^^ I actually sort of liked that movie. The humour was clever and the actors playing Parker and Stacy nailed their roles and had actual chemistry. I just found some of the plot contrivances very... bleh.
It was decent. Fun, even. But riddled with little problems.
I wish there were an easy way to sum up my problems with that movie or even really pinpoint an area I liked to use as a point of reference, but from where I stand that movie was, like, 99% bad. And any good stuff was entirely superficial.
I hear people bring up Andrew Garfield as a positive spot but... like... not really? Sure he's all dreamy and stuff and he has chemistry with Gwen Stacy, but his character is woefully inconsistent- ranging from a mumbly loner to an outgoing coolkid- and his only consistent quality is that he's just kind of a dick the entire way through. He gets his powers and immediately abuses them, and none of this is ever framed as anything worse than just "kinda immature." And then by the end we're supposed to accept that he's learned something about responsibility because of Uncle Ben's speech but he hasn't actually learned anything at all.
Plus, he doesn't really experience any sort of compelling conflict. Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker had to deal with the fact that juggling superheroism and trying to live a normal life was borderline impossible, and had to make a ton of concessions in order to do the right thing. The takeaway- as it should be in a movie about responsibility- is that being a superhero is difficult and really not all that fun. In TASM, though, the most internal conflict Garfield's Parker faces is the fact that he's sad his uncle died, but the heart of that conflict in the originals was his culpability in that happening, whereas here the narrative seems intent on absolving him of responsibility in his uncle's death. Any other conflict is pretty much window dressing. Sure he does the whole "wounded warrior" shtick to Gwen Stacy, but that's not really actual conflict. Plus, their relationship starts and ends in pretty much the exact same place. There's no arc at all. The meet each other and shoegaze. That's it.
Curt Connors is a pretty terrible villain too. So he's sad about having a stumpy arm. Okay. So he takes a serum that'll regrow his arm and it turns him into a lizard. Okay, that's our big stretch, right? Comic book movies always have to stretch a bit for this kind of thing. But then the serum ALSO turns him into lizard Hitler, who wants everyone else to be a lizard. I mean, it's technically a motivation, but it doesn't come from anywhere. It's just the plot saying "We need this guy to go from doofy scientist to Hitlizard, let's just say the chemicals did it." Plus the movie can never decide if he's sympathetic or was evil the entire time and just decides to give him a bunch of offscreen character developments (like Flash).
I feel like a lot of the problems could be summed up with the scene where Parker falls through the ceiling and just... finds the Spider-Man mask. Really, it's a microcosm of all that movie's problem; there's the regurgitation of a thing from the source material with no interest or understanding as to why it was there in the first place, the coincidental nature of the event itself basically leaving the characters with no agency to move the plot forward, the fact that there's really no reason for the scene to be there except a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to people who were fans of the existence of wrestling in the Spider-Man canon but not necessarily wrestling in Spider-Man's plot. ( The winkwinknudgenudgeness would be fine, if it were a minor background detail, but it's not. It's supposed to be a big, inspirational moment.)
^^ I actually sort of liked that movie. The humour was clever and the actors playing Parker and Stacy nailed their roles and had actual chemistry. I just found some of the plot contrivances very... bleh.
It was decent. Fun, even. But riddled with little problems.
I wish there were an easy way to sum up my problems with that movie or even really pinpoint an area I liked to use as a point of reference, but from where I stand that movie was, like, 99% bad. And any good stuff was entirely superficial.
I hear people bring up Andrew Garfield as a positive spot but... like... not really? Sure he's all dreamy and stuff and he has chemistry with Gwen Stacy, but his character is woefully inconsistent- ranging from a mumbly loner to an outgoing coolkid- and his only consistent quality is that he's just kind of a dick the entire way through. He gets his powers and immediately abuses them, and none of this is ever framed as anything worse than just "kinda immature." And then by the end we're supposed to accept that he's learned something about responsibility because of Uncle Ben's speech but he hasn't actually learned anything at all.
Plus, he doesn't really experience any sort of compelling conflict. Tobey Macguire's Peter Parker had to deal with the fact that juggling superheroism and trying to live a normal life was borderline impossible, and had to make a ton of concessions in order to do the right thing. The takeaway- as it should be in a movie about responsibility- is that being a superhero is difficult and really not all that fun. In TASM, though, the most internal conflict Garfield's Parker faces is the fact that he's sad his uncle died, but the heart of that conflict in the originals was his culpability in that happening, whereas here the narrative seems intent on absolving him of responsibility in his uncle's death. Any other conflict is pretty much window dressing. Sure he does the whole "wounded warrior" shtick to Gwen Stacy, but that's not really actual conflict. Plus, their relationship starts and ends in pretty much the exact same place. There's no arc at all. The meet each other and shoegaze. That's it.
