<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Metacritic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thomaslitchford.com/blog/2008/05/13/metacritic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thomaslitchford.com/blog/2008/05/13/metacritic/</link>
	<description>Writing.Life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:15:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NanMel</title>
		<link>http://thomaslitchford.com/blog/2008/05/13/metacritic/comment-page-1/#comment-5682</link>
		<dc:creator>NanMel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 23:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thomaslitchford.com/blog/?p=212#comment-5682</guid>
		<description>Yes, it does mean that the &quot;forces of anti-intellectualism are winning.&quot; People are not smart, and they are getting even, um, not-smarter. Dumb people have dumb kids, and they&#039;re taking over. (We&#039;ve discussed this before, and the premise of the (bad) movie &quot;Idiocracy&quot; is based on it.) 

People don&#039;t like to read anymore because it takes too long. We all have ADD and we can&#039;t focus on anything longer than 30 seconds. I am not completely innocent here, for several reasons. One, I&#039;m not a big book review reader myself. I was never what I would call an avid reader either, when I compared myself to you and your wife. But then I met other people who are really not &quot;readers.&quot; It was scary. Two, whereas I don&#039;t actually have ADD, I am reluctant to watch movies that are longer than 2 hours. And when I do, my first comment is usually &quot;it was too long.&quot; But, even from my simpleton quasi-reader point of view, I still think you are right. We should read more, and we should care more about what book s have to say.

You are absolutely right to file this under the &quot;decline of western culture.&quot; It is a sign of the decline. You&#039;ve hit the nail on the head as far as books ago. I would like to take a moment to address it in movies, since that is what I do. Of course, movie reviews are still rampant.  (Any idiot with a Yahoo! account can post a badly- written error-riddled review.) They don&#039;t suffer from the same decline as book reviews. And although the movie business is on a similar decline, I won&#039;t argue that it is the same as the book business. But, I will argue the quality of the movies is catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is similarly contributing to the decline. The general rule-of-thumb, or common practice, if you will, is that if you want to make good movies, you make independent movies. If you want to make money, you make Hollywood blockbusters. And never the twain shall meet. Recently, there has been some breakdown of this formula. To which I say &quot;Bravo!&quot; Perhaps our decline can be slowly reversed if this trend continues. Also, making books into movies does NOT help the problem. You know I&#039;m right, and you know the reasons. I can discuss them another time. 

Also, speaking of ADD, movie critic James Berardinelli had this to say about &#039;Speed Racer&#039;: &quot;This is spectacle at 24 frames per second: colors, images, cars zipping and flying in all directions - everything for the ADD viewer, except I&#039;m wondering what ADD viewer is going to sit through more than two hours of this. &quot; 

The one thing I will say to oppose all of the fantastic points you have made, Tom, is that I find when a movie is bad, the review is oh so good. Another example for &lt;a href=&#039;http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092008/entertainment/movies/no_speed_racer__no__110006.htm&#039; title=&#039;Speed Racer&#039; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Speed Racer&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, it does mean that the &#8220;forces of anti-intellectualism are winning.&#8221; People are not smart, and they are getting even, um, not-smarter. Dumb people have dumb kids, and they&#8217;re taking over. (We&#8217;ve discussed this before, and the premise of the (bad) movie &#8220;Idiocracy&#8221; is based on it.) </p>
<p>People don&#8217;t like to read anymore because it takes too long. We all have ADD and we can&#8217;t focus on anything longer than 30 seconds. I am not completely innocent here, for several reasons. One, I&#8217;m not a big book review reader myself. I was never what I would call an avid reader either, when I compared myself to you and your wife. But then I met other people who are really not &#8220;readers.&#8221; It was scary. Two, whereas I don&#8217;t actually have ADD, I am reluctant to watch movies that are longer than 2 hours. And when I do, my first comment is usually &#8220;it was too long.&#8221; But, even from my simpleton quasi-reader point of view, I still think you are right. We should read more, and we should care more about what book s have to say.</p>
<p>You are absolutely right to file this under the &#8220;decline of western culture.&#8221; It is a sign of the decline. You&#8217;ve hit the nail on the head as far as books ago. I would like to take a moment to address it in movies, since that is what I do. Of course, movie reviews are still rampant.  (Any idiot with a Yahoo! account can post a badly- written error-riddled review.) They don&#8217;t suffer from the same decline as book reviews. And although the movie business is on a similar decline, I won&#8217;t argue that it is the same as the book business. But, I will argue the quality of the movies is catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is similarly contributing to the decline. The general rule-of-thumb, or common practice, if you will, is that if you want to make good movies, you make independent movies. If you want to make money, you make Hollywood blockbusters. And never the twain shall meet. Recently, there has been some breakdown of this formula. To which I say &#8220;Bravo!&#8221; Perhaps our decline can be slowly reversed if this trend continues. Also, making books into movies does NOT help the problem. You know I&#8217;m right, and you know the reasons. I can discuss them another time. </p>
<p>Also, speaking of ADD, movie critic James Berardinelli had this to say about &#8216;Speed Racer&#8217;: &#8220;This is spectacle at 24 frames per second: colors, images, cars zipping and flying in all directions &#8211; everything for the ADD viewer, except I&#8217;m wondering what ADD viewer is going to sit through more than two hours of this. &#8221; </p>
<p>The one thing I will say to oppose all of the fantastic points you have made, Tom, is that I find when a movie is bad, the review is oh so good. Another example for <a href='http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092008/entertainment/movies/no_speed_racer__no__110006.htm' title='Speed Racer' rel="nofollow">Speed Racer</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
