Probably because those films aren't talked into an absurd frenzy like this one has been. And it's funny that he didn't mention Jordan Peele and Get Out or the fact that Steve McQueen has a new movie coming out this year.
Why even compare 12 years a slave, Moonlight and Get Out to Black Panther?
The thing about Black Panther is that it has a bigger budget then all of those movies combined, bigger marketing and is about a Superhero with a majority Black Cast OF COURSE PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO A FRENZY!
There is always a frenzy for Star Wars and MCU movies in general too.
That's what I thought all this craziness was about, that it's the first mass market high budget blockbuster superhero action film (which are the most popular movies atm) with a predominately black cast. It's not trying to be compared to 12 Years a Slave or Moonlight.
I listen to a podcast and the hosts are black they brought up how it’s not black suffering or about the struggle. Its seeing black people as heroes with a film that has black people in front and behind the camera.
I'm not black, but I can imagine that shit gets old after a while.
I am a Jew and I can tell you that I have zero interest in watching any more movies about Auschwitz. I've think I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
Korey brings it from time to time how Hollywood knows that slave movies and period pieces can make money and he’s kinda tired of seeing black suffering.
This is obvious to anyone who takes three seconds to consider alternate explanations. But, if your salary depends on being an internet contrarian you might miss some things that don't cohere with that end.
He did try to compare. He asked why people did not think 12YAS and Moonlight were "important" but that Black Panther was. That question implies that there is something about Black Panther that makes it unimportant or less important than the other films.
Leaving out the fact that he for some reason believes two Academy Award winning films are viewed as unimportant.
Adam isn't a good critic, like at all. He tries to pretend he's not super smug about his movie tastes but constantly demonstrates how he thinks the only people who like Marvel movies either never watch any arthouse movies, are loser fanboys or literal children. A lot of the points he makes in most review are either obvious nitpicks (which I've found in several cases to be dumb or explained by the movie) or really level-one analysis about the movie's themes. And his fans eat this shit up like candy because they can't wait to feel superior to people who liked a Disney or Marvel movie. It reminds me of that Hitchcock quote about why characters just don't go to the police, "they don't go to the police because its dull." Stop trying to outsmart every fucking movie you watch and find every flaw that shows it doesn't correlate with the real world, instead actually focus on what the movie is trying to say and fucking enjoy yourself.
Btw his criticism of Black Panther being made by a mega-corporate conglomerate making money for rich old dudes has been addressed by most critics, but as moviebob breaks down here maybe we should stop being buzzkills about people enjoying pop entertainment, especially when the subject matter in question (afro-futurism) hasn't been represented for most Americans.
I'm not huge on most Marvel movies, I don't have a desire to watch half of them again, but this guy takes smug to a next level when reviewing them. Like we get it, you're a kino connoisseur who is above the tastes of the simpleton masses. Now shut up about it.
He’s also the type of person who thinks that animals can give consent to humans fucking them. Can’t really look up the video since I’m at work, but the guy has a lot of problems. Not even Mike or Jay are that fucking smug
Thank you for linking to the original video in the description so people can see the full argument, but I do not see why you left out so much of it. I stand by my controversial opinions. I do not believe that sex with animals should be encouraged, but I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals. To say that there is no such thing is incredibly ignorant and illogical. Objective reasoning matters more to me than emotional gut responses. I do not believe in putting innocent people in jail just because "Eww, gross.".
From the comment section of the video linked by MaelMothersbaugh
What Adam has repeatedly said is that it is hypocritical for people to be punished for beastiality when more atrocious things (in his eyes) are being done such as selective breeding. He has never condoned beastiality.
Except he has not and has never said it is ok. He says it is hypocritical to punish those people when others who do more atrocious things have no reprecussions.
Hear me out: I don't think his argument here is entirely wrong. I'm a vegan so I obviously come at this from a different angle, but when he says its hypocritical to kill, forcibly inseminate, imprison, and abuse animals but draw the line at beastilaity, I think that's true. We already sexually violate cows to produce milk on a mass level and very few people seem to have a problem with it. I find all of it rather horrifying honestly, but if you're not a vegan, chances are your diet involves harming animals on a much worse/larger scale.
