• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HumblePie said:
Yep, and someone said his post was just typical hypercritical post. You asked how his post could be called hypercritical. I explained it for you. Then we all moved on with our lives so that those that enjoyed the movie are still enjoying the memories of it, and those that didn't can go back to crying of foreign films or other crap.
Click to expand...
Well, the thing is you're still wrong and it wasn't hypercritical, maybe you're just butthurt he said bad things about the movie you liked, I dunno. I haven't seen the movie and don't care one way or another.
 
nakedfrog said:
Well, the thing is you're still wrong and it wasn't hypercritical, maybe you're just butthurt he said bad things about the movie you liked, I dunno. I haven't seen the movie and don't care one way or another.
Click to expand...

Without providing a quantifier, it is by definition hypercritical. Your butt hurt because you are the only one here that doesn't see that even when several others have tried to explain it to you.

I could care less what his actual opinion on the movie is. He didn't like it. Who cares. Someone made a snub comment back to his comment stating it was hypercritical. You asked in what way. You had multiple people explain it to you. Now you are butthurt because of it and trying to shift the chapness of your butt to someone else. Move along buddy after using some desitin.
 
HumblePie said:
Without providing a quantifier, it is by definition hypercritical. Your butt hurt because you are the only one here that doesn't see that even when several others have tried to explain it to you.

I could care less what his actual opinion on the movie is. He didn't like it. Who cares. Someone made a snub comment back to his comment stating it was hypercritical. You asked in what way. You had multiple people explain it to you. Now you are butthurt because of it and trying to shift the chapness of your butt to someone else. Move along buddy after using some desitin.
Click to expand...

You couldn't care less.

Couldn't care less means your amount of caring is already at its lowest possible value. Could care less means it would be possible for you to care less, so you care at least a little bit.
 
nakedfrog said:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypercritical
Hypercritical describes someone who is full of complaints. That friend you love but avoid going to restaurant with because she thinks the burger is slightly cold, the fork's not shiny enough, the bread too bready? Definitely hypercritical.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypercritical
excessively or meticulously critical; overcritical.

Yeah, I'm still right. STOP LANGUAGING WRONG
Click to expand...

By not putting quantifiers on his type of criticism it is by DEFINITION excessive. Just because you can't see that doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't.

If you throw out criticism without quantifiers of any sort you are by definition being overly and excessively critical of whatever it is you are using criticism for. How you can not understand that simple thing I do not know.

To expand out the dictionary.com definition which if you scroll down you'll see

excessively or severely critical; carping; captious
Click to expand...

Look up carping

petulant fault finding
Click to expand...


look up captious

difficult to please
Click to expand...

By throwing out non-quantified criticism one comes across as carping and captious. Specifically by not providing the context by which one assigns the criticism by definition means the criticism is hypercritical.
 
HumblePie said:
By not putting quantifiers on his type of criticism it is by DEFINITION excessive. Just because you can't see that doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't.

If you throw out criticism without quantifiers of any sort you are by definition being overly and excessively critical of whatever it is you are using criticism for. How you can not understand that simple thing I do not know.

To expand out the dictionary.com definition which if you scroll down you'll see



Look up carping




look up captious



By throwing out non-quantified criticism one comes across as carping and captious. Specifically by not providing the context by which one assigns the criticism by definition means the criticism is hypercritical.
Click to expand...
That seems a bit at odds with "meticulous" criticism, does it not?
Meticulous - showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.

Carping - difficult to please; critical.
Captious - (of a person) tending to find fault or raise petty objections

The basis of your argument, that he dared say such OUTRAGEOUS things such as "weak story" and "boring characters" without adding a paragraph of why he thinks these things makes it "excessive" is not correct, it is not excessive to say such things without a quantifier (especially in a wildly informal setting such as this), and I'm not sure where you're even getting this "rule" from.
 
nakedfrog said:
That seems a bit at odds with "meticulous" criticism, does it not?
Meticulous - showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.

