I'm not sure why you have it out for Tyler Perry. It almost seems that you misunderstand and are unwilling to see a place for black culture and humor in cinema. On that note, I think that there was nothing wrong with his performance in the latest star trek.
It's precisely BECAUSE I see a place for black culture and humor in cinema that I take what shots I do at Mr. Perry.Mainstream Hollywood's outright ignoring of black culture, comedy, entertainment etc. outside of the low-comedy/gangsta genres has created a vaccum which Perry exploits for MASSIVE personal gain by foisting the crudest and most defeating kinds of stereotypical work on his audience. He's a hack making a fortune off the desperation of his own people for semi-relateable entertainment; and not only does he seem to see no responsibility to offer them something worthwhile, he seems openly contemptuous of the idea. His films, plays etc. are the modern equivalent of Minstrel shows, and that's even setting aside the creepy running-themes of female-subjugation and child-abuse-as-a-positive-influence (all unified under the umbrella of religious traditionalism) that runs through most of his stuff.
Trash heap from Fraggle Rock?Well done sir.Also, celebrity cameo? Hint was too easy (though I'm a huge fan, and am now compelled to see this whereas I would not normally see a horror movie). Still have to see District 9 first, so we'll see.
I refute the concept of the 'Hack' on the sole merit that a hack would not have the skills to pull off the shlock that tyler perry churns out. Do I like him? No. Is he a shitty director? yes, most definitely. Do i respect him based on the fact that no matter how half-assed he is as a filmmaker, that he IS the only one who is filling that void you say he is exploiting and is profiting for being a bit of a pioneer in African American family drama genre (no matter how much he may suck at it). Yes, I do!Listen, to be an exploiter and a hack, he has to be compared to a peer who is intrinsically and artistically better than him on every level. If there exists, at a point, a competitor that completely outshines him and he does nothing to improve his game because he is comfortable with his economic gross, then I will call him a hack.A real hack is someone who exploits an emotional connection between the viewer and the subject matter of the film instead of actually relying on any substantial form of drama and even directorial skills, thus making them inherently parasitic when considered with the world of drama as a whole. M. Bay or Paul WS Anderson for example. or anyone who remakes a film and attempt to add nothing to the table that is intrinsically interesting (E.X Day the earth stood still. and the opposite (good remakes) being 12 monkeys (remake of La Jetee) and the 70s remake of invasion of the body snatchers And this 'seems to have contempt for the audience and the genre' bull you pulled in your comment, I easily refute that. You don't know this man and can't accurately say much about his actual character. you merely dislike his work and, wether consciously aware of the fact or not, feel fit to demonize him in your eyes as punishment for not measuring up to your standards as a film goer. If that were the case with me, there would be dozens of directors I would call hacks. There is no such thing as responsibility of the artist either. Rather, it is the presumptuousness and self entitled aspect of the viewer who expects everyone to bend and conform to their expectations of what something good is. Wether you are right or wrong in your assumptions of what good is of no concern to them or anyone else in the universe. they create solely for the purpose of creating something that is beautiful in their own eyes. If you choose to like them, then good for you and consequentially, him too. If not, oh well back to the drawing board.Also, as another artist (i'm a fledgling Science Fiction writer and one day hope to be a film director too) I am going to say this as a creator to a critic with an actual lot of respect for you (creating a somewhat mind boggling notion of criticism of criticism). I respect your intelligence and understanding of your favorite things (games and movies primarily) and feel that you have some truly insightful things to say about them, especially video games. However I feel you approach the subject matter with a fair bit too much immaturity and anger to whatever displeases you. Rather than approach a matter with logic and reason or better yet, humor, you fly off the handle and spin into childish, incoherent rants about how much you hate them and how much they ruining everything for you and every one else. This alone destroys the credibility of your point and, unfortunately, you as well. Your attempts at sarcasm comes across as too cruel and hateful to get your point across. Listen, Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation is popular for a reason. As blatant, true and all encompassing his criticism is, it still is meant as a source of humor and subtle insight into the nature of games and their design instead of venting mindless anger and cruel judgement on another person. When you do it, you come across as just being mean.I say this with the utmost respect, Bob. But please take my words to heart as someone who wants to see you improve as a critic and rise above the dreck of nerd corps you are surrounded by in the net.
