So Aquaman....its everything I expected it would be.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Samtemdo8:
Seriously though, if we all want the true DC universe in film.

WB only needs to look to Alex Ross' work.

Superman: Peace on Earth
Batman: War on Crime
Wonder Woman: Spirit of Truth
Shazam: The Power of Hope
JLA: Liberty and Justice.
Justice (2005)
And of course Kingdom Come.

I wish Alex Ross was working on the movies.

Only two of those stories are actually any good, Alex is a better artist than a writer. But this has been pointed out to you before but you always ignore it, Kingdom Come is literally about not becoming grimdark and edgy, you know the two things you love for some reason.

Kenbo Slice:

Samtemdo8:
Seriously though, if we all want the true DC universe in film.

WB only needs to look to Alex Ross' work.

Superman: Peace on Earth
Batman: War on Crime
Wonder Woman: Spirit of Truth
Shazam: The Power of Hope
JLA: Liberty and Justice.
Justice (2005)
And of course Kingdom Come.

I wish Alex Ross was working on the movies.

Only two of those stories are actually any good, Alex is a better artist than a writer. But this has been pointed out to you before but you always ignore it, Kingdom Come is literally about not becoming grimdark and edgy, you know the two things you love for some reason.

And clearly you guys are not seeing that I have since more or less changed my ways. Heck I am asking for DC movies to be more like these works I suggested.

I merely only prefer Grimdark and Edgy like the Dark Knight over straight up Silver Age Camp like Adam West Batman because at least I can take the former more or less seriously.

But I don't want the whole DC Universe to become Spawn or Punisher or Sin City. Especially since I don't want Batman to be the face of DC, not after this shit:

image

Seriously what the fuck am I looking at? This is what happens when you make everything in the DC unvierse solely about Batman.

Samtemdo8:

I didn't say "Do a Kingdom Come movie" I said "make your DC movies like Kingdom Come in look and tone"

Oh yeah I missed that.

But the tone I got from Kingdom Come was more like a mockery of the kind of stuff Snyder likes to throw in.

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:

I didn't say "Do a Kingdom Come movie" I said "make your DC movies like Kingdom Come in look and tone"

Oh yeah I missed that.

But the tone I got from Kingdom Come was more like a mockery of the kind of stuff Snyder likes to throw in.

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

When I first read it I thought it was gonna be about a War between the old school Golden Age Heroes vs the new generation of edgy and dark 90s heroes.

But it wasn't really.

Samtemdo8:

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

Anyhoo, I have always maintained that Superheroes are inherently silly and this is doubly true when your guy is the one who's power includes talking to fish.

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

Anyhoo, I have always maintained that Superheroes are inherently silly and this is doubly true when your guy is the one who's power includes talking to fish.

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Samtemdo8:

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yeah, silly in all cases.

This is not a bad thing, but I think they were all stories created primarily to engage and inspire children. They all take places in fantastical versions of our world where super-people can do things regular humans simply physically cannot do just because the plot demands it.

Samtemdo8:

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:

I didn't say "Do a Kingdom Come movie" I said "make your DC movies like Kingdom Come in look and tone"

Oh yeah I missed that.

But the tone I got from Kingdom Come was more like a mockery of the kind of stuff Snyder likes to throw in.

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

When I first read it I thought it was gonna be about a War between the old school Golden Age Heroes vs the new generation of edgy and dark 90s heroes.

But it wasn't really.

Because it's a bit more subtle than that.

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

The metal arm is a dead giveaway

Samtemdo8:
When I first read it I thought it was gonna be about a War between the old school Golden Age Heroes vs the new generation of edgy and dark 90s heroes.

Apart from the scene where Superman and his allies stomp into a bar filled with edgy 90s antiheroes and tell them to get in line or get tossed in jail, which is really an obvious one, the theme running through the book is that the whole grimdark thing is a bad idea. It has only led to ruin and disaster while turning back to the optimistic and colourful is ultimately what saves everyone

Samtemdo8:

jademunky:

Samtemdo8:

Honestly I remember reading that book and it barely mocked the 90s edgeness at all.

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

Anyhoo, I have always maintained that Superheroes are inherently silly and this is doubly true when your guy is the one who's power includes talking to fish.

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Dirty Hipsters:

Samtemdo8:

jademunky:

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

Anyhoo, I have always maintained that Superheroes are inherently silly and this is doubly true when your guy is the one who's power includes talking to fish.

