Turn on thread page Beta

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    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.
    I think you're underestimating the casual gamer, though. If the casual gamer talks to anyone that's played the games, or owns the games, or has played themselves; they'll have these differences fed to them in any preliminary discussion or within a few minutes of playtime on each title.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    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've never bought a game on the basis of ratings. I use reviews, as in read through them, more out of interest than as a precursor to buying a game. I'm only arguing that ratings serve a purpose for those who don't actually read reviews. There are some games that have had rave reviews which I haven't liked, and vice versa.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    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:
    That's the problem though; they criticise companies for churning out titles year after year (i.e. FIFA) that are only marginally improved etc, then go on to list enough improvements to suggest that a purchase may be worth it if you're a real fan or, of course, don't own the previous title. The problem is that a lot of people are devotees to the series, so the criticism is hardly damning or even opinion-changing.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    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.
    There are people who only have a passing interest in films or games who have friends/colleagues who are more knowledgeable in the area. They often recommend reviews sites, and the like, to their less-experienced peers. As such, some of those people do use amateur review sites for their ratings, as they think them to be more impartial and less biased.

    While it's important that amateur reviewers develop their skills, you have to look at the reason for which they're reviewing. If, like yourself, it's a periphery interest (i.e. I would assume that studying Medicine is your primary focus for a future career) then the meat'n'potatoes, the sole 'point' of reviewing is for the sake of reviewing itself: reflecting on the film for your own benefit and sharing these opinions to help others decide whether or not to watch/purchase a film. However, amateur reviewers who're aiming to 'go pro' with their reviewing need to learn how professional review sites 'work'; i.e. they need to be used to attaching ratings to their reviews.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    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.
    Saying you prefer one film to another is an expression of taste, while saying you think one film is better than another is an attempt to create some sort of film hierarchy. If ratings were used for the latter purpose, I agree; they'd be defunct. However, they're not. To take a (fictional) example. Let's say Gandhi scores 86/100, while Slumdog Millionaire scores an 88/100. The ratings system isn't attempting to say "Slumdog Millionaire is better than Gandhi, watch that instead", rather, it's attempting to demonstrate the quality of a film, in relation to admittedly arbitrary guidelines. Now, I agree, the arbitrariness of this process is the issue. But, the salient point is this: people use ratings to imply that, because a film scored better than another film it is better, but the intention of a ratings system isn't to pit films against one another, but rather to show how close to perfect the reviewer considered a film to be.

    Yes, it's set against a context. The only problem with this is that it can be formulaic and rigid. After all, you have the same idea of the elements of a film that you'll be focusing on when reviewing it; the same idea of what makes a film 'good' etc, just in your head. The advantage to not having to crystallise the system is that it's subject to change. However, if the argument you're putting forward is that any sort of attempt to codify your opinion on a film - in the form of using a universal structure - is nonsensical as it goes against a changing opinion on films, then this is also an argument against codifying any opinion on a film. The second you write any sort of review, you entrench a view in writing on that film, which could change weeks, months or years later. Reviewers don't, generally, revisit films they've rewatched and changed their opinion on. The ratings system is a more overt, overreaching, system - but it's still the reviewer committing their ideas to paper with the use of a certain 'system'.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    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.
    Graphics are either good or they're not, though. Game reviews will praise innovative graphics, i.e. cel-shading used in Jet Set Radio Future back on the original Xbox was hailed as fantastically innovative and "great" graphics. The point is that graphics are graphics. They rarely rate to the storyline, unless it's something like a dark, crime, game set in a dreary 1930s setting. At this point, muted tones and dark colours should be lauded as conveying the tone of the game well. However, for the most part, graphics are just a case of how well the pixel producing capabilities of the console are implemented in rendering the characters and environments to look as realistic as possible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Christien)
    There is pretty much no 'realistic' way to incorporate Ra's anymore. Some sort of heroic escape from the train crash would be the most likely option, but he's just sitting down and chilling after Batman's left. :dontknow: Still, over probably the most consistently brilliant career of any director working today, Nolan has earned a licence to do whatever he wants, and if he wants to bring Ra's back in a bigger capacity than a flashback, you have to believe he can make it work.
    yep I'm left pondering that aswell .. just how exactly is he going to tie up the end of batman begins to the dark knight rise whilst remaining realistic.

    and have to agree Christopher Nolan is the most consistent director in the last couple of decades..

    Just realised he is going to be directing a Superman film as well 'Man of Steel':eek:
    is that going to be a reboot of the superman franchise as well?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    yep I'm left pondering that aswell .. just how exactly is he going to tie up the end of batman begins to the dark knight rise whilst remaining realistic.

    and have to agree Christopher Nolan is the most consistent director in the last couple of decades..

