|
It's not genuine criticism. It's arbitrary and false. A movie has no motivation, and a scene is not defined as a method of immersion. e: Anyway, Jontron's videos seem to have strangely impressive production values. And he keeps to a comic persona all the way through. I like. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jul 27, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
People write motivation for the characters in order to keep the plot moving and keep the audience invested in the story. Without motivation everything feels aimless. Which is how the theatrical version felt. Bunch a scenes with no flow until somewhere in the middle when things started to come together. The UC is so much better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Alacron posted:We get it. Enough already. hours at the grindstone, and now my axe is so sharp as to be useless
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I was going to make a long post on NC's video, and then I realized it would be as rambling and aimless as his video. He references movies he doesn't get, and because he can't into movie analysis, comes to the conclusion that perceived flaws he can point out make for a more memorable movie, because being bad at certain areas of film making makes you more memorable, yeah. I'm not even going to touch how he assumed reception was meh for 1992 Dracula, the awards and critical reception does enough to show that Doug doesn't know what he's talking about. In short he makes movies out to be like the uncanny valley of memorability while also praising too much of the idea of subverting expectations. He could have learned from Every Frame A Painting and see exactly how much forethought and care a director can do, especially in the films he used. He could have just not made the video and just said that it didn't appeal to him for whatever reason. Instead he ends up with a weird thesis that having slight flaws in storytelling, is supposed to make the Crucible a more memorable and received film. Think about that for a second. He's basically taking the process of a stage performance, and saying that great movies do just that to be remembered more, with How the Grinch Stole Christmas as his example. Or how he said that a flawed run of Mario is better than a flawless run because suspense, in a video game where failure leads to the viewer having to watch the same motions repeatedly. As a viewer, I have no idea what he wants me to do during the video. It's just "what movies did you not get?" He could have just said "while I understand on both technical and writing level this film is good, it's just not for me." Instead he made an appeal to equate imperfections + good movie = memorable film. Annointed fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
I watch all of Doug's videos, and I think he is the smartest man ever, and I get all my opinions from him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Annointed posted:I was going to make a long post on NC's video, and then I realized it would be as rambling and aimless as his video. He references movies he doesn't get, and because he can't into movie analysis, comes to the conclusion that perceived flaws he can point out make for a more memorable movie, because being bad at certain areas of film making makes you more memorable, yeah. I'm not even going to touch how he assumed reception was meh for 1992 Dracula, the awards and critical reception does enough to show that Doug doesn't know what he's talking about. I still don't get that weird image you linked last page. How is the drug me? Also what's wrong with that girl? BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I watch all of Doug's videos, and I think he is the smartest man ever, and I get all my opinions from him. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:His criticism is based on arbitrarily redefining what a "scene" is. Admittedly he's a bit vague about how he distinguishes "moment" from "scene" in the text, but I think his visual examples of Moments (E.T. past the moon, Tom Cruise dancing) vs. Scenes (Phil Connors and Rita building a snowman, "How am I funny?" from Goodfellas) help flesh out his definitions better than his actual writing. I think a better way of defining it in text would be that a "moment" is something that would work well as a .gif, or in a trailer. A moment is something iconic, easily framed, easy to take out of context. Something done in-frame, or in post. A scene lasts longer. It's less about what the camera does than what's conveyed - what it says about character motivation and story. What he's saying is that Zack Snyder is better at making gifs than telling stories. He builds to the beautiful image of a woman's hand outstretched to Superman, backlit as he floats in front of the sun, evoking centuries of angelic iconography to deify the character. But he sucks at building an actual character around that icon. I'll add that I think the MCU has the opposite problem: it understands its characters well and knows how to build scenes with them, but don't have the visual flair and bold style choices that Snyder can do. But this all can be linked