A completely biased review of 'The Guardians of the Galaxy'
So, there was recently an article on Flayrah I can’t link to anymore since the author asked it be removed, but the general gist of it was that bias in criticism is bad. Not going to argue that point one way or another, but argue a side tangent; the article never really said so, but the argument the author was really making was that negative bias is bad. Positive bias is either okay, or just doesn’t exist.
I don’t like onions, so I would be a terrible person to ask if an onion is good or not. However, if you liked onions, and they were your favorite food, you would also be a terrible person to ask for a review of a particular onion. I would say this onion is bad, because to me, all onions are bad. You would say this onion is good, because to you, all onions are good. Together, our reviews of the onion have told us nothing about this particular onion.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been waiting for this movie a while; you could say I’m biased for it. So, by my very argument, I am unqualified to review this movie. I’m going to do it anyway, because I can, and besides, if one person has a bias, the odds are that many other people share the same bias.
Besides, this isn’t my first rodeo; I know what I’m doing, and believe I am capable of looking past my biases and giving this movie a fair review. Not like it can complain; I’m going to say this movie is awesome, after all.
But, fair warning; this is a biased review. Also, never ask me to review an onion.
Plot
This movie manages to be absolutely heartbreaking in the first five minutes, as we get the backstory for one Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a normal human boy who is abducted by aliens, with only a Walkman with one mixtape of classic rock to remind him of Earth. He calls himself Star-Lord, for reasons that aren’t revealed until near the end of the movie.
Quill in the present is basically a space pirate. He manages to steal a priceless space artifact for some sort of collector, but it turns out he’s not the only one after it. He barely escapes from some of Ronan the Accuser’s (Lee Pace) thugs with the artifact, and when his buyer refuses the deal when he learns this, Quill begins to get suspicious that this isn’t just any space bauble.
Meanwhile, Ronan sends out Gamora (Zoe Saldana), the adopted “daughter” of Thanos, to retrieve this artifact. And, on top of that, Yondu (Michael Rooker), leader of the gang of space pirates Quill used to belong to, has put a bounty on Quill’s head, and bounty hunters Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel) happen across him just as Gamora arrives on the scene. After a three way fight, all four are arrested and thrown in space jail, where Gamora reveals she planned on betraying both Thanos and Ronan and selling the stone to a third party for, like, billions of space bucks.
The final member of the team, Drax (Dave Bautista), joins up when he believes Gamora can get him to Ronan, who killed his family. Together, they escape the prison and head to Knowhere, to meet the Collector (Benicio Del Toro), who finally reveals the artifact is an Infinity Gem, and also finally explains what an Infinity Gem is to the audience who have been seeing them pop up in Marvel movies for years now but still haven’t read a comic.
The group begins to realize they are out of their league when Drax literally calls Ronan on a space phone and tells them where they are in hopes of a final showdown. When Ronan manages to steal the Gem and set a course for the peaceful planet of Xandar, the group begin to realize that they are the only ones that even know what’s going on.
The Characters
Chris Pratt as Star Lord is a great lead; he sees himself as a hero, though more of the roguish type than a straight laced type. During the course of the movie, he comes face to face with what it really means to be a hero. He comes off as a bit “bro-ish” at first; he was basically raised by space pirates. He’d be much less likeable if he wasn’t so funny or we didn’t have that first scene that shows us what he’s lost.
He also makes a great leader character; there is a poignant scene where he makes the speech to convince the rest of the group to help out. When Rocket points out what he’s really asking them to do, Star Lord’s expression says it all. He was willing to do the right thing, regardless of personal consequences. But he also cares about these four goofy aliens.
He’s also just a big goof at times; our first introduction to the adult character is obviously similar to Indiana Jones’ plot wise (the George Lucas shout outs come fast and furious, including one in the stinger I won’t spoil, it is so great), but the characters could not be more different; Indiana Jones did not dance and sing as soon as he realized no one was looking.
Groot is great, and I love that Vin Diesel was cast in what basically boils down to a stunt; there’s really no need for someone recognizable to repeat “I am Groot” over and over. Okay, so he apparently did motion capture as well, but it still wasn’t necessary, if awesome.
Groot himself is, if I can go that far, the Jesus figure of the group. I mean, he’s an innocent who is unconditionally willing to sacrifice himself for people who don’t always appreciate him, and he can miraculously regenerate after said sacrifice. He’s a bit dumber than his comic book version There, it’s implied he just has a bizarre speech impediment; he’s actually quite intelligent. Here, Rocket does talk to him, but it’s implied even without the impediment, he’s got wood for brains.
