Criticisms your'e sick of seeing in a film/story

[TwiZtah]

Mine would be:

"Superman killed Zod, they ruined Superman forever. WAAA!"

I dont' think you CAN be a superhero if you're not able/prepared to end a threat permanently. Hence my hard on for "anti-heroes" like The Punisher who just shoots the antagonist in the head... or tortures him and makes him eat his own balls. Introduce The Punisher to The Joker, The Punisher shoots him, The Joker can no longer kill more people, simple as that.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

On a related note, I can't stand people who think that old classics are now automatically immune to modern critique. I hate the idea of 'critic-proof' movies just because its 'old' and 'classic'. Now, contextualization is very important in enjoying old movies, and I always consider the time it was made, but age is not a good excuse for why somethings are badly made. Nor should a movie's age and vast popularity protect from any later critique.

The problem is most of the time the discussion comes up, it isn't from the context of a well informed critique of a work. For example, on these boards, you'll regularly see a complaint along the lines of "I don't understand why X (x being some old product) is considered great". Inevitably, this isn't used as the basis for a well argued critique of the work in question or even the attempt to gain information that it passes itself as; instead, it's simply a contrarian point of view that, as far as the OP is capable of arguing, was taken purely for being contrarian.

Retroactively criticizing any product is a difficult task if only because some things require specific contextual information to understand. For example, criticizing an ancient Warner Brother's cartoon because of obviously bigoted positions is perfectly valid as the modern view would paint this as unacceptable but you must simultaneously understand that in the context of the moment this was not generally seen as offensive. Simultaneously, criticizing that same cartoon for using hand drawn animation because that technique isn't as good as some technique developed later isn't a valid criticism at all as it was not possible to do in the moment. In short, in order to do it properly, you have to have very detailed knowledge of both the prevailing sociological forces of the moment as well as the technological possibilities in order to actually approach the subject in the slightest which means few are inherently capable of mustering such critique without investing heavily in research.

Most people who choose to level such critiques neither have at their command such information nor do they have any willingness to do the research. Thus why such critiques so often come from academia itself rather than anything resembling enthusiast press.

 

[Griffolion]

I have something a bit more generic but whenever someone complains about a movie that was huge for it's time (Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc.) that they don't see what the big deal is.

Basically this.

It's just a massive generic, unoriginal way of attempting to appear intelligent by berating a well liked movie.

 

[Ishal]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

WHAT

I say they should simply update the combat system, then toss out all the rest you said they should keep. But seriously, that's a good list f why I don't play JRPGs.

Bravo.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

'I didn't like this film, it wasn't like the book/earlier adaptations' - NO, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR FACE, FUCK YOUR FAMILY AND THEN FUCK YOURSELF AGAIN WITH YOUR FAMILY.

ADAPTATIONS OF WORKS ARE AMAZING AND AWESOME AND YOU SHOULD JUDGE THEM ON THEIR OWN MERITS AND NOT ON THE MERITS OR RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS (unless the new adaptation just mimics the older one completely, i.e. Oldboy). EVEN IF AN ADAPTATION IS TERRIBLE, YOU JUDGE IT AS A TERRIBLE FILM/BOOK/COMIC/WHATEVERTHEFUCK, NOT AS A TERRIBLE ADAPTATION OF WHATEVER SHIT YOU'RE BUSY FANBOYING OVER.

FUCK. ING. CHRIST.

*cough* so yeah, that's my most irritating criticism I find towards films/books/alternate media. Having people go 'Oh, Memento was a terrible movie because it didn't follow the original short story close enough' is stupidly frustrating, as they avoid viewing the movie in it's own rights and judging it on what it does/doesn't do right cinematically, instead judging it by their own stupidly-high standard set by their reaction to the original material.

Sorry Captain AllCaps, I have to disagree.

If you are going to create something based on a source material, you have a responsibility to stay true to the spirit of the source material. I'm overly pedantic when it comes to, say, Game of Thrones. I hate the deviations from the original texts and think they weaken the show significantly. However, the show stays true to the spirit of the novels, and as such I don't dislike it...I just get frustrated while watching it. It's enjoyable. Whereas something like Scott Pilgrim is shit on a stick.

Deviate too far from the spirit of the original, and you might as well just have made an original work. Sure, I could make a Batman film in which Batman is a transvestite alien who does battle with her psionic abilities, but that really wouldn't be a BATMAN film, now would it? I don't care if I've made the best transvestite alien film imaginable. I've made a naff Batman film, and people are within their rights to point that out.

 

[ShogunGino]

On a related note, I can't stand people who think that old classics are now automatically immune to modern critique. I hate the idea of 'critic-proof' movies just because its 'old' and 'classic'. Now, contextualization is very important in enjoying old movies, and I always consider the time it was made, but age is not a good excuse for why somethings are badly made. Nor should a movie's age and vast popularity protect from any later critique.

snip

Agreed.

