Criticisms your'e sick of seeing in a film/story

[immortalfrieza]

I think people who disregard characters' flaws and the fact that they are under duress in certain situations when criticizing their actions is pretty annoying. Oh, that's what YOU would have done? Okay, well, you're not a German bounty hunter in the old west, or a shellshocked veteran, or a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime, and you're certainly not being shot at by a police helicopter, or being attacked by a killer robot... so on and so forth.

^This is so true. As much as people just LOVE saying otherwise, the vast majority would not only not do things any smarter but crawl into the nearest corner, roll into a ball, and outcry a baby if they had to go through the kinds of crazy F**ed up situations that a lot of fictional characters find themselves in.

A good example would be FF13's Hope. Let's see here... he's a 14 year old kid, who is sent to be executed, his mother dies trying to prevent it, he has his life saved repeatedly by the very person who he believes is responsible for it, and he's hounded mercilessly for days straight. His reaction? He's terrified, grief stricken, and becomes obsessed with revenge for some time. Before long he learns to get over this, but you wouldn't know it if all you ever heard about him was fan opinion. All I ever hear is cries for him to stop being such a crybaby all the time, when not only is this a massive exaggeration but it's unlikely a single one of them would have done any better in his situation. In short, he's the most realistic and well characterized character with the most character development in the entire game, possibly the entire Final Fantasy series... and he's the one everybody hates for no real reason.

 

[Mangod]

I think people who disregard characters' flaws and the fact that they are under duress in certain situations when criticizing their actions is pretty annoying. Oh, that's what YOU would have done? Okay, well, you're not a German bounty hunter in the old west, or a shellshocked veteran, or a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime, and you're certainly not being shot at by a police helicopter, or being attacked by a killer robot... so on and so forth.

^This is so true. As much as people just LOVE saying otherwise, the vast majority would not only not do things any smarter but crawl into the nearest corner, roll into a ball, and outcry a baby if they had to go through the kinds of crazy F**ed up situations that a lot of fictional characters find themselves in.

A good example would be FF13's Hope. Let's see here... he's a 14 year old kid, who is sent to be executed, his mother dies trying to prevent it, he has his life saved repeatedly by the very person who he believes is responsible for it, and he's hounded mercilessly for days straight. His reaction? He's terrified, grief stricken, and becomes obsessed with revenge for some time. Before long he learns to get over this, but you wouldn't know it if all you ever heard about him was fan opinion. All I ever hear is cries for him to stop being such a crybaby all the time, when not only is this a massive exaggeration but it's unlikely a single one of them would have done any better in his situation. In short, he's the most realistic and well characterized character with the most character development in the entire game, possibly the entire Final Fantasy series... and he's the one everybody hates for no real reason.

Like I said further up the page, people disregard people like Hope, Shinji Ikari and the like, because they don't immediately nut up and turn into Marv from Sin City, no matter how inappropriate and unlikely that would be.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonBadass

 

[Rblade]

I don't really get how a character using an insulting term is in turn insulting, if that character would have had no qualm using that word. If the guy is a racist asshole, he won't class up his language. Like expecting movie Hitler to not talk badly off the jews. I don't think you can hold that against a movie.

Although I'm really talking about the words used by a bunch of plantation owners. I don't get why that makes the movie bad. But I won't go into the discussion here because I'm neither dark skinned or American so I don't think I can fully relate. But that doesn't mean I understand that type of criticism in general.

 

[BNguyen]

If you say something, ANYTHING, is overrated, and can't think of a single reason why, you deserve to be forced to walk on a bed of hot Legos.

I think people who disregard characters' flaws and the fact that they are under duress in certain situations when criticizing their actions is pretty annoying. Oh, that's what YOU would have done? Okay, well, you're not a German bounty hunter in the old west, or a shellshocked veteran, or a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime, and you're certainly not being shot at by a police helicopter, or being attacked by a killer robot... so on and so forth.

this is exactly the reason why I dislike hearing how people hate characters from anime like Sasuke from Naruto or Shinji from Evangelion - you're not a boy who watched his family get murdered by your own brother or the boy who is forced to fight on a battlefield at age 14 and be forced to nearly kill a friend with your bare hand and receive (at least simulated) on a constant basis. So stop saying "yeah, their emos or whiny bitches for being that way - man up". News flash - emo is all about disliking life to the point where you enjoy the thoughts of suicide, not because you have to live with difficult issues forced upon you and at least try to work against it in the best way you know how.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

Oddly enough, I couldn't disagree more. I'd kill for a FF game that stuck to the older tried-and-true mechanics rather than "reinventing the wheel" into the painfully stupid and nonsensical battle systems we've seen in recent entries. If they can't make the full-on switch to Western-style turn-based or action combat, they should stick to what worked.

By that same token, I absolutely hate practically everything else you've said is "fine" about JRPGs. The reason they are often perceived as childish is that they are childish in about a dozen different ways. Yes, there are often more complex and adult themes lingering beneath the surface, but it's a hard field to plow just for those rare satisfying bits.