Drax is also played a lot less smart than he is in the comics; first of all, he can’t understand metaphors (“Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I’d catch it.”), which is described as a cultural thing, rather than an actual intelligence issue. That doesn’t explain his sometimes odd plans, such as the aforementioned decision to call up the bad guy. The way he’s played is as an average person intellectually with above average strength and abilities. He, like Groot, comes off as an innocent who took a dark turn when something bad happened to him, and I like this interpretation of character even more than the comic version.
Gamora is probably the least idiosyncratic character of the core cast; despite her family also being killed by Thanos, she seems less interested in revenge and more in just getting away from him. She has been trained to kill by the guy; she’s pragmatic and realizes he’s out of her league. There is a bit of a romantic subplot with Star Lord at first, but it’s implied it’s more mutual attraction, and by the end of the movie, they’re friends, but romance could go either way.
Rocket
Well, enough of that, let’s get to the character we’re really here for.
Rocket (it’s just Rocket, as he doesn’t even know what a raccoon is in the movie) would be the most straightforward character in the movie after Gamora if he wasn’t, you know, a talking raccoon. He basically plays Han Solo, the guy who swears up and down he’s only in it for the money, but ultimately decides to do the right thing. He even has his own mute yet intelligible to him sidekick.
His backstory isn’t revealed; we just get a glimpse of his scarred bare back, which implies that his transformation was painful. He has an obvious chip on his soldier; in stories about “uplifted” animals, the focus is still often on what this means for the humans. It is often about the moral and ethical implications for humanity; it’s usually assumed the animals uplifted would be glad for their newfound sentience. At one point, he gets drunk, which would sound like the set up to a joke, but instead, with his guard down, he reveals just how angry he is to be “a little monster.”
His relationship with Groot is just as poignant as it is in the comics; perhaps more so now. Groot, here, is an innocent, sometimes blissfully unaware. Rocket used to be like that, until he was changed, without his consent, or even the ability to consent.
Conclusion
Rocket actually is almost a metaphor for modern superhero movies; last year, they tried to make Superman into a brooding anti-hero, for crying out loud. That is a grown man who wears his underwear on the outside. Just because your new costume design doesn’t incorporate that element doesn’t change the fact that that’s who Superman is.
Rocket may have issues; innocence is like virginity. Once it’s gone, you can’t get it back. But at the end of the day, superheroes are impossible. The vogue for oxymoronic “realistic” superheroes has gone just about far enough, thank you. Yes, paragons of virtue are not realistic, but neither are talking raccoons, so let’s just give “reality” a break for a couple hours, okay?
At the end of the day, Rocket and company are good guys, and I like that. You might even say I’m biased.
About the author
crossaffliction (Brendan Kachel) — read stories — contact (login required)a reporter and Red Fox from Hooker, Oklahoma, interested in movies, horror, stand up comedy
Formerly Wichita's only furry comic.
Comments
By a very lucky coincidence, my sister was free today so she took me in my wheelchair to see "Guardians of the Galaxy" this afternoon. We just got back from it.
I won't say that I loved it, but I enjoyed it much more than I expected to, and I am now looking forward to seeing "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" when it comes out.
I will say that your review is spot on. Both Space Lord's and Rocket's backgrounds explain why they are the way that they are. Space Lord/Peter Quill was a normal 7- or 8-year-old kid from 1980s America who is kidnapped and raised to adulthood by a grungy galactic pirate. Would you expect him to grow up normal? What if Peter Pan had been kidnapped by Captain Hook as an 8-year-old and grew up to adulthood under his influence?
Rocket's background is not revealed, but it's hinted to have been extremely painful. He doesn't know he's a raccoon; he doesn't know what a raccoon is; but is he a raccoon or an interstellar-something-else-that-just-looks-like-a-raccoon? Who or what turned him into an anthropomorphic raccoon, apparently very painfully and against his will? Why? Was he human before he was a raccoon? What did he escape from to become an almost-lone raccoon bounty hunter? How did Rocket meet and team up with Groot? Marvel Studios could make three or four sequel features just answering these questions.
We saw this in a large theater about half-filled, more with teenagers than kids, so they tended to be noisy when they were supposed to be rather then all through the movie. There was a lot of sudden, brief laughter that let me know that I had just missed an ingroup reference.
Among the unanswered questions, I still don't know why Earth is an ignored backwater planet in this galactic civilization (I won't say "unknown" since Yondu and his space pirates came to Earth in the 1980s to kidnap a little boy), or who little Peter's father really was. Were these points covered in a Marvel comic book that I missed?
John C. Reilly and Glenn Close have not been given enough credit in the pre-release publicity. They help the feature a lot.
Yeah, at the end of the day, I liked Rocket and Space Lord a lot. Groot is too enigmatic to really like him, but you're willing to go along with Rocket in assuming that you just don't know him well enough; there is some reason to like him. (Or "it", although with Vin Diesel's voice, "him" sounds right.) Drax's obsession with his murdered family tends to excuse his self-centered murderousness. Gamora -- well, she's basically a green good-looking girl/young woman trained to be a killer who just wants to escape into the galaxy to live her own life and might as well go along with the rest of the Guardians until she figures out what that is.
Will "GotG2" fill in some of this backstory, or just go forward? Whichever, I'm ready to see it.
Fred Patten
Actually, both Groot and Rocket have the least amount of given backstory (and Drax, Gamora and Star-Lord's given backstories vary greatly from the comics); in the comics, Rocket has actually been a victim of self-imposed amnesia, so it makes sense, but I'm wondering if Marvel did that on purpose to open up the possibility of a Rocket Raccoon and Groot spinoff movie. The Collector also hinted that Groot has a very different origin than his comic version. They've already got their own spinoff comic, so why not?
The question of Star-Lord's parentage has only recently been revealed in the comics, but the reason for Earth being considered a "backwater" is pragmatism; the Marvel movies take place in the modern day, and we're not part of a galactic civilization in the real modern day, so if one exists, and they are aware of us, by process of elimination we must be a "backwater." It's kind of like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy gag where Ford Prefect's entire article on Earth is edited down to "Harmless." until he protests, wherein newer editions read "Mostly harmless."
Really, it's pretty much one of the big dumb things you have to ignore if you read any DC or Marvel comics; the people of those universe's Earths keep getting surprised by all these major alien invasions that happen at least once a year, plus multiple minor alien invasion throughout.
Wait. Wait. They changed Groot's backstory? Whyyyy? It was genuinely interesting, I loved his progression f rom villain to hero. It's worth reading for anyone who hasn't, but I guess now he's going to be exactly what he is from the start. This is one thing that bothers me with mainstream audiences, they seem to really despise, rich, complicated backstories.
It's like what Gillen did to Stark. Instead of the backstory Stark used to have, where part of Stark's brilliance came from Ho Yinsen, his suit's co-builder, who started him down this road. Without Yinsen, Stark would never have turned out to be as brilliant as he was, the true genius was Yinsen himself. Of course, we can't have a minority ethnicity being responsible for one of our most brilliant Caucasian heroes, can we? So now Stark's backstory is that he was able to make his armour because he was a genetically engineered space baby. I'm not a fan.
I really hate this overrsimplification of origin they're doing, now.
I mean, what next? Peter was borne of and raised by Madame Web? Because Aunt May and Madame Web are secretly the same person shocker!
No thanks, Bendis. No thanks.
I think my main problem was that I was suggesting to keep bias reasoning out of criticism as a "legit argument" or "critique" argument of what exist at the end. I even pointed "critique" out it was replaced by "criticism", though, I heard sometimes it's different, but I don't know for sure now..
When someone goes out and attacks a purpose/what it is, and compares it to something it's not for something you or another person would like instead, then in a legit way, it would be a problem.
It's like the Cult of Originality issue.
Some works are there to be far alien for certain "original" fans, but some works are meant to be genres, or genres of a genre, etc. Some are just trying to post skill purposes.
Example: A work that was trying to imitate the Mona Lisa painting off of MS-Paint.
Say the work had it's actual problems of purpose. The problem was that it wasn't very exact for it's purpose, some stuff was misplaced.
Critique/Criticism: The painting did mostly a good job, but there were some parts that didn't match well with the original Mona Lisa painting.
Unfair Bias "Critique" abuse:
I hate this work, it's not original. I want art that is far alien, and something you are not into. This work is a flaw.
_________
Another example:
I've seen a work get attack based off unfair bias, and worse: Pretended that 100,000's or more of people that liked it/matching the purpose of the artist's direction or purpose did not count.
The work was a Creepypasta and the hatred against it from certain people was based off bias reasoning that the purpose/work had: "Blood", "Common style" "Gore", etc. This was so offensive because that was the point, and they were attacking the artist. The only legit argument I found about this work was some spelling errors (If I remember correctly).
That's a problem.
_________
See, this is why I believe that critique/legit arguing shouldn't include the wrong type of interest.
Know what I mean?
I know people can have personal opinions but when it's coming from a critic that decides what's "bad" or "good" for the world, then it's arguable. Some non-critic reviews can exist I think, but that's more different I think, maybe.
I don't know if you were disagreeing with me, and I didn't read this review but I noticed/read the part when you mention my article and the odd title of this.
