Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    X1 and X2 were, before the Batman films came out, the best modern Superhero movies by a long way.

    Last Stand and Wolverine are horrible, however.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    X1 and X2 were, before the Batman films came out, the best modern Superhero movies by a long way.

    Last Stand and Wolverine are horrible, however.
    Before the Batman films, X1, X2 and the Spider-Man films were the only modern superhero films.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The X-Men films that don't turn into The Wolverine Show are genuinely good, imo. :holmes:

    Also, Sucker Punch is a gigantic, cretinous waste of time and I am genuinely angry at myself for having watched it. When it's not ruining some of my favourite songs, it's just a diabolical, over-stylized mess of action and fanservice. I don't even like Superman, but get Zack Snyder the **** away from that franchise before he hurts somebody.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    The X-Men films that don't turn into The Wolverine Show are genuinely good, imo. :holmes:
    So that would be only First Class?

    Also, Sucker Punch is a gigantic, cretinous waste of time and I am genuinely angry at myself for having watched it. When it's not ruining some of my favourite songs, it's just a diabolical, over-stylized mess of action and fanservice. I don't even like Superman, but get Zack Snyder the **** away from that franchise before he hurts somebody.
    Considering the fail that GL seems to be according to reviewers, DC really needs Superman to be halfway decent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    So that would be only First Class?



    Considering the fail that GL seems to be according to reviewers, DC really needs Superman to be halfway decent.



    I'm starting to think Warner/DC are putting all their eggs in Christopher Nolan's basket. Every non-Batman film they've collaborated on lately seems to range from mediocre to terrible, reeking of a total lack of effort: they hire serviceable, competent, and painfully average directors like Martin Campbell and Robert Schwenke, outright terrible directors like whatever sick, depraved beast was responsible for Jonah Hex, and they give people like Frank Miller a punt because he's Frank Miller and why the hell not. They seem to figure that comic book films generally turn a profit, so they don't really need to do anything beyond throwing money at a picture and hoping for the best. It's a pretty terrible attitude, and just perpetuates the image of comic book films as meaningless adolescent faff. Snyder's Superman, if it stays true to Snyder in general, is only going to continue the trend, likely being another dire heap of over-the-top set pieces and unbearably cheesy dialogue.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    I'm almost certain Ebert will slate it, not that I really care what he thinks or anything...
    You always seem to **** off Ebert, no matter how many times people show that your opinion of him is very uninformed.

    (Original post by cambo211)
    I'm so glad Nintendo did this.
    He seriously named his kid Zelda? She is so lucky her dad's famous.

    (Original post by zjs)
    That's more a problem with the amateur reviewer themselves than the system, though.
    I quite agree. However, you can't expect them to get better if that's the culture they develop in. Which is why I think for an amateur site such as this which nobody is likely using for quick buying advice ratings shouldn't be emphasised, in order to lay down good reviewing foundations for people rather than them trying to ape IGN.

    Take things like the Oscars. These are awards designed to distinguish films and mark the sublime from the excellent. So too are ratings: the system out of 100 attempts to do just this, for example. The problem comes with the fact that this system is really only beneficial to those that care a lot about films, and these people are more concerned with written elements of reviews than numerical ratings.

    The crucial difference between numerical ratings and the content of a review? Comparing films that are good. Distinguishing them from each other in a way that someone can see instantaneously, rather than having to pick through an entire series of reviews to grasp.
    I don't agree that happens though. Ratings are a very arbitrary form of boiling down everything about a film, and aren't the same as saying "I prefer this one to that one". Instead with a sufficiently detailed number system you're providing a structure which the context of all of your scores must be judged, which is stupid as your opinion of a film can change pretty drastically every time you see it. If you care a lot about films, as you say, I'd suggest that you are one of the people to whom ratings are the least use.