So yeah, bring back the old reliable turn-based combat and send everyone who looks and acts remotely like Tidus on an errand to the bottom of a volcano.

I have a complicated relationship with CGI in movies. On the one hand, it allows for some great sci-fi and fantasy stuff that simply wasn't possible (or would have looked horrible) in decades past. On the other hand, it allows what are supposed to be more "grounded" productions to incorporate set pieces and action that really don't belong. I mean when you see the grizzled NYC cop flying his motorcycle into a helicopter, all of it clearly CGI, you wonder why the scene even needs to be in the movie. Am I supposed to be impressed that someone imagined something so stupid and a bunch of other people let him/her carry it out?

I look at Terminator 2 as the "sweet spot" for CGI. What needs to be CGI is CGI - stuff like the T1000 changing forms, Arnold sinking into molten steel, etc. But they stick to stunt work and models/animatronic for everything else, and the result is a more convincing and gritty film.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

"Avatar SUCKS because it had the same story as Dances With Wolves!"

I'm going to say this as plainly as I can... SO FUCKING WHAT!?

Also, not sure if we're doing games too, but if so then this:

"Halo SUCKS for the same reasons COD does!"

BULL. SHIT.

Alright, look: you hate Halo? Fine. I may be a Halo fan, but I'm not a toddler, I can deal. You and I? we just won't talk about Halo, then.

But the comparisons to COD are crap, born from no more then both being popular modern FPSs. The fact is that they are simply nothing alike. At least Halo uses the entire color spectrum. At least it gives you big multi-levelled rooms to fight in. At least it gives you multiple enemy types. At least it has an IMAGINATION.

 

[putowtin]

The problem is we're all babies sometimes, instead of accepting that everyones seperate, built in a different way, with different emotions and feelings, we imediataly disregard their choices if they differ from us. We scream for the tallest buildings "IT SUCKS" when we should sit down and say "Well I didn't like it, but please tell me what makes it good in your eyes?"

Peace on earth people, it starts with the smallest things

 

[Eggsnham]

I call it The snob/philistine dichotomy.

Nice.

OT: I'm sick of the whole "it's not realistic; therefore it's bad" kind of comments.

If you're watching a movie or playing a game, chances are that you're not looking for gritty, unapologetic realism. Sure, some plot devices are too absurd to take seriously and some works are so cliched that it's hard to not cringe, but most of the time hyper-realism doesn't quite belong in fiction.

If you ask me, the only time such a complaint is truly justified is if it causes plot-holes or contradictions in the story.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I've never been a fan of criticsms passed towards the Ewoks. I mean, the empire was defeated by Darth Vader and the Millenium Falcon, right? The Ewoks caused a momentary distraction so a small band of rebels could sneak in to disable single shield. There's extended shots of them being horribly murdered by AT-STs and such. The Ewoks did not "defeat the Empire." The Ewoks were a small part of a larger operation. If you wanna talk about problems with Return of the Jedi, I can level a great deal many more legitimate ones if you want? (Han Solo, if not being, but certainly acting rather dumbfounded and useless; the act structure being a wee bit skew-wiff, etc.)

Though I will concede that the Ewoks are quite a bit annoying. Not Jar-Jar annoying, but certainly at times a bit grating.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"A parsec is a unit of distance, not time."

People really tend to latch onto details about the Star Wars universe, seemingly forgetting that it's a sci-fi/fantasy story that completely ignores most known laws of physics. Like hyerspace. Okay? You can't travel faster than light in our galaxy (yet), but you can in Star Wars. You can't travel close to a black hole (the Kessel Run) to reduce the distance you're going, but you can in Star Wars. Lasers are projectiles and swords. THERE ARE SWORDS THAT ARE LASERS. HOW DOES ANY PHYSICS DETAIL NOT PALE IN COMPARISON TO THAT.

The Star Wars films are modern-day Flash Gordon serials, with space wizards and aliens and spaceships and lasers. Latching onto physics details has just always struck me as ignoring the entirety of those films' point.

 

[TwiZtah]

Mine would be:

"Superman killed Zod, they ruined Superman forever. WAAA!"

I dont' think you CAN be a superhero if you're not able/prepared to end a threat permanently. Hence my hard on for "anti-heroes" like The Punisher who just shoots the antagonist in the head... or tortures him and makes him eat his own balls. Introduce The Punisher to The Joker, The Punisher shoots him, The Joker can no longer kill more people, simple as that.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

On a related note, I can't stand people who think that old classics are now automatically immune to modern critique. I hate the idea of 'critic-proof' movies just because its 'old' and 'classic'. Now, contextualization is very important in enjoying old movies, and I always consider the time it was made, but age is not a good excuse for why somethings are badly made. Nor should a movie's age and vast popularity protect from any later critique.

