He's right. All of Phillips' movies are awful. He has no idea how to direct comedy. His "comedies" are shot the way dramas are shot, nullifying the effect of visual gags.
Seems really aggressive for a director that didn't really do anything to deserve that kind of reaction. Dude did a bunch of early 2000's comedies and then made The Hangover, don't know how someone can hate somebody with such a whatever career.
>Dude did a bunch of early 2000's comedies and then made The Hangover, don't know how someone can hate somebody with such a whatever career.
anon you just answered your own question
he's right. you don't get to make something like the hangover part 2 and then pretend you're some sort of prestigious oscar winning artist. same for adam mckay.
>Hangover
Way better than anything else he's done. The 1st movie is one of the few films that actually had staying power and was a legitimate phenomenon.
That alone should make him a made name in Hollywood.
Isn't this the main flaw in the entire critic lexicon? Nobody who actually can direct or write with success will make a side project criticizing others in the field in a public forum. It's usually done in private.
Once you have achieved a high level in an artistic field, you understand what it took to get there, no matter what the result.
Space Cop was a failure on every level, and he knows it, so this type of public critique on a qualified and skilled director is proof, he never achieved a high level in anything.
It's a more nuanced problem than people are willing to admit. Like right now I want you to draw me a picture of Jay Bauman standing. Here's mine. You don't need any sort of pedigree to tell me that my drawing is shit and list reasons why it looks nothing like Jay. Your opinion on this doesn't really become less valid if your drawing is worse, for example because you're using linux and your art program doesn't have a circle tool.
It's kind of funny because all the people talking about how Space Cop is bad therefore it invalidates their critique have never made any movie themselves, so wouldn't that mean their opinion on Space Cop and RLM is invalid? It's a self-defeating argument.
The problem is he made a bad movie, and then with that experience criticizes movies that even on a basic level outshines anything he's ever produced.
Call out a bad movie all you like, but when you have the guts to make a movie yourself, it better not be a bad one.
I haven't made a bad movie so there's nothing to invalidate my critique of Space Cop
So it's better to never make anything? You're never allowed to criticize anything that's better than something you've done? Such a fricking moronic mentality. How could someone with no experience at all be a better critic than someone with some experience, even if that 'experience' is bad? What if I make things but never publish them? Does that make me a super special schrodinger's critic that's immune to all criticism? You'd have a point if they said their movie was good or refused to criticize it, but they give their own movie the same scrutiny they give others.
>So it's better to never make anything? You're never allowed to criticize anything that's better than something you've done?
Nobody said that dummy. >How could someone with no experience at all be a better critic than someone with some experience, even if that 'experience' is bad?
Its not an experience, they had PLENTY of experience filming and producing stuff in the past before space cop was a thing. Space cop was their big production, the thing they were pushing for hard. They wanted a series of this. >What if I make things but never publish them? Does that make me a super special schrodinger's critic that's immune to all criticism?
Why are you making up scenarios, moron?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So what is your point? You're not allowed to criticize them because you've never made anything. That's all I'm getting out of your argument.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So what is your point?
The one you made up hypothetical scenarios about, schizo. >You're not allowed to criticize them because you've never made anything.
Why don't you read the thread and get caught up
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
No, I want you to explain it to me. So if their opinion is invalid because they made a bad movie, does that make your opinion invalid because you've never made a movie? Is your opinion somehow still valid because you've never made anything? How is that logically consistent in any way? Right now, you're saying that because you've never made anything bad, that your opinion is more valid than someone who has made something bad. Which means you're in a schrodinger's critic situation where your opinion is valid until you make something which might or might be good, so it's better for you to never make anything and just criticize because the thing you make might be bad and ruin your credibility as a critic. This is the most moronic fricking thing I can imagine.
The problem is that you morons think of everything in absolutes. Yes, their opinion would be less valid than someone who has made something better than them, but making something bad does not invalidate their entire opinion.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>So if their opinion is invalid because they made a bad movie,
Yes >does that make your opinion invalid because you've never made a movie?
No
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You forgot to answer the important part: "How is that logically consistent in any way?"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's incredibly logically consistent.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If a guy sucks a dick, he's a gay, and therefore can't call someone a gay
If he doesn't suck a dick, he's not a gay, and therefore can call someone a gay
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are missing the entire point.
Aa a viewer, anyone with eyesight can critique a movie. You can say the Godfather is shit and look like a clown, but thats your right to do that.
You can even be like RLM and try to make a movie and fail, then you revert back to viewer status and have an opinion like everyone else.
What you and Jay are missing is that if one reaches a high level of art, you then look to uplift and support others who are doing it at a high level...just because you might have to work with them or need their endorsement or influence on a future project.
