Turn on thread page Beta

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Some initial Green Lantern reviews aren't great. Read the one IGN gave it - 2/5 stars... was quite a funny read too

    I'm almost certain Ebert will slate it, not that I really care what he thinks or anything... I'm still anticipating it though, I think it looks great
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    I think it looks great
    Please explain how it looks "great", tbph.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Some initial Green Lantern reviews aren't great. Read the one IGN gave it - 2/5 stars... was quite a funny read too

    I'm almost certain Ebert will slate it, not that I really care what he thinks or anything... I'm still anticipating it though, I think it looks great
    Yeah I can't wait for it! I enjoyed Thor a lot and I think Green Lantern looks much better (sorry Marvel)!


    On another note that film Tabloid looks brilliant!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    Please explain how it looks "great", tbph.
    I think it looks good :indiff: meh each to their own

    I remember some of the backlash at the first trailer of it. Pleasing comic book fanboys must prove a real headache for filmmakers, there's no middle ground - they'll either really hate or love the film, if even just from watching a trailer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    I think it looks good :indiff: meh each to their own

    I remember some of the backlash at the first trailer of it. Pleasing comic book fanboys must prove a real headache for filmmakers, there's no middle ground - they'll either really hate or love the film, if even just from watching a trailer
    The first trailer was a complete travesty, tbh They actually apologised for it, said it wasn't really representative.

    I'm quite looking forward to it, and I say that as a massive fan of the GL comics.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    The first trailer was a complete travesty, tbh They actually apologised for it, said it wasn't really representative.

    I'm quite looking forward to it, and I say that as a massive fan of the GL comics.
    lol fair enough, it does come across as fairly generic and cliche

    I'm wondering how it'll do at the box office, some people have said that it may not do as well simply because it's X men first class and Thor have already been released and people have gotten tired of comic book superhero films but it remains to be seen

    It does have a $150 million budget apparently... hopefully it was worth the cost to make
    Offline

    1
    http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/...asp?FID=135354

    :mmm:

    And it's from Kim Newman who is a really good reviewer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madjackismad)
    http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/...asp?FID=135354

    :mmm:

    And it's from Kim Newman who is a really good reviewer.
    Oh dear.

    Well, I'll still watch it so that I can have something to grumble about.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Oh dear.

    Well, I'll still watch it so that I can have something to grumble about.
    I'm sure you'll find out worth more than 2 stars if you're a fan.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:


    I'm so glad Nintendo did this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)


    I'm so glad Nintendo did this.
    What a phenomenal beard. I now hope to have one similar later in life.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)


    I'm so glad Nintendo did this.
    Remake of Ocarina of Time. :sogood:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Green Lantern looks like a flop. I'm looking forward to Harry Potter Part. The end of my childhood is near! Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!
    Offline

    1
    I think I knew the moment my childhood ended.

    Er, yeah... I definitely do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    I pretty much agree with your points, zjs.

    (Original post by zjs)
    For me, the biggest difference between playing games and watching films is in the way that you relate your opinion. With games, you tend to justify it, while with films, you tend to explain it. As that's about as clear as mud, I'll explain: take the original Project Gotham Racing, when it was released on Xbox. It had rave reviews and was extremely popular. I played the game and I didn't like it. I didn't like it because I'm not particularly fond of driving games and the whole "earn loads of kudos to buy a new car" concept doesn't really appeal. That's me justifying my opinion though; I'm telling you I didn't like it and giving reasons for this, rather than detracting from the game itself. The games I do actually rubbish tend to be for the reasons you detail: clunky controls and the like, which is almost always a commonly held view. Films, on the other hand, are a different matter. Take Piranha 3D. I thought it was awful. When I relate this to someone, I explain why it was awful: the acting was atrocious, the concept and plotline were ridiculous etc. The salient difference is this: with games, you're told someone didn't like a game without this taking away from the game itself (obviously only in the case of games considered to be good), whereas with films, someone will tell you that they didn't like the film, through rubbishing elements of the film itself
    That's a really, really good way of putting it. Interesting.

