Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

How will Bob react to seeing the Mario film?


  • Total voters
    1,451
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the most frustrating things for me about Bob as a critic is how he constantly tries to paint schlock (mainly capeshit and kaiju movies) as the pinnacle of culture.

It would be one thing if he wasn’t such a pretentious asswipe and had the self-awareness to recognize that these movies are not high art, even though they can still be enjoyable. But no, Bob has to try overly-hard to justify his tastes, so he spends all his time splooging over the latest big-budget Hollywood pap and proclaiming that it’s totally intellectual while barely paying any attention to actually challenging/adult movies*. It’s the attitude of a lot of teenagers whose tastes haven’t quite matured, but Bob is a 40 year-old man who’s been perpetually stuck in this phase for the duration of his life.

*I would like to see him try to analyze a movie like There Will Be Blood or A Serious Man just to laugh at how wildly he misses the point and out of his element he is when not reviewing movies made for 12 year-olds.
I love the Fast & Furious movies but I'm still capable of recognising they are hilariously stupid shit, especially from Fast 5 onward.

I don't understand (well in Bob's case I guess I do) why people like KinoBert have to try and blow shit like the MCU or Harry fucking Potter out of proportion and make them out to be more than they are; just enjoy the animal brain stimulation from all the bright lights and explosions then move on with your life.
View attachment 2054458
Seems to be more about dragging the classics down to the level of modern capeshit by comparing themes rather than trying to elevate said capeshit. That way things can deteriorate to the level of Finger Family videos and only a handful of history spergs and old people will notice.
To me, it speaks to a kind of insecurity. Like these people are embarrassed by the fact that they like schlock, and so they have to try to make up insane justifications for watching it.

No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
 
To me, it speaks to a kind of insecurity. Like these people are embarrassed by the fact that they like schlock, and so they have to try to make up insane justifications for watching it.

No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
Not only are they not the modern equivalent of the classics, not only do they not need to be, but trying to make capeshit into this weird version of ancient myth that bends the knee to modern identity politics has this funny tendency to destroy any hint of archetypical storytelling and replace it with bad political takes, paint-by-numbers snark, and blatant pandering.
 
Not only are they not the modern equivalent of the classics, not only do they not need to be, but trying to make capeshit into this weird version of ancient myth that bends the knee to modern identity politics has this funny tendency to destroy any hint of archetypical storytelling and replace it with bad political takes, paint-by-numbers snark, and blatant pandering.
They think they're writing the next Illiad, but at best it'll be the next Aeneid.
 
To me, it speaks to a kind of insecurity. Like these people are embarrassed by the fact that they like schlock, and so they have to try to make up insane justifications for watching it.

No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
It’s the same reason they like they’re genre fare with a heaping helping of snarky, Whedonesque bathos: it preemptively takes the piss out the material to save them the embarrassment of having to admit they unironically enjoy it.
 
No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
I respectfully disagree insofar as Shakespeare's plays were considered low brow in their day and did not become high art until at the 18th century. Similarly, there is an argument that the superhero genre is a modern manifestation of hero myths that existed since before the written word. Take Superman as an example. It's hard to deny that Jerry Siegel took some inspiration from the tales of Moses and Samson from the Old Testament. One book I read nearly a decade ago also cited the swashbuckling action films of the time were also an inspiration as was the murder of his father.

As @Lasersuit Larry said, capeshit doesn't need to equivalent to the classics. Will they be? Time will ultimately be the judge of that. Frankly, Bob's attempts to elevate it are--frankly--embarrassing to me as a longtime fan of superheroes.
It’s the same reason they like they’re genre fare with a heaping helping of snarky, Whedonesque bathos: it preemptively takes the piss out the material to save them the embarrassment of having to admit they unironically enjoy it.
It also speaks to their intellectual laziness because part of the reason why I pursued a BA in English was to understand the mechanics of storytelling from intellectuals like Joseph Campbell and Northrop Frye. Given Bob and his cohorts's lack of self-awareness and curiosity, I doubt they will ever understand what makes for a good story.
 
To me, it speaks to a kind of insecurity. Like these people are embarrassed by the fact that they like schlock, and so they have to try to make up insane justifications for watching it.
I like kiddie shlock like GI Joe and Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, and I don't need to make an excuse for it.

No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
The thing is, some superhero movies could qualify as that. Certainly movies that have a tragedy or a lesson to them could be the next Shakespeare or high art. I'd consider the Tim Burton Batman movies, Revenge of the Sith, or the Watchmen as a sort of modern tragedy in the same style as the tragedies of Shakespeare or the Greek myths. Some movies like the Avengers, the Phantom Menace, and Guardians of the Galaxy are just childish fun, but some like the Dark Knight Trilogy can be just as dark and poignant as past classical literature.