I also sent you an email on Flayrah asking something about using existing text from that article I've requested gone, but I never got a reply. I plan to talk about this huge problem into the dying "critique" world on another website maybe.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Yeah, one of the professional reviews that I've seen of the current "Planes: Fire & Rescue" movie (not in Flayrah), says condescendingly that it is not a good movie, and that anyone who likes it is just showing that they don't know enough about animated movies to realize how bad it really is -- by which the reviewer presumably means that it isn't really a Pixar movie or from Disney's theatrical animation division; it just looks like it is. That is a classic example of the worst kind of biased opinion, in my view. P.S.: I liked it just fine, even if the CG animation was subcontracted to Prana Studios in Mumbai, India.
Fred Patten
Yeah I think I get what you mean.
I think what "defines as good" is what the viewer decides (Especially matching with purpose). Not if it matches a certain personal experience of one viewer.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I'm guessing Green Reaper got your message; he's busy, which is why I'm here.
I think we're all a bit disappointed your decision to unsubmit (though not all for the same reasons).
I think you're opinions are a bit naive, and I don't think you have the best grasp on the purposes of a review, which is more about helping the readers come to a decision about a product than assigning value judgements to a work of art.
Strange, you should of gotten it because it was being sent to you?
I also noticed it's not in my sent lists.
And I don't know man. When I see this one review for example on Flayrah (No not this one right here, some other one), I see judgement of "poor" or maybe "incorrect" over designs, and it looks like it's claimed as "feedback" or "value", but all it was, was bias comparing, ignored that it was style (I think), etc.
I would say it's possible to argue things like this like the idea that style can't really be flaw it's self for example.
My main general point was reaching out to "critics" who uses a "final scoring" to describe what's "good" or "bad" sort of. Or at least generally; people who claim "good" or "bad" as a "fact" like I've seen on here sometimes. I think your right about the readers thing sort of, but it's always attached to the other thing, which can be arguable, and since "critics" are often consider "important" which attaches "critique". Some people would love to bring there own style on here, but then there is a person who is telling readers to skip it because the reader hates it or compares it to the wrong thing.
I also seen a person judging the critics over a movie called The Nut Job.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Well, the defense is if I have bias there is a chance there is a reader who shares that bias; I liked or disliked a decision the creator of the work made, which doesn't necessarily invalidate that decision, it is a valid concern for a consumer. Also many of the works reviewed on Flayrah have the goal to be appealing to everybody; if the critic, who is part of everybody, does not find something appealing, then that is a valid criticism.
Furthermore, if you don't like opinion pieces, because what we are talking about is opinion, well, the decision to share the opinion is a decision the critic made creating his work. And trust me, I consider my reviews as works in and of themselves, with value outside of their relation to the work critiqued, as I'm sure many reviewers do.
In other words, you are criticizing reviews for being ... reviews.
You can share a similar bias opinion but that doesn't past the line of "legit argument" over something that was done on purpose for certain audience.
I don't think anyone can ever make anything appealing to everyone especially since attacking an art-style and changing it to something it's not would no longer appeal to certain audience. Also, my reviews of a couple of movies wasn't meant to be like that (Impossible), it was to suggest feedback for the work on to what it is, for certain furry fans (And to suggest ideas). Like how every work is. No furry art will ever make every person happy, and to call out "flaw" based off of that would mean everything is a flaw.. So it's still arguable when someone claims "poor designs" over a point that was done on purpose. I mean, critique is often about what exist, not to abuse it for a certain opinion.
I also just decided to do something real fast by looking up "bias", but when I looked up what "bias" actually means, there isn't a "positive personal experience" found in that definition:
"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."
Fans loving/matching the art-purpose isn't prejudice/unfair. The point of media is to make the eye of the viewer happy, usually by different groups.
_____________
For your second paragraph:
That isn't actually true, honestly. I grew up that you can argue a critic.. When someone calls a story out of personal experience a "flaw", then that's arguable because this isn't anything different when you go attack an anime movie for being anime. Honestly, saying "opinions can't be argued" when it comes to claiming "flaws" for someone's opinion to the whole world or as so-called "better" feedback, makes no sense. When someone in a review say "flaw" over something, then the person is telling the world as "legit" that it "sucks" and when the person does that, it can be argued, which also makes it fair to bring out "purpose, art, etc, etc" and say that, the person's opinion isn't true, because of the fact that people likes it, it's done on purpose, etc.. Saying that it adds value to the work it's self is like saying it sucks because "the reviewer hates it"; therefor, everything sucks. :S
Your idea can lead to a lot of confused ideas and will make people hate actual critics even more.
______
Edit: I will also suggest (Once more?) that "legit flaw arguing" is also meant to keep "personal opinion" out of critique as I read from wikipedia too. Bias, is generally a negative/unfair opinion, and I don't think the "important value" of criticism isn't meant to have that. Otherwise, it's like saying "attacking a new art-form because the general furry people isn't (or sort of) familiar with it is "OK""; suggesting it to remain generic and for the same audience/attacking a new addition to the little culture of furry. < That isn't value.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Love is just as unfair as hate; is it not unfair to give your loved ones special consideration over an equally deserving but unloved party? That is called nepotism, and it is usually considered bad.
That's the problem a lot of people have with journalism; they think "fair and balanced" means unfair and unbalanced for their side.
That's honestly a bit too loose to state because we live in a world of expression, growth, etc, etc.. Not on a world that destroys each branch (Culture, Genre, Race, Expression, etc) coming from another source, and all. Media is FOR things like that. Critique is about polishing it.
You are also equating "Equality" as "bad", of "Unequally" or this thing:
We need negativity/racism/speciesism/death/etc just as much as love/equality/freedom/etc.
Honestly love isn't unfair.. You are kind of giving up on the whole purpose of why "critique" existed (And the meaning of what bias means) and kind of admitting for your opinion that "critique" "can" mean negative bias/non-legit; making "critique" looked down upon by many artists and making it completely useless now.
And ignoring the fact that no art will ever appeal for everyone. Also MLP doesn't work for me, it must be a flaw now.
And honestly, bias/negativity/unfair arguments and worse; defending that as "legit" isn't balanced or fair. Besides, depending some balance; having complete freedom of the furry fandom isn't a bad thing. Controlling/balancing it (Especially for someone's personal opinion) is.
Note:
I will also say, my writing in this reply is a bit messy, but I don't care right now and no, I'm not defending this as no flaw for that, just making a note.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Actually, it's a Christian thing; man is unworthy of God's love, yet He loves man anyway.
Eye for an eye is fair, after all.
Wow, of course I get rated down, with no actual reason.. Even if I show what bias (disproving part of the article point) means. I was so pissed that I tried rating my own comment up as a guest.
Even when I quote from a critique page, it doesn't work.
I also noticed I can't edit my comment. Odd, guessing it's because of the front page issue. Wish I can do that with an option to not appear on the front page.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Naw, you can't edit a post once it's been replied to, so that's my fault, kinda.
Eh, it's often a fair complaint.
It's worth understanding the opposites in context, and what are the opposites of alien and original? I'd posit that you're looking for homongeous and stagnant. If something was originally uniquely brilliant but it was recreated as something homogeneous to suit an audience that wasn't fit for the original work, is that a crime against the original work? I think it is. Not all humans are created eqeual, so we don't all need to understand the same things, I think it's cultural important and imperative that works are allowed to be alien and original, without being homogenised for the masses.
I'll point out how important this is in culture by citing the pan-Indian belief. Many people have trouble understanding native and indigenous cultures, so they tend to melt everything down to its most stereotypical elements in order for it to be understandable to a person who doesn't have any education in the field they're witnessing. This has happened so many times, but one of my favourite examples is with Chakotay in Star Trek: Voyager, whose beliefs are a generic mish-mash of a bunch of tribes, and some of them are completely made up. It's what I disliked most about the character, because I have some familiarity with the topic, and it was cringe-inducing.
Because a mainstream audience doesn't understand native cultures or beliefs, should we tone it all down for them and make it as generic and homogeneous as possible in order to construct something that they can understand? Doesn't that, in turn, lead to racism and small-mindedness? I think that this over-simplification is what fuels the fear of differences, because the strangest elements are picked out to be trotted out on show for the mainstream, for them to gawk at and be unnerved by.
Conversely, isn't that exactly what some people have objected to mainstream journalism doing with furry? That the representation simply takes the strangest aspects and over-simplifies them so that the mainstream audiences can gawk?
I think that alien and original is important to our culture, and the more we move towards homogeneity and societal stagnation, the lower the average person's intelligence becomes. This, interestingly, is another reason why I'm not a fan of cinemas or big group activities. There have been a number of studies where mob IQ is measured versus an individual's IQ, and what's been found is that the bigger the number of people present, the less of an average IQ they have. This is a 'duh' statement for me, because I've always noticed that the more people you have watching something, the less interesting conversation you'll actually have about it, since most people (especially extroverted sensors) are trying to maintain the status quo and not say anything out of the ordinary.
Whereas the smaller the group, the more interesting things people actually have to say.
