BEING DIFFERENT IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN GOOD WRITING. IF THATS THE ONLY THING YOU JUDGE MOVIES/TV/GAMES BY THEN YOU ARE A JADED CRITIC AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE USELESS TO AUDIENCES.
Movie, TV, Web Series, and Music Hot Take(s).
- Thread starter BrawlMan
- Start date
This so much! You don't know how many critics kept using the whole, "it's different, therefore it's automatically better (by comparison)!" excuse. Especially film critics from the 2000s and early 2010s. The web critics seem to do this the worst though. It was just them trying to gain smart points or street credit from professional critics that are not of the internet variety, or trying to make themselves seem smarter than what they are.
Last edited:
Not sure I agree there. A well done X might not appeal as much as a only decently done Y, if there's a zillion X already (and some are good) and hardly any Y.
OTOH, being different is no reason not to try for good writing anyway, though.
I'm really starting to grow more irritated toward (most) Marvel action scenes even in their recent most-liked adventures. Been trying to single out what it is specifically that causes a sudden loss in interest and then attention, finding my phone a more curious distraction every time.
It's easy to say "they all feel the same" but there's more going on there and I do want them to be engaging, it doesn't feel good to be bored by something technically designed to be exciting. And it can't be oversimplified to "CGI bad, solid stuff gd" because there are plenty of examples of the opposite to be found in varying directions with variable amounts.
So first off, after eyeballing these moments more closely with critical, umm, eyeballs, while the "action cam" is competently placed, always focused on the centre of the current points of kinetic interest, often swirling around in repetitive motions, it appears a consistent sin they commit is not showing any real aesthetic love for the actual environment the action is taking place within. Epic sunsets glittering off isolated metal wire towers (for example) would be given more majesty by passionate cinematographers during a fight or bustle in other films. Yet in Marvel, the focal points of kinetic interest must not be deviated from, the camera must swirl, and the background is just like whatever, who cares, check out what cool shit the animators just rendered! Each environment is treated with a similar sort of begrudging acceptance instead of something that can elevate the scene.
Then there's the inconsistent power levels between characters, especially antagonists, omg. It's extremely difficult to feel invested when previously super powerful villains just suddenly can't be arsed to pull out earlier presented power moves when it's convenient in the final act against the heroes, and resort to dumbass fist fighting instead
Inconsistent CGI within the same films is also a bit weird, considering these are supposed to the biggest shiniest of money films around that earn and cost all the monies. Like the lizard in No Way Home, wtf? Was his CGI shoveled off to an intern's drunken weekend or something? Show us the money!
Sometimes it ends up feeling like the battle victories boil down to whoever has the best CGI effects as well, instead of clever use of environment and strategy.
Destruction also tends to look generally weightless, inconsequential and videogamey.
There's more, probably, but would like to add that there are still the odd good scenes, it's just the majority of action come off as merely bland while competent. They can do better than this. But they're not given much a reason to do so.
It's easy to say "they all feel the same" but there's more going on there and I do want them to be engaging, it doesn't feel good to be bored by something technically designed to be exciting. And it can't be oversimplified to "CGI bad, solid stuff gd" because there are plenty of examples of the opposite to be found in varying directions with variable amounts.
So first off, after eyeballing these moments more closely with critical, umm, eyeballs, while the "action cam" is competently placed, always focused on the centre of the current points of kinetic interest, often swirling around in repetitive motions, it appears a consistent sin they commit is not showing any real aesthetic love for the actual environment the action is taking place within. Epic sunsets glittering off isolated metal wire towers (for example) would be given more majesty by passionate cinematographers during a fight or bustle in other films. Yet in Marvel, the focal points of kinetic interest must not be deviated from, the camera must swirl, and the background is just like whatever, who cares, check out what cool shit the animators just rendered! Each environment is treated with a similar sort of begrudging acceptance instead of something that can elevate the scene.
