[DavidPoland]

Just wondering...

I still don't mind being disagreed with, but after being called a male member as the thread title, wondering if any of the name callers are going to clean up their mess...

[RobMexico]

The review was horrible, and you are not David Poland. A true arrogant elitist as David Poland most certainly is would never visit a forum that had such vehement towards him. He would go to a board where his exploits where praised, to fullfill a deepset need to be admired and loved. Perhaps something he missed from his childhood?

[hellhole]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

Just wondering...

I still don't mind being disagreed with, but after being called a male member as the thread title, wondering if any of the name callers are going to clean up their mess...

Assuming this isn't a false account, I doubt you'll be receiving any apologies. If people already have a certain amount of contempt for you, I doubt the situation will improve by you personally popping in here. You think the movie sucks, fans think you suck. Get over it.

Assuming this is a false account... Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Howard Stern's penis!

[DavidPoland]

That's funny.

I'm not sure I could fake my status as a member of a critics group.

The review is what I saw. I'll stand with the Timeses, NY, New Yorker, Roger Ebert and a growing group that sees past the sales job.

I wish the movie was better. And really, there is no reason why a sequel couldn't be a major improvement. I have supported every other Bryan Singer film. But his Soaperman is a huge dissapointment.

[clamman27]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

That's funny.

I'm not sure I could fake my status as a member of a critics group.

The review is what I saw. I'll stand with the Timeses, NY, New Yorker, Roger Ebert and a growing group that sees past the sales job.

I wish the movie was better. And really, there is no reason why a sequel couldn't be a major improvement. I have supported every other Bryan Singer film. But his Soaperman is a huge dissapointment.

So basically what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you are a member of a four or five elite critics circle who "saw the real movie" and not the sales pitch? That's a pretty harsh insult to your fellow critics.

And besides, whether your an Ebert or some dingleberry writing for 2 people, in the end it's just your opinion.

[DavidPoland]

No... not what I'm saying... but kind of you to try to turn it into something ugly. There are 70 reviews up now... about 50 more to come. We'll see what else comes down the pike.

The "harsh insult" was to people who were calling me dirty names in defense of a movie about which all they knew was the advertising and the reviews that were up.. you know, back when I was on my own and the only ******* attacking what was surely a masterpiece.

And yes, it is just my opinion. I have never said or suggested otherwise.... not when I was alone... not now in a fairly substantive crowd.

[Galactica]

You know why 22% of the critics agree with Poland? Morons travel in packs.


And 22% is NOT "substantive."

Eat it.

[DavidPoland]

"Morons travel in packs."

You do seem determined to prove that, G.

[imnotyoung]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

Do I Get An Apology Thread?

Uh, no.

[Galactica]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

"Morons travel in packs."

You do seem determined to prove that, G.

I don't need to prove it. You beat me to it. If you want to verbally spar with me, that's fine. I've seen your writing, so I've no worries about your intelligence. Wait a minute, I almost forgot....you're not really David Poland.

[DavidPoland]

"Eat it" is not sparring, it's diaper diving.

[Spoon AZ]

I'm not sure that an apology is deserved because a couple critics agree that they didn't like the movie.

The fact is Superman is "Certified Fresh" by Rotten Tomatoes.com. So you are far from being considered accurate in saying the movie is no good.

Come back and ask for an apology when the movie is no longer "fresh". Which isn't possible even if every single review that comes out from now on is negative.

And as far as attributing that to a sales job? Sales jobs don't work with crappy movies. See Fantastic 4. See X-men 3.

Bad movies don't get overwhelming good reviews no matter how hard you sell them.

[DavidPoland]

Is that the sole determinant, Spoon... fresh or rotten?

So, you don't want to consider that Todd McCarthy, for instance, raved TF&TF: Tokyo Drift (37% Fresh) AND Superman Returns?

Are you defending Mission:Impossible 3 also? It's fresh.

Does it bother you at all that Oscar nominee Favela Rising is "Rotten?"

How about the $700 million grossing Da Vinci Code (24% Fresh)

According to the RT rankings, Poseidon, Click, The Break Up and Nacho Libre are all pretty much of equal quality. Does that kind of statthink work for you in life?

An apology is due because people were being *******s, not because they disagreed with me.

[calbear526]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

Just wondering...

I still don't mind being disagreed with, but after being called a male member as the thread title, wondering if any of the name callers are going to clean up their mess...

I wasn't one to attack your review but this thread is another thing entirely.

Are you seriously pandering for apologies?

People are idiots sometimes. Sack up and deal with it.

By the way, is POTC: Dead Man's Chest truly as good as you say it is? I'm fairly excited.

[Galactica]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

"Eat it" is not sparring, it's diaper diving.

Same place your writing comes from. I'm just trying to use words I think you'll understand. Am I going too fast for you?

[DavidPoland]

I am not pandering. I am pointing it out. You know, the way you stick a dog's nose in it when they crap on your carpet.

I don't expect that the behavior will change overnight. And frankly, I don't care much about being called names by silly anonymous people. But one of these days, they will start thinking and they will be embarrassed about being such fools.

