as always the show assumes people listening to a podcast about a movie have seen the movie in question; it’s why the show comes out AFTER opening weekend rather than before
The first half of your podcast talked about the role of the critic in helping people decide what to spend their time and money watching. Forgive me, for allowing that to lull me into thinking that was your philosophy of criticism . Now that you’ve clarified that the purpose of your show is to recap the plits of movies, you’ve confirmed my decision to ignore it in the future.
From minute 5 or so of the transcript from that first section:
Ultimately, the traditional review is both service journalism and arts criticism. People want to know if they should see something. And if you're doing your job right, you're helping them understand how what they saw works or doesn't work. It's not the only format such work can take. You know, this podcast, like most movie podcasts,
mimics and spurs conversations you might be having with your friends. Our goal here is to work through how we think about something, sometimes in real time with each other. And also just to see how others are thinking about that same thing, sometimes in the comments here, sometimes elsewhere. Maybe it's useful, maybe it isn't, I don't know.
But I don't think what we're doing here could supplant a proper review.
I’m pretty sure that decreasing the need for critical thinking when it comes to deciding what films you might want to see is not going in a positive direction. The function of writing a thought provoking and engaging review takes time and is conveyed to the reader. Watching an influencer regurgitate words that are meant to entertain and occupy your time doesn’t appeal to me or seem like a good way to make an informed decision. I’ll read the review or listen to it while doing something that is hopefully productive.
Off the top of my head, two things make movie reviews valuable:
1. They help you know what to watch and what to avoid;
2. They help you understand why a film is good or bad--and the former sometimes involves understanding the film overall.
However, I would actually prefer critics separating these two things. Knowing what's worth seeing is valuable, but I also don't want to know the reviewer's opinions and analysis until *after* I see the film. So I guess, overall, I'm not a fan of the traditional movie review
Sonny describing Marvel movies is one of my favorite genres.
Recommend The Gutenberg Parenthesis for anyone interested in a discussion on the migration away from the printed word to video.
I am pretty sure this is still Sonny's most positive review of a Marvel movie.
I have given lots of these movies positive reviews!
The new Fantastic Four doesn’t offend. It also doesn’t dare.
It's like ordering a sacred feast and getting unseasoned tofu on a communion plate—technically food, but it doesn't feed the soul.
As for the Times ditching traditional reviews? That’s not evolution. That’s surrender.
Criticism isn’t obsolete. It’s just harder to monetize than vibes.
We don’t need fewer critics. We need fewer algorithms pretending to be taste.
Give me one flawed, passionate takedown over a thousand influencer summaries.
Part one: excellent, thoughtful discussion of the moves The NYTimes is making with critics.
Part two: Ruinously spoiler-sullied retelling of the plot of The Fantastic Four: First Steps. I won’t be back.
You’re doing a fine job. You’re smart and well informed. And I appreciate your responses. But your pod is not for me.
Fair enough! My written reviews tend to be more clearly marked for spoilers, fwiw.
as always the show assumes people listening to a podcast about a movie have seen the movie in question; it’s why the show comes out AFTER opening weekend rather than before
The first half of your podcast talked about the role of the critic in helping people decide what to spend their time and money watching. Forgive me, for allowing that to lull me into thinking that was your philosophy of criticism . Now that you’ve clarified that the purpose of your show is to recap the plits of movies, you’ve confirmed my decision to ignore it in the future.
From minute 5 or so of the transcript from that first section:
Ultimately, the traditional review is both service journalism and arts criticism. People want to know if they should see something. And if you're doing your job right, you're helping them understand how what they saw works or doesn't work. It's not the only format such work can take. You know, this podcast, like most movie podcasts,
mimics and spurs conversations you might be having with your friends. Our goal here is to work through how we think about something, sometimes in real time with each other. And also just to see how others are thinking about that same thing, sometimes in the comments here, sometimes elsewhere. Maybe it's useful, maybe it isn't, I don't know.
But I don't think what we're doing here could supplant a proper review.
I’m pretty sure that decreasing the need for critical thinking when it comes to deciding what films you might want to see is not going in a positive direction. The function of writing a thought provoking and engaging review takes time and is conveyed to the reader. Watching an influencer regurgitate words that are meant to entertain and occupy your time doesn’t appeal to me or seem like a good way to make an informed decision. I’ll read the review or listen to it while doing something that is hopefully productive.
Off the top of my head, two things make movie reviews valuable:
1. They help you know what to watch and what to avoid;
2. They help you understand why a film is good or bad--and the former sometimes involves understanding the film overall.
However, I would actually prefer critics separating these two things. Knowing what's worth seeing is valuable, but I also don't want to know the reviewer's opinions and analysis until *after* I see the film. So I guess, overall, I'm not a fan of the traditional movie review