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

[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.'

 

[immortalfrieza]

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 so true. As much as people just LOVE saying otherwise, the vast majority would not only not do things any smarter but crawl into the nearest corner, roll into a ball, and outcry a baby if they had to go through the kinds of crazy F**ed up situations that a lot of fictional characters find themselves in.

A good example would be FF13's Hope. Let's see here... he's a 14 year old kid, who is sent to be executed, his mother dies trying to prevent it, he has his life saved repeatedly by the very person who he believes is responsible for it, and he's hounded mercilessly for days straight. His reaction? He's terrified, grief stricken, and becomes obsessed with revenge for some time. Before long he learns to get over this, but you wouldn't know it if all you ever heard about him was fan opinion. All I ever hear is cries for him to stop being such a crybaby all the time, when not only is this a massive exaggeration but it's unlikely a single one of them would have done any better in his situation. In short, he's the most realistic and well characterized character with the most character development in the entire game, possibly the entire Final Fantasy series... and he's the one everybody hates for no real reason.

 

[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 so true. As much as people just LOVE saying otherwise, the vast majority would not only not do things any smarter but crawl into the nearest corner, roll into a ball, and outcry a baby if they had to go through the kinds of crazy F**ed up situations that a lot of fictional characters find themselves in.

A good example would be FF13's Hope. Let's see here... he's a 14 year old kid, who is sent to be executed, his mother dies trying to prevent it, he has his life saved repeatedly by the very person who he believes is responsible for it, and he's hounded mercilessly for days straight. His reaction? He's terrified, grief stricken, and becomes obsessed with revenge for some time. Before long he learns to get over this, but you wouldn't know it if all you ever heard about him was fan opinion. All I ever hear is cries for him to stop being such a crybaby all the time, when not only is this a massive exaggeration but it's unlikely a single one of them would have done any better in his situation. In short, he's the most realistic and well characterized character with the most character development in the entire game, possibly the entire Final Fantasy series... and he's the one everybody hates for no real reason.

Like I said further up the page, people disregard people like Hope, Shinji Ikari and the like, because they don't immediately nut up and turn into Marv from Sin City, no matter how inappropriate and unlikely that would be.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonBadass

 

[Rblade]

I don't really get how a character using an insulting term is in turn insulting, if that character would have had no qualm using that word. If the guy is a racist asshole, he won't class up his language. Like expecting movie Hitler to not talk badly off the jews. I don't think you can hold that against a movie.

Although I'm really talking about the words used by a bunch of plantation owners. I don't get why that makes the movie bad. But I won't go into the discussion here because I'm neither dark skinned or American so I don't think I can fully relate. But that doesn't mean I understand that type of criticism in general.

 

[BNguyen]

If you say something, ANYTHING, is overrated, and can't think of a single reason why, you deserve to be forced to walk on a bed of hot Legos.

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 exactly the reason why I dislike hearing how people hate characters from anime like Sasuke from Naruto or Shinji from Evangelion - you're not a boy who watched his family get murdered by your own brother or the boy who is forced to fight on a battlefield at age 14 and be forced to nearly kill a friend with your bare hand and receive (at least simulated) on a constant basis. So stop saying "yeah, their emos or whiny bitches for being that way - man up". News flash - emo is all about disliking life to the point where you enjoy the thoughts of suicide, not because you have to live with difficult issues forced upon you and at least try to work against it in the best way you know how.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

Oddly enough, I couldn't disagree more. I'd kill for a FF game that stuck to the older tried-and-true mechanics rather than "reinventing the wheel" into the painfully stupid and nonsensical battle systems we've seen in recent entries. If they can't make the full-on switch to Western-style turn-based or action combat, they should stick to what worked.

By that same token, I absolutely hate practically everything else you've said is "fine" about JRPGs. The reason they are often perceived as childish is that they are childish in about a dozen different ways. Yes, there are often more complex and adult themes lingering beneath the surface, but it's a hard field to plow just for those rare satisfying bits.

So yeah, bring back the old reliable turn-based combat and send everyone who looks and acts remotely like Tidus on an errand to the bottom of a volcano.

I have a complicated relationship with CGI in movies. On the one hand, it allows for some great sci-fi and fantasy stuff that simply wasn't possible (or would have looked horrible) in decades past. On the other hand, it allows what are supposed to be more "grounded" productions to incorporate set pieces and action that really don't belong. I mean when you see the grizzled NYC cop flying his motorcycle into a helicopter, all of it clearly CGI, you wonder why the scene even needs to be in the movie. Am I supposed to be impressed that someone imagined something so stupid and a bunch of other people let him/her carry it out?

I look at Terminator 2 as the "sweet spot" for CGI. What needs to be CGI is CGI - stuff like the T1000 changing forms, Arnold sinking into molten steel, etc. But they stick to stunt work and models/animatronic for everything else, and the result is a more convincing and gritty film.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

"Avatar SUCKS because it had the same story as Dances With Wolves!"

I'm going to say this as plainly as I can... SO FUCKING WHAT!?

Also, not sure if we're doing games too, but if so then this:

"Halo SUCKS for the same reasons COD does!"

BULL. SHIT.

Alright, look: you hate Halo? Fine. I may be a Halo fan, but I'm not a toddler, I can deal. You and I? we just won't talk about Halo, then.

But the comparisons to COD are crap, born from no more then both being popular modern FPSs. The fact is that they are simply nothing alike. At least Halo uses the entire color spectrum. At least it gives you big multi-levelled rooms to fight in. At least it gives you multiple enemy types. At least it has an IMAGINATION.

 

[putowtin]

The problem is we're all babies sometimes, instead of accepting that everyones seperate, built in a different way, with different emotions and feelings, we imediataly disregard their choices if they differ from us. We scream for the tallest buildings "IT SUCKS" when we should sit down and say "Well I didn't like it, but please tell me what makes it good in your eyes?"

Peace on earth people, it starts with the smallest things

 

[Eggsnham]

I call it The snob/philistine dichotomy.

Nice.

OT: I'm sick of the whole "it's not realistic; therefore it's bad" kind of comments.

If you're watching a movie or playing a game, chances are that you're not looking for gritty, unapologetic realism. Sure, some plot devices are too absurd to take seriously and some works are so cliched that it's hard to not cringe, but most of the time hyper-realism doesn't quite belong in fiction.

If you ask me, the only time such a complaint is truly justified is if it causes plot-holes or contradictions in the story.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

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.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"A parsec is a unit of distance, not time."

People really tend to latch onto details about the Star Wars universe, seemingly forgetting that it's a sci-fi/fantasy story that completely ignores most known laws of physics. Like hyerspace. Okay? You can't travel faster than light in our galaxy (yet), but you can in Star Wars. You can't travel close to a black hole (the Kessel Run) to reduce the distance you're going, but you can in Star Wars. Lasers are projectiles and swords. THERE ARE SWORDS THAT ARE LASERS. HOW DOES ANY PHYSICS DETAIL NOT PALE IN COMPARISON TO THAT.

The Star Wars films are modern-day Flash Gordon serials, with space wizards and aliens and spaceships and lasers. Latching onto physics details has just always struck me as ignoring the entirety of those films' point.