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Remember that people took these mythologies as religious fact in some cases. Try telling a devout Christian or Muslim that some elements in the Bible/Koran stories are rather silly.

Samtemdo8:

Dirty Hipsters:

Samtemdo8:

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Remember that people took these mythologies as religious fact in some cases. Try telling a devout Christian or Muslim that some elements in the Bible/Koran stories are rather silly.

They ARE incredibly silly. There's a reason that the Bible has had multiple revisions and why most Christians believe that the Bible stories are allegorical rather than literal.

After seeing it, it was fine, but rather underwhelming.

Nice, clean visuals underwater (though the land green screen is really noticeable), its well directed, Black Manta was cool, Ocean Master is hammy af and I enjoy the schlock bits....

Thing that lets it down is the really underwritten, overstuffed script. So much happens and rushed that it felt like watching a trilogy.

So I saw it today.

Liked it better than I expected. I'd say it's probably worth a full-priced ticket.

Short and sweet:

Good:
1. Jason Momoa shows that he can carry a movie as the lead. I'm not saying it's the deepest performance in the world, but he carries a lot on charm and swagger without becoming one of those "Oh for pity's sake, don't let this jerk open his mouth again" kinds of "brash" characters.
2. Spectacle. There's some genuine visual spectacle at work here. Some of it is, perhaps, a little too reminiscent of Tron, but there's an extended scene of being pursued by feral fish-men that just made me go, "wow".
3. DC finally made a movie that suggests that, at least some of the time, being a superhero might just be fun rather than a constant onslaught of over-sized responsibilities and burdens.
4. Some effort is made to give the villains more by way of character and motivation than "I exist to destroy things" or "I'm insane". Black Manta's deal isn't exactly subtle, but I appreciate the effort.
5. The supporting cast is largely excellent. AC's father gives a particularly nice, understated performance.

Bad:
1. The third time a relatively quiet scene is suddenly interrupted by an explosion smashing through a wall, I began to wonder if the director wasn't perhaps a bit excessively fond of that trick.
2. Screenwriting by-the-boxes: This isn't nearly as bad as Dawn of Justice, but there's still a definite feeling of "this scene establishes backstory, this scene motivates villain, this scene establishes romantic chemistry." Well-written movies still accomplish these things without giving the viewer the sensation that particular boxes are being checked off, rather than the scenes in question being part of a living whole. As I say, it's not as egregiously visible as in some efforts... but it's still there.
3. Powers are... a little vague. Don't get me wrong, it's better than ten minutes of exposition of exactly what everyone can do. But when our hero keeps ticking after being hit by a weapon we've seen pulverize rock, it can't help but upend the stakes a bit.
4. If you've been keeping half an eye on the promotional materials, a moderate-sized plot reveal has already been spoiled for you. It's not exactly a huge surprise, anyway, given who's involved, but still a bit of a let-down given that the movie wants you to think it's a surprise and directs our hero accordingly.
5. This is a solid movie in its own right, but that's what it feels like: a solid movie in its own right. Justice League barely comes up, and if you missed it, you won't miss a beat; likewise, if this movie's events mean squat-all to the next Wonder Woman movie, it will come as no surprise. If you're expecting a movie that furthers the sense of the DCEU as a cogent movie universe, this isn't going to do it for you.

So, I saw it today. I'll give more detailed thoughts on the movies thread, but in regards to what's posted here:

Callate:

4. Some effort is made to give the villains more by way of character and motivation than "I exist to destroy things" or "I'm insane". Black Manta's deal isn't exactly subtle, but I appreciate the effort.

Villains are a mixed bag. Orm is pretty good - he's got understandable motivations, and understandable angst towards Arthur given what happened to Atlanta as a result. On the other hand, Manta is a waste of a villain. He's got no real reason to exist, like, at all. Him attacking them in Sicily could have been done by any Atlantean grunt. His whole revenge against Arthur angle feels unnecessary when he was apparently already set on fighting Arthur for the hell of it on the sub. And while Arthur expresses regret for letting his father die, it never really amounts to anything. I thought it would come into play when he defeated Orm, but no, it's Atlanta that holds him back.

5. This is a solid movie in its own right, but that's what it feels like: a solid movie in its own right. Justice League barely comes up, and if you missed it, you won't miss a beat; likewise, if this movie's events mean squat-all to the next Wonder Woman movie, it will come as no surprise. If you're expecting a movie that furthers the sense of the DCEU as a cogent movie universe, this isn't going to do it for you.

