What are your thoughts on this film critic's writing style?

What are your thoughts on this film critic's writing style?

Other urls found in this thread:

vox.com/2017-in-review/2017/12/29/16792848/did-we-see-the-same-movie-last-jedi-three-billboards-detroit-wonder-woman-2017
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>superheros
try the fantasy general

Fuck off, Review Screw. You're an insufferable pseud who should stick to /tv/. Only the mouth-breathers on there will take your pretentious bullshit seriously.

But everyone on /tv/ is making fun of him.

Link?

Not literature

I want retards to learn the difference between "it's" and "its"

Confident ignorance. Gotta begin somewhere. It doesn't really bother me even though I feel like I have to parse (and emend) my way through it to try to get at the writer's intentions. I suppose I could call it 'pretensious,' but that wouldn't be very nice.

Spiderman sucks ass. What is the cannonical origin story? Why do characters change race for no reason? Does it not give a fuck about continuity?

For all these reasons, it is trash. Just like the whole hollywood movie cash grabs. Very rarely will a film be Veeky Forums

...

...

Thanks, I'm retarded.

a·dept
adjective
əˈdept/Submit
1.
very skilled or proficient at something.
"he is adept at cutting through red tape"

So saying something's "incredibly adept" is a bit redundant and smacks of just using big(er) words to pad out the length of your opinion on a children's film.
Also he used the wrong form of its.

Nah

>used the wrong form of "its" *twice*.
>"have" is too general a term.
>"other" should be cut.
>"ethos" used apparently just to seem worldly.
>"adept" used incorrectly

If you want to write single-sentence reviews, you should put a bit of effort into your word choice.

There's nothing wrong with saying something is very adept

someone can be adept. Something cannot.

There's nothing wrong with saying something is incredibly very skilled at something?
Sounds pretty retarded.

>incredibly proficient

>incredibly very proficient
still sounds retarded

>incredibly proficient
>incredibly skilled
time to stop being a prescriptive sperg

You don't know what ethos means

This might even be more pseud then the OP itself, thannks for the laugh freakshow.

I want to read what the guy in the picture at the top of the page said, and then read the definition I posted of "adept".

yeah go ahead

Ok, I'm going to stop arguing with you because my typo made me look stupid, but I want you to know I'm right and nothing you can say will make me think otherwise.

don't sweat it, nerd

Oh don't worry I'm not, and haven't you heard? Hollywood says nerds are cool.

i want tom holland to sit on my face

Is becoming a critic giving up? Is there anything worth less?

We live in an age of diminishing expectations. There's hardly anything on but capeshit, and you get torrents of acclaim for putting out a film that's merely ''good for a superhero movie'', to me, they all seem like the same indistinct blur of contrived CGI action. Im numb to it (maybe it's because i'm not a film critic, I'm not a journalist, I do not work for vox or the nyt, I might lack the finesse required to appreciate the marvel multiverse). Then there's the plague of socially relevant criticism, the Royal We (How we watched and talked about movies in 2017) the paeans to ''diversity'', an atomised hateworld reconciled in the Product. AO Scott hardly does anything but apologise for being a white male anymore, there's something unbearably smug about his calvinist self debasement. everything is relevant and groundbreaking, so relevant and grounbreaking they need to hire an army of hacks to remind us of it. The latest Star Wars movie was self referential and cynical, a metaphor for the failure of America's liberal class? Behind the spectacle and it's happy delusions, I cannot but feel doom closing in. The ceaseless metallic clanging of transformers or the justice league, the confused slogans, call to mind WWIII more than anything.

vox.com/2017-in-review/2017/12/29/16792848/did-we-see-the-same-movie-last-jedi-three-billboards-detroit-wonder-woman-2017

>Spiderman: Homecoming was an incredibly adept comic book motion picture but it's deserved placement in the iconic superhero film ethos is blocked by rabid Sam Raimi's fants that think its unholy to praise any other Spider-man film that doesn't have Tobey Maguire crying profusely.

He extends some terms which could be simplified without losing meaning to gain authority on the subject, like "motion picture" instead of "movie". Of course, the person is half-joking about it, but the joke that using longer and more unusual words should make your point seem better is itself a disguise for the fact that one really wants to have his opinion in high regard for it. It's a common banter technique.

"Ethos" is a weird word there. I think it is meant to imply a canon or a tradition in the sense of a hall of fame of superhero films, but I don't think it fits at all. An iconic ethos for a superhero film could be the way they are made, for example, it's not a seal of quality.

"Its" is used wrong twice. I usually don't care at all, common mistake that you can overlook, but it's funny that he managed to exchange one for the other like that.

What follows is a proper example of a scarecrow fallacy. It's quite obvious that Sam Raimi fans enjoy other things rather than Maguire crying profusely, but he points that out for comedic effect.

There is nothing wrong with using "adept" here, it's a figure of speech, a simple metonymy in which the movie takes the place of the work of the creators. They were adept at creating a comic book movie, thus it is an "adept comic book movie". There is something implied there, we don't have to pretend we are autistic.

>descriptivism

I'll have a go at your argument for fun:

Here are all the synonyms for 'adept' since they were conveniently left out of the definition and are being used to make the argument somewhat dishonest.
>synonyms: expert, proficient, accomplished, skillful, talented, masterly, masterful, consummate, virtuoso; adroit, dexterous, deft, artful; brilliant, splendid, marvelous, formidable, outstanding, first-rate, first-class, excellent, fine;
>informal synonyms: top-notch, tip-top, A1, ace, mean, hotshot, crack, nifty, deadly.
Is it improper? Yes and no depending on how far you're willing to stretch the meaning of 'adept' and how much you want to be a stickler on it. The first word I think of when I hear 'adept' is 'competent'. Competency, Proficiency, Skill and many other words in the synonyms list can be qualified with additional words and do have degrees... so "Very Adept" is not entirely redundant; it's like saying "Super Duper!"

But he’s right though