Its clear from the public bashing of a successful and qualified director, that he never plans or thinks of himself on that level. It's an obvious tell.
it's not just space cop though.
jay and the other rlm gays have been making films for at least two decades, and what do they have to show for it? john waters pastiches, shitty lazy b film rip offs et al.
so it's been years and years of utter shite that has made their opinions invalid
>>This guy gets it.
It's a story as old as time. Critic long enough and you embarass yourself on the stage in time.
Look none further than Rodger Ebert getting laughed at by trying to shit on Three Amigos in front of Carson with Chevy Chase sitting in the behind him.
I think the worst part about it is he really had zero excuses - he HAD a decent budget, had the equipment and before release touted how much of a great experience filmmaking was and how he good the movie will be
He had every opportunity that most filmmakers/critics would kill for, and he made space cop
and still has the audacity to critisize other people's work, even when space cop was the best he ever bought to the table
I could have excused literally all of that. The worst thing, the utterly inexcusable thing, is that they tried to make an intentionally bad movie. That's a mistake they mocked for years, and they still did it. They knew better and still fricked up such a basic thing.
That would be better in my mind and the eyes of many others. The fact that they ridicule people who try to make movies so bad they're good intentionally, and then do that themselves, is a way worse look than if they just made a bad movie.
This dude is not a fricking authority on quality movies. He has the best taste among the members of RLM, I'll give you that, but all of them have the embarrassingly narrow tastes of American consumerist slop monkeys. They think the latest Hollywood diarrhea and old shitty movies is all that matters. None of these frickers ever read a book, i'm certain. Fricking uncultured dogs.
We're talking about the same guy who considers martin scorsese to be a good director even after making turds like the irishman, taxi driver and the wolf of wall street
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but a critic is being paid to provide criticsm and should know better. So when a critic puts out a turd like Space Cop, it really puts in to question how valid his criticisms are. Are they really above the average guy on the street that loves every MCU flick? When a critic puts out a movie and it is bad, it calls in to question if they are any better equipped than the average Cinemaphile poster
>So I don't know, whatever.
I'M DYING, LAUREN.
And thats why critics remain critics.
>confirmed disneyshill repeats disneyshill talking points
NO WAY
He's right. All of Phillips' movies are awful. He has no idea how to direct comedy. His "comedies" are shot the way dramas are shot, nullifying the effect of visual gags.
Seems really aggressive for a director that didn't really do anything to deserve that kind of reaction. Dude did a bunch of early 2000's comedies and then made The Hangover, don't know how someone can hate somebody with such a whatever career.
>Dude did a bunch of early 2000's comedies and then made The Hangover, don't know how someone can hate somebody with such a whatever career.
anon you just answered your own question
he's right though.
Todd is just good at memes.
he's right. you don't get to make something like the hangover part 2 and then pretend you're some sort of prestigious oscar winning artist. same for adam mckay.
>making one mediocre movie that I personally don't like means that you can never be considered a respected director ever again.
Depends did you watched low blow?
Kind of make you an expert on shit
He directed the hangover and old school the guy is a good director
>Hangover
Way better than anything else he's done. The 1st movie is one of the few films that actually had staying power and was a legitimate phenomenon.
That alone should make him a made name in Hollywood.
This dude made space cop
He tried to make a movie and failed
At least Todd Phillips is in the industry, instead of being a bitter failure
Isn't this the main flaw in the entire critic lexicon? Nobody who actually can direct or write with success will make a side project criticizing others in the field in a public forum. It's usually done in private.
Once you have achieved a high level in an artistic field, you understand what it took to get there, no matter what the result.
Space Cop was a failure on every level, and he knows it, so this type of public critique on a qualified and skilled director is proof, he never achieved a high level in anything.
It's a more nuanced problem than people are willing to admit. Like right now I want you to draw me a picture of Jay Bauman standing. Here's mine. You don't need any sort of pedigree to tell me that my drawing is shit and list reasons why it looks nothing like Jay. Your opinion on this doesn't really become less valid if your drawing is worse, for example because you're using linux and your art program doesn't have a circle tool.
It's kind of funny because all the people talking about how Space Cop is bad therefore it invalidates their critique have never made any movie themselves, so wouldn't that mean their opinion on Space Cop and RLM is invalid? It's a self-defeating argument.
I haven't made a bad movie so there's nothing to invalidate my critique of Space Cop
The problem is he made a bad movie, and then with that experience criticizes movies that even on a basic level outshines anything he's ever produced.
Call out a bad movie all you like, but when you have the guts to make a movie yourself, it better not be a bad one.
So it's better to never make anything? You're never allowed to criticize anything that's better than something you've done? Such a fricking moronic mentality. How could someone with no experience at all be a better critic than someone with some experience, even if that 'experience' is bad? What if I make things but never publish them? Does that make me a super special schrodinger's critic that's immune to all criticism? You'd have a point if they said their movie was good or refused to criticize it, but they give their own movie the same scrutiny they give others.