Wonder Woman 1984 takes place in...well, I'm assuming 1984, so I don't think lack of mention would be a minus.

On the other hand, I'm left to ask what Orm's plan is to deal with Superman, if he even knows he exists. Like, is Superman dealing with all the flooding Orm's causing? I'm assuming so, but for better or worse, the movie feels independent from the DCEU. As you point out, Justice League gets a single mention, and upon their first meeting, Arthur acts like he's never met Mera before, even though they interacted in Justice League.

I also think this is an inherent problem with Supes in a setting like this - his presence can effectively negate any threat that becomes large enough to catch his attention. Aquaman at least has the excuse that a lot of it takes place underwater, but aside from that...

Dirty Hipsters:

Samtemdo8:

jademunky:

The overmuscled visual design of Magog was supposed to be based on Cable......except with horns.

Anyhoo, I have always maintained that Superheroes are inherently silly and this is doubly true when your guy is the one who's power includes talking to fish.

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Funny how the Bungie who made Halo, a setting where Humans fight a War against Space Aliens in Space thus it can be classifyed as Silly, still got away with making music like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWh9l8RSkPk

It made me really want to play DnD.

Also I don't want people who hate MCU to ever decide what to do to fix it. If you don't like MCU, that's fine, but then why should they appease you? I am a huge Marvel fan, and I love the MCU.

And people throwing around silly...like...silly how? Are you sure you don't mean 'fun'? Cause fun is good. I love Superhero movies, they make me feel like a child in all the best ways.

Sometimes I feel like I am a killjoy, but I could always be more of one I think.

But then, I also loved Hercules: The Legendary Journy, and that show was silly, and was great for it.

Samtemdo8:

Dirty Hipsters:

Samtemdo8:

And Hercules and Perseus going on thier epic journeys isn't inherently silly?

Or Medieval Romance tales of Knights slaying the Dragon to save the Princess?

They were fantastical things yes, but I never go the impression that they were "silly"

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Funny how the Bungie who made Halo, a setting where Humans fight a War against Space Aliens in Space thus it can be classifyed as Silly, still got away with making music like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWh9l8RSkPk

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word silly.

A story about a war against ultra religious space aliens, not silly. Having the grunts heads explode into confetti with children cheering when you shoot them in the head? Very silly.

Also, there's quite a lot of silly dialogue in Halo if you stick around and listen to the NPCs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_FfDvuSfg

Saelune:
It made me really want to play DnD.

Also I don't want people who hate MCU to ever decide what to do to fix it. If you don't like MCU, that's fine, but then why should they appease you? I am a huge Marvel fan, and I love the MCU.

And people throwing around silly...like...silly how? Are you sure you don't mean 'fun'? Cause fun is good. I love Superhero movies, they make me feel like a child in all the best ways.

Sometimes I feel like I am a killjoy, but I could always be more of one I think.

But then, I also loved Hercules: The Legendary Journy, and that show was silly, and was great for it.

I think there's a distinct difference between something being silly and something just being fun.

All of the Avengers taking turns trying to lift Thor's hammer at a party in Age of Ultron is fun, Starlord starting a dance off in Guardians of the Galaxy, or grabbing a rat alien and singing into it like it's a microphone is purposefully silly. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with something being silly. Silly doesn't mean bad. I just don't think that Superheroes need to be full of gravitas in order to be good movies.

Saelune:

If you don't like MCU, that's fine, but then why should they appease you?

I'm not fan of this train of thought - the idea that "if you don't like X, don't criticize X." By those same standards, any form of criticism could be dismissed for any product.

And people throwing around silly...like...silly how? Are you sure you don't mean 'fun'? Cause fun is good.

Silly is fine when it doesn't cross into stupidity and/or break with the rest of the film.

Dirty Hipsters:
Starlord starting a dance off in Guardians of the Galaxy, or grabbing a rat alien and singing into it like it's a microphone is purposefully silly. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with something being silly. Silly doesn't mean bad. I just don't think that Superheroes need to be full of gravitas in order to be good movies.

The latter works much better than the former. Peter grabbing the rat and jamming is a bit of silliness that syncs with the scene. Peter challenging Ronan to a dance-off is not only silly, but it's a break from the tone up to that point where the film has treated itself and its stakes seriously.