Carping - difficult to please; critical.
Captious - (of a person) tending to find fault or raise petty objections

The basis of your argument, that he dared say such OUTRAGEOUS things such as "weak story" and "boring characters" without adding a paragraph of why he thinks these things makes it "excessive" is not correct, it is not excessive to say such things without a quantifier (especially in a wildly informal setting such as this), and I'm not sure where you're even getting this "rule" from.
Click to expand...


He doesn't need to add a paragraph, but something that doesn't come across as a snob-nosed petulant child throwing out criticism is why his post has been seen by many as hypercritical.

Weak story
Boring characters

That is what he says. That basically comes across as uppity petulance. Had he said the following instead:

Same weak save the universe story
Boring characters with no facets to their personalities


THAT would have just been regular criticism. Not the best criticism, but wouldn't come across as hypercritical either. It didn't even take a paragraph as you implied it should.

It's like a kid that doesn't want to eat his vegetables because "Too green" would be the response they give. Or in your own examples above... Not shiny enough or Too bready are examples of poorly quantified criticisms. Although the example of "burger is slightly too cold" has quantifiers to make it not a hypercritical statement. "Slightly" being that quantifier.

When putting out criticisms like that, even by your own examples, the criticism come out petulant, carping, and hypercritical.
 
No, the movie is actually quite good... its just that the people in this thread would rather derail and work on e-peen than talk about the thread title.
 
I already said I liked the movie. Can't really divulge more without spoilers at this point. Which I like to give a little bit of time after a movie is released before discussing that sort of thing.
 
HumblePie said:
He doesn't need to add a paragraph, but something that doesn't come across as a snob-nosed petulant child throwing out criticism is why his post has been seen by many as hypercritical.

Weak story
Boring characters

That is what he says. That basically comes across as uppity petulance. Had he said the following instead:

Same weak save the universe story
Boring characters with no facets to their personalities


THAT would have just been regular criticism. Not the best criticism, but wouldn't come across as hypercritical either. It didn't even take a paragraph as you implied it should.

It's like a kid that doesn't want to eat his vegetables because "Too green" would be the response they give. Or in your own examples above... Not shiny enough or Too bready are examples of poorly quantified criticisms. Although the example of "burger is slightly too cold" has quantifiers to make it not a hypercritical statement. "Slightly" being that quantifier.

When putting out criticisms like that, even by your own examples, the criticism come out petulant, carping, and hypercritical.
Click to expand...

so if i said "the movie was crap" (i loved it btw) then i would be hypercritical about it? what if i were to say it was great instead? does that need a breakdown (however slight) to justify it?

we are not movie critics here who have to justify the review headline. if a friend tells me a movie is great i'm not going to grill him about it and expect a breakdown of the points.

anyway, you're both right and wrong in your own ways. this is just an argument in pedantism now. chill and split the difference. some didn't like it, loads loved it.
 
HumblePie said:
By throwing out non-quantified criticism one comes across as carping and captious. Specifically by not providing the context by which one assigns the criticism by definition means the criticism is hypercritical.
Click to expand...

also, this is the 2nd time that you typed "quantified" when you mean "qualified."
 
zinfamous said:
also, this is the 2nd time that you typed "quantified" when you mean "qualified."
Click to expand...

It can be used either or really in the context I was using them in. Either by quantifying the description of the criticism or qualifying it. Depending upon the adjectives used on the criticism.
 
tommo123 said:
so if i said "the movie was crap" (i loved it btw) then i would be hypercritical about it?
Click to expand...

Yes

what if i were to say it was great instead?
Click to expand...

Then that would be the antonym which at best is uncritical by definition. Although there isn't the same levels of "atta-boys" as there is of criticisms in the English language.

does that need a breakdown (however slight) to justify it?
Click to expand...

