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

[Mick Beard]

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)

if you read the silmarillion it will explain who the eagles are and what their deal is


but they pretty much don't care what happens in middle earth as they live in Valinor.... where all the elves are heading to in LOTR

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Well, I can?t really think of any general ones now that no-one else has already mentioned, but I do hate when people criticise Black Swan for being ?sexist?, ignoring the fact that Natalie Portman is meant to be weak and infantilised because of the whole ?White Swan/Black Swan? dichotomy (and that, to some people, she?s a victim of mother-daughter sexual abuse ? I?m personally on the fence about that interpretation, but it?s certainly not invalid).

Oh, how about people criticising The Hunger Games for being ?a rip-off of The Running Man/Battle Royale?? If you?re going to criticise The Hunger Games, don?t criticise it just because it?s not the first film ever to be based around what would be a popular concept. Otherwise, you might as well lambast almost every action film that?s ever been made in the last twenty years because it?s not Terminator 2.

Or people saying ?this film adaptation didn?t stick close enough to the original source material; therefore, it sucks?. I mean, fuck. It?s an adaptation. I haven?t read the book The Wives of Bath and don?t know much about its themes (other than something to do with feminism, maybe?), but I still liked the film Lost and Delirious because, aside from the obvious, it was an interesting look at the breakdown of a same-sex relationship in an all-girl boarding school.
Of all the films I?ve watched, I think Kubrick?s A Clockwork Orange is probably the best adaptation of a book, because even though they are some changes to the original (e.g. the scene where Alex drugs and rapes two 10-year-old girls), it still follows the general plot and themes (and, IMO, improves upon it on some occasions).

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

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.

I'd rather they ditched everything BUT the combat. That's probably why I like Shin Megami Tensei. The primary reason I play JRPGs is because I like turn-based, menu-driven combat. I usually just tolerate the plots, with a few exceptions.

Plus Tales still gets the same crap from those critics and that has real-time combat.

 

[Evonisia]

People do this to the Halo games all the time:

"There is no story! Nothing is explained!"

Because we need a narrator telling exposition to explain everything that happens right? If you're lost on the story of Halo 3, then go play the other 2! Simple as that! A sequel this late into a franchise shouldn't have to hold hands on the story!

On top of that, some people hate it for the lack of characters. Bullfuckingshit. Master Chief may not say much but he clearly has his own personality, Sgt. Johnson, Cortana...hell, in one game alone without context, I can pick up on all the character's personalities. I actually REPLAYED all the Halo games this summer and found myself still enjoying each of the characters, it's not about them fucking crying their feelings, it's about subtleties in movement or the way they say their lines. They don't need a Mass Effect level opportunity about a conversation of their favorite cereal to know a character

On top of that, even then. My most hated argument I ever see about Halo is that "It's Generic"

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

The only I can THINK of by technicality is Bioshock: Infinite. And that's fucking pushing it.

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.

/hugs.

Additionally, I hate how people are so quick to dismiss Halo Wars for... gasp... making a few changes to the story and made a slip up or two in canon (like SPARTAN Shielding and the Arbiter). As if Bungie has never slipped up on their own canon. As if 343 Industries haven't been trying desperately to retcon and change everything Bungie did ever since they got their sharp, brutal claws on the series.

"OMG why are they using Spartan Lasers???"

Well, who said that Spartan Lasers were new?

 

[Baddamobs]

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.

Holy freakin' crap, I HATE when people do that!
That's like saying that, because a game is a third person shooter, they should all be disregarded as non-sense and unintelligent, and Spec Ops: The Line taught us differently.
I get that people have presences, but PAID reviewers should at least try to have a neutral stance.
/Rant.

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.

I don't know, even Yahtzee said he dislikes when JRP's try to 'mix up' turn based combat (in his "White Witch" review), because at least the former un-messed with versions WORK, its when you screw with a perfectly workable system that things go astray. Besides, it more of a cultural thing: you noticed the number of first/third person shooters have come out in the west recently that strive for 'realism'? It's basically like that, but less crappy.

OP: complaints about difficulty, though my grip with it is downplayed. I understand that if a game is too easy or too hard it becomes next to impossible, but at the same time, it mostly relates to context and personal perception: certain games have certain audiences, but likewise what some find hard others find easy, hence any review on difficulty should have some sort of disclaimer in the sentence, i.e., "in my experience of [X]" etc. etc.

 

[wizzy555]

I never got how Sucker Punch was suppose to be misogynistic. I can see the argument for it being a little exploitative (is that interchangable with misogynistic now?) but that's it.

Also didn't get why 300 was supposedly homophobic. One villain who happens to be a effeminate does not send a message on its own.