Hawki:

Saelune:

If you don't like MCU, that's fine, but then why should they appease you?

I'm not fan of this train of thought - the idea that "if you don't like X, don't criticize X." By those same standards, any form of criticism could be dismissed for any product.

And people throwing around silly...like...silly how? Are you sure you don't mean 'fun'? Cause fun is good.

Silly is fine when it doesn't cross into stupidity and/or break with the rest of the film.

Dirty Hipsters:
Starlord starting a dance off in Guardians of the Galaxy, or grabbing a rat alien and singing into it like it's a microphone is purposefully silly. Also, there's nothing inherently wrong with something being silly. Silly doesn't mean bad. I just don't think that Superheroes need to be full of gravitas in order to be good movies.

The latter works much better than the former. Peter grabbing the rat and jamming is a bit of silliness that syncs with the scene. Peter challenging Ronan to a dance-off is not only silly, but it's a break from the tone up to that point where the film has treated itself and its stakes seriously.

There is a difference between someone who likes steaks criticizing a steakhouse, and a vegan criticizing a steak house.

There are a lot of people who shit on the MCU who would only be happy if the MCU just didn't exist period. Who never would be happy with any version of comic heroes as movies.

Silly is kind of a very subjective term. I am not saying there isn't a silly I dislike, cause there is, but we shouldn't pretend we all share the same definition of what 'silly' means.

Saelune:
There is a difference between someone who likes steaks criticizing a steakhouse, and a vegan criticizing a steak house.

There is, but if we're applying this metaphor, what you're basically saying that everyone who criticizes the MCU is a "vegan."

Or, to use personal examples, just because I like individual films within the MCU doesn't mean I like all of them, or that I'm obliged to like the MCU as a whole (though at this point I'm generally apathetic towards it).

Dirty Hipsters:

Samtemdo8:

Dirty Hipsters:

Yes, those are all incredibly silly. Have you ever actually read the original versions of those stories? They're hilarious.

The King Author stories are often times pure camp. Greek Mythology is all about gods fucking with people. People are constantly being turned into animals, or having sex with animals, and the strength of the heroes if often depicted by the size of their spears which automatically makes for some absolutely hilarious imagery.

Hector with a 40 foot spear running around the perimeter of Troy while being chased by Achilles who keeps trying to stab him with a 50 foot spear is inherently funny if you try to picture it.

Funny how the Bungie who made Halo, a setting where Humans fight a War against Space Aliens in Space thus it can be classifyed as Silly, still got away with making music like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWh9l8RSkPk

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word silly.

A story about a war against ultra religious space aliens, not silly. Having the grunts heads explode into confetti with children cheering when you shoot them in the head? Very silly.

Also, there's quite a lot of silly dialogue in Halo if you stick around and listen to the NPCs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_FfDvuSfg

In the case of the Grunts its exactly the reason why they made them and the other Covenant races speak their own langauge in the later games to make them more foreign and more scary.

Hawki:

Saelune:
There is a difference between someone who likes steaks criticizing a steakhouse, and a vegan criticizing a steak house.

There is, but if we're applying this metaphor, what you're basically saying that everyone who criticizes the MCU is a "vegan."

Or, to use personal examples, just because I like individual films within the MCU doesn't mean I like all of them, or that I'm obliged to like the MCU as a whole (though at this point I'm generally apathetic towards it).

Writing off anyone who criticises the MCU isn't what Saelune is trying to do, she's just noting the difference between people who criticise the MCU having invested time into watching the movies and those who haven't bothered with the whole thing.
Same way as you might get some people who'll like going into McDonalds because while they know the food is mass produced they like it anyway, some people who'll avoid it at all costs because they refuse to consume what they see as trash, and some people who might dip in occasionally if something a bit different or new catches their eye. (This post not brought to you by McDonalds, believe it or not)

Palindromemordnilap:

Writing off anyone who criticises the MCU isn't what Saelune is trying to do, she's just noting the difference between people who criticise the MCU having invested time into watching the movies and those who haven't bothered with the whole thing.

I actually doubt that's the case, and if it is, that's still disagreeable, because by that standard, no-one could have an opinion on the MCU without having watched every film in the series. Or, if we're taking the "whole thing" as writ, we could extend that to stuff like the TV shows, tie-in comics, games, etc.