>So it's better to never make anything? You're never allowed to criticize anything that's better than something you've done?
Nobody said that dummy.
>How could someone with no experience at all be a better critic than someone with some experience, even if that 'experience' is bad?
Its not an experience, they had PLENTY of experience filming and producing stuff in the past before space cop was a thing. Space cop was their big production, the thing they were pushing for hard. They wanted a series of this.
>What if I make things but never publish them? Does that make me a super special schrodinger's critic that's immune to all criticism?
Why are you making up scenarios, moron?
So what is your point? You're not allowed to criticize them because you've never made anything. That's all I'm getting out of your argument.
>So what is your point?
The one you made up hypothetical scenarios about, schizo.
>You're not allowed to criticize them because you've never made anything.
Why don't you read the thread and get caught up
No, I want you to explain it to me. So if their opinion is invalid because they made a bad movie, does that make your opinion invalid because you've never made a movie? Is your opinion somehow still valid because you've never made anything? How is that logically consistent in any way? Right now, you're saying that because you've never made anything bad, that your opinion is more valid than someone who has made something bad. Which means you're in a schrodinger's critic situation where your opinion is valid until you make something which might or might be good, so it's better for you to never make anything and just criticize because the thing you make might be bad and ruin your credibility as a critic. This is the most moronic fricking thing I can imagine.
The problem is that you morons think of everything in absolutes. Yes, their opinion would be less valid than someone who has made something better than them, but making something bad does not invalidate their entire opinion.
>So if their opinion is invalid because they made a bad movie,
Yes
>does that make your opinion invalid because you've never made a movie?
No
You forgot to answer the important part: "How is that logically consistent in any way?"
It's incredibly logically consistent.
If a guy sucks a dick, he's a gay, and therefore can't call someone a gay
If he doesn't suck a dick, he's not a gay, and therefore can call someone a gay
You are missing the entire point.
Aa a viewer, anyone with eyesight can critique a movie. You can say the Godfather is shit and look like a clown, but thats your right to do that.
You can even be like RLM and try to make a movie and fail, then you revert back to viewer status and have an opinion like everyone else.
What you and Jay are missing is that if one reaches a high level of art, you then look to uplift and support others who are doing it at a high level...just because you might have to work with them or need their endorsement or influence on a future project.
Its clear from the public bashing of a successful and qualified director, that he never plans or thinks of himself on that level. It's an obvious tell.
Professionals act accordingly in the field.
I agree Chris. good luck by the way.
Thanks
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt
it's not just space cop though.
jay and the other rlm gays have been making films for at least two decades, and what do they have to show for it? john waters pastiches, shitty lazy b film rip offs et al.
so it's been years and years of utter shite that has made their opinions invalid
>>This guy gets it.
It's a story as old as time. Critic long enough and you embarass yourself on the stage in time.
Look none further than Rodger Ebert getting laughed at by trying to shit on Three Amigos in front of Carson with Chevy Chase sitting in the behind him.
?si=5X7vA7s0dxrJqP8A
I think the worst part about it is he really had zero excuses - he HAD a decent budget, had the equipment and before release touted how much of a great experience filmmaking was and how he good the movie will be
He had every opportunity that most filmmakers/critics would kill for, and he made space cop
and still has the audacity to critisize other people's work, even when space cop was the best he ever bought to the table
I could have excused literally all of that. The worst thing, the utterly inexcusable thing, is that they tried to make an intentionally bad movie. That's a mistake they mocked for years, and they still did it. They knew better and still fricked up such a basic thing.
The meta irony is just an excuse because they're unable to make a good movie and expect you to not care about it
That would be better in my mind and the eyes of many others. The fact that they ridicule people who try to make movies so bad they're good intentionally, and then do that themselves, is a way worse look than if they just made a bad movie.
This chick needs to catch up there are a good couple of these movies
Such as?
Wasn't that Cruella and it bombed?
Has Tarantino talked about Space Cop?
no but it got wakaliwood's approval which is better
Jay Bauman isn’t a real heterosexual.
This dude is not a fricking authority on quality movies. He has the best taste among the members of RLM, I'll give you that, but all of them have the embarrassingly narrow tastes of American consumerist slop monkeys. They think the latest Hollywood diarrhea and old shitty movies is all that matters. None of these frickers ever read a book, i'm certain. Fricking uncultured dogs.
well neither is he so what's his point
Simmer down Jay, the filmmakers are talking
We're talking about the same guy who considers martin scorsese to be a good director even after making turds like the irishman, taxi driver and the wolf of wall street
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but a critic is being paid to provide criticsm and should know better. So when a critic puts out a turd like Space Cop, it really puts in to question how valid his criticisms are. Are they really above the average guy on the street that loves every MCU flick? When a critic puts out a movie and it is bad, it calls in to question if they are any better equipped than the average Cinemaphile poster