Disqus - Latest Comments for areyouscreening

Re: Scorpion Review – TV CBS

areyouscreening — Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:14:20 -0000

I do have to admit that I didn't take into account the, "you're a dumbass" argument for the show's quality, and you're right, what they're trying to do is make a show stupid people will champion.

Re: American Horror Story Cult Review

areyouscreening — Wed, 06 Sep 2017 21:27:16 -0000

I'm not sure what set you off here exactly, and while I readily admit that I am not pro-Trump, I think you'll find that your problem is with this show, not me. Just because I mention that the show is making fun of Trump, and moreover is mocking him and his supporters by portraying "Trump support," as its own recipe for psychopathy, doesn't mean that I am making fun of Trump or his supporters.

I might have said that it's funny that mocks him, because it is to a certain extent, but that has nothing to do with any bias or appropriating a review to put forward my political opinions. It's just what happens in the show, and I find it kind of funny.

If I was being politically biased, I would have just noted that it makes fun of Trump and rated it 10 out of 10.

It's actually fantastically bad, whoever it makes fun of.

We are actually a majority though.

Re: Claws TV Review – TNT Weaves Decent Drama Into Unwatchables

areyouscreening — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 19:55:13 -0000

By not loving shows that have diverse casts? Fairly regularly I guess.

Re: Still Star-Crossed TV Review – YA Shakespeare Meets Shonda Rhimes

areyouscreening — Wed, 31 May 2017 09:57:31 -0000

I appreciate the emphasis, and I get the idea that you aren't able to follow the idea that it is possible to make statements which refer to other things once you've given something a title. Still, latching onto her book as a "safespace" isn't an idea that makes any sense.

Her book is merely the referent of the statements I make which refer to it.

I suppose I might have said in the review, "by the way, Romeo & Juliet is actually very good," and your response would be, "Aha, you said this TV show was very good."

Ok, then. I'll consider myself thoroughly rebuked for suggesting that this TV show could entice people to read. I didn't say it, but apparently you have to get your fist-shaking out of your system.

Cheers!

Re: Alien: Covenant Movie Review – To “Ridley Scott” Will Soon Enter Common Usage

areyouscreening — Wed, 31 May 2017 09:43:17 -0000

Well, you make a lot of points, and generally speaking, on the one hand I'll give it to you, but on the other, you're just plain wrong, and I don't say that about much within the world of film criticism.

Oddly enough, I actually have a lot of art education behind me, though I'm afraid I generally dismiss statements of the form, "well, you just don't have the proper education to understand what's happening." It isn't to have an argument, it's just to not have an argument in an especially condescending and silly way.

I'm willing to give you the idea that people just want escapism, or just want to be thrown into a rich world.

I have to deny, however, that this relates to anything like a film's "goodness." This is just saying that there are movies that are bad in a certain way, and some people like movies that are bad in that way.

You apparently believe that the design/visual aspects of a film lend value and/or "goodness" to a film beyond other elements. I think it's no less nonsensical than to say that a novel is good because it has great descriptions of curtains. Being able to evoke scenery isn't what writing a novel is, and making something pretty isn't what making a movie is.

Of course, there are some views that can't be argued against and that's fine. For example, Roger Ebert reviewed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and gave it 4 out of 4 stars, and said the movie was good specifically because it was completely stupid. Oddly, I'm not falling for that.

Likewise, your argument would necessarily include the statement that every movie that is as pretty as this one is really good, no matter what happens.

I'm well aware that there are people who don't care about the logic of the plot and aren't bothered by the fact that the story is dependent on the characters being morons, or that it telegraphs everything that happens specifically because it thinks its audience is no more clever than its characters. In my opinion, that does actually make a film bad. You can certainly say that none of it matters because if you turn the sound off it all looks really cool, but I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.

By that standard you could just argue for the brilliance of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, right now, without bothering to watch it at all, because that movie is gorgeous.

