Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Ken's Blog 
Author Message
Post Re: My Life
Robert Holloway wrote:
I don't wish Ken bad. I just wish he'd try and find something positive to write about and extol it's virtues. learning something new about something you may not have considered is far more interesting that reading someone trying to trash movies that are already generally liked.


Can't the same be said about the inverse? Can't you "learn something new about something you may not have considered" by reading a negative review about a generally liked movie? Why does the review have to be positive to learn something new, or think about something you haven't thought about? I mean, isn't a bad review about a generally liked movie presenting a perspective you may not have considered? How is that not a good thing? Granted, if your personal preference is to read positive reviews, that's fair. However, I'd liken that to the movie goer who will only watch romantic comedies and spoonfed dramas, and forgoes anything challenging or somewhat dark.

If anything, Ken's blog is a cry for open-mindedness that seems to be getting lost in the eagerness to bash him for writing negative reviews. It's his blog, he can write about whatever he wants. He's still serving up good content. It sounds like you're disregarding what he has to say about the films simply because his reviews are negative and the general consensus is that the movie in question is good. That sounds like the definition of close-mindedness.

I've come around on Ken's blog if you haven't noticed. The content of his reviews are all exceptional. I may like most of the movies he's reviewed more than the numerical ratings he's assigned to them, but who really cares? He may be intentionally inflammatory with his ratings system, but he gives valid reasons for not liking each film. To me, that's far more important than what the actual ratings are.


Tue May 03, 2011 12:38 pm
Post Re: My Life
In my defense, I gave my reasons for disagreeing with his review. I honestly believe he missed the point of the film entirely. To be fair, that was the only review I've taken the time to read, but based on what I read for Gran Torino I'd say that describing his blog as a "call for open-mindedness" is a bit much. More like a venue to vent his personal opinion, which is warranted considering it is his blog. I'm not trying to tell him to write positive reviews, he can write whatever he pleases. For all I know, his other reviews are awesome. But I don't really think he's brought any new insights to the table here (with his review of Gran Torino. As stated before, haven't read the other reviews).


Tue May 03, 2011 12:52 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
You have 9 film reviews, but the highest rated film is 5/10? Seems like your being scathing just for the sake of being scathing.


Timmy Shoes wrote:
In my defense, I gave my reasons for disagreeing with his review. I honestly believe he missed the point of the film entirely. To be fair, that was the only review I've taken the time to read, but based on what I read for Gran Torino I'd say that describing his blog as a "call for open-mindedness" is a bit much. More like a venue to vent his personal opinion, which is warranted considering it is his blog. I'm not trying to tell him to write positive reviews, he can write whatever he pleases. For all I know, his other reviews are awesome. But I don't really think he's brought any new insights to the table here (with his review of Gran Torino. As stated before, haven't read the other reviews).


But yet you didn't hesitate to make broad judgements about him and his blog. :D

The "call for open-mindedness" thing goes back to Ed's theory of Ken partaking in some sort of social experiment with his snoop bloggy blog. He may not have that in mind at all (I don't think he's said what his aims are), but either way, I think it's accomplished something of that sort. Look how many folks come in and instantly bash the guy for his ratings and say very little about the content of his reviews. Hell, I did it myself. People are dismissing his reviews because he's trashing well though of films without even really considering the points he's making. That's close-minded. It just is.

Ken doesn't need me to defend him, so I'll stop. I'm just offering an alternative take. It took a bit to get used to, but I'm a fan of his blog.


Tue May 03, 2011 1:02 pm
Post Re: My Life
PeachyPete wrote:
But yet you didn't hesitate to make broad judgements about him and his blog. :D


The word of the day is "seems."

BRB while I search through this thread to find ed's theory thingamajig....Just kidding, explain it to me so I don't have to go on a wild goose chase.


Tue May 03, 2011 1:07 pm
Post Re: My Life
PeachyPete wrote:
Ken partaking in some sort of social experiment with his snoop bloggy blog


Attachments:
snoop_dogg_10.jpg
snoop_dogg_10.jpg [ 6.48 KiB | Viewed 1673 times ]
Tue May 03, 2011 1:14 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
BRB while I search through this thread to find ed's theory thingamajig....Just kidding, explain it to me so I don't have to go on a wild goose chase.


No chance. I will not do your work for you, young man.

Shade wrote:
funny snoop picture that won't show up


:lol:

You're killing with the pictures lately.


Tue May 03, 2011 1:24 pm
Post Re: My Life
I'd scour through 12 pages, but I think it's easier to guess what kind of social experiments could be waged.

Either he's writing strongly negative reviews in an attempt to bring new insights to otherwise well-liked films and depict the film in a light that's not commonplace. Well, that's good and dandy, but if that's it then he's failed miserably considering how quick people have been to dismiss his reviews based on their negativity. He'd be better served to address the audience in a way so that they can see passed the fact that he's bashing a movie they like, so they can absorb the message(s) of his reviews. Maybe he should remove the number based rating system; I'm sure there have been a number of people who just look at that number and then skip the review entirely.

On the other side, he could be purposely making his ratings and reviews negative to evoke this expected response to prove that people are closed-minded when it comes to film. Well, that's good and dandy as well, but what does that accomplish? Anything...?

Or is the "experiment" something entirely different?


Tue May 03, 2011 1:37 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Either he's writing strongly negative reviews in an attempt to bring new insights to otherwise well-liked films and depict the film in a light that's not commonplace. Well, that's good and dandy, but if that's it then he's failed miserably considering how quick people have been to dismiss his reviews based on their negativity. He'd be better served to address the audience in a way so that they can see passed the fact that he's bashing a movie they like, so they can absorb the message(s) of his reviews. Maybe he should remove the number based rating system; I'm sure there have been a number of people who just look at that number and then skip the review entirely.


Well, again, you'd have to ask Ken this. I can't speak for his intent, I can only speak what I've observed. He doesn't seem interested in explaining his intent, and I don't really blame him, so all we have is speculation.

Maybe it isn't a grand social experiment. Maybe Ken didn't even think about open-mindedness vs. close-mindedness when designing this set of reviews. Whatever the case, I think what's happening is interesting when looking at the responses from that angle.

The fact that people look at his rating and instantly dismiss his review is an example of close-mindedness. People reading his writing and dismissing his valid criticisms because his rating is "too low" is another example of close-mindedness. It isn't Ken's, or any author's, responsibility to correct this for his audience. His responsibility is to make folks aware of what he's trying to accomplish. If someone rushes to judgement to dismiss his thoughts, he hasn't failed. The reader just hasn't been honest with himself/herself. In a sense, it's the reader that has failed.


Tue May 03, 2011 1:57 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
I'd scour through 12 pages, but I think it's easier to guess what kind of social experiments could be waged.

Either he's writing strongly negative reviews in an attempt to bring new insights to otherwise well-liked films and depict the film in a light that's not commonplace. Well, that's good and dandy, but if that's it then he's failed miserably considering how quick people have been to dismiss his reviews based on their negativity. He'd be better served to address the audience in a way so that they can see passed the fact that he's bashing a movie they like, so they can absorb the message(s) of his reviews. Maybe he should remove the number based rating system; I'm sure there have been a number of people who just look at that number and then skip the review entirely.

On the other side, he could be purposely making his ratings and reviews negative to evoke this expected response to prove that people are closed-minded when it comes to film. Well, that's good and dandy as well, but what does that accomplish? Anything...?

Or is the "experiment" something entirely different?



Maybe, but more likely just misjudging the effort
I have no issues with reviews criticizing well liked movies - they just nee to add insight
I wish ken could write about a film he likes and why

Anyway, his site, his call
Rob


Tue May 03, 2011 2:12 pm
Post Re: My Life
PeachyPete wrote:
The fact that people look at his rating and instantly dismiss his review is an example of close-mindedness. People reading his writing and dismissing his valid criticisms because his rating is "too low" is another example of close-mindedness.


Agreed.

PeachyPete wrote:
It isn't Ken's, or any author's, responsibility to correct this for his audience. His responsibility is to make folks aware of what he's trying to accomplish. If someone rushes to judgement to dismiss his thoughts, he hasn't failed. The reader just hasn't been honest with himself/herself. In a sense, it's the reader that has failed.


Not so sure about this. For all intensive purposes, lets remove Ken from the following statement. A bad writer will force his/her ideas, a good writer is able to present them in a way that is accessible. Is there responsibility on the reader's behalf? Yes, but if the writer is being egregiously inflammatory, then he isn't going to connect with his audience, and that's when people become dismissive.

Interesting side notes:

So I decided to read some of the other reviews, but first made a stop at the "about" section of Ken's blog.

Quoted directly from there:

Quote:
An explanation of the I Evolved Into This!? grading scale:

-10-

10 is perfection. 10 is reserved for only the finest of books, comics, movies, music albums, video games, theatrical plays, consumer products, gourmet dishes, celebrity women, and whatever else I choose to favor with my opinions. Don’t be disappointed if nothing you do is good enough to merit a 10. It is basically impossible.

-9-

9 is less than perfection, but more than can be hoped for by just about anything. The upside of 9 is that it can be upheld, in theory, as a humanly possible feat. The downside is that it isn’t 10, and that’s what’s going to hang over your head at the end of the day.

-8-

8 is mediocrity. You might observe that the scale steps down from the Platonic ideal of 10 to the exquisite achievement of 9, then, at 8, veers immediately into the realm of irrelevance and vacuousness mined regularly by the most shameless career hacks ever produced by the entertainment industry. And you would be right.

-7-

7 is offensively bad. 7 is bad enough that people might suspect you of being some kind of demented genius, because it takes some kind of extraordinary mind power to produce something this bad. Of course, it’s a fine line between genius and monstrous, as demonstrated by all things this category.

-6-

6 is abject failure. Anything you and your collaborators did was done very, very wrong. A 6 represents the rock bottom of talent in any given field. Audiences suspect anything this bad of being some kind of deliberate prank upon humanity, because it boggles the intellect to imagine that anything this awful could have happened accidentally.

Anything less than 6 is an abomination. If you fancy yourself the owner of the tiniest shred of a soul, you might seriously consider paying back everybody who was unfortunate enough to be exposed to whatever it is that you did to the world. Seriously. With interest.


The highest rated film got a 5/10. So, in accordance with his rating system, every film he's reviewed thus far is an abomination. That's a pretty hefty accusation, regardless of how well or poorly the film's critical and box office responses went. I thought it was fairly interesting he chose to go with a 1-10 numbering system, when it seems he'd be better served with a 0-5 system, with 0 being the abomination. Are 2/10 films MORE of an abomination than 5/10 films? I'm starting to suspect that this is indeed some sort of social experiment... why else would the system be organized this way?


Tue May 03, 2011 2:21 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
BRB while I search through this thread to find ed's theory thingamajig....Just kidding, explain it to me so I don't have to go on a wild goose chase.


Dude. That was the sum total of my theory: "it might be some kind of social experiment". Ed's theories are less rigorous than Darwin's.


Tue May 03, 2011 2:23 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
It isn't Ken's, or any author's, responsibility to correct this for his audience. His responsibility is to make folks aware of what he's trying to accomplish. If someone rushes to judgement to dismiss his thoughts, he hasn't failed. The reader just hasn't been honest with himself/herself. In a sense, it's the reader that has failed.


Not so sure about this. For all intensive purposes, lets remove Ken from the following statement. A bad writer will force his/her ideas, a good writer is able to present them in a way that is accessible. Is there responsibility on the reader's behalf? Yes, but if the writer is being egregiously inflammatory, then he isn't going to connect with his audience, and that's when people become dismissive.

Interesting side notes:

So I decided to read some of the other reviews, but first made a stop at the "about" section of Ken's blog.

Quoted directly from there:

Quote:
An explanation of the I Evolved Into This!? grading scale:

-10-

10 is perfection. 10 is reserved for only the finest of books, comics, movies, music albums, video games, theatrical plays, consumer products, gourmet dishes, celebrity women, and whatever else I choose to favor with my opinions. Don’t be disappointed if nothing you do is good enough to merit a 10. It is basically impossible.

-9-

9 is less than perfection, but more than can be hoped for by just about anything. The upside of 9 is that it can be upheld, in theory, as a humanly possible feat. The downside is that it isn’t 10, and that’s what’s going to hang over your head at the end of the day.

-8-

8 is mediocrity. You might observe that the scale steps down from the Platonic ideal of 10 to the exquisite achievement of 9, then, at 8, veers immediately into the realm of irrelevance and vacuousness mined regularly by the most shameless career hacks ever produced by the entertainment industry. And you would be right.

-7-

7 is offensively bad. 7 is bad enough that people might suspect you of being some kind of demented genius, because it takes some kind of extraordinary mind power to produce something this bad. Of course, it’s a fine line between genius and monstrous, as demonstrated by all things this category.

-6-

6 is abject failure. Anything you and your collaborators did was done very, very wrong. A 6 represents the rock bottom of talent in any given field. Audiences suspect anything this bad of being some kind of deliberate prank upon humanity, because it boggles the intellect to imagine that anything this awful could have happened accidentally.

Anything less than 6 is an abomination. If you fancy yourself the owner of the tiniest shred of a soul, you might seriously consider paying back everybody who was unfortunate enough to be exposed to whatever it is that you did to the world. Seriously. With interest.


The highest rated film got a 5/10. So, in accordance with his rating system, every film he's reviewed thus far is an abomination. That's a pretty hefty accusation, regardless of how well or poorly the film's critical and box office responses went. I thought it was fairly interesting he chose to go with a 1-10 numbering system, when it seems he'd be better served with a 0-5 system, with 0 being the abomination. Are 2/10 films MORE of an abomination than 5/10 films? I'm starting to suspect that this is indeed some sort of social experiment... why else would the system be organized this way?


I think we're starting to agree here. Couldn't Ken just be fucking with us? Couldn't his rating system be a part of the ruse? Why hold him so rigorously to his system when he clearly isn't holding himself strictly to it. It seems to be part of his larger goal, more than it does a legitimate rating system. If this is true, he's doing something that borders on art, rather than merely reviewing movies. I can dig that.

Also, we you aware that it's intents and purposes, not intensive purposes? I was called out on that in a large email group chain and was quite embarrassed. It didn't help that the person in question is someone I had just made fun of and kind of told me off while doing so. I hope I've managed to point that out to you in a less embarrassing manner.


Tue May 03, 2011 2:53 pm
Post Re: My Life
PeachyPete wrote:
Also, we you aware that it's intents and purposes, not intensive purposes? I was called out on that in a large email group chain and was quite embarrassed. It didn't help that the person in question is someone I had just made fun of and kind of told me off while doing so. I hope I've managed to point that out to you in a less embarrassing manner.


Hmmm, I was not aware, but I'm glad I am now. Thanks for the info. Not even entirely sure that was the right phrasing to use. I just didn't want anybody thinking that I was calling Ken a bad writer. Clearly that isn't the case, if he's been able to incite this much discussion about his works

And after reading some more of his reviews, I'm not so sure. It's very possible that he's "fucking with us" as some sort of social experiment. If he is, someone would have to explain to me the larger goal before I'd label it art.

But I'm not so sure anymore. When he has something to say, he's on point, and it doesn't seem likely that he's just doing it to screw with people. Then there's the other side to that.

Take, for instance, the contrast between the reviews of The Phantom Menace and Avatar. I'd say that his review of Avatar is as useless and pointless as another Rick Rolled video on youtube; he doesn't offer any new or interesting insights. Everything he said has been said about the movie a million times before (or I was smart enough to think of it on my own) and he doesn't do a great job of explaining his views. However, his review of The Phantom Menace is downright excellent. Insightful and in-depth. All the reviews should be that way. When I read the Avatar review, I think to myself, "he's trying to evoke a response from the Avatar fanboys," but when I read his Menace review, it's like he actually has something to say. Does that make sense at all?


