[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by redwing

LOL no im sorry was a joke , I dont even know him . If you read up the thread bit youll see his name

LOL indeed.

[raduv1]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

LOL indeed.

You ol lovie Todd I don't know if I love you or loath you but you make me laugh .

[PoochJD]

Now, now, folks...

Everyone's entitled to their comments and views, and no one should be slating another poster in this thread, just because their view is different to your own.

Whilst Todd Tomorrow is - for the most part - correct, in that most critics are NOT in bed with the film-makers, there are some critics and some critical publications, who do appear to be less or more biased towards some films and film-makers, than others.

EMPIRE is very pro-mainstream cinema, and it uses that to its advantage, by getting lots of photographic scoops from the major film distributors and film-makers who want to show-off their latest work. That's all fine and dandy, if all you care about is what a director's next film is, how much the budget is likely to be, and you want to see page after page of location pictures.

However, something like SIGHT AND SOUND magazine, is very anti-mainstream cinema, and unless a film is truly exceptional, it will - for the most part - give it a real critical roasting. Clearly, there are exceptions to both of these examples, but for the most part, what I've said is true.

With that said, both of these magazines cater for very different kinds of readers. Just as when the Daily Mail gives a film 5 stars, versus The Times giving a film 5 stars, doesn't mean that either publication's review is any more worthy than the other. (Though any film that the Daily Mail gives top marks too, is likely to be absolute garbage!) They're just appealing to different demographics. You don't buy THE SUN for intellectual stimulation on poverty in the Third World. You buy it, because you like short sentences, enjoy seeing naked women, and want to know who Jordan's latest marital conquest is! Likewise, you wouldn't buy THE INDEPENDENT, if you want to know the latest in celebrity faux-pas scoops!

I should also state that there is a BIG difference between film reviews and film criticism. A review of a film, is just that: one person's view on whether a film is good or bad. He/she says "This film was fun, 5 stars." "This film is dull, 2 stars". That's what EMPIRE and most film magazines and newspapers do. They review films, and do so based almost solely on the "talent" in front and behind the camera.

Film criticism, which is where the person discussing the film actively goes into far more detail about the film, its relationship to other film's of a similar nature, examines its relationship against social, political and moral issues, and then (possibly) decides if the film is worth your time, money and attention. A film that has been critiqued, may not even give you a "See it" or "Don't see it" conclusion. It may just describe good bits and bad bits, but offer the reader no actual definitive answer as to whether to go see it or not. The reason being, that the critic and the reader is assumed to know whether or not a film is likely to be to their own tastes, and the job of a critic is to weigh-up a film's pro's and con's overall, not to say "See this film" or "Don't see this film"!

EMPIRE is aimed at 15-35 year olds, average, multiplex fimgoers, who are looking predominantly to be entertained by a film. These readers, generally, just want to know is the film any good; do the cast compare favourably or negatively against other previous works they've been involved in, and is it worth you spending £10 on a ticket for, when you go to the multiplex next Friday or Saturday night.

SIGHT AND SOUND is aimed at 25-55 year olds; who have studied film at College or Uni; who tend to see films not just for entertainment; who want intellectual stimulation, and look at films as a form of art, rather than just 90 minutes of post-pub entertainment. These readers tend to be those who frequent arthouse cinemas; are more ecelectic and discerning in their cultural tastes; who may even write (or have written) about films themselves on blogs, websites, during study, etc; and who take film far more seriously, almost to the point of being quite nerdish and obsessive towards it (and I'm not talking in the sense of being able to tell others what Robert Pattinson's shoe size is, or why Harry Potter classifies as the best in modern cinematic entertainment).

I'm talking about those who know who Sergei Eisenstein was; can discuss postmodernism in film; have at some point reads works by Pauline Kael or David Thompson; can explain intertextuality or hybridity to you, and if asked, would be able to tell you (at length) why Vittorio Storraro is a master cinematographer. (If none of that means much to you, then you are probably not a SIGHT AND SOUND reader. )

I appreciate that I've probably made huge generalisations, but therein lies the (marginal) difference, between film reviewers and film critics! They are not the same!


Pooch

[captainarchive]

Thank you Pooch, now that's settled can we get back to the Todd bashing.

[Todd Tomorrow]

[Mark_a]

Is that a euphemism?

Regards

Mark

[Todd Tomorrow]

What did you have in mind ?

