#by weirdest i mean hes my 'bias' if we want to use the ~terms~ | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cheeryfairygender · 3 years

Note

Oh, that's so swag about sharing a b-day with Nagisa! /gen /pos That's neat tbh /gen

In terms of Vocaloid/UTAUloid recommendations, I've currently been listening to Pyrite Girl and What Gave It Away, both songs made by R.I.P. (with Pyrite Girl originally sung by Kagamine Rin, and What Gave It Away originally sung by Otomachi Una) on loop. Oh, and if you ever wanna listen to some good Kasane Teto covers (and I genuinely mean good /gen), look no further than Tanjiro Taidana and their covers. They're an amazing ass UTAUloid song artist/tuner, and while they primarily use Teto, they also occasionally use other UTAUloids and even Vocaloids.

Yeah, buffalo wings can be spicy, heh. In terms of wings or the sauce of whatever food item, there's usually a mild option, a medium option, a hot option, and so forth (sometimes). Depending on that, they can be spicy. However, I have a tolerance with spicy food, as well as a huge love for spicy food, so I'm a bit bias in terms of if a certain food is spicy or not /lh However, I completely respect you not tending to not like spicy food! /gen /nm I get that it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Yeah, I can definitely understand your opinion on the artstyle. Looking at the examples you provided, it honestly makes complete sense /gen (not /s). And considering I've completed DRV3, yeah, it's kind of unique compared to the other two [main] games /neu

Oh, and as for the air fryer thing you mentioned in the tags, you can usually figure out how to use it+how to airfry certain things by looking it up! Just type in Google if you can airfry XYZ food, and it'll usually give the suggested temperature and time. I'm sure you can airfry sweet potato fries, as you can airfry regular French fries (whether they're frozen or from a fast food place)! /gen /nf I feel that sounds dumb and easier said than done, but if it makes you feel better, I didn't know how to use it at first for quite awhile /gen /lh (not /s)

Oh oh, and don't worry about not adding reply icons! It's all good /lh /gen /nm

TBH I want to like spicy food but it's a sensory issue for me because I can't tolerate the pain very well, and I don't like a lot of flavors of the actual food that has spice. But oddly enough, I like Japanese style curry. It's super good. Apparently as a little kid I liked spicy food though which makes it super weird I grew out of it. I really like sour food, though! I think the issue is that spice stays in your mouth even after eating, but sour goes away super fast (unless you injure your mouth/tongue from too much/too strong sour food).

I just generally don't like things with strong flavors...like, I don't even like how black pepper tastes. I tend to eat...bread. And sweet baked products. I usually just eat a lot of samefoods but my sister is an incredible cook so I eat whatever she makes when she cooks! Otherwise I just kinda graze on snacks.

Also I listened to the music and it's super interesting /positive, I like finding smaller vocal synth artists! Also yes yes I've heard Tanjiro before and he's GREAT at utauloid tuning. I feel like utauloids are often tuned better than vocaloids nowadays because you have to put in more effort to get them to sound good and it's easier to just put less work in for vocaloid.

Airfryers are just super intimidating IG I think we got ours for free from someone who didn't need it??

Also to make it clear I don't like...dislike v3? It's a cool game, it just doesn't satisfy the itch the first two games give me, which honestly makes sense. The original Danganronpa series ended on purpose--they reached a good end for it. V3 is kinda like a new beginning so you can't go into it wanting what the original series had. I feel like the graphics/art style for Danganronpa didn't age well with time. For the original games, it made a lot more sense considering when they came out and the consoles they were released on, but that kinda sloppy, eccentric style doesn't transfer well when there's a higher production value like v3 has I think.

I think the WEIRDEST thing is how...much worse the games got in terms of jokes/content. Like, the things about incest and any homophobia got way worse. Kaito says slurs against gay men/trans women in the Japanese version more than once, I think.

In SDR2, most characters are implied to be bi and wlw or mlm. There's less in DRTHH, but they're still there. The original games write queer characters subtly but in a very good way. You still have this subtle writing for v3 but they completely upped the explicit jokes to the point it isn't silly or funny...just uncomfortable. (Mikan, Teruteru, Kazuichi, Nagito, Hajime, Imposter, and Nekomaru are all implied to be queer off the top of my head. Makoto, Mondo, Taka, Chihiro, Hifumi, Mukuro, Junko, and Leon are all implied to be queer iirc as well.) Like with Leon in DRTHH, his cousin has romantic feelings for him, but he makes it SUPER clear he hates it and it makes him super uncomfortable. But then I think v3 just has straight up incest with the monokubs? I'm not sure if the other characters reacted uncomfortably to it or not, though. But just...the way the characters talk/the jokes they make totally changed. It's super odd to me. It really takes me out of it and it

I guess my main issue is the shift in how the characters act, less context for the behavior of the characters (like, DRTHH extends into SDR2, and vice versa. Each game lends into each other), transferal/execution of the Danganronpa style, as well as the user interface. The user interface is super busy and confusing for me.

Also, the characters are intense like usual but in a super weird way. Like...negatively? In DRTHH, they were all extreme in a way normal teens could be. Instead, they feel like...superheroes. Like, their whole talents are pushed too hard. In SDR2, they were still extreme but in an, again, rather normal way.

