Ironclad wrote:
She was at an award ceremony, or somesuch, and dismissed a journalist as being white, male, and old. He was in his 40s. The movie in question, she tells the audience, was not made for him so he has no right to have an opinion. The movie was a ‘girls’ movie starring mostly black actors, apparently. It didn’t do very well at the box office.

Are you talking about Wrinkle In Time? Because if so, your summary of what she said is pretty inaccurate.

Ironclad wrote:Sure sure, but have you watched the clip itself? Does Larson have no particular critic/journalist in mind then, she’s just dismissing any and all 40 year old white dudes? It appears reasonably clear to me she has someone in mind otherwise why throttle it down to that narrow a field? (love the little ethnic head bobble she does, gets a laugh eh)
Here; 0330 onwards. But watch it all.

https://youtu.be/9e852S8RvlU

Since the journalist in question wasn't, iirc, proffering an opinion on the movie's merits, which was the topic of their exchange, then any unconscious nod to him as representative of a demographic slice of critics (older white male) is purely symbolic. Her argument is obviously referring to professional critics. At worst, her symbolic projection onto him is a social oopsie, which I guess she did her clumsy best to correct. But... is it even in question that she's talking about professional movie critics?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Ironclad wrote:
She was at an award ceremony, or somesuch, and dismissed a journalist as being white, male, and old. He was in his 40s. The movie in question, she tells the audience, was not made for him so he has no right to have an opinion. The movie was a ‘girls’ movie starring mostly black actors, apparently. It didn’t do very well at the box office.

Are you talking about Wrinkle In Time? Because if so, your summary of what she said is pretty inaccurate.

Was close enough.
Ani, that guy in your video has a similar option of the movie to my own. He’s a bit of a drip though.. what’s that all about I wonder

Ironclad wrote:

Ah. Thanks for the link. Let's compare what you said Brie Larson said with what she actually did say.

Ironclad wrote:She was at an award ceremony, or somesuch, and dismissed a journalist as being white, male, and old. He was in his 40s. The movie in question, she tells the audience, was not made for him so he has no right to have an opinion.

Arrogant and ignorant. The hypothetical 40 year old, white, male movie critic has no less a right to have an opinion as anyone else.
Now quoting from the clip:

I do not need a 40 year old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about a wrinkl;e in time. It wasn't made for him. I wanna know what that film meant to women of colour, to biracial women, to teen women of colour, to teens that are biracial.

That is quite different to what you claimed, especially when taken in the context of what she said before as well as after the bit you misrepresented. The before bit (0:39):

67% of the top critics reviewing the 100 highest grossing movies in 2017 were white males. Less than a quarter were white women and less than 10 per cent were under-represented men. Only 2.5 percent of the critics were women of colour.

Larsen then points out the huge disconnect between population demographics and the demographics among movie critics. She then proposes to work towards making them balance. Note: Nowhere does she propose excluding any particular stratum among the critics from reviewing any movie. That is a point she reiterates near the end of the clip (4:17). She wants her work to be shown, digested, discussed by a variety of people, not just a singular perspective.

How dare she want to limit white men's voices to their share of the population? 100% or die!!1!!1!

More seriously, it's something that sites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes could address by weighting the contribution of review scores from various demographics to their actual population share when calculating the aggregate rating, to give a more accurate indication of likely appeal. Such a move would have very little effect on scores for movies where there's consensus amongst various demographics on the movie's merit.

OlivierK wrote:More seriously, it's something that sites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes could address by weighting the contribution of review scores from various demographics to their actual population share when calculating the aggregate rating, to give a more accurate indication of likely appeal. Such a move would have very little effect on scores for movies where there's consensus amongst various demographics on the movie's merit.

1.
Weighting scores differently based on "demographics" and even tracking "consensus amongst various demographics" I think would be impossible to sustain. What metric applies to critics who claim "mixed heritage"? What of the sensibilities of individual critics, who might feel their professional output is slighted by a perception of artificial weighting, even if it's in favor of their opinion over that of another critic? Such considerations would become part of some well-intentioned business experiment that I doubt any business would want to undertake.