    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.
    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?
    That sounds fine though, and is largely similar to film reviews (most adopt a variant of addressing the story and then looking at elements like direction, acting, etc.). The difference is though that most game reviews try and speak in objective terms like "the graphics are great" without, as Ape says, relating that back to the game and explaining why they work in that context.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Is it Hitchcock? :holmes:
    Way older. :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    He seriously named his kid Zelda? She is so lucky her dad's famous.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0931958/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Like I said, so lucky. Whenever I hear of people like Apple Martin and Brooklyn Beckham, I can never help but wonder just how much abuse they'd have gotten at school.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Like I said, so lucky. Whenever I hear of people like Apple Martin and Brooklyn Beckham, I can never help but wonder just how much abuse they'd have gotten at school.
    Zelda was at least a real name before the game came out, albeit a very very uncommon one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by zjs)
    It all depends on how well substantiated the figures actually are. If the difference between 9.8 and 10 is tangible, then this means a lot more. My experience of game reviewing backs up your belief: that the differentiation is pointless, but - in my view at least - this is because it's arbitrary as to what something scores. There are no 'bands' of where a game should place, and it often feels like games that score 9.5+, for instance, were arbitrarily given that score on the basis that they were better than a previous title in a series that rated, say, 9.3 but weren't worthy of a perfect 10.

    Finickity point it may be, but I wouldn't say the choice was quite the same between COD and Battlefield as between GTA and Saints Row/Just Cause. Everyone knows the essential differences between COD (kill people; usually solo, sometimes in teams; no vehicles) and Battlefield (destroy crates/captures flags; usually in teams, sometimes alone; vehicles). Therefore, the choice comes down to which style of game you prefer, although you'll most likely read the reviews to ensure they've both bettered the previous instalment in the series.

    Again, going from my experience, I'd say any game in the 90s tends to be there because it is considered exceptional, but not quite flawless enough to achieve a perfect 100. An 89, on the other hand, can be seen as an excellent game but with several minor flaws that prevent it moving into the 90s. If I saw GTA 4 had a 95, while Just Cause 2 was an 89; this would come to my mind. Likewise, the score usually has a break-down, or a few sentence summary next to it. These would help inform the casual gamer without necessarily being forced to delve into the reviews themselves.

    Yes, they already do that, but that's what I mean. There's already a proliferation of comments from favourable sources - i.e. Nuts Magazine, which is only happy to splash out 10/10s and 5*s all over the shop. If, however, as you say, there is a magazine considered to be very harsh and their top rating's sparse (i.e. your example of publications differing) then this is 'worth' more to the informed purchaser.

    Now, the average person won't know the stalwarts of the games or film reviewing industry, necessarily, but they'll know enough to realise that Nuts Magazine isn't exactly a sophisticated source for a review. However, if a film studio owned a magazine and didn't make this explicit (i.e. Universal didn't call it Universal Film Magazine), then a 5* rating for a Universal film from their magazine might be considered a better indicator of its quality than it might actually be.

    That's the problem with a commercially-driven market. It leads everyone involved in the process to ensure that there's the greatest commercial value extracted from the process. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of ensuring reviews are positive, whichever way is possible and the least biased to achieve this, in order to gain the most.

    Film reviews tend to praise independent cinema and really slate big budget Hollywood blockbuster when they turn out a trite, senseless, and flawed offering. Independent games companies tend to be slated more often than not and critiqued in a far harsher light than games produced by the "big" games companies. Often this is because they make mistakes with the controls or poach ideas from other games in a boring way, but a lot of the time it just seems overly-harsh and an entirely commercially-driven decision.

    I agree on the point of game reviews needlessly talking about the story but, then again, it sets the tone of the review. Story lines are only mentioned in that level of coverage when they're actually important to the game (i.e. not really for games like Tiger Woods, FIFA or COD).

    As for there being too much emphasis on these headings for games reviews, I disagree. A game, at the end of the day, is something played for enjoyment. A film is also watched for the purposes of enjoyment, but it can be much more politically focused or educational than a game. It can also address deeper, far-reaching, consequences in a way that a game just can't. As such, film reviews need to be unique and deal with the elements as interwoven. In a games review, there needs to be some element of isolating the overall workability of the control system and the hours of gameplay to be had, the quality of the single player etc as these are important elements for gamers. They need to know they'll enjoy the game, it will have longevity and they won't get too frustrated.
    Excellent points. Video reviews are also becoming more popular.