Then there's the inconsistent power levels between characters, especially antagonists, omg. It's extremely difficult to feel invested when previously super powerful villains just suddenly can't be arsed to pull out earlier presented power moves when it's convenient in the final act against the heroes, and resort to dumbass fist fighting instead
Inconsistent CGI within the same films is also a bit weird, considering these are supposed to the biggest shiniest of money films around that earn and cost all the monies. Like the lizard in No Way Home, wtf? Was his CGI shoveled off to an intern's drunken weekend or something? Show us the money!
Sometimes it ends up feeling like the battle victories boil down to whoever has the best CGI effects as well, instead of clever use of environment and strategy.
Destruction also tends to look generally weightless, inconsequential and videogamey.
There's more, probably, but would like to add that there are still the odd good scenes, it's just the majority of action come off as merely bland while competent. They can do better than this. But they're not given much a reason to do so.
Last edited:
Agreed. I think the only part that was really hard to watch was the stuff about 511 Kinderheim, though mostly because of the implied child abuse.
Not because the show is bad, just the material is really uncomfortable(which arguably is justified).
Last edited:
I'm willing to give anything credit for trying something new and different. However, I also want it to be done well and I'm not gonna give something a pass on it's lack of quality or poor execution if all it has is a cool idea.
Tough scenes, but that was the point. They did it masterfully too. You think that's bad, you're not going to want to watch Now and Then, Here and There. It gets so much worse, and it has a way shorter season length. The show maybe 13 episodes, but there will be a lot of pain and torture to get through. There is not much levity or comedy in that mini series. Even Monster has some levity.
Last edited:
That's where you and I are different from those critics. Most of them tried giving certain films a pass, or try to make some pathetic excuse. "At least it makes you think! At least it's not Michael bay!". You won't believe how many times Movie Bob was guilty of this. Early on he usually avoided this, but by the mid 2010s, that was no longer a factor.
To be fair, I get where that comes from. If all you do is play video games or watch movies all the time for your job, anything that feels different is gonna stand out and to some extent, I can see where that can impress people more then "The best adaptation of the Romeo and Juliet trope ever written". The downside is that novelty is the most fleeting of virtues and once it fades you start noticing all the flaws you previously overlooked.
I'm not really trying to defend the "It's different so it's good" but I can totally see how a totally different take can get people going. I know I've been guilty of it. I liked the game Outpost(which I know shows how old and nerdy I am) when it came out and only later did I realize it was pretty bad(especially looking at it now, 25 years later, when I checked out a quick LP of the game and boy has that game not aged well at all).
Last edited:
I sometimes wish I had the ability to be a fly on the wall for hollywood production, especially with the new trend of franchise films. Before the advent of social media, it was far more common for creative teams to be far more liberal with commentary on what went right or wrong on films. These days its heavily stipulated in contracts to be hush hush about development.
RLM was doing some review of Black Widow and they called out what they felt confident was two different teams working on Black Widow. The "director" and team doing any of the talking scenes and then a sense that all the action was done by a completely different team. That it felt very disjointed and hit and miss on when the action prevented you from looking at reddit on your phone. They went as far as to postulate that the action and CGI was in progress before much the character driven scenes were filmed. I really suspect that is not only true, but play a big role in hollywood these days and is starting to encroach on film quality. Thats why I respect Green Knight for being practical effects driven. The writing team and effects team working in tandum the whole time to make scenes "work".
Man, I hate having to say how bored I was with Dr. Strange 2. It was such a let down because I'm such a Raimi fan, but so much of it was just CGI noise. I worry sometimes that Raimis brilliance in earlier films was an effect of technological limitation. As difficult as it would have been I drool at the idea of what Gargantos would have looked like with animatronics and puppetry.
Although, and to each his own, I thought the fight and action choreography in Spider-man No way home were just awesome. The first fight scene between Goblin and Spider-man, I was just like "Goddamn, gimme two hours of that". That was some peak The Raid/Wrestlemania shit. idk, maybe it's just a complex mismash of for directing/scheduling issues that drive these dissonances in action/CGI quality.
Exactly. That is why balance is important. I get where they're coming from, but it's no excuse (I know you are not, but plenty of them try to make excuses) for them to act like snooty snobs and jackasses about it to other people. Especially if people are less informed about it. Insulting them for no reason just makes the audience want to see the movie or play the game to say F.U. in defiance.
