My Thoughts on Comments
 |
| http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Michael-B-Jordan-Addresses-Controversy-Over-Fantastic-Four-Casting-41989.html |
Not Credible 1: The above specified comment does not seem credible to me due to the fact that the user "Facet" who posted it didn't cite any other real reasons. Although he mentioned his opinion was that he didn't want a black actor to play The Human Torch he didn't give any valid reason for it. He seems to be nervous about the future casting because he is scared for it to be different than the usual of what he is used to. I think this comment maker is too stuck in his old ways and needs to be more open to accepting a change that could potentially benefit the film. Near the end he does relate it back to some other actors but unfortunately it doesn't seem to do justice in my mind.
 |
| http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Michael-B-Jordan-Addresses-Controversy-Over-Fantastic-Four-Casting-41989.html |
Not Credible 2: Although this first comment does have some good pints I don't really think that it is credible. The first paragraph gives a good look into the casting decisions and someone being frustrated and anxious with them I honestly don't think the second paragraph pertaining to Martin Luther King Junior works the way that it should. Citing MLK Jr doesn't work because a movie is something so different from the real world that you can't compare them. While MLK Jr is a real person the people and superheroes portrayed in comics are not real and therefore can be changed more liberally due to the fact that the comic was created.
 |
| http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Michael-B-Jordan-Addresses-Controversy-Over-Fantastic-Four-Casting-41989.html |
Credible 1: The comment above, made my "Tate" seems very credible. For anyone who has kept up with comics and their books, stories and movies it wouldn't make sense if two siblings are of different races. This person seems utterly confused about this casting decision which seems feasible due to the fact that it donut's make sense. Near the end the comment writer seems to delve into a bit more of another controversy which isn't the main focus. This makes the comment a bit less focused but still extremely credible.
 |
| http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Michael-B-Jordan-Addresses-Controversy-Over-Fantastic-Four-Casting-41989.html |
Credible 2: This comment seems to show that the comment maker is nervous about the casting decision but more so just confused regarding it. The comment maker gives really great reasons for being frustrated with the decision that come from a credible standpoint of the fact that it doesn't go with the history of the comics. I think this is completely reasonable because if you have been watching or reading something for years with the same types of characters and plot line and suddenly there is a switch then you would have a right to be confused and frustrated. This comment shows valid reasons for a person to be flustered with this change and leaves readers with a question which really drives the quality point home.
Reflection:
Upon reading Michaela's and Hunter's blog posts on comments I obtained much more insight on good versus bad comments. From Hunter's post I learned that there often is a much clearer line with credible and not credible posts, which I didn't pay enough attention to when choosing my comments to analyze. I believe that for the controversy I looked at there are probably much less credible comments floating around on the internet somewhere. That being said, I hope that in the future I can work to do a better job at finding such opposite types of comments and only choosing the very credible ones to use, if needed. Michaela's chosen comments also brought a new aspect to my mind that length doesn't matter when discussing credibility. Although something could be very long it doesn't mean that it automatically is credible. A very long post could just be quite a bit of random thoughts that someone spewed out into a post. Additionally, someone could make a very short comment that is credible and to the point. Because of this it is always necessary to not just read but really pay attention when reading to understand whether or not the post is credible with all of its information.
Reflection:
Upon reading Michaela's and Hunter's blog posts on comments I obtained much more insight on good versus bad comments. From Hunter's post I learned that there often is a much clearer line with credible and not credible posts, which I didn't pay enough attention to when choosing my comments to analyze. I believe that for the controversy I looked at there are probably much less credible comments floating around on the internet somewhere. That being said, I hope that in the future I can work to do a better job at finding such opposite types of comments and only choosing the very credible ones to use, if needed. Michaela's chosen comments also brought a new aspect to my mind that length doesn't matter when discussing credibility. Although something could be very long it doesn't mean that it automatically is credible. A very long post could just be quite a bit of random thoughts that someone spewed out into a post. Additionally, someone could make a very short comment that is credible and to the point. Because of this it is always necessary to not just read but really pay attention when reading to understand whether or not the post is credible with all of its information.
I like/agree how you said the first not credible source was based on opinion and did not have anything to back up his reasoning. I agree with you because you cannot deem anyone's opinion as completely justified without actual support. He definitely was stuck in the past with his racist views. The second not credible one was odd like you said he credited MLK which does not give enough support. MLK is a movie source which does not justify his opinion because it is not the real world. Even though the movie was based on actual events, the commenter should have referred to a historical source to cite MLK. Lastly, I liked how you reasoned with the credible sources. They merely did not express outrage and confusion because they followed the comments and know a black man does not fit the character portrayed in the comments. I learned that even some of the credible sources lacked some credibility. It is unlikely that a researcher or doctor would comment on a post about a comic. Therefore, comic fanatics could be considered credible. I don't necessarily disagree with you on anything because I do think you had good reasoning to make your claims. However, some specific examples from your posts would have made it easier because I found myself constantly going back to see what you were referring to.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on the fact that many opinions taken by known credible sources. Another point I agree with you on is when you challenge the the credibility of the source. I thought it was intelligent of you when you said that he should not cite the movie MLK but rather cite the historically documented facts instead. Your unbiased writing style allows me to understand both sides of the credibility factor and while I mostly agree with you, I don't think the idea that all comic fanatics should be considered as credible just because the word "fanatic" is loose. Other than that I enjoyed your commentary!
ReplyDelete