Re: Still Star-Crossed TV Review – YA Shakespeare Meets Shonda Rhimes

areyouscreening — Tue, 30 May 2017 22:33:43 -0000

I'm not feigning anything, you called into question the idea of inspiring to read by quoting my use of the phrase, then propose to wonder what might be inspiring about it and list the captivating acting among the things which, I presume by following what you're saying (an idea you might want to latch onto), make the suggestion laughable.

My suggestion that "it" might inspire readers is from the first paragraph -

Still Star-Crossed, the novel by Melinda Taub, is an interesting and clever look at the world Shakespeare didn’t actually lay out all that distinctly in Romeo & Juliet. It’s equal parts fan fiction and development cheat by appropriation, but it spins a decent yarn and delivers an updated sense of drama. It’s not only solid YA entertainment, but it’s just the sort of effort we could use more of, both as an enticement to read more and backward entry into other literature.

- in which it couldn't be more clear that I'm talking about the book.

I imagine that there is some way to conclude that because I go on from there to talk about the TV show, which I generally make fun of and give a low rating, that I mean to imply that the same is true about that TV show... no, wait, I think I'll stick to my first impression of your reading skills.

As to the backward entry rant, which is somewhat fun in its way, I'll leave you to find the research on your own, or not. Or, I suppose I could just refer you to all English teachers everywhere.

It's YA fiction. It's whole purpose is to be a gateway drug.

Re: Still Star-Crossed TV Review – YA Shakespeare Meets Shonda Rhimes

areyouscreening — Tue, 30 May 2017 08:38:42 -0000

Well, I guess we know what novel you really hated.

As to the actual point at issue. I do have a Secondary Education degree, so I feel I have some nominal awareness when it comes to getting people to read. Beyond that, it is simply something that I have made it a point to study.

The term is "backward entry," and it isn't one that I made up. Fan fiction and/or novels that appropriate the characters and settings of classic literature have long been shown to bring people to the works that inspired them, and this one is a fun and intriguing effort that doesn't talk down to its audience.

On the other hand, since you find it hard to imagine that I would suggest this could inspire some to read, and mockingly note that such is unlikely to be achieved by way of the "captivating acting," and go on to mention several things that have little connection to the book, I'd suggest that you perhaps are not quite so adept at the sport yourself.

Re: This Is Us Renewed For Two More Seasons In Effort To Solidify Ratings

areyouscreening — Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:29:01 -0000

Well, I can understand your general idea, but you seem to be clearly mixing your adjective definitions. When the media talks about a show being "a hit," only ratings matter. That's all they're saying. You seem to mixing that together with "goodness," which isn't actually relevant to "hitness". For example, you say that the #1 and #2 shows are old, and in a healthy industry would be taken over by actual hits. Unless you are using "hits" to mean something that it doesn't mean, that sentence makes no sense. Also, obviously you say flat out that you don't buy into the "if it's ranked higher, it's a hit," idea. That's fine, you can mean anything you want when you say hit, but what you're saying - in basically impugning the media for calling things hits - is that just because things have more viewers doesn't mean they have more viewers.

The media have of course been lowering their standards (in terms of total viewers, and therefore hits) because the market is increasingly flooded with channels and no show gets the same ratings as 10, 20, 30 years ago. By comparison, Growing Pains was once the #5 (I think) show on television, and American Idol, easily the highest viewer ratings in its prime, never had as many viewers. It's just a different world.

However many viewers, in whatever year, if you're the number 5 show on television, you're a hit. Especially in today's market, for a new show to hit that high is something to brag about. It doesn't make it good. Most of the highest rated shows are awful at any given time.

As to your last paragraph, I don't want to get into details and dive into the time it would take to cover everything there, but it misrepresents how the industry works in several ways. To the specific point though, there's nothing that would keep them from "unrenewing" the show for a second future season if viewers abandoned the show next year. "Forced to show everything they produce," isn't true, but more importantly is confusing if I try to think about it in industry terms... like, "what does 'produce' mean?" Do you mean has been produced, like a final version exists, or has been in production, or what? Things never get close to a final version unless they are going to air, and everything that's been "in production" in the last five years couldn't air in the next 100 unless you added 50 more networks to air it. So, it's hard to figure what "produce" is meant to convey.

