Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+507|2837
Comedian Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special, The Closer, has drawn praise from audiences and social media, while eliciting scorn from reviewers and professional critics over its jokes about the LGBTQ and trans communities. Members of the press have even gone so far as to label the stand-up special ‘a betrayal‘ on Chappelle’s part.

But how far does this divide extend between what appears to be mass audience approval and universal critic disapproval? Rotten Tomatoes, the film critic aggregation site that averages reviews of visual media in film, television and streaming, has become the latest tool to measure this.

Rotten Tomatoes has a user review system, which it measures against the media critics. This helps to show how paid critics approach their art, as opposed to casual audiences. It’s also becoming a cultural cudgel that proves a disconnect between the woke media and the public at large, which is exhausted by cancellations and public struggle sessions in the name of ‘progress’, racial or otherwise.

Currently Chappelle’s The Closer critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes sits at 43 percent, earning it the dreaded green splatter. However, it’s at an overwhelming 96 percent on the audience meter. On the flip side, the new Disney Plus documentary on Dr Anthony Fauci, which explores the personal side of the controversial figure, has a certified 91 percent approval rating from critics and a mere 2 percent from audiences.

Instead of comparing Chappelle’s special to Fauci, perhaps a better comparison is to the critically acclaimed special Nanette from woke comedian Hannah Gadsby. Nanette garnered a perfect critic rating of 100 percent certified fresh. And no wonder: it was practically created in a lab for New Yorker cartoon caption writers and woke social justice warriors who believe stand-up comedy is really about working through personal and societal issues of intersectionality. Nanette only earned a 27 percent audience rating.
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/rotten … audiences/

I saw the special. It wasn't special but it wasn't bad.

Anyhow this is the final straw. Rotten Tomatoes is dead to me. Rotten Tomatoes also said the Sopranos movie was good even though it was one of the worse movies I have ever seen. But that movie was woke and the audiences knew it and hated it.

Do not use Rotten Tomatoes.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+426|2570
i don't really think rotten tomatoes is representative of anything except for the community that use and care about rotten tomatoes.

user ratings are often way out of step with 'professional' critics (i use that term generously).

a more egregious example is video-game ratings. the entire games journalism profession is pretty obviously bought-and-sold by the major game publishers. ratings on sites like IGN are basically a meme at this point. at the opposite pole, steam reviews are often hysterical and full of groupthink pile-ons.

these sites are effectively insular communities. i do think the state of film/television criticism is at least in better health than game criticism, as above. you can pretty easily filter out the 'woke' (for want of a better term) plaudits.

i tend to trust the judgment of specific critics rather than aggregation sites. your pauline kaels, your a. o. scotts, your ebert/siskels, your richard brodys. actual professional critics who try to do their level best.

Last edited by uziq (2021-10-14 19:13:27)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

Some movies use Rotten Tomatoes "certification" on box art. Reminds me of those games that pepper theirs with like a hundred arbitrary 4.5 stars, 95% and 10/10 reviews. lol

I'm not sure there's a neatly-drawn "cultural divide" between critics and audience. It's like two random waveforms that sometimes intersect. I can usually guess why a movie's reviews differ based on what the movie is and who's reviewing it. Summer blockbusters, probably going to be better received by the audience.

i tend to trust the judgment of specific critics rather than aggregation sites. your pauline kaels, your a. o. scotts, your ebert/siskels, your richard brodys. actual professional critics who try to do their level best.
I use RT as an at-a-glance as a review aggregator (critic reviews often link off-site) and a splash page for "what's new" and "what's coming." I can save time on a movie if everybody's saying no. That said, the distinction between "fresh" and "rotten" is sometimes confusing. On occasion, I've seen positively worded reviews rate a splat, and negative ones rate a fresh.

Music/stage critics are going to be able to better tell me why to avoid cats '19 than cats fanatic Dilbert. Not that I needed much of a reason beyond the trailer.