We've all been there at some point. Some better than others, and some worse than others.
It's why I prefer just regular action films that are straight to DVD or Netflix/AP/HBO Max. They ain't perfect either, and they can come with their issues too, but it usually feels like the special effects, the stunt team, and writing team are all working together as one. And not just two separate units or a bunch of "second, third, or fourth" units doing their own little projects, just smashing things together and hopes they work.
Upon a bit more thought, I tend to like things that try to be different, because I like things that try. You've got people that are different in that they just throw random weird stuff at the screen in the hopes that the audience might like some of it, and didn't put any thought of effort into it, and that's very annoying.
Not being Michael Bay is only a plus if the film is trying to be something else. Doesn't have to succeed, I give marks for trying, but if it's not Michael Bay or anything else, that's a fail.
For sure, though I do agree there are indeed a couple of fight scenes in No Way Home including that first Goblin/Peter moment which manage to stand out (unfortunately shown in the trailers too), I was just mentioning how bad Lizard man looked in comparison to everything else in the same film. And yeah Strange 2 was disappointing in the action department for reasons mentioned, including how Wanda can manipulate reality to effortlessly and viciously dismantle a bunch of super powered professionals, only to forget these extremely scary powers near the end when someone else is literally just fist-fighting her, then she gets panicky about a couple of things flying around her so still doesn't use those aforementioned powers even then. Some sort of internal consistency there would go a long way to avoid it feeling like nothing matters and stakes might exist. The musical note fight scene was fun at least. And the vicious Wanda moment.
Last edited:
Same.
Same, though sometimes I find it even more aggravating with there is not much effort or thought put in to it.
Even then, I could still hate or dislike the movie in question. The whole "At least It's not X" syndrome never did anything for me, and made me even less inclined to see something. I would get more critical of said movie or show, if it did not match to my expectations.
Damn straight!
It was very frustrating how wandas powers for 99% of the movie are the usual marvel CGI rave glowsticks, but then for just one scene it turns into a body horror film. Like "thanks Sam, that was cool, but it literally doesn't fit the rest of the movie". I assume Marvel just gave him that and a couple jump scare scenes so they could pretend it was a Sam Raimi movie. It's a bummer because arguably that's supposed to be more how the comics. Wanda and Stephen aren't carebears shooting rainbows at everything. They're supposed to be using magic and witchcraft, but I imagine that just isn't something you can hand off to the CGI studio and call "lunch".
I liked the movie well enough, but yeah. I'd have thought that Raimi would have gone all out with the magic in this movie. Only Strange and Wanda really get to be sorcerers, everyone else gets to be slightly upgraded martial artists. Seriously, I love Wong, but the guy is about as qualified to be Sorcerer Supreme as I am to be a heart surgeon.
And even then Strange just had a few standout scenes instead of being consistently "magic". That they bothered to have a fight scene where he and Mordor had a punch up was sad. I thought after Infinity War we'd moved past the firecracker magic, but nope. I guess it's the economical choice for them.
I will say this. The magic fight between Doctor Strange and Strange Supreme? Probably the highlight of the movie for me. I wish we'd had more of that and less of...well, what you said.
Overall, my feelings after watching DS 2 was overall disappointment. It wasn't a bad movie, and I don't think any of the MCU movies have been outright bad, but it was probably the biggest disappointment I felt watching an MCU movie.
When Strange fought Mordo he was wearing the cuffs that suppressed his magic. Also I suspect Strange lost his position as Sorcerer Supreme - assuming he ever had it - due to that utter cock up he enabled in Far From Home.
He lost it by default during the "blip", so wong inherited it. They state it officially in No Way Home.
Oh I know he had the sands of vishanti cuffs or whatever. I'm just saying, no one wants to see that. At least, not over actual magic fights.
Also yeah, as Piscian said, he lost the title during the blip. Why he wouldn't just get the title back, clearly being the superior sorcerer, I don't know. Although I suppose he is a much worse leader than Wong