While I understand people's criticisms of Sucker Punch, I still really enjoy the movie and its soundtrack.
One of the most common criticisms I see is that their outfits have sex appeal. It's a totally valid criticism, but at the same time, I see this as Babydoll choosing an outfit that is the exact opposite of the unsexy hospital gowns she's forced as a way to escape her reality. I would do the same to be honest.
It seems like a lot of people complain about Doctor Who not really having any canon or rules, and contradicting itself constantly (sometimes within the same episode) but I don't think that's necessarily a failing because it's not trying to do that at all.
The trend these days is for a lot of shows, especially sci-fi ones, to be sort of 'internet-proof' and be designed to withstand the people who go through frame-by-frame looking for little errors and contradictions to pull apart, and Doctor Who ignores that completely and just aims to be big fun campy dramatic nonsense, which I think it mostly succeeds at. I think the only cardinal sin for that show is don't be boring, which IMO it pulls off more often than not.
And it's fine to not like that of course, but I don't get it when people try to call the show out for not doing something it's never really tried to do, at least since it came back in 2005.
Ariel in Disney's A Little Mermaid doesn't drop everything for "a man".
She is clearly interested in land culture from the opening of the film, spending her time collecting shipwreck items and trying to learn what they are. She also isn't interested in the hobby her father wants her to do, singing.
King Triton is abusive when destroying Ariel's collection of artifacts, which makes you think of what else is going on with how he parents her.
So, Eric shows up and seems like a way out. It isn't a lot of information to go off of for adults, but it is something solid for a teenager.
And what did she give up to gain her legs? Her voice. People interpret it as her giving up being able to speak for herself, but it is her giving up the thing that her father cares about.
Also I can't look past the fact that there's absolutely no way that they wouldn't establish a form of nonverbal communication. ASL? Enthusiastic head nodding?!
Sonic Adventure 2's mech stages. I actually loved those stages and was really surprised to learn that so many people didn't like them, I always found it so satisfying getting good combos!
Everybody says Dark is a better Stranger Things (around the Season 1/2 time period), but Dark is a really boring alternative to Stranger Things that replaced cool Lovecraftian shit with boring ass "it's sooo deep when you call it a time travel paradox instead of endless meandering and plotholes".
And to be fair, Stranger Things Season 4 (which was already in decline) also retconned all the cool Lovecraftian shit with boring ass "some random asshole has super powers for literally no reason".
also Interstellar pisses me off because it's a dumbass time travel bullshit movie that branded itself as hard scifi with space travel but was actually about invisible space wizards doing a Deus Ex Machina.
In the last season of The Crown, Princess Diana's "ghost" makes an apperence to Charles and the Queen. People were super upset, saying that it's offensive to speak for her in that capacity.
That show is not fantastical, and they have never shown "ghosts." I took it as those characters having a mental conversation with her, like, technically talking to themselves, as part of their grieving process, and not that the actual spirit of Diana came from the afterlife to tell Charles it's cool.
Memory or not, they're putting words in the mouth of a deceased woman to make a survivor feel less guilty
I guess, but wouldn't that complaint apply to the whole show? I took the scene(s) as them being so far removed from Diana that they couldn't even conjure her memory properly. Her kids didn't have scenes like that, and I can't imagine her "ghost" not seeing them. I think it's because they didn't feel guilty, at least not like those two, so they didn't have manufacture an apology, they had nothing to apologize for. ~~I'm also reading way, way, too much into it. ~~
The movie Tomorrowland. I don't understand why anyone could not like it. Maybe because I watched it in German, but I love this movie. It has character, it has character arcs and development, it has fun gadgets and delivers more than once a great message, that's motivating and gives you something to think about. It has an amazing fantasy world and I enjoy the dialogues too.
Sure they could've shown more of the high tech society and some lines are a bit cheesy, but I never saw the audience to be 18+ and more on being also entertaining to kids.
There are dozens of us!
The lack of interpersonal conflict in Star Treks overseen by Gene Roddenberry is a good thing. Humanity got their shit together, made Earth paradise, and went exploring the galaxy and other frontiers in life. Shoehorning conflict and darkness into the newer series destroys what made it unique.
I couldn't quite pinpoint what I didn't like about the newer series, but you've nailed it - the hyper realistic tone it now has really clashes with the explorative nature of the old series.
There are some ways in which the newer shows like Discovery are realistic, but there are also ways in which they are stupid.
For example, two federation officers in a life or death situation where they have two minutes to solve an urgent crisis, and they decide to spend 60 seconds of that having an emotional heart-to-heart.
If that was in TNG, they'd have got the job done like professionals, and then had the friends chat later in ten forward. Because that's how people with jobs get their jobs done.