I don't think I've ever posted on a site like imdb, rt, screenrants, comingsoon, comicvine. I didn't even know RT had a "community."
uziq
Member
+426|2570
it’s an unrelated topic but i think this trend to censure comedians is officially Very Lame. comedians are one of the few categories of people who should be exempt from such social mores. it’s their entire job to invert morality and act the cynic/skeptic/gadfly.

policing humour is lame. people find sad and deplorable and ‘not-OK’ things funny; people laugh when they’re nervous or shocked or in response to any number of monstrosities. our ability to join together in laughter is very fundamentally human and a good thing. comedians don’t determine group morality or social attitudes. bombing the reviews of an outré stand-up comedian is not going to fix intolerance.

Last edited by uziq (2021-10-14 19:07:12)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

Some comedians do a good job at separating their stage personality from their person. I think it's an important distinction for people to make, and a tolerance level they need to develop.

There are times though when the "routine" is just the veneer over political objectives or a very sour personality. Rush Limbaugh called himself an entertainer.
uziq
Member
+426|2570
well, comedy can be judged on its own merits. a comic telling bad racist jokes or relying on lazy tropes is just a bad comic. that's a bad judgment enough. i don't think they have to be warded as a 'social evil'. a guy telling bad jokes or using the n-word in a comedy club is not constructing an apartheid state.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+767|5802|United States of America
I recall seeing a lot in previous decades around "you shouldn't make jokes about ____ because it's a terrible thing" and I've always thought if you as a comic are gonna try, it better be a good damn joke. There's a subset of simpletons who think Blazing Saddles is funny because "they're saying the bad words", but we've seen it's possible to intelligently do comedy about/tangential to some awful subjects -- and it was great. I've yet to watch any of this or the previous Netflix specials of Chappelle, but I expect there's nothing much to get fussed about.

When it comes to trans issues, most of society is barely at the cusp of grappling with a binary gender transition, so the people getting upset are probably way ahead of the curve. But then again, I did see an argument with someone asking "did you watch it?" and being told "You realize how insensitive it is to tell a trans person to watch something with transphobia in it?", which seems unhelpful. Sucks to suck, but that's where we are, and being mad on Twitter isn't changing anyone's life anymore than a comedian making decent jokes is causing hate crimes.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

I've seen a few dumb takes on Blazing Saddles. People who just focus on the n-word (it's not PC! not afraid to use it!) are missing out on the point, I think. I don't see how you can watch that movie and not understand that racists are one of the things being mocked. It's tragic to me that it became the beacon for some conservative anti-PC crusade.

In an interview with Rolling Stone in 2016, Mel explained how getting the film started worked. He received a script from Andrew Bergman and then called Andrew up and asked if he would be willing to work with him on it, while also saying, "We need a black guy. Otherwise, we can’t use the N word, and we’ve gotta use the N word many, many times."

When interviewer David Fear asked why he felt the need to use that word, Mel explained, "Well, because the idea of a black sheriff — which Andy already had in his first draft — is great, but all the bad guys are going to call him that. He had a hero who spoke like a 1974 resident of Harlem in a Western town in 1874. I mean, the juxtaposition of it was just great. But you know, if we’re going to do this, we’re going to need permission. I don’t want to cross lines I’m not supposed to be crossing."

So Mel called up his friend, renowned comedian Richard Pryor. He recalled, "I said, 'Richard, read this, tell me what you think.' He read it and said, 'Yeah, this is good … this is real. I like this.' I asked, 'Right, but what about the N word? We can’t say this so many times …' 'Well, Mel, you can’t say it. But the bad guys can say it. They would say it!' Then I asked him to come write it with us, and he said sure. That was how it started."

It should be noted that not only do the "bad guys", aka the bad cowboys, say the N word, but also the townspeople. This includes a very old woman who calls Sheriff Bart the word to his face, which further shows that the bad guys aren't simply the cowboys as much as they are all the racists in the film.

Mel also noted that Richard was originally set to play Sheriff Bart but Warner Brothers believed him to be too controversial so they refused to hire him. Although Mel threatened to walk if Richard wasn't cast, Richard convinced him to stay and, together, they found Cleavon to take the role.

Although the studio initially wanted to pull the film after they discovered what kind of language Mel was using, Vice President in Charge of Production at Warner Brothers John Calley convinced them to wait to see how the audience reacted in sneak previews. Because of how positive the audience reception was, they decided to release the film to the public.
https://www.distractify.com/p/is-blazing-saddles-racist

e: i've seen a clip of the beans scene with the fart noises edited out for broadcast/release somewhere or the other. scene made absolutely no sense without it.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5224|eXtreme to the maX
Can't really be bothered with professional critics, definitely not amateur critics.
#Freed Britney !
uziq
Member
+426|2570
a professional critic is invaluable. good criticism is an artform and commentary/discourse/discussion is a part of the artistic 'conversation'. artists don't create in a vacuum. it's a social process. production and reception rely upon each other.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5224|eXtreme to the maX
Thats great but most critics are sheep.
#Freed Britney !
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

Reason being?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5224|eXtreme to the maX
Most people are sheep
#Freed Britney !
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

And that means most critics are sheep, how? You may state it in formula.
uziq
Member
+426|2570

Dilbert_X wrote:

Most people are sheep
spoken truly like a man who hasn't developed emotionally or in his worldview since age 17.

'most' of anything is not high-quality or superlative. that's kind of what makes someone or something superlative.

most film-makers aren't good. most engineers aren't that good. i guess we should rubbish the whole profession?

a good critic can be utterly illuminating, something between helping you to see in a new way and also educating you on things you couldn't possibly know, not being a specialist, and all the while being engaging, respectful, graceful, even witty, and never condescending to their audience or traducing of the work of art. good criticism, like a good essay à la montaigne, is an artform in-itself. commentary can be raised to a very high level.

Last edited by uziq (2021-10-15 02:09:21)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

"Most people are sheep," (let's humor that for a moment) therefore "most critics are sheep."

Example ("most people are sheep" does not prove that "most critics are sheep"):
https://i.imgur.com/gmrHdNl.png

wiki wrote:

Sheeple (/ˈʃiːpəl/;[16] a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a derogatory term that highlights the passive herd behavior of people easily controlled by a governing power or market fads which likens them to sheep, a herd animal that is "easily" led about. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without any significant critical analysis or research, in large part due to the majority of a population having a similar mindset.[17]
Sheep/sheeple being used in dismissive disgust by dilbert (who makes posts bereft of critical analysis or research) against people, and particularly against people who write critical analyses of films. "Sheepishly" following the audience trend of dismissing critics in such a way. It gives me a headache.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+507|2837
Modern critics are mostly woke people from middle class backgrounds and have oppressive student loans. They have liberal politics but will not hesitate to #MeToo subordinates and don't date black women.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,927|5750|949

I can probably count on 1 hand the number of times I have gone on rotten tomatoes. Couldn't care less what they have to say about anything!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

OK? RT is an aggregator.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_ma … op_critics

Each name one has "full review" links to somewhere offsite where RT got it. What "they" have to say about a movie. Not what RT has to say about a movie.

Tab to the audience reviews, like 5 stars because Sopranos or .5 stars because woke. Lots of throwaway one-liners. This is the stuff you can skip. I don't even think you can reply to them. Is that really much of a "community?" Is there even a forum?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+507|2837
"Dozens of Netflix employees and their supporters staged a walkout outside Netflix Headquarters in California To protest comments made by Dave Chappelle in his latest comedy special"
https://old.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFr … upporters/

Hmm, 7/10
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

The comments are more amusing than the video. Was this posted in the right thread?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+507|2837
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/cowboy_bebop_2021

Maybe next time, Space Cowboy -- this live-action Bebop has a fun enough crew to spend time with, but it disappointingly replaces the soulfulness of the source material with kitsch

38% RT. This might be one time that RT is right. This is all John Cho's fault.
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1917541/cowboy-bebop.jpg?w=790&f=9c249af226f41eb4b15d5366f9b3d25b
Not even dressed right. Also
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9RcD2MVEAclAGb?format=jpg&name=large
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,936|5889|USA

There is at least some attention to fidelity in that live-action comparison up there that I don't generally see in other adaptations of stuff.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+507|2837
Cowboy Bebop was one season and a movie. And from what I have heard they add a new major storyline.

I will still give this a chance but the trailer looked bad. The reviews are bad. Maybe they should have done the same thing they did with the Sopranos movie and added a Black Lives Matter theme to the show in order just the reviews.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard