jye4ever
Broke and happy
The rest can be found here https://badassdigest.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel/
Here's an excerpt:
INTRO #3
HULK HAS SPENT THE LAST FEW WEEKS THINKING, READING AND LISTENING.
YOU SEE, HULK WENT AND SAW MAN OF STEEL'S OPENING MIDNIGHT SHOW WITH AN EXCITED AUDIENCE AND, WELL, HULK THOUGHT IT WAS NOT SO GOOD. SURE, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOOD STUFF IN THERE, BUT IF WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT IT ON THE PUREST STORY LEVEL (AKA THE MOST IMPORTANT PART), HULK THOUGHT IT FAILED SO SPECTACULARLY. AFTER THE CREDITS ROLLED HULK JUST SAT THERE WITH BETTY FOR A MOMENT AS WE STARED IN BEWILDERMENT AT EVERYONE ELSE. HALF THE AUDIENCE WAS TALKING EXCITEDLY. THE OTHER HALF WAS YELLING ANGRILY. THEN WE WENT OUTSIDE AND TALKED WITH SOME OF HULK'S INDUSTRY FRIENDS AND EVERYONE WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT AS TO THE NOT-SO-GOODNESS OF THE FILM. IT ACTUALLY GOT PRETTY HEATED. BUT THEN HULK DID THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ONE CAN DO AT A MOMENT LIKE THAT AND THAT IS HULK TRIED TO SUBVERT THE INCLINATION TOWARD FEELING "THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION!" SO HULK WENT HOME AND STARTED READING OTHER CRITICS AND FRIENDS WHO PRAISED IT. THE REASON FOR DOING SO ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE HUMANE "NEVER HATE A MOVIE" MANTRA, NOR IS IT EXPRESSLY ABOUT THE ETHICS OF WANTING TO HARSH SOMEONE'S BUZZ. IT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS OF COMING TO GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MOVIES AFFECT PEOPLE.
SEE THE THING ABOUT BEING A STORY DIAGNOSTICIAN, UNLIKE A CRITIC, IS THE JOB DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO SAY WHAT YOU THINK AND REFLECT THE EXPERIENCE FOR YOURSELF (THEREBY ASSUMING YOUR VOICE IS JUST LENDING TO THE PLURALITY OF GREATER CONSENSUS). INSTEAD, THE JOB IS TO ACTIVELY TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WILL THINK AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY THEY THINK IT. WE DO NOT DO THIS BECAUSE THEIR OPINION IS INHERENTLY "RIGHT" (WE'LL GET TO THAT NEXT), BUT BECAUSE THEIR OPINIONS (EVEN POORLY FORMED ONES) WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW MOVIES WORK ON A MACRO LEVEL, FAR OUTSIDE YOUR OWN MYOPIA. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO ADHERE TO EVERYONE'S SPECIFIC WANTS, BUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT STORY CHOICES ARE SECRETLY AFFECTING PEOPLE, MAYBE WITHOUT THEIR REALIZING IT. AND THAT REALLY MEANS YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO HOW PEOPLE TALK AND WHAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS WERE. YOU HAVE TO ASK THE POINTED QUESTIONS: DID THIS WORK FOR YOU? WHY DID IT WORK FOR YOU? HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FAULTS? HOW DID YOU FEEL THE FILM OVERCAME THOSE FAULTS? WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF THIS MOVIE? HOW COULD IT HAVE WORKED BETTER FOR YOU? HOW COULD IT HAVE WORKED FOR US BOTH? AND THEN YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO TAKE YOUR TIME WITH IT AND MEDITATE ON THOSE ANSWERS, FOR IMMEDIACY BREEDS SINGULARITY. YOU HAVE TO FORCE YOURSELF TO BE OPEN AND CONSTANTLY CURIOUS, FOR THIS PROCESS HAS TO BE TREATED AS AN ONGOING SCHOLARLY ONE. A STORY DIAGNOSTICIAN HAS TO BE THE ETERNAL STUDENT.
AND IN ALL THAT TIME HULK REALIZED WHAT MANY OTHERS REALIZED AFTER THEIR INITIAL SCREENING: THAT MAN OF STEEL MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST DIVISIVE BLOCKBUSTERS IN RECENT MEMORY. SOME OF THIS IS DUE TO STRICT ISSUES OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY WITH THE EXTREMELY POPULAR CHARACTER OF SUPERMAN, BUT THE DIVISION WAS JUST AS EVENLY SPLIT EVEN AMONG THE NON-RABID, NORMAL CINEMA-GOERS AS WELL. SO WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? WHY IS THE MOVIE CAUSING SUCH A SPLIT? WHY DO ALL THE OPINIONS SEEM TO BE SO VARIED? WELL, AFTER ALL THAT THINKING, READING AND LISTENING, HULK HAS REALIZED ONE UNIFYING THING:
MAN OF STEEL REVEALS A WHOLE BUNCH ABOUT HOW WE WATCH MOVIES.
AND SOME OF IT ISN'T GOOD.