Tue May 03, 2011 3:01 pm
Post Re: My Life
Timmy Shoes wrote:
On the other side, he could be purposely making his ratings and reviews negative to evoke this expected response to prove that people are closed-minded when it comes to film.


PeachyPete wrote:
Couldn't Ken just be fucking with us? Couldn't his rating system be a part of the ruse? Why hold him so rigorously to his system when he clearly isn't holding himself strictly to it. It seems to be part of his larger goal, more than it does a legitimate rating system. If this is true, he's doing something that borders on art, rather than merely reviewing movies. I can dig that.


If this is the case, then he's officially ascended into the realm of cartoon super-villainy.

Image

PeachyPete wrote:
The fact that people look at his rating and instantly dismiss his review is an example of close-mindedness. People reading his writing and dismissing his valid criticisms because his rating is "too low" is another example of close-mindedness.


Just to be clear about my perspective, I discarded his rating system fairly quickly as him intentionally joking with the reader. Also, I don't believe that negative criticisms are any less important than positive ones; however, after awhile, at least for me, it does start to become tiring, especially when offering up opinions on films that have already taken a fairly large amount of critical drubbing. For me, his most interesting reviews have been on the films that are generally regarded as "classics", like To Kill A Mockingbird and Back To The Future. You very rarely read anything critical about films like those, and while I don't really agree with Ken's perspective, it is at least interesting to read.


Tue May 03, 2011 3:21 pm
Post Re: My Life
Well we certainly sat up and took notice. :lol:
Rob


Tue May 03, 2011 10:23 pm
Post Re: My Life
I believe the idea with Ken's critiques is an objective criticism of film rather than yet another subjective look at a response as a function of values. The written portion is the only thing that deserves attention as the numerical rating (which seems to be only satirical) only serves to undermine the long-form. This too may be a form of commentary.

My chief complaint is the selection of films. This appears to be a common complaint. The so-called 'negativism' is immaterial and doesn't consider that whole 'objective look' thing. That said, I lost interest after the third week... interesting way of approaching film criticism but it ultimately feels more cynical than revealing. Now if Ken took a look at something well-regarded and apparently near-perfect (say, Pulp Fiction) I'd be back at the blog.


Tue May 03, 2011 10:51 pm
Post Re: My Life
majoraphasia wrote:
I believe the idea with Ken's critiques is an objective criticism of film rather than yet another subjective look at a response as a function of values. The written portion is the only thing that deserves attention as the numerical rating (which seems to be only satirical) only serves to undermine the long-form. This too may be a form of commentary.


I find the numerical rating very apropos (even though you might be on to something because Ken is on record as abhorring any rating system). I have yet to read a review that is completely dissimilar to the rating. I continue to enjoy how Ken skirts the finer points of this topic. Seeing us debate the intention of his blog must have him giddy with laughter.


Wed May 04, 2011 10:31 am
Post Ken's Blog
Since a lot of the posts about his blog were continuing to take over the other topic, I have decided to "act a moderator," which is kind of like acting a fool, and split shit up. I'm sure you'll forgive me.

Sincerely,
Management


Wed May 04, 2011 12:22 pm
Post Re: Ken's Blog
Pedro wrote:
Since a lot of the posts about his blog were continuing to take over the other topic, I have decided to "act a moderator," which is kind of like acting a fool, and split shit up. I'm sure you'll forgive me.

Sincerely,
Management



I thought Trevor came back :cry: :cry: :cry:


Wed May 04, 2011 4:59 pm
Post Re: Ken's Blog
Major

Completely agree. I just have no interest in reviews of star wars, back To The Future et al, unless they try and find a new angle.
There are alot of great reviewers and the best route in is to share your passion for something and illustarate new viewpoints

Rob


Thu May 05, 2011 11:09 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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