My apologies, though, I believe I undersold my entire opinion that I was trying to make. It isn't just the people that feel that research-intensive academic critique are the only valid retrospective reviews, but it's the people who use the age and 'classic' status as justification why it should never be retrospectively critiqued again, particularly if they themselves really like the movie.

Again, an example is how I feel about Star Wars fans. "Empire Strikes Back is a classic, man, don't you dare say anything bad about it!"

I sadly can't find it again, but James Cameron said of a retrospective negative critique of his Titanic movie that -I have to paraphrase a bit since I can't find the actual quote- "It's not your job as a critic to go against what the public has already made up its mind about." It's this attitude that I cannot stand.

There are somethings where even contextualization can't really help some parts of a movie. I really don't think historical context can justify what I felt was obvious, unsubtle satire of The Graduate. I don't think historical context can justify what I considered to be a mediocre performance by Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind (seriously, he speaks with the same exact tone of voice throughout the vast majority of the movie, even after his daughter dies in a horse accident).

I hope that explains my opinion a bit more.

 

[Genocidicles]

I've never been a fan of criticsms passed towards the Ewoks. I mean, the empire was defeated by Darth Vader and the Millenium Falcon, right? The Ewoks caused a momentary distraction so a small band of rebels could sneak in to disable single shield. There's extended shots of them being horribly murdered by AT-STs and such. The Ewoks did not "defeat the Empire." The Ewoks were a small part of a larger operation. If you wanna talk about problems with Return of the Jedi, I can level a great deal many more legitimate ones if you want? (Han Solo, if not being, but certainly acting rather dumbfounded and useless; the act structure being a wee bit skew-wiff, etc.)

Though I will concede that the Ewoks are quite a bit annoying. Not Jar-Jar annoying, but certainly at times a bit grating.

I think it's mainly because they were originally going to be wookies, and that was axed because George Lucas wanted something cute and cuddly to sell toys to children. So Ewoks.

 

[Phlakes]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Not really. See X-PLAY Kotaku or Game Informer.

I'm too lazy to look up the other two but as far as Game Informer, these are the last few JRPGs they've reviewed-

Ys: Memories of Celceta - 8.5
Pokemon X/Y - 8.75
Digaea D2 - 7.5
Rune Factory 4 - 7
Etrian Oddyssey Untold - 7.5
Kingdom Hearts HD - 8.25

So biased against JRPGS.

 

[Brainpaint]

I'm fed up of everybody saying Avatar is just Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas and Ferngully mashed together. That it's similar to this book, that it's similar to that book, that the aliens are just Smurfy cat people...

Can't a work derive from various sources and be entertaining and cool in it's own right?

Y'know, like EVERY MOVIE BASED ON A BOOK/COMIC BOOK/GAME/OLDER MOVIE/TOY LINE/SHORT STORY EVER?

I'm not saying Avatar's perfect, but when you think of it more as an introduction to the world rather than an introduction to the characters, it's a lot more unique.

Let go of your hang-ups about everything being done before.

Because as we all know...

Simpsons did it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

In all fairness the Eagles turn up as deus ex machinas often enough to merit the question as to why can't they just ferry characters to their ultimate objectives. In The Hobbit they save the Bilbo & co. from the Wargs; then they turn up at the finale to turn the battle around. In LOTR they save Gandalf from Isengard and then repeat The Hobbit finale by saving Frodo and Sam from Mt. Doom.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I've never been a fan of criticsms passed towards the Ewoks. I mean, the empire was defeated by Darth Vader and the Millenium Falcon, right? The Ewoks caused a momentary distraction so a small band of rebels could sneak in to disable single shield. There's extended shots of them being horribly murdered by AT-STs and such. The Ewoks did not "defeat the Empire." The Ewoks were a small part of a larger operation. If you wanna talk about problems with Return of the Jedi, I can level a great deal many more legitimate ones if you want? (Han Solo, if not being, but certainly acting rather dumbfounded and useless; the act structure being a wee bit skew-wiff, etc.)

Though I will concede that the Ewoks are quite a bit annoying. Not Jar-Jar annoying, but certainly at times a bit grating.

They may have not defeated the Empire but they certainly kicked their ass with exactly ONE casualty on their side.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That said, I personally think the original Star Wars trilogy has gotten an obscene amount of overpraise, and, yes, while I fully understand the futility of criticizing them in the face of their massive popularity, I will still say that I think Empire Strikes Back had crappy romantic dialog and poor performances between Leia and Han, the AT-ATs are stupidly designed vehicles of war, the fight scene on Hoth was poorly paced, everyone on the Falcon should have been sucked into space when they stepped out while inside the asteroid-worm, Yoda's introduction was not a good way to introduce him, Han Solo was a whiny bastard until they start to head to Cloud City, and that Luke should not have survived that fall after he finds out Vader is his father.

