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

[Guitarmasterx7]

When people criticise something for being different from the source material. Of course a lot of adaptation movies are lazy passionless cash ins and if the source material is good than yes, chances are deviating from it runs the risk of adverse effects, but on its own "different" doesnt mean "bad."

That and people who will attack something just because it's popular. I'm sure we all know somebody that says "call of duty sucks" and then buys every single call of duty game on launch.

 

[MCerberus]

When people criticise something for being different from the source material. Of course a lot of adaptation movies are lazy passionless cash ins and if the source material is good than yes, chances are deviating from it runs the risk of adverse effects, but on its own "different" doesnt mean "bad."

That and people who will attack something just because it's popular. I'm sure we all know somebody that says "call of duty sucks" and then buys every single call of duty game on launch.

The trick with adaptation is to keep the spirit of the work while keeping the message, tone, and general events as close to the source as possible. The 'I don't like change' complaints about the adaptation not being a shot-for-shot remake are stupid...

We have to remember that the complaints about stuff like "The Lorax Seal of Approval" for an SUV are so very valid.

 

[Bad Jim]

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)

The "Eagle Plan" applies to Lord of the Rings, which occurs long after Smaug is dead. It goes "why didn't the Eagles carry the Ring to Mordor?".

The Eagles help several times in both books, and in neither book do they actually state that they were unwilling to save Middle Earth in its' darkest hour. On the contrary, after rescuing the dwarves from the wargs and goblins in The Hobbit, the Lord of the Eagles states he is happy to thwart the evil races wherever he can.

The Eagles also play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, implying that their numbers are great enough to simply fight the Nazgul and whatever orcs happen to be on Mt Doom. That they may be spotted is not an issue, as Sauron simply wouldn't be able to get enough orcs up Mt Doom to stop them in time. Unless, of course, there was a permanent garrison up there, but that would imply that Sauron had considered the possibility of someone destroying the Ring and the Fellowship wouldn't have succeeded either.

 

[Burgers2013]

Wow, a lot of mine were taken (particularly the adaptation and "that's not a real game" bits). I'm kind of in between on adaptations. I prefer an adaptation to explore at least the same sorts of ideas as the source material, but the details shouldn't matter as much.

The idea that games are meant primarily for fun I think is a bit dated. So, I get a bit frustrated when someone says something to the effect of "game x is not fun, therefore it is a bad game." That fun should supersede any other quality in a game and that a game should mostly be judged by whether it was fun or not doesn't work for a lot of great games. Spec Ops: The Line, The Walking Dead, and Gone Home were not particularly "fun" to play as far as I was concerned, but they were all very interesting. There is something else in all of those games that fueled my desire to continue (intriguing premise, twist on commonly accepted aspects of a genre, the desire to care for Clementine). I think fun is one way to engage and encourage the player to continue to explore the story, but it is not the only/most important way.

I suppose there's a strange mix of fun and other driving forces with many survival horror games. I dreaded every encounter in Silent Hill 2, but the aesthetic, atmosphere, and dream-like quality of the conversations kept me glued to the controller to find out what the heck was going on.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I'm tired of people whining about Spider Man 3, yes it was cheesy but that is spider man. He is all cheese.

 

[rbstewart7263]

...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.

Yup, a Static movie would be pretty awesome.

Also, why not a GOOD Green Lantern movie about John Stewart? He's the best version of green lantern.

Or what about Black Panther? An African Superhero who saves the world and is also the ruler of a technologically advanced African nation, who is essentially a black version of Batman? Who wouldn't want to see that?

And are people forgetting that Blade got 3 movies?

There may not be a ton of instantly recognizable black superheros, but they're there, just begging to be used.

I prefer mr emo myself from the big multicolor team up from the series whos name I cant recall.(le sigh) but You know a movie featuring them both would be just as well too.

WOOOOOSSHSHHHHH IMa Sorry mr John sir let me just goa be a mindin my own business now! XD

 

[sageoftruth]

"It's not realistic". They never really say it that way. It's often spoken by someone who is more well-read about something featured in a movie or game. Examples would be: "How did he survive that fall?" or "Guns don't work like that". I find it much more grating when it's mentioned in games, since they're often under more pressure to be fun at the expense of realism. The critic gets a pass though if the movie/game breaks a rule that was established earlier.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

"It's not realistic". They never really say it that way. It's often spoken by someone who is more well-read about something featured in a movie or game. Examples would be: "How did he survive that fall?" or "Guns don't work like that". I find it much more grating when it's mentioned in games, since they're often under more pressure to be fun at the expense of realism. The critic gets a pass though if the movie/game breaks a rule that was established earlier.