I just seriously love the characters though. I think it's a good game, but you can't play it and expect an experience like the original series. You can only really play it and do your best to not compare it at all.

#asks #mod hop #long post #hmm #incest mention #danganronpa spoilers #ndrv3 spoilers #drv3 spoilers #SORRY I HAVE. A LOT TO SAY. IM SUPER TALKATIVE

4 notes · View notes

staylovehearts · 4 years

Note

yes it's crazy right?? my ult is chan but minsung are a close second so i really feel u, i'm so bad at picking a bias :( you didn't tell me what was your favourite thing about each of them though!! i really hold chan close to my heart and i don't really consider my bias in a way? he's so special to me, if that makes sense. i hope you're having a great day/night and taking care of yourself!! are you currently a student or are you already working?? tell meeee -secret santa🤶

I’ll try to not make the whole school work thing confusing because I often find that with every country’s school system being so different and the terms also being different I often got mixed up when I try to explain what’s going on (like I’m European, I have no idea what the difference between college and university is, if there even is a difference at all, English is not my first language).

So basically I went to university for the last three years to get my Bachelor’s degree in English and American studies, I’ve submitted my thesis a couple of months ago but haven’t received my degree yet cause grading is taking forever. So atm I’m kinda doing this voluntary internship thing? Not sure if like this specific thing even exists outside of my country? But here it’s called FSJ (short for freiwilliges soziales Jahr aka voluntary social year) and basically, I’m working in this art school/arts centre/event location kinda place for a year and it’s really nice. But I plan to try and apply for a master’s degree next year once the whole situation with my bachelor is resolved^^

And omg I can’t believe I forgot about the most important part last time, I’ll put it under a cut again because I’m gonna ramble for a bit :D

Okay so I’ll try to just go through them one by one, starting with the youngest and then slowly working my way up to Chan

Jeongin is just incredibly cute. Not that that is the main thing about him, but it’s like one of the first things that come to mind when I think about him. I remember the first time I noticed his braces and I had this really strong protective feeling like omg he’s a child, a precious little baby, my literal son. Of course, he also has a really nice voice and I personally feel like out of all of them he made the biggest progress in term of skills?

Seungmin is actually someone I didn’t notice much at first but I really started to love him once I got to know their personalities a little more. Even though the fandom used to (?) joke about him being a savage I think he’s actually such a kind person. He’s incredibly sweet, maybe just likes teasing his friends but let’s be real, who doesn’t? (also, again, great voice, feel like I could just say that for all of them tho)

Felix is actually the first one I really noticed out of the bunch (I think a lot of Stays initially bias him from what I’ve seen so far?). Like he’s just this really adorable freckled kid and then that voice comes out of him and it’s like ??? Also I feel like I can just relate to him a lot? Watching his language struggles during the survival show was something I could understand really well. (And I feel like both of us are kinda meme influenced nerdy kids that spend too much time online xD)

Jisung, I don’t even know where to start with this one. Little fun fact, when my sister and I started watching the survival show we both agreed that somehow he had a similar face as Mark from Got7? No idea how we got there but we did? Either way, I think at first he really stood out to me because of how talented he is? Especially considering how young he is. Like he’s a rapper, but he did that amazing high note in Hellevator? And he writes lyrics and helps with composing and he’s still so young?? It’s insane how incredible he is. (also cute cheeks, uwu)

First thing I noticed about Hyunjin is that he is incredibly gorgeous. But I think what’s really amazing is that he is just so much more than just a pretty face and he works so hard to show that. I mean, please don’t get me wrong, but he could so easily lean back and have his looks work for him, he could easily be successful as a model or maybe drama actor but he works so hard to show people that there’s more to him and I just admire that so much. He’s an amazing dancer, watching him is so mesmerizing.

Changbin’s voice really stood out the first time I heard them all do that showcase performance. Like he just started rapping in this deep, straight from hell, rumbly voice and his whole appearance made him seem like this really edgy, mysterious dark bad boy archetype but he’s just not that at all??? Like he’s actually so funny and adorable in ways that I think are often even unintentional and he just seems so bubbly and full of joy sometimes. And it just feels like he refuses to limit himself to a fixed persona and just run with playing that grungy rapper archetype and that makes his such an interesting personality in my opinion.

So, I reached Minho and this is where it’s getting harder to word because omg, I have so many feelings about this guy. Okay, so I feel like, kinda the same as with Changbin, Minho kinda looks like he should be one thing, but isn’t afraid to act like the complete opposite. He could be a pretty boy but he’s actually so weird? Like in an incredibly funny way. He’s so witty, almost only posts selfies with silly filters and says the weirdest shit sometimes. Also, he seems really intelligent, like in a ‘thinking out of the box’ kinda way (remember when they did that escape room and he was just solving everything?). I also admire his passion, I think he always strives to improve himself and be a little better than last time, I think he’s really passionate about what he does which makes him just so genuine??