Not only are they not the modern equivalent of the classics, not only do they not need to be, but trying to make capeshit into this weird version of ancient myth that bends the knee to modern identity politics has this funny tendency to destroy any hint of archetypical storytelling and replace it with bad political takes, paint-by-numbers snark, and blatant pandering.
To be fair, enough of the classics were made to pander to the political elite of their time. The Aneid was made as a way for the Romans to one-up the Greeks, some of Shakespeare's plays have the English as the good guys like in Macbeth, and the Greek classics were made to show how obeying the gods and doing your patriotic duty is the right thing to do.

It's just that they did a far better job of it than modern, politically-correct crap does. Especially when a lot of it just comes naturally-loving your family, fighting for your loved ones, your country, your friends, your gods, it wasn't as artificial as telling you that hanging onto religion or guns is wrong.


I respectfully disagree insofar as Shakespeare's plays were considered low brow in their day and did not become high art until at the 18th century. Similarly, there is an argument that the superhero genre is a modern manifestation of hero myths that existed since before the written word. Take Superman as an example. It's hard to deny that Jerry Siegel took some inspiration from the tales of Moses and Samson from the Old Testament. One book I read nearly a decade ago also cited the swashbuckling action films of the time were also an inspiration as was the murder of his father.
And I would even say that some superhero/action films that take things seriously can indeed be our answer to the Shakespearean and Greek plays. Especially ones with great, sprawling worlds like say, Star Wars, or those that have a moral to teach, like the Sam Raimi Spider Man films or the Dark Knight trilogy. Each had a lesson to preach. In fact, the movie trilogies of the late 90s and early 2000s had moral lessons to go along with the action.

Star Wars Prequels: Perception isn't always reality, don't be so quick to trust the government with more power, don't think with your dick.

Sam Raimi Spider Man Trilogy: With great power comes great responsibility; you can't just act like a prick because you have power over others.

Dark Knight Trilogy: You must hang on to hope even in the darkest of times. (Revenge of the Sith's ending has the same theme)

As @Lasersuit Larry said, capeshit doesn't need to equivalent to the classics. Will they be? Time will ultimately be the judge of that. Frankly, Bob's attempts to elevate it are--frankly--embarrassing to me as a longtime fan of superheroes.
It also embarrasses me because I did love past superhero films. But the modern MCU, as I've said before, is the equivalent of just Smash Bros. with Marvel characters that aren't as cool, interesting, or cute as the Nintendo cast.

It also speaks to their intellectual laziness because part of the reason why I pursued a BA in English was to understand the mechanics of storytelling from intellectuals like Joseph Campbell and Northrop Frye. Given Bob and his cohorts's lack of self-awareness and curiosity, I doubt they will ever understand what makes for a good story.
To them, what makes a good story is what makes them feel good. That's all it takes.
 
To me, it speaks to a kind of insecurity. Like these people are embarrassed by the fact that they like schlock, and so they have to try to make up insane justifications for watching it.

No, guys, superhero movies are not the modern equivalent to Shakespearean tragedy or Greek mythology, and you don't have to pretend like they are in order to enjoy them.
Oh absolutely, especially as they like to think of themselves as high intellectuals but don't have the attention span or emotional depth to handle something that challenges their ideas without any spectacle. Bob used to get mocked by his 'peers' after comic book movies where they'd ask him who the characters were because they knew a simple nerd like him would know (or would at least try to pretend he did). He used to try and redress it as him being being the expert on the new area of cinema but when you read between the lines, it's pretty clear they had no respect for him.

With great power comes great responsibility; you can't just act like a prick because you have power over others.
A sentiment Bob has always ignored because he wants power to lord over others.
 
Each had a lesson to preach. In fact, the movie trilogies of the late 90s and early 2000s had moral lessons to go along with the action.

Star Wars Prequels: Perception isn't always reality, don't be so quick to trust the government with more power, don't think with your dick.

Sam Raimi Spider Man Trilogy: With great power comes great responsibility; you can't just act like a prick because you have power over others.

Dark Knight Trilogy: You must hang on to hope even in the darkest of times. (Revenge of the Sith's ending has the same theme)
What's the moral of the LOTR trilogy? You can get through anything with the right friends?
 
I like kiddie shlock like GI Joe and Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, and I don't need to make an excuse for it.


The thing is, some superhero movies could qualify as that. Certainly movies that have a tragedy or a lesson to them could be the next Shakespeare or high art. I'd consider the Tim Burton Batman movies, Revenge of the Sith, or the Watchmen as a sort of modern tragedy in the same style as the tragedies of Shakespeare or the Greek myths. Some movies like the Avengers, the Phantom Menace, and Guardians of the Galaxy are just childish fun, but some like the Dark Knight Trilogy can be just as dark and poignant as past classical literature.