Sounds like someone's grown up in a society which excessively associates breasts with their use during sexual intercourse as opposed to, you know, the actual point of them.
A mother breastfeeding her children is not having a sexual experience on any level.
I wouldn't even really call those vidoes reviews, they're just making fun of bad movies. Which is funny enough, but very different than actually analyzing them critically.
I don't get why smug is being thrown around. He isn't smug, he's defensive. He reviews these films that he just finds vanilla and then spends 4 minutes talking about what other people perceive of these movies. "I don't like these movies but it seems everyone does" isn't being smug, and it's also a terrible baseline for review. I also really enjoy his yearly lists, which he puts a lot of time into and I feel he's nailed. But these "quickies" he does are just terrible. He's not good at being critical, unless it's for humour.
Smug is having excessive pride in ones own accomplishments. Seeing as how he thinks his opinion of a film is more important than anyone else’s and typically is contrarian from the start I’d say smug is an appropriate way of classifying yms review style.
he thinks his opinion of a film is more important than anyone else’s
I don't see where you're getting this from. He doesn't like broad appeal films because he finds them watered down and boring. Like you said, it's contrarian, but I don't see how it's smug at all. Also, the label can be placed on anyone who reviews films as they think they're opinion is important enough to broadcast. It's just not a productive way at looking at things...
For a long time I ignored the Marvel movies. I saw a few of them, but they didn't seem all that great to me. Then I decided to watch Iron Man and that seemed really good. So I then started to watch them in the order they were released and I found I was enjoying most of them. I still don't like all of them, but I didn't hate any of them. And some were excellent.
A lot of movie enjoyment depends on taste. And sometimes people don't want to see Superhero movies. And then somethings things change, and you start to like them.
I'm looking forward now to seeing both Black Panther and the second Ant Man movie.
I dont think anyone is arguing every marvel movie is fantastic/mastahpiece. But theres some rather great and good ones in there that people smugly dismiss.
And I think at this point the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It really is just a big-budget TV series and while not every "episode" is great, some of them are, and it adds up to create a very enjoyable series.
I still don't like all of them, but I didn't hate any of them.
that's the thing. They're market tested and produced an an assembly line. You're not supposed to love the, they only want to you to see them and maybe enjoy them enough to pay money for a sequel, you don't need to have anything memorable that you can discuss, say a few months after watching the movie and nothing that would make the movie still interesting to watch when the next one comes around...
I kind of feel like his "kino connoisseur" persona is a bit manufactured though. Like, he goes out of his way to put Marvel films down because he knows they don't fit his aesthetic, but a lot of his other opinions seem way less (for lack of a better word) snobbish, like Marvels just an easy target for artsy legitimacy points. Haven't watched many of his videos though.
watch his main videos before you critique his editing. his quickies are intended to be smaller scale with less editing. you have not actually looked into his channel. watch any of his YMS videos from the last two years.
He is right though, this is the most cookie cutter, inoffensive mediocre, disposable product that people consume on a several-times-a-year basis, wanting more from movies than simple 2 hour amusement should not be some sort of a fucking rarity.
How deep in the gutter is film discussion at this point when the least original or thoughful things are touted as some sort of universal good ?
I listened to his episode of the needledrop podcast and he's a complete tool, like he genuinely doesn't know anything about film and he's insanely anal about his "rating system", I remember Anthony asked him about what makes a movie a 10 and Adam just started sounding like a robot how a 10 has to be technically flawless and not have any goofs and errors. Like he doesn't have an emotional connection to film. In my opinion a movie can be technically scrappy but I can still say it's a 10/10 if the movie absolutely nails the emotion. he sounds like he's talking about video games when he's talking about movies, like technical errors are the same as bugs are in games.