And that foolishness is not about disagreeing with my comments about this or any movie. That is a given in my profession. The foolishness is being such hateful putzes about it.

People who care enough about movies to hang out here are people who I share a passion with... I want them to be as passionate as they are without being jerks.

[clamman27]

What I find the most disturbing is actually two fold.

# 1) That a critic would actually care what Joe Public says about him or his review. So, someone called you a bad name. Get over it. If you can't take the heat, get another job. Clearly you've worked retail in your life or perhaps you've never had to deal with the public at large. Insults are par the coure. Grow up. Now starting an apology thread and calling other people morons... and you're supposed to be a respectable critic? I didn't see Roger Ebert going on to every one's website or calling them when ever he was referred to as "that fat guy with glasses" or was called worse for his reviews. All a matter of class I guess.

# 2) That a critic would spend as much time as you have trying to one up Joe Public who insulted you. Why in god's name do you care what someone said on the rotten tomatoes forum? Is it going to ruin your repuatation? Is it keeping you up nights? For crying out loud, if you can't deal with people attacking or supporting what you've said, then don't say anything. Your behavior is embarassing and no you're not in the same league as the other critics you've mentioned just because you share similar views on this film. I didn't know children were now movie critics.

As for everyone else, make up your own mind on the film. See it if you are inclined and frankly who really cares what any critic says? Make up your own mind. It amazes me that critics still have a job in this day and age and that some people still feel the need to be told what they should see. Those, Mr. Poland, are the morons.

And stop feeding this nonsensical thread. It has gone on long enough. Sadly I know we have not heard the last from Mr. Poland, but people-who cares? I find it sad that someone in the industry is putting this much time into an internet forum where he was insulted. Very sad, in fact. On that note, I'm going to see Superman Returns and probably enjoy it despite it flaws and make up my own mind about it. If it turns out I agree with Mr. Poland I still will not think he's owed an apology and that reason is because his behavior since has earned him the name he was rudely called.

See you at the movies.

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

"Eat it" is not sparring, it's diaper diving.

[DavidPoland]

What someone says about me on a board doesn't have an effect on what I write or how my life goes... it's all just more water under the bridge.

But I find the "suck it up" stuff fascinating.

Isn't this the internet? Aren't people supposed to engage in a conversation?

Why do you think critics go all ivory tower? Because they don't listen to anyone but themselves.

Frankly, I am only embarrassed that I will dissapear from these boards again after I leave my house in a couple of hours and NOT check back in. I think engaging is very valuable.

As for Ebert, he suggested to me very early on in my career that I not ever respond to raging e-mail or comments. And I see his point. But to me, that's old school newspaper thinking. My opinions are not swayed by a public vote, but I believe in the engagement with civilians... as long as it is relatively civil.

[kenndo]

Originally Posted by clamman27

So basically what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that you are a member of a four or five elite critics circle who "saw the real movie" and not the sales pitch? That's a pretty harsh insult to your fellow critics.

And besides, whether your an Ebert or some dingleberry writing for 2 people, in the end it's just your opinion.

the ny times is already in trouble,by the way i did not know ebert review the film already,but if he did and did not like it,that is coming from a guy who believes spiderman 1 and x-men were not good enough.i will see if ebert has a review of superman returns or not since we do not trust you when you said he reviewed it. he even believes spiderman 2 was the best superhero movie ever and we know that is non-sense.by the way he said there were good things about the first x-men but he could not give it thumbs up. if you believe a film is good why not give it a thumbs up.i had less repect for him when he made a poor excuse for the thumbs down.

[Spoon AZ]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

I am not pandering. I am pointing it out. You know, the way you stick a dog's nose in it when they crap on your carpet.

Pointing what out?

That there are some negative reviews? Sure. That's going to happen.

I don't use the Tomato-meter to measure a movie, I use my own opinion once I've seen it. But it's a good indicator.

But I think if the general consensus of critics are positive, the movie makes a ton of B.O., and the average person generally enjoys the movie, how else can you measure success outside of your own opinion?

You certainly are entitled to your opinion on the movie.

As far as Oscar Nominee Favela Rising goes? No it doesn't bother me. Rarely do I agree with the Academy picks. Most of the winners for Best Picture are forgotten by the public within 2 years.

Maybe I'm taking your thread the wrong way but it sounds like you are asking for an apology because you believe some people were harsh in their name calling and that the increase in negative reviews vindicates your review. Which I'm sorry, the name-calling is one thing, but your review is not vindicated.

[Galactica]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

What someone says about me on a board doesn't have an effect on what I write or how my life goes... it's all just more water under the bridge.

But I find the "suck it up" stuff fascinating.

Isn't this the internet? Aren't people supposed to engage in a conversation?

Why do you think critics go all ivory tower? Because they don't listen to anyone but themselves.

Frankly, I am only embarrassed that I will dissapear from these boards again after I leave my house in a couple of hours and NOT check back in. I think engaging is very valuable.

As for Ebert, he suggested to me very early on in my career that I not ever respond to raging e-mail or comments. And I see his point. But to me, that's old school newspaper thinking. My opinions are not swayed by a public vote, but I believe in the engagement with civilians... as long as it is relatively civil.

