Planet Rugby Forum

Nieghorn wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Just popping in to say that Altered Carbon is the bomb.

It's insanely good

Thoughts on this... ?

Beneath its “serious grown-up science fiction” trappings of nudity and sexual violence, Altered Carbon is less incisive than the equally heavy-handed young adult series The Hunger Games, which mixed on-the-nose class commentary with genuine futuristic weirdness.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/1700 ... o-futurism

(Was getting a serious Blade Runner vibe, so I thought I'd see what the critics were saying. And one ep in, I'm really intrigued, so am not going to let the article cloud my judgement. Just interested in the thoughts of those of you who really know the genre.)

Nieghorn wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Just popping in to say that Altered Carbon is the bomb.

It's insanely good

Thoughts on this... ?

Beneath its “serious grown-up science fiction” trappings of nudity and sexual violence, Altered Carbon is less incisive than the equally heavy-handed young adult series The Hunger Games, which mixed on-the-nose class commentary with genuine futuristic weirdness.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/1700 ... o-futurism

(Was getting a serious Blade Runner vibe, so I thought I'd see what the critics were saying. And one ep in, I'm really intrigued, so am not going to let the article cloud my judgement. Just interested in the thoughts of those of you who really know the genre.)

Nieghorn wrote:Is it too much to ask that everything not be a hot-button social issue?

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Nieghorn wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Just popping in to say that Altered Carbon is the bomb.

It's insanely good

Thoughts on this... ?

Beneath its “serious grown-up science fiction” trappings of nudity and sexual violence, Altered Carbon is less incisive than the equally heavy-handed young adult series The Hunger Games, which mixed on-the-nose class commentary with genuine futuristic weirdness.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/1700 ... o-futurism

(Was getting a serious Blade Runner vibe, so I thought I'd see what the critics were saying. And one ep in, I'm really intrigued, so am not going to let the article cloud my judgement. Just interested in the thoughts of those of you who really know the genre.)

Po faced nonsense. I can't stand people who anoint themselves moral guardians of a certain sub-culture, and then have a whinge when someone else touching on it doesn't do it the 'justice' it deserves.

It's had some weird reviews all round. My favourites have been the whinge that even though it is a direct adaptation of a book whereby an asian fella is sleeved into a white fella, the show all of a sudden is guilty of whitewashing. I've also seen a fair bit of whinging about the amount of smoking going on.

This show is one of the most egregious cases (in amongst a fair few recently) where the critics have got it very wrong. Just look at the difference in scoring between the fans and the critics:

Metacritic: Critics = 65% / Fans = 82%
Rotten Tommies: Critics = 62% / Fans = 92%
IMDB also has it at 8.5/10

Average at best if you listen to the critics...but that's a solid hit according to the fans.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Nieghorn wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Just popping in to say that Altered Carbon is the bomb.

It's insanely good

Thoughts on this... ?

Beneath its “serious grown-up science fiction” trappings of nudity and sexual violence, Altered Carbon is less incisive than the equally heavy-handed young adult series The Hunger Games, which mixed on-the-nose class commentary with genuine futuristic weirdness.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/1700 ... o-futurism

(Was getting a serious Blade Runner vibe, so I thought I'd see what the critics were saying. And one ep in, I'm really intrigued, so am not going to let the article cloud my judgement. Just interested in the thoughts of those of you who really know the genre.)

Po faced nonsense. I can't stand people who anoint themselves moral guardians of a certain sub-culture, and then have a whinge when someone else touching on it doesn't do it the 'justice' it deserves.

It's had some weird reviews all round. My favourites have been the whinge that even though it is a direct adaptation of a book whereby an asian fella is sleeved into a white fella, the show all of a sudden is guilty of whitewashing. I've also seen a fair bit of whinging about the amount of smoking going on.

This show is one of the most egregious cases (in amongst a fair few recently) where the critics have got it very wrong. Just look at the difference in scoring between the fans and the critics:

Metacritic: Critics = 65% / Fans = 82%
Rotten Tommies: Critics = 62% / Fans = 92%
IMDB also has it at 8.5/10

Average at best if you listen to the critics...but that's a solid hit according to the fans.

You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

sorCrer wrote: As a hardened scifi reader and watcher, it's excellent. Critics can forkoff.

Chuckles1188 wrote: You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Nolanator wrote:Regarding the whitewashing, it's a significant plot point that he's originally of Asian decent and is sleeved in a Caucasian body.
For the second book he's in a black sleeve and his team are mostly Maori. In the third book he's in an Asian sleeve again.

Plus, the main cast of the series/first book are extremely diverse. Way to miss the point in an attempt to be outraged by anything.

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote: You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Eh, that's exactly what they are supposed to do...or at least, be a bellwether for whatever medium they are being critical of.

With regards to TV, their job is to inform the public (of which most don't have the time themselves to watch every single thing out there, and so therefore need guidance)...essentially letting you know what TV show you should waste your limited time on.

The only metric by which you can judge a critic is how well their reviews match up to the opinions of those that want a review of a particular subject. Obviously, if they consistently deviate from what the majority think, then their opinions will no longer be sought, and ultimately they won't be paid to be a critic anymore.

P.S. It's important to note that the term 'majority' in this case represents a group of people that care about a certain media, i.e. there may be only a dozen or so people who care about, for instance, an obscure poet, and there may be one critic of said poet...and if the critic constantly disagrees with the majority of that dozen, then he ain't going to be a recognised critic for very long.

Turbogoat wrote:

Nolanator wrote:Regarding the whitewashing, it's a significant plot point that he's originally of Asian decent and is sleeved in a Caucasian body.
For the second book he's in a black sleeve and his team are mostly Maori. In the third book he's in an Asian sleeve again.

Plus, the main cast of the series/first book are extremely diverse. Way to miss the point in an attempt to be outraged by anything.

the types who complained about the 'whitewashing' in Altered Carbon are going to have conniptions when they see Black Panther.

Bindi wrote:I will admit I paused on Ortega's 1st nude scene.

Last Line wrote:The first episode of the new Shetland series was excellent.

Nieghorn wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:Just popping in to say that Altered Carbon is the bomb.

It's insanely good

Thoughts on this... ?

Beneath its “serious grown-up science fiction” trappings of nudity and sexual violence, Altered Carbon is less incisive than the equally heavy-handed young adult series The Hunger Games, which mixed on-the-nose class commentary with genuine futuristic weirdness.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/1700 ... o-futurism

(Was getting a serious Blade Runner vibe, so I thought I'd see what the critics were saying. And one ep in, I'm really intrigued, so am not going to let the article cloud my judgement. Just interested in the thoughts of those of you who really know the genre.)

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote: You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Eh, that's exactly what they are supposed to do...or at least, be a bellwether for whatever medium they are being critical of.

With regards to TV, their job is to inform the public (of which most don't have the time themselves to watch every single thing out there, and so therefore need guidance)...essentially letting you know what TV show you should waste your limited time on.

The only metric by which you can judge a critic is how well their reviews match up to the opinions of those that want a review of a particular subject. Obviously, if they consistently deviate from what the majority think, then their opinions will no longer be sought, and ultimately they won't be paid to be a critic anymore.

P.S. It's important to note that the term 'majority' in this case represents a group of people that care about a certain media, i.e. there may be only a dozen or so people who care about, for instance, an obscure poet, and there may be one critic of said poet...and if the critic constantly disagrees with the majority of that dozen, then he ain't going to be a recognised critic for very long.

All of this is wrong

eugenefraxby wrote:F.R. Leavis.

assfly wrote:2 episodes into The Night Of. Outstanding so far, really enjoying the cinematography.

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote: You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Eh, that's exactly what they are supposed to do...or at least, be a bellwether for whatever medium they are being critical of.

With regards to TV, their job is to inform the public (of which most don't have the time themselves to watch every single thing out there, and so therefore need guidance)...essentially letting you know what TV show you should waste your limited time on.

The only metric by which you can judge a critic is how well their reviews match up to the opinions of those that want a review of a particular subject. Obviously, if they consistently deviate from what the majority think, then their opinions will no longer be sought, and ultimately they won't be paid to be a critic anymore.

P.S. It's important to note that the term 'majority' in this case represents a group of people that care about a certain media, i.e. there may be only a dozen or so people who care about, for instance, an obscure poet, and there may be one critic of said poet...and if the critic constantly disagrees with the majority of that dozen, then he ain't going to be a recognised critic for very long.

All of this is wrong

Show me that famous and well renowned critic who everyone disagrees with, all the time.

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote: You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Eh, that's exactly what they are supposed to do...or at least, be a bellwether for whatever medium they are being critical of.

With regards to TV, their job is to inform the public (of which most don't have the time themselves to watch every single thing out there, and so therefore need guidance)...essentially letting you know what TV show you should waste your limited time on.

The only metric by which you can judge a critic is how well their reviews match up to the opinions of those that want a review of a particular subject. Obviously, if they consistently deviate from what the majority think, then their opinions will no longer be sought, and ultimately they won't be paid to be a critic anymore.

P.S. It's important to note that the term 'majority' in this case represents a group of people that care about a certain media, i.e. there may be only a dozen or so people who care about, for instance, an obscure poet, and there may be one critic of said poet...and if the critic constantly disagrees with the majority of that dozen, then he ain't going to be a recognised critic for very long.

All of this is wrong

Show me that famous and well renowned critic who everyone disagrees with, all the time.

The opinions of other people are irrelevant to criticism

ScarfaceClaw wrote:It is very good. Aside from the foot thing. That was dragged on for too long.

Chuckles1188 wrote:Again, no. Criticism would continue to happen without any level of public engagement. The decision by the public to take an interest in critics' opinions doesn't carry any kind of responsibility to pay attention to them. Critics might choose to orient their work towards a layperson, but that doesn't make it an integral or necessary part of criticism

Zakar wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Again, no. Criticism would continue to happen without any level of public engagement. The decision by the public to take an interest in critics' opinions doesn't carry any kind of responsibility to pay attention to them. Critics might choose to orient their work towards a layperson, but that doesn't make it an integral or necessary part of criticism

Sure.

But if a critic wants to be a sucessfull critic, I.E feed their family based on their work, then I suggest being reliable for the layperson is a fairly imprtant characteristic.

Chuckles1188 wrote:
You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

Chuckles1188 wrote:

Zakar wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:Again, no. Criticism would continue to happen without any level of public engagement. The decision by the public to take an interest in critics' opinions doesn't carry any kind of responsibility to pay attention to them. Critics might choose to orient their work towards a layperson, but that doesn't make it an integral or necessary part of criticism

Sure.

But if a critic wants to be a sucessfull critic, I.E feed their family based on their work, then I suggest being reliable for the layperson is a fairly imprtant characteristic.

Perhaps a little, but I suspect people who engage with critics generally do so more out of a desire to be entertained than a desire to be told what to think.

MrJonno wrote:

Chuckles1188 wrote:
You can't really say that the critics have "got it wrong" just because audiences disagree with them. Critics' job is not to predict what audiences will like

It is a critics job to write a review that a semi intelligent human can read and be able to work out whether or not they will like a show/movie. That is what made Barry Norman a good critic, he could give a glowing review of a movie and you could go "ok but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea" or a bad review and you would be able to realise it would still be up your street - based on his review, not the genre of the movie. Very few critics actually do this well, they are obsessed with their own insights and taste when they are usually just opinionated morons and when faced with something they don't understand they slate it or worship it because they can't work out whether it is too stupid or too clever for them.

We’ve seen a lot of this lately. Game reviewers who seem to know too little about the games they play, or who share gameplay footage that makes them appear incompetent, are understandably mocked—even when it’s not entirely fair. And more gamers turn to YouTube where they feel content creators are more down to earth, more like them, like fans. This isn’t always true or fair, but sentiment isn’t always driven by facts and data. Many YouTubers are essentially just bloggers with video and many game journalists do YouTube, so the lines are blurry. The point is, it’s easy in the internet age to see critics as out of touch, and critics often make their own bed in that regard.


With Altered Carbon, many critics offered up perfectly fair criticisms of the show’s pacing, its clumsier episodes and so forth. Others didn’t, stooping to misguided political attacks. Others didn’t even watch the entire season before deciding it was terrible. Meanwhile, audiences loved it—or at least early audiences who stuck around and bothered to review it online and spread hype about it on social media. One imagines that viewers who the show didn’t click with simply stopped engaging with it enough to even bother with reviews.

Whatever the case, this is one of those situations where I find the audience score much more reliable than the critical reception. Everyone is free, of course, to make up their own minds, to have their own opinions and cast their own judgment. That’s just how it is with art. It’s silly to care if someone else dislikes something you like. But it’s still fun to argue over the particulars.

Edinburgh01 wrote:The Grand Tour has rapidly disappearing up its own arse for a while.

I've just watched an episode where they 'tested' three cars I am interested in (well two I am interested in, and another of the same type I'm not). At the end I had learned exactly nothing of any use to me. How is that possible?