    (Original post by zjs)
    Comparing one rating to another rating will always happen though. It's in people's natures to compare one game with another game, so they're also likely to compare review scores. It's the same as people comparing films. They're almost totally different, but they'll compare them on the basis of it being loosely in the same genre with a similar-ish plot.
    It's inevitable, yeah but it makes no sense. Comparing a book with another book, or a film with another film allows you to draw together the themes each portrays, the acting ability of actors, the effectiveness of any twists and the plot as a whole. You have something to compare essentially. Saying GTA 4 is a better game because it got a 10 compared to Red Dead Redemption (9.8) and Mass Effect 2 (9.2) makes no sense. And that happens. A lot.

    (Original post by zjs)
    There is a problem with this system, though. As you mentioned in a previous post in this thread, games represent a significant investment. If you have a few games released around the same time in a similar genre - i.e. Just Cause 2, Saints Row 2 and GTA 4, and they're all considered to be "buy it" worthy, the 'casual' gamer has to invest significant time in reading the reviews and differentiating the differences between them to decide which he'd most like to buy. Or be prepared to fork out a lot of cash for all three.
    True, but he would make a decision carefully anyway. I don't subscribe to the view that if they were all buy worthy and lets say Just Cause 2 got a 89, Saints Row 2 got a 91 and GTA 4 got a 95 - that that would make the decision any easier. You have the same problem with that rating system as well. It seems fundamental. And if you are contemplating between two games which are both worthy, the next logical system (from a casual standpoint) does seem to be reading the actual review or reading comparisons. If it's a good review then it will compare the two games. The same thing is going to inevitably happen when Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 come out. People who don't want to buy both will have to choose.

    I do realise however that in the 'buy it' system what you're saying is more likely to happen than in a numeric system.

    (Original post by zjs)
    I dislike the star system. It's fine in the context of a magazine or site, for example when 4/5 stars means "good", but the problem comes when the system is quoted on the back of a game case or DVD box. If you're familiar with the publication/site, you'll know what 4/5 stars means. If you're not, it can suggest something is better than it is. Likewise, this leads to the danger of dumbing down as it leads to films and games producers using the publications/sites which accredit their work with the most stars. This, in reality, leads to a proliferation of star ratings from The Sun and Nuts magazine. :nothing:
    Ah but that is a problem that is very much present in the numeric rating systems too. Each publication has their own editor guide and approach to rating a game. Look at how many 10/10 each publication gives, and how it varies from game to game.

    I think they (game developers and publishers at least) already do that. You're not going to get IGN '5.5/10' on the box cover or the advert for Duke Nukem Forever.

    Game journalism is in itself a bit of a mess at the moment. A lot of review websites feature adverts advertising the very game they are reviewing. See Gamespot and the firing of Jeff Gertsmann. It's a clash between the marketing department, the game developers/publishers and the editor with his bad review. Same goes for embargoes where publishers will only allow reviews early from people who will review positively. A bit of flawed system for those wanting a fair judgement on whether the game is actually any good.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Look at how this entire conversation spawned; Akaten posted that he thought X-Men was a 7.3, which is pretty hard for people to decipher. However when he they went on in a later post to explain some of the film's failings, I think we can all agree that was a far more interesting post than a number.
    Aye, but we're still no closer to learning how exactly he arrived at that particular rating. I think that's mostly because we're on TSR (discussion board), posting in this section and in this thread and so are more inclined and interested in critique than the average viewer.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    One thing I will say is that I do disagree that you should break up the elements of a game when reviewing it. This is akin to how a poor game will treat story elements, by divorcing it from the gameplay and dumping it all into cutscenes. A good game integrates the story into every aspect of the game. If you were to break a film review down into areas such as cinematography, editing, acting, direction, script, etc., it would be wholly derivative because all of the elements are interwoven. This is something that I think many videogame reviewers do not appreciate.