Here's an excerpt:
INTRO #3
HULK HAS SPENT THE LAST FEW WEEKS THINKING, READING AND LISTENING.
YOU SEE, HULK WENT AND SAW MAN OF STEEL'S OPENING MIDNIGHT SHOW WITH AN EXCITED AUDIENCE AND, WELL, HULK THOUGHT IT WAS NOT SO GOOD. SURE, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOOD STUFF IN THERE, BUT IF WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT IT ON THE PUREST STORY LEVEL (AKA THE MOST IMPORTANT PART), HULK THOUGHT IT FAILED SO SPECTACULARLY. AFTER THE CREDITS ROLLED HULK JUST SAT THERE WITH BETTY FOR A MOMENT AS WE STARED IN BEWILDERMENT AT EVERYONE ELSE. HALF THE AUDIENCE WAS TALKING EXCITEDLY. THE OTHER HALF WAS YELLING ANGRILY. THEN WE WENT OUTSIDE AND TALKED WITH SOME OF HULK'S INDUSTRY FRIENDS AND EVERYONE WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT AS TO THE NOT-SO-GOODNESS OF THE FILM. IT ACTUALLY GOT PRETTY HEATED. BUT THEN HULK DID THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ONE CAN DO AT A MOMENT LIKE THAT AND THAT IS HULK TRIED TO SUBVERT THE INCLINATION TOWARD FEELING "THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION!" SO HULK WENT HOME AND STARTED READING OTHER CRITICS AND FRIENDS WHO PRAISED IT. THE REASON FOR DOING SO ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE HUMANE "NEVER HATE A MOVIE" MANTRA, NOR IS IT EXPRESSLY ABOUT THE ETHICS OF WANTING TO HARSH SOMEONE'S BUZZ. IT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS OF COMING TO GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MOVIES AFFECT PEOPLE.
SEE THE THING ABOUT BEING A STORY DIAGNOSTICIAN, UNLIKE A CRITIC, IS THE JOB DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO SAY WHAT YOU THINK AND REFLECT THE EXPERIENCE FOR YOURSELF (THEREBY ASSUMING YOUR VOICE IS JUST LENDING TO THE PLURALITY OF GREATER CONSENSUS). INSTEAD, THE JOB IS TO ACTIVELY TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WILL THINK AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY THEY THINK IT. WE DO NOT DO THIS BECAUSE THEIR OPINION IS INHERENTLY "RIGHT" (WE'LL GET TO THAT NEXT), BUT BECAUSE THEIR OPINIONS (EVEN POORLY FORMED ONES) WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW MOVIES WORK ON A MACRO LEVEL, FAR OUTSIDE YOUR OWN MYOPIA. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO ADHERE TO EVERYONE'S SPECIFIC WANTS, BUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT STORY CHOICES ARE SECRETLY AFFECTING PEOPLE, MAYBE WITHOUT THEIR REALIZING IT. AND THAT REALLY MEANS YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO HOW PEOPLE TALK AND WHAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS WERE. YOU HAVE TO ASK THE POINTED QUESTIONS: DID THIS WORK FOR YOU? WHY DID IT WORK FOR YOU? HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FAULTS? HOW DID YOU FEEL THE FILM OVERCAME THOSE FAULTS? WHAT DO YOU WANT OUT OF THIS MOVIE? HOW COULD IT HAVE WORKED BETTER FOR YOU? HOW COULD IT HAVE WORKED FOR US BOTH? AND THEN YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO TAKE YOUR TIME WITH IT AND MEDITATE ON THOSE ANSWERS, FOR IMMEDIACY BREEDS SINGULARITY. YOU HAVE TO FORCE YOURSELF TO BE OPEN AND CONSTANTLY CURIOUS, FOR THIS PROCESS HAS TO BE TREATED AS AN ONGOING SCHOLARLY ONE. A STORY DIAGNOSTICIAN HAS TO BE THE ETERNAL STUDENT.
AND IN ALL THAT TIME HULK REALIZED WHAT MANY OTHERS REALIZED AFTER THEIR INITIAL SCREENING: THAT MAN OF STEEL MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST DIVISIVE BLOCKBUSTERS IN RECENT MEMORY. SOME OF THIS IS DUE TO STRICT ISSUES OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY WITH THE EXTREMELY POPULAR CHARACTER OF SUPERMAN, BUT THE DIVISION WAS JUST AS EVENLY SPLIT EVEN AMONG THE NON-RABID, NORMAL CINEMA-GOERS AS WELL. SO WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? WHY IS THE MOVIE CAUSING SUCH A SPLIT? WHY DO ALL THE OPINIONS SEEM TO BE SO VARIED? WELL, AFTER ALL THAT THINKING, READING AND LISTENING, HULK HAS REALIZED ONE UNIFYING THING:
MAN OF STEEL REVEALS A WHOLE BUNCH ABOUT HOW WE WATCH MOVIES.
AND SOME OF IT ISN'T GOOD.
It's not his fault the script just had him lift heavy things and get his *** kicked by Luthor and his buddies.