Curt Connors is a pretty terrible villain too. So he's sad about having a stumpy arm. Okay. So he takes a serum that'll regrow his arm and it turns him into a lizard. Okay, that's our big stretch, right? Comic book movies always have to stretch a bit for this kind of thing. But then the serum ALSO turns him into lizard Hitler, who wants everyone else to be a lizard. I mean, it's technically a motivation, but it doesn't come from anywhere. It's just the plot saying "We need this guy to go from doofy scientist to Hitlizard, let's just say the chemicals did it." Plus the movie can never decide if he's sympathetic or was evil the entire time and just decides to give him a bunch of offscreen character developments (like Flash).
I feel like a lot of the problems could be summed up with the scene where Parker falls through the ceiling and just... finds the Spider-Man mask. Really, it's a microcosm of all that movie's problem; there's the regurgitation of a thing from the source material with no interest or understanding as to why it was there in the first place, the coincidental nature of the event itself basically leaving the characters with no agency to move the plot forward, the fact that there's really no reason for the scene to be there except a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to people who were fans of the existence of wrestling in the Spider-Man canon but not necessarily wrestling in Spider-Man's plot. ( The winkwinknudgenudgeness would be fine, if it were a minor background detail, but it's not. It's supposed to be a big, inspirational moment.)
Okay, whew. Now I'm done.
I disagree with the part about Garfield just being a dick. There is a definite through-line to his character, even if he isn't 100% likeable and does some stupid, stupid things - believably stupid, but still stupid. As for Lizard Hitler, that bit with the serum is ripped straight from the comics. Problem? Yeah, sure, the way they build to him going bonkers is weak, but the movie's not even that long and justifying that plot-line without falling on your face or being too cartoony is not easy.
That said, it does have a tonne of little holes, and the mixed messages on authority are puzzling and a bit worrying.
What exactly IS Garfield's through-line, though? The only ones I can think of- things like being a whiny, shortsighted teenager- reflect quite poorly on his character. Which would be fine if we weren't supposed to root for and sympathize with him. Throughout the course of the entire narrative, what does Peter Parker actually earn? What does he have to suffer emotional pain for? How many of his wrongdoings does the plot seem to try to mitigate? How many of his wrongdoings are outright glossed over? (Like the fact that he kept his promise to Gwen Stacy's dying father precisely as long as it took him to get a boner)
136 minutes is long enough for me to expect a villainous motivation stronger than "Kinda sad about my stumpy arm, also this serum makes me crazy or something." For one thing, the 2002 Spider-Man managed to to give The Green Goblin a compelling motivation within, what, twenty minutes? He's a frustrated, emotionally distant father who uses his newfound power to kill the people he feels have wronged him, and also comes up with a split personality as a form of denial that he was cognizant of what he was doing.
Positive and negative judgements aren't necessarily equivalent.
Yea they are.
In fact, I think in this case negative judgments are more valid. If you're almost certain you're not going to like something, why waste your time?
Because it's possible for something you don't enjoy to change the way you think regardless.
Possible but exceedingly unlikely.
Your arguments make sense in a world where everyone has an infinite amount of time to do whatever they wish, but we don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
I do enjoy media because i value the experience of it.
i like discussing things i like because that can cause me to find further value in it, and also expose other people to things i think are worth looking into, it is in service to the thing being discussed and discourse in general around things surrounding it, not something of value in and of itself.
Kex, there's so many books and so much audio and video footage in existence that it's neither humanly nor physically possible for a person to experience more than the tiniest fraction of it. With that in mind, why should anybody be obligated to spend time on stuff they're almost certain they won't enjoy?
Relatedly, I find your compulsion to defend things you haven't even seen/read quite baffling. Sometimes it comes off like you're saying you know more about this stuff than people who have actually seen/read the stuff.
Also: I don't think it's an either/or thing; media is about both value and discussion
but treating media that's primarily intended as entertainment as though it's primarily a contribution to some grand cultural discourse strikes me as a tad silly
Positive and negative judgements aren't necessarily equivalent.
Yea they are.
In fact, I think in this case negative judgments are more valid. If you're almost certain you're not going to like something, why waste your time?
Because it's possible for something you don't enjoy to change the way you think regardless.
Possible but exceedingly unlikely.
Your arguments make sense in a world where everyone has an infinite amount of time to do whatever they wish, but we don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Media isn't about discussion.