You have no idea what civil discourse is, since you've never practiced it. At least not here. I may get nasty in my comments at times, but at least I'm not a hypocrite who laments the lack of civil conversation with one hand and slaps you in the head with a petty insult with the other. Practice what you preach.

If you can.

[DavidPoland]

AZ - My review needs no vindication. I am perfectly comfortable about how it will play in time... including with some of the people who were attacking who will end up hating the movie in spite of their vigorous blind defense.

The point underneath of it is, if all the current reviews were up at the same itme as mine, not only would I not have been attacked, I wouldn't have even been noticed by all but a couple of people in here. And that's alright with me too. The attacks were out of hand and silly.

As for you, Gal - Play your rhetorical games with someone who doesn't see your strings. Flopping about from aggressor to victim is lame.

Want it clear? I have one clear take here. People who have an opinion - even a strong, aggressive opinion - are fine. (Those would include Spoon and Clamman, even if we disagree)

People who attack ragefully without any real knowledge in an attempt to be Alpha and then dance around (or hide) when confronted are idiots and deserve to be spanked... unless they like being spanked... in which case they deserve not to be spanked. So which one is it, Gal?

[hellhole]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

AZ - My review needs no vindication. I am perfectly comfortable about how it will play in time... including with some of the people who were attacking who will end up hating the movie in spite of their vigorous blind defense.

The point underneath of it is, if all the current reviews were up at the same itme as mine, not only would I not have been attacked, I wouldn't have even been noticed by all but a couple of people in here. And that's alright with me too. The attacks were out of hand and silly.

As for you, Gal - Play your rhetorical games with someone who doesn't see your strings. Flopping about from aggressor to victim is lame.

Want it clear? I have one clear take here. People who have an opinion - even a strong, aggressive opinion - are fine. (Those would include Spoon and Clamman, even if we disagree)

People who attack ragefully without any real knowledge in an attempt to be Alpha and then dance around (or hide) when confronted are idiots and deserve to be spanked... unless they like being spanked... in which case they deserve not to be spanked. So which one is it, Gal?

If you're a professional film critic, why are you wasting your time defending your review on an Internet forum? Don't you have better things to do?

[tornadored]

Originally Posted by hellhole

If you're a professional film critic, why are you wasting your time defending your review on an Internet forum? Don't you have better things to do?

well, he does have a right to defend himself when someone makes a derogatory remark, but come on, guys, we all want the movie to be great, but we have to face the facts that there are some glaring flaws with the film and someone is going to point that out.
The truth hurts sometimes, but if you love the movie you will love it, if you hate it, you'll hate it.
The NY Times did not like it and neither did the New Yorker... get a grip...
It might not be as good as we hope....so suck it up...

[tornadored]

Originally Posted by hellhole

If you're a professional film critic, why are you wasting your time defending your review on an Internet forum? Don't you have better things to do?

well, he does have a right to defend himself when someone makes a derogatory remark, but come on, guys, we all want the movie to be great, but we have to face the facts that there are some glaring flaws with the film and someone is going to point that out.
The truth hurts sometimes, but if you love the movie you will love it, if you hate it, you'll hate it.
The NY Times did not like it and neither did the New Yorker... get a grip...
It might not be as good as we hope....so suck it up...

[SilverNitrate_SN]

Originally Posted by hellhole

You think the movie sucks, fans think you suck. Get over it.

Ditto =) Have a nice day!

[The Nuke]

Interesting, there are 90 reviews, 71 of which are positive, 19 which are negative. So my question is, what if your wrong about the reviews, and the movies stay's freash and in the hight 70's early 80's range?

I'm sure you don't deserve the rageful bashing you got, but don't jump the shark yet. IT would have been better for you to have asked for this apology when or even if this movies reviews start to fall.

Personally with the movie already beign deamed certified freash, I'm happy. 71 Reviews is good, and the only thing I've been reading mostly on the done side is that the movie is good, but not great. With one even saying that the movie was great but not brilliant. Ebert's review is odd to me in the fact that he only bashes some of the things that happens in the movie like with the Supermans strenght and the kyrptonite. He's pretty much setting himself up for a long lashing that happened to him with X-men I think. Hell he gave 3 a great review, I wonder why.

[DavidPoland]

Asked & answered, Hellhole.

[UNTDrew]

Are you kidding me? Is this thread for real? For some reason I have a hard time believing this is a real movie critic's account. And if it is, wow.

Perhaps he should have taken Roger Ebert's advise.

I can't believe an actual journalist (if you can call a movie critic one,) is wasting his time on a message board trying to get people to say they're sorry! Seriously? I think it's safe to say most everyone who frequents a message board from time to time will have someone call them a bad name, but do you EVER see people going on about how people should apologize for it? Flaming is a staple on internet forums everywhere. Should it be? Probably not in a perfect world, but it's just sad when people don't see it coming.

[horrorbetterthandrama]

Originally Posted by DavidPoland

Just wondering...

I still don't mind being disagreed with, but after being called a male member as the thread title, wondering if any of the name callers are going to clean up their mess...

well look....... dumbass comes crawling out from beneath that rock. that ****ty review stinks you stink