Yes this is exactly the problem with YMS. He acts like movies exist in an emotionless vacuum or something. He never seems like he understands what a movie is about, what it's trying to say and how it tries to say it, or how it makes him feel. He obsesses over filmmakers like Haneke or Iñárritu or McQueen because they come off as perfectionists to him, but he never seems to discuss what those filmmakers try to say and how their style influences the content of their films. It feels like he has this impossibility to reconcile flaws or imperfections in films, nitpicking things that shouldn't be an issue if a film immerses you or emotionally affects you in a certain way. I'd swear he's an actual robot or something.
I love this write up. So many of the pretentious haters I see on reddit remind me of these kinds of people. People who just want to hate and feel superior. The thing is these people are boring, you know their reaction will be the same sentiment and they are always a wet blanket about shit. I know for me I went to Black Panther expecting to find it really overrated. And while I think it is a bit over hyped in what it represents. I do think that I was surprised how well the story with the villain was done, and a lot of enjoyable moments. I was surprised and liked it, I'd rather have that feeling than the same old "I hate this and people who like this are dumb".
The kind that would make their film a meta narrative about a put upon screenwriter trying to create the perfect film, but being roadblocked by having to cater their art for the plebeian masses and turn it into generic populist schlock.
I mean it's a fairly fucking terrible approach to videogames too, but that's where games criticism is right now, so it's gonna be difficult for it to be taken seriously as an art form rather than a 'product'.
Well, I agree with most of what you say, but technical errors keeping a movie from being 10/10 isn’t really ridiculous. Hell, I don’t know if a 10/10 movie even exists.
10/10 for me means that the movie has no glaring issues and really really enjoyable story, acting, cinematography, etc... Not perfect (because that's subjective on the artistic elements) but the closest thing to perfect. Movie like Mad Max Fury Road, No Country for Old Men, and The Social Network fall under that. I can nitpick scenes and things i don't like if i want to be anal, but everything else is more enjoyable than others movies I've seen.
Thing is, a 10/10 movie might not exist for you, but it will exist for a lot of people. It's not something that can be common among everyone, and there's no such thing as a universal 10/10
Yeah. Why do so many movie people have to point out that other fans think differently than I do on certain things. I know. I’m just talking about my opinion.
If you dont think a 10/10 movie exists what's the point of rating them out of 10? Its all relative (and subjective on top of that), there's not some mathematical formula you can plug a movie into to score it.
Well, it is subjective, which is why I personally don’t think a perfect movie exists. Like you say, it’s all relative. I have a specific idea for what perfection is.
If you see who he hangs out with at youtube cons or understand any of his politics he's a douchebag he's anti-feminist "OH LOOK AT THE CRINGE SO CRINGEY" while ignoring any rational feminist arguments and focusing on the idiot feminist videos online. He's like a teenager who never grew out of the "Le i'm smarter then you look at my logic" neckbeard phase. He's also not as rational or "professional" as he claims to be since he doesn't read any film literature or papers or at least never brings it up in his reviews and sticks to surface level analysis
Ok so he doesn't know anything about film because for him to give a film a perfect score he needs the film to be flawless whereas you are more lenient therefor he's wrong because his reviews don't account for your personal taste?? Really
I enjoy when he is doing a Your Movie Sucks, but his actual reviews are dog shit and there often seems to be very little in the way of rhyme or reason for how he reviews things. It seems at times he hates a movie before he sees it so then he has to take tiny minuscule things and overblow the fuck out of them.
Nailed it. I had to stop watching YMS because of precisely these reasons. I enjoy watching him takedown a terrible movie like After Earth, but otherwise it's just a competition to see how snarky and cynical he can get, on top of willfully misinterpreting obvious stuff.
Yeah, I think the bad film rant of destruction trend for reviewers all goes back to Roger Eberts destruction of Deuce Bigalow, but the people who want to recreate the vitriol of that review seem to forget that the main reason Ebert went in on it was Rob Schneider belittling another critic for giving it a negative review. There was a reason for it beyond it being a bad movie.
I honestly found that After Earth "takedown" to be low hanging fruit. We get it, the movie sucked. We didn't need somebody to make an hour's worth of content to get the point across.
