Thursday, October 21, 2010

Shoving the Poor Scrawny Losers to the Ground....

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
From Philadelphia Weekly
By Sean Burns

In the article ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’, a film critic discusses why in his point of view the movie was lousy and unsatisfactory. The purpose of the article is to give personal insight of the movie’s bad qualities and prepare the audience for a movie they may not relate to or enjoy. Continually referring to the movie as, “Fan Serviced”, which is a form of entertainment primarily to please a core group of fans, the article’s concept is that the movie only appeals to the young generation with no morals or no life.

Since the movie is fixated on video games, the author believes that it captures the, “devoted hearts of arrested 12-year-old boys.” Those being over the age of thirty may have no interest at all in the film. The reason it appeals so much to the younger generations may be the result of soaring large text and good sound effects, just like a cartoon has. The author expresses that the character of Scott is lamely played by the tiresome tone Michael Cera. He goes on to say that the fighting performance and impossible stunts of Scott is not impressing or funny. The biggest problem the author has with the movie is the fact Scott cheats on his girlfriend Knives in order to pursue Ramona. He firmly believes that Knives deserved better. The romance between Scott and Ramona is dual, uninteresting, and the film is too lazy to show them falling in love. Believing that the movie portrays women as objects to either be obtained or discarded, the author claims that, “nerds can be just as shallow and mean-spirited as bullies.” He states that the concept of the film is dealing with the memories in a relationship of the significant others that came before you.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Nerdy & Irritating Character + Person

Robin Jones
English 111
Homework: You're a Dork Tab.

This article by Peter Keough said that Michael Cera in the movie 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' has him being an irritating character throughout the movie. There has also been other film critics that tell their part on how they think that Michael also is annoying to them as well. This article also tells about some main scences throughout the movie and how that was annoying to Peter Keough and then some. Peter also explains how even the smallest effect on this movie made him not enjoy it, such as the theme music that was played. Peter mentions that Ceras' character was also very pale and boring for this movie.
For others to watch this movies and notice that Michael Ceras perspective to treat women such as "unfathomable", this caught Peters' attention as well. So throughout this entire film, Peter found that Michaels performance was nerdy and simply poor.
When I finished reading this article it gave me the feeling of being very sarcastic to the actor Michael Cera in his performance of 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World'. My opinions on Cera being irritating would be that he is a very mellow type of guy, leaning more towards chill and laid back. Seeing his other movies, I noticed these characteristics about him. For the music part, I did not notice any change in the types of music when I watched this movie in theaters, so I would'nt understand that part. As for the "unfathomable" part towards the women in this film, yes I did notice that, but it was his role of character to play in this particular movie. The last main comment about Michael Cera is the way his nerdiness is, I think that in his role for this movie, Ceras' nerdiness fits his personal profile in reality.
This article was interesting to read, becuase I disagreed with most of Peter Keoughs' comments about Michaels Ceras' performance, and personally I enjoyed watching this film in theaters. Michaels' character is good with me in his films, but then again, you're not me, I have my own opinions just as you do.

Feeder 3.3- Complaining EveryWhere!!!

Exercise 2.1
For the article on 'Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal what film Critics really think of gamers.' This was an article about how video games are set straight for the younger generation. That this would be part of what we call "people with no life". These types of words offend others, yet in this article they say to us, that it is suppose to be offending us in a way. That we should be able to think of video games as being a waste of time for people who play it and that they would not know any more intelligence bescause they only play games, rather than living the reality of life itself.
Exercise 2.3
This article did offend me because I do play video games myself, and for others to think that is all we know is dumb. I believe that when you do play games, there is a needed requirement for a common knowledge to actually understand it all. I also believe that the game industry is a way of art to most of us. Reason for this is because they have different types of games that require and understanding of it all first. That to be able to pass a certain level in the game your going to need skill in that area to be able to pass that level. Most cannot deal with the patience with trying to pass a game, because it may be to difficult for them. I think that games are set there for our entertainment and that it is our choice to pick up the controller or not. So no need to judge people who can pass a obsicle level compared to you, if you cannnot.

F what they say

In the article assigned to us critics come down upon movies not of their interest, and they come down hard. Critics are paid to place judgment on movies using their expertise, using that word loosely, but their comments are rude, harsh, and hurtful to those who worked on the movie. But they are who our society turns too, to define the art of movies and for a lot of people, determine whether or not they will watch the movie. Not only did it go for the movie, but the same effect apparently also went for video games. Roger Ebert, who is a world famous critic, is often adhering to movies like “Scott Pilgrim…” but even he shot down the idea of any artistic form. This is a man whose opinion I might not listen to religiously, but have seen him gives two thumbs up on all movies and find some form of art and entertainment in most movie. But a critic is a person who places their bias opinion on a movie, and no one really likes a bias view on things.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Feeder 3.2 Scott Pilgrim' Versus the Unfortunate Tendency

In the Pilgrim' Versus the Unfortunate Tendency to Review the Audience, Linda Holmes reviews this film by starting out saying that it was the most heavily previewed movie in years.