    The only things I will say is that the casual gamer or passing gamer won't know about the fundamental difference between Call of Duty and Battlefield's style of play. To them they are both blockbuster FPS shooters.

    What's your boundary for ratings? Like what rating would you consider as 'I'll pass'. 5? 6? 7? A lot of the times the hype for a game will make you want to get a game despite any bad ratings, but that's not often the cases. If it gets panned, then I, myself, am unlikely to get it.

    I wouldn't entirely agree that the big companies are praised more often that. In fact, a lot of editors I've heard from are extremely critical both off the record and within reviews of big companies like EA and Activision. They do mention and criticse lack of innovation in the review though sadly somehow the score always comes out high and somewhat ironically Call of Duty gets praised as 'revolutionary'. :erm:

    Games like Braid, Limbo and Minecraft do get high and universal praise. I think it's more the matter that those are the only games that come to mind. Not much coverage is given of fresh and widely innovative independent developer games. In Hollywood, a higher budget is never really indicative of high quality. With game developers (some exceptions), it pretty much is. Even a beautiful game like Braid required a considerable investment.

    (Original post by getfunky!)
    Neill Blomkamp .. famously known for his District 9 film, he should really make more feature length films.. starting with Halo:shock:
    I'm hoping he does more original stuff first before taking on established source material.

    As for Gambon, I think his interpretation, despite not reading about the character, fits in very well with the films. Sure he seems angry most of the time he's on screen, but it helps for when he's meant to be calm or opening up about his past .. because you can see the contrast between his moods. Overall, the films/stories seem much more darker when he is playing Dumbledore.. especially when you compare it to the Dumbledore of HP 1 & 2.
    It fits in with the films yeah, but it doesn't fit in with the story. I think it's the opposite. Seeing him angry or anything but calm has a bigger impact than seeing him calm after being excessively angry. If that makes sense.

    The point of Dumbledore is his genius and venerability. He can stay calm whilst everything is going to ****. The people around him tend to panic, when you have the actual figure running around grabbing Harry and shouting in his face - it detracts from the overall character.

    I thought Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore. Much more as I imagined it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Before the Batman films, X1, X2 and the Spider-Man films were the only modern superhero films.
    Right, but that was bad grammer by me.

    I meant excluding Batman. So they're better than Iron Man, Spiderman etc.

    Imo anyways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There isn't a film around that captures the fun of superheroes as well as the first Iron Man. Not X-Men, Spider-Man, anything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    I'm starting to think Warner/DC are putting all their eggs in Christopher Nolan's basket. Every non-Batman film they've collaborated on lately seems to range from mediocre to terrible, reeking of a total lack of effort: they hire serviceable, competent, and painfully average directors like Martin Campbell and Robert Schwenke, outright terrible directors like whatever sick, depraved beast was responsible for Jonah Hex, and they give people like Frank Miller a punt because he's Frank Miller and why the hell not. They seem to figure that comic book films generally turn a profit, so they don't really need to do anything beyond throwing money at a picture and hoping for the best. It's a pretty terrible attitude, and just perpetuates the image of comic book films as meaningless adolescent faff. Snyder's Superman, if it stays true to Snyder in general, is only going to continue the trend, likely being another dire heap of over-the-top set pieces and unbearably cheesy dialogue.
    I quite agree. Marvel is not only throwing them out thick and fast, they're usually pretty good as well. And they're all linked - Hulk, Thor, Iron Man and Cap are all going to come together, as we know, whereas DC has no chance for a JLA film franchise without rebooting Batman after Nolan, which would be very hazardous, considering how popular Nolan's Batman is.

    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    Right, but that was bad grammer by me.

    I meant excluding Batman. So they're better than Iron Man, Spiderman etc.

    Imo anyways.
    I like X1 and X2 more than Spider-Man, but the Iron Man films are far better, particularly the first.