It's the same with educating a group of people. If you're educating someone one on one, you can teach them about things like the beliefs and cultures of indigenous peoples, but if you're teaching a group of 20 people, you're likely going to get ignored, and they're going to be forming very negative stereotypes in their minds rather than focusing on what you're actually saying. This, in part, is responsible for why education as a system is rather broken. I learned more by reading quietly myself and discussing it with a core group of academic friends than I ever did in a classroom.
So when you're taking something like this and dumbing it down for a mainstream audience, you're essentially robbing it of the most interesting nuances and subtleties, because a group doesn't want those things, they want spectacle. And Guardians of the Galaxy has a lot of spectacle. Though some of my favourite comics and comic writers have been amazing when it comes to nuance and subtlety. If you don't believe that then you should have a read of We3 by Grant Morrison, or anything that Warren Ellis puts out.
Warren Ellis saved Iron Man, before Kieron Gillen killed him again.
(Never was a fan of Kieron, even as a writer on Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Very much the pseudo-intellectual.)
So, yeah, I think we should value things that are original and alien. I think we should teach people those values, because otherwise we're losing the ability to appreciate nuance and subtlety as a species, we're constantly streamlining everything for a mainstream audience that wants to be presented with less information, ever less information, and more fighting and explosions.
And that's why I'm against the destruction of that which is alien and original. I think it harms us as a whole. I think it harms the collective subconscious of humanity and damages our intellectual and emotional maturity, it lessens and reduces us, it means that we have less patience than ever for anything that goes into detail or requires thinking and consideration on the part of the person being entertained. We're heading ever more and more towards entertainment where we turn our brains off.
Consider how we used to have the likes of Cyan Worlds, LucasArts, Sierra, Westwood, and so many others creating games for thinkers. These days, we have games for people who like stabbing, shooting, and not much else. I feel we're barrelling backwards.
Yes. Let's make things more simple, more simple, more simple!
That's going to do us a lot of good.
I was saying that "original" is the same as "alien".. Like trying to be "original" is being unknown in your work more. But I don't think it's a crime, I mean who says it's a crime? A bias person who thinks that work must be original for only certain audience.
Not all audience wants this. There is an upcoming video game I love, but it's not original much (maybe) but was made as an inspiration for certain fans who miss that genre. Lot's of people love the familiar, and judging that and pretending that they don't count seems to be a problem in culture. I also suggest watching Everything is a Remix. It's about how creativity works generally.
I'm confused, if it's about originality, I was saying that "lack of originality" doesn't mean bad because many people can like stuff like that, and I was suggesting that there was no such thing as "originality" either. I do think that it's important to teach people this because people has led to problems without being educated.
Turning everything into complete unknown (Also no genres or cultures) sounds like the real crime, but having an optional originality isn't bad. There is one good point though, sometimes you need to be alien/"original" to make a new genre, otherwise everything will be the same, but my main point was that, it shouldn't always go that way every time a work is made. Genres are very important for living culture, and so is, culture.. To create culture, you need to "copy ideas" and other things.
I just don't see how having optional familiar stuff is a problem.
If we force everyone to be "original" or all the time, then we won't have "genres", "genres of a genre", Culture, etc, etc.
I also like to suggest that everyone combines existing things to make something "new".. But the truth is that "making a rage comic" isn't anything different from making what's consider "original" by a large group of people because of the fact that every work is made of something. The main difference is that some can be more familiar, and some more less, but honestly, both isn't bad because we have people loving both.
Here is some stuff I've read and saw:
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/28/the-cult-of-originality/
http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091229/1205217535.shtml
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I'm not a fan of it, to be honest.
It was bad enough to know what Marvel had done to Rocket Raccoon, that Brian (ultra-misogynist, beater of women) Bendis had taken away every original aspect about him. Brian writers every character the same, so there goes Rocket's personality and cockney accent. Brian hates quirkiness, so Rocket is now indeed not from loony world, but a cybernetically enhanced killer from a race of cybernetically enhanced killers that just happen to look like raccoons.
Rocket is no longer a brilliant strategist and tactician, he no longer has random access to hammerspace, and pretty much everything that made him great was taken away from him.
This is the character that was carried over into the movie. The lack of the cockney accent made me want to research this, since I haven't bought a Marvel comic in a while due to Bendis's rampage through the Universe, pissing on continuity with every chance he gets.
And now they're criminals, too. The Guardians of the Galaxy I knew and loved, especially from the '08 run, were never criminals. Rocket Raccoon, whom I knew from his original comics about loony world and the loony bible back in Marvel Preview and his miniseries sometime in the '80s. I think.