I think we both feel the same way about Chan, like I also see Chan as someone who is just very dear to me? It’s weird, but I think I relate to him the most. Like, we are around the same age, have a similar music taste and so on and so forth. I feel like in some alternate universe we could have probably been very good friends. He just seems like someone I could talk to, someone who’d understand. He’s also a very inspiring person, not only because of his incredible talent and how much he has accomplished at such a young age but he’s also said some things (especially during his live streams) that I thought were really touching and hit close to home for me :’)

Finally, I’m going to include Woojin as well. Even though he isn’t part of the team anymore and that’s something we’ll have to get used to I still feel it would be wrong to exclude him here. Okay, so obviously his voice is incredible. The first time I heard him sing I was like ah yes, a very nice voice for ballads. But actually, he has a very nice voice for everything??? He’s so versatile. And something about him just feels warm. His voice, his personality, just this whole aura he gives is somehow caring. I obviously have no way of knowing what happened and I don’t want to make assumptions, but I wish him the best :3

#talks #anon #secret santa #oh my god #i got kinda emotional towards the end #also don't mind the entire damn essay I typed out about how much I love all of them xD

1 note · View note

skeptic42 · 6 years

Text

Chickenshit tumblr

@saucinsaucin reblogged my post, then while responding to it, deleted it so I couldn’t reblog it. After accusing me of not having a CONVERSATION because he had a DIFFERENT OPINION.

Chickenshit hypocrite.

I at least copied my response when tumblr wouldn’t let me reblog.

Here it is:

Let me see if I got this right. You used an opinion piece (note the word Commentary from CNSnews)

It’s quite funny to read this. He does a lot of what you do, a lot of accusing of many things yet not much substance. Let’s look into this.

You:

a mistake that is only offensive to sensitive liberals

you wouldn’t know anything about that

You only research what you want to know, not what you don’t want to, as do all leftists.

all leftists only ARGUE and NEVER even have a CONVERSATION

I’d love to see your argument on gun control

So, all but the last are know as ad hominem attacks (the last being a red herring, I’ll get to that later). Instead of continuing the “conversation” with someone of who has a “different opinion,” you attacked me, even going so far as to accuse me of doing what you just did (”NEVER even hav[ing] a CONVERSATION.” Now, you’ve gone and “researched” using an opinion piece that starts out with:

“Many of them cannot find it within themselves to condemn this sordid moment.”

Now, this assumes immediately nefarious motives because Sanger talked to a group of racists. (This is s group that today supports Trump, so what does that say about Trump - who really didn’t reject it - and conservatives in general? Note that the source is from the UK, which does not have a vested interest, i.e. biased, in US politics. Where as you’ve sourced a bias pundit.) Mind you, she found the experience “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.” But she did call them “a good group.” What exactly did she mean by that? Well, to you and all anti-abortionists that means she endorsed racism. But you’re misinterpreting things from your biased perspective and not hers. She looked to provide birth control to women, she didn’t care about race of creed, it was a health issue. In those days it was still fairly common for women to die in childbirth, because, you see, how advanced as are today in medicine, we weren’t back then. It was common for children to die in childhood from many diseases we immunize against today, just as it was more common to die during childbirth. This would disproportionately affect the poor the worst, often resulting in children going into foster care or orphanages, which were horrid back then. They were often run by the catholic church, and as have found out in recent time, they were abused sexually, mentally, and physically by the very people who were “caring” for the children.

But moving on...

CNSNews.com was founded by Media Research Center which claims a liberal media bias. This ignores the massive number of conservative pundits and other sources like Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, National Review, The Washington Times, the Federalist, Drudge Report, Blaze, The Hill and a many, many more.

Media Research Center’s mission is to “ neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive ‘so-called’ objective reporting.” This sounds noble. I’m all for countering bias in the news. But I’m all for countering all bias in the news. Your sourcing a group that is for countering some bias in the news, but not others. MRC is not, nor has never been, about accurate unbiased reporting.

Which is possible. There are good sources out there on both the left and the right that are reputable (WSJ, Bloomberg), but many that are not (Fox News, Alternet, CNN). But when someone sets out to counter a single thing (left bias in the news), they have a huge blind spot, which is known as the Right-wing.

But, now that I have a sense of who and what I’m dealing with, let’s move on...

After reading the account, since the author was kind enough to post directly from Sanger’s 1939 biography (I’ll assume it wasn’t altered, and believe I am correct), I’m not sure what the author’s point was. He brings out attention to the words “hysteria”, “aroused,” and “weirdest.” He states, “ those words (I believe) actually further make the case against Sanger.“ Strange. And, “ They demonstrate that she knew that this was an extreme group. She clearly is intimidated somewhat. In fact, note Sanger’s comment about letting her family know that she hadn’t been thrown into the river. This suggests she understood that this was a rather violent group, right? What gave her that hint? The illuminated crosses? The KKK’s history of lynching black people? “

Now let’s look at this. She’s dealing with an isolated group. It is a weird encounter, they are an extreme group. Hysteria could mean a lot back then. Women who enjoyed sex were considered hysterical. Overall, the encounter doesn’t support the argument that Sanger was racist. She spoke to a group in the simplest terms to convey her message. This is known as educating people. But Dr. Paul Kengor either misses this point of Sanger’s strange encounter or thinks that educating people is wrong, which would be ironic from a professor.

Note that educating people regardless of affiliation doesn’t make you one of them, neither does talking to them. They invited her to learn what she had to say. She doesn’t use the word abortion, she talks around it, in order to get her message across without arousing a negative reaction.

