Re-Take The Cabin

[stinkyrobot]

Way to do exactly what you hate the retakers for AGAIN. I.E not letting go of something no one should give a shit about.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I fail to see how in this particular article Bob is being insulting. What I see is Bob taking a look at the symbolism of The cabin in the woods, and remarking how it has some similarities to the ME 3 situation if viewed from a certain perspective. I don't see any part of this article referring to the people involved in the group in a disparaging manner, or even rehashing why he thinks they're wrong (or even within the context of the article, just saying that they're wrong). I think people are simply projecting onto a fairly neutral mention of the group based on previous statements.

Then again, this post will probably be completely ignored as people will simply want to go back to bitching and complaining.

It's because Bob has done this before. Note that every time he's bitched about Retake (besides from on Twitter), it's been a snipe at the tail-end of a talk about something else. Even if the intent of this article was not to bash Retake, that's how it came off given Bob's track record, especially his apparent inability to even try to see the other side.

snip

Ok, you asked about the themes and such, so I'm going to throw a link to this [http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/5/] article real quick. Note, I linked to the page about themes, but the whole article is a good read.

 

[JeebTheGamerBoy]

Cabin in the Woods was definitely refreshing, if nothing else. The only other films I?ve seen this yet at the Cinemas were Chronicle and Raid:Redemption, so I?ve been kinda spoilt. I do and don?t like Meta self-referential Films. Breaking the fourth wall, or going Brecht ? whatever you wanna call it have their moments.

Wayne?s World was fun whenever Wayne and Garth turned to the camera.

JFK had Oliver Stone direct Kevin Costner to stare directly into the camera and say it was up to us the audience, to uncover the truth about President Kennedy?s assassination. Personal tastes may vary.

A New Nightmare was a favorite of mine from the ol? days. Check out my thoughts @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9yzkcyLKgU
or @ http://blip.tv/jeebthegamerboy/horror-in-the-90s-a-new-nightmare-part-2-6101490

y?know? if you can be arsed.

Seriously though any script, that gets people lovin their favorite genres, and appreciating them more, gets a little respect. Even though Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back tried it for the Road Comedy Genre. I guess moderation is the key for self aware gags/plots

 

[Mister Linton]

Finally went to see this movie last night. It was great-- and as I was buying tickets the lady at the ticket counter said they had been getting complaints from people who had seen the movie. Yes! That's so great.

What I find even more hilarious is the people coming in here to tell Bob that he "missed the point" of the retake movement, only to explain that the ending wasn't just bad, it was broken. Okay elder gods, I guess you know better than the creators how it should have ended.

"waaah, it didn't make sense to me... waaah, my choices didn't matter... waaaah, false advertising... etc" Yeah, direct me to some vague out of context Casey Hudson quotes again as proof. That's always good for a laugh.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Look, as most people who have a problem with ME3 end, understands and is willing to accept that the ending doesn't have to be an ending that makes us "happy", but it has to be an ending that we can accept and understand. I don't have to like an ending, but I have to 'understand' the context for which is frames from.

BS, most people who have a problem with the ending think either:

1) We need to know more about the relays being destroyed, they want to know if the universe is fucked.

2) want more closure with the characters we know.

That's 90% of the retake movement right there

If it were me, I'd be saying most "most people" thought the ending comes out of nowhere, see what I'm getting at?
You guys can argue "most people." But that's going to go nowhere.

This issue can simplified in the long run: people don't like the ending, it wasn't what was "promised" (I put that in quotes because everyone is divided on this).

But it is much more complicated cause everyone single one of those people probably has different reason for disliking it. And does everyone who disliked the ending believe it should be changed? Does that summarize the Re-take movement?

 

[Murmillos]

Yeah, direct me to some vague out of context Casey Hudson quotes again as proof. That's always good for a laugh.

his quote was more then vague and there is clearly no way you can take it out of context as any reasonable person would have understood it.

I will admit, some people took some aspects of this too far, much like we read in the paper people who call 911 because the manager got their order wrong... but those who do go that far are no where even remotely representative of the normal people who make normal valid complaints.

The one guy who filed the FCC complaint =/= the retake movement. The retake movement isn't as in "we are taking it, and telling you how to make it", but more like a movie directors cut 'retake', movie scenes are retaken if they are not done right, therefore the games ending can be retaken since many feel it wasn't done right. There are a good number who realize that it wasn't BioWare first choice to make this ending, but it was a force play due to EA strong arming the situation to get the game out the door. Either BioWare was going to finish the game, or risk working for many more months on their own dime.
The ending was at best "weak", at worst "broken" and not of BioWare's best work. They promised better, we expected better, and the 'retake movement' was attempting to hold them to that promise/standard. There isn't one clear consensus on how the "elder gods" perceive ME3 should have ended, but the one thing we all can agree on, is that it should be "better". What would make a better ending? I don't know, but a start would be an ending that doesn't change the underlying theme and nature of the story, replace the series protagonist and antagonist and with (maybe) 3 final choices that don't tell you what making said choices ultimately mean, all in the final 14 lines of the game.