While I do enjoy some of the videos him and youtubers like "Ralphthemoviemaker" make, they do hit low hanging fruit movies entirely too often. I didn't need you to make ten videos about "Cool Cat Saves The Kids" to know it was an hour long cringe fest. I subbed to their channels to hear about movies I never would have heard about and would want to see.
This is where I think people would be served well by looking back towards critics from traditional media avenues. Some of them produce an unreal amount of print, video, and radio/podcast content that gets totally overlooked because people are more interested in the YouTube personality-du-jour.
For example, Manohla Dargis of the New York Times has written four really detailed movie articles since the beginning of February as well as participated in a video about black actresses in the 1930s and 40s. David Edelstein of New York Magazine and NPR writes about five articles a week and normally gives at least one spoken review on Fresh Air a week. Mark Kermode does articles, videos, and a radio show all the time.
This is one downside to the internet's egalitarianism. People who just haven't done the work or don't have the experience get a loudspeaker. Yes, there are some traditional critics like Armond White who have a constant stick up their ass, but most of the people at these respected publications are where they are because they've seen an unreal amount of films from just about every country, language, and genre and can put their thoughts into words very well.
As much as I love Black Panther, and as much as I enjoy YMS, I have to come down against him on this one. I think he felt a 5/10 connection to the film and then just started going after Marvel for not making him feel the feelings he wants to feel about movies.
At a certain point, listening to him say "formulaic" over and over again without criticizing the film's ability to convey theme, character, or even specific issues with the plot was just... guh. These quick shots actually underserve his ability to get into why he feels a way about a thing and it seems like a waste of everyone's time.
If you want to see a real critique of a movie, go read Armand White's angry, contrarian firefest about Black Panther. I abso-fucking-lutely disagree with him, but he brings receipts, citations, and a topographical map explaining how he got to his point.
We all know After Earth sucks, but the YMS is all about the stuff you and me wouldn't have noticed that was bad about the film. Innumerable logical inconsistencies that aren't noticeable to most moviegoers. Like for example, the automatic closing door that warps around objects in the way to form a seal.... but then opens back up automatically and repeatedly. Why would it open back up because an object in the way when it is specifically deisnged to accomodate objects being in the way? That makes no sense. And those splices in audio most people wouldn't notice.
His views on film are also fairly rancid, but all his talk of Nazi-esque treatment of people he dislikes for various reasons are concerning. They speak of a deeply disturbed individual. For the record, the Your Movie Sucks guy is equally awful for his commentary on zoophilia.
He brings up his political views in his own reviews every chance he gets, the guy is fucking in love with doing that. It's a challenge to find any of his videos without him rambling for at least one minute about his ideals, particularly since 2015.
Yeah, but does this affect his actual analysis?
Well, partially perhaps, but I don;t think it's a good basis to dismiss everything he has to say(coming from someone who hates moviebob)
His actual analysis is also rancid, filled with endless rambling, unnecessarily complicated wording and some jacque cousteau-levels of anal searching to pull whatever subtext (which is somehow related in some way to feminism like, around 80-90% of the time) he can find out of a movie. Not to mention how obviously biased and fanboyish he is - Not that it's really possible to ever be truly unbiased, but good reviewers can at least make an attempt to. Maybe not all of his opinions are worth dismissing but the way he presents them certainly is, and not a lot of people actually have nothing but dismiss-worthy ideas in their heads - Hitler was against animal cruelty, I don't think a lot of people are going to disagree with that just because Hitler thought so.
Stop trying to outsmart every fucking movie you watch
You almost had me there with your argument and then you name dropped fuckin moviebob. Whatever you think of YMS, moviebob is like that but 10x worse. This guy literally calls himself "the game overthinker" what are you talking about. He's had a decade long career of stupid nitpicking.
I was talking about him insulting audiences and the media, specifically black people who don't usually get this kind of representation, who enjoy this film is an important cultural moment. If he doesn't like it that's fine, but I just cannot stand his metric for what makes a good movie. Its cold and robotic and sneering. I started watching Adam years ago and enjoyed his top 10 lists and take downs of so bad its good movies, but he has not improved much as a critic and seems unwilling to really examine his own biases and limitations. I also found a lot of other critics, of which moviebob is only one, that actually worked in the industry and studied film theory and history, so I grew out of him.