To be fair, enough of the classics were made to pander to the political elite of their time. The Aneid was made as a way for the Romans to one-up the Greeks, some of Shakespeare's plays have the English as the good guys like in Macbeth, and the Greek classics were made to show how obeying the gods and doing your patriotic duty is the right thing to do.

It's just that they did a far better job of it than modern, politically-correct crap does. Especially when a lot of it just comes naturally-loving your family, fighting for your loved ones, your country, your friends, your gods, it wasn't as artificial as telling you that hanging onto religion or guns is wrong.



And I would even say that some superhero/action films that take things seriously can indeed be our answer to the Shakespearean and Greek plays. Especially ones with great, sprawling worlds like say, Star Wars, or those that have a moral to teach, like the Sam Raimi Spider Man films or the Dark Knight trilogy. Each had a lesson to preach. In fact, the movie trilogies of the late 90s and early 2000s had moral lessons to go along with the action.

Star Wars Prequels: Perception isn't always reality, don't be so quick to trust the government with more power, don't think with your dick.

Sam Raimi Spider Man Trilogy: With great power comes great responsibility; you can't just act like a prick because you have power over others.

Dark Knight Trilogy: You must hang on to hope even in the darkest of times. (Revenge of the Sith's ending has the same theme)


It also embarrasses me because I did love past superhero films. But the modern MCU, as I've said before, is the equivalent of just Smash Bros. with Marvel characters that aren't as cool, interesting, or cute as the Nintendo cast.


To them, what makes a good story is what makes them feel good. That's all it takes.
The original star wars might survive the memory of time for both its groundbreaking special effects and its eternal take on universal themes - but the prequels will not except as an oddity. Heck I love the Sam Raimi Spidey films but I doubt they'll survive much past trivia. The Dark Knight is probably the only one I would bet on right now. Logan is a second place possibility, (I love Days of Future Past and think it's worth preserving but must be honest it probably won't.)

Heck the Princess Bride probably has the best chance of any, surviving time. Don't underestimate the value of families in preserving culture.

What's the moral of the LOTR trilogy? You can get through anything with the right friends?
Book or movie? How long do you got?
 
What's the moral of the LOTR trilogy? You can get through anything with the right friends?
It also continued the "strength of the ordinary" moral of the Hobbit, about how the seemingly ordinary, weak hobbits have the strength and cunning to do what the mightiest kings and armies couldn't. It's why I always enjoyed Gandalf's speech about the small victories and kindnesses being what holds evil back.
 
What's the moral of the LOTR trilogy? You can get through anything with the right friends?
What makes LOTR great is that there are multiple themes that could be drawn from it. Here are three:

The corrupting power of evil. Arguably, this is the biggest one. Saruman and Sauron were both good, before being corrupted. Boromir was a good man, before his desire for the Ring corrupted him (he redeems himself at the end, though.) Gollum, the Ringwraiths, and even Orcs were once good before being corrupted. Sam has to resist the Ring's corrupting influence, and even Frodo, at the end, cannot resist and succumbs at the last moment. Even Gandalf and Galadriel, the two most powerful beings on the side of good, refuse the Ring, knowing it would inevitably corrupt them as well.

Hope. This is a major one. The books frequently talk about the hope of dawn- that no matter how dark the night is, dawn will follow behind it. At Helm's Deep (in the books) Aragorn says this in a short speech to the Uruk-Hai. During the fight at Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep, dawn brings the Rohirrim. To emphasize the hopelessness the war, Tolkien even titles one chapter "The Dawnless Day" or something similar.

Anti-industrialism. This is one more personal to Tolkien. Tolkien was raised in a beautiful green countryside, and he watched as England slowly industrialized, bulldozing nature's beauty and replacing it with ugly machines. He was also a soldier in World War One- the first industrialized war- and witnessed its horrors as well. This theme is embodied with the industry of Isengard, which devastates the forest of Fangorn, the Shire, and even Isengard itself.

And this isn't even going into themes like the Bible's influence on the books (Tolkien was a Christian, after all.)

But all of this is anathema to someone like Bob, who'd gladly sell his soul to Sauron for a bit of power over those obsolete Hobbits.

It also continued the "strength of the ordinary" moral of the Hobbit, about how the seemingly ordinary, weak hobbits have the strength and cunning to do what the mightiest kings and armies couldn't. It's why I always enjoyed Gandalf's speech about the small victories and kindnesses being what holds evil back.
Not even "strength of the ordinary" but "strength of the humble." Samwise, when tempted by the Ring, is able to fight it back with humility. He doesn't need to turn Mordor into his own personal garden when he's got a perfectly good one back home- and it's the only garden he really needs, anyway.
 