He then later goes on to support his argument by using the opinion (key word) of other people including Martin Luther King Jr’s niece.

But not Martin Luther King himself, who accepted an award from Planned Parenthood. Do you not find that strange? I put more weight into the actions of Martin Luther King Jr than the opinion of his niece.

“Was Sanger plotting to eliminate all blacks? Of course, not.” At least he understands this, you don’t seem to. “But she was plotting to control the reproduction of blacks and of the human race generally.” Now we come to the heart of his bias. He claims this is about racial control. While ignoring that Sanger “started the Negro Project to bring birth-control information and clinics to impoverished southern African-Americans,” but totally missing the point that it was a health issue. Women were dying and being more and more impoverished due to out of control birth rates.

Dr. Paul Kengor, so smart, yet so dumb.

Planned Parenthood Exposed appears to be down. I went to the Internet Archive and saw that the last snapshot was 11 July.

Again. Another biased source. Given the problem with the fake fetus for sale tactic, I’m rather dubious of this source or anything it has to say. I would require independent outside verification of any information you wish to show from them.

I’ve given you over an hour and a half. Now, making me late for work. But I will finish with the...

Red Herring

Red herrings are often used to distract from the actual argument, but also to twist the conversation in some fashion.

As for my argument on gun control:

May 25, 2018: Noblesville West Middle School shooting

May 18, 2018: Mount Zion High School, Santa Fe High School shooting

May 16, 2018: Dixon High School

May 11, 2018: Highland High School

April 20, 2018: Forest High School

April 12, 2018: South Middle School

And hundreds of other school shootings (This does not include non-school shootings) Not every school shooting makes the news.

Hundreds upon hundreds of dead children. If that isn’t enough to get you to understand that we need a better balance between gun ownership and gun responsibility, then nothing can convince you. I’d be wasting my time just as I did researching and responding to your tripe.

Is it ironic to save a child’s life from abortion only to hand them a gun so they can shoot and kill another non-aborted child?

1 note · View note

kristablogs · 4 years

Text

Thank syphilis for these three major fashion trends

The category is: Syphilis. (Public Domain/)

What’s the weirdest thing you learned this week? Well, whatever it is, we promise you’ll have an even weirder answer if you listen to PopSci’s hit podcast. The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week hits Apple, Anchor, and everywhere else you listen to podcasts every-other Wednesday morning. It’s your new favorite source for the strangest science-adjacent facts, figures, and Wikipedia spirals the editors of Popular Science can muster. If you like the stories in this post, we guarantee you’ll love the show.

FACT: Syphilis may have had a major impact on fashion

By Rachel Feltman

Syphilis, while nothing to be ashamed of, is not what you’d call a glamorous condition. It starts with painless sores followed by a rash, but left untreated by antibiotics, the disease’s tertiary phase can cause unsightly bulbous growths, necrotizing ulcers, and hair loss, not to mention more pressing concerns like heart and neurological damage. According to some scholars, these unfortunate side effects didn’t necessarily leave sufferers cowering in the shadows—in some cases, fashion may have evolved to help hide the signs of late-stage syphilis.

The most commonly cited example of this is the powdered wig, which didn’t become the sign of polite society we see in period films until the influence of King Louis XIV of France. Historians note that the wigs were of middling popularity until this young king began to doff them during the 17th century. Louis XIV started to lose his hair around age 17, so it’s not surprising that he turned wigs into a fashion trend. But it’s quite possible that his hair loss—and perhaps that of his cousin, King Charles II of England, who also loved a good powdered wig—was due to syphilis. In any case, the royal love of fussy wigs provided a great cover for the truly countless number of syphilis patients running around Europe at the time.

Another, slightly more controversial theory: That codpieces served to mask the otherwise suspicious bulge created by medicated bandages wrapped around genital sores. Not all historians buy this notion, and the codpiece’s remarkably short-lived period of popularity means we know precious little about them. Too bad shoving stuff down your pants didn’t stick around.

Finally, our third potential syphilitic fashion moment: Sunglasses. Because, well, where else are you going to put your fake nose? Listen to this week’s episode to find out more.

FACT: Italians invented the quarantine as we know it

By Eleanor Cummins

Religious leaders, country doctors, and public health officials have been isolating the sick to stop the spread disease for thousands of years. Leviticus, for example, describes the Mosaic law of isolation, which involved a rabbi checking in on the sick at periodic intervals until they (hopefully) recovered.

But the modern idea of “quarantine” comes from the Venetians, who in 1377, decided to isolate ships and their crews for 30 days to stop the spread of the Black Death. The idea was that if everyone aboard lived, they weren’t agents of disease and could come on shore. And if everyone aboard died, well… what can you do? Eventually, the Venetians extended this period to 40 days, which in the Venetian dialect is “quaranta giorni,” the term from which we get “quarantine.”

Things have changed since then. People aren’t typically stranded at sea—though the coronavirus cruise ships are a recent exception. And patients receive medical care in isolation. But the practice of quarantine has remained popular, from Hawaiian leper colonies to the treatment of New York City’s Typhoid Mary. And it’s not always applied fairly: as we’re seeing with the coronavirus today, racial bias often seeps in.

FACT: To some people, cilantro tastes like soap, cat urine, or even Christmas trees—but why?