But I'm not allowed to say any of that because CHILDHOOD!!

Also, with no disrespect intended to Mark Hammill, but Luke's reaction to finding out Vader is his father could be equated to the Anakin/Vader's reaction to finding out Padme's dead in Revenge of the Sith.

 

[RaikuFA]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Not really. See X-PLAY Kotaku or Game Informer.

I'm too lazy to look up the other two but as far as Game Informer, these are the last few JRPGs they've reviewed-

Ys: Memories of Celceta - 8.5
Pokemon X/Y - 8.75
Digaea D2 - 7.5
Rune Factory 4 - 7
Etrian Oddyssey Untold - 7.5
Kingdom Hearts HD - 8.25

So biased against JRPGS.

Haven't read GI in years. Back in the day though I did and they were a lot worse.

 

[Gromril]

Actually got around to reading the thread in some down time. SOme great stuff, keep ut up foilks.

As many people have explained the reasons behind my complaint, I shall give you another that hasn't been ninja'd away from me.

Peoples never ending bringing up of JJ Abrams lens flare reboot. Yes yes, I know you read an internet forum where a guy who took a directing class that one time said it was super bad directioneering. Also, the "Everyone's too prety!" complaint.The original cast for the original show was TV pretty at the time, an age before photoshop was the omnipresent monster that it is now. Yes, Patric Stewart was a middle aged guy who wasn't a model, but that was a 90s tv show that made damned sure he was usually around someone classically good looking.

Ther'es waaaay more to hate on in the story making department, go for there if you want to moan about the films, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (DISCLAIMER.: Overall, I liked both of the reboots)

 

[Terminate421]

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

Firstly Duke Nukem Forever, at least on the PC, it played and felt just like Halo, and was one of my principal problems

What.

I played DNF. It felt virtually nothing like Halo. Even with it's fucking weird guns and dated humor. Especially towards the end.

Secondly "Generic" means run-of-the-mill. Nothing special about it.

Shooters have taken ques from Halo due it's success on consoles with some standards here or there but I honestly am not seeing "generic" from that. While other shooters have tried to ride on it's success train, that train has taken multiple different rails to mix up the same formula as been done before.

I just can't see it as "Generic" if it is the only shooter of it's kind.

 

[Terminate421]

Pokemon X/Y - 8.75

They loved that game, seriously.

 

[Megalodon]

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

Firstly Duke Nukem Forever, at least on the PC, it played and felt just like Halo, and was one of my principal problems

What.

I played DNF. It felt virtually nothing like Halo. Even with it's fucking weird guns and dated humor. Especially towards the end.

Yes, when I played DNF, the game it most reminded me of from a gameplay prespective was Halo:CE on PC. The two weapon limit, slower movement than Unreal Tournament/Painkiller but faster and more 'floaty' than COD/Gears, some resistance to enemy weapon fire, but not being able to relaibly dodge and manoeuvre around incoming fire, regenerating health based around a health bar instead of red jam on your HUD. These factors added together to make an experience I found similar to Halo.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

There's one game "criticism" that makes me cringe every time it gets brought up. When someone says something like "It's not a game, it's interactive movie", or "it's barely a game". NO, FUCK OFF! Can you play the game? Can game proceed without you? No? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP IT IS A GAME!
And just what is the point of that criticism?! It doesn't bring ANYTHING to the table!

 

[MCerberus]

I have a portal to a parallel realm where small creatures live that are a source of happiness across the multiverse live. Every time someone claims that CoD/Battlefield/whatever shooter's story are immune to criticism because 'It's supposed to be stupid and shallow' or 'what do you expect?' I reach into the portal and take one. I then crush the life out of this small pixie, shade by shade making existence a darker place.

I think I'm actually the person causing these stories by accident when I do this.

This isn't even about the use of military-wank white papers, the implicit racism, or the "just kill off the PC because why not". They. are. just. stupid. Each year the story is a worse and worse collection of scripted events made for marketing stapled onto a marginally unimproved MP. Their presence and success bring down all of gaming one focus group participant at a time.

And each and every person defending them even out of apathy makes me angry *crushes happiness being, causing the percentage of black jelly beans to increase slightly*

 

[PureChaos]

When a film or series is based on a book, games, comic or whatever and people moan because some things were changed. The original may have been better but that doesn't mean the adaptation is automatically bad. I've seen plenty of things that have been adapted from books I like and, while I would still say the books are better, I still enjoyed the adaptations for what they were.