Never said hypercritical comments needed a break down. Only if the user doesn't want the comment to be hypercritical then there needs to be something more. The user isn't defending the comments so who cares? I was explaining to a complete third party why the comment was ascribed by yet another posted as hypercritical. That is all.

we are not movie critics here who have to justify the review headline. if a friend tells me a movie is great i'm not going to grill him about it and expect a breakdown of the points.

anyway, you're both right and wrong in your own ways. this is just an argument in pedantism now. chill and split the difference. some didn't like it, loads loved it.
Click to expand...

Don't care. You weren't paying attention to the side-line conversation if you need to inject that. It IS pedantic because someone asked why someone else's post was labeled hyerpcritical by a different person. Duh!
 
HumblePie said:
Yes



Then that would be the antonym which at best is uncritical by definition. Although there isn't the same levels of "atta-boys" as there is of criticisms in the English language.



Never said hypercritical comments needed a break down. Only if the user doesn't want the comment to be hypercritical then there needs to be something more. The user isn't defending the comments so who cares? I was explaining to a complete third party why the comment was ascribed by yet another posted as hypercritical. That is all.



Don't care. You weren't paying attention to the side-line conversation if you need to inject that. It IS pedantic because someone asked why someone else's post was labeled hyerpcritical by a different person. Duh!
Click to expand...

OMG. You're being a pendantic idiot. If you like the movie, fine. If he doesn't, fine. If you want to talk about the movie, then for gods sake

Use spoiler tags. Or don't. We don't care. Just start talking about the movie and stop being a moronic hypercritical dickhead.
 
Pulsar said:
OMG. You're being a pendantic idiot. If you like the movie, fine. If he doesn't, fine. If you want to talk about the movie, then for gods sake
Click to expand...

You are being the idiot that can't follow a conversation.

I never cared about someone not liking the movie.

Shortylickens made this post originally with post #49
shortylickens said:
Weak story
Boring characters
Phenomenal visuals

I'll forget it in a month.
Click to expand...

From there dainthomas responded with this post in post #66
dainthomas said:
Every time I read hypercritical comments about movies on here, I picture Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.
Click to expand...

Then Nakedfrog with posts asks in post #67
nakedfrog said:
That qualifies as hypercritical?
Click to expand...

I went on to explain to nakedfrog why that post meets the very definition of hypercritical per the dictionary definition and usage of the word.

Again I couldn't care less that shortylickens didn't like the movie. I NEVER commented on his post that criticized the movie. I was answering the question posted by nakedfrog. He didn't understand it and I had to explain it out for him in simpler terms. You and others coming in later that can't follow a conversation had to drag this conversation out even further with your idiotic injections.
 
Stop making this thread suck, please.

Saw it last night, well worth the watch. Maybe not everything I had hoped for as the story line was pretty weak, but I still enjoyed it a lot.
 
I think I have a good grasp of why the story line is considered weak, but why are people calling the characters weak or boring?
 
Saw it Monday night. It was entertaining for sure, but not an overly "good" movie in my opinion. Would rate 7/10 I think.
There were some damn funny moments, but also some moments where jokes just fell painfully on their face. I swear I could hear crickets in the theater.
I know this is going to sound... umm... hyper critical for such a movie, but the acting was REALLY shitty in some spots (especially in the beginning). It was akin to Star Wars prequel levels of bad.

But the action and the humor won out in the end.
The credit-scenes were all pretty lame. Those addons have really lost their cachet since the end of Iron Man and the reveal of Nick Fury. They really don't bring anything more to the table except little outtakes.
 
HumblePie said:
It can be used either or really in the context I was using them in. Either by quantifying the description of the criticism or qualifying it. Depending upon the adjectives used on the criticism.
Click to expand...

no, it can't. quantifying and qualifying aren't as easily interchangeable as you want them to be.

I can continue to help you derail this thread along this nonsense trajectory if you want to keep arguing that, though. 🙂
 
Homerboy said:
I know this is going to sound... umm... hyper critical for such a movie, but the acting was REALLY shitty in some spots (especially in the beginning). It was akin to Star Wars prequel levels of bad.
Click to expand...

You mean Star Lord's mom in the car with CG Kurt Russel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top