By Claire Maldarelli

Not all food is created equal, especially as far as our taste buds are concerned. When I first learned that Julia Child had mentioned in a 2010 interview that she hated cilantro so much that she would pick it out of a restaurant meal and “throw it on the ground,” I knew the herb was worth investigating.

To me, cilantro tastes like bland little leaves. But as it turns out, to some people, the herb resembles anything from dirty feet to soapy water. In fact, the garnish conjures such ill will in folks that there’s a defunct-website-turned-Facebook-group aptly named ihatecilantro.com that, among other methods of herb-bashing, posts haikus expressing ill will towards this garnish.

Below is an enticing sampling, but be sure to listen to this week’s episode to hear a full rundown of how a combination of genetics and neuroscience can put a benign garnish onto an herb garden’s most wanted list.

Soak your dirty feet / In lemon water and drink. / Tastes like cilantro

Cilantro you stink / You taste like a Christmas tree / In my burrito.

If you like The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week, please subscribe, rate, and review us on Apple Podcasts. You can also join in the weirdness in our Facebook group and bedeck yourself in Weirdo merchandise from our Threadless shop.

0 notes

scootoaster · 4 years

Text

Thank syphilis for these three major fashion trends

The category is: Syphilis. (Public Domain/)

FACT: Syphilis may have had a major impact on fashion

By Rachel Feltman

Finally, our third potential syphilitic fashion moment: Sunglasses. Because, well, where else are you going to put your fake nose? Listen to this week’s episode to find out more.

FACT: Italians invented the quarantine as we know it

By Eleanor Cummins

FACT: To some people, cilantro tastes like soap, cat urine, or even Christmas trees—but why?

By Claire Maldarelli

Soak your dirty feet / In lemon water and drink. / Tastes like cilantro

Cilantro you stink / You taste like a Christmas tree / In my burrito.

0 notes

jb-blaq · 5 years

Text

Why do People Hate Critic?

“I hate critics.” You’ve heard someone say that before a right? Of course, you have. Next to lawyer or debt collector there's not another job that screams self-important pretentious jerk more than a professional critic, particularly when it comes to popular culture like movies or music. It's easy to understand why. “I don't need someone to tell me whether something is good or not, I'm smart.” “What makes a critic more qualified than me to write a review?” “All that is, is their opinion.” “Everybody's a Critic.” Everybody's a Critic is a fascinating phrase it is a smug dismissal of the perceived smugness of someone doing their job. But this resentment is not one-sided just as the general audience seems to hate critics because of the perceived inherent egotism of their job; critics resent audiences for not appreciating the hard work that goes into their craft. It's no secret that traditional critics are dying. Nowadays most websites are putting insane restrictions on their critic's reviews, and reviews themselves don't bring in nearly as much as the typical lowbrow bargain-basement celebrity gossip story “Ebert”. This mutual critic audience animosity has always existed but in the last couple of decades, it seems to be supercharged. Nowadays it seems like no one has any respect for critics, I believe the Springs from a misunderstanding of a critics purpose. Yes, some critics job is to inform their readership of their opinion on whichever movie they happened to see and persuade you into agreeing with them. But that’s not the job of all critics and this misunderstanding leads to a lot of frustration on both critic and audiences side.

The last critic to be widely known and respected was Roger Ebert this is largely because of his 1986 show At the Movies “In Memoriam: Roger Ebert (1942-2013)”. At the Movies was a very simple show, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert would watch the latest movies and discuss/reviewed and at the end of their conversations they’d give the movie a thumbs up or down. The formula of the show proved to be very popular but the real selling point was the two personalities of the host; Gene Siskel, was a bit more of a snob when it came to his reviewing style valuing content execution in his films while Roger Ebert was a lot more forgiving of films more prominent flaws if it did something unique, memorable or exciting “Martin”. These two personalities bounced off each other in very entertaining ways and it was a hit with audiences, even after Gene Siskel tragically passed away due to cancer they kept At the Movies running. They brought in Richard Roeper who was considered fine but just didn't live up to Siskel.

Roger Ebert developed cancer in his cervical glands that required his lower jaw to be removed. Most people would retire after an event like this but Ebert's passion for reviewing would not allow that. While he couldn't do his show anymore he continued writing reviews all the way up until his death in 2013. Up to Ebert's death, he was always taken seriously as a Critic always respected and always trusted by the public, a privilege most critics can only dream of nowadays. This can be contributed to him having a larger platform the most critic’s, being on TV. Even then there were other televised critics before during and after At the Movies whose careers were nowhere near as successful so there has to be more to it?