 

[Mangod]

I think people who disregard characters' flaws and the fact that they are under duress in certain situations when criticizing their actions is pretty annoying. Oh, that's what YOU would have done? Okay, well, you're not a German bounty hunter in the old west, or a shellshocked veteran, or a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime, and you're certainly not being shot at by a police helicopter, or being attacked by a killer robot... so on and so forth.

This is actully my main problem with a lot of people who criticise JRPG/Anime/Manga characters. I believe TV Tropes calls it the "What Measure is a Non-Badass" trope.

Basically, yes, Shinji Ikari (for example) is whiny, unlikeable kid who doesn't have a spine that a snail wouldn't scoff at... but he's also got the justification that he's a 14 year old boy, in what is a (character interactive-wise) realistic setting. He has suffered severe trauma, with the loss of both his parents early in his life, one by "death" and one by abandonment, something which he's never recieved therapy for, and his treatment at the hands of people once the series itslf gets going (being forced to pilot a warmachine he's never even seen, being reduced to a live-in maid, his father being more interested in the wellfare of a complete stranger than his own flesh-and-blood) only compounds and adds to his issues, like a man with broken legs leaping off a tall building.

But I suppose you, Mr. Badass Complaining Strawman, would shrug all of that off and proceed to beat the Apostles like you're two WWE wrestlers in a squash-match.

Also didn't get why 300 was supposedly homophobic. One villain who happens to be a effeminate does not send a message on its own.

I believe that's from Leonidas calling the Athenians "boy-lovers" in a derogatory fashion, when the Spartans themselves practised homosexuality as a way of bonding the troops... although Frank Miller justified that (YMMW) with the Greek inventing the word hypocrazy.

 

[ATRAYA]

"I didn't get the story, therefore I hate it!"

I saw this a lot with Inception, Bioshock: Infinite, Fight Club, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, and many other favorites of mine. Frankly, I found the plots to all of those media smart, insightful and straightforward (which is why I love them). When a movie or game makes you look deep inside yourself and learn a thing or two, that's fucking amazing. To then have to hear people whine about how it didn't make sense because they either weren't paying attention, or are just used to the typical shitty blockbuster they get fed every month to know what a good story is is infuriating.

Similarly, whenever I was discussing the intricacies of Bioshock: Infinite, even away from this site, I got Yahtzee's "it had its own head up its arse" response by the few haters out there, without any proof to back-up their regurgitated claim. I'm glad Yahtzee is popular and all, but for him to have such a wide area-of-effect is a bit scary... Don't just blindly repeat what your favorite critic said without coming up with your own opinion, please. You're just making an ass out of both the reviewer and yourself.

 

[KazeAizen]

...start making movies about Spawn(starring Idris Elba) and Static Shock(starring Michael B. Jordan).

Excuse me, but his name is Static. Static Shock is the series, and Static is the character. Also, I agree that a movie about him would be fun.

In all fairness it took me a good long time to learn his name was just Static. Yeah I should've caught that in the show but grade school mentality with superhero shows I thought the hero's full name was the name of the show and they just said Static for shorthand. Hell thank that show for saving him from obscurity because that is apparently exactly what happened. No Static Shock no Static in Young Justice probably.

OT: I don't know. Probably comparing movies to their source material. I think this problem has a lot to do with the movies advertising as such and then changing up quite a bit. I like WWZ just fine as a movie. Yeah the product placement is pretty bad but the Israel scene is awesome. Soundtrack solid and its Bradd freaking Pitt. After Lieutenant Aldo Rain I'm on board for anything he does good or bad. Besides you rarely see this getting thrown at Disney movies and when you consider a shit ton of their animated movies are reinterpretations of old stories or books its kind of funny no one seems to really give them crap when they deviate from the original story. Let me see if I can make a list of them.

The Little Mermaid based on The Little Mermaid
Mulan based on the Chinese legend
Oliver and Company based on Oliver Twist
The Lion King based on Hamlet
Tarzen based on Tarzan
Treasure Planet based on Treasure Island
Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin based on old folk tales as well
Tangled based on Rapunzel
Frozen based on The Snow Queen

The list goes on. Yet they never get flack for deviating even almost completely, which is what I hear Frozen does haven't read the original book but saw the movie, because I think it helps that they don't advertise it as a retelling. They don't put people's mindsets into "Oh boy I finally get to see this story on the big screen." Its more like "Here's some more Disney awesomeness lets go watch it."

