|
Post by James Fabiano on Feb 3, 2021 10:43:51 GMT -5
...but does that opinion hold up today?
I was thinking of this in light of Cloris Leachman's passing...how me and my friend strongly disliked her for replacing Charlotte Rae on Facts of Life. Having not watched the show in a long while, I now wonder...was Cloris/Beverly Ann THAT bad? Or was she a solid character/performance yet we were turning a blind eye cause it wasn't Mrs. Garrett?
I wondered this too about the Christmas Story "sequels" from the 80s and 90s. Were they bad movies? Or did I not want to give them a chance cause they weren't Peter Billingsley and the original gang? (certainly they have to be better than ACS's "real" sequel)
Did you have any moments like this of your own? If so how did they work out?
|
|
|
Post by dirtyoldman on Feb 3, 2021 10:59:53 GMT -5
Halloween 3 for a lot of people. There was no michael myers so it was shit. Although there are a strong minority like myself who thinks it's a great flick.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,749
|
Post by hassanchop on Feb 3, 2021 11:02:13 GMT -5
What about Z?
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Feb 3, 2021 11:12:13 GMT -5
It kind of depends on what we're talking about.
If I'm really into a game series and the next entry is advertised as a continuation of that, but ends up being an entirely different genre style for most of the play time, then yeah I'm going to likely not going to care for it because that's not why I'm into the franchise. While judging Star Craft 2 because its nothing like Mario 64 would be ridiculous, it does strike me as a bit more fair to see Nuts and Bolts as lacking because it has the characters and setting but not gameplay of Banjo-Kazooie.
Now I know that the argument is that you should judge media for what it is, not for what you want it to be, that gets a little tricky to do when certain examples are so dependent on tying into a series broader elements that examining what it fails to be becomes almost inevitable. Its been said that its unfair to judge Federation Force just because its not a mainline Metroid game, yet its prominence is entirely due to the association with the franchise in question, so is it not unreasonable expect the game to add something of value or evolution to the series?
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,076
|
Post by Spider2024 on Feb 3, 2021 11:22:36 GMT -5
She wasn't Rachel.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Posts: 38,560
|
Post by fw91 on Feb 3, 2021 12:56:18 GMT -5
The recent American Pie series spinoff "Girls Rule." It's a fine, harmless little movie if it didn't have the American Pie tag on it. Nothing about it resembles the feeling or raunch of an American Pie movie and it has nothing to do it centering around girls. Plus no Eugene Levy.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Feb 3, 2021 12:58:59 GMT -5
I didn't like Mr. Perfect in Survivor Series 92 because it wasn't the Ultimate Warrior.
Besides I never, ever bought him as a face.
--- I didn't like the Raiden character in Mortal Kombat Annihilation because it wasn't Christopher Lambert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 13:08:20 GMT -5
The one that comes right to mind here is Jon Lovitz on NewsRadio.
The show took a massive drop after Phil Hartman was killed; it was basically made for him in the first place. And perhaps for the best it should've ended after that first episode of season 4, but Lovitz was......not lousy. His intentions for being there (to honor one of his best friends) were noble and the show itself was still funny (and it sorta holds up). Alas, NewsRadio wasn't....as funny after Phil, and even back then you knew you weren't watching the show that could have been.
The other one that comes to mind is Josh Meyers replacing Topher Grace on That 70's Show, and yeah Randy still f***ing sucks.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,219
|
Post by Push R Truth on Feb 3, 2021 13:09:49 GMT -5
I hated Rey Mysterio coming out at 30 in that one Royal Rumble because he wasn't Daniel Bryan. In retrospect it made zero sense. But in the moment, many thousands of people felt exactly the same way.
My nephew hates Smash Brothers Ultimate because it doesn't have Waluigi. He has every Smash Brothers including Ultimate, but won't play it because that singular reason. Why? It's like not the previous ones have Waluigi. It's not like they said "Waluigi is playable" and then he wasn't. He just got caught up in the strange craze of "I hate X because of Y." And Y is like it's randomly plucked from the stars.
It's like "I hate Wendy's because I can't get a spaghetti sandwich!" Well no shit sir, this is a Wendy's.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 3, 2021 13:22:28 GMT -5
I wonder about this sometimes when people see a movie or show based on a property they like (say a comic, a video game, a book, etc.) and when they react poorly to something or some character being changed.
Like, I fully understand feeling disappointed when you're hoping to see a character you like depicted a certain way in an adaptation but it turns out the writers or performers had different ideas in mind, but I've never liked "It wasn't like the original!" as a reason to think an adaptation is bad, per se. As long as the adaptation does something interesting, puts together a solid story and something compelling for the audience to follow, then I'm ok with all kinds of changes being made.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the changes are automatically good, either; sometimes changes lead to unfocused storytelling and uneven characterization, ala what happened to the Snyderverse Superman depictions. But those movies were bad because, again, the storytelling was unfocused and the characters were inconsistent, not because "this isn't MY Superman!" in a vacuum.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,219
|
Post by Push R Truth on Feb 3, 2021 13:29:38 GMT -5
I wonder about this sometimes when people see a movie or show based on a property they like (say a comic, a video game, a book, etc.) and when they react poorly to something or some character being changed. Like, I fully understand feeling disappointed when you're hoping to see a character you like depicted a certain way in an adaptation but it turns out the writers or performers had different ideas in mind, but I've never liked "It wasn't like the original!" as a reason to think an adaptation is bad, per se. As long as the adaptation does something interesting, puts together a solid story and something compelling for the audience to follow, then I'm ok with all kinds of changes being made. Of course, that doesn't mean that the changes are automatically good, either; sometimes changes lead to unfocused storytelling and uneven characterization, ala what happened to the Snyderverse Superman depictions. But those movies were bad because, again, the storytelling was unfocused and the characters were inconsistent, not because "this isn't MY Superman!" in a vacuum. That's how I always felt about Godzilla 98. It doesn't suck because Godzilla was a CGI giant iguana instead of a man-in-a-suit radioactive beast from hell. It sucked because most everything else about the movie sucked. Except the marketing. Holy shit did that movie rock in the marketing department. Literally everybody knew it was coming.
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Feb 3, 2021 13:41:59 GMT -5
I wonder about this sometimes when people see a movie or show based on a property they like (say a comic, a video game, a book, etc.) and when they react poorly to something or some character being changed. Like, I fully understand feeling disappointed when you're hoping to see a character you like depicted a certain way in an adaptation but it turns out the writers or performers had different ideas in mind, but I've never liked "It wasn't like the original!" as a reason to think an adaptation is bad, per se. As long as the adaptation does something interesting, puts together a solid story and something compelling for the audience to follow, then I'm ok with all kinds of changes being made. Of course, that doesn't mean that the changes are automatically good, either; sometimes changes lead to unfocused storytelling and uneven characterization, ala what happened to the Snyderverse Superman depictions. But those movies were bad because, again, the storytelling was unfocused and the characters were inconsistent, not because "this isn't MY Superman!" in a vacuum. Its one of those scenarios where one should have an open mind, but also with the stance that a version should no more be inherently embraced because its different any more than it should be outright rejected. For example, James Kirk's characterization in the first two Kelvin Star Trek movies is not something I dislike because its different; its one I dislike because it renders him unlikable, uninteresting, and ill suited to the role the story puts him in. By contrast his presentation in Star Trek Beyond is still a contrast to Shatners, yet I like that a lot more because he was rendered as someone who felt like he fit as Captain of the Enterprise and he was given genuine depth by the movie. Joker has radically different takes by Nicholson, Hamill, Ledger, & Phoenix yet they all have value to me because of the work by the performances and writers that are emphasizing different aspects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2021 13:48:05 GMT -5
I wonder about this sometimes when people see a movie or show based on a property they like (say a comic, a video game, a book, etc.) and when they react poorly to something or some character being changed. Like, I fully understand feeling disappointed when you're hoping to see a character you like depicted a certain way in an adaptation but it turns out the writers or performers had different ideas in mind, but I've never liked "It wasn't like the original!" as a reason to think an adaptation is bad, per se. As long as the adaptation does something interesting, puts together a solid story and something compelling for the audience to follow, then I'm ok with all kinds of changes being made. Of course, that doesn't mean that the changes are automatically good, either; sometimes changes lead to unfocused storytelling and uneven characterization, ala what happened to the Snyderverse Superman depictions. But those movies were bad because, again, the storytelling was unfocused and the characters were inconsistent, not because "this isn't MY Superman!" in a vacuum. That's how I always felt about Godzilla 98. It doesn't suck because Godzilla was a CGI giant iguana instead of a man-in-a-suit radioactive beast from hell. It sucked because most everything else about the movie sucked. Except the marketing. Holy shit did that movie rock in the marketing department. Literally everybody knew it was coming. My favorite thing from that movie was the fish icon on the screen to show where they put the big pile of fish used to lure him out.
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,795
|
Post by salz4life on Feb 3, 2021 14:05:19 GMT -5
Halloween 3 for a lot of people. There was no michael myers so it was shit. Although there are a strong minority like myself who thinks it's a great flick. I REALLY like Halloween 3!
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Feb 3, 2021 14:08:46 GMT -5
A lot of game sequels are like this when the developers try to be experimental but fans are disappointed in it not being more like the original. Ironically, the same people often complain about how there aren't any original games anymore.
Kirk in 2009 and especially Into Darkness felt like it was written as either a parody of Kirk or someone who only heard about the character from generalizations.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 3, 2021 14:58:13 GMT -5
I have my preferences between different versions of stuff but I also try to go in understanding that various writers/actors/directors will have their own interpretations. Like I'm into the more playful Bonds like Moore and Brosnan in Goldeneye, but I can appreciate what folks like Craig and Dalton brought to the role. Likewise, while I think The Dark Knight 08 is a masterpiece, I also adore Lego Batman and I enjoy different things from both presentations of Bats.
One example where it did happen, I had to get used to Hattie Hayridge as Holly on Red Dwarf. There wasn't an issue with me about her performance per se, I just missed Norman Lovett in the part. But in hindsight, both had their fair share of funny moments, especially Hattie's Holly in White Hole ("Understand, moose brain?")
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Feb 3, 2021 16:07:49 GMT -5
One example where it did happen, I had to get used to Hattie Hayridge as Holly on Red Dwarf. There wasn't an issue with me about her performance per se, I just missed Norman Lovett in the part. But in hindsight, both had their fair share of funny moments, especially Hattie's Holly in White Hole ("Understand, moose brain?") I feel Norm had the better jokes ("We're on the dogs' milk" is amongst the best in the entire run of the show, for example) and had better character development, since by the time Hattie came on board Holly had very much become a secondary character, but I love both equally. The black holes gag at the end of "Marooned" is a particular Hattie highlight.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Feb 3, 2021 16:12:46 GMT -5
The other one that comes to mind is Josh Meyers replacing Topher Grace on That 70's Show, and yeah Randy still f***ing sucks. Well, yes. Trying to fill the void of BOTH Grace and Kutcher by giving certain traits from each guys character to some random dude with no backstory was never a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Jumpin' Jesse Walsh on Feb 3, 2021 17:08:43 GMT -5
I refuse to watch Home Alone 3 because Macaulay Culkin isn't in it.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 3, 2021 17:12:12 GMT -5
One example where it did happen, I had to get used to Hattie Hayridge as Holly on Red Dwarf. There wasn't an issue with me about her performance per se, I just missed Norman Lovett in the part. But in hindsight, both had their fair share of funny moments, especially Hattie's Holly in White Hole ("Understand, moose brain?") I feel Norm had the better jokes ("We're on the dogs' milk" is amongst the best in the entire run of the show, for example) and had better character development, since by the time Hattie came on board Holly had very much become a secondary character, but I love both equally. The black holes gag at the end of "Marooned" is a particular Hattie highlight. {Spoiler}{SPOILER: CLICK TO SHOW}"See, the thing about grit, is that it's black! And the thing about the scanner-"
"Oh. shut up!"
|
|