BioWare above all else is a business, they can create what ever art they fucking feel like creating, but if they start creating art that contradicts stated promises and/or people do not find worth consuming, their future as a business (to create future games) may suffer as a result.


captcha: have an inkling

 

[keserak]

what he did to the Aliens franchise should earn him a spot in one of the Inner Circles of Hell

Really do some research on these things before making such ridiculous claims. Whedon didn't do anything to the Aliens franchise, that was all the studios and the director.

Know what you're talking about before posting on the web. And, while you're at it, recognize that you're not a telepath and, as such, can't actually read the mind of someone whose post you've read. If you were less presumptuous and self-indulgent in these matters before posting, you'd recognize that just because the director "ruined" Whedon's "vision" doesn't mean that Whedon's take on the movie was any good. Here's a hint: it wasn't. His script was shit. The director "ruined" what began as an awful piece of crap, giving Whedon plausable deniability. If he'd have made Whedon happy, the film would still be shit.

By your criteria no movies that are a statement about life for the lower classes can exist because the people making t have money so should shut the fuck up, regardless of what they went through to get there.

How the hell is Cabin In the Woods "a statement about life for the lower classes"? And while we're at it, how am I telling moviemakers not to make that?

You've just started making things up.

Cabin In the Woods implicitly says "We, the movie makers, are sick of making bad media for terrible audiences."

Bob repeats that implication, declaring it nearly explicit.

I accept Bob's premise and point out a serious flaw -- that the movie-makers don't have a damn thing worth complaining about.

You claim that I said that movie makers therefore can't make "a statement about life for the lower classes" -- something I didn't say. Ever. Didn't even come close to that. The movie makers weren't even talking about the lower classes, they were talking about a narrow group of rich people, namely themselves. They were saying that they have to make schlock and blaming the audience of schlock for said schlock -- an audience that isn't entirely "lower class" and doesn't even come close to including all of the "lower classes," no matter how you're defining them.

What the hell are you going on about?

I'm not talking about making money. I'm talking about getting to make the art and tell the stories that you want to, which is where he constantly gets screwed.

Bullshit. He only gets screwed when he tries to make a movie or show AND, simultaneously, tries to make unseemly amounts of money at it. Careful now, you've misstated my point entirely and forgotten the only relevant bit. You aren't talking about money, but I am, and just because you'd like to forget it doesn't mean you can put words in my mouth. Money IS the point. He doesn't get complete creative control when the studios are paying him because it's the studios' film. Is that fair? Well, back up: is it fair that he's a gajillionaire? Fuck no. And that injustice is so gross, so overwhelmingly horrible, that his little pity party doesn't mean shit in comparison.

And, once again, he can make all the art he wants, he can even make money at it (something his not-famous peers can't even always do, even if they pay their dues and deserve to!), he just can't rake in millions.

So he's being a little *****.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I fail to see how in this particular article Bob is being insulting. What I see is Bob taking a look at the symbolism of The cabin in the woods, and remarking how it has some similarities to the ME 3 situation if viewed from a certain perspective. I don't see any part of this article referring to the people involved in the group in a disparaging manner, or even rehashing why he thinks they're wrong (or even within the context of the article, just saying that they're wrong). I think people are simply projecting onto a fairly neutral mention of the group based on previous statements.

Then again, this post will probably be completely ignored as people will simply want to go back to bitching and complaining.

It's because Bob has done this before. Note that every time he's bitched about Retake (besides from on Twitter), it's been a snipe at the tail-end of a talk about something else. Even if the intent of this article was not to bash Retake, that's how it came off given Bob's track record, especially his apparent inability to even try to see the other side.

snip

Ok, you asked about the themes and such, so I'm going to throw a link to this [http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/5/] article real quick. Note, I linked to the page about themes, but the whole article is a good read.

So in other words, I was completely right in my assessment of the situation, and even though he didn't say anything negative about the movement in the context of this article people are acting like he's continuing to insult you. Does no one else have aproblem with this attitude, or am I crazy for thinking people should judge an article by, you know the actual fucking content of the article?

 

[Mister Linton]

Yeah, direct me to some vague out of context Casey Hudson quotes again as proof. That's always good for a laugh.

his quote was more then vague and there is clearly no way you can take it out of context as any reasonable person would have understood it.

You of course refer to the A,B,C quote? The one that was not a lie?

Example spoilers:
My game ended with the Genophage not cured/the Geth effectively wiped out by the Quarians/ the Racchni destroyed/ Ashley, Wrex, captain Kirrahe, Miranda, Jacob, Jack, David (from overlord), "Legion" (never learned his name), and Samara dead/ Morinth roams the galaxy free/ Earth is destroyed/ and the reapers are being controlled by my renegade Femshep. That's an A,B,C ending?

Perhaps you are confusing "ending" with "final cutscene".

 

[AgentNein]

Beyond the ever-popular pastime of torturing metaphors to serve our own purposes, I somewhat got the impression that someone or something might have been interfering with or sabotaging the ritual- the business with the tunnel and a mention of a power reroute alludes to this, but it never entirely gets resolved. I wonder if there was some plot thread that got dropped but never fully removed from the script.