TNG era was quite cheesy in some ways, but it kept characters real in that they always acted appropriately for their role and position, not just like a bunch of emotional oddballs who get to be in charge of a spaceship for some reason.
Well said. Discovery was more about individualism and the "rich tapestry" of family histories to show that these characters have inherited their greatness and that no one else is equipped to be in the singular intense situation they are now in.
TNG was more about the mission. Sometimes family history came into it, but most of the team was just doing the best they could given the circumstance and their characteristics were more quirks that helped the overall effort. At least that's how it felt. Not one single character was more special than another.
No particular heroes, just professional heroics.
Dark Souls 2 gets so much hate for a few things that I don't see as a big deal, or gets blamed for things that are present in the other games in the series.
They tied a stat called Adaptability to your dodge, so you have to level up that stat to get the same number of invincibility frames as the previous game. I did not notice at all until I read complaints about it. I never felt entitled to a certain number of i-frames. I can see how it might be annoying to someone with more experience from DS1, but it's far from a deal breaker for me.
People complain about hitboxes, as if DS1 isn't full of nonsensical jank in this category.
They complain about enemy spam, as if there aren't 12 undead crammed in a small room before the Gargoyle boss who will body block you if you don't deal with them. Or 8 Taurus demons followed by 6 Capra demons in a row. Or 40 crystal undead that hit like trucks in the Duke's archives. Or another 12 undead in one room in The Depths.
Then there's the magic bullet - Miyazaki wasn't that involved. Ok, well does that mean the rest of the company is useless? Maybe he should create the entire games all by himself just to make sure those pesky colleagues don't screw it up. It's so disrespectful to the rest of the team to imply they aren't shit without him.
People cry "development hell" when you point out the very unfinished second half of DS1, but crucify DS2 which had a massive change of direction and redesign halfway into development.
Ds2 does a lot right in vibes. I didn't really get it that much while playing but it focuses a lot on being an RPG and making you utilize the different systems in the game. You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
That said I found the game kinda ass to play. I think the enemy spam in ds2 is significantly worse than ds1 other than the room before the gargoyle fight. When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you're pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I do think it's over hated but I think it's because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.
Totally. My first playthrough was as a sorcerer which was difficult, but advantageous in many ways. These games are praised for not hand-holding and DS2 is no different - you're expected to adapt. Adaptability is not just a stat, but a state of mind.
When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you’re pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.
I have to disagree. I never felt body-blocked so often in 2 as I did in 1. They don't make it easy, but in 2 most areas you can just run through if you bait enemy attacks as you dodge. There are some exceptions like Iron Keep which is downright sadistic in forcing you to kill the enemies, though, for sure. I felt the same way with the bloat-heads in Oolacile township, Demonic Foliage in Darkroot Garden, crystal undead in Duke's, 90% of enemies in Undead Burg and Parish, New Londo Ghosts. I'm sure the amount of experience with either game can make the difference between running through and getting stun-locked though - I still feel like a noob when playing 1.
I do think it’s over hated but I think it’s because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.
I think you're right. I played 2 before 1. Both were frustratingly difficult at times, but that was the only expectation I had going in, since the series is known for being about overcoming challenges.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There's another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There’s another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.
I definitely know what you mean about those areas in 2. All four Lord Soul runbacks in DS1 make me feel a similar way. Though if any of these areas in either game were easy it wouldn't feel so dang good to overcome them :)
The lord soul runbacks are rough for sure. I hated doing them, but never for the enemies. Just so long for no real reason lol. But you're right, challenge is absolutely the name of the game here
One that always stood out to me was the ending of the Tom Cruise war or the world's movie.
Now to be clear, this is not a good film and I don't recommend that anyone bothers to go watch it, but a criticism I regularly saw was that the ending was bad - the aliens all just die suddenly.
That was literally the only thing that film got right from the source material. They changed literally everything else in an attempt to modernise it, it didn't work but they at least kept the ending and that's the bit people didn't like.
Yeah. It's a movie about surviving. Not winning. And the opening sets up the end.
Everyone is on fire in this thread. Every comment legitimately interesting and well thought out. Upvotes abound. (Apologies for the meta)
Lord of the Rings (the books) are terribly written by modern novel standards and while the story is amazing their value purely as literature is quite low. I will always defend people who loved the movies and couldn't get into the books.
Yeah, I stopped reading The Two Towers halfway through when it switched to Frodo's and Sam's perspective and I knew it'd just be a slog to get through.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree completely. They are written in a different style than we're used to today, but they're masterfully done. To me, the movies are largely good adaptations, but the books are far superior.
But that's the nice thing about taste: everyone's entitled to their own.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~