to a much larger discussion about what is and is not "cinematic." There's a long tradition in film criticism going back to the silent era about what makes a film uniquely cinematic; what an artist can do with film that's unique to film itself and not dependent on the strength of another medium. Critics would dismiss early silents as being too "stagey," that is, too dependent on the theatrical tradition and not reliant on editing, composition, lighting, and other things that are unique to the medium of film, e.g. Buster Keaton is a more "cinematic" director than Charlie Chaplin, because the former relied on form and space within the frame while the latter relied more on pantomime, a theatrical technique borrowed for film. This idea has carried on to today. There's a great video essay by Matt Zoller Seitz about what is and is not "cinematic television" which goes into depth on this idea. Link: http://www.vulture.com/2015/10/cinematic-tv-what-does-it-really-mean.html But what I fear I'm hinting at is oversimplifying his argument into "dialogue good, pretty visuals bad," which I don't want to do. I don't think this is one of the Nerdwriter's best videos, but I think I understand what he's getting at. He's lamenting that Zack Snyder is ultimately a slave to his own eye, and can't tell a story for much longer than 30 seconds at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
He is a brilliant mind. I love it when he disses Tarsem Singh for putting effort into his movies and defends Bee Movie and I dunno, what else has Doug said that made people angry? tbh I stopped watching years ago after the ex-TGWTG producers broke the story about him mismanaging things, someone else needs to make fun of people hatemasturbating to him, I don't know enough anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2qGwEIOkg I love Phelous reading Creepypastas with that goofy voice
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW2qGwEIOkg Out of all the stories, I find Jeff the most... dumb. So he got burnt and bleached from 80/90s era bullies... so he killed his family? Well ok, his mom had it coming but the dad who was in a sleepy stupor and didn't agree to getting his gun? The brother who took the fall for him and went to juvie? I cannot suspend my disbelief  E: And Phelan brought up good point: Hurry up and end already good lord BravestOfTheLamps posted:I still don't get that weird image you linked last page. How is the drug me? Also what's wrong with that girl? And where is the rest of it? Asking for a friend. Leal fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. Does anyone actually have that drawing of Doug going "why do people watch movies??" at hand? I don't feel like skimming back for it :v Annointed posted:I was going to make a long post on NC's video, and then I realized it would be as rambling and aimless as his video. He references movies he doesn't get, and because he can't into movie analysis, comes to the conclusion that perceived flaws he can point out make for a more memorable movie, because being bad at certain areas of film making makes you more memorable, yeah. I'm not even going to touch how he assumed reception was meh for 1992 Dracula, the awards and critical reception does enough to show that Doug doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll put in my own two cents as well or my take on it. It's just the shittiest way to put that actual thing and who the gently caress even comes up with the question "Can a movie be so good it's bad?" Like, I -vaguely- see where he might be coming from. For me Come and See is an absolutely amazing film but it's incredibly hard for me to watch with how realistic the portrayal of war is in it, especially since it's happening to a thirteen year old boy (might be off on the age slightly). But that doesn't mean it's "bad", the correct question is more along the lines "Can a film be so good that it's difficult to watch?" or "Can the hype of a film reduce your enjoyment?" For my latter question it's easy to hear people always say that X movie or Y show is SO loving GOOD AND YOU NEED TO WATCH IT RIGHT NOW and when you do it might not click with you as much as it seems to for everyone else, leaving you feeling somewhat empty or as thought you're missing something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Jeremy Jahns said in thirty seconds what Doug took fifteen minutes to say. In Jahns's Sicario review, he explains that he thinks Sicario is an excellent film, superbly shot and acted, and he probably won't watch it again. It's a film that is terrific from all standpoints, but it's not exactly an entertaining film (but it is entertaining) that you could just pop in at any time and have a good evening. You can judge a film by how good it is, or how entertaining it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Jesus Christ. Does anyone actually have that drawing of Doug going "why do people watch movies??" at hand? I don't feel like skimming back for it :v You know, that could have been what he was going for, films that go for more than just mere genre fiction and how expectations influence your initial enjoyment of a film. But