Originally posted by Umbran the reviewers failed to get it, and were dubbed "humorless". Folks are sometimes a bit antagonistic towards less-than-complementary critics or reviews, and the comment sounded rather... dismissive ("No, it can't be my joke, it must be that they're humorless"). My original intent was to see if it was the antagonism talking or not.
Well that's embarassing. I was off the boards for a while, came back and found MY snarky comment was based on the fact I got caught in one of the EN board loops where some of your nicer posts didn't show up.
My apologies.
And sorry about the *shrug* bit. Never seen it except for one incredibly arrogant, dismissive, pseudointellectual poster over in House Rules who DOES use it as passive-aggressive annoyance. If it's your shorthand for IMHO, then I'll plead the whole "impossible to read tone in a post".
As to the above, let me clarify (and it's not the antagonism -- I've had my share of miserable reviews, thanks you, they cease to matter as soon as you see how widely they vary on a single project.) What "not getting" unobtanium was shorthand for was not whether the reviewer found it funny, but whether the
recognized it as a joke -- one of many in the movie -- and so understood that it was all to be taken with a wink and a nod. I was simply responding to the number of reviewers who plead intellectual superiority at the same time they plainly missed the whole tone of the movie. There are a ton of little asides and references in the flick, it's just that that single joke seemed to be the swing point of whether a reviewer understood we were doing a 1960's sci fi flick and not a serious "hard science" fiction flick.
Then again, we're discussing a movie you've not seen and probably will never see, so we can probably let this one go, eh?
Hold on, I can't read the other posts, give me a sec to poke around ...