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

[Genocidicles]

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.

I think it's mainly because they were originally going to be wookies, and that was axed because George Lucas wanted something cute and cuddly to sell toys to children. So Ewoks.

 

[Phlakes]

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

Not really. See X-PLAY Kotaku or Game Informer.

I'm too lazy to look up the other two but as far as Game Informer, these are the last few JRPGs they've reviewed-

Ys: Memories of Celceta - 8.5
Pokemon X/Y - 8.75
Digaea D2 - 7.5
Rune Factory 4 - 7
Etrian Oddyssey Untold - 7.5
Kingdom Hearts HD - 8.25

So biased against JRPGS.

 

[Brainpaint]

I'm fed up of everybody saying Avatar is just Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas and Ferngully mashed together. That it's similar to this book, that it's similar to that book, that the aliens are just Smurfy cat people...

Can't a work derive from various sources and be entertaining and cool in it's own right?

Y'know, like EVERY MOVIE BASED ON A BOOK/COMIC BOOK/GAME/OLDER MOVIE/TOY LINE/SHORT STORY EVER?

I'm not saying Avatar's perfect, but when you think of it more as an introduction to the world rather than an introduction to the characters, it's a lot more unique.

Let go of your hang-ups about everything being done before.

Because as we all know...

Simpsons did it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.

So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

In all fairness the Eagles turn up as deus ex machinas often enough to merit the question as to why can't they just ferry characters to their ultimate objectives. In The Hobbit they save the Bilbo & co. from the Wargs; then they turn up at the finale to turn the battle around. In LOTR they save Gandalf from Isengard and then repeat The Hobbit finale by saving Frodo and Sam from Mt. Doom.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

They may have not defeated the Empire but they certainly kicked their ass with exactly ONE casualty on their side.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That said, I personally think the original Star Wars trilogy has gotten an obscene amount of overpraise, and, yes, while I fully understand the futility of criticizing them in the face of their massive popularity, I will still say that I think Empire Strikes Back had crappy romantic dialog and poor performances between Leia and Han, the AT-ATs are stupidly designed vehicles of war, the fight scene on Hoth was poorly paced, everyone on the Falcon should have been sucked into space when they stepped out while inside the asteroid-worm, Yoda's introduction was not a good way to introduce him, Han Solo was a whiny bastard until they start to head to Cloud City, and that Luke should not have survived that fall after he finds out Vader is his father.

But I'm not allowed to say any of that because CHILDHOOD!!

Also, with no disrespect intended to Mark Hammill, but Luke's reaction to finding out Vader is his father could be equated to the Anakin/Vader's reaction to finding out Padme's dead in Revenge of the Sith.

 

[RaikuFA]

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

Not really. See X-PLAY Kotaku or Game Informer.

I'm too lazy to look up the other two but as far as Game Informer, these are the last few JRPGs they've reviewed-

Ys: Memories of Celceta - 8.5
Pokemon X/Y - 8.75
Digaea D2 - 7.5
Rune Factory 4 - 7
Etrian Oddyssey Untold - 7.5
Kingdom Hearts HD - 8.25

So biased against JRPGS.

Haven't read GI in years. Back in the day though I did and they were a lot worse.

 

[Gromril]

Actually got around to reading the thread in some down time. SOme great stuff, keep ut up foilks.

As many people have explained the reasons behind my complaint, I shall give you another that hasn't been ninja'd away from me.

Peoples never ending bringing up of JJ Abrams lens flare reboot. Yes yes, I know you read an internet forum where a guy who took a directing class that one time said it was super bad directioneering. Also, the "Everyone's too prety!" complaint.The original cast for the original show was TV pretty at the time, an age before photoshop was the omnipresent monster that it is now. Yes, Patric Stewart was a middle aged guy who wasn't a model, but that was a 90s tv show that made damned sure he was usually around someone classically good looking.

Ther'es waaaay more to hate on in the story making department, go for there if you want to moan about the films, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (DISCLAIMER.: Overall, I liked both of the reboots)

 

[Terminate421]

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

Firstly Duke Nukem Forever, at least on the PC, it played and felt just like Halo, and was one of my principal problems

What.

I played DNF. It felt virtually nothing like Halo. Even with it's fucking weird guns and dated humor. Especially towards the end.

Secondly "Generic" means run-of-the-mill. Nothing special about it.

Shooters have taken ques from Halo due it's success on consoles with some standards here or there but I honestly am not seeing "generic" from that. While other shooters have tried to ride on it's success train, that train has taken multiple different rails to mix up the same formula as been done before.

I just can't see it as "Generic" if it is the only shooter of it's kind.

 

[Terminate421]

Pokemon X/Y - 8.75

They loved that game, seriously.

 

[Megalodon]

Name one game in the past 5 years that plays even remotely close to Halo. You can't come up with one.

It alone is it's own genre of shooter in a genre plagued with shooter rip-offs and attempts to be call of duty. I doubt that's considered generic.

Fuck me, I needed to rant.

Firstly Duke Nukem Forever, at least on the PC, it played and felt just like Halo, and was one of my principal problems

What.

