>audience has an emotional reaction to the subtext of the film, so they review with bias >critics review based on the merit of the filmmaking alone rather than their feelings
yep, seems about the size of it
No youre a fricking moron. All critics are biased, there is not a single critic without bias, there are no film reviews that just objectively site and rate the aspects of filmmaking then list themes of the plot and rate the plot progression, character arc, theme, cinematohraphy, lighting, all individually and removed from each other then again as a whole, and if reviews like this do exist that are truly objective YOU are not reading them. No he is not right and neither are you just for being a contrarian piece of shit. Show me your unbiased reviews youre such a fan of, fricking show me and I will point out the bias inherent in all human beings.
lol do you think you're being profound saying criticism is biased? the basis of art criticism is predicated on subjectivity, no one that has spent more than an afternoon in an 101 art class would think people judge on the basis of objectivity. but this doesn't preclude the fact that criticism in its best practice forms will have more relative weight than someone divorced from the ideas and discourse within the tradition of the work they're critiquing. the critical lens of people who live and breathe the stuff is going to have a different tenor than the average layperson whose mode of interaction with the work is consumption, not tempered criticism.
Im not profound but given that the conversation started with a claim that unbiased criticism is superior to emotional bias and you responded with a vague >youre right, thats why its getting so many replies!!
what I said was correct and youre now trying to pivot and change goalposts as if this was not on topic or relevant. Maybe if you initially gave your nuanced and honest view on the topic my "profound" reply wouldnt be necessary.
How Cinemaphile reacted when Cuties came out ? What position did the jannies adopt about the threads ? started browsing here recently. The catalog must have turned into a wall of dickyposting
Cinemaphile mods virtue signaled they never ever supported cunnies. The user base also virtuesignaled. None of them watched the fricking movies, if they did, they would have spoke of the last scene where the audience react with disgust and boos the girl dancing routine. The final scene show the main character ditching the dance team and going outside to play skipping ropes
fa/tv/irgins were outraged and so was much of the rest of Cinemaphile's userbase. Around the time the mod posted that it's banned hordes of miga redditors from /misc/ and other tourists came in to virtue signal against le pedos like they've been programmed to. Proof of this is on the Cinemaphile stats website.
/b/ is still part of Cinemaphile that that mod is responsible for (all mods are global)
>Cinemaphile does not only if it's 2d tho
The reason a lot of governments ban e-girlcon is because they say a lot of it is traced from actual cp. While he may not know that, the mod who wrote that is most likely aware that e-girlcon is actually illegal in a lot of places and that he moderates (and possibly is paid to moderate) a website that encourages e-girlcon being posted, a website that encourages pedophiles to post sexual drawings of children. Do you think it might have just been a troll and the reason discussion of cuties was banned was just because the mods didn't want to have to closely moderate the threads the film would generate?
It's so dumb when that one week a year rolls around where Republicanposters on Cinemaphile pretend to care about pedos or whatever. Yeah, troony troony I know, but come on. It's such a boring and stupid "troll." Just a waste of everyone's time.
>audience has an emotional reaction to the subtext of the film, so they review with bias
>critics review based on the merit of the filmmaking alone rather than their feelings
yep, seems about the size of it
the size of your tiny dick
Owned.
I don't think you know what subtext means.
tomatometer reviewers might as well be random tv posters
>critics review based on the merit of the filmmaking alone rather than their feelings
are the politics correct? is the director black? 6 out of 5 stars!
the post that made redditors seethe
Dude you are in every fricking thread here take a break with me. I'm going out to get a coffee and maybe donuts.
