Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9606071" data-attributes="member: 85555">Bad faith is why I have the one year rule. I started doing this after the Last Jedi came out because the conversation got so heated on both sides, and both sides seemed to be reacting to the other rather than the film. It was like a proxy battleground. Now I have said in the other thread on star wars, I think it didn't work as the middle movie in a trilogy and it made some bad choices (for example taking the wind out of a great villain like Hux, in order to make a point and get a laugh). But I did enjoy the movie on its own. And I didn't share a lot of the criticisms other people had about it. The reason for that was I waited something like 6 months to a year to watch it. And none of the emotions around the conversation about it were strong in my mind at that time. I loved Rose Tico for example, I thought Kelly Marie Tran was great and, while I understood people not liking the movie and critiquing the film, I didn't like people going after her for simply taking the role she was offered. More recently, I watched the Jodie Whitaker years of Dr. Who (and the 60th Anniversary David Tennant Special). Prior to that I had only seen her first year of the show. I am glad I waited this long because none of the conversation surrounding it was in my head when I watched it. I do think there was some heavy handed, even cringey messaging, and I do think the Chibnall era was very uneven (one criticism I agree with is the timeless child was a bad idea, but the individual episodes were often good that season). The worst of her era was actually the flux episodes. But that had nothing to do with messaging and everything to do with being surreal and confusing. The 60th Anniversary, yes that also had some heavy handed, cringey moments, but I loved seeing Tennant back in the role. I loved seeing Donna again. There were only three episodes. The first one was good, the second one, in in my opinion, was a great chamber piece (probably the best for me that seasons) and the final episode was a little uneven in places but I enjoyed it (especially the portion in the toymaker's shop). I say all this just to explain that I agree bad faith is often an issue. And I think it isn't helpful to evaluate media as a kind of battleground for bigger cultural ideas (a good movie can have ideas I don't like, it can even be heavy handed with those ideas; it can also have ideas I like but handle them poorly). But we live in the age of bad faith. Also this I was alluding to this sort of thing in my earlier posts. It exists on all sides though. So I do think it is a mistake to think the other side has a monopoly on it. There are lots of reasons for it. Audience capture is often a big part of why this occurs IMO. Sometimes people will emerge on a platform, with an insightful criticism of new media, but that hits a certain number of boxes and suddenly before you know it, they went from being a measured critic, who evaluates each thing objectively, to being on a youtube panel just going down a list of things they never like about movies and how this latest film has exactly all those things. A lot the issue is online there is just an industry built around not liking things, whatever they are. It is very easy to win over the algorithms if you on the attack, or aggressively defending. On Baulder's gate specifically I can't weigh in as I don't play video games. I will say people blatantly lying about content bothers me. One of the things that I didn't like was hearing from folks that a given show did X and Y and that was why the new season was bad. Then you go watch it, and yes perhaps teh season is bad, but the thing they described was completely innacraute and obviously heard third or fourth hand. I always like to see things first hand myself so I can be the judge</blockquote>

Verification