The Prestige Comic

[comicGenious]

I was happy to see that the Incentive Image was back. I liked it very much. But the "Schwiiinng!" thing distracted me from commenting.
________
MERCURY TRACER

[batsofchaos]

Yeah, the incentive image is a happy return, and nothing quite says 'welcome back' like a disembodied male torso. Woo!

[taekwondogirl]

That Joe's face is crotch-level at.

[afr0puff]

Irv's penis is now famous. They ran your review also...

bad opening line IMO. For some reason it played out ok on the site, but when I saw it in a newspaper, it didn't work. It gave off a sense of insecurity that you weren't 100% behind the quality of your review. The review is your opinion and you should be shoving that opinion down people's throats assertively.

Movie reviews shouldn't be in the first person either, IMO.

[joerules]

This line:

"How am I supposed to talk to about The Prestige without going into spoilers?"

I"m not sure why i write it in first person. Maybe because I want it to be more personable or because I don't want to force my opnion on ayone. I don't know. I'll keep it in mind though.

[afr0puff]

Yeah, your first line needs to be a hook.

Movie reviews should be written from a perspective that they aren't up for debate. "I am joe and I am more qualified than you to review movies." That's the attitude all writers should take. Prove to me that you are more qualified. That questions makes it like you yourself don't think you are qualified.

By using the first person, you actually make it less personable. Because you end up completely detaching the reader from the material. Instead of the reader going "hey that is something I think or may think" like they are reading something from an omnipresent POV, they get constantly reminded that its joe shmoe's opinion. Pardon the pun, but your name just happened to fit it.

[joerules]

But in the very first comic I make it clear that I'm not qualified to be doign this.

I see what your saying but I'd like to think that I put enough personal experience into the review that it still feels like me talking. I'd like it to feel like people are talking to their friend about a movie and not getting info from an educated authority.

I'm not sure it comes across that way but I try.

As far as the hook goes, sometimes I feel like I've got a good one but I never try to force it. I actually liked the Prestige one as one of those lines that makes you want to read the next one. Or this one:

When last we saw Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) he was chained in the basement with a corpse and a sawed off foot. Want to know how he got out? I didn’t think I did either, but be ready to get the full story in an opening scene that will make you squirm, gasp, and say, “Wow, that guy in the first movie was a real dumbass.”

[opie301]

You know what, I actually don't care for reviews that tell me that this reviewer's opinion is the only opinion and there's not point in arguing it. Hate might not be the right word, but at this point, it's getting awful close.

I've always liked that Joe is presenting his view of the movie. This is, after all, Joe Loves Crappy Movies, which implies that he's not reviewing this movie for overall artistic quality but based on his own feelings and experience.

Honestly, I don't think changing the reviews to be more forceful or more definitive is a good idea. When you're reading a Joe review, it's like you're talking to one of your friends who's just seen a movie, and, honestly, isn't this part of the fun?

Anyway, Afro, I disagree with you almost entirely, and vehemently disagree with the point that all movie reviews "should" always be the same thing. Movie reviews are opinions that are open for debate. If more movie reviewers recognized that, then maybe we'd have fewer jerkoffs reviewing movies.

[chamber715]

Irv's penis is now famous. They ran your review also...

bad opening line IMO. For some reason it played out ok on the site, but when I saw it in a newspaper, it didn't work.

I'm sure Irv would contest that his penis was always famous...

I think the difference between reading the reviews on the site and reading the reviews in print is the differing expectations. Online, it's more like a blog which people expect to be in the first person so it works better. In print, there's a different expectation of style.

I remember copy editing a review on the Vector. Someone had written a review of a cd and it was written in the first person. I hated it. The review took too long to develop and I got more of a sense of the band's personal impact on the writer than a review of the cd. But I didn't make the guy rewrite it and I ran it with only a few minor edits.

I don't actually remember how I wrote my reviews... I do think some of them were in the first person. I don't think all of them were though.

[afr0puff]

Anyway, Afro, I disagree with you almost entirely, and vehemently disagree with the point that all movie reviews "should" always be the same thing. Movie reviews are opinions that are open for debate. If more movie reviewers recognized that, then maybe we'd have fewer jerkoffs reviewing movies.

Don't get me wrong, yes, they technically are open for debate, but they shouldn't be written that way. They need to come across as instilling confidence in the reader by presenting a cocksure POV. It's one thing if joe is just writing his reviews for the web and the "blog" type of casual browsers... but now that it's being printed in a Newspaper with the material of other journalists, it might be time to step it up.

Take the OpEd pieces... You read them for bullheaded opinionated people. Not for someone who is trying to play nice and trying not to suppress his will onto others. The most successful sports columnists are also the most close-minded people in their pieces. They surely aren't qualified to second-guess sports professionals. They were just nerds who weren't physically gifted enough to play the sports they love. So they need to present from a perspective that they are the smartest thing since sliced bread.

[Pogues]

I think changing his style would be a big mistake. When I read most movie reviews it is clear the person is trying to hard. They often come off as pretentious and worthless. Not to mention when they vehemently badmouth a movie you loved you just quit trusting their opinoin. The thing with Joe is that I always want to hear what he thinks of a movie because he never comes off like an asshole. I have never really even noticed the first person thing and don't think it is that big a problem. As long as he does a good job reviewing the movie and not just like "I liked it cause <actress name> has nice boobs", it will be fine.

[joerules]

To be fair I've based entire paragraphs around boobs before.

[Pogues]

To be fair I've based entire paragraphs around boobs before.

Haha, yeah, but it doesn't effect the score. Nice tits need some recognization don't get me wrong.

[trevor]

Give credit where credit is due, I say!