Feeder 3.3 - You Don't Like Video Games ..

In the article "Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers", critics act harshly against movies they down right dislike. These people will destroy a movie or maybe even hurt someone's feelings. With the reviews they post, it is obvious they don't think about anyone except themselves because they don't hold anything back. They believe that you are a 12 year old dork with ADD, who doesn't have a life. Not only did it go for the movie, but the same effect apparently also went for video games. Most people who play games find it artistic and entertaining, while others like Roger Ebert think its not artistic enough. This leaves me thinking that the critics will always do what they do and act harshly, unless it's something they like.
Why do critics write the way they write? This is a great question i asked myself because even though I haven't seen the movie "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World", I honestly don't believe that it was bad movie. Although critics write reviews that are completely negative, we will never know why they write the things they do with such harsh words. I know their job is to watch films and give their honest opinions, but is it too much to ask to actually appreciate AND like a film, rather than dislike.

Don't Hate the Player's!

Dennis Scimeca, who is a community writer for a website called Bitmob writes about the negative stereotypes that film critics have about gamers. He gives examples of multiple comments that film reviewers have stated about their views on the people who they think liked the movie Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The reviews tell us what the critics have to say about gamers in particular. He explains his reasons for argue against the critics judgments about gamers throughout the article saying he views videogames as works of art drastically developing and innovating over the years and other forms of entertainment like movies and music have been the same over time. He wrote this for gamers to read and have some sort of emotional response to like being offended, only in a fighting back type of way. Dennis hopes gamers will write to the critics in a polite manner in order to change their negative opinions about them because he’s already changed one of their minds.

I believe stereotyping in general is a serious issue that everyone has to deal with every day throughout the world. We’ve probably all done it or experienced it in our life in some way. It really becomes an issue when people publically discuss it, like through film reviews, which is just ridiculous in my opinion. Their job is to review the movies, not judge the people watching them and calling them dorks with no lives. I could just as easily say all film critics are dumb jerks or something of that nature, but are all of them really? We don’t know because we have never met them.

Dennis was being a little too harsh on movies and music though, saying they have been the same over time when clearly there has been amazing music that has evolved drastically over time from the 1920’s jazz and swing to the diverse music we have today like indie and electronica. Movies have evolved from silent black and white to all sorts of craziness that I don’t even know how or where to begin to describe because it has evolved so much in so many different ways for the better of mankind. It baffles my mind that anyone could even say such a remark.

Monday, October 18, 2010

I Am Iron Man

You might be wondering why I titled my blog "I Am Iron Man" the reason is because I needed a cool title. In the first article i read it spoke about the likings and, more than anything dislikes, about the movie scott pilgirim vs the world. In my opinion critics are a little too harsh when it comes to a film that is not their particular taste. they tend to annihilate the movie and make it seem like its total shit just because it is not their genre. He goes on to say that the film is not just for the nerdy geek who watches cartoons and plays video games all day. There is something in the movie that you can like, that is if you put the effort to look for something. sure the movie is a bit childish considering how it starts yet it has its own unique twist which makes it different than other summer block busters.

Feeder 3.3
I am more than deeply offended by the first line in this exert. I, like almost any college student, am a gamer. I like to spend some of my time playing videogames and every once in a while freak out and hit my tv. They said that the games bring out no emotion no kind of re action out of the player, there fore it does not qualify as art. In the critrics eyes of course. video games in my opinion qualify as art in almost every single aspect, they bring out sides of you when you are playing them that you didnt think would come out. the way things are made now a days and the way things look are visually stunnign

Feeder 3.2- Film Criticism

Exercise 2.1
This article makes points on the movie 'Scott Piligrim' Versus The Unfortunate Tendacy To Review The Audience, By Linda Holmes. She as a writter sets her points of view for this movie that she enjoyed and how others do not. She explains how critics are some what harsh about the entire movie and they only point out that this was a movie set for 12 year old-boys who do not have lives and simply play games all day. That most people are to hostile about this entire situation for the movie, Linda also mentions that this is a movie and someones idea to entertain their audience. That not everyone is the same and yes, people will always have their own opinions about the movies they watch, but in this case Lindas' point is that some people are to harsh with their words that they use against this movie. For me personally, this was an interesting movie to watch, they used side lines that gave color and emotion to the scene that it was showing. When watching this film I did not think that this was "only" set for gamers, because I play games, but I am not that Hero with it all. So watching this film was interesting and there were also funny parts that made me, as you can say "lol".

Exercise 2.3
The movie 'Scott Pilgrim' Versus The Unfortunate Tendency To Review The Audience By Linda Holmes, my belief for this movie is that I do not think it is an "insular, punishingly alienating experience" for a movie. Reason for this is because I thought that this was an interesting movie for me to watch, because it was different from most. That yes, the story line may have been childish' but this was a movie and was a choice for the audience to watch it or not. I believe that every movie will have its dislikes and likes it all depends on the audience who watches them. There have been plenty of movies made and in my point of view many have a similar story line to it, just small differences here and there. Not all movies will be based on bad criticism and not all movies will be liked by all. Movies are there to entertain people not to please each person everytime a new film comes out.