Think about it - have you seen this defence used for any other media, recently or otherwise? Popping up another analogy, are people not allowed an opinion on Star Wars without having seen all the movies in the series? Because if so, then technically I wouldn't be allowed one either, since I haven't seen Caravan of Courage or the Holiday Special (but I did see the Battle for Endor, so, there).

It's barely even an issue anyway, because the MCU at this point is in too big to fail territory. And while I disagree with a lot of the criticism for TLJ, and fear that Ep. IX will play it safe as a result, people are still allowed to make that criticism. No-one should use the defence "oh you just don't like Star Wars" if you don't like a Star Wars film/set of films.

Hawki:

Palindromemordnilap:

Writing off anyone who criticises the MCU isn't what Saelune is trying to do, she's just noting the difference between people who criticise the MCU having invested time into watching the movies and those who haven't bothered with the whole thing.

I actually doubt that's the case, and if it is, that's still disagreeable, because by that standard, no-one could have an opinion on the MCU without having watched every film in the series. Or, if we're taking the "whole thing" as writ, we could extend that to stuff like the TV shows, tie-in comics, games, etc..

No, because the point being made isn't and has never been "You haven't watched the MCU therefore can't have an opinion" its "If you haven't watched the MCU then you don't know it as well as someone who has". Hence why I switched to the MCDonalds example. You can know McDonalds food is trash without ever having eaten there simply by knowing its McDonalds, you haven't experienced it personally but know enough to know you won't like it. But someone who does eat there knows which options are better and which are worse, which they find tasty despite the flaws and which might be just all round garbage. Someone with no interest in the MCU might look at it and say "Nah, not interested in a glorified cartoon fireworks show with all the same quippy dialogue, I don't want to watch this at all" which is fair enough but someone who's seen all the movies will be able to give a better range of opinions on, say, the Thor films since they've, you know, actually seen the Thor films

Hawki:

Palindromemordnilap:

Writing off anyone who criticises the MCU isn't what Saelune is trying to do, she's just noting the difference between people who criticise the MCU having invested time into watching the movies and those who haven't bothered with the whole thing.

I actually doubt that's the case, and if it is, that's still disagreeable, because by that standard, no-one could have an opinion on the MCU without having watched every film in the series. Or, if we're taking the "whole thing" as writ, we could extend that to stuff like the TV shows, tie-in comics, games, etc.

Think about it - have you seen this defence used for any other media, recently or otherwise? Popping up another analogy, are people not allowed an opinion on Star Wars without having seen all the movies in the series? Because if so, then technically I wouldn't be allowed one either, since I haven't seen Caravan of Courage or the Holiday Special (but I did see the Battle for Endor, so, there).

It's barely even an issue anyway, because the MCU at this point is in too big to fail territory. And while I disagree with a lot of the criticism for TLJ, and fear that Ep. IX will play it safe as a result, people are still allowed to make that criticism. No-one should use the defence "oh you just don't like Star Wars" if you don't like a Star Wars film/set of films.

Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

Y'know, I've just realized something - why's the MCU even being discussed here? It was mentioned once by Shinji, then Saelune brings it into things.

Anyway:

Saelune:
Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

The second group's opinions should be weighed as well - judging a piece of media as an adaptation is different from judging a piece of media via its actual quality (or lack of it). But as for the third group, as soon as they see the piece of media in question, they're entitled to a view on it. Because while the third group is coming from a piece of bias, then any pro-genre (depending on genre) viewer is also coming from a position of bias. And since the objective reviewer is a unicorn, everyone's coming from a place of bias at the end of the day.

Hawki:
Y'know, I've just realized something - why's the MCU even being discussed here? It was mentioned once by Shinji, then Saelune brings it into things.

Anyway:

Saelune:
Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

The second group's opinions should be weighed as well - judging a piece of media as an adaptation is different from judging a piece of media via its actual quality (or lack of it). But as for the third group, as soon as they see the piece of media in question, they're entitled to a view on it. Because while the third group is coming from a piece of bias, then any pro-genre (depending on genre) viewer is also coming from a position of bias. And since the objective reviewer is a unicorn, everyone's coming from a place of bias at the end of the day.

OP mentioned Marvel, and MCU is far and above over DC for movies.

Sure, everyone is 'entitled' to have a view on anything, but not everyone needs to be listened to. Marvel/Disney should not waste their time listening to people who arent going to watch the movies anyways.

Hawki:
Y'know, I've just realized something - why's the MCU even being discussed here? It was mentioned once by Shinji, then Saelune brings it into things.