If you believe that you are too stupid to form opinions and should stop speaking unless necessary.
you're right which is why you'll rack up (you)s of brainlets who identify with only emotion rather than emotion tempered with rationality
No youre a fricking moron. All critics are biased, there is not a single critic without bias, there are no film reviews that just objectively site and rate the aspects of filmmaking then list themes of the plot and rate the plot progression, character arc, theme, cinematohraphy, lighting, all individually and removed from each other then again as a whole, and if reviews like this do exist that are truly objective YOU are not reading them. No he is not right and neither are you just for being a contrarian piece of shit. Show me your unbiased reviews youre such a fan of, fricking show me and I will point out the bias inherent in all human beings.
lol do you think you're being profound saying criticism is biased? the basis of art criticism is predicated on subjectivity, no one that has spent more than an afternoon in an 101 art class would think people judge on the basis of objectivity. but this doesn't preclude the fact that criticism in its best practice forms will have more relative weight than someone divorced from the ideas and discourse within the tradition of the work they're critiquing. the critical lens of people who live and breathe the stuff is going to have a different tenor than the average layperson whose mode of interaction with the work is consumption, not tempered criticism.
Im not profound but given that the conversation started with a claim that unbiased criticism is superior to emotional bias and you responded with a vague
>youre right, thats why its getting so many replies!!
what I said was correct and youre now trying to pivot and change goalposts as if this was not on topic or relevant. Maybe if you initially gave your nuanced and honest view on the topic my "profound" reply wouldnt be necessary.
Funniest post on teve today gj lad
>critics don't review based upon emotional reaction
>critics review on the merit of film making
in what world is that true?
Pretty solid bait, have a (you)
How Cinemaphile reacted when Cuties came out ? What position did the jannies adopt about the threads ? started browsing here recently. The catalog must have turned into a wall of dickyposting
please don't remind me of our second most embarrassing moment
Cinemaphile mods virtue signaled they never ever supported cunnies. The user base also virtuesignaled. None of them watched the fricking movies, if they did, they would have spoke of the last scene where the audience react with disgust and boos the girl dancing routine. The final scene show the main character ditching the dance team and going outside to play skipping ropes
A board full of actual nonces pretended to be outraged over a film they'd never seen.
found the screencap
>Cinemaphile does not
only if it's 2d tho
Based mods
Go back
fa/tv/irgins were outraged and so was much of the rest of Cinemaphile's userbase. Around the time the mod posted that it's banned hordes of miga redditors from /misc/ and other tourists came in to virtue signal against le pedos like they've been programmed to. Proof of this is on the Cinemaphile stats website.
Yet e-girlcon is allowed on /b/. Embarrassing
/b/ is an irrelevant spam trap
/b/ is still part of Cinemaphile that that mod is responsible for (all mods are global)
The reason a lot of governments ban e-girlcon is because they say a lot of it is traced from actual cp. While he may not know that, the mod who wrote that is most likely aware that e-girlcon is actually illegal in a lot of places and that he moderates (and possibly is paid to moderate) a website that encourages e-girlcon being posted, a website that encourages pedophiles to post sexual drawings of children. Do you think it might have just been a troll and the reason discussion of cuties was banned was just because the mods didn't want to have to closely moderate the threads the film would generate?
GR1 is about the only thing that's enforced because nobody cares because it's 50% bots
Cinemaphile is not 50% bots.
Very true my fellow human
If you genuinely thought this you wouldn't post here
/b/ is
Dude go outside and touch grass
Except both suck
plebs gonna pleb
I would walk around with a cosh looking for dicky, I'd wait for some blonde dicky bastard to start something just so I could kill em.
it's kind of weird how everywhere I go lgs smile at me flirtatiously. It's like they know I'm an appreciator.
your brain making up shit
kids smile at almost everyone you psycho
Why they hate the word "groomer"?
it's now considered hate speech on reddit
boomer here, what's with all this self-censorship people are doing now days? Like k1lling p3dos or wh1te p3po
13375p34k is in again
Twitter is notorious for shadowbanning if you use no-no words
It's so dumb when that one week a year rolls around where Republicanposters on Cinemaphile pretend to care about pedos or whatever. Yeah, troony troony I know, but come on. It's such a boring and stupid "troll." Just a waste of everyone's time.
You can't say pedo on Twitter?
It's an antisemitic word