    Just realised he is going to be directing a Superman film as well 'Man of Steel':eek:
    is that going to be a reboot of the superman franchise as well?
    Snyder's directing 'Man of Steel' not Nolan.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I'm hoping he does more original stuff first before taking on established source material.



    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.
    I have to agree he should do more original ideas before going for the big ones.. its just that a Halo movie has been ''in-the-works'' for so long. people have probably given up on it.

    Well Dumbledore is as how you described it .. but I guess to fit in the more darker themes of the films, they would have to make him seem darker.. especially when he has less screen time due to cutting out parts of the book.

    So, any interesting movies you film fanatics awaiting ..?
    :rolleyes:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Snyder's directing 'Man of Steel' not Nolan.
    ah .. must've read past that.

    well he's producing/writing it .. any involvement from him in that film should be enough:coma:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Snyder's directing 'Man of Steel' not Nolan.
    I bet you his name will be bigger on the posters though...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    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:
    The Melies film, A Trip to the Moon? They spent those 13 years painstakingly colouring in the film. From what I have seen of his work, he is a genius. An early master of special effects. I absolutely adore this. Brilliant editing for it's time, or any time.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I bet you his name will be bigger on the posters though...
    Undoubtedly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking of names on movie posters, this is a travesty:

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It really is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Undoubtedly.
    From the director who brought you Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises

    And the man who made 300
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Full metal jacket's on.. don't think I've ever watched all of it through, same with Apocalypse now

    should really watch em sometime
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Full metal jacket's on.. don't think I've ever watched all of it through, same with Apocalypse now

    should really watch em sometime


    Great, another FMJ first-halfer. Everything after boot camp is also great, and Animal Mother is there to fill the void of hilariously bigoted dialogue once R. Lee Ermey's screentime is over. :fyi: Watch the whole thing, I implore you. I'd say Apocalypse Now is also worthy of your attention, although a lot of people consider it to be as bloated and indulgent as Marlon Brando was during its production.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christien)
    although a lot of people consider it to be as bloated and indulgent as Marlon Brando was during its production.
    Who are these people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChessMister)
    Who are these people?


    Of the film fans I know (those on my film modules from last year, general film obsessives), it seems that half absolutely love it and half think it marks the start of Coppola's decline. I guess I've found that it's kind of divisive in that way that 2001 is; people recognize that it's very well-made and everything, but tend to find it to be either a work of sublime genius or an overlong, overwrought pretentious mess. I personally quite like Apocalypse Now and don't really get this latter opinion. :dontknow:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah FMJ is great christien, from what I've seen anyway. Genuinely funny dialogue there and all, funny way to exaggerate the extremes of bootcamp, military training, it works. Apocalpsye now is arguably a heavy, full on film but I agree that it's actually a pretty epic, well made film

    ****

    Also The beaver, that new film with Mel Gibson having a talking beaver puppet for psychological therapy... it looks slightly hilarious, but may wear thin really fast. Wonder what people will make of it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Also The beaver, that new film with Mel Gibson having a talking beaver puppet for psychological therapy... it looks slightly hilarious, but may wear thin really fast. Wonder what people will make of it
    Supposedly, it's a thinly-veiled vehicle for Mel Gibson to atone in both character and reality; though it's obvious that this redemption is impossible outside of the cinema screen. It's also a preposterous concept that, apparently, isn't executed particularly well either.


    As for Full Metal Jacket: the boot camp beginning is indeed legendary, but it would be like watching the skydiving scene from Point Blank and none of the rest of the film not to watch beyond this point in FMJ. And a travesty, as the film itself is excellent. A very interesting portrayal of the effects war; topped only by The Deer Hunter, imo. Apocalypse Now! is very good and certainly an epic war film, but it is gratuitous and O.T.T in areas.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zjs)
    Supposedly, it's a thinly-veiled vehicle for Mel Gibson to atone in both character and reality; though it's obvious that this redemption is impossible outside of the cinema screen. It's also a preposterous concept that, apparently, isn't executed particularly well either.
    It's a film that was written (with the film topping Hollywood's black list) and filmed before any of Gibson's murky secrets came to light.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    It's a film that was written (with the film topping Hollywood's black list) and filmed before any of Gibson's murky secrets came to light.
    True in terms of the allegations of racism and domestic violence, but filming was completed in November 2009; by which point his anti-semitic remarks (of July 2006), his alcoholism and his homophobic comments had all been aired.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,130

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your 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.