|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Jan 3, 2011 15:29:33 GMT -5
If we talk amateur reviews, well, I think that snark and anger are hideously overdone. No particular statement, just the general tone.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 3, 2011 15:39:02 GMT -5
Mine isn't really a statement, but one thing I really, really hate in online reviews is when reviewers think stringing together expletives or the like constitutes a joke. It doesn't. I understand your point and agree with a lot of what you said (hell, I think the airplane scene of Superman Returns is one of the best things on film in a long, long time), but disagree with that sentence. The spectacle aspect of it has sold a lot of movies and drawn audiences to movies that probably wouldn't be drawn to that genre. That's a large part of what makes the stereotypical summer action movie so big, and you hear a phrase along the lines of "this is the type of movie you just turn your brain off and enjoy" or "just enjoy the movie for what it is and don't try to analyze it" so often with these types of movies that it's a tired cliche. Sure, an explosion in the trailer doesn't mean people will flock to a movie, but it's still possible for a movie whose biggest attraction by far is the special effects to be sold on that basis. I dunno...I think the days of films that were just explosions and special effects are long gone. Even The Expendables had it's own portion of exposition and character (not much, but it was there). Compare that with some old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, or Invasion USA. The only real plot thread to those was something like "BOOM!! BAMM! Bad pun/kickass one liner." I think today, we've become a little bit spoiled when we say films just rely on those aspects rather than telling a good story. I'm not suggesting films like Transformers have some deep resonance or anything (they don't), just that there is quite a bit more substance these days. When compared with a great many summer blockbusters of yesteryear, today's "turn your brain off and enjoy" films are sometimes Oscar-worthy. EDIT: Just want to mention that I still love old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, and Invasion USA. Even if more movies have exposition, though, I don't think they are sold on that, which is the point I'm making. It's usually just a bare bones plot and a fifteen minute speech as opposed to footage of Arnold shooting randomly and killing henchmen. They're not that level of ridiculous seen in older movies, but that's still really what people go watch a lot of movies for, not for the substance in them. If movie goers were going to see movies based on story elements, then the big-budget action flicks wouldn't be the highest grossing movies every year. I still think that the style is what draws people to the movies far more than the small amount of substance that gets put in, and if you removed the attempts at substance, people would still flock to them. So I think the statement that movies haven't been sold on special effects for a long time isn't really accurate. They're sold on it every year, even if movie makers try to make the claim that it's deeper than that.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 3, 2011 15:45:16 GMT -5
I dunno...I think the days of films that were just explosions and special effects are long gone. Even The Expendables had it's own portion of exposition and character (not much, but it was there). Compare that with some old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, or Invasion USA. The only real plot thread to those was something like "BOOM!! BAMM! Bad pun/kickass one liner." I think today, we've become a little bit spoiled when we say films just rely on those aspects rather than telling a good story. I'm not suggesting films like Transformers have some deep resonance or anything (they don't), just that there is quite a bit more substance these days. When compared with a great many summer blockbusters of yesteryear, today's "turn your brain off and enjoy" films are sometimes Oscar-worthy. EDIT: Just want to mention that I still love old 80's flicks like Rambo II, Commando, and Invasion USA. Even if more movies have exposition, though, I don't think they are sold on that, which is the point I'm making. It's usually just a bare bones plot and a fifteen minute speech as opposed to footage of Arnold shooting randomly and killing henchmen. They're not that level of ridiculous seen in older movies, but that's still really what people go watch a lot of movies for, not for the substance in them. If movie goers were going to see movies based on story elements, then the big-budget action flicks wouldn't be the highest grossing movies every year. I still think that the style is what draws people to the movies far more than the small amount of substance that gets put in, and if you removed the attempts at substance, people would still flock to them. So I think the statement that movies haven't been sold on special effects for a long time isn't really accurate. They're sold on it every year, even if movie makers try to make the claim that it's deeper than that. I still disagree. I don't think a film like Commando would do well at all with today's audiences. They may not demand much, but today's viewers tend to prefer stories with a bit more substance. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting they're looking for everything to be deep and inciteful, but they want a little bit more in their characters than biceps and one-liners.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jan 3, 2011 15:57:53 GMT -5
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting they're looking for everything to be deep and inciteful, but they want a little bit more in their characters than biceps and one-liners. The fan interaction that the internet provides probably contributes to the more cynical audience we have nowadays. Ideas and opinions are shared, and from there a different outlook has evolved. Hell, there's even a website dedicated to noting various conventions in fiction, which I consider a product of the times. On the downside, it's also led to a lot of style-over-substance snarky reviews. The problem with amateur critics by and large is that they're more focused on being entertaining than informative, leading to negativity becoming so dominate as they want to come up with the funniest burn rather than actually point out a work's flaws.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 3, 2011 16:03:58 GMT -5
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting they're looking for everything to be deep and inciteful, but they want a little bit more in their characters than biceps and one-liners. The fan interaction that the internet provides probably contributes to the more cynical audience we have nowadays. Ideas and opinions are shared, and from there a different outlook has evolved. Hell, there's even a website dedicated to noting various conventions in fiction, which I consider a product of the times. On the downside, it's also led to a lot of style-over-substance snarky reviews. The problem with amateur critics by and large is that they're more focused on being entertaining than informative, leading to negativity becoming so dominate as they want to come up with the funniest burn rather than actually point out a work's flaws. I agree. Roger Ebert remains one of my favorite critics out there. For one thing, I almost always agree with his opinions on films. However, when I don't, at least I feel like his arguments make sense. I can actually say, "I don't agree with you Roger, but good point." He also won me over by verbally pwning Rob Schneider when Rob used to bitch and moan about critics ragging on his work.
|
|
|
Post by laughytaffy on Jan 3, 2011 18:29:39 GMT -5
Video game reviewers that shit on games like Samurai Warriors 3 for being "the same thing over and over again" when it's the exact same for games like Madden and Halo, and those games get great scores. Leads me to believe there's some serious lobbying going on.
|
|
|
Post by N E O G E O B O Y S on Jan 3, 2011 19:28:16 GMT -5
It's 2D
Seriously, f*** all northamerican videogames news magazines and websites, they lots of times put 'it's 2D so it's bad'' but if you use 3D models in a side scroller enviroment and said ''it's good cause it's 2D''
Also I don't get who HD remix sprites were good while other games with way better sprites and animation were bad, seriously, I prefer to use the old super turbo sprites to play HD remix instead of the new ones
Seriously, like the poster above said, the lobbying in those sites is f***ing horrible, thanks god I learned to not read those magazines and trust more in opinions from forums
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 3, 2011 20:27:45 GMT -5
Whenever I see a young reviewers's "best movies of all time list" and it goes something like this:
10. Transformers 9. Iron Man 8. SAW 7. Spider-man 2 6. Nightmare on Elmstreet (remake) 5. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World 4. Inception 3. Dark Knight 2. Cloverfield 1. Citizen Kaine.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.
Now, let me make it clear that I think Citizen Kaine is one of the most overrated movies of all time...BUT I honestly do respect the opinions people who truly think it's the greatest movie ever crafted by man or god. However, reviewers with lists such as the above I almost guarentee have NEVER seen the movie, and simply put it up for some "credibility."
Such conversations with reviewers like this, typically go as follows:
Me: Oh, you're ANOTHER huge fan of Citizen Kaine, huh? I never cared for that movie, but it's cool you like it. Who was your favorite character!
Reviewer: Why, Kaine of course!!!
Me: Right....the guy the movie is named after...well besides him, who else did you like...
Reviewer: Uh............
Me: Ok, ok...maybe you've only seen the movie a few times or maybe it's been a while since you've seen it...what are some of your favorite lines from the movie!
Reviewer: ROSEBUD!!!
Me: Uh huh...so, the line that is the most quoted and parodied in other movies, cartoons, comics, books, magazines, and television shows. What other lines did you like?
Reviewer: Goldenbane, you jackass, the movie isn't great because of characters or dialogue, it's great because of camera shots, special effects, lighting techniques and so forth! It was really ahead of it's time thanks to those things!
Me: Oh, ok...you're right, I guess. So what was your favorite shot in the movie?
Reviewer: The one that's a close-up of his mouth saying "ROSEBUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Me: You're full of shit, dude. You've never seen this movie, you're just saying it's great because so many "legitiment" reviewers say it's great. Try either watching more movies, or maybe finding out what YOU think really makes a good movie before you make a list like this, and put a film like Citizen Kaine on it.
|
|
darthalexander
Hank Scorpio
I have a feeling I may end up getting banned soon.
Posts: 7,030
|
Post by darthalexander on Jan 4, 2011 7:50:18 GMT -5
Commando would probably bomb today because the studios would cut it down to a PG-13 and take away any charm that it had. I loved the senseless violence of my 80s action films.
|
|
|
Post by Chronos on Jan 4, 2011 11:18:20 GMT -5
" God of War ripoff" 9 times out of 10, I will stop reading a review after this. GameInformer loves this phrase. A bit rich because God of War is itself a ripoff of both Resident Evil 4s (the actual RE4 and Devil May Cry, which started development as Resident Evil 4). A good ripoff, but still. "Professional" videogame reviews in general are horrible, I think. From "humor" that would make seven-year-olds groan in embarrassment, to reviewers obviously having played the game for only 20 or so minutes and lowballing it (or giving a game a bad score because they sucked at it), to spending most of the review putting themselves over as Jesus reincarnate just because they're playing a "hard" game, game reviews just need a lot of work. It's sad that the good reviewers are seemingly the exception and not the rule. EDIT: Video game reviewers that s*** on games like Samurai Warriors 3 for being "the same thing over and over again" when it's the exact same for games like Madden and Halo, and those games get great scores. Leads me to believe there's some serious lobbying going on. This too. I've actually read a magazine where the editors brag about their payola, albeit somewhat indirectly.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Jan 4, 2011 13:01:13 GMT -5
Any time some reviewer has to piss all over people for liking the thing he hates. (i.e. "If you enjoy Dinner for Schmucks, consider yourself a freakin' idiot.")
|
|