pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Not sure this is so much "pitchfork is dumb", but whats up with the borderline creepy Lolita cover for the Ariana Grande album instead of the actual real cover? Is that the international cover or something?

lol n/mind apparently that one's just on the main page, the review page itself has the cover i was aware of.

that was the original cover that made the rounds well before the release date. prob just an error i guess.

not a fan of that review

singling out her voice as the sole redeemable quality of that album is total rockist popism right?

mm, also just generally wrong

yeah smh

"Mostly written by two of R&B's most mawkish hawkers, Babyface and Harmony Samuels, it’s built on cliché and tradition, and written professionally to a fault."

there is a deep irony in this line, see if you can pick it out!

hehe

Who wrote the grande rvw? (Soz, on phone and can't check/don't want to give that site clicks)

Andrew Ryce

Unsurprised

ryce writes really weird imo, like he grew up in germany or something

As someone who grew up in Germany, I wonder if you could expand on that comment.

lol @ not wanting to give pitchfork clicks like it's the fucking daily mail

"that site"

rankled by "our collective unconscious of music technology"

why? opn review was great, maybe predictable but it hit all the right spots

good review, yeah, and lopatin deserves it. i just don't like the phrase.

So I haven't had a chance to sit down with the new Lee Ranaldo album yet (just picked it up last night), but it sounds like Colin St. John doesn't like it because it doesn't sound like Sonic Youth?

i dont understand this site

http://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/212-hannibal-gave-silence-of-the-lambs-fans-a-sequel-c/

what a colossal waste of time

Shouldn't complaints like that belong in this thread?

that's their lead story today btw

jesus, there are at least two egregious spelling errors in the first paragraph alone of that In Solitude review today.

i just want to make it clear that i'm talking about a THREE THOUSAND WORD meditation on "hannibal" here

i guess this what the av club basically churns out all the time? i just dont get it

It's Rabin doing a version of the same column he did on AV Club.

The Dissolve would be a lot better if Phipps didn't just hire all his former co-workers from the AVC as staff at his new website but hey, at least they're diversifying with their freelancers.

yeah he did this sort of thing to some success at av club. they might be good ideas for a column if the execution was alot better, if you were actually using this odd little datapoint to examine something about that period or about film in general. the idea of blockbusters that generally fade from collective memory is plausibly interesting (and that hannibal is in there, this quickly, suggests that there may not be that many films that qualify or that maybe he should move beyond the 90s; disclosure's are few and far between) though really we're just talking mediocre films that had some ephereal buzz but weren't good enough to build a fanbase or interestingly bad enough to build a cult (and again, suggesting just how shallow this stream is, congo might not qualify). what's kinda disappointing in this glut of pop crit is this adherence to 'recap-brief judgment', there are no new ideas being created or developed here.

ya for sure, i'm not against examining junky or even outright bad films if it can bring us to some deeper understanding of the times or something.

but this just seems like mining trash to no real explicable end.

This whole model is befuddling to me. I have no idea how a/v club built such a sizable audience for 12-paragraph "what [movie] means" and "why [movie] matters" articles at a constant clip. Like once an essay outlines how every movie in the world means something and matters, you would think an audience would get wildly burnt out on that as a concept, but no

I think you are underselling the power of cult fandom

yeah so far the column hasn't been much more than 'man, remember the 90s?' which tbf i did go 'o wow i had wiped disclosure from my memory. truly this was a forgotten blockbuster.' i wonder how it's doing also, av club got by w/ some original ideas (including some of rabin's stuff) but also w/ alot of of output so if you were bored well av club probably has something new up. this doesn't seem to have nearly that.

I think you are underselling the power of cult fandom

― Bitch Fantastic (DJP), Friday, October 11, 2013 11:45 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Like you're saying the Onion has a cult following? Or has they following of people who would watch something called "Dr. Horrible's Sing A Long Blog" and therefore have no screen when it comes to what media they consume

i mean in some ways i can respect it, it's not listicles, it's not intro paragraph setup two paragraphs plot synopsis concluding paragraph 'review' no paragraph more than thirty words pop crit, and it's not the same points about the same movies again and again or 'the 10 best movies you haven't seen you should see! *click to next slide* #10 the shawshank redemption'. but it's not really doing anything as film crit and it's not really working as a time sink either.

whiney befuddled by concept of 'joss whedon cult'

"i don't get why they keep making comic book movies, nobody cares about this crap, make a mike patton biopic already, give the ppl what they want"

it is kinda funny to have a spin writer apopleptic at the idea of a website w/ a fetish for 90s nostalgia though

dissolve is kinda useful in that it's an effective quarantine for a bunch of boring critics.

Look, I'm not even going to dive in to WHAT they cover, I'm befuddled by HOW they cover things as a model that people are super into

it's not like they're the only ones using that model or having success w/ it, it's nearly the default for pop cult coverage

here's the rare case where it's recommended to read the comments if u want the answer to your questions

i mean, it's basically an ilx thread except the opening post has 50,000 words from nate rabin.

i dont really ascribe 3000 words on "lol remember hannibal??" to any kind of cult following

to me it's like a formalized version of a stoned party conversation, nothing wrong with those, but they belong in weed-haze-filled parties

and making it your lead story when you have:

- interview with jia zhangke about what is prob the best film of the year
- starred review of captain phillips
- buncha other stuff about movies opening TODAY

is insane to me

like that should be back-of-the-book, read-everything-else-already material at best

avc's "forgotten blockbusters" thing feels similiar to ilm figuring out all the "New Jersey"s

ilm figuring out all the "New Jersey"s is a lot like the a/v club turn this site has taken in the last year or so

Well the reviews of new releases tend to show up on Thursday, rather than the Friday. So they've already been up there for a day.

ya but what do you think readers are gonna be most interested in seeing on a friday afternoon, stories about the movies opening that day that they could potentially see that weekend, or "hey... remember that hannibal movie, how weird was that??"