Feeder 3.3: Get him to the Greek

Dennis Scimeca argues for the gamers and the games themselves in his article. In bringing up some negative comments on the movie: "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World", Dennis clearly shows his disapproval towards the critics' biased points of views towards gamers and the game industry in general. His main arguments revolves around how games should be considered an art and they require no less aesthetic and artistic skills to develop than do movies and paintings. To him, the critics are wrong in an obvious way, and they should put themselves in gamers' shoes or at least play the game to understand the embedded artistic values that can only be fathomed by gamers.

I agree with Dennis's opinions towards games and the gamers. An art cannot be easily defined by an opinion or two. The art is perceived by its audience when the audience realizes something in the subject that worth appreciated in a specific artistic sense. Games, therefore, are not to be excluded from this category. Developing a game requires careful plot just like that of a movie, where every tiny twist can evoke the audience's mind. It requires beautiful graphic design, just like that in painting. The blending of colors and the contrast in games can be compared with the artwork of a true painter. Moreover, if graphic design is considered an art, it makes sense that a game, which relies heavily on graphic design, bear within it some quintessential characteristics of the art too. Games blow people's mind with emotions so strong that sometimes they affect the gamers adversely. Yet, this kind of effect can be considered equivalent to that of a movie, since it is not uncommon that the latter can haunt the viewers for a period of time. In conclusion, since a game possesses in itself the crucial traits and features of an art, it may be considered one.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Feeder 3.2 - "Scott Pilgrim vs. Film Critics"

Exercise 2.1
After reading the article, it became to my distinction that critics always have something to say about everything.The author, Linda Holmes talks about the pros and cons of film critics. Most critics don't take in the fact that other people may have liked whatever movie it is and they rip it to shreds with their words. With everything, we all have our own distinctions and opinions about what we like and dislike. She writes that film critics believe only teenage gamer boys will have interest in the film, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and no one over the age of thirty will take interest in it. She is over the age of thirty and she liked the film. Although she likes certain films, she might not pay interest in most films. When she watched Dinner For Schmucks, she didn't like the film, but she stated that the other people in the movie theater were nuts about the movie. No matter how harsh reviews are about movies, we will always have our own opinions about film, or everything else.

Exercise 2.3
In the article, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The Unfortunate Tendency To Review The Audience", it becomes evident that film critics act harshly against movies they don't like. But they don't take in the fact that there are other people who may have liked the movie. When they write a review about a movie, they believe that just like them no one will like the movie and will agree with everything they said. This is the mindset most film critics have and I believe that they don't have second thoughts about anything they say.

Feeder 3.2: An amazing piece of film criticism

The main discussion of the article revolves around the movie "Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers." The author of the article - Linda Holmes - shows her interest in the movie despite her not being a part of the target audience. She quotes several hostile criticisms from various newspapers in the article to educate the readers on ideas different from hers. Holmes argues against the sardonically negative comments on the movies and shows off her stand.

The critics in the magazines have succeeded not only in ridiculing their own criticism and alienating themselves from the general reader but also in whetting the general audience's desire to watch the movie. This is, in a way or another, such an incredible way to put things into perspectives. Assuming that the three aforementioned goals are the main purposes of the critics, it is obvious that they are doing such a wonderful job. Three cheers.

Firstly, the critics have succeed in making a clown of themselves and evoking abomination in the readers. Perhaps they know too well the fact that no extreme personal ideas or thoughts will be easily accepted by the majority. Therefore, the critics use the extremist comments as their powerful tools to effectively strike emotional chords among the readers. Taking a quick glance at the comment in Philadelphia Weekly and we can see the effects of the approach: the movie is "
insular, punishingly alienating experience preaching only to the faithful, devoted hearts of arrested 12-year-old boys." As one examines the full sentence, it is not too hard for one to realize that it is tinged with mean sarcasm, disdain and bias. Since negativity only brings more of it, the author of the comment has won the same amount of disdain from the readers compared to how he appears to feels about the movie. After this article, his viewership has decreased by at least one (me, of course).

Secondly, the vitriolic comments by the critics are effective in helping the critics achieve their goals of getting more audience to watch the movie. After a series of mean articles about a movie, one may want to find out why the critics hate it to such an extend. On the other hand, the audience may hit the cinema only to prove the critics wrong. The critics' personal dislike of the film has been transferred to the audience itself. There is no denial about the difficulty in conveying tone through online texts, therefore one may wonder in awe as they behold the effects of the critics' writing on one's feelings.

All in all, the critics have done an amazing job to evoke emotions in readers. Not only do the critics provoke abhorrence in readers, they also call forth the reader's desire to watch the movie. It takes more than an ordinary person to achieve that.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." – Plato