Phillip,I'm trying to understand your argument for why Tyler Perry can't be a hack. Even though he's a bad director, by your own admission, he somehow has mores skill than the average hack because there's nobody to compare him to. If somebody sucks at something, why should they be considered a pioneer in that genre? Whenever somebody steps up and decides to make a quality, critically and financially successful video game adaptation, then they will be the pioneer, not Uwe Boll, even if he's filling that void much like Tyler Perry. On top of that, your definition of a hack seems to fit in with what Bob said (exploits connection with black audiences over quality products, parasitic, etc.) - where's the discrepancy?And, while I respect you being a fellow artist (I'm an aspiring sci-fi / fantasy writer as well), your definition of criticism is simply astounding. Criticism is a way of expressing what works and what doesn't work in cinema, and how they can work. It's not the free advertisement most developers make it out to be, critics easy pickings for quotes on the front of DVD covers, but it's not this "movie relativism" you believe in. Of course Bob has to make a stand on some issues and movies; he can't say what he likes and then go mum when it comes to what he doesn't like. He might even have to get angry if the problem's been going on for long enough. Why do you care if he's mean to the filmmakers? They don't care. Tyler Perry won't need a psychiatrist for Bob's joke at his expense. His critiques can be angry at times, but sometimes that's what you need to strike a point home.I respect Bob for that. I respect that he doesn't just give a movie or director a bad review and leave it at that - he understands they reflect something bad with Hollywood as a whole and continues to mention them, to tie them in with his later reviews. There's only so objective a critic can get. To make Bob step back would be take out his bite, and make him like Yahtzee (As much as I respect the guy, I have to admit he understands his audience doesn't care for 'subtle insight' so much as the dick gags and trashings he gives to each game. He's reduced himself to being an entertainer once again with only the occasional observation on the state of the gaming industry. It's gotten to the point where I appreciate his "Extra Punctuation" articles over the videos, because he actually cuts the excess crap and gets to his actual opinion, a la qualifying his stance on the Wii, rather than mindlessly bashing it because it's funny).Bob has already, in my mind, set himself apart from the rest of the "nerd corps." I see no reason for him to change further (beyond improving video / sound quality, but I understand that can't exactly be changed in day).~NZ~
''Halloween 2'' was definitely better than predecessor (not that I hated the first film at all). My only problem with the film is the fact I saw the ending coming a mile away. I do agree with your comments regarding Rob Zombie continuously casting Sheri Moon in his films. Mr. Zombie appears to be patting himself on the back and sending a message to the geeks that he comes home to a hot wife every night and they don't.
All in all here is no indication to say this perry is an asshole and a user of others. It is just immature speculation and cat calling from one person who decides to hate him.Also I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is more than a hack because a hack would not have the gall or the stones to attempt anything so economically unfeasable as a culturally or ethnically narrow subgenre such as a black family dramedy. This because of hollywoods trend towards safe decisions and whitewashing. Plus he is virtually the only person doing it. He could be doing toy movies or dirty comedies but no he chose something else entirely and accepted the risk and went with it. And then he profited from his risky venture, And I respect him for trying and succeeding to some degree.And my definition of a hack is someone who exploits something easy (of which family dramedy is not because its so easy to fuck up completely that even a half successfull attempt is some form of accomplishment) for quick personal gain with with no concern for the expectations of the viewers or longstanding personal artistic merit.Also as much as I love his gameoverthinker series, Bob has not completely risen above the dreck yet. Anger and Cruelty is not becoming of argumentative criticism. He is just like all the other guys on the internet who scream about how much they hate something. He is just more articulate. Listen, persuasion and subversion comes through primarily humor, insight and neuro-linguistic programing (using the very fabric and nature of language itself to control the minds and opinions of who he talks to). What bob is attempting whether concious of the fact or not, is argument through intimidation and cruelty which may have worked 15-30 years ago but no longer apply in the detached nature that is the world wide networks of the information age.
Moviebob please review Ponyo!!
^ you already know its awesome, just go see it!PhilLEEP: Why is your opinion about Perry more valid than his? Just because you wrote an essay here?
^ I've already seen it twice, but I just wanted to know if Moviebob planned on reviewing it!
zombie is a hack. he stole his look and his sound from al jourgenson, the brains behind ministry. this includes the heavy use of movie samples. the ministry album, the land of rape and honey, has at least 4 songs with sample lifted from full metal jacket, mostly r. lee ermey.the shit-kicker from hell look was also pioneered by jourgenson, but was essentially ahead of its time.the americana stuff... i'll give you that one, though rob zombie's cartooning (that filled the lyric sheets) was essentially a rip off of the creator of "rat fink" creator, ed roth.and kitty moon, his wife? well, i want don't like scrawny, scraggly blonds, and i want to beat her with a shovel every time she opens her fucking mouth. her giggle (which we were subjected to over and over again in house of a 1,000 corpses) makes my blood curdle.so, yeah... fuck rob zombie.
Post a Comment