Trivializing the collective cultures anticipation and enjoyment of this movie as “an embarrassment” is pretty insulting. So is pretending that movies like Moonlight and 12 Years A Slave did t get enough attention when they actually got plenty, thy both won Best Picture.
I'm not sure the definition of that but the police are sort of the antagonists and are largely portrayed negatively. Though there is a bit more nuance than that of course.
They are portrayed negatively, but no worse then McDormand or even the family itself. In the film, they were getting blame for something they honestly couldn't do much about.
The most positive character in the film was Woody Harrelson.
They are portrayed negatively, but no worse then McDormand or even the family itself.
Indeed.
The most positive character in the film was Woody Harrelson.
I think the new chief, while not fleshed out, was a more positive example of "good police" considering he didn't tolerate Dixon. Willoughby while nowhere near bad he was at best an ineffective cop considering he didn't stop Dixon or McDormand's character doing clearly illegal things and ofc he never solved anything.
I haven't seen Three Billboards so I can't comment on the first, don't really see what is so wrong about the second one other than it being a little callous. I will say I have disagreed with Moviebob several times but still maintain that he's a good critic. No critic is perfect but at the very least moviebob actually knows what themes and subtext are and can properly explain what a movie is trying to accomplish and how effectively it does so, rather than just harp on how well it was made.
Compare Adams 2016 list with moviebob's. Adam put the Revenant at #2 because he genuinely thought the Revenant was some amazing piece of art, and look at how much effort they put into making it and bla bla bla. I think is a fun movie to watch but is super pretentious and Blue Ruin had a lot more interesting things to say about revenge than the Revenant ever did.
Moviebob put it at #3 because while he recognizes that Inauritu makes "pretentious grotesquely overrated movies" and that like his other movies "the Revenant is overlong, self-absorbed and nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is" he still really enjoys it because "its also got dudes jumping off cliffs on horseback and DiCaprio damn near killing himself to win that Oscar"
Moviebob has no pretentious illusions but actually recognizes good storytelling techniques to the point that even if he enjoys something like the Revenant, he recognizes its because of his own taste and opinion and not because the movie is obviously objectively better.
Based on your comments it just seems that you enjoy bob's nerdy pretentiousness more than adam's cynical pretentiousness.
They're both absolutely shitty "critics" and their throwaway statements are the only things people take seriously because they can parade it around.
At least adam is right about comic book movies. They're trash and its disgusting that grown adults actually get so invested into made up and shallow scenarios that they get all political over it, like in the case of BP. Its even worse with SW, which has grown into a full grown cult by now.
Also, Revenant is not pretentious at all. But well... who am I preaching to here lol. hf
Why is moviebob pretentious tho? Yeah he oversells a movie sometimes but in terms of analysis, he’s very good at analyzing a film’s intent and execution. He’s also well read and knows how to judge a movie's place in the culture and industry. He’s mostly a pop and exploitation critic sure, but at this point I feel like those genres have long been accepted as valuable art in their own regard by the majority of critics and filmmakers today.
I used to really like YMS, his reviews reminded me a lot of Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, but then I realized that Adam wasn't playing a character.
I don't watch this guys videos but I checked this one out, and as a huge Marvel fan who loved Black Panther I actually agree with a lot of his points, but he comes off as such a smug dick about it all.
I think Adam is quite good but at the same time, he can be a real Captain Nitpicker. And it's funny that you brought up Moviebob's video because I was thinking of the same thing during on his points.
His whole shtick is fucking nitpicking, and like half of the nitpicky points he makes are the things that are explained in the movie or he just misunderstood or got completely wrong. His actual film analysis is usually very shallow and dry. But his tone is this smug, better than the movie critic which is hilarious considering how much of his viewpoint is just his lack of attention.