Oh man, it's so grating to me when movies portray guns completely incorrectly. I mean, if they're breaking physics just for the hell of it, like the movie Wanted or The Matrix, then I'm ok with it, but when the movie is clearly trying to be realistic and then does something incredibly stupid (like the movie The Man From Nowhere, where the main character puts the barrel of his gun against a bulletproof windshield and keeps firing until it breaks) it makes me feel like the people who wrote that movie are either a bunch of idiots, or think that their audience is a bunch of idiots. It doesn't ruin a movie for me but I find it incredibly annoying, especially when people who know nothing about guns then try to use those movie scenes as proof of whatever ridiculous concept they think is true.

 

[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.

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.

I was under the impression they were cut for budget reasons.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

I agree. I'd say one of the most ridiculous examples is when people do that with comedy. Expecting realism with fiction is bad enough, expecting realism from comedy is even worse. I mean, the entire point of comedy is to be funny, and it doesn't need to be realistic to do that, in fact being unrealistic is large part of why comedy tends to work. Comedy runs the entire spectrum between hyper realistic and the fevered dreams of a heroin addict, "realism" does not factor, what's funny does.

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)

This^ In fact, I personally never took notice of the lens flares at all until I went up on the net and read people whining about it, and when I saw them later I noticed that they MASSIVELY overstate how much they happen. That's not difficult though, the way they complain about it you'd expect both movies to be just one giant constantly shining lens flare.

 

[Villain Protagonist]

Nope, Genocidicles is right. It was all about the toy line. This leads into my gripe. When people bash something because "It was just made to sell xyz". That may well be true, but was the works good despite that? If it was, I don't particularly care why it was made.

 

[Gromril]

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)

The "Eagle Plan" applies to Lord of the Rings, which occurs long after Smaug is dead. It goes "why didn't the Eagles carry the Ring to Mordor?".

The Eagles help several times in both books, and in neither book do they actually state that they were unwilling to save Middle Earth in its' darkest hour. On the contrary, after rescuing the dwarves from the wargs and goblins in The Hobbit, the Lord of the Eagles states he is happy to thwart the evil races wherever he can.

The Eagles also play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, implying that their numbers are great enough to simply fight the Nazgul and whatever orcs happen to be on Mt Doom. That they may be spotted is not an issue, as Sauron simply wouldn't be able to get enough orcs up Mt Doom to stop them in time. Unless, of course, there was a permanent garrison up there, but that would imply that Sauron had considered the possibility of someone destroying the Ring and the Fellowship wouldn't have succeeded either.

Thing is, the whole point of sauron is that he's in effect fear incarnate. Few creatures can conceive going anywhere near that mountain and not getting corrupted, hell look at Aragorn the super-awesome-hero-king-of-men, getting messed with at a massive range. The eagles are old and wise yes, but so was saruman.

Also, 9 Nazgul mounted on fell beasts with the support of all the hosts of mordor would kill them some eagles. Maybe not enough, but some would die. Good luck finding volunteers for that mission when it's conceivable that the bi-pedal folks can do it themselves. Also it seems that they had enough to do elsewhere in the world.

In short, it seems the eagles are happy to get there maul on elsewhere, but are averse to going near things that could actually kill/corrupt them.

 

[Cecilo]

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)

The "Eagle Plan" applies to Lord of the Rings, which occurs long after Smaug is dead. It goes "why didn't the Eagles carry the Ring to Mordor?".

The Eagles help several times in both books, and in neither book do they actually state that they were unwilling to save Middle Earth in its' darkest hour. On the contrary, after rescuing the dwarves from the wargs and goblins in The Hobbit, the Lord of the Eagles states he is happy to thwart the evil races wherever he can.

The Eagles also play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, implying that their numbers are great enough to simply fight the Nazgul and whatever orcs happen to be on Mt Doom. That they may be spotted is not an issue, as Sauron simply wouldn't be able to get enough orcs up Mt Doom to stop them in time. Unless, of course, there was a permanent garrison up there, but that would imply that Sauron had considered the possibility of someone destroying the Ring and the Fellowship wouldn't have succeeded either.

Thing is, the whole point of sauron is that he's in effect fear incarnate. Few creatures can conceive going anywhere near that mountain and not getting corrupted, hell look at Aragorn the super-awesome-hero-king-of-men, getting messed with at a massive range. The eagles are old and wise yes, but so was saruman.

Also, 9 Nazgul mounted on fell beasts with the support of all the hosts of mordor would kill them some eagles. Maybe not enough, but some would die. Good luck finding volunteers for that mission when it's conceivable that the bi-pedal folks can do it themselves. Also it seems that they had enough to do elsewhere in the world.

In short, it seems the eagles are happy to get there maul on elsewhere, but are averse to going near things that could actually kill/corrupt them.

That still sound gimmicky to me. Like. "Hey. Should we trust the other races that already messed up destroying the ring, possibly them failing at the very seat of Sauron's power, or should we just risk our lives so they can drop it in from a safe distance. Nah. Let them do it, stupid bipeds."

 

[Phantom Kat]

Complaints about games that are "buggy" when the only examples are either bugs that people find almost solely because someone else told them it was there, or you have to go out of your way to find the bug.

Another one is; complaints about a game being too easy when the person complaining is using some kind of exploit that makes the game easy.