Another part of it might be that Roger was a slightly more unconventional critic for his time, Ebert was one of the few critics of his day to be a fan of the blockbuster. The blockbuster as a term was invented after the unprecedented success of Jaws, no one expected a shark movie with a dangerously high budget for the time, $9 million, to make its money back in the summer season which at the time was thought to be a dead zone when it came to releasing movies. But after Jaws came out and became the highest grossing movie of all time that taught Hollywood a lesson, it wasn’t that you can’t release movies in summer it that you need to release the right type of movies “Keogh”. The reason audiences didn't go to see movies in the summer was that the type of movie, studios were releasing were serious-minded Dramas and Art House films that the majority of average filmgoers don't want to watch over summer. so after Jews film studios started to release their major movies during the summertime things like Star Wars, E.T. or Ghostbusters. Movies that had a wide appeal and are now considered classics by many including most critics. But back then a lot of these movies were looked down upon by a large percentage of film critics. In some critical circles saying a film felt like a Steven Spielberg movie was considered an insult. Ebert was nothing like this he enjoyed risk-taking in his films he wasn't some critic who would give a thumbs-up to every predictable drama he saw. As such he had an easier time moving into the Blockbuster dominated film industry of the modern era. It’s not like Ebert was some pushover who gave a good review to everything, that can be seen in his book I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie which collects over 200 reviews of him tearing into movies he thinks are terrible. “Stargate is like a film school exercise. Assignment: Conceive of the weirdest plot you can think of, and reduce it as quickly as possible to action movie cliches. If possible, include sun god Ra, and make sure something gets blown up real good.” - Roger Ebert I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie. With that being said most big movie critics nowadays were raised on Star Wars, Indiana Jones and The Goonies, they praise things like the Marvel movies or are looking forward to silly things like Pacific Rim, usually, those movies score pretty highly. We live in a time where the audience and critic taste are closer than they've ever been so why do most people talk like that's the complete opposite?

I believe I have the answer. When most people think of reviews, they think there only uses is to tell you whether you should read/watch/listen to whatever given subject but that idea is a relatively new concept in the grand history of critique. This is because the most prevalent type of review today is consumer criticism. The criticism that’s purpose is to help, the “normal consumer” usually meaning middle-class families, make wise choices with their money. The thing is countries even having a middle class is also a very new concept the earliest usage of the term in its modern meaning dates back to 1910’s United Kingdom. Before then it was just the lower or working class who were never expected to participate in any art so there was no reason to write a review for them and the upper class was so rich they were expected to watch it just because they could. So criticism wasn't about telling people what to watch and more well, critique, using critical theories like for example Modernist theory. It was a way for someone to show off their intellectual prowess; which comes off terribly pretentious in a modern era “Chipman”. As seemingly obnoxious as this old version of critique could be its ultimate purpose I believe is a positive force it encourages people to think about the media that they consume which in my opinion is a useful skill. But this criticism had virtually died out by the mid to late 20th century replaced by consumer criticism. People seem to think these two forms of criticism cannot coexist which in my eyes is a false dichotomy, there's no reason that we cannot have criticism that is designed to appraise a works quality and criticism that tries to engage your intellect. But there are many people who disagree with me on this point; arguments over objective and subjective criticism has never ended, objective usually implying consumer critique. Almost every time there's a movie that gets made by a controversial filmmaker or one that tackles a current hot-button issue every critic is subject to being called biased. Take the controversy of Ender's Game for example, Ender's Game is a hugely popular and influential book. One of if not the most influential science fiction novels of the 80s and in 2013 it finally got the big screen adaptation that it had seemingly been waiting for three decades to get. But Ender's Game has the misfortune of being written by Orson Scott Card who is notable for only two things writing the Ender's Game series and a strain of homophobic rants, statements, and actions since then. So obviously a huge adaptation of Cards one notable success was going to be controversial no matter the actual merits of the work being adapted. The Ender's Game movie was boycotted by many. Of course, Card had his defenders who were now more determined than ever to go see the movie, so now just the act of buying a ticket and seeing a movie has become a part of the controversy surrounding this film before it's released. Even if you consider yourself a consumer reviewer isn't your job to help inform people decide whether they should go see a movie or not? So shouldn’t this massive controversy that would definitely influence a large amount of people's decision to go see the movie be mentioned in your review? In this case, most reviewers decided to discuss the controversy in their review and since the Ender's Game film itself turned out to be an astonishing failure critically and commercially the film is widely remembered for this controversy unless the film itself “Chipman”. This isn't a failure of are critics too keep their reviews pure, the decision to focus on the cultural significance of a piece of art is no less valid than the decision to criticize the writing of a film they're both important. What is truly the difference between a conservative critic being offended by a movie that leans more liberal and a critic who values realistic dialogue being offended by in awkwardly delivered line? There isn't any. Any review is influenced in some way by bias even if we intentionally try and ignore it “Collins”. It's important when discussing topics such as this that one should never forget that in some level everything is political even when the express goal of something is to avoid being political, because the choice to avoid politics is itself a political statement. So critics choosing not to bring up these controversies would not make the reviews any less biased, by my estimation, it would make them more biased in fact. Most large conversations and controversies nowadays aren’t held at giant discussion panels were scholars debate each other but on social media where everyone gets to participate in the arguing, this means we're in a time where more people than ever are aware of major controversies. Things like the #me-too movement wouldn't have become the massive event it is without everyone on Twitter sharing and discussing the information. That also means that if a film is widely controversial or has a political message to it or simply says something more interesting than the typical motion picture; people want to hear about that in the review that information could sell them on that film. Would you really want a review of a Birth of a Nation “2016” that doesn’t talks about director Nate Parker's terribly misogynist way he views women? Would you want a review of Cloud Atlas that doesn’t discuss the film's choice to have some of it’s actors play multiple characters, using makeup and visual effects to change the actors race for some characters? Would any review of any Mel Gibson movie be as interesting without at least acknowledging Gibson's fixation on religious punishment? I don't want to live in a world where the people whose job it is to curate and discuss media are punished for discussing it too much.