I personally feel that anyone who has to defend their opinion by acting like the opposing side are lesser than them probably needs to learn the concept of opinions and personality
Btw his criticism of Black Panther being made by a mega-corporate conglomerate making money for rich old dudes has been addressed by most critics, but as moviebob breaks down here maybe we should stop being buzzkills about people enjoying pop entertainment, especially when the subject matter in question (afro-futurism) hasn't been represented for most Americans.
This is the same bullshit argument as "lol you use a MacBook to write communist essays".
You know what every movie ever made that touches on themes of social justice has in common? Old white dudes were involved in making or distributing them to audiences.
This kind of gatekeeping is always tailored by the critic as a thoughtless and meaningless way to object to something they don't like without explaining themselves with a substantive criticism.
what? He's pretty blatant about being smug about movies. What is something he's said that's wrong? Seems like you just don't like him personally, which is fine.
I never got smug from Bob, just detailed. He defends himself and his position thoughtfully and clearly, which I guess can feel like smugness when you feel strongly in the other direction but haven't given it as much thought as a guy paid to do just that and only that every day.
I agree. My taste in movies is pretty unrefined so while I do like some movies he likes, I also like tons that he thinks are terrible. I watch movies just to have fun, but he sees them as art, and as someone who studied regular art for some time, I can totally understand why he doesn't want to waste his time with films that don't do anything unique or special.
I haven't seen Black Panther yet but I can see where he's coming from. This time last year, an absurd amount of people wanted to see Logan with a best picture nomination.
Except he's not engaging with the content of this movie at all, EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS JUST SO SURFACE LEVEL: whether people bled when they were stabbed, special effects and "cringtastic" humor, "I really enjoyed the action scene after the casino."
"This is a movie for children and it's fucking embarrassing that its at the forefront of adult political conversations."
Really? How about you actually judge what the movie has to say about politics before you insult everyone who watches for being chumps. I watch and love all the same arthouse movies as Adam does (probably more because he hasn't seemed to watch a single movie before 1990 that isn't Jodorowsky or Kubrick) and I still enjoy the shit out of Marvel movies. Its not an embarrassment that Pop art which is literally designed to entertain and communicate with the largest audience possible, is talked about by the largest audience possible. Thor Ragnorak, on the surface level, was a dumb goofy action movie about a Norse God and a Giant Green Dude fighting aliens in an arena. However, on the subtextual level, it was also a scathing indictment of colonialism made by an indie filmmaker of Maori descent. The surface level is enjoying a kid friendly nostalgic comic book movie, the subtext/substance, is completely political, and the same goes for Black Panther. Disregarding that is just you choosing not to engage with a movie, which is fine, but don't start insulting people intelligence because you think your above it all, your not.
Also note that he complains that movies like 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight aren't getting attention, (when they have), and completely ignores the fact that Black Panther's director Ryan Coogler started out as an indie director making Fruitvale Station and then Creed.
Except he's not engaging with the content of this movie at all, EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS JUST SO SURFACE LEVEL: whether people bled when they were stabbed, special effects and "cringtastic" humor, "I really enjoyed the action scene after the casino."
Maybe the content was so samey to every other Marvel movie that in a short review he didn't feel spending a lot of time essentially rehashing his general, established issues with most Marvel movies' one dimensional characters and predictable plots.
Its not an embarrassment that Pop art which it is literally designed to entertain and communicate with the largest audience possible, is talked about by the largest audience possible
Popular movies can, and often do, suck. I don't think he at any point said its popularity was to its detriment in his eyes though.
That's not a what a typo is. A typo is mechanical, like when you type too fast and miss a letter, or inverse the order of two letters. You confused the spelling of a word with that of another word, which is a grammatical error. I don't think you're stupid because of it, I misspell things too, but it was funny that you made that mistake it in the exact sentence you were defending your intelligence.
If you nitpick at some inconsequential thing to give a movie a bad review, then it is simply a dumb and surface level way of reviewing a film. I have heard that this isn't alone to just his Black Panther review, but how he reviews most heralded films. It's a easy go-to way to make him look superior to pointing out something that everyone already knew was there, but didn't care.
