• 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

darktalon

Merchant of Chaos
Validated User
See also the people who make the same complaint (or the generic form "too political") about Star Trek or science fiction in general.
Yeah, Star Trek has ALWAYS been 'sjw' in the sense of deliberately pushing a progressive agenda. Check out that bridge crew in TOS...
Same goes for Doctor Who. Oh, the last season was "too political", was it? Let's go back to the totally apolitical glory days of season one - you know, the one with the recurring anticapitalist subtext and farting aliens invading Iraq. (And as for the classic series, where to even start?)

what they almost certainly mean is that they want the games they like to be treated like they think art is treated--that it can't be criticized (which is definitely not true, but again this is their perception)
A perception which is utterly baffling - have they never seen a negative review of a book, film, TV series or other "legitimate" artwork in their lives? Especially these days, when you only have to go on the Amazon page for anything even vaguely popular and click the one star review filter?
 

Nerik the Red

Registered User
Validated User
Same goes for Doctor Who. Oh, the last season was "too political", was it? Let's go back to the totally apolitical glory days of season one - you know, the one with the recurring anticapitalist subtext and farting aliens invading Iraq.
'Massive weapons of destruction that could be deployed in 30 seconds'?! :cool:
(I'd quibble about the fact that season one was a year before I was born, but that's beside the point - even the BBC doesn't count them that way).:sneaky:
 

shikomekidomi

Registered User
Validated User
Yes, and I made that exact same point about Starship Troopers, and people acted like it was a ridiculous comment.
No, you made the opposite point. Return to Oz was more, not less, like the books than Wizard. And even then, both Wizard and Return were far more based on the books than Starship Troopers. Because, astonishingly, when you use the title of a well-known work of fiction for your movie, people go in expecting to see something based on that piece of fiction. If I made a movie called Cinderella and it was about a girl who fled her evil step mother to live with seven dwarves before eating a poisoned apple, you can bet people would complain.

The Oz movie confusion was just because a few people thought it was a sequel to the previous attempt at adapting the books and not a reboot-- Like going to see Amazing Spiderman and saying "Where's Toby Macguire?".
 
Last edited:

Siphonaptera

up to no good
Validated User
This one confuses me so much. I mean if there's a TV show you like it produces hours and hours of content year in and year out and nobody thinks that it's strange that you want to keep watching it year in and year out if it stays good. The MCU meanwhile produces less (in terms of running time) content per year than most TV shows and you get posts left and right saying things like "I've enjoyed the MCU thus far but after Endgame I'm checking out, it's just too much to keep up with!" I can understand the price of movie theater tickets being prohibitive but just wait until you can watch them on TV, I mean you can watch the MCU's yearly output over a single weekend, it's not exactly a vast torrent that's hard to keep up with.

I can understand just not liking Marvel movies, everyone has different tastes. But it's the people who enjoy them and want to stop watching them because there's too many that confuse the hell out of me.
The difference is that 10 hours of slow tv episodes with lots of dialogue and infrequent action where if you miss something they will remind you in a later episode doesn't feel as heavy as a couple hours of movie where you have to be focused the entire time and keep track of a lot of smaller details. A season of Daredevil isn't more exhausting from a mental perspective than Endgame for example.

I enjoy both for different reasons, but am far more likely to rewatch Parks and Rec for the 5th time before I do my third binge watch of the MCU even though I love both.
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
The Oz movie confusion was just because a few people thought it was a sequel to the previous attempt at adapting the books and not a reboot-- Like going to see Amazing Spiderman and saying "Where's Toby Macguire?".
Well, it didn't help when its called "Return to Oz" and when the timeframe is clearly after the general events of the first movie, even if its not directly supposed to be a sequel. Its closer to what's sometimes called a "soft reboot" and those often confuse hell out of people, too.
 

WistfulD

Registered User
Validated User
No, you made the opposite point. Return to Oz was more, not less, like the books than Wizard. And even then, both Wizard and Return were far more based on the books than Starship Troopers. Because, astonishingly, when you use the title of a well-known work of fiction for your movie, people go in expecting to see something based on that piece of fiction. If I made a movie called Cinderella and it was about a girl who fled her evil step mother to live with seven dwarves before eating a poisoned apple, you can bet people would complain.
I find this analogy incredibly inapt. Starship Troopers did not focus on what people wanted to see from the books (downgrading the powered armor to, well, armor, which I get not liking, but also don't think not including it in the story is 'missing the point'), it did not tell the story of Snow White and call it Cinderella. And, as stated repeatedly by others here, there is a difference between doing something with a beloved property that people quite reasonably might not like and missing the point.
 

shikomekidomi

Registered User
Validated User
I find this analogy incredibly inapt. Starship Troopers did not focus on what people wanted to see from the books (downgrading the powered armor to, well, armor, which I get not liking, but also don't think not including it in the story is 'missing the point'), it did not tell the story of Snow White and call it Cinderella. And, as stated repeatedly by others here, there is a difference between doing something with a beloved property that people quite reasonably might not like and missing the point.
I may have exaggerated slightly for effect, but I do not consider it to bear enough resemblance to fully justify the use of the title.

And you seem to have switched from discussing whether critics missed the point to whether film adapters missed the point.
 
Last edited:

Pieta

Very custom
Validated User
And as for the classic series, where to even start?
It gets as far as the first serial, An Unearthly Child, before getting into some heavy politics - individual versus group, fear of progress, hoarding of knowledge, ...
 
Last edited:

Azimer the Mad

Knight of Chaos
Validated User
Starship Troopers did not focus on what people wanted to see from the books (downgrading the powered armor to, well, armor, which I get not liking, but also don't think not including it in the story is 'missing the point'
Since the Starship Troopers film is getting seriously thrown around, I think we should all remember it was originally a script called Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine. Someone on production crew mentioned the book Starship Troopers, and people were like, "Yeah, we should license that in case the Heinlein estate would sue use. Ellison did that to Cameron. Change some names in the script to match the book." The production team then tried to get Paul Verhoeven to read the book, but Paul gave up after two chapters because he hated it so much.

Starship Troopers is to deliberate adaptations what turning in a Wikipedia article is to a report. Any fidelity to the "source" material is almost accidental.
 
Top Bottom