So, the reason so many people say they hate critics is because of a misunderstanding of their job. Yes, every review you read when you boil it down is just somebody's opinion and if you don't find it useful when deciding what to watch Friday night that's completely understandable. But what you should understand is that not every reviews purpose is to help you make that choice, reviews are an art form unto themselves and just like any art form the people making it work hard to perfect their craft. So next time you see a critic give two stars to your favorite movie of this summer before blowing them off and saying “Who cares what some snooty critic thinks?” Maybe spare a couple of minutes and read that review. Who knows? You might come away from it with a different yet valuable perspective.

Work Cited

American Film Institute. “In Memoriam: Roger Ebert (1942-2013).” PR Newswire: News Distribution, Targeting and Monitoring, 4 Apr. 2013, www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/in-memoriam-roger-ebert-1942-2013-201541321.html.

Collins, Conrad Aaron. Aesthetic IS Narrative. Aesthetic IS Narrative, 30 July 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR7yWdimmC4&feature=youtu.be.

Chipman, Bob. BAGGAGE (The Big Picture). BAGGAGE (The Big Picture), Escapist, 12 Nov. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHt2VtN2i70.

Ebert, R. (2000). I hated, hated, hated this movie. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Pub.

Ebert, Roger. “Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult! | Roger Ebert's Journal | Roger Ebert.”RogerEbert.com, 26 Nov. 2008, www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/death-to-film-critics-hail-to-the-celebcult.

Keogh, J. (2014, Aug). The blockbuster with bite. Worcester Magazine, 39, 23. Retrieved from http://summit.csuci.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.summit.csuci.edu/docview/1555702679?accountid=7284

Martin, Douglas. “Roger Ebert Dies at 70; a Critic for the Common Man.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Apr. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/movies/roger-ebert-film-critic-dies.html.

#Roger Ebert #gene siskel #At the Movies #critic #criticism #critique #review #reviewer #star wars #e.t. the extra-terrestrial #ghostbusters #jaws #blockbuster #stargate #pacific rim

0 notes

theconservativebrief · 6 years

Link

When Darren Aronofsky’s movie Noah came out in 2014, I was the chief film critic at Christianity Today. I liked the movie, and I gave it a positive review. Almost instantly, I was informed by a flood of emails and comments from readers that my opinion was wrong.

What was strange was that the emails were coming from people who couldn’t possibly have seen Noah, since it hadn’t hit theaters yet; I had seen it at a pre-release screening for critics. Almost everyone had a similar complaint: The movie “didn’t even mention God.”

I was mystified. People are always talking about God in Noah. They don’t use the name “God”; they talk about “the Creator,” a reasonable thing to do for people who are meant to be, at most, about 10 generations removed from the actual act of creation. But calling God by various other names isn’t considered strange or aberrant to conservative Christians — in fact, Christian bookstores have long sold posters celebrating God’s many monikers.

Plus, I’d seen the movie. I knew the claim that the movie “didn’t even mention God” wasn’t true. There had to be a patient zero somewhere.

Russell Crowe played the titular character in Darren Aronofsky’s 2014 film Noah.

It turned out that, in his review of the film, the Hollywood Reporter’s Todd McCarthy made a passing comment about the specific word “God” not actually being used, and that detail had been picked up and spotlit by Breitbart News. On the same day the Breitbart News story ran, Glenn Beck — whose star was much brighter in 2014 than it is now — also picked up on the story, citing McCarthy’s review alongside a common complaint that the film’s interpretation of Noah was merely worried about “environmental issues.” Noah, to these observers, was just another example of liberal, godless Hollywood’s attempts to destroy religion and goodness. A fire was lit.

If any mention or notion of God truly had been eradicated in Noah, or if the film’s protagonist was just worried about the environment (rather than mankind’s sinful destruction of all life, including human beings), this particular controversy may have had some legs.

But by the time I saw the film and wrote my review, the damage was already done. Nothing I could write would convince certain people — who, again, hadn’t yet seen the film — that Noah did, in fact, contain plenty of references to God (though some of my colleagues tried). And because they already believed something untrue about it, they declared they would would never go see it, which means they would never be challenged in their belief.

That was the first time I’d ever seen an echo chamber constructed so rapidly and distressingly, right before my eyes. Noah — a movie too weird and challenging to have ever really become a box-office hit, but that’s beside the point — had been crudely fashioned into a blunt instrument for culture warriors. (Beck said on his program that he “hates to give Hollywood a dime.”) It didn’t matter one bit that the film clearly believes God is real, that humans are created, and that man’s wickedness is bad; whatever Noah’s faults as a piece of filmmaking, it never deserved to be co-opted that way.

When the First Man controversy broke over Labor Day weekend, I thought a lot about Noah.

I’ve seen First Man now, on an IMAX screen at the Toronto International Film Festival, two weeks after it debuted at the Venice Film Festival. It’s a stunning portrait of Neil Armstrong, the first man to step foot on the moon, as he both trains alongside his fellow Project Gemini astronauts and grapples with his more private grief over the death of his daughter.

