HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:About to watch Cenk Uygur of the Young Turds get murdered in a political debate. Live on youtube, if anyone wants to join.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix6RdWujfIM

Hard pass. Game of Thrones time.

lol. It's already over. Cenk is dying.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:About to watch Cenk Uygur of the Young Turds get murdered in a political debate. Live on youtube, if anyone wants to join.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix6RdWujfIM

Hard pass. Game of Thrones time.

lol. It's already over. Cenk is dying.

Jiggy weeps

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't remember who it was or what movie it was, but some director lit into Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, pretty much blaming them entirely for his movie's failure. There may very well have been some truth to it, but it was a terrible look for the director.

melissa mccarthy with her ghostbusters possibly? (or the directer too) i remember them throwing a fit and blaming moviegoers for not liking it. so it's probable that they did the same to critics and such.

Actually I misremembered. It was Brett Ratner and he wasn't bitching about a low score on his own film, it was a general rant.

Still, it's not the artist's place to be critics' critics except in the most egregious cases of intellectual dishonesty. It just isn't.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't remember who it was or what movie it was, but some director lit into Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, pretty much blaming them entirely for his movie's failure. There may very well have been some truth to it, but it was a terrible look for the director.

melissa mccarthy with her ghostbusters possibly? (or the directer too) i remember them throwing a fit and blaming moviegoers for not liking it. so it's probable that they did the same to critics and such.

Actually I misremembered. It was Brett Ratner and he wasn't bitching about a low score on his own film, it was a general rant.

Still, it's not the artist's place to be critics' critics except in the most egregious cases of intellectual dishonesty. It just isn't.

i'm not sure that i see the problem with artists trying to downplay or lessen the critics' impact on their work. it's when they start trying to blame the very people who they want to support their work, that i find the problem.

BWAHAHAHA. Cenk is getting destroyed, the crowd is turning on him. He just got owned, then got pissed at the crowd and told them they're uneducated and can't follow along. This is liquid fucking gold. LIQUID GOLD. Even I didn't think he'd get clowned this bad.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't remember who it was or what movie it was, but some director lit into Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, pretty much blaming them entirely for his movie's failure. There may very well have been some truth to it, but it was a terrible look for the director.

melissa mccarthy with her ghostbusters possibly? (or the directer too) i remember them throwing a fit and blaming moviegoers for not liking it. so it's probable that they did the same to critics and such.

Actually I misremembered. It was Brett Ratner and he wasn't bitching about a low score on his own film, it was a general rant.

Still, it's not the artist's place to be critics' critics except in the most egregious cases of intellectual dishonesty. It just isn't.

i'm not sure that i see the problem with artists trying to downplay or lessen the critics' impact on their work. it's when they start trying to blame the very people who they want to support their work, that i find the problem.

If they're actually being unfair and purposely misleading, sure. Otherwise, let your film speak for itself if you think it's good.

Cenk is doing a subtly brilliant job of responding to Ben Shapiro's points, then detracting to a different topic in hopes that Ben forgets so he doesn't go back to it and own it.

Ben is still going back and owning him, then owning him on the new thing he brings up. This is such a one-sided beatdown.

"You got me there"
- Cenk Uygur, 2017

"Look it up, you can google it"
- Cenk Uygur, 2017




I love this.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't remember who it was or what movie it was, but some director lit into Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, pretty much blaming them entirely for his movie's failure. There may very well have been some truth to it, but it was a terrible look for the director.

melissa mccarthy with her ghostbusters possibly? (or the directer too) i remember them throwing a fit and blaming moviegoers for not liking it. so it's probable that they did the same to critics and such.

Actually I misremembered. It was Brett Ratner and he wasn't bitching about a low score on his own film, it was a general rant.

Still, it's not the artist's place to be critics' critics except in the most egregious cases of intellectual dishonesty. It just isn't.

i'm not sure that i see the problem with artists trying to downplay or lessen the critics' impact on their work. it's when they start trying to blame the very people who they want to support their work, that i find the problem.

If they're actually being unfair and purposely misleading, sure. Otherwise, let your film speak for itself if you think it's good.

yeah, let the movie speak for itself is the ideal. critics can get in the way of that. they can dissuade moviegoers. and until they learn telepathy, there is no way to really know whether they are trying to mislead or not.

I have never seen a more one-sided debate in my life. Ouch.
R.I.P., Cenk.

That's like the 3rd or 4th time he's telling people to go google something. lol.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I don't remember who it was or what movie it was, but some director lit into Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, pretty much blaming them entirely for his movie's failure. There may very well have been some truth to it, but it was a terrible look for the director.

melissa mccarthy with her ghostbusters possibly? (or the directer too) i remember them throwing a fit and blaming moviegoers for not liking it. so it's probable that they did the same to critics and such.

Actually I misremembered. It was Brett Ratner and he wasn't bitching about a low score on his own film, it was a general rant.

Still, it's not the artist's place to be critics' critics except in the most egregious cases of intellectual dishonesty. It just isn't.

i'm not sure that i see the problem with artists trying to downplay or lessen the critics' impact on their work. it's when they start trying to blame the very people who they want to support their work, that i find the problem.