I'm just sad to see that none of the characters have come out unscathed. It just makes me sad on the inside, because there's so much wasted potential.
And to bin a story as brilliant as loony world in favour of 'killer cyborg not-raccoons' is... well. I guess we should be calling him Rocket Killer Cyborg Not-Raccoon at this point, eh?
Not only that, but Gamora was far, far too stupid. I'm sorry, but she's more intelligent, independent, and dominant than she was shown to be in the movie. So that's her ruined, too. I just really don't like where this is going, I don't like where Marvel is going.
Bendis is killing everything I once held dear. It's painful to watch.
What is it with you people and Rocket's accent?
He never had a noticeable accent of any kind, much less Cockney, in the comics. I know: I just read them! I repeat, the Cockney accent only appeared in a video game that featured Rocket flirting with Amaterasu, so that's hardly the most canonical version ever, and maybe an episode of cartoon Spider-Man. Maybe?
Furthermore, it was not Brian Michael Bendis who retconned Rocket's backstory, it was Andy Lanning and Dan Abnett who retconned it. I know: I just read it! Brian Michael Bendis did give Rocket a more Bronx accent, but that's because you're right about that, all his characters have a Bronx accent.
And Lanning and Abnett did not turn Rocket into a cybernetically enhanced killer; they turned him into a cybernetically enhanced nurse. Who happened to find a talent for blowing up stuff later. I know: I just read it!
This "he doesn't have a Cockney accent" thing might be stupider than the Iron Man 3 Mandarin thing; oh, noses, they changed Mandarin! Yeah, a character who sucks. A yellow peril character from the 60s, and we wanted this guy to remain the same? The only reason anyone gives a crap about Mandarin is because he is kinda/sorta Iron Man's main bad guy, and the only reason anyone gives a crap about Iron Man is because of the movies!
Seriously, at the time Iron Man came out, all the comic book nerds hated Iron Man for Civil War. And now we're angry about the most creative, interesting twist in the entire Marvel movie universe because they changed a character nobody would care about if he wasn't in the movie that changed him?
God damn, comic book fans are just the worst!
Correction under plot, with Drax.. "Gamora can get her to Ronan" should be, "Gamora can get him to Ronan" ;)
Thanks for the catch! Fixed it!
There is a great saying: "you cannot please everyone".
That is true.
From that I can conclude that "you can only please certain people".
That means certain individuals are predisposed to like or dislike something.
Objective good quality aside, the biggest reason for liking a movie is being able to connect with what makes the movie different from the rest. Be it genre, writing, director's style, or the characters' performance, you will always like some movies, and remain indifferent to others, even if all movies you ever see are technically perfect.
So, basically, the thing that makes you like a movie is not in the movie; it is in YOU.
There are no completely unbiased reviewers. It is absolutely impossible to be totally unbiased. And your apology for "being too biased" just sounds stupid.
And if you are offended over the word "stupid"......
... I'm still hitting that save button.
Well, I'll be...
Oh, I never apologized.
I mainly agree except for the "unbiased" part.
I think some people are misusing on what biased even means.
Being bias or biased is about having a prejudice/unfair opinion on things, and when someone compares something to the wrong thing (e.g. wrong audience), it would be fair to say that it's biased/unfair. Update: Well, prejudice isn't just about unfair, but might be part of it..
Biased is about being unfair, while on the other hand/paw: Showing that you, as an audience is liking what they offer to that audience isn't unfair, which means "no biased".. It's a fair, legit opinion because it shows the point as to why something is made.
It's also possible to legitimately bring out "flaws" and not be unfair; If you find a real error (Trying to find it for actual polishing purposes) such as a spelling mistake, then it's a fair negative thought.
But if it's attacking a style (for example) that the artist wanted to use, then it's a unfair, negative thought.
From the dictionary, it kind of makes sense to me.
In other words:
Biased is about being unfair but biased isn't "personal" it's self; but can be sometimes. It depends.
Some people might think that biased or bias is the same as "personal", which isn't exactly.
__________________
Even in more other words for anyone:
There is no such thing as a "positive" biased by the way. That doesn't make sense!
And no, I'm not making this up, I'm quoting from the dictionary.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Bias and prejudice are not equivalent in meaning, if they were then why would we have two different words?
In a similar common misconception, Tolerate is not the same thing as Support.
When language deals with emotions people tend to stretch them a bit.
But bias includes "prejudice", and often unfair.. It may not be 100% the same (From the side of prejudice, it may not always mean bias.. I think) but "bias" includes prejudice, and it's about being unfair.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bias
And I might agree with tolerance, but tolerate does mean "allow" while supporting is more than just allow I think. Could be wrong.