It was a reroute from "upstairs", meaning the surface level. Not long after that we find out Marty survived, and he's found the secret elevator room. Think it's pretty heavily implied that it was just him mucking about.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Just came back from seeing Cabin. Wow, I had a lot of fun. The giant release at the end, the absolute monster-stomp chaos, it was fantastic. I even held off reading about this until I got back.

As for the fans of mass effect being angry and wanting a more in-depth less pathetic ending. It isn't the same thing as Lovecraftian old ones furious they did not get their blood sacrifices. Nice try, it doesn't work, Mainly because the fans wanted a lot less death and collapse that what they were served in a clearly rushed package. The old ones of Cabin want plenty of suffering of the main characters and the deaths as their due. The mass effect players didn't like the sacrifice, didn't like the lack of choice or variety in the outcome. The old gods want the same old thing, served exactingly and repetitively.

Got it?

I think you missed the point of the article, it's not about specifically what they want, it's about creators who don't live up to fan expectations.

The article had a number of points, I was mainly responding to a comparison on mass effect and cabin.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Bob's silly liberalism shows again. Sucker Punch wasn't bad because it was an accusation of rape against the audience, it was bad because it was written/inspired by Zack Snyder's wife.

Cabin in the Woods wasn't generally about the audience being evil gods, it was about the everyday evil that governing bureaucracies can force even normal people to accept as necessary. Or laugh along with. Here, for example, is a gathering of the liberal feminist rulers of Sweden. [http://www.friatider.se/shocking-photos-shows-swedish-minister-of-culture-celebrating-with-niger-cake#.T413VM2wzf1.facebook] These types of people exist and rule the civilized world today.

If Bob was a creative liberal he'd have asked a question like: "How come only the Americans are actively failing at escaping, while the Japanese and others manage to escape in the end?"

Y'know, the sort of thing that would at least invite a real discussion.

Yeah you get it. The dehumanisation of the sacrifices by the bureaucrats and scientists was strong. in the end, the "virgin" buys into it. Also Sigourney Weaver is a great end boss.

Bob is very liberal, but he becomes a curious creature when you add in his pro-Americanism (you find more of this elsewhere than here, but he isn't anti-american military by any stretch) and dislike of people actually getting politically active and critical of cultural products.

 

[AgentNein]

There was a double post here...It's gone now.

Silent Hill fan. Internet high five.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

All those quotes are is an attempt to justify the vitriol, to justify the demands that Bioware change something that belongs them, regardless of how broken it is.

Bioware is a business, and the Retake movement represents a large portion of their customers. It is -absolutely- the right of the customer to demand quality in a product, vitriol or not (though the organizers of the Retake movement have been very polite and cordial).

Of course the product is Bioware's property, no one is contesting that. What is contested here is whether or not the players should quietly just deal with a broken end, or ask for better. Why is asking for the broken ending to be fixed wrong?

Exactly. Is it bad?

Because reviewers slam poor products and wish there were better things out there all the time.

 

[AgentNein]

what he did to the Aliens franchise should earn him a spot in one of the Inner Circles of Hell

Really do some research on these things before making such ridiculous claims. Whedon didn't do anything to the Aliens franchise, that was all the studios and the director.

Know what you're talking about before posting on the web. And, while you're at it, recognize that you're not a telepath and, as such, can't actually read the mind of someone whose post you've read. If you were less presumptuous and self-indulgent in these matters before posting, you'd recognize that just because the director "ruined" Whedon's "vision" doesn't mean that Whedon's take on the movie was any good. Here's a hint: it wasn't. His script was shit. The director "ruined" what began as an awful piece of crap, giving Whedon plausable deniability. If he'd have made Whedon happy, the film would still be shit.

Also take into account that his script isn't actually what ended up on screen, and then maybe you'll have a bit more sympathy. Seriously. Look into it.

 

[Teh Jammah]

Bioware has made it pretty clear through the entire series that a conventional victory against the Reapers was impossible.

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this bit.

Yes, the Reapers ROLFstomped the galaxy countless times over in the past. It has however been explicitly stated that they did this because...

1) The preveious civilisations were too homogenised and not diversified enough (at least in the case of the Protheans anyhow) and were thus more predicatble and easier to break down.
2) They started the invasion by taking control of the citadel, killing the galactic rulers who usually occupied it and taking out all major forms of galactic communication and transport, leaving them free to wipe out system after system with methodical and overwhelming force.

You stopped 2 from happening in ME1, and 1 didn't happen this cycle. The Reapers had to use a whole new set of tactics and had to spread themselves out a whole lot thinner than they probably did in previous cycles.

Now, obviously, I'm not going to deny they still had the advantage, that's more than obvious - and it even says in ME3 that if the war drags on past a year everyone'd be fucked anyway. But it's nowhere near an inevitability.

And, as was mentioned by anothe rposter, the whole crux of the series, and indeed the heroic narative in general, has been rising up and doing the impossible.