And since this is YouTube, the more smug you are, the more popular you become, so this type of reviewing works.
How about you tell me your favorite movie and I'll point out some small inconsistencies and give it a 5/10, and talk about how I'm reviewing your movie on content.
And with this you wanted to feel superior to him, wow.
The main point of these quickies isn't to do analysis, it's to shortly review a movie which might get him clicks because it's the movie people talk about. In the case of a new marvel movie one has it even easier because every marvel movie has the same flaws anyway, you don't need to reiterate it every single time.
It's not even about liking/enjoying them or not, it's about the movie's quality. I can enjoy the room for what is is, it's still a terrible movie.
I can enjoy marvel movies for what they are, they are still mediocre movies.
Speak truth! This is the thing. Everyone just need to chill the fuck out on the hate. This culture of nitpicking and trying to find plot holes is so tiresome. You can't have conversations about the actual movies or shows without this shit coming up. What Adam does isn't film criticism it's just simply trying to assert his intelect and people 13-23 eat this shit up because they like to feel anti-everything I guess to feel smarter. To me there are some obviously dumb movies out there. Ones where it feels like they aren't even trying that deserve the hate, Fan4stic comes to mind. IMO the Marvel films for the most part are feel like they are trying and largely succeeding.
I'm honestly a fan of Adam but I hear what your saying. I think his smugness works for his YMS series but I take his reviews with a grain of salt if it's a franchise I'm interested in. I thought this review was oddly dismissive of why people were excited for this movie and he acted like movies marketed towards children or teenagers can't have serious or adult themes that should be talked about.
but as moviebob breaks down here maybe we should stop being buzzkills about people enjoying pop entertainment,
What an absolutely pathetic viewpoint. How about we show some proper fucking form on adults getting in a frenzy about films made for children, they're for fucking children! People who haven't developed their brains properly! People aren't enjoying this in a charmed, nostalgic way! They're literally being frenzied up over something made for people who're far dumber than they are!
How about instead of whining about people with a greater insight into the medium than yourself, you grow up?
Oh please. Says you. You are not good...and HE ain't wrong. Marvel movies, on average, are not good movies. They aim at being liked by children and usually adults who are not discerning will like them, too. That's not being smug. Marvel makes movies like Olive Garden makes dinner.
The themes in BP are basic...not deep or thought provoking. As a bi-racial person, it looks, feels, and smells like a movie about black people made by white people.
BP had a chance to feel more like an African movie, but instead they went for a movie that turned out dull. They mostly wasted Boseman. They did waste all the female actors.
Michael B. Jordan gets my vote as worst actor as a villain in recent memory. That guy might not be able to act.
I'd say most people would disagree with you on all of those points. Marvel movies have consistently been highly rated. Black Panther's tone and worldbuilding has also been consistently praised, as well as how refreshingly the female characters were utilized throughout.
Meh, it's not really worth arguing over, but a lot of us feel like the Marvel movies, these recent Star Wars movies, are all shit.
Sure you have lots of people fanboying online about them, but content wise they're just dull. If they didn't have brand they'd be straight-to-SyFy crap.
They're lowest common denominator drek for the lovely 12-34 market (and 34+ manchildren). Despite all the hate YMS is getting in here, I think it's mostly because some folks are a little thin-skinned about their choices of entertainment.
The general public would know about the BP winner-if he had Bright up some obscure movie nobody's heard of outside of Reddit, that'd at least make more sense than this.
Knowing about something is not the same as considering it important.
It seems obvious to say, but you don't need to look any further than box office figures to understand what the general public literally values and spends their time and money supporting.
That does mean that general audience think that something is less important.Moonlight and Slave are not accessible, escapist, family friendly and heavily marketed like BP. Naturally BP will attract more people but that doesn't mean that people don't value those movies as much.As far as smaller awards season movies go, those 2 have had a lot of conversations about them and nobody think that they are not important or less important.
Honestly, that whole section was kinda silly. Not to mention that the reason people are talking about this particular movie a lot is because it, you know, can be watched by children.