    You both raise many more interesting points, but I figured rather than spending four hours addressing everything I'd use much less time to try and move sidelong into the conversation. :p:
    I think it depends on the game. In a game like Portal, the story integration with gameplay is flawless. There is a running commentary throughout the game and feedback on your actions. The story develops without the need to switch to a cutscene. And the world (facility) itself lends to the story without the need for explanations or commentary.

    A better approach, something along your lines, would be to have the central narrative and gameplay and then in turn evaluate how each factor compliments the narrative. How the soundtrack in Dead Space or Shadow of the Colossus adds to the horror or solitude factor, how immersive quick time events are in the experience - do they take you out of the experience?

    Most reviews don't exactly do that. They talk about plot and then go on to talk about the soundtrack and controls.


    (Original post by zjs)
    I think it all depends on how many games you get through. If you play a lot of games, it's the same as watching a lot of films: sooner or later, you'll come across one you don't like.
    I agree. I've bought my fair share of terrible games I've bought into because of pre-release hype (Star Wars: The Force Unleashed). And like you said earlier, the review sites mirrored the negative aspects of the game effectively through written reviews and the resulting ratings. I just happened to ignore them on that occasion. At a cost, ultimately.

    (Original post by zjs)
    Generally, games are much more about having fun and being as accessible as possible. There are, however, many different varieties of games, and not just in genres. There are more or less involved games, solo or MMORPG games etc and this leads to a difference between games: there are the pick-up-and-play games like GTA or Mario Kart as a distinct entity from games such as Fallout, which require significant time to be invested to understand what's going on. By the same token, there are cutscene-laden graphic orgies and rudimentary looking games that are all about the enjoyment factor.
    I think they've become more accessible due to the Wii and DS. They've always had that negative, hardcore perception in the media and mainstream. Now it's quite the opposite (and some say that's damaging to the core audience).

    There is also that growing problem of do you reflect the number of gameplay hours as a factor in a review? A lot of games have significantly short campaigns and some reviews I've seen actually deduct points for that.

    (Original post by zjs)
    Elements of a game are less inextricable interwoven than those of a film, though. I'm not saying that you should separate these elements in the space of the review to the point that they're separate headlines. I think you should address them in the same way one addresses various "headings" within an essay: dealing with each in turn. They're distinct enough to merit this treatment. Take the graphics of a game, this is an element that you can certainly see in and of themselves, rather than in the context of a plotline.

    You address the controls as part of the gameplay, but that's a distinct element that you can rate in and of itself. If the controls are slick and let you do exactly what you want to do, you can give them four or five out of five stars. If they're clunky and leave you blind, or where you don't wish to be, you can reflect this in the ratings too. The review space gives you the chance to expand on this; explaining why/where they're good/bad.
    Completely agree with this point. In a film, you're the audience. In a game, you're the audience and the protagonist. You're interacting with the medium, and your interaction is a factor which can be reviewed separately. I can safely criticise the awful driving mechanics and controls of L.A. Noire without touching upon the narrative. Similarly, I can praise the innovative facial animations which really have set the bar. Though this slightly contradicts my point above about certain factors being reviewed as complimenting other factors, these aspects can be discussed quite quickly in a review.

    The problem with the headings in game reviews is that there is too much emphasis on these factors, in my opinion. A lot of the game reviews are poor because they don't actually review the game. They spent a few paragraphs talking about the story (can be found on the box) and the features without actually commenting on whether these features work well. It's still growing, I guess.

    (Original post by zjs)
    x
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    x
    Interestingly, I've been looking over IGN. They use a star system for the films and TV (out of 5 but with 0.5 intervals) and they have a small 'out of 10' right at the bottom. But for video games, they use the 10.0 decimal rating system.

    I wonder what prompted them to do it that way. It's the only site I've seen with a split rating system.
    Offline

    1
    :lolwut:

    Is it not the summer?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    I want to watch that

    still haven't seen it .. despite knowing about it for some time now, I even know the plot
    Definitely give it a watch. It's a pretty unknown film outside circles of film enthusiasts and the director is very promising. Very much looking forward to any film he does. Or Neill Blomkamp for that matter.