 

[Torkuda]

Here's one I hate:

"You can't make that scifi" or "you can't make that fantasy" when dealing with traditionally accepted roles with certain material. Witches can too be scifi, for instance, there's plenty of material on them out there and ready made scifi explanations. And hey, why can't aliens be found in a fantasy setting? Just because fairies now exist doesn't mean ET can't as well. Seriously, this stuff is PRETEND, doesn't anyone remember being a kid? Fantasy and Scifi are nothing more than grown up versions of what you did in the back yard, and your fantasies didn't have very many rules either. Admit it, you made an awesome ninja wizard dinosaur or something, we all did. An unwillingness to embrace the insane possibilities of fiction is why in many cases, anime leaves American entertainment in the dust.

 

[Something Amyss]

I believe that's from Leonidas calling the Athenians "boy-lovers" in a derogatory fashion, when the Spartans themselves practised homosexuality as a way of bonding the troops... although Frank Miller justified that (YMMW) with the Greek inventing the word hypocrazy.

Greeks practiced homosexuality and pederasty very selectively (read: hypocritically), so one really could handwave this as being somewhat historically accurate, yes. Although the surviving texts regarding the Spartans and homosexuality come from other cultures, do they not? They could full-well be texts designed to discredit through gay-bashing. Many surviving texts on the druids relied on similar techniques, though not specifically homosexuality-related.

This is more an aside. I have trouble believing Frank Miller put this much thought into anything he ever did.

"I didn't get the story, therefore I hate it!"

Why do I doubt anyone actually ever said that.

On that note, I'm still unable to get a convincing explanation for the "brilliance" of Inception, even from people who claim to get it. My suspicion is that it's just not that deep, and people who like it are attempting to justify their enjoyment by tacking on depth. Call this the South Park or Matrix Effect, whichever you prefer.

I also find strange the notion that you have to dig deeper into something that's supposedly "straightforward." It's like you're making an ad hoc argument without regard for consistency.

But it doesn't matter much either way. I just seriously doubt anyone's actually gone to the lengths to say that it sucks because they didn't pay attention.

Oh, how about people criticising The Hunger Games for being ?a rip-off of The Running Man/Battle Royale?? If you?re going to criticise The Hunger Games, don?t criticise it just because it?s not the first film ever to be based around what would be a popular concept. Otherwise, you might as well lambast almost every action film that?s ever been made in the last twenty years because it?s not Terminator 2.

A rip-off really should have more than the same premise, yeah.

Besides, isn't Running Man just the Most Dangerous Game with Ahhnold?

Yeah, we could go really deep down that rabbit hole.

 

[Torkuda]

Saying something was historically unpopular, when it flat out wasn't. I especially love some people trying to say that Harry Potter was a flop... seven equals says otherwise even if you don't do your research. Cars also did pretty well and has become a marketing vehicle for Disney and Pixar. Finally yes, the elephant in the room shall be acknowledged. All of the Star Wars prequals did amazingly well for how much their criticized. Besides, since when does it matter to a productions true quality, whether the public at large liked it? Didn't Movie Defense Force just do something on that in regards to Hook?

 

[Arnoxthe1]

People do this to the Halo games all the time:

"There is no story! Nothing is explained!"

Because we need a narrator telling exposition to explain everything that happens right? If you're lost on the story of Halo 3, then go play the other 2! Simple as that! A sequel this late into a franchise shouldn't have to hold hands on the story!

On top of that, some people hate it for the lack of characters. Bullfuckingshit. Master Chief may not say much but he clearly has his own personality, Sgt. Johnson, Cortana...hell, in one game alone without context, I can pick up on all the character's personalities. I actually REPLAYED all the Halo games this summer and found myself still enjoying each of the characters, it's not about them fucking crying their feelings, it's about subtleties in movement or the way they say their lines. They don't need a Mass Effect level opportunity about a conversation of their favorite cereal to know a character

On top of that, even then. My most hated argument I ever see about Halo is that "It's Generic"

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

The only I can THINK of by technicality is Bioshock: Infinite. And that's fucking pushing it.

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.

The first Halo had one of the best stories I've seen in a game, unique and fun gameplay, and memorable characters and villians. Not to mention the environs were just awesome to see at the time. The second one brought online gameplay to the consoles in full force, not to mention a different point of view from one of the factions in Halo, and the third one perfected everything (Except the campaign though. I can see why people would say it's meh compared to the others.) and added both Theater and Forge. So yeah. Every time I see someone take a crap on any one of the games in the trilogy, I get just a little ticked.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Snip

Arbitrary diversity is better than none at all. I realise that changes like Heimdall being black do little in the grander scheme, and a race-swap would pale in comparison to a super-hero film with a black protagonist, like Black Panther or Spawn, even though I really (ad infinitum) HATE Spawn. However, it's better to have a little change than enforce the status quot by doing nothing, just ask Nichelle Nichols. You also have to think about it realistically. Yes, there are lots of 'ethnic' super-heroes, but how many are going to be made films, that also make enough money to justify sequels? This isn't the arthouse circuit and being good isn't enough to thrive. In Hollywood, you have to understand that the ONLY thing that justifies change is how much money it makes. And yes, Human Torch is white, but is his skin colour a defining trait?