As for bias again, if anyone thinks the dictionary is wrong, then I think it's even more of a misconception that "bias" means "personal" when it really doesn't. :S
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
That's interesting, I was basing my thoughts on how the words "Bias" and "Prejudice" are used in the modern setting. It seem that, yes, the dictionary does have them as synonomous words. When being used externally (toward another) one may used bias and prejudice interchangeably. However the clear difference as to the two word's distinct flavor comes from the 'bias' one has when using it on the self.
How often have you heard someone go "But maybe I'm a bit prejudiced."
The answer? You wouldn't. They would prefer to say "But maybe I'm a little bit biased"
Why? Bias is seen as something everyone has and is relatively harmless. The term prejudiced, however, seems to stem a whole bunch of the extremely negatives forms of bias such as racism.
Dictionaries are all and good, but they are a picture of a living organism. Etymology books are like a photo album. Neither, though, predict the future of words. In the future, I feel "Prejudice" may be defined as "extreme negative bias" and become two completely separate words.
I mean even the dictionaries are "biased" against "prejudice" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
While the second definition says that it can be favorable or unfavorable, the remaining definitions clearly have a negative tinge about the word prejudice.
Language is a tricky thing, as words have feelings that people may or may not be aware of.
I don't know if it's harmless either, even if somehow, there is "no" prejudice in it.. Like if someone attacked an art-style just because it wasn't like another, I still find that harmful, yet maybe even prejudiced..
Or if someone (If I ever made one) called my fur-suit stupid, but not theirs because the person was bias.
And I honestly hope not, because the current one made a lot of sense, and to why I grew up on how "being bias" in a review is bad.
I don't think "bias" came from a "personal opinion" it's self though. If we had to say "bias" is about a personal opinion, reason, etc or that any form of "review" is bias. Then "Reviews" are completely pointless for the "critique" score (And for anything maybe) and "critique" would be completely pointless, and not important. Even though, there is actually a setting I can clearly see in "critique" that many people miss.. It's the very thing that makes it important and I see people (Even on here) trying to abuse that.
Even on Wikipedia, "personal opinion" is not allowed on that setting.
And oh, that's kind of a good discovery I think, though, I don't know which one it is;
is it about "favorable, and non-favorable" or is it originality "negative"?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060912175902AA6QGQ3
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
I think "prejudiced" is about "lack of knowledge" but are more negative.. In fact, I read more, I believe it's safe to say that it's about negative. So I don't think most of the dictionary was bias..
I still believe that "bias" is often about prejudiced, with the side of "unfair" and it makes sense to separate a "bias" and a "non-bias" in a critic, as I can clearly see it.
There is no evidence that "bias" is about a personal thing or legit arguing/knowledge, what's really a flaw, etc.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Why is that I cannot comprehend what you wrote? Its there something wrong with my brain?
Well, I'll be...
Try editing him. Then have him decide to remove what you spent a lot of time on.
The guy writing about criticism being bad couldn't take criticism. Go figure, huh?
Yeah man, I can't take the offending hatred that has nothing to do with the work or purpose.
I'm sick of anti-furries attacking furry work because it's furry.. For example.
If I really had to agree that so-called "criticism" is about bias instead of legit, then "criticism" is in fact another boring thing then, that has no importance at all..
Hell, it's not just a reaction over that idea of that one article, it's that people has been treating "critique" as importance a lot too.
You know what? I am going to claim to be a real strong critic:
Your icon is a flaw, I hate foxes, I selfishly want it to be a dragon because I like dragons more.
Hey, it's "criticism", so it's fair!
*Sarcasm*
Oh, and I must importantly put it on the "score board" on a popular website too!
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
What?
Did you just turn into a MST3K skit on me?
Because that would be awesome!
I honestly was giving an example as a reaction (Making fun of?) against the so-called need of criticism with the claim that all criticism is "bias/biased" sort of.
When in reality, that kind of "criticism" is disgusting and deserves to be treated as a random personal bigoted opinion that serves no value.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
All I did was based everything off the dictionary and decide that, legit critique isn't about bias; and bias is about being crappy, and unfair.. and not legit.
Edit: Biased and Bias is a tiny bit different from the dictionary I think, but still has "prejudice" in both and said generally include unfair I think. Edit finished
I also suggested that there is no such thing as a "positive bias"...
Oh wait, I made a mistake.. There IS, but it must be unfair and prejudiced. My apologizes.
Saying "I as an audience liked what the artist did on purpose" isn't unfair.
But... Saying "I as an anti-horror genre, hate this horror movie", is unfair and stupid.
Is that better? >_>
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Post new comment