you are mistaking that analyzing the importance of cultural representation, callbacks/references is somehow replacing the discussion of cinematic artistry rather than being a companion topic in relation of it. Shoddy CGI rhinos aside, the overwhelming consensus (semi-professional or professional) is that Black Panther is a well-directed and paced film regardless of the cultural impact it has. While you disagree, I don't see why you need position yourself as a pariah able to break through the hivemind of Disney shills lapping up everything for easy clicks. What makes YOU so different? Even you state that critics you admire are loving the film, so why do you care so much? What are your stakes in all of this if you constantly feel in the minority of "cinematic conversations."

[Watashi]

I see you on letterboxd a lot, trans. Where do you mostly get your critical analysis from?

I've been saying this before, but a lot of the best criticism out there has pivoted to podcasts. Do you listen to any of those?

[Watashi]

A lot of online critic circles are extremely cliquey and toxic. They sneer and bully other circles. Even though I find you totally bonkers, trans, I still respect and appreciate your input, unlike what a majority of critics do to each other.

[Ezee E]

No idea where that thought of it beating Black Panther came from. Early projections are $35 million.

[transmogrifier]

(a) While you disagree, I don't see why you need position yourself as a pariah able to break through the hivemind of Disney shills lapping up everything for easy clicks.

(b) What makes YOU so different?

(c) Even you state that critics you admire are loving the film, (d) so why do you care so much? (e) What are your stakes in all of this if you constantly feel in the minority of "cinematic conversations."

(a) I'm not positioning myself as anything. It is you positioning me by outright claiming I am out of touch and that I should not be watching Marvel movies. Simply because I don't like some of them or a Star Wars film.

(b) I will tell people I think their opinion on a specific film is misguided, but I hope that I don't come out and straight-up insult them for it (like Pop Trash telling me that I don't know anything about cinema. Again, because I didn't like Jedi.)

(c) I don't admire any critics. I follow a bunch on Letterboxd because there are some good recommendations for older films.

(d) Because I think online film critics are hypocritical in how they often move together (in general; obviously they are not in lock-step) and think similar things and have similar tastes yet will attack other fanbases for doing the same thing. And I think there has been a slow and steady decline in looking at movies in terms of storytelling and mise-en-scene in favor of politics, overly rigid auteur championing, and trainspotting (i.e., references, trivial continuity within franchises, metaness). Just my opinion.

(e) I want to talk about movies and what I think makes them good or bad. Pretty simple, no? But at this point, if I say that I felt that the treatment of the Killmonger character in Black Panther belies an inability to grasp complexity in a villain given that they have to clumsily splice in scenes that depict blatantly evil actions (shooting his gf, destroying those plant-things-whatever) in order to smooth over his eventual comeuppance, I am just as likely to be told on here that I should stop watching Marvel movies or on a place like Reddit that I'm a picky hater who should just enjoy the film. That's what film discussion often devolves to.

[Dukefrukem]

For the record, I read every one of Tran's blurbs on Letterboxd and I would rather read his response to movies than a professional film critic.

I've been without power for the last few days, so this was an interesting discussion to read through.