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Here's the problem: You act like any aversion to anything in the abstract is automatically a bad thing.
I'll put it like this, using an anecdote.
I know that I will not enjoy Elfen Lied. Everything that I have seen of it or read about it indicates to me that this show is morally reprehensible, deeply exploitative and hideously sexist - just all around decrepit entertainment - and thus I have no inclination to actually see it. I know that I will be repulsed by it. I know exactly why and how I will be repulsed by it. So I will probably not see it.
To give an example of something I am relatively familiar with, The Roots' recent album ...and then you shoot your cousin, is very clearly designed to generate discussion. Contrast the also-recent and also-hip-hop GirlTalk/Freeway EP Broken Ankles, which is all about style and aesthetics.
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
I agree and disagree, if that makes any sense. Media is communication, but the purpose of that communication may vary, and the desire to convey an aesthetic that the creators find pleasing or emotionally resonant is an entirely valid one. Most of the things that I like are not about philosophies or messages, but ecstasy or catharsis.
honestly i'm not sure it's possible for something to have no message, even if the message is unintentional (lying in fundamental authorial assumptions, perhaps)
but then, if the message is just some uncritically absorbed set of cultural values and some trite, uncontroversial moralizing, for example, i don't see why anyone should feel obligated to give that any of their time
honestly i'm not sure it's possible for something to have no message, even if the message is unintentional (lying in fundamental authorial assumptions, perhaps)
a message is intentional by definition. It's possible for something to have unintended implications, but that's not the same thing.
honestly i'm not sure it's possible for something to have no message, even if the message is unintentional (lying in fundamental authorial assumptions, perhaps)
but then, if the message is just some uncritically absorbed set of cultural values and some trite, uncontroversial moralizing, for example, i don't see why anyone should feel obligated to give that any of their time
There are also messages that are basically aesthetic or exclusively tied to the artwork in question, if we take that "art is communication" route.
^ Again, having any intent of conveying anything and showing it to others is communication. It's just not a message-message, if you get me.
^^ I strongly disagree. A message can be inadvertant, and indeed, there's no sure-fire way for a media consumer to determine what is or isn't intentional.
^^ I strongly disagree. A message can be inadvertant, and indeed, there's no sure-fire way for a media consumer to determine what is or isn't intentional.
We have now reached the point where we disagree on the definition of a word, so I'm done with this discussion if you are unless we're going to start breaking out various dictionaries.
Kex, there's so many books and so much audio and video footage in existence that it's neither humanly nor physically possible for a person to experience more than the tiniest fraction of it. With that in mind, why should anybody be obligated to spend time on stuff they're almost certain they won't enjoy?
There are plenty of good excuses not to spend time on something. It costs too much money. Doing so would come at the expense of doing something else. It would cause literal discomfort (like, if you wouldn't want to watch The Human Centipede I really couldn't fault you for that.) But if you are able to watch/read/play something, and are willing to form and express an opinion on it, you should be at least somewhat willing to watch/read/play it.
Because it's not always about enjoying something. It's about having something new to discuss. Maybe I'm just unreasonably biased against people who don't want to do that. But part of the reason is that I often find that my passion for this kind of thing to be wholly dismissed because being a critic is seen as a bad thing, or if not that, often considered to be no different from being someone who doesn't have a genuine investment in criticism.
Relatedly, I find your compulsion to defend things you haven't even seen/read quite baffling. Sometimes it comes off like you're saying you know more about this stuff than people who have actually seen/read the stuff.
We have now reached the point where we disagree on the definition of a word, so I'm done with this discussion if you are unless we're going to start breaking out various dictionaries.
Everybody is ignoring what I'm trying to say here...
I again disagree with the definition of "message" being used here.
If something's primary purpose is to like, chill you out, that's not a message, it's a feeling.
OK, but that's semantics. So I'll stop calling it a "message," because of that word's implications.
What I'm saying is, even if there is no message, there is always intent, even if that intent is, "I like this; maybe someone else will." That's communication. Not aiming for deep dialogue in a textual sense, but a connection with the audience in some form, even if it's an antagonistic or super-passive one.
Positive and negative judgements aren't necessarily equivalent.
Yea they are.
In fact, I think in this case negative judgments are more valid. If you're almost certain you're not going to like something, why waste your time?
Because it's possible for something you don't enjoy to change the way you think regardless.
Possible but exceedingly unlikely.
Your arguments make sense in a world where everyone has an infinite amount of time to do whatever they wish, but we don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Media isn't about discussion.
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
That is not what I'm saying at all. I haven't really said anything about messages.