Re: This Is Us Renewed For Two More Seasons In Effort To Solidify Ratings

areyouscreening — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:28:00 -0000

Well, I appreciate the comment, but I'm not sure what you mean by the TV journalism comment. I'm not sure if you are going a different way with "smash hit," but you'd have to using a different definition than most people if you don't think it is one. It's the number 6 show in total viewers for 2016.

As for renewing it for two seasons, as I said, if it were to flop next season and really take a nosedive, NBC would unrenew it. And, there are no "syndication people."

Re: The OA Review – Netflix’ Surprise Series Is Brilliant… Until It’s Not

areyouscreening — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 13:03:36 -0000

Because I said the show was great and gave it 8/10, but didn't like the ending? You're hard to please. I think I overwhelmingly said positive things about the show. The end is cheap and pedestrian. Oddly, I'm not the only person with the opinion, and while I mentioned that the end still doesn't kill the ride, there are a lot of critics out there who said that it did. Of course, it could have just gone over all of our heads.

Re: The OA Review – Netflix’ Surprise Series Is Brilliant… Until It’s Not

areyouscreening — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:55:20 -0000

Well, you're certainly allowed your opinion on the ending. It didn't work for me. I agree with pretty much everything else you said though. I had the same problem with Another Earth, which is also great, but I think doesn't deliver in its ending.

Re: MacGyver Review – TV – CBS Reboots A Classic. Misses Completely.

areyouscreening — Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:47:45 -0000

Couldn't agree more. It didn't get better with more episodes either. Thanks for the comment.

Re: The Goldbergs Review – Reality TV Gets A Sitcom

areyouscreening — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:14:57 -0000

Well, I just wrote a couple of paragraphs in response, and it naturally disappeared when I logged into Disqus to publish, so I apologize that this is going to be the short version.

First, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and leave your thoughts. You are certainly not alone in liking this show. After all, it's still on. Then again, a lot of things are still on, and that may mean a lot of different things depending on what the show is. There are still Repo/Towing shows on TruTV and I hear Honey Boo Boo is doing quite well, both of these are still on because they are by, for, and about stupid people. ("By" might not be true actually, because they are by people who are making plenty of money by spitting them out)

At any rate, I just can't get past the part about the briefs. As I said in my previous comment, these characters are purposely written as stupid. The defense of the show that kicks off - my dad used to walk around the house in his underwear all the time - isn't really one that is going to have a lot of legs.

Re: The Goldbergs Review – Reality TV Gets A Sitcom

areyouscreening — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:45:33 -0000

I appreciate the comment, but I wonder if much of it went the way you had hoped. It is my job to write daily. On average, I write about 6,000 words a day, here and elsewhere. I have to admit, you caught me in a typo/grammatical error that I didn't catch. I am often in quite a rush. By the way, you misspelled "they" when you wrote, "the are imperfect."

Oddly enough, the "his opinion is wrong, after all, look he made a typo," argument doesn't actually set you in a very good light. Frankly, I'm good with leaving your own claim that the family is realistic as any counter I might need. I should point out though that there are parents, and a grandparent on the show, so the High School reference doesn't exactly cover the stupidity of the characters on the show. I should also point out that the characters are actually purposely stupid, and if you want to argue the idea that they are stupid, you'll have to take it up with writers, who would tell you that they most definitely are.

That said, it doesn't mean that they aren't realistic. In fact, offering up characters who clearly are rather stupid is one avenue to choose in making them realistic. It's just that if, as a viewer, you aren't yourself, it isn't particularly humorous. We all have our own opinions though, and you are free to argue that they're very funny.

