Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:48 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
JB's absurd new habit 
Author Message
Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 2027
Post JB's absurd new habit
I think the "three better, three worse" thing JB does in reviews now is a bit of a buzz kill, and I suspect I'm not the only one. No one likes Armond White doing it, and he only does it once a year! Not three or four times for every single movie for three movies a week. Besides, when Armond does it, it's because he unconditionally likes one movie and dislikes the other. When you name 9 movies that you think are better than the one you just wrote a rave review for, I feel that takes away some of the potential excitement for the current film and takes away from the rave aspect. It's a borderline contradiction. When you love a movie, don't you want to focus on it a little? Who comes out of a movie saying, "that was amazing, and now I'm thinking about 10 movies even better!"

And he doesn't write anything about that. No explanation as to why X-Men Future Past is superior to Mad Max Fury Road even though he gave both the same rating. I just think it's silly for a critic to feel the need to essentially compile an exact ranking for every single one of the 10,000 movies or so that they've seen.

Why not just change his rating system to 1-10? Give Mad Max an 8 and X-Men a 9 or whatever.

To place good movies endlessly over and under each other is to me a completely cold, passionless response to movies. If you think a movie is good, why would you shit on it by ranking it below movies that are "better?"


Fri May 29, 2015 3:10 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 1017
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
MGamesCook wrote:
I think the "three better, three worse" thing JB does in reviews now is a bit of a buzz kill, and I suspect I'm not the only one. No one likes Armond White doing it, and he only does it once a year! Not three or four times for every single movie for three movies a week. Besides, when Armond does it, it's because he unconditionally likes one movie and dislikes the other. When you name 9 movies that you think are better than the one you just wrote a rave review for, I feel that takes away some of the potential excitement for the current film and takes away from the rave aspect. It's a borderline contradiction. When you love a movie, don't you want to focus on it a little? Who comes out of a movie saying, "that was amazing, and now I'm thinking about 10 movies even better!"

And he doesn't write anything about that. No explanation as to why X-Men Future Past is superior to Mad Max Fury Road even though he gave both the same rating. I just think it's silly for a critic to feel the need to essentially compile an exact ranking for every single one of the 10,000 movies or so that they've seen.

Why not just change his rating system to 1-10? Give Mad Max an 8 and X-Men a 9 or whatever.

To place good movies endlessly over and under each other is to me a completely cold, passionless response to movies. If you think a movie is good, why would you shit on it by ranking it below movies that are "better?"


Well I do not take it as serious as you are. It's more than a guide rather than a serious analysis for me

It can get even funny some times like when you read: "there is not worse movies of "particular actor or actress" lol

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Fri May 29, 2015 3:30 am
Profile WWW
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 583
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
I wonder how much he actively picks those or whether he leaves it up to an algorithm. It would be pretty easy to set up such a query against his database. (I suspect that's the case because in his one-star review for Hot Pursuit, a couple of the "worse movies in this genre" were 2.5 star rated Date Night and 21 Jump Street. If those were conscious decisions on JB's part, then he got some 'splaining to do. I suspect it's an error in his code somewhere.)


Fri May 29, 2015 8:58 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3820
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
Yes that's one new addition to the site that seems kind of pointless.


Fri May 29, 2015 1:04 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 pm
Posts: 53
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
Meh, it's likely just a way to increase traffic to his site through providing links to other older reviews that you normally would not go to otherwise.


Fri May 29, 2015 9:15 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:00 am
Posts: 34
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
If he didn't carry so many personal bias to certain series, or actors, it would be easier to read the content. I'm not going to even bother reading his reviews when the next Star Wars movie comes out. Anyone giving a passing grade, let alone a high mark to the Phantom Menace is watching with fan-boy glasses. It's an automatic 3.5 to 4 stars when it's live action and Star Wars is part of the title. Hopefully with Abrams at the helm, we might actually get one worthy of that rating.


Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:50 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3820
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
Blockbuster46 wrote:
If he didn't carry so many personal bias to certain series, or actors, it would be easier to read the content. I'm not going to even bother reading his reviews when the next Star Wars movie comes out. Anyone giving a passing grade, let alone a high mark to the Phantom Menace is watching with fan-boy glasses. It's an automatic 3.5 to 4 stars when it's live action and Star Wars is part of the title. Hopefully with Abrams at the helm, we might actually get one worthy of that rating.

Strongly disagree, people are allowed to like Phantom Menace ya know, doesn't automatically mean JB has "fanboy glasses", that's utter nonsense.


Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:13 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:02 pm
Posts: 263
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
Blockbuster46 wrote:
If he didn't carry so many personal bias to certain series, or actors, it would be easier to read the content. I'm not going to even bother reading his reviews when the next Star Wars movie comes out. Anyone giving a passing grade, let alone a high mark to the Phantom Menace is watching with fan-boy glasses. It's an automatic 3.5 to 4 stars when it's live action and Star Wars is part of the title. Hopefully with Abrams at the helm, we might actually get one worthy of that rating.


Your statement above is implying that critics or reviewers have some form of objective standard to judge movies, which is a dubious assumption. Every critic or reviewer has a personal bias based on their likes/dislikes, and part of writing a review is to explain their likes/dislikes & biases as it pertains to the film their reviewing.

JB has done a good job over the years of being honest about his preferences. If those preferences are not your own, you are more than fine to hold differing opinions.


Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:33 pm
Profile
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 38
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
The program is pretty glitchy too. I've noticed a few times that better or worse movies in the same genre are not of the same genre, or even close. But one glitch in reading the review of Jurassic World today served to amuse with the "worse movies of Bryce Dallas Howard" including "Manderlay (1969)". 1969? Bryce Howard? Her Dad was only one year removed from playing Oppy in 1969.


Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:16 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:52 am
Posts: 164
Post Re: JB's absurd new habit
Johann Bach wrote:
The program is pretty glitchy too. I've noticed a few times that better or worse movies in the same genre are not of the same genre, or even close. But one glitch in reading the review of Jurassic World today served to amuse with the "worse movies of Bryce Dallas Howard" including "Manderlay (1969)". 1969? Bryce Howard? Her Dad was only one year removed from playing Oppy in 1969.

There's another "glitch" like that in the Avengers: Age of Ultron review: "Three... better movies of Scarlett Johansson: ... Manny & Lo (1969)".

I emailed James about it weeks ago and received no response.


Tue Jun 16, 2015 11:09 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr