you obnoxiously dismissed my entirely valid criticisms
It is not valid to assert a plot lacked plotpoints that it in fact, contained. That is, by all schools of criticism
invalidating and it only impacts the criticizer's
credibility.
That you think the rest of your expulsions of taste are valid criticisms about whether a plot had material to develop a romantic relationship is telling. It tells us you don't know how to do what you say you want to do. You know how to lie, not how to criticize.
It simply means you don't know what "valid criticism" means. It isn't "I didn't find it convincing" etc. That's mere sharing of your taste.
The fact that you had to knowingly, carefully, intentionally
misrepresent the content of the script to TRY to make it seem lacking (inaccurately) betrays the vapidity and disingenuousness of your argument.
Any actual valid criticizer INCLUDES all the relevant plotpoints, THEN criticizes them, as soundly as he can, eschewing whether it was to your taste to a large degree. Cuz nobody cares about that, just so you know. And that's how to graduate from self indulgence to valid criticism or content analysis, going forward!
Madeleine's jump from hostile scepticism towards Bond to swooney flirtatiousness at dinner is abrupt and jarring
She was skeptical likely to the end, and will likely be so forever. She's a child of espionage who is struggling with understanding it.
However, she was not hostile in the train, nor in the hotel room, so you are lying about a jarring transition from hostility to peace, because it didn't exist. You don't need to do that; you could be truthful instead.
Now, that you see only "swoony flirtatiousness" at dinner on the train might just be confusion or lack of insight on your part, not overt dishonesty. You apparently couldn't tell that she was not swooning, exactly...but trying to have a persuasive conversation with the agent of her father (who died trying to make a choice) that one
can successfully make such a choice, even if her father couldn't, quite. She's salvaging from loss, etc etc etc. She
wants to see something more in these men, desperately. Maybe not even wisely, certainly not safely.
But again, that you don't want to speak about such stuff but tell others it was only swooniness, well that goes to the credibility of your criticism.
And whether you "liked" or were "convinced" by it all is secondary; first, cover the actual story. Second the subtext perhaps like above, perhaps differently. Just, you haven't even gotten to first base yet.
never dramatised, never made palpable for an audience
This is why you fail, as Yoda would say. You REALLY don't speak for the audience, so stop trying to. It does not lend "validity" whatsoever. Just stick to the actual content in the story and go from there avoiding assuming the mantle of arbiter. Its more difficult, maybe, to make sound points, but ultimately it will turn your stuff from self-wanking into valid criticism.
That you're so upset that your race to speak for the audience is considered dubious...says everything it needs to about whether you want to be a "valid critic".
I think you do...but how one responds to criticism tells all.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.
reply
share
Drooch
8 years ago
...aaand you didn't disappoint. Let's go through your latest effort and see where you're going wrong, and how you cope with that.
It is not valid to assert a plot lacked plotpoints that it in fact, contained. That is, by all schools of criticism invalidating and it only impacts the criticizer's credibility.
Maybe, who cares? I never even mentioned 'plotpoints', another straw man. Try engaging with what's being said instead of absorbing to the contents of your own *beep* on an endless loop.
That you think the rest of your expulsions of taste are valid criticisms about whether a plot had material to develop a romantic relationship is telling. It tells us you don't know how to do what you say you want to do. You know how to lie, not how to criticize.
Pah, see what you're doing here is trying to relativise shìt filmmaking, by calling valid criticisms 'taste'. You're an apologist for poor practice, a fanatic who cannot be objective. As I said, you're not bright enough to pull off this sophist trickery.
It simply means you don't know what "valid criticism" means. It isn't "I didn't find it convincing" etc. That's mere sharing of your taste.
No, it means exactly what it is, valid criticism. The jarring shift from sceptical hostility to gooey flirtatiousness was not dramatised, the characters' emotional and psychological trajectory was not credibly rendered. Most likely, they filmed the scenes then cut them for time, probably to make space for the equally misjudged final act of the film. Filmmaking by committee often leads to these failures, and your desperate apologetics do nothing to conceal them.
The fact that you had to knowingly, carefully, intentionally misrepresent the content of the script to TRY to make it seem lacking (inaccurately) betrays the vapidity and disingenuousness of your argument.
Any actual valid criticizer INCLUDES all the relevant plotpoints, THEN criticizes them, as soundly as he can, eschewing whether it was to your taste to a large degree. Cuz nobody cares about that, just so you know. And that's how to graduate from self indulgence to valid criticism or content analysis, going forward!
No, the necessary content simply isn't there. You're trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 and it's not working, you're just making a dick of yourself.
She was skeptical likely to the end, and will likely be so forever. She's a child of espionage who is struggling with understanding it.
However, she was not hostile in the train, nor in the hotel room, so you are lying about a jarring transition from hostility to peace, because it didn't exist. You don't need to do that; you could be truthful instead.
OK, firstly let's clear something up - you don't seem to be aware that you're a stupid, smug prick with NOTHING of value to offer, who came peacocking into this thread full of pompous show feathers, and who thinks regurgitating insipid post-modern critical theory gives you the 'edge'. You're not interesting or clever, just an idiotic, predictable narcissist.
Now, yes Madeline was hostile on the train, during the gun-training scene, then inexplicably became smiley and flirtatious as she swanned in for dinner. Her attitude to Bond COMPLETELY transformed in a way that would only make sense if they'd shared a scene or two demonstrating a blossoming romance.
Now, that you see only "swoony flirtatiousness" at dinner on the train might just be confusion or lack of insight on your part, not overt dishonesty. You apparently couldn't tell that she was not swooning, exactly...but trying to have a persuasive conversation with the agent of her father (who died trying to make a choice) that one can successfully make such a choice, even if her father couldn't, quite. She's salvaging from loss, etc etc etc. She wants to see something more in these men, desperately. Maybe not even wisely, certainly not safely.
But again, that you don't want to speak about such stuff but tell others it was only swooniness, well that goes to the credibility of your criticism.
'This stuff' is actually your stuff. While those things may be generally true of her character, it still doesn't explain her sudden and jarring flirtatious warmth towards Bond. Her emotional and psychological journey was not dramatised, the filmmakers failed, but you won't accept it. Your accusations of 'dishonesty' and pleas for 'truthfulness' are hilarious coming from a sophomoric scumbag pseudo-intellectual armed with only bad relativism.
And whether you "liked" or were "convinced" by it all is secondary; first, cover the actual story. Second the subtext perhaps like above, perhaps differently. Just, you haven't even gotten to first base yet.
First, observe how your bloated ego is blinding you from the fact that you're a vacuous tit. Second, apologise to your readers for being an obnoxious cünt, wasting their time, and expecting them to share your imagined 'subtext'.
This is why you fail, as Yoda would say. You REALLY don't speak for the audience, so stop trying to. It does not lend "validity" whatsoever. Just stick to the actual content in the story and go from there avoiding assuming the mantle of arbiter. Its more difficult, maybe, to make sound points, but ultimately it will turn your stuff from self-wanking into valid criticism.
You're not in a position to instruct or even advise on proper criticism, you're just a pompous fúckwit who expects others to buy into your bad apologetics and ignore what's plainly in front of them.
That you're so upset that your race to speak for the audience is considered dubious...says everything it needs to about whether you want to be a "valid critic".
I think you do...but how one responds to criticism tells all.
Fortunately, your powers of perception are as bad as your sophistry, so your attempts to deconstruct my entirely valid criticisms completely FAIL, but provide unintended comedy. I look forward to your next bratty, butthurt offering. Make this next one even more
smug and
stupid, OK?
reply
share
pking-2
8 years ago
Maybe, who cares? I never even mentioned 'plotpoints', another straw man.
But you really did, admit it or not.
Your
entire opening salvo is contingent upon the plotpoints you assert the film "forgets to show us." Oh well. There goes the cred. "Madeline goes from 'don't even think about it' to even more pissed off when Bond tries to teach her how to use a gun, to suddenly giggles and heavy flirtation when they sit down for dinner on the train. The film rests heavily on Bond finally giving up his legendary career for a girl, but forgets to show us any kind of relationship forming between them. It's as if there was a tender scene (like the shower scene in Casino Royale) that was left on the cutting room floor."
calling valid criticisms 'taste'
You are welcome to hang your "critic" hat on how one reacts to
Spectre not being a matter of taste. It is so, even if you, or anyone, says it isn't so. Facts are nice like that.
Grasp that
fact, and you can start to become a critic. Deny that
fact, and you will remain a discussion board self wanker.
And, similar to the earlier facts about plotpoints...what you
feel doesn't matter relative to what are
facts.
the characters' emotional and psychological trajectory was not credibly rendered.
First you try to deny that it even was rendered. Once corrected on that, you want the keystone to become your assertion of "credibly." And so...you want to be the arbiter of what
others find credible. That's just you trying to express taste as if it is something more significant.
Really, what is needed here would be
critical thinking skill, which you lack. What's not of merit is mere expulsion of
criticism. You have misinterpreted the etymology of the title "critic." It is about the former not necessarily the latter.
You're not interesting or clever, just an idiotic, predictable narcissist.
That you react to valid criticism of your output as such shows just how divorced you really are from even identifying valid criticism.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.
reply
share