 

[DJjaffacake]

I find it bizarre when people complain that things are being added to the Hobbit films from other Tolkien sources, especially when it's the same people who complain about stuff being taken out in the Lord of the Rings. "How dare you give us more content!? I don't care that the White Council fighting the Necromancer sounds amazing, it wasn't directly shown in the Hobbit, it only happened during the events of the book featuring several of its characters." Derp.

I also dislike it when people act like their personal preferences for games are how all games are supposed to work. If you don't like a feature, fine, but don't claim that its presence means the game isn't a 'real' game.

And I absolutely hate it when people accuse the Modern Warfare games of being pro-war or nationalistic, especially when they clearly haven't played them and are just parroting someone like Yahtzee. It's less annpoying if they have played them and that's genuinely the impression they've come away with, but it still makes it seem like they weren't paying attention. Firstly, nationalism is a unifying theme among the bad guys[\i]. Al-asad, Zakhaev, Makarov, Shepherd. All love their respective countries. Sheperd is American[\i], just in case this wasn't clear enough a theme. The protagonists, meanwhile, are generally motivated by an actual desire to avert conflicts. None of them ever express any patriotism. War is depicted as brutal and devastating, something to be avoided at all costs. Black Ops on the other hand, did suffer from 'Murrca fuck yeah, I'll admit, and I haven't played the two most recent ones, so I don't know which way they went. But it will never cease to annoy me that a game in which the bad guys are patriots trying to start World War 3, and the protagonists are trying to stop them, is accused of being nationalistic and pro-war.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

That Avatar sucked because it was basically "Pocahontas in space". Yeah it was unoriginal...so? It was still an entertaining movie.

Unoriginal doesn't make it bad. Also the whole 3D hate. Get the fuck over it already.

I've complained about Avatar before for a similar reason, but I don't think the movie sucks, it's just boring and unoriginal. Even the "revolutionary" visual design is really not that interesting for me, since James Cameron basically took underwater footage and then added some legs to existing land animals. It's by no means a bad movie, just a dull and average movie for me.

My biggest one is people complaining that a work which was groundbreaking and unusual in its day is nothing more than a cliche to their modern sensibilities. If the novel, film, game, etc. was so unique and influential upon its initial release, of course it'll seem cliche now that everyone has used their styles, tropes, and techniques since then. Watching the first Toy Story with my son a little while ago I noticed a lot more of the graphical flaws than I used to, and it's entirely because technology has moved sooooo quickly since 1995. The movie still holds up from a story and character standpoint, but the CGI is definitely not so fancy as newer works. Again, this should be expected with something that tech dependent and influential.

One of these same complaints that I myself have been guilty of is criticizing the Beatles. Their music is so well known throughout the world, and the production techniques they pioneered are such a regular part of the modern music language that it's easy to kind of miss how significant the Beatles' work is. I don't dislike them by any means, but I have in the past listened to their music and wondered what the big deal was. Now I'm more willing to acknowledge their impact, but it doesn't mean I go out of my way to listen to their music.

 

[Genocidicles]

I was under the impression they were cut for budget reasons.

Perhaps, but even back then Star Wars was a huge franchise. If Lucas really wanted Wookies, he probably could have got them.

And even then, I don't think Wookies would have cost that much more. Both need the fur suits made, and while an Ewok suit would be smaller and cost less, they'd need to hire a dwarf actor to wear the suit. With a wookie suit they could just get someone off the street, who'd probably be working for chump change.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I was under the impression they were cut for budget reasons.

Perhaps, but even back then Star Wars was a huge franchise. If Lucas really wanted Wookies, he probably could have got them.

And even then, I don't think Wookies would have cost that much more. Both need the fur suits made, and while an Ewok suit would be smaller and cost less, they'd need to hire a dwarf actor to wear the suit. With a wookie suit they could just get someone off the street, who'd probably be working for chump change.

Eh. I dunno. Remember the whole Blue Harvest thing? They didn't actually have as much money as people all assumed they did - buying things for a Star Wars movie would have contractors charge up the butt for 'em - so they called the production Blue Harvest to basically get things cheaper than a Star Wars movie would've. It is worth noting that Lucasfilm was fully independent by that point.

 

[Jessabi]

Oscar bait.

The term is really freakin' annoying, especially when used by people as a reason to not actually go see the film! I have a couple of friends who use it as a criticism, yet they never actually went to see the films they were criticizing. The most recent example was Captain Philips (which they refused to go see because "it's just Oscar bait") - I personally thought it was a brilliant film with an amazing performance by Tom Hanks, and it is a strong contender for the Oscars sure, but you know why? Because it would deserve one!

Argh.

 

[BNguyen]

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.

actually, I think a lot of the old WB cartoons are still lightyears ahead of some of the stuff we have now in terms of quality - compare the old Looney Tunes art and animation to something say, Adventure Time - we have the potential to make high quality animation but we stick with little more than something a three-year-old could draw?