[Mark_a]

Wondering through the Youtube wastelands I came upon Jill Kill, a female goth who reviews darker stuff - Human Centipede, A Serbian Film, Cannibal Holocaust, Audition, Slaughtered Vomit Dolls etc. Mildly amusing, but unfortunately marred by her using a somewhat less than convincing accent.

Regards

Mark

[redwing]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

LOL indeed.

As the crowd gathers you can hear a pin drop as Redwing comes to clear up the town a young voice cries out
"leave him Red he doesnt know what hes saying hes just a kid"

The Galant redwing looks down as says
"I know that young man , but Tommorrow is Yesterdays man and Today I have to clear up this thread.

"No Red" cries the young man "hes just a amature film critic with some good reviews"

Redwing looks at the young man not wanting to hurt the young boys feelings "Kid, Tommorrow that mabye true but this is Today and Tommorrow is a forum bully who starts arguments on every thread he posts in".

The young boy thinks for a moment " Red can you take it easy on him? hes so naive"

Redwing looks into his eyes and says " kid for your sake and for the sake of the thread ill holster my weapons but remember the future aint about Tommorrow". The kid looks at Redwing cross eyed at that last statement but happy that his work is done

The kid walks away as does Redwing ending his writing on this subject hoping peace can be restored.

[captainarchive]

Instead of taking things personally why not engage with Todd's arguments. When we all agree 'grass' is green and Todd disagrees he may have a point. Afterall we may have overlooked grass sometimes becomes 'hay'.

[Todd Tomorrow]

I think someone has totally lost the plot.

[redwing]

Originally Posted by captainarchive

Instead of taking things personally why not engage with Todd's arguments. When we all agree 'grass' is green and Todd disagrees he may have a point. Afterall we may have overlooked grass sometimes becomes 'hay'.

Because the post he quoted me on had no argument what he said was a total fabrication,
If this was a matter of opinions id have no problem at all.

and then today hes still quoting and laughing at me because I dont know a certain reviewer thats typical of him trying to show his movie superiority.

Perhaps you have it wrong mate and its him that needs to engage with people and not try to belittle them constantly.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by redwing

Because the post he quoted me on had no argument what he said was a total fabrication,
If this was a matter of opinions id have no problem at all.

Where was the fabrication ? I stated that Barry Norman was a rather middlebrow critic and that most critics (not 100% as you claimed i said) express genuine views on films.

I still see no justification for your hysterical overreaction and your ongoing character assassination of me.

[redwing]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I was disagreeing with redwings assessment of Barry Norman as a film critic. He was also insulting to an entire profession by implying that most critics don't give their honest opinion on films and that they are in the pay of the studios in some way. .

I have already quoted this to you.

Read my post show me where i was giving a assesment of Barry Norman and tell me where i was Insulting an entire proffession.

I was telling a story of when i was a kid watching saturday superstore lol

[captainarchive]

Originally Posted by redwing

Because the post he quoted me on had no argument what he said was a total fabrication,
If this was a matter of opinions id have no problem at all.

and then today hes still quoting and laughing at me because I dont know a certain reviewer thats typical of him trying to show his movie superiority.

Perhaps you have it wrong mate and its him that needs to engage with people and not try to belittle them constantly.

I think you've both slightly misread each other. TT attributing the comment 'Barry Norman only likes films people haven't heard of' to yourself when it was a kid asking Norman the question in Saturday Superstore. As to the premise Norman only likes films people have never heard of, off the top of my head two films he likes are Tootsie and On Garden Pond , two films I wouldn't describe as unknown considering the latter won several Oscars.

I feel I have to add a rider so we don't have any misunderstanding: I'm not saying you're wrong, just the idea Barry Norman only likes arty unknown films.

[redwing]

anyone actually miss Jonathan Ross as a critic ?

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by redwing

I have already quoted this to you.

Read my post show me where i was giving a assesment of Barry Norman and tell me where i was Insulting an entire proffession.

I was telling a story of when i was a kid watching saturday superstore lol

It wasn't clear if these are opinions you still hold. You continued with the assessment that critics are dishonest in later posts, calling me naive for saying that most of them aren't. If I was a film critic, I'd consider this to be slanderous.

Originally Posted by redwing

The kid walks away as does Redwing ending his writing on this subject hoping peace can be restored.

When people make grand statements about leaving a thread for peace to be restored, it's a good idea not to hang around to post more insults.

