Posted on 04 May 2012.
A Closer Look at The Film Nest’s “Involvement” With Avengers Star Samuel L. Jackson and NYT Critic A.O. Scott
When New York Times film critic A.O. Scott posted his review of Marvel’s new blockbuster The Avengers, he probably had no idea of the commotion he would cause. Avengers star, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Avengers leader Nick Fury, came out on twitter bashing A.O. Scott. What wasn’t clear is what he was bashing. Was he bashing the review? Was he bashing the reviewer? It seemed personal, when Jackson tweeted “#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!” Jackson seemingly took offense to Scott’s review of the film, saying that the film’s best scenes are the ones “when the assembled heroes have the opportunity to brag, banter, flirt and bicker.” Scott was not a fan of the over the top action. Sounds fair enough to me.
Scott didn’t really say anything bad about Jackson, his only notes being “Mr. Jackson, with an eye patch and his well-practiced bellow, is more master of ceremonies than mission commander.” Again, this is not so much a dis, I don’t think Scott was expecting an Oscar-worthy performance from someone who is a lower tier star (or at least role) in the film, behind the likes of Downey Jr.’s Iron Man and other heroes. A man should not be fired for coming out with a slightly negative film review. I pointed this out. In response to Jackson’s tweet, I said that I was “disappointed” at Jackson’s “irrational” response to the sarcastic review from Scott. Jackson then called The Film Nest out, shouting “That is My Opinion! @TheFilmNest & what’s irrational about it? They aren’t going to fire his jaundiced ass & You & I Know It!” This was discussed in a sense at E! Online. He’s now called Scott “jaundiced” – a term he didn’t really use correctly, since Scott did see the film, but I digress.
All I did was point out that a man losing his job for expressing an opinion seemed “irrational.” Jackson exclaimed that it didn’t seem so, which further stoked the fire. Maybe Mr. Jackson’s Nick Fury eye patch has obscured his view. In response, hundreds of tweets have come The Film Nest’s way, which distorted the entire story. Most have called critics “useless”. Some have called The Film Nest “racist.” Others have said The Film Nest acts “like the movie was made for your tight ass” and that Sam Jackson “was right to slam @TheFilmNest.” Really?
"My eye patch has obscured my view of what's rational and what's not, it seems."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, despite so many of them from people who clearly never read Scott’s review of the film, never understood what The Film Nest’s position in the matter was, but rather jumped in to bash where they could, or came out in support of Jackson, like crazed fans who would support anything. This puts the future of the world in a bit of a scary place in my eyes. It’s the old gossip line about how one person tells a story, and by the time the story makes the rounds, it has been bastardized into something far different than originally intended. Scary and sad for those that are misinformed.
A few cool heads understood it all and a few even said things like “Why on earth would someone be fired for not liking a movie? Film criticism is (largely) subjective.” True. Others said “You can’t fire a critic for their opinion, not everyone is going to like the movie. What the hell Sam?” Agreed. In truth, I laughed all along – even tweeting to Sam “Like snakes on a plane, your twitter followers react w/ great vengeance & furious anger. They give all others the shaft. :)” I’m sure this fell on deaf ears to those who weren’t in the know, but it’s meant for those that get it.
For those that did, that’s the true story of the matter and those in the know should be applauded for having a clear view of the situation, Mr. Jackson and so many pointless drones who aimlessly bash, notwithstanding. Enjoy Avengers or not, makes no difference to me. In fact, I hope you do, considering you paid for a good time. That’s what movies are there for in the first place. To entertain and take us to another place. Peace.