2.
A much simpler model would be, a website specifically meant for highlighting a narrower pool of critics (which model already exists, and it's not RT). If RT were to adopt some kind of transparency initiative, and the skin color of critics were a crude ingredient in their model (crude because skin color does not = relevant cultural experience), a simple thing for RT to do would be to post a photo of each critic next to their blurb (not consistently the case so far), and to reorganize the layout of their site to emphasize critical blurbs over aggregate score. Their model would be drastically changed just by doing this (possibly to their detriment) but at least the most difficult day-to-day decisions left would be about subtle changes in layout.

3.
To put it another way, weighting different critics' scores on RT differently based on skin color is as effective on the aggregate score as excluding some arbitrary percentage of critics of the 'wrong' color. They're both bound to be seen as manipulative, which is bad for business. And RT is a business.

I numbered the 3 points, because I think they can be addressed independently.

The obvious answer for the industry is the feedback loop of promoting more diverse projects, and thereby attracting more diverse interest in the movie industry. Nothing that an aggregate website can tackle honestly (or logically) beyond cosmetic design choices. And of course, they could do a better job moderating their "user" ratings. I seem to remember a time when the "user" score was relegated to below the fold.

Ironclad wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Ironclad wrote:
She was at an award ceremony, or somesuch, and dismissed a journalist as being white, male, and old. He was in his 40s. The movie in question, she tells the audience, was not made for him so he has no right to have an opinion. The movie was a ‘girls’ movie starring mostly black actors, apparently. It didn’t do very well at the box office.

Are you talking about Wrinkle In Time? Because if so, your summary of what she said is pretty inaccurate.

Was close enough.

Like your shrieking about Fawlty Towers, "close enough" seems to mean "whatever I need it to mean to grind my axe". You might not notice the pattern, but others do.

Did someone protest on behalf of Manuel? Manuel likes the beatings. The beatings build character & remind him of home.

Anti-SJWs sending threats and harassing online again. This time over TLOU2.
https://www.ign.com/articles/the-last-o ... harassment
No prizes for guessing which demographic is overly represented yet again.

There’s an annoyingly strong correlation between death threats and lack of punctuation nowadays. It’s so inconsiderate.

arugula2 wrote:There’s an annoyingly strong correlation between death threats and lack of punctuation nowadays. It’s so inconsiderate.

Ban surreptitious57, I say. Ban him now, and report him to anti-terrorism poe-lice!

A lot of exaggerated self-preening and overall smugness in that performance...



...sort of like her performance in the turgid turd that is Captain Mary Sue.

People adjust all the time. Neither of those pictures looks remotely like someone preening.

She's sex-signaling to the audience...

2. Strange it may seem, but another sign a girl wants you is showing her armpits.

She leans back, imitating being relaxed and showing her armpits. You must know that she understands what she is doing absolutely clearly. She is doing it on purpose. A woman will never show her armpits to just anybody.

3.Playing with her hair.

If she is playing with her hair, her eyes on you – this is definitely a sign that a girl wants you to touch it. Which is a sure sign of her sexual desire.

-- From here

She gets a positive response to her virtue signaling (chuckles from the audience) and is aroused by it.
Disgusting.

...

I don't know why people keeps saying Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue when it's clear she had military training at home and advanced training from the Kree in space. She doesn't fall into the category at all.

Gawd, I adore Academy Award-winner Brie Larson. And Captain Marvel was the only one of these movies I sat through and actually enjoyed.

Mike_L wrote:A lot of exaggerated self-preening and overall smugness in that performance...

preening_narcissist.jpg

...sort of like her performance in the turgid turd that is Captain Mary Sue.

If one is looking for exaggerated preening and turgid smugness, they need look no further than your posts

Animavore wrote:I don't know why people keeps saying Captain Marvel is a Mary Sue when it's clear she had military training at home and advanced training from the Kree in space. She doesn't fall into the category at all.

You don't understand, being absurdly powerful is just fine if you're a man!

Mike_L wrote:A lot of exaggerated self-preening and overall smugness in that performance...

Mike_L wrote:She's sex-signaling to the audience...

Do you have any idea, Mike_L, what impression you create of yourself when you resort to commenting on a person's demeanour without simultaneously coming up with a single valid criticism about the substance of what they said?