What makes LOTR great is that there are multiple themes that could be drawn from it. Here are three:

The corrupting power of evil. Arguably, this is the biggest one. Saruman and Sauron were both good, before being corrupted. Boromir was a good man, before his desire for the Ring corrupted him (he redeems himself at the end, though.) Gollum, the Ringwraiths, and even Orcs were once good before being corrupted. Sam has to resist the Ring's corrupting influence, and even Frodo, at the end, cannot resist and succumbs at the last moment. Even Gandalf and Galadriel, the two most powerful beings on the side of good, refuse the Ring, knowing it would inevitably corrupt them as well.

Hope. This is a major one. The books frequently talk about the hope of dawn- that no matter how dark the night is, dawn will follow behind it. At Helm's Deep (in the books) Aragorn says this in a short speech to the Uruk-Hai. During the fight at Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep, dawn brings the Rohirrim. To emphasize the hopelessness the war, Tolkien even titles one chapter "The Dawnless Day" or something similar.

Anti-industrialism. This is one more personal to Tolkien. Tolkien was raised in a beautiful green countryside, and he watched as England slowly industrialized, bulldozing nature's beauty and replacing it with ugly machines. He was also a soldier in World War One- the first industrialized war- and witnessed its horrors as well. This theme is embodied with the industry of Isengard, which devastates the forest of Fangorn, the Shire, and even Isengard itself.

And this isn't even going into themes like the Bible's influence on the books (Tolkien was a Christian, after all.)

But all of this is anathema to someone like Bob, who'd gladly sell his soul to Sauron for a bit of power over those obsolete Hobbits.


Not even "strength of the ordinary" but "strength of the humble." Samwise, when tempted by the Ring, is able to fight it back with humility. He doesn't need to turn Mordor into his own personal garden when he's got a perfectly good one back home- and it's the only garden he really needs, anyway.
Evil is self-defeating is another.

As is, even the most wretched creature may yet serve a purpose you know not.

Enduring works are rich with many themes from which to draw thought.
 
I can't say for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the first 15 seconds of Drinker's GvK review was a not-too-thinly-veiled jab at Bobby specifically. It's just general enough to give plausible deniability and claim it's making fun of all consoomers, so judge for yourself:
All I know is, nobody's favorite Bostonian "film critic" came to mind immediately for me.
 
Seems to be more about dragging the classics down to the level of modern capeshit by comparing themes rather than trying to elevate said capeshit. That way things can deteriorate to the level of Finger Family videos and only a handful of history spergs and old people will notice.
Reminds me of this image from the Scorsese/Marvel kerfuffle days:
1617510836445.png
 
That’s not the context people are making the comparison in though so that point is irrelevant.
Oh they totally are though. That has always been the foundation of this nonsense. Someone said they are popcorn trash. And someone with a credit in Western Civ was like duhh Shakespeare was too. And its stuck forever. Missing that Shakespeare fell right into the English speaking culture. Whether forced at times, because of education. Or just that it was something that resonated with later generations. Like the fact they are all written under strict requirements.
 
I can't say for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the first 15 seconds of Drinker's GvK review was a not-too-thinly-veiled jab at Bobby specifically. It's just general enough to give plausible deniability and claim it's making fun of all consoomers, so judge for yourself:
All I know is, nobody's favorite Bostonian "film critic" came to mind immediately for me.
Oh, for sure he was targeting critics like Bob, but whether it was him specifically is only open for speculation. I wonder if Bob will eventually respond to and confuse him for being English like he did with Count Dankula.
Reminds me of this image from the Scorsese/Marvel kerfuffle days:
View attachment 2056577
This image has to be a parody of the MCU-stans and their smooth brain memes. But Scorcese was right then and he's even more correct now.
 
See the thing is you can enjoy low-brow shit.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying movies that amount to Car go "VROOM + Big Boobie + Bomb Go BOOM!" or "Giant Monke punch Giant Lizard!" I for one, actually quite enjoyed Cowboys & Aliens and found it fun to sit through both in the theatre and on the couch, and that from the title alone can easily be classified as simplistic low-brow shit.
There was a thing a while back, almost a meme of sorts, where critics would rate a movie really low but audiences would love it - the gist being that critics are snobby and out of touch while normies enjoy basic shit.

The problem is, Screenplay Robertus views himself as part of the critic caste. He fancies himself an intellectual that views high-brow works of modern art that require a high-IQ to understand.
Instead of admitting and defending that he's an average joe who enjoys big explosions, sparkly special effects, and simplistic concepts, he has to twist capeshit, starshit and kaiju flicks into masterpieces of art and culture to justify his tastes and his (undeserved) snobby ego. If capeshit isn't deep intellectualist art, then how can he justify himself enjoying the same calibre of films that the undermensch he so despises enjoy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back