    (Original post by Christien)
    There isn't a film around that captures the fun of superheroes as well as the first Iron Man. Not X-Men, Spider-Man, anything.
    Exactly. Even though Nolan's Batman is the best, Iron Man is the most fun.


    I'm going out to watch Green Lantern now :indiff: Wish me luck.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    A Batman reboot is inevitable though even without the prospect of JLA. The studio wants more Batman, but Nolan's bringing his story (along with some of the actors) to an end. The universe will probably come to an end too. Snyder said they won't be using 'his' Superman so another reboot for that too?!

    I think the atrocities that were Daredevil, Elektra and pushing the time frame by a week, Fantastic Four might make it into the class of modern Superhero films pre-Nolan-Batman.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    in order to lay down good reviewing foundations for people rather than them trying to ape IGN.
    I often surprise myself in how I manage to sidle my way into everyday conversations.

    Way older. :p:
    William Dickson old? Feels like I'm playing The Price is Right. Give us some clues, man-yo. :pierre:

    Also, your past iteration told me to poke you about some TSR Bloggers thread.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Zelda was at least a real name before the game came out, albeit a very very uncommon one.
    When the dad is appearing on adverts effectively 1upping the guy who said "I liked it so much I bought the company", I'm not really sure that can be used as a justification. :p:

    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Exactly. Even though Nolan's Batman is the best, Iron Man is the most fun.
    Agreed. Although if Scott Pilgrim counts as a superhero, I'd definitely say he rivals Iron Man.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've been thinking a bit about next Christmas. It's really going to be a massive war at the box office, and I'm pretty sure somebody is going to end up as a loser.

    Cameron now has more money than God thanks to his previous turnout, and while I doubt the sequel will make anywhere near as much money as Avatar due to the less fanfare about the tech I'm sure he'll have enough interest to generate around the $1bn mark. The Hobbit should be a success easily based on the goodwill Jackson can bring from the LotR trilogy, and then you've got Superman. While he is pretty much the most famous superhero ever, Zack Snyder has not been performing recently (Sucker Punch barely covered its costs), and WB are notoriously expectant about Superman films (hell, they sacked Singer and his film made 400 million dollars). If it performs lower than the other two films I think WB might start cutting ties with Snyder, and given that he has never shown any inclination that he might be able to work outside the studio system I think this might be a major hiccup in his career.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Way older. :p:
    Is it a Hollywood movie? Birth of a Nation old?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    William Dickson old? Feels like I'm playing The Price is Right. Give us some clues, man-yo. :pierre:
    (Original post by Abiraleft)
    Is it a Hollywood movie? Birth of a Nation old?
    Older. It's French, and a restored version (that took 13 years to restore!) debuted at Cannes this year. You should be able to find it easily now. :p:

    Also, your past iteration told me to poke you about some TSR Bloggers thread.
    I'm ready to go with my super secret plan, just waiting on admin approval which is taking a bit of time. :grumble:

    I also have something more film-related in the works, which is also taking a while to be approved. :ninja:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    I quite agree. Marvel is not only throwing them out thick and fast, they're usually pretty good as well. And they're all linked - Hulk, Thor, Iron Man and Cap are all going to come together, as we know, whereas DC has no chance for a JLA film franchise without rebooting Batman after Nolan, which would be very hazardous, considering how popular Nolan's Batman is.


    I'm going out to watch Green Lantern now :indiff: Wish me luck.


    The idea of a JLA film just needs to die. In the comics you have the benefit of years and years of continuity, without having to introduce everyone. In this, not only will they have to introduce the nth iterations of Batman and Superman, they'll have to establish lesser known characters, balance a budget (that for George Miller's version was so strained that he got Adam Brody playing the Flash and a then-unknown Armie Hammer as Batman), and create a narrative that can convincingly use every member of the league without overstuffing the film. If it does happen, it won't simply be hazardous, it's almost definitely going to be an unmitigated catastrophe. I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the guys from Supernatural playing Batman and Superman.


    If they absolutely must put these two characters together, they should do The Dark Knight Returns, and do it properly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    DR No or other old bond films
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 11, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.