[redwing]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

It wasn't clear if these are opinions you still hold. You continued with the assessment that critics are dishonest in later posts, calling me naive for saying that most of them aren't. If I was a film critic, I'd consider this to be slanderous.



When people make grand statements about leaving a thread for peace to be restored, it's a good idea not to hang around to post more insults.

Ok to youir first paragraph your right it wasnt clear as i didnt give my views so why do you think you have aright to assume anything.

To your second paragraph

look at the post above !!!

I tried to leave this but was still being asked questions.

Your an easy target for me and ive not said what i want to say as I dont want to ruin the thread anymore than it has been .

as I said before your a figure of fun and you do not help yourself.

[Greg]

Any chance we can get back on track please?

Thanks.

[captainarchive]

Originally Posted by redwing

anyone actually miss Jonathan Ross as a critic ?

Not really. I like the new format for Film 2012, two heads are better than one.

[travid]

Originally Posted by captainarchive

Not really. I like the new format for Film 2012, two heads are better than one.

I really cannot stomach Claudia Winkleman!

Give me Mark Kermode anyday.

[Todd Tomorrow]

I prefer BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme to Film 2012 and I really like the presenter Francine Stock who is an excellent interviewer. I don't particularly like to see film clips from films that I'm about to watch anyway.

[raduv1]

Back in the day i used to like watching Barry Norman but there again it was one of the few places to get imfomation reviws etc on movies.

Now days with the information overload of the web i don't see the need for the pro critics . I'm first drawn in with info on upcoming films on forums like these , then if i like the look of the trailer once the film comes out then its just word of mouth for me .

[Schreck]

I read reviews from some of the film magazines and of course browse forums like this one. But at the end of the day, if I think a film looks interesting, I'll usually give it a watch regardless.

[captainarchive]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I prefer BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme to Film 2012 and I really like the presenter Francine Stock who is an excellent interviewer.

I used to listen to that in the car on my way back from work. New job, no car means I've lost touch. I'll have to remedy that. On a general note to be honest I'll watch any programme or listen to anything on the radio with a film slant.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I prefer BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme to Film 2012 and I really like the presenter Francine Stock who is an excellent interviewer. I don't particularly like to see film clips from films that I'm about to watch anyway.

I notice the latest shows are available as podcasts. I don't think I've ever listened to an interesting one of these, does that woman actually like movies or is she just fulfilling part of her BBC contract ? The programme appears to be simply more PR-guff under the guise of Radio 4 ever-so-slightly higher brow chat, with the "genius" guest of the week, and no attempt ever made to discuss the movie under "review".

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by bosque

I notice the latest shows are available as podcasts. I don't think I've ever listened to an interesting one of these, does that woman actually like movies or is she just fulfilling part of her BBC contract ? The programme appears to be simply more PR-guff under the guise of Radio 4 ever-so-slightly higher brow chat, with the "genius" guest of the week, and no attempt ever made to discuss the movie under "review".

Horses courses. She really knows her stuff when to comes to film and film history and she's an excellent interviewer. Her ongoing interviews with Lars Von Trier in particular have been excellent. She's just about the only interviewer who both asked him challenging questions about his questionable attitude to women and actually managed to get something of interest out of him.

She doesn't really review films, often gives a brief opinion though, which I generally think is spot on. One thing I like about the programme is that it doesn't concentrate on the laterst blockbusters and talks a lot about classic films, so your assessment of "PR guff" makes me wonder how much you've listened to it. The reality of getting interviews with working film makers is that you will only get them when they habvve a film to promote. TheMark Gatiss ongoing segement on on more obsure British horror films was also great.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

The reality of getting interviews with working film makers is that you will only get them when they habvve a film to promote.

..but you don't class that as PR ?

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by bosque

..but you don't class that as PR ?

I'm not that interested geting into an "I am right!" contest over what is and isnt' PR. I suppose you could say that any discussion of new films is publicity. The film industry is a business and they will only talk when they have something to sell. That's a reality. I don't care that The Film Programme is forced to take advatage of that like every other programme, publication or website of current releases. Without film-makers talking, there will be no programme. What I do care about though is that Radio 4 will ask questions that are bit more critical of the films instead of talking them up. You yourself just complained that Stock never likes any of the films. How is that PR ? The other thing I care about is that a large section of their programme is devoted to old films. It recently got me to check out the British 40s war film Went the Day Well. That kind of thing makes it worthwhile for me.

[bosque]

I've said why I didn't like the programme, there is no "contest" that I can see, only the one you are trying to make it into.