Also, what do you mean 'pitfall excuse?' I've never heard that before.

"Yes, there are lots of 'ethnic' super-heroes, but how many are going to be made films, that also make enough money to justify sequels?"
All 3 Blade movies?

Here's the thing: casting a white actor to play a character from a comic book (a graphic medium) who is also white isn't "enforcing the status quo", it's simply making the character look like they've always been depicted in their visual medium (comic books). Now, personally, I don't really care that much that they "get it right" by casting actors who look like how the comic book character has always been drawn, but it drives me batty that people claim we need to make Spider-man black or make an Asian Superman in the name of 'diversity', and that anyone who says they would prefer if the actors looked as similar as possible to their comic book depictions is an instant racist.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Wow, I don't know where to begin really.

To put it more generally I'd say that I hate it when people take the most nitpicky and irrelevant things possible and judge a movie/book/game/etc. as THE WORSE EVER!!! because of it.

For instance, I've hated that when anything happens could possibly be said to be the slightest bit racist/sexist/whatever it's treated like the worst crime in history, making a far bigger deal out of it than it is worth, and since it's a fictional event in a fictional universe that doesn't effect the audience in any way whatsoever it's already worth pretty much nil. What I hate most about it is how hypocritical it tends to be, 9 times out of 10 if a person of the [insert race/sex/whatever that's being victimized here] were to do that [insert racist/sexist/whatever event here] nobody would care, at least not when it comes to treating it like an racist/sexist/whatever event.

Another, it might be because I've gotten used to it over the years, but when I know what I'm getting into when I walk into say, a mindless action movie, I don't scream bloody murder over the fact that it has a shallow plot or something ridiculous like that, and I don't understand why so many people keep expecting things out of the media they see that was never supposed to be there to begin with. I also don't expect every new [insert media here] to outdo every [insert media here] that came before it either.

Then there's even stupider things like complaining about the fact that somebody's look is a little different from another adaption. Recently for instance there's a thread on this very site about the trailer for Amazing Spider-Man 2, guess what the number one complaint I saw on there was.

Give up? It's the fact that the Rhino and Electro use their Ultimate Marvel Universe looks instead of their classic ones, even though what's actually important is whether those characters are actually entertaining rather than what they look like.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Also, I'm not a fan of people who just bash CGI just because 'its not real'.

Agreed, in fact in a lot of cases I've found CGI to look MORE realistic than they probably would have looked with practical effects, especially when it would have been much harder or even impossible to do with practical effects. For instance, the Enterprise in the reboot movies wouldn't have looked anywhere near as good if they were still using just plastic models or a lot of the aliens in the Star Wars prequel movies would have looked pretty awful these days if they were still just guys in rubber suits.

 

[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 with that game.
Secondly, Halo is called generic becuase it set a number of trends in modern gaming, regenerating health and weapon limits. While few other games have copied Halo's overall playstyle fully, these mechanics have are undeniably pervasive.

if you read the silmarillion it will explain who the eagles are and what their deal is


but they pretty much don't care what happens in middle earth as they live in Valinor.... where all the elves are heading to in LOTR

Which is all well and good, but neither the Hobbit or LotR films tell us this, and reading the Silmarillion shouldn't be required to understand why events occur as they do in other stories. Using extensions of the source material to dismiss criticisms doesn't work. It's the films job to explain itself sufficiently, which LotR and Hobbit don't really do with the Eagles.

 

[Casual Shinji]

if you read the silmarillion it will explain who the eagles are and what their deal is


but they pretty much don't care what happens in middle earth as they live in Valinor.... where all the elves are heading to in LOTR

Which is all well and good, but neither the Hobbit or LotR films tell us this, and reading the Silmarillion shouldn't be required to understand why events occur as they do in other stories. Using extensions of the source material to dismiss criticisms doesn't work. It's the films job to explain itself sufficiently, which LotR and Hobbit don't really do with the Eagles.

Even without the proper explaination from the books it still makes sense. I never read The Silmarillion and not once did I question why the Eagles didn't fly the Ring to Mordor. It's the same reason why they didn't bring a gigantic army to march down the Black Gate, which is something that would've easily been in the councel's power to provide.

And the Ring also has the tendency to more easily corrupt those with great power, which is why Gandalf doesn't take it. Saruman already fell under its spell, and even Galadriel got tempted. So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think it could fuck up these Eagles somehow just as well.

And then ofcourse there's the obvious 'Mordor is a big, hellish country over which the eye of Sauron surveys.'