• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Criticism that misses the point

Breogan

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I've seen the other day that Netflix added a series about Simon Bolívar. Checking info about it I see is a Colombian production of last year I think, and between the length of it (60 episodes???!?!?!??!?!?) and general reviews being "well, if you wanted the telenovela approach to the life of Bolívar, this is your ticket", I'm not inclined to go and watch it.

But. I was curious, so I checked if there was any reviews in English. And I found one.


Again, all in all, the review seems in line with most other reviews, saying that it is a bit meh, a lot of melodrama and stuff, etc. (Well, and the obligatory pointer about Maduro hating it even before being done). But there is a bit in it where the reviewer says

Where Bolívar goes from bad to irredeemable is within the focus of the scenes relative to their setting. Everything screams amateur. For example, in a setting where the mercurial leader leads his ragtag company of revolutionaries through mountainous terrain, half the group isn’t at all dressed or otherwise prepared for the voyage into frigid hinterlands, which surely everyone would have been familiar with.
Which... is completly missing the point. Because, well, that was the whole point. Again, I've not watched it, so I cant comment if the series is so inept in showing the situation as to make the reviewer miss the point, but, well, the whole thing is precisely that Bolívar had 3 roads to get to one city, but 2 of them were so obvious it was clear the Realist troops would be there, while crossing the mountains was completly unexpected for a good reason. So he decides to do an Hannibal and presses his troops, lots of them from the lowland plains and unequiped for that, through that mountain pass, losing some of them to the conditions but managing to surprise the enemy by bypassing them.

So, what other cases of critics completly missing the point you can remember? (Probably better documented that this one because again, I'm not watching 60 episodes of a telenovela :p)
 

DocShoveller

Godwin's Lawman
Validated User
I couldn't get excited about a sixty-episode Bolivar series either, and it's my period.

Criticism that misses the point... "Verhoeven's Starship Troopers isn't like the book"?
 

Chucky

Chupa-thingy
Validated User
I was recently watching a YouTube video about six(?) movies better then the book their based on. One of them was the Kiera Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice because it's so much more romantic.
 

Tonbo_Karasu

Registered User
Validated User
Allow me to quote G K Chesterton from the eve of his death:

I happen to have a very strong objection to that trick of missing the point of a story, or sometimes even the obvious sense of the very name of a story...those who endure the heavy labour of reading a book might possibly endure that of reading the title-page of a book.
...
This line of logic, or lunacy, led many to infer that this equivocal being was meant for a serious description of the Deity; and my work even enjoyed a temporary respect among those who like the Deity to be so described. But this error was entirely due to the fact that they had read the book but had not read the title page. In my case, it is true, it was a question of a sub-title rather than a title. The book was called The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare. It was not intended to describe the real world as it is.
 

darkgloomie

Un-jiggly
Validated User
I was recently watching a YouTube video about six(?) movies better then the book their based on. One of them was the Kiera Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice because it's so much more romantic.
Clearly the reviewer never even read P&P
 

StumpyDave

Still pretty. Still pink
Validated User
During the late eighties there was a satire on apartheid only the discrimination was aimed at short people, not race or colour.
Those under 1.55m were treated as second class citizens..
It was cancelled as the Powers That Be felt it discriminated against short people.
 

Q99

Genderpunk
Staff member
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Anyone ever hear "too much giant monsters fighting each other" or "too much focus on the giant robots fighting the giant monsters"?

King of the Monsters, Pacific Rim, Pacific Rim Uprising. While Kaiju movie have had various flaws in their days, monster action has never been one of them.
 

Wailing_Oboli

Registered User
Validated User
So, what other cases of critics completly missing the point you can remember? (Probably better documented that this one because again, I'm not watching 60 episodes of a telenovela :p)
You can see this sort of thing with all sorts of classic genre/cult films, especially those from the '70s. William Friedkin's Sorcerer and John Carpenter's The Thing were widely panned at release, for example.
More recently, there was a nonsensical argument going around claiming that the final season of Game of Thrones was objectively worse than previous seasons because there wasn't as much dialogue. If that argument bore any weight, it'd make David Mamet, Aaron Sorkin, and Amy Sherman-Palladino the greatest screenwriters of all time.
 

Randall

Registered User
Validated User
I remember a complain about Peter Jackson's King Kong having a t-rex because he was copying it from jurasic Park, that king kong should be about king kong and no about dinosaurs. That escalated quickly showing fucking footage of first King Kong movie and the dinosaurs there, but the guy commenting choose to fight his position with tooth and nails.

Also, another big complain about The Two Towers: Rohirrim would never give their horses to Aragorn & co because they were so precious and special and that scene was bad because True Rohirrim never, ever, would do that in any competent LOTR game.
 
Top Bottom