Conchaga
Let's fuck some shit up
I've never been a fan of ANY movie critic. I think they're all stuffed-shirted, self-titled movie buffs who have an opinion just like the rest of us. The problem with movie critics is that they hand the mob the answer on what to think of a film. Which means that we don't have to think for ourselves. For the most part, everyone agrees with them with little or no dissention.
Example: "Ebert and Roper gave the film two thumbs up, therefore I must go see it and like it; because who am I to argue with a 'professional' critic?"
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the critic critics. These are the ones who criticize the critics criticizms. The best part of a critics' critic is that he/she debunks the mainstream mob mentality and forces a person to judge based upon their own asthetic ideals.
Furthermore, if you don't like someone's opinion of something, form your own. Instead of flaming them for not agreeing with you and your mob. Frankly, I enjoy when a person dissents and forms a different opinion than that of the mob. Even if I think that what they have to say is the most asenine thing in the world, I appreciate their individuality and honesty in discussing their tastes.
Take the current debate in this thread. Marquis De Sade, MessengerX, and I have a somewhat different opinion of the new Batman film than what the rest of the mainstream have. It's not that we completely hated the new movie. It's that we just don't agree with the pre-ascribed notion that since it's new and "avant-garde" it is necessarily "good" or "better" than the rest.
Take the following advertising quote for example:
"Ten million Americans agree that X is the best movie they've ever seen."
Where X = what they're plugging.
Just because ten million assholes liked it, doesn't necessarly mean it's a good film or that I'm going to enjoy it. It just means that ten million assholes share the same zombified, drooling-at-the-mouth, conformist opinion.
Finally, for the philosophical crowd, take the following statement and analyze it. "Ten million Americans can't be wrong." What is inherently skewed about that statement?
Example: "Ebert and Roper gave the film two thumbs up, therefore I must go see it and like it; because who am I to argue with a 'professional' critic?"
On the opposite end of the spectrum are the critic critics. These are the ones who criticize the critics criticizms. The best part of a critics' critic is that he/she debunks the mainstream mob mentality and forces a person to judge based upon their own asthetic ideals.
Furthermore, if you don't like someone's opinion of something, form your own. Instead of flaming them for not agreeing with you and your mob. Frankly, I enjoy when a person dissents and forms a different opinion than that of the mob. Even if I think that what they have to say is the most asenine thing in the world, I appreciate their individuality and honesty in discussing their tastes.
Take the current debate in this thread. Marquis De Sade, MessengerX, and I have a somewhat different opinion of the new Batman film than what the rest of the mainstream have. It's not that we completely hated the new movie. It's that we just don't agree with the pre-ascribed notion that since it's new and "avant-garde" it is necessarily "good" or "better" than the rest.
Take the following advertising quote for example:
"Ten million Americans agree that X is the best movie they've ever seen."
Where X = what they're plugging.
Just because ten million assholes liked it, doesn't necessarly mean it's a good film or that I'm going to enjoy it. It just means that ten million assholes share the same zombified, drooling-at-the-mouth, conformist opinion.
Finally, for the philosophical crowd, take the following statement and analyze it. "Ten million Americans can't be wrong." What is inherently skewed about that statement?