then he goes "chink in the armor for human element" and all I can think of is what the gently caress does that even mean? Is he insinuating that well crafted movies are inherently inhuman? Again if he was talking about stageplays or such I can see that. But he doesn't and his video despite being 8 ish minutes just rambles. Like he does say both things of hype, but again his examples in the end are so vague in how he expresses his feelings regarding the films, it really feels like he just put this up on a single take on the first rough draft, then added some clips. Honestly looking at it again, I honestly think he should have just written some essays on each of those films to properly articulate his feelings regarding the works. That way he doesn't have to worry about crunching things up for views and instead try to organize his thoughts. The essays in turn would at least offer some insight into what things he values in a film, and at the very least would be a good writing exercise for him to express why these films don't personally resonate with him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Corek posted:https://twitter.com/jonny_is_good/status/758280996009615360  Well... Tracula posted:It's just the shittiest way to put that actual thing and who the gently caress even comes up with the question "Can a movie be so good it's bad?" Like, I -vaguely- see where he might be coming from. For me Come and See is an absolutely amazing film but it's incredibly hard for me to watch with how realistic the portrayal of war is in it, especially since it's happening to a thirteen year old boy (might be off on the age slightly). But that doesn't mean it's "bad", the correct question is more along the lines "Can a film be so good that it's difficult to watch?" or "Can the hype of a film reduce your enjoyment?" For my latter question it's easy to hear people always say that X movie or Y show is SO loving GOOD AND YOU NEED TO WATCH IT RIGHT NOW and when you do it might not click with you as much as it seems to for everyone else, leaving you feeling somewhat empty or as thought you're missing something. The only thing I can think of where I had a similar feeling was with Portal 2. While going through it, I remember thinking something similar to what Doug's putting forth. There wasn't anything really egregiously wrong with the game, but there was something about it that put me off. I don't think it's 'so good, it's bad' or 'too perfect', but there was something about the game that felt overly calculated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Annointed posted:Honestly looking at it again, I honestly think he should have just written some essays on each of those films to properly articulate his feelings regarding the works. That way he doesn't have to worry about crunching things up for views and instead try to organize his thoughts. The essays in turn would at least offer some insight into what things he values in a film, and at the very least would be a good writing exercise for him to express why these films don't personally resonate with him. He actually did that a while ago. I wanna say he did a top 10 movies everyone else loves but I don't. Max Wilco posted:
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but by "overly calculated" could you possibly have felt it was pandering or trying to hard? Like Portal 1 was something special out of left field but perhaps the whole thing with the writing in 2 is they had to know some of it would become memes (potato, lemon grenades, etc). Or maybe they knew the demographic and they were marketing too hard at some people so it didn't click with you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Tracula posted:He actually did that a while ago. I wanna say he did a top 10 movies everyone else loves but I don't. He did, he also followed it up with a top 10 of films he likes but most people apparently don't, all I can remember from that video was that he included X-Men 3 in the list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozuk6aeWpXk
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:
https://twitter.com/PissPigGranddad/status/758356340989308928 America The Beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Maybe I'm reading this wrong but by "overly calculated" could you possibly have felt it was pandering or trying to hard? Like Portal 1 was something special out of left field but perhaps the whole thing with the writing in 2 is they had to know some of it would become memes (potato, lemon grenades, etc). Or maybe they knew the demographic and they were marketing too hard at some people so it didn't click with you? Some of that extends into the gameplay as well. Partly due to Portal 2 being more story-focused and partly due to Valve's relentless playtesting which often leads to weird outcomes. (Matthewmatosis' very first video did a pretty good job of laying out a lot why Portal 2 felt off.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Jeremy Jahns said in thirty seconds what Doug took fifteen minutes to say. In Jahns's Sicario review, he explains that he thinks Sicario is an excellent film, superbly shot and acted, and he probably won't watch it again. It's a film that is terrific from all standpoints, but it's not exactly an entertaining film (but it is entertaining) that you could just pop in at any time and have a good evening. You can judge a film by how good it is, or how entertaining it is. Yeah, Sicario is an amazing movie but I don't see myself rewatching it much, because it isn't an easy movie to watch. It's a slow burn, it's deliberately unpleasant on a very deep realistic level and asks some tough questions that you probably don't want the answers to. Which is all fine. Movies don't need to have "replay value" all the time. Max Wilco posted:The only thing I can think of where I had a similar feeling was with Portal 2. While going through it, I remember thinking something similar to what Doug's putting forth. There wasn't anything really egregiously wrong with the game, but there was something about it that put me off. I don't think it's 'so good, it's bad' or 'too perfect', but there was something about the game that felt overly calculated. Here's my shot at this, did it feel like the game was bloated, going too over-the-top with the production elements? Portal 1 had a decidedly indie, minimalist feel with pretty much all the fat trimmed out. The story was told in a simple and charming manner and there was little getting in the way with puzzle-solving. It can be a bit off-putting, then, when Portal 2 begins with a scripted roller-coaster ride through an elaborate envronment filled with physics objects and environmental destruction. Big point though, is that "so good it's bad" isn't a thing. If a well-made movie isn't good, it's either just not your thing or there are actually flaws in that well-made movie that could hurt one's experience even if they can't put their finger on what the exact problem is. Augus fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
I Before E posted:https://twitter.com/PissPigGranddad/status/758356340989308928 For a good while Devin was one of my favorite writers. I loved his think pieces. They opened my eyes quite a bit examining other opinions and ideas I never thought of. On a whole that site did a lot of good for me in terms of getting a better grasp at our diversity problem, and how good of a thing it is to be more diverse and open. However, after awhile he started acting like an unruly rear end in a top hat about everything that I would say it almost negates his opinions entirely? And that whole site just functions as a big ol echo chamber, and anyone who comes in with a different opinion gets shot down real quick. Most of the time it's just someone defending a film or a argument that the article was about, and it's just disheartening. I'm all for a more diverse film scene. I want more progressive movements. But the way he presents these opinions sometimes just seems to ruin the message. Hate to bring up the dreaded Gamergate, but hey I get being angry about that whole thing. A lot of it was disheartening. But you don't compare a bunch of idiot garbage nerds to loving ISIS. That's just...what the gently caress. Still like his site though. There's still some good articles posted from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Maybe I'm reading this wrong but by "overly calculated" could you possibly have felt it was pandering or trying to hard? Like Portal 1 was something special out of left field but perhaps the whole thing with the writing in 2 is they had to know some of it would become memes (potato, lemon grenades, etc). Or maybe they knew the demographic and they were marketing too hard at some people so it didn't click with you? John Murdoch posted:Some of that extends into the gameplay as well. Partly due to Portal 2 being more story-focused and partly due to Valve's relentless playtesting which often leads to weird outcomes. Yeah, I referring to gameplay, but that is applicable to the writing as well. Augus posted:Here's my shot at this, did it feel like the game was bloated, going too over-the-top with the production elements? Portal 1 had a decidedly indie, minimalist feel with pretty much all the fat trimmed out. The story was told in a simple and charming manner and there was little getting in the way with puzzle-solving. It can be a bit off-putting, then, when Portal 2 begins with a scripted roller-coaster ride through an elaborate envronment filled with physics objects and environmental destruction. The sentiment didn't really occur to me at first. It happened sometime around the part where you're in the basement labs. It wasn't a feeling of bloat, necessarily. It's more akin to what John Murdoch said in regards to Valve and their play-testing. There's a commentary bit in Half Life 2: Episode 2 where one of the devs talk about a tester who walked in a loop in the Antlion caves for a half-hour, and thus, they altered it so that players wouldn't be able to get lost. I guess I would say there's something very direct about it, but I'm not sure if that's accurate. I'll have to Matthewmatosis's video a watch. Max Wilco fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Sorry for the double post. Meant to hit 'Edit' instead of 'Quote'.
Max Wilco fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:The only thing I can think of where I had a similar feeling was with Portal 2. While going through it, I remember thinking something similar to what Doug's putting forth. There wasn't anything really egregiously wrong with the game, but there was something about it that put me off. I don't think it's 'so good, it's bad' or 'too perfect', but there was something about the game that felt overly calculated. I would say maybe "inorganic" is another term to describe what you mean. Portal 2, even though I really like it, had this sense of trying to replicate what they struck gold with multiple times, only not as naturally. They saw what worked and caught fire then pressed more out but BIGGER with more CANON. It's hard for me to describe but it's filled with "little touches" that people would obviously notice and think are special and subtle. It's the same kind of thing that made me quit giving a drat about the Disney/Marvel flicks after Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Oh ok I woke up and I still can't get over that lovely Ren and Stimpy video: He more or less shits on the idea of stiff animation with links it to Hanna Barbera toons and outsourcing to Korea made it lose life. As much he sucks John K's dick over that, he managed to poo poo all over the fact that he was rather pressing on making workable, decent ref sheets for the animators to work with. It's why the Drive Car episode of the Clerks cartoon was an extension of that feeling, solely blaming teams that were handled stiff and hard to work with moment references and going "Haw! Koreans are loving subnormal" if you watch the commentary of that scene and got animation insiders to go "Wow gently caress Kevin Smith" John K was aware of stuff like that and he can be forgiving of stiffness and "lifelenessness" to the point he praised stuff like Roger Ramjet and some rather subpar anime as well on his blog. And the list of grievances with it just keeps growing on my head just by simply recollecting poo poo one knows about John K. Jesus This guy makes Doug Walker looks like a genius.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Jesus Christ. Does anyone actually have that drawing of Doug going "why do people watch movies??" at hand? I don't feel like skimming back for it :v an editorial by the Walker Bros 
MrSlam fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
KKall posted:But what I fear I'm hinting at is oversimplifying his argument into "dialogue good, pretty visuals bad," which I don't want to do. I don't think this is one of the Nerdwriter's best videos, but I think I understand what he's getting at. He's lamenting that Zack Snyder is ultimately a slave to his own eye, and can't tell a story for much longer than 30 seconds at a time. Zack Snyder is perfectly capable of telling stories and characterization - people have simply decided that he cannot. You can simply see this thread, where one poster claimed that there can be no meaning in Zack Snyder films because he knows that Zack Snyder cannot put meaning into films. Thus the spectacle of people debating the story of philosophy of MoS and BvS while claiming that they're terrible and vacuous. BvS is the only comic book movie with a dedicated GBS thread, while the supposedly superior Civil War has been forgotten. It's like the Star Wars prequels: despite insistence that they're terrible mistakes and the worst, discussion continues to put them on a pedestal. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Zack Snyder is perfectly capable of telling stories and characterization - people have simply decided that he cannot. You can simply see this thread, where one poster claimed that there can be no meaning in Zack Snyder films because he knows that Zack Snyder cannot put meaning into films. That's an awfully strange metric you've got here. If amount of discussion equals worth then  must mean that the Nazi's and the Holocaust were mankind's greatest achievements. Rivalled only by the faking of the moon landings, slavery and Bush personally committing 9/11.And of course the greatest question that mankind has wrestled with since the dawn of time... Kirk or Picard? Oh and the greatest mathematical conundrum of all time would involve Douglas Adams and the number 42. Baka-nin fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
*slide-whistles out of thread*
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Zack Snyder is perfectly capable of telling stories and characterization - people have simply decided that he cannot. You can simply see this thread, where one poster claimed that there can be no meaning in Zack Snyder films because he knows that Zack Snyder cannot put meaning into films. I agree with you that a lot of people have put forth terrible, bad faith arguments on the matter of BvS, MoS, the Prequels and more. Watching people muddy up legit discussion with a half-baked attempt at being MR. FUNNY ONE-LINER is terribly annoying. That said, is your only response to his point REALLY going to be "Others are arguing in bad faith" and "People are still talking about it in GBS"? Are you not going to address his rebuttal to your insinuation that the subject's use of the term "moment" and "scene" is too vague? I have to say, I do see that sentiment often on the discussion of Snyder, and from varied sources. Often enough that at the very least it appears a lot of people struggle to connect to Snyder's films through the dissonance of these small, visually stunning moments (following the definition KKall presented, for this discussion) and the rest of the script. That is something the constant debating says to me. I want to say that I can understand where you're coming from but the way you have been picking and choosing what to respond to in people's posts, and for this matter that it appears you are avoiding addressing KKall's points at all, just makes me think you aren't interested in an actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
i am tim! posted:Often enough that at the very least it appears a lot of people struggle to connect to Snyder's films through the dissonance of these small, visually stunning moments (following the definition KKall presented, for this discussion) and the rest of the script. That is something the constant debating says to me. Nedwrtier seems to be accurate in that the backlash boils down to a lack of immersion in the movies. His definition of a scene is "the generation of immersion", and the lack of "immersive scenes" stops people from enjoying them. Thing is, immersion is really, really overrated. It's not what's attractive about movies. I watched Hidden Fortress right now, and at no point was I immersed in it, because I was constantly kept aware of the movie's artifice by the skillful cinematography and composition. This is why I summed up Nerdwriter's criticism of Snyder as that he doesn't deceive. He defines quality in cinema as convincing lies. In truth, awareness of artifice is actually good. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
I Before E posted:https://twitter.com/PissPigGranddad/status/758356340989308928 How do you contextualize twitter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Nedwrtier seems to be accurate in that the backlash boils down to a lack of immersion in the movies. His definition of a scene is "the generation of immersion" which stops people from enjoying them. To be aware of the falsehood and factor that into a reading of the thing itself is the path to developing a reading. That's what makes films like MoS hold up, while Iron Man just becomes murky. MoS shows you a propaganda piece about how great Krypton was, but the viewer has the knowledge that Krypton's golden age lead directly into a recession to stupidity. Their empire-building, colonialist ideals destroyed them. It's engaging because you're discerning the truth from within in a lie. You're learning about Krypton based on how it lies about its history. Iron Man insists that, no really, Tony Stark feels bad about being an arms dealer, and he's a good guy now we promise, he is pioneering world peace with his privately-owned death machines. The possibility that maybe Iron Man is a bad idea is never addressed beyond 'no, that's the bad guy iron mans and their ethnic terrorist friends. Tony is a superhero.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
He's written some decent stuff over the years, but Faraci's always been a hypocritical bully and hilariously thin-skinned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Nedwrtier seems to be accurate in that the backlash boils down to a lack of immersion in the movies. His definition of a scene is "the generation of immersion" which stops people from enjoying them. Well, I can certainly appreciate where you're coming from there. A lot of the movies that I love for the cinematography I am also keenly aware that it's structured and am totally not immersed. That said, I don't believe it's an either-or situation. Awareness of artifice is certainly good, especially if the artifice is itself beautiful, but becoming lost in the illusion can evoke wondrous beauty if the illusionist is skilled enough. The human brain is powerfully good at filling in gaps, and manipulating that in such mediums of entertainment is also a good thing. I suppose if we're trying to evaluate a film wherein the artifice is the spectacle on the merits of how immersive it is would be more of a misfire than a criticism. That said, is the matter of the moments being dissonant with the scene one of Immersion, or simply raw disappointment with the spectacle being unaligned with the script? The product has to be taken as a whole, and I know I'm disappointed when my hotdog is served with ketchup on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:Yeah, I referring to gameplay, but that is applicable to the writing as well. It's honestly pretty strange in Portal 2 because for all the hand-holding it does (including accepting either portal as valid for scripted sequences like the climax), there's a handful of puzzles in there that I thought were really poorly designed. HL2: Episode 2 was actually where I first noticed Valve's design sensibilities really dipping. That game sometimes felt more like a series of gimmicks occasionally broken up by shooting gameplay rather than the other way around. Frankly there's a ton of little things about Portal 2 and Valve that I could obsessively go into, all of which may have had an impact on how it turned out. John Murdoch fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Portal 2 still frustrates the hell out of me whenever I want to change some visual or control settings, because the tooltips constantly treat me like I'm five loving years old. Yes Valve, changing the shader quality will improve visuals, you don't need to throw up the tooltip every single time I touch the button. And for gently caress's sake, it's been years since you patched the game last and you still haven't fixed the specular map bug that makes all the wet surfaces in the cave sections look like rear end. I'd say that the design sensibilities of Valve haven't really changed all that much, but that their bugfixing and patching quality has tanked as years go by. There are some changes they made to core gameplay elements in Half Life 2 that I really don't like. Around the time they updated HL2 and Episode 1 to the Episode 2 engine, they for whatever reason decided to change the dune buggy physics to that of the Episode 2 Muscle Car. This had the side effect of making the dune buggy slower and way more sluggish, which in turn made the moment where you play chicken with a train loving impossible to complete. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Portal 2 is a pretty solid game. A few of the sections in Old Aperture drag, largely because of the areas being too large and directionless, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it when I went back and replayed it. Anyway Valve is never going to make another game, so there's no point in worrying about their design sensibilities degenerating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
John Murdoch posted:(Matthewmatosis' very first video did a pretty good job of laying out a lot why Portal 2 felt off.) Once he started bellyaching about the story in a Portal game not taking itself seriously enough I kinda was done with it. Especially since the inclusion of a character like Cave Johnson should tell people what the game's story is trying to be, not what they wanted it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 16:35
|
|
