|
Jonny Angel posted:I mean if you can find an interpretation of the constant cars that makes their presence interesting, that makes the cinematography interesting, and that you can argue for convincingly, that's great? It's not exactly tricking us into liking the movie if you can persuasively speak about why the movie is good. I know, the frustrating part is that I don't yet find myself able to do so. I consider myself an interested layman in this regard and it's weird to see this thing pop up over and over again in a movie I like as a kind of proof positive that it's bad when everything I've learned from this place is that "reoccurring = meaningful = interesting = kinda good". I realize that my dissatisfaction with the course of the Bad Shot of the Day-thing is entirely due to my inability to frame an adequate retort, nevertheless it feels like this is a game where people who try to catch on are not quite welcome. I mentioned earlier that I like about SMG that he's constantly trying to make people think and thus learn, but with this he feels more like a math teacher than a teacher of the arts.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:If this isn't something you enjoy in general, fair enough, though it's a bit of a shame. But I don't get having it be a dislike that only occurs when it's Superman (or any subset of characters/adaptations), particularly if you're not a comic book reader. Superman is one of the most iconic characters in the history of popular culture, and people are going to have opinions of how the character should be portrayed. I imagine a lot of people here will disagree with this, but I don't think any criticism founded on such opinions is invalid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Celtic said that he doesn't like dark and gritty superhero films unless they are deconstructions of the genre. Sense and Motion pointed out that Man of Steel is a deconstruction of the genre. But why does it have to be? I guess I should be more specific. I don't like dark and gritty superhero movies unless they are designed entirely as a deconstruction of the genre. Super isn't based off anything, and it is a deconstruction of superheros (to a degree) and I believe Kick-rear end the comic was one too. Same with Watchmen. That is their purpose. I don't like when you take something that isn't that, and turn it into that. Why does Superman, of all the characters in the universe, have to be a vehicle for genre deconstruction? It feels wrong, and icky. I don't ever want to be afraid of Superman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I know, the frustrating part is that I don't yet find myself able to do so. I consider myself an interested layman in this regard and it's weird to see this thing pop up over and over again in a movie I like as a kind of proof positive that it's bad when everything I've learned from this place is that "reoccurring = meaningful = interesting = kinda good". I realize that my dissatisfaction with the course of the Bad Shot of the Day-thing is entirely due to my inability to frame an adequate retort, nevertheless it feels like this is a game where people who try to catch on are not quite welcome. I mentioned earlier that I like about SMG that he's constantly trying to make people think and thus learn, but with this he feels more like a math teacher than a teacher of the arts. I've only agreed with half of his shot choices, but I'll take amateur cinematographer SMG over amateur Zizek SMG any day. A bad shot is a value judgment. You may agree or you may not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:But why does it have to be? I guess I should be more specific. Sounds like it was an effective film, then. Art isn't always supposed me make you feel joyful and happy. For what it's worth, I didn't think the film was critical of Superman as a man, or presented him as something to be feared -- it was more about how terrifying a world where we needed Superman would be, even if he were an unimpeachable force for goodness and truth. It was basically saying that God, or the idea of a greater truth or ideal, is a fine thing when it's there to help you get through small tragedies. But living a world where we need God to protect us from the devil is a horrifying, disturbing loss of self-determination. Mechafunkzilla fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I've only agreed with half of his shot choices, but I'll take amateur cinematographer SMG over amateur Zizek SMG any day. Zizek plagiarizing hardline white supremacists has borne fruit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I've only agreed with half of his shot choices, but I'll take amateur cinematographer SMG over amateur Zizek SMG any day. While I wholeheartedly agree with this I'm still bothered because all these shots are so de-contextualized (is that a word?). Each one is presented as "objectively bad" which I thought was a big no-no around here. Especially when there are shots after shots after shots with emphasized elements and everyone's just "lol, emphasized element".
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Sounds like it was an effective film, then. Art isn't always supposed me make you feel joyful and happy. Doesn't mean I have to like it at all. And it doesn't mean I need give credit where credit is due. Because it didn't do anything for me on any level. It's a failed film in my eyes. Failed to do everything I thought it would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Sounds like it was an effective film, then. Art isn't always supposed me make you feel joyful and happy. That's why Superman is a symbol of hope which is flat-out stated in Man of Steel that that's what his crest literally means. Man of Steel was trying to get at a dark and grim world having a savior that the people of Earth could look up to and forget their fears both because of his powers but because Clark Kent CHOSE to use them for good because of his good upbringing. Man of Steel got lost along the way, though, and settled for big-budget 9/11 times a million without that ideal of hope shining through. I know that art or knowledge isn't supposed to be pleasant or happy but the nature of Superman kind of is that as he shines through those dark times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:While I wholeheartedly agree with thisI'm still bothered because all these shots are so de-contextualized. Each one is presented as "objectively bad" which I thought was a big no-no around here. Especially when there are shots after shots after shots with emphasized elements and everyone's just "lol, emphasized element". Like I said, you don't gotta agree with those people. I don't think anyone's said "objectively bad," they've just said "bad." Some of 'em have a snottier tone about it than others, but whatever, that's their problem. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Zizek plagiarizing hardline white supremacists has borne fruit. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Like I said, you don't gotta agree with those people. I don't think anyone's said "objectively bad," they've just said "bad." Some of 'em have a snottier tone about it than others, but whatever, that's their problem. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks there's a level of objectivity presumed by presenting all those shots as bad. Like, "this is how you compose shots correctly on a technical level, and this is how Avengers fails to do it". The thing is, I see and get those technical things and largely agree that Avengers fails to meet them, I'm just peeved that nobody stops to ask why beyond "that Joss Whedon sure directs poo poo, Avengers looks like TV amiright".
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Is there a film on this forum more divisive than MoS? People debate about it endlessly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Is there a film on this forum more divisive than MoS? People debate about it endlessly. There is but we're not allowed to mention its name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
It's a Batman movie, right? I bet it's a Batman movie. Those batman movies were really
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Is it this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cwWoK0gz4
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Failed to do everything I thought it would. It isn't the Superman movie you expected so it failed? That's a pretty lame criticism. Justin Godscock posted:I know that art or knowledge isn't supposed to be pleasant or happy but the nature of Superman kind of is that as he shines through those dark times. No, it isn't. The nature of Superman is whatever the writer wants it to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Yeah and? Although I gave more detailed examples, but yeah, pretty much that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:No, it isn't. The nature of Superman is whatever the writer wants it to be. So the writer can do no wrong is what you're saying Grendels Dad posted:I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks there's a level of objectivity presumed by presenting all those shots as bad. Like, "this is how you compose shots correctly on a technical level, and this is how Avengers fails to do it". The thing is, I see and get those technical things and largely agree that Avengers fails to meet them, I'm just peeved that nobody stops to ask why beyond "that Joss Whedon sure directs poo poo, Avengers looks like TV amiright". What other "why" is there? I agree that the "looks like a TV show" criticisms are lazy and stupid though, considering that, just for example, True Detective has looked better than just about any movie I've seen this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:So the writer can do no wrong is what you're saying I'm saying that criticizing a Superman movie because it isn't the Donner version is a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Ok. How about this, it failed to engage me because it wasn't entertaining. I mean, look. I went into why scenes didn't work for me, but overall, the drat summer superhero movie wasn't fun! I'm not an expect on film here. I know a bit here and there. I can dissect a little bit. But my gut tells me the movie was just bad. Guts aren't good for criticism, but thank Christ I'm not a critic, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:I'm saying that criticizing a Superman movie because it isn't the Donner version is a cop out. I'll criticize just about any movie for not being Superman: The Movie. Seriously though, you make a point out of being the first Superman movie to firmly not be the Donner version, then yeah, you invite the comparison. It's on the movie to overcome that. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:What other "why" is there? I'd have to dig through older threads but I'm fairly sure there are examples where an "obvious" cinematic flaw was constructed as a meaningful element of the movie that defined the reading of that movie. I've only seen it the discussion of it referenced and haven't seen the movie myself, but I'm thinking about Skyline in particular. This is all quite second hand but from what I understood SMG said the bad special effects in that movie were, put simply, a comment on bad special effects. Throw in some terms like hyper-reality and whatnot, but that's what it boiled down to for me. I see that, then I look at Avengers and wonder where the problem is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Wasn't the trick with Skyline that it made huge bank because it didn't have a huge budget but like 3/4 of its budget was marketing? I remember it was everywhere in NYC for like a month straight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I'd have to dig through older threads but I'm fairly sure there are examples where an "obvious" cinematic flaw was constructed as a meaningful element of the movie that defined the reading of that movie. I've only seen it the discussion of it referenced and haven't seen the movie myself, but I'm thinking about Skyline in particular. This is all quite second hand but from what I understood SMG said the bad special effects in that movie were, put simply, a comment on bad special effects. Throw in some terms like hyper-reality and whatnot, but that's what it boiled down to for me. I see that, then I look at Avengers and wonder where the problem is. Well it sounds like you're aware that that poo poo was bunk, so why are you eager for people to start doing it again for The Avengers? I've given you a lot of potential outs here, but now it just sounds like you're mad people are ripping on this movie. To which the only answer is "offer an alternative or deal with it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I'll criticize just about any movie for not being Superman: The Movie. Superman came out like 35 years ago. Let it go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Ok. How about this, it failed to engage me because it wasn't entertaining. I mean, look. I went into why scenes didn't work for me, but overall, the drat summer superhero movie wasn't fun! I'm not an expect on film here. I know a bit here and there. I can dissect a little bit. But my gut tells me the movie was just bad. Guts aren't good for criticism, but thank Christ I'm not a critic, right? It's ok to not like a movie, but at a certain point to keep criticizing it for not being what it decidedly is not (your own idiosyncratic idea of how Superman/superheroes should be) becomes like criticizing this painting because its not a very good depiction of a snowy Winter scene:  It's not, because it isn't that at all. Grendels Dad posted:I'd have to dig through older threads but I'm fairly sure there are examples where an "obvious" cinematic flaw was constructed as a meaningful element of the movie that defined the reading of that movie. I've only seen it the discussion of it referenced and haven't seen the movie myself, but I'm thinking about Skyline in particular. This is all quite second hand but from what I understood SMG said the bad special effects in that movie were, put simply, a comment on bad special effects. Throw in some terms like hyper-reality and whatnot, but that's what it boiled down to for me. I see that, then I look at Avengers and wonder where the problem is. The difference is that the elements being criticized here from Avengers don't add up to anything, or at least I don't see any way to look at the film so that they do. I'd be happy to be told otherwise, but in this case instead of people defending the film from the criticisms we get people complaining about it being criticized. In the other cases you're referring to the idea is that the elements in question are no longer bad once we see how they contribute to a cohesive whole; something more than the sum of its parts. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Superman: The Movie gets a lot of mileage out of Christopher Reeve's charisma, but I don't get the adoration for it at all outside of people old enough to have nostalgia for when its effects were impressive. Real waste of Gene Hackman too.Barry Convex posted:Superman is one of the most iconic characters in the history of popular culture, and people are going to have opinions of how the character should be portrayed. I imagine a lot of people here will disagree with this, but I don't think any criticism founded on such opinions is invalid. I actually don't think many people are going to disagree with this. What people would disagree with is a claim that the quality of a movie is determined by its faithfulness to its source material. There's books that I absolutely love, and I would judge any adaptation on how well it performs the process of adapting, but I would distinguish that judgment from my judgment of the movie-as-a-movie. I like both Starship Troopers the book and the movie, even if I think the latter doesn't capture what makes the former interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
No such thing as a waste of Gene Hackman, because he never wasted roles even in crap where he shouldn't have bothered, like Heartbreakers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:becomes like criticizing this painting because its not a very good depiction of a Winter scene:
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:No such thing as a waste of Gene Hackman, because he never wasted roles even in crap where he shouldn't have bothered, like Heartbreakers. Except for Lex Luthor, where he certainly went for it, but in a direction I found completely unentertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Superman came out like 35 years ago. Let it go. When another superhero movie tops it, maybe I will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Blade is a better movie than Superman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Well it sounds like you're aware that that poo poo was bunk, so why are you eager for people to start doing it again for The Avengers? Lord Krangdar posted:The difference is that the elements being criticized here from Avengers don't add up to anything, or at least I don't see any way to look at the film so that they do. I'd be happy to be told otherwise, but in this case instead of people defending the film from the criticisms we get people complaining about it being criticized. In the other cases you're referring to the idea is that the elements in question are no longer bad once we see how they contribute to a cohesive whole; something more than the sum of its parts. To both of you I can only reply that my dissatisfaction lies with the claim that it doesn't add up to anything, because I don't see how any element in a movie that's so often repeated can not be relevant. But since I'm unable to produce a reading myself I do see how I'm basically just whining at this point, so I'll just bow out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Blade is a better movie than Superman. It's close, I'll give it that. Whether it's a superhero movie or not is a matter of some debate, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I mean, we can go onto semantics on the film, but I don't see how this example works. Because if theoretically the artist's intention was to make it a winter scene, he did a bad job at making me feel that way. Focusing on the artist's intention missed my point. It fails as a painting of a winter scene because its not a painting of a winter scene at all, just like Man of Steel fails at adapting your own idiosyncratic ideas for exactly how a Superman movie should be because its not an adaptation of them at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Except for Lex Luthor, where he certainly went for it, but in a direction I found completely unentertaining. Yeah, I mean it's like hack Borscht Belt jokes about a guy with a bad rug but he's game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Ok? But that still, once again, doesn't mean I have to like it. It didn't live up to what it I wanted it to be, and I don't like what it is. I've looked at it on all sides, and I see very little positive things in the film. I mean this argument isn't very good, but I do enjoy dissecting the little things about the film. So maybe we can just go to that. Also, GD, please stay. Even if people are getting a tad bit mad, I like where the discussion is kinda going.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:Blade is a better movie than Superman. Blade, Hulk, Darkman, The Rocketeer, Spider-Man 2, Dredd, Superman Returns, Man of Steel, 5/7 Batmen,... HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, I mean it's like hack Borscht Belt jokes about a guy with a bad rug but he's game. I certainly can't imagine someone else making that version of the character work better, so in that sense I'd agree he's not wasted. Just that if he's going to do blockbuster shlock, I'd take another The Poseidon Adventure over Superman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
I wish someone would do a vicious takedown of Romero's Dawn of the Dead. I'd be covered in sweat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Ok? But that still, once again, doesn't mean I have to like it. It didn't live up to what it I wanted it to be, and I don't like what it is. I've looked at it on all sides, and I see very little positive things in the film. I mean this argument isn't very good, but I do enjoy dissecting the little things about the film. So maybe we can just go to that. That's why my post began with "It's ok to not like a movie, but". You say you looked at it from all sides, but all the criticisms I've seen from you here focus on your fan-fiction ideal for the movie more than the actual movie itself, which again is not that at all anymore than the painting is of a winter scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:04
|
|