I mean, when was the last black majority cast with a budget of $100M< that children could actually watch and enjoy?
Not to mention that the reason people are talking about this particular movie a lot is because it, you know, can be watched by children
Lmao, no it's not. Adults are going to this thing because they think it's important. Critics are saying, "This movie matters, blah blah.."
Someone I know on twitter, an adult woman in her 30's, said that the fictional female characters in the fictional nation of Wakanda with all this fantasy technology are her "role models".
Yes, no fictional media has ever been important to anyone ever.
Why is it only whenever someone who isn't a straight white dude talks about how important a piece of media was/is to them that people feel the need to go "ummmm isnt that a little pathetic lol??? its just fiction!!!" but this sub still has a huge victim boner because the 2016 Ghostbusters "ruined my childhood!!!!!" and TLJ "ruined Luke Skywalker!!!"
Importance is derived by the individual in these cases.
I don't see why representation can't be important to some people. To use a sports example, I got excited when a football player who shares my full name and position joined the Premier League, because that was cool for me to see. I get excited when I see players wearing my number, because it is not a common number in football and so I enjoy when it crops up. I would be ecstatic if some day, Man United (the team I support) signed a Canadian player. That'd make me really happy. Hell, I get happy seeing them sign Swedish players, and my family hasn't been Swedish for 100 years.
People naturally get attached to things they can relate to. This is a monumentally large cultural event for black populations in North America because they get a big time black superhero. This isn't some Shaq movie that was small scale. This is a billion dollar movie. Who are you to say people are wrong for feeling happy to see 'someone like them' in such a movie, or that it doesn't matter?
Now, as for the woman on Twitter, I'd imagine that's at least a bit of a joke, if not, well, so be it. My mother - a late 50s white woman - mentioned as we left the cinema how it was nice to see some ass kicking women in such a big movie. Now they obviously aren't her role models, but again, what's wrong with being glad to see such things? I'm not into the whole feminism thing, but can't women (black women in this instance) feel proud to see the characters in this movie?
Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else, or that it shouldn't be.
Plenty of people who've probably been fans of the comics since they were kids. It's not like it's impossible for people to look up to fictional characters.
Agreed. To me, he always sounds like he should be in r/iamverysmart. We get it man, you're cultured and we're philistines for liking superhero movies. I'm not sure what children's movie involves arming the African diaspora to revolt against their white oppressors but it must be the case since Adam is a prominent Youtube critic
Because he doesn't get/understand/care about the difference in types of "importance" because he only sees movies as movies and I guess considers them and the industries that make them as seperate from the rest of society and reality.
"Why are black people so excited about this movie? Why aren't they just as excited about this slave movie??" - someone totally disconnected from society at large (and I say that as someone who generally likes his reviews)
Also I love how he gets all pissy about people talking too much about the politics surrounding this movie then spends basically the entire video just talking about the politics behind this movie.
He's being a nerd on the internet hoping to get views. Which is to say, "I'm not being political, I don't get it, let me make many blanket political statements to back that up."
I know! My 'Chiron is a replicant' fan theory post went no where, but the post on how Blade Runner 2049 is an allegory for the struggles of closeted gay black men living in American ghettos took off like gangbusters!
I think because those movies weren't talked about with nearly the same hyperbole Black Panther is being discussed. People are making a huge fuss over an average Marvel movie, while those fantastic movies got the acclaim they deserved.
I really didn't care for that part of the video. Not necessarily whether or not that was true, but that whole area came off kinda smug. I don't see what's the big deal about making this a big political thing. That's just stupid. But lemme go ahead and list these high class intellectual movies that -I- think should be.
I think the general public really hardly even knows these movies exist.
Most people I know (coworkers & older family - not likeminded friends) will see a couple big budget super mainsteam movies per year if that. "best picture" winners and nominations might as well be film festival indie projects, and are considered way too artsy to be bothered with.
613
u/[deleted] Feb 17 '18 edited Feb 17 '18
Why did he just say that the general public don't consider Best Picture winners 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight "important" films?
That's just a wrong statement.