Following the film’s Venice premiere, some comments by its star, Ryan Gosling (who plays Armstrong), set off a firestorm of controversy over whether the film is anti-American, unpatriotic, and “total lunacy” for not explicitly showing the iconic, familiar moment in which an American flag is physically planted on the surface of the moon.

Specifically, Gosling — when asked about why that moment isn’t depicted in the film —said that it doesn’t appear because First Man chooses to cast the moon landing as a “human achievement,” not just an American achievement. The actor also noted that Armstrong (as revealed in the authorized biography on which the movie is based) didn’t see himself as “an American hero,” and so the filmmakers opted to focus on “the way Neil viewed himself.”

Gosling’s comments ultimately became the basis for a series of much broader claims, such as the idea that the film “omits” the American flag entirely, or (in the weirdest rumor I caught wind of through the grapevine) that it’s replaced with Chinese flags.

No matter that First Man clearly shows the flag on the moon — twice, in fact — planted firmly next to the lunar landing module. Nor that there are flags seemingly everywhere in the film: on the shuttles, on the arms of the astronauts’ uniforms, in the celebratory flower basket left in Armstrong’s quarantine room when he returns to Earth. In one scene, Armstrong’s son runs a flag up to the awning of their house, and we watch it flap proudly in the breeze for a moment. I’d have almost thought the filmmakers added the scene to thumb their noses at the unfounded outrage if I didn’t know the film was finished before said outrage took hold.

A scene from First Man, one of many in which the American flag is proudly displayed. Universal Pictures via AP

As happened with Noah, I’ve gotten emails and seen tweets about First Man since writing about the controversy. As far as I know, none of them have come from people who’ve seen the film. Some people are angered by the “omission” of the flag-planting scene. Others are livid because, they insist, the flag “never” appears in the film. Still others have argued that First Man not only minimizes the flag, but in doing so illustrates how Hollywood “censors” its movies to appeal to the Chinese market, as if to suggest that Chinese audiences would be okay watching a movie about the first man to land on the moon, but draw the line at being overtly reminded that he was American. (The only thing that argument reveals is that the person making it has not only not seen First Man, but doesn’t understand how censorship, filmmaking, or the Chinese market works in Hollywood right now.)

It’s true that First Man doesn’t specifically contain a scene in which the Apollo 11 astronauts pull out a flag and stick it into the surface of the moon. It’s also true that you won’t hear the word “God” uttered in Noah. Instead, in Noah, we hear about “the Creator,” and in First Man we’re given a glimpse into Armstrong’s mental state, which is less interested in the heroic act and more in his own personal need to cope with the death of his daughter.

As I watched First Man’s story unfold and thought about how out of control the controversy around it had become — with politicians like Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, right-wing opportunists like Dinesh D’Souza and Mike Cernovich, and astronaut Buzz Aldrin himself making statements about it — I couldn’t help but recall my experience with Noah.

The controversy around the inclusion of God’s name in Noah wasn’t really about people’s feelings about God. It was about reinforcing and confirming existing biases against liberal Hollywood, and refusing to consider any information that would complicate or challenge that bias. In the same way, the idea that First Man is “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” isn’t about the film itself; it’s about rallying around already established biases, and refusing to believe that initial reports could be misleading or flat-out wrong.

These sorts of controversies are typically seized upon by people who profit greatly from fueling the fears of their audience. They’re cynical moves by opportunists who benefit from the attention it brings. But they’re not about standing up for principles, or looking for the truth.

It’s not that I can’t imagine someone finding a way to convincingly argue that seeing the flag be planted on the moon surface would have improved First Man in some way, or that the film’s focus on Neil Armstrong’s perspective narrows its story too much. I would disagree with that criticism, but it’s the sort of disagreement that critics engage in all the time.

It’s also a very different sort of disagreement than the one that’s driving controversy around First Man. What’s important to understand here is that nobody gets to demand that a filmmaker who aims to make a very intimate biographical movie about a man grappling with the burden of grief insert a scene we’ve all seen before. We can criticize the movie after we’ve seen it, based on what we think might have made it better on its own terms. I fully support that. It’s my job, and it’s yours, too, if you care about art.

But judging it to be bad because someone said it doesn’t look like you think it should, or because it doesn’t contain the precise words that will make you like it, is not just disrespectful. It also runs against the grain of what it means to be human and to connect with others, and with the things they make, in good faith and with love.

Art, a friend of mine is fond of saying, does not owe you anything. You might want a movie to contain a specific scene, or to end with your preferred conclusion. But that isn’t what art does. Art exists to challenge us, to make us see the world in a new way. As the Neil Armstrong of First Man might put it, good art often takes us out of our everyday, self-centered cluelessness, our facile assumptions about the world and about other people, and changes our perspective.

If we make up our mind about a work of art before we even see it, or see it but then fail to consider its objectives in criticizing it, then we’re the problem. And a movie like First Man — which, whatever its faults as a piece of filmmaking, thinks one’s country is worth protecting, one’s family deserves to be loved, one’s flag deserves a place of honor at home and in space, and one’s fellow man deserves respect — never deserved to be co-opted that way.

Original Source -> The First Man controversy is grounded in partisanship, not patriotism

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief

0 notes