Death threats for Batman critics (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/18/death-threats-for-batman-critic)
Quote
Question: How do you start an Internet flame war?
Answer: Express an opinion. Wait a few minutes.
Pity poor Marshall Fine of the movie blog Hollywood & Fine (whatever that is).
As the first person to pan The Dark Knight Rises on Rotten Tomatoes, he found himself on the bottom of a pile-up of anonymous vitriol and even death threats (closing on 900 as I write this, 200 in the first 10 minutes after the review was posted).
Some were as simple as "R.I.P. Marshall Fine" or "It was nice knowing you." Some were passive-aggressive ("I give you permission to die") For comparing the widely-praised finale of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy to Transformers, other more explicit ones were apparently deleted by Rotten Tomatoes. Still others threatened to destroy his website (ultimately it was shut down by traffic).
As lynch mobs go, they weren't exactly single-directional. Some attacked other posters, bringing up a mental image of a brawl within a riot.
Bear in mind, virtually none of the posters had seen The Dark Knight Rises.
As humourous as a flame war can be, there's an undertone to this mania for unanimity of opinion that's a little disconcerting -- especially when it comes from people drunk on the courage of anonymity.
I've seen a lot of it over the years. In fact -- and this is a definite point of pride for a writer -- the word-usage tracking website Wordspy credits this columnist with coining the word "anonymice" back in 1995 (yes, there was a 'Net then, there were even trolls). The word has indeed caught on somewhat (it's now included in the Urban Dictionary). I coined the word based on my still-intact belief that any opinion you don't put your name behind is hollow.
What's changed is the acceptance of anonymity, such that no one even bothers to defend it anymore. There's the ad hoc hacker group Anonymous, of course, which had its most socially high-minded moments as a strategic aid for the Occupy movement. At other times, it is an instrument of plain maliciousness.
But when a crush of anonymous people decides to punish a dissenting opinion, even for something as trivial as a movie, it carries a nasty odor. There's no question people go to sites like RT and Meta-critic to validate their own opinions.
But must everything good be 100% good? I'm actually kind of suspicious of unanimity of opinion -- especially among critics (of which I'm one, so who'd know better not to trust people like me?). Give me a Prometheus, with its 73% score and arguments in the lobby, over a chorus of Hallelujahs over The Avengers (92%). Some of my favourite movies were panned on initial release, including Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey -- all the way back to The Wizard Of Oz and It's A Wonderful Life. In fact, Blade Runner was one of the first movies I reviewed professionally. I was blown away by it and then, when I read other reviews by more important people, wondered if I had completely missed the boat. On the other hand, I didn't threaten any of their lives.
Today I know that some opinions are guaranteed to generate a certain response -- pan an Adam Sandler movie and somebody who can't spell will call me an idiot. And there is that old saw about opinions and certain orifices. It holds equally true for critics who have names and commenters who don't.
[email protected]
Someone should make a video... ;)
QuoteGive me a Prometheus, with its 73% score and arguments in the lobby, over a chorus of Hallelujahs over The Avengers (92%).
Arguments with who? The theater management over their refund policy?
Oh no, I hope I don't incur the ire of Internet and comic book nerds worldwide. :o
I find it amusing, also, that Batman fans would threaten someone with death. Do you even know what it is you love? What you love is a giant pussy.
Are the new Batman movies worth watching? Batman Begins was retarded.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 18, 2012, 01:14:28 PM
QuoteGive me a Prometheus, with its 73% score and arguments in the lobby, over a chorus of Hallelujahs over The Avengers (92%).
Arguments with who? The theater management over their refund policy?
It wasn't that bad a film.
Quote from: The Brain on July 18, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Are the new Batman movies worth watching? Batman Begins was retarded.
I liked Dark Knight better than Begins, but I'm not so sure about this one. The more characters they cram into these things, the less satisfying they tend to be.
Also, Hines Ward is a cheapshotting bitch.
All fanboys must die.
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 01:40:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 18, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Are the new Batman movies worth watching? Batman Begins was retarded.
I liked Dark Knight better than Begins, but I'm not so sure about this one. The more characters they cram into these things, the less satisfying they tend to be.