    And the soundtrack is exceptional too.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Episode 9 was unbelievably good, I was so impressed with everything about it (except one minor niggle about the dwarf's new lover, who was incredibly badly written compared to how nuanced everyone else is). But apart from that, a brilliant way to spend an hour. It really feels like the investment for the first half of the season is being paid off, which is good. Also, the scenes have got a lot better as the series has progressed as well - just look at how good the Khalesi scenes are now compared to earlier episodes where they were utterly uninspiring. Good stuff.
    Glad to hear it.

    It only gets better from this point on. Sadly, there's only one episode left and another year until season 2.

    I'm having a lot of fun with all of this new metadata on my films. Sorting by year released is very interesting... any guesses on the oldest film I have?
    Is it Hitchcock? :holmes:

    (Original post by aja89)
    Beginning a mission to rewatch all the Harry Potters before July 15th. Starting with Philosopher's Stone tonight. Seemed like a good idea when it came to me but I feel it may just proceed to anger me.
    I've never fully gotten over Gambon's interpretation of Dumbledore. He refuses to read the books or find out how his character should be portrayed and it's actually distracting. Dumbledore always seems like he's angry.

    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    X Men First Class was quite possibly the most fun I've had at the cinema since Inglourious Basterds. Fantastic stuff, despite being a popcorn movie.

    I'm in Oxford, so it was quite fun sniggering at some of the locations and the fact that one of the colleges became a pub.

    Still, thought it was an awesome film. Up there with the first one. Bloody good soundtrack too.

    And the whole cinema laughed when:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Hugh Jackman cameoed. :rofl:


    Although something that didn't sit quite right with me was:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Why Mystique went with Magneto at the end. Xavier was pretty hurt and she did talk to him then ditched him right off? A scene with Xavier in the wheelchair and a sad goodbye may have been a more rounded option.


    Michael Fassbender = :coma:
    I only just found out, via your post in the other friend, that he was also in Inglorious Basterds. Though I'd recognised him somewhere. He stole the show. Very impressive stuff.

    I agree...

    Spoiler:
    Show
    The Mystique scene seemed very detached and out of place. A little awkward too. There was plenty of development with Mystique though which I'm pleased with.

    A little surprised that Xavier wasn't as comfortable (as Magneto) with her natural form though. :holmes:

    And the Jackman cameo was well executed. We also got a laugh. They were both smug and attending to various mutants with the 'smug-like' music in the background and he just tells them to '**** themselves' :rofl:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Madjackismad)
    :lolwut:

    Is it not the summer?
    EDIT: Hence why it took 7 hours to get around to replying. :pierre:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.chud.com/57241/the-dark-k...familiar-face/

    :excited:

    Also, it seems getting big-name actors to do five-ten minutes as Jor-El is becoming something of a tradition in Superman films:

    http://www.chud.com/57215/russell-cr...-leave-kal-el/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I love that about reviews. I mean going back to a review and having seen the film, and reading a completely different interpretation into it. There should be more of that. Especially in cases where a film or narrative is fairly unambiguous, a different interpretation on that is always interesting. Lets face it, with ambiguity and mystery, you're always going to have rich speculation and interpretations anyway. But with fairly ordinary films, an interesting interpretation is just as good. On giving away too much, it's probably harder with films which are concept heavy like Source Code or Inception or ones whose narrative relies on a twist.

    So do you just look at ratings or a general consensus (word of mouth, Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes) for an overview or is there a particular source you know to be spoiler free? :holmes:

    I'm not particularly bothered about film reviews. With video games, reviews matter a lot to me. But with films, I just really want verification it's not terrible ie Sucker Punch.
    I wholeheartedly agree with you about reviewers offering interpretations more. This is where Ebert excels.

    Yeah, I do look on Rotten Tomatoes and I have seen many an obscure film based on word of mouth. Usually from just one person's mouth. Essentially though if I want to see a film then I won't be put off by bad scores in reviews. However, randomly coming across a really high score on Rotten Tomatoes can make me want to see a film.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,754

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.