If they're actually being unfair and purposely misleading, sure. Otherwise, let your film speak for itself if you think it's good.

yeah, let the movie speak for itself is the ideal. critics can get in the way of that. they can dissuade moviegoers. and until they learn telepathy, there is no way to really know whether they are trying to mislead or not.

If there's no way of knowing, how can you justify a reaction of any kind from a director...trusting the integrity of their jobs seems like the way to go rather than being paranoid, defensive and overly sensitive.

Headhunter wrote: If there's no way of knowing, how can you justify a reaction of any kind from a director...trusting the integrity of their jobs seems like the way to go rather than being paranoid, defensive and overly sensitive.

i suppose. i think there are ways to go about it, without slinging mud back at the critics. if you take to name calling essentially, that is only going to bring actual ill will toward your work.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: If there's no way of knowing, how can you justify a reaction of any kind from a director...trusting the integrity of their jobs seems like the way to go rather than being paranoid, defensive and overly sensitive.

i suppose. i think there are ways to go about it, without slinging mud back at the critics. if you take to name calling essentially, that is only going to bring actual ill will toward your work.

Unless you're explaining something/clearing up something incorrect, it will always reek of "please like my movie" though. And it's a bad look.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: If there's no way of knowing, how can you justify a reaction of any kind from a director...trusting the integrity of their jobs seems like the way to go rather than being paranoid, defensive and overly sensitive.

i suppose. i think there are ways to go about it, without slinging mud back at the critics. if you take to name calling essentially, that is only going to bring actual ill will toward your work.

Unless you're explaining something/clearing up something incorrect, it will always reek of "please like my movie" though. And it's a bad look.

yeah, i think it should be more about encouraging people to watch the movie. let them decide what they think. but that could look desperate too. that's not gonna do any favors for the director/actors, if they come across like they're pandering or whatever.

Jason wrote:I actually like Keanu better overall than Cruise. Jack Reacher was just a way better flick than Wick. Don't know why all youse guys jimmies always get rustled by that statement. :p

Nothing to add but I am quoting the winner of "Worst Taste" on HMF

Full video of that debate.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:If we're being real, we're grading presence of action stars on a curve. None of them have the total package we saw from 80s action stars. The guy who would be the closest if he wanted to be is The Rock, but he just doesn't take those roles. He'd really be killer though.

there aren't nearly the type of big action guys like there were in the 80s, definitely. that doesn't mean that action heroes can't be capable at any size. there's room for sarah connor and john mcclane as much as there is for rambo and dutch.

Not just the peak physique guys. Who can play the John McClanes of today?

jason statham made a career of essentially doing just that, didn't he? maybe not what you guys like, but he was pretty successful for a while. liam neeson, denzel washington, and a slew of other more dramatic actors have taken to the action hero thing recently too.

Statham has no Charisma, and is pretty peak physique. I do not see him as a John McClane type.

Well, the baldness matches...

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:If we're being real, we're grading presence of action stars on a curve. None of them have the total package we saw from 80s action stars. The guy who would be the closest if he wanted to be is The Rock, but he just doesn't take those roles. He'd really be killer though.

there aren't nearly the type of big action guys like there were in the 80s, definitely. that doesn't mean that action heroes can't be capable at any size. there's room for sarah connor and john mcclane as much as there is for rambo and dutch.

Not just the peak physique guys. Who can play the John McClanes of today?

jason statham made a career of essentially doing just that, didn't he? maybe not what you guys like, but he was pretty successful for a while. liam neeson, denzel washington, and a slew of other more dramatic actors have taken to the action hero thing recently too.

I've sat in chairs with more personality than Jason Statham.

Those guys can flat out act so yeah they can do action. It is not the same though.

hehe fair enough.

well, bruce willis didn't start as an action guy, if that's what you're getting at? it would be cool to have more like willis, ford, gibson, and swayze type action heroes today. maybe when superheroes run the course, we'll get back to something more like that.

What did Bruce even do before Die Hard other than Moonlighting?

Buckle up, buckaroo. The superheroes are going nowhere. :cry:

I only recall Blind Date before Die Hard

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

Jason wrote:I actually like Keanu better overall than Cruise. Jack Reacher was just a way better flick than Wick. Don't know why all youse guys jimmies always get rustled by that statement. :p

Nothing to add but I am quoting the winner of "Worst Taste" on HMF

Ironic, considering Jack Reacher is actually a tasteful movie compared to the mindless shoot 'em up beat 'em up with a simpleton storyline. Jack Reacher will apparently rustle jimmies on this board forever. :p

Don't know why everyone always insists on comparing the two and shitting on Reacher. They are nothing alike, and I liked both movies. Wick was a fun, mindless, action beat 'em up. Reacher was an incredibly detailed story, strongly character driven with a complete and total focus on its excellent plotline. A total break from the typical, mindless Hollywood blockbuster. An A+ movie. And I don't give grades like that out like candy.