I played DNF. It felt virtually nothing like Halo. Even with it's fucking weird guns and dated humor. Especially towards the end.

Yes, when I played DNF, the game it most reminded me of from a gameplay prespective was Halo:CE on PC. The two weapon limit, slower movement than Unreal Tournament/Painkiller but faster and more 'floaty' than COD/Gears, some resistance to enemy weapon fire, but not being able to relaibly dodge and manoeuvre around incoming fire, regenerating health based around a health bar instead of red jam on your HUD. These factors added together to make an experience I found similar to Halo.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

There's one game "criticism" that makes me cringe every time it gets brought up. When someone says something like "It's not a game, it's interactive movie", or "it's barely a game". NO, FUCK OFF! Can you play the game? Can game proceed without you? No? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP IT IS A GAME!
And just what is the point of that criticism?! It doesn't bring ANYTHING to the table!

 

[MCerberus]

I have a portal to a parallel realm where small creatures live that are a source of happiness across the multiverse live. Every time someone claims that CoD/Battlefield/whatever shooter's story are immune to criticism because 'It's supposed to be stupid and shallow' or 'what do you expect?' I reach into the portal and take one. I then crush the life out of this small pixie, shade by shade making existence a darker place.

I think I'm actually the person causing these stories by accident when I do this.

This isn't even about the use of military-wank white papers, the implicit racism, or the "just kill off the PC because why not". They. are. just. stupid. Each year the story is a worse and worse collection of scripted events made for marketing stapled onto a marginally unimproved MP. Their presence and success bring down all of gaming one focus group participant at a time.

And each and every person defending them even out of apathy makes me angry *crushes happiness being, causing the percentage of black jelly beans to increase slightly*

 

[PureChaos]

When a film or series is based on a book, games, comic or whatever and people moan because some things were changed. The original may have been better but that doesn't mean the adaptation is automatically bad. I've seen plenty of things that have been adapted from books I like and, while I would still say the books are better, I still enjoyed the adaptations for what they were.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

When people criticise something for being different from the source material. Of course a lot of adaptation movies are lazy passionless cash ins and if the source material is good than yes, chances are deviating from it runs the risk of adverse effects, but on its own "different" doesnt mean "bad."

That and people who will attack something just because it's popular. I'm sure we all know somebody that says "call of duty sucks" and then buys every single call of duty game on launch.

 

[MCerberus]

When people criticise something for being different from the source material. Of course a lot of adaptation movies are lazy passionless cash ins and if the source material is good than yes, chances are deviating from it runs the risk of adverse effects, but on its own "different" doesnt mean "bad."

That and people who will attack something just because it's popular. I'm sure we all know somebody that says "call of duty sucks" and then buys every single call of duty game on launch.

The trick with adaptation is to keep the spirit of the work while keeping the message, tone, and general events as close to the source as possible. The 'I don't like change' complaints about the adaptation not being a shot-for-shot remake are stupid...

We have to remember that the complaints about stuff like "The Lorax Seal of Approval" for an SUV are so very valid.

 

[Bad Jim]

For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.

Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)

The "Eagle Plan" applies to Lord of the Rings, which occurs long after Smaug is dead. It goes "why didn't the Eagles carry the Ring to Mordor?".

The Eagles help several times in both books, and in neither book do they actually state that they were unwilling to save Middle Earth in its' darkest hour. On the contrary, after rescuing the dwarves from the wargs and goblins in The Hobbit, the Lord of the Eagles states he is happy to thwart the evil races wherever he can.

The Eagles also play a decisive role in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit, implying that their numbers are great enough to simply fight the Nazgul and whatever orcs happen to be on Mt Doom. That they may be spotted is not an issue, as Sauron simply wouldn't be able to get enough orcs up Mt Doom to stop them in time. Unless, of course, there was a permanent garrison up there, but that would imply that Sauron had considered the possibility of someone destroying the Ring and the Fellowship wouldn't have succeeded either.

 

[Burgers2013]

Wow, a lot of mine were taken (particularly the adaptation and "that's not a real game" bits). I'm kind of in between on adaptations. I prefer an adaptation to explore at least the same sorts of ideas as the source material, but the details shouldn't matter as much.

The idea that games are meant primarily for fun I think is a bit dated. So, I get a bit frustrated when someone says something to the effect of "game x is not fun, therefore it is a bad game." That fun should supersede any other quality in a game and that a game should mostly be judged by whether it was fun or not doesn't work for a lot of great games. Spec Ops: The Line, The Walking Dead, and Gone Home were not particularly "fun" to play as far as I was concerned, but they were all very interesting. There is something else in all of those games that fueled my desire to continue (intriguing premise, twist on commonly accepted aspects of a genre, the desire to care for Clementine). I think fun is one way to engage and encourage the player to continue to explore the story, but it is not the only/most important way.

I suppose there's a strange mix of fun and other driving forces with many survival horror games. I dreaded every encounter in Silent Hill 2, but the aesthetic, atmosphere, and dream-like quality of the conversations kept me glued to the controller to find out what the heck was going on.