Re: The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones Movie Review

areyouscreening — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:30:22 -0000

True, but I don't know if I would call it a triangle, just because the one love interest doesn't know anything about the other. Plus, I'm sure this is different in the books, but in the movie it is barely touched on at all, and then it just disappears. The sort of thing that only exists because it is in the books, and shows up to appease those fans.

Re: Precious Movie Review

areyouscreening — Sat, 11 May 2013 11:01:42 -0000

I half wonder if you read the review, If I'm being honest. Just FYI, though it's certainly neither here nor there, I have quite a bit of insight into psychology, and graduated three classes shy of a degree in it, but figured at the time that two degrees was enough.

Regardless, a film's potential ability to provide useful looks into some theory or other is not on any list of supporting points that it might be a good movie.

I certainly wasn't bored that there were no fighting scenes, and made no indication that would hint at same.

Nothing you decribe hints at a story, just to clarify. Possibly your use of the term story line points to our difference of opinion. I didn't say it didn't have a plot, which it has by definition, but that it didn't have a story. It doesn't. That is not to say that things don't happen, or that Precious does not engage with our characters, etc., nor does it mean that the film, and those making it, don't think it has a plot. It just doesn't actually have one.

If it has a story, share it. I'm happy to hear your view on what it is.

What it has, as I intimated in the review, is the kicking of puppies in the hopes that you will now feel bad for kicked puppies, and a certain appeal by way of political-correctness.

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Blu-Ray Giveaway

areyouscreening — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 21:55:42 -0000

I'm getting a little nervous now that I was the most hobbit. I figured it just gave everyone a really high number. I'm not even going to say what I got.

Re: Generation Um… Trailer Gets More Confusing With Synopsis Read

areyouscreening — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:33:56 -0000

I appreciate it, and I agree about it being more than the garden variety movie-goer is meant to contend with. That's why I said that something seems to have gone wrong if I have to suggest reading the synopsis before watching the trailer.

What I was going for was the idea that the trailer wouldn't have much chance of getting me into a theater on its own (especially if I was just an average movie fan), but then I read the synopsis, and was actually a bit surprised, and found myself thinking, "Wait, it's about what now?"

You're right on the other score as well, because this is quite a bit longer than the normal synopsis.

Again, appreciate the response.

Re: Wendell & Vinnie TV Review

areyouscreening — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:51:27 -0000

Couldn't agree more. In fact...

http://www.areyouscreening....

Re: The Legend Of Korra Review

areyouscreening — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:48:00 -0000

Sometimes that is just how things work out, and if you don't like Korra, you don't like Korra, but I think the backstory was put together pretty well considering that this is only two episodes, and there are a lot of other things to do.

Re: Fairly Legal Coffee Collection Pack Giveaway

areyouscreening — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:41:05 -0000

That'll work. :)

Re: Prometheus. WonderCon. Blah Blah Blah. Trailer. Squirrel.

areyouscreening — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:29:08 -0000

Agreed. Probably will be cool, but...

Re: Samuel L. Jackson Has Officially Gone From Supercool To Tool… in Pictures

areyouscreening — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:10:50 -0000

I didn't say he was the original Shaft.

Re: Terra Nova TV Review – FOX

areyouscreening — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:59:09 -0000

I don't recall saying they weren't very well developed.

Actually, I was something of a fan of LOST, though I wandered in and out as some seasons became tiring, and ultimately (as I said) the thing proved to be remarkably stupid. Still, it was a fun show most of the time, and certainly worth watching.

Elementary prose? Is that on some list of standard replies when you have nothing concrete to say. You could have just said I was wrong. It carries the same weight without the "elementary prose" bit.

On the other hand, I'm quite glad there are people who think I'm wrong to be honest. I wish more efforts would come along in the genre on the major networks, and if this one performs decently, that's more likely.

Re: Pan Am TV Review – ABC

areyouscreening — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:02:46 -0000

LOL. That was the first draft of my review actually. Thanks for adding to the conversation.