Also, Hines Ward is a cheapshotting bitch.
I really dislike anne hathaway. that alone makes me not want to watch this movie.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 18, 2012, 01:58:03 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:54:04 PM
I really dislike anne hathaway.
:mad:
I have a visceral hate on for her. don't know why. i laughed when her fiance was charged for fraud :D
I am on the fence with Anne Hathaway. Some roles have been OK, some roles "meh".
i'm displeased that there isn't more anne hate. in a place where everyone hates everything this is disconcerting.
I hate the fact that she won't have sex with me.
She was hot as that dysfunctional chick. Didn't stop me from keeping zapping through channels though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 02:47:13 PM
I hate the fact that she won't have sex with me.
doesn't count!
This movie won't hold a candle to Dark Knight, simply for the fact that Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart won't be in it.
Unless the new cast perform as well as those two did, I predict a lot of fanboys will cry out for Nolan's blood.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 18, 2012, 06:02:12 PM
This movie won't hold a candle to Dark Knight, simply for the fact that Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart won't be in it.
Unless the new cast perform as well as those two did, I predict a lot of fanboys will cry out for Nolan's blood.
The presence of Heath Ledger was nearly balanced, though, by the silly story and drawn-out length of the movie. That movie could have been great had at least 40 minutes and half the explosions been taken out. Aaron Eckhart was wasted as Two-Face in the movie. That story needed its own movie. Tacked on the Dark Knight, it seemed redundant and counter-intuitive.
Quote from: HVC on July 18, 2012, 01:54:04 PM
I really dislike anne hathaway. that alone makes me not want to watch this movie.
You are weird.
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 18, 2012, 06:02:12 PM
This movie won't hold a candle to Dark Knight, simply for the fact that Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart won't be in it.
Unless the new cast perform as well as those two did, I predict a lot of fanboys will cry out for Nolan's blood.
The presence of Heath Ledger was nearly balanced, though, by the silly story and drawn-out length of the movie. That movie could have been great had at least 40 minutes and half the explosions been taken out.
I disagree entirely.
Quote
Aaron Eckhart was wasted as Two-Face in the movie. That story needed its own movie. Tacked on the Dark Knight, it seemed redundant and counter-intuitive.
I figure that Two Face was there as an origin story, and it was intended to be developped in the 3rd movie. Since he didn't join the cast, or asked for too much money, they went with Bain, euh, I mean Bane ;)
That's cool, it introduces us non-comics readers to another character in the Batman universe.
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 18, 2012, 06:02:12 PM
This movie won't hold a candle to Dark Knight, simply for the fact that Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart won't be in it.
Unless the new cast perform as well as those two did, I predict a lot of fanboys will cry out for Nolan's blood.
The presence of Heath Ledger was nearly balanced, though, by the silly story and drawn-out length of the movie. That movie could have been great had at least 40 minutes and half the explosions been taken out. Aaron Eckhart was wasted as Two-Face in the movie. That story needed its own movie. Tacked on the Dark Knight, it seemed redundant and counter-intuitive.
I kind of agree with you. I would have preferred the Two-Face story lead into the third movie rather than abruptly end almost as soon as it started.
I get the feeling that they originally wanted the Joker to feature in the third movie, but of course Ledger died and threw things for a loop.
I like Tom Hardy though, and Bane was my favorite villain in the Batman comics (the few I read). My expectations for this new one are: mixed.
At least they're going to do justice to Bane this time around.
was there another time?
I should beat you senseless, but then i realized you are a Quebecer.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 18, 2012, 07:10:29 PM
I kind of agree with you. I would have preferred the Two-Face story lead into the third movie rather than abruptly end almost as soon as it started.
Yeah, I think Two-Face got short shrift, and could've been a baddie with his own movie.
QuoteI get the feeling that they originally wanted the Joker to feature in the third movie, but of course Ledger died and threw things for a loop.
Yup. Could've been a real treat to extend the Joker theme over another film.
I like Tom Hardy though, and Bane was my favorite villain in the Batman comics (the few I read). My expectations for this new one are: mixed.[/quote]
I'm a Tom Hardy fan as well. And while Bane was never one of my favorite villains, I think he will wrap up this Batman thing with a nice little bow.