The problem is most of the time the discussion comes up, it isn't from the context of a well informed critique of a work. For example, on these boards, you'll regularly see a complaint along the lines of "I don't understand why X (x being some old product) is considered great". Inevitably, this isn't used as the basis for a well argued critique of the work in question or even the attempt to gain information that it passes itself as; instead, it's simply a contrarian point of view that, as far as the OP is capable of arguing, was taken purely for being contrarian.

Retroactively criticizing any product is a difficult task if only because some things require specific contextual information to understand. For example, criticizing an ancient Warner Brother's cartoon because of obviously bigoted positions is perfectly valid as the modern view would paint this as unacceptable but you must simultaneously understand that in the context of the moment this was not generally seen as offensive. Simultaneously, criticizing that same cartoon for using hand drawn animation because that technique isn't as good as some technique developed later isn't a valid criticism at all as it was not possible to do in the moment. In short, in order to do it properly, you have to have very detailed knowledge of both the prevailing sociological forces of the moment as well as the technological possibilities in order to actually approach the subject in the slightest which means few are inherently capable of mustering such critique without investing heavily in research.

Most people who choose to level such critiques neither have at their command such information nor do they have any willingness to do the research. Thus why such critiques so often come from academia itself rather than anything resembling enthusiast press.

 

[Griffolion]

I have something a bit more generic but whenever someone complains about a movie that was huge for it's time (Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc.) that they don't see what the big deal is.

Basically this.

It's just a massive generic, unoriginal way of attempting to appear intelligent by berating a well liked movie.

 

[Ishal]

Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.

Are you referring to Yahtzee? lol

Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.

WHAT

I say they should simply update the combat system, then toss out all the rest you said they should keep. But seriously, that's a good list f why I don't play JRPGs.

Bravo.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

'I didn't like this film, it wasn't like the book/earlier adaptations' - NO, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR FACE, FUCK YOUR FAMILY AND THEN FUCK YOURSELF AGAIN WITH YOUR FAMILY.

ADAPTATIONS OF WORKS ARE AMAZING AND AWESOME AND YOU SHOULD JUDGE THEM ON THEIR OWN MERITS AND NOT ON THE MERITS OR RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS (unless the new adaptation just mimics the older one completely, i.e. Oldboy). EVEN IF AN ADAPTATION IS TERRIBLE, YOU JUDGE IT AS A TERRIBLE FILM/BOOK/COMIC/WHATEVERTHEFUCK, NOT AS A TERRIBLE ADAPTATION OF WHATEVER SHIT YOU'RE BUSY FANBOYING OVER.

FUCK. ING. CHRIST.

*cough* so yeah, that's my most irritating criticism I find towards films/books/alternate media. Having people go 'Oh, Memento was a terrible movie because it didn't follow the original short story close enough' is stupidly frustrating, as they avoid viewing the movie in it's own rights and judging it on what it does/doesn't do right cinematically, instead judging it by their own stupidly-high standard set by their reaction to the original material.

Sorry Captain AllCaps, I have to disagree.

If you are going to create something based on a source material, you have a responsibility to stay true to the spirit of the source material. I'm overly pedantic when it comes to, say, Game of Thrones. I hate the deviations from the original texts and think they weaken the show significantly. However, the show stays true to the spirit of the novels, and as such I don't dislike it...I just get frustrated while watching it. It's enjoyable. Whereas something like Scott Pilgrim is shit on a stick.

Deviate too far from the spirit of the original, and you might as well just have made an original work. Sure, I could make a Batman film in which Batman is a transvestite alien who does battle with her psionic abilities, but that really wouldn't be a BATMAN film, now would it? I don't care if I've made the best transvestite alien film imaginable. I've made a naff Batman film, and people are within their rights to point that out.

 

[ShogunGino]

On a related note, I can't stand people who think that old classics are now automatically immune to modern critique. I hate the idea of 'critic-proof' movies just because its 'old' and 'classic'. Now, contextualization is very important in enjoying old movies, and I always consider the time it was made, but age is not a good excuse for why somethings are badly made. Nor should a movie's age and vast popularity protect from any later critique.

snip

Agreed.

My apologies, though, I believe I undersold my entire opinion that I was trying to make. It isn't just the people that feel that research-intensive academic critique are the only valid retrospective reviews, but it's the people who use the age and 'classic' status as justification why it should never be retrospectively critiqued again, particularly if they themselves really like the movie.

Again, an example is how I feel about Star Wars fans. "Empire Strikes Back is a classic, man, don't you dare say anything bad about it!"

I sadly can't find it again, but James Cameron said of a retrospective negative critique of his Titanic movie that -I have to paraphrase a bit since I can't find the actual quote- "It's not your job as a critic to go against what the public has already made up its mind about." It's this attitude that I cannot stand.

There are somethings where even contextualization can't really help some parts of a movie. I really don't think historical context can justify what I felt was obvious, unsubtle satire of The Graduate. I don't think historical context can justify what I considered to be a mediocre performance by Clark Gable in Gone With the Wind (seriously, he speaks with the same exact tone of voice throughout the vast majority of the movie, even after his daughter dies in a horse accident).

I hope that explains my opinion a bit more.