Anyway:

Saelune:
Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

The second group's opinions should be weighed as well - judging a piece of media as an adaptation is different from judging a piece of media via its actual quality (or lack of it). But as for the third group, as soon as they see the piece of media in question, they're entitled to a view on it. Because while the third group is coming from a piece of bias, then any pro-genre (depending on genre) viewer is also coming from a position of bias. And since the objective reviewer is a unicorn, everyone's coming from a place of bias at the end of the day.

I see the point you're trying to advocate, but when the question is "is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?" (operative term being "superhero,") what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don't like superhero films? By your reasoning, a vegan's input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater. Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, "bias" is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you're seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you'll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I'll give you that you'd want their objective opinions from within that pool.

Xprimentyl:

I see the point you?re trying to advocate, but when the question is ?is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?? (operative term being ?superhero,?) what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don?t like superhero films?

I've seen this reasoning before. A recent example would be Last Jedi, with the phrase "it's a good film, just not a good Star Wars film" popping up everywhere. And while I've got my own personal examples of this (e.g. Terminator 3), the concept doesn't go so far as to say that people who don't like the film series/genre/whatever have no opinion worth giving.

If we actually apply this ideology as writ, then, among other things, critic reviews would have to be screened - apparently you'd need to be a fan of the genre before giving a review on it. If only people who have a positive pre-disposition towards a genre/series are allowed to give feedback, then that feedback is going to be heavily biased. It's certainly not going to do those with no disposition one way or the other any favours if they're only getting biaised feedback.

By your reasoning, a vegan?s input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater.

If the vegan actually eats the meat, then their feedback on the quality of the meat itself is valid.

Also, key difference - a vegan can't eat meat without breaking their veganism. There's no equivalent philosophy in critique of media - swearing off a genre/series isn't something that's generally lauded.

Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, ?bias? is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you?re seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you?ll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I?ll give you that you?d want their objective opinions from within that pool.

Bias can be helpful if you're seeking opinions of only a certain disposition...whether it's good to seek those opinions is another matter.

Like, for instance, take Captain Marvel as the next MCU film that's coming out. Saelune sees it and says it's great. Samtembo sees it and says it's bad. John Doe sees it and gives whatever opinion. Of those three, John Doe is generally the person I'm the most interested in getting feedback from. Saelune is an MCU fangirl and doesn't hide it. Samtembo greatly dislikes the style of the MCU and doesn't hide it either. I've got no idea about the biases of John Doe, but if JD gives a review, then JD's feedback is the most valuable because I'm operating under the assumption that JD is at least trying to be as objective as possible. If you want a real-world example of this, I stopped paying attention to a lot of Movie Bob's reviews ages ago, because he's got biases (e.g. pro Marvel, pro Nintendo) and doesn't even try to hide them. Same thing with Zero Punctuation (key difference that ZP is selling itself primarily as comedy).

Hawki:

Xprimentyl:

I see the point you?re trying to advocate, but when the question is ?is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?? (operative term being ?superhero,?) what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don?t like superhero films?

I've seen this reasoning before. A recent example would be Last Jedi, with the phrase "it's a good film, just not a good Star Wars film" popping up everywhere. And while I've got my own personal examples of this (e.g. Terminator 3), the concept doesn't go so far as to say that people who don't like the film series/genre/whatever have no opinion worth giving.

If we actually apply this ideology as writ, then, among other things, critic reviews would have to be screened - apparently you'd need to be a fan of the genre before giving a review on it. If only people who have a positive pre-disposition towards a genre/series are allowed to give feedback, then that feedback is going to be heavily biased. It's certainly not going to do those with no disposition one way or the other any favours if they're only getting biaised feedback.

By your reasoning, a vegan?s input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater.

If the vegan actually eats the meat, then their feedback on the quality of the meat itself is valid.

Also, key difference - a vegan can't eat meat without breaking their veganism. There's no equivalent philosophy in critique of media - swearing off a genre/series isn't something that's generally lauded.

Obviously, the vegan/steakhouse analogy was a ham-handed one to highlight the absurdity of seeking the opinion of a thing from someone diametrically opposed to said thing; it wasn't meant to pass literal scrutiny or the smell test of every conceivable hypothetical.

Hawki:

Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, ?bias? is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you?re seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you?ll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I?ll give you that you?d want their objective opinions from within that pool.

Bias can be helpful if you're seeking opinions of only a certain disposition...whether it's good to seek those opinions is another matter.

Yes, that was the exact intent of my post. Back to our vegan, he can chew the steak and tell you it's tender, salty, medium rare, etc. But ask him if it's a GOOD steak. After he finishes puking his guts out and his repentant self-flagellation, I think his opinion should lose some weight. The intent of the asker determines the weight of the answers. In this case, I'm not just hungry for food (i.e.: willing to eat at a vegan restaurant,) I want a good steak.

Hawki:
Like, for instance, take Captain Marvel as the next MCU film that's coming out. Saelune sees it and says it's great. Samtembo sees it and says it's bad. John Doe sees it and gives whatever opinion. Of those three, John Doe is generally the person I'm the most interested in getting feedback from. Saelune is an MCU fangirl and doesn't hide it. Samtembo greatly dislikes the style of the MCU and doesn't hide it either. I've got no idea about the biases of John Doe, but if JD gives a review, then JD's feedback is the most valuable because I'm operating under the assumption that JD is at least trying to be as objective as possible.

In this example, it's evident that you're just looking for a good movie; for your purposes, it makes sense for you to weigh these opinions all relatively equally. Then I come along looking for a good MCU movie; Samtemdo's opinion is entirely invalid for me because he is diametrically opposed to everything I hope this film to be and thusly has no relevant bearing on whether or not I'll enjoy it. The object review is indeed a unicorn, but also like the unicorn in rarity, it is highly unnecessary in a lot of ways. I can safely say that most people don't always approach entertainment media from a stark, clinical perspective; they're looking to ENJOY things, so the enthusiastic opinion of others who also enjoy those things is helpful, and the more specific one can be in that pursuit, the better.

Xprimentyl:

Obviously, the vegan/steakhouse analogy was a ham-handed one to highlight the absurdity of seeking the opinion of a thing from someone diametrically opposed to said thing; it wasn?t meant to pass literal scrutiny or the smell test of every conceivable hypothetical.

Thing is, I don't see that as inherently absurd.

I mean, if you want confirmation that something is good then you're not going to get confirmation from such a source. If you want confirmation it's bad, then it's a good source.

But the vegan analogy is still a bad one, because a vegan is going to object to eating steak for any number of reasons. There's no equivalent philosophy in media criticism. I'm sure that people avoid certain genres, but there's no unifying philosophy for them.

Yes, that was the exact intent of my post. Back to our vegan, he can chew the steak and tell you it?s tender, salty, medium rare, etc. But ask him if it?s a GOOD steak. After he finishes puking his guts out and his repentant self-flagellation, I think his opinion should lose some weight.

Debatable. This is assuming that he's even going to be puking or self-flagellating at all.

Veganism can come from a variety of factors, such as ethics or health. It doesn't inherently remove the ability to have a taste for meat. It might be less of a worthwhile opinion than someone with no such tendencies, but it doesn't remove the viability of the opinion in of itself.

In this example, it?s evident that you?re just looking for a good movie; for your purposes, it makes sense for you to weigh these opinions all relatively equally.

Um, no. I thought I made that clear.

If we're going back to the analogy, Saelune is a steak lover, Sam is a vegan, John Doe is just some guy. That's not to say that the opinions of the first two are invalid, but they're a lot less useful to me.

Even if I fell into either of their camps, I'd still be aware that their opinion is a lot less useful to me, because it's coming from a place of bias. And yes, everyone is biaised. I've got biases. But any reviewer worth their salt should at least try to keep their biases in check.

Saelune:
It made me really want to play DnD.

I had a similar sentiment. When we were leaving the theater I turned to my girlfriend and said "I feel like I just watched the most expensive D&D campaign ever."

It was all there. The ancient civilizations, fallen rulers with magical mcguffins, a related villain with angsty backstory, a motley crew of allies- every D&D cliche in the book.

Overall I had a good time. It wasn't my favorite superhero movie ever but it was the first DC movie in a long time that didn't come across as embarrassed to be a comic book movie. I really enjoyed Wonder Woman but even it didn't revel in its comic book-ness as much as Aquaman. This film found a nice groove between high stakes action and embracing the inherent silliness of Aquaman.

My girlfriend went to see it, and her impressions were that it was "fine". I think i'll take her word for it, i've been bored to death watching DC's cringe-fest of a film franchise 5 times before, and I don't really want to spend 2h 20m doing it again.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here