What I'm saying is that only seeking out media because you think you'll enjoy it hampers your ability to understand media better. I've focused perhaps too much on the word "discussion." What I'm saying is that you should be willing to experience something even if you think it won't be well executed, because understanding why it wasn't well executed can grant you greater understanding of how things can be executed well. Or a greater understanding for how you yourself can do so.
There are plenty of good excuses not to spend time on something. It costs too much money. Doing so would come at the expense of doing something else. It would cause literal discomfort (like, if you wouldn't want to watch The Human Centipede I really couldn't fault you for that.) But if you are able to watch/read/play something, and are willing to form and express an opinion on it, you should be at least somewhat willing to watch/read/play it.
I feel like you're vastly overestimating the amount of free time the average person has. I also feel that one of the most popular uses of a review is to determine whether or not something is worth watching, and I don't feel that using reviews that way is at all invalid.
But part of the reason is that I often find that my passion for this kind of thing to be wholly dismissed because being a critic is seen as a bad thing, or if not that, often considered to be no different from being someone who doesn't have a genuine investment in criticism.
Honestly, I can sympathize with this, since I do value criticism and I don't think it's a bad thing, and the attitude that an uninformed opinion is equal to that of someone with a genuine investment in their opinion is one that I find immensely frustrating.
But not everyone needs to be a critic. It's OK to just want to enjoy stuff.
Positive and negative judgements aren't necessarily equivalent.
Yea they are.
In fact, I think in this case negative judgments are more valid. If you're almost certain you're not going to like something, why waste your time?
Because it's possible for something you don't enjoy to change the way you think regardless.
Possible but exceedingly unlikely.
Your arguments make sense in a world where everyone has an infinite amount of time to do whatever they wish, but we don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Media isn't about discussion.
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
That is not what I'm saying at all. I haven't really said anything about messages.
What I'm saying is that only seeking out media because you think you'll enjoy it hampers your ability to understand media better. I've focused perhaps too much on the word "discussion." What I'm saying is that you should be willing to experience something even if you think it won't be well executed, because understanding why it wasn't well executed can grant you greater understanding of how things can be executed well. Or a greater understanding for how you yourself can do so.
How much I would want to do that would depend heavily on the specific medium we're talking about.
I have literally zero interest in shitty movies and shitty books, because I am not a big reader or movie buff, and have no desire to be a filmmaker or writer.
By your argument I should at least be willing to listen to albums I think I'd dislike, but if I am too put off by something to pay attention to it (which I would have to be, there are very few albums I actively dislike), what exactly am I learning?
It's also not just about watching/reading/playing everything, just that, well:
Let's say Sredni finds himself on a forum where the majority of the people there absolutely adore Elfen Lied. Given his opinion on the show, he likely finds this repugnant. Which is an opinion he is entitled to. But if he were to bring up this opinion, and attempt to discuss it, would it not be absolutely more productive for him to have seen the show?
For my part, I think that dumb movies and terrible books can be fun, but I know that I will be less inclined to actually analyse them than laugh hysterically or shout at the screen/page. Bad music sometimes falls under that, but more often than not I just don't care. I prefer interesting but flawed to outright bad or boring because it tells me more and I generally have more of value to say about it.
It's also not just about watching/reading/playing everything, just that, well:
Let's say Sredni finds himself on a forum where the majority of the people there absolutely adore Elfen Lied. Given his opinion on the show, he likely finds this repugnant. Which is an opinion he is entitled to. But if he were to bring up this opinion, and attempt to discuss it, would it not be absolutely more productive for him to have seen the show?
I have met and had productive discussions with people who do not dislike the show, including one or two who have praised it rather highly. They seem to consider my opinions quite valid and have not been at all bothered by my not wanting to see more of the show.
Positive and negative judgements aren't necessarily equivalent.
Yea they are.
In fact, I think in this case negative judgments are more valid. If you're almost certain you're not going to like something, why waste your time?
Because it's possible for something you don't enjoy to change the way you think regardless.
Possible but exceedingly unlikely.
Your arguments make sense in a world where everyone has an infinite amount of time to do whatever they wish, but we don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Keep trying to think of a response to this but they always come out as rude.
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Media isn't about discussion.
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
That is not what I'm saying at all. I haven't really said anything about messages.
What I'm saying is that only seeking out media because you think you'll enjoy it hampers your ability to understand media better. I've focused perhaps too much on the word "discussion." What I'm saying is that you should be willing to experience something even if you think it won't be well executed, because understanding why it wasn't well executed can grant you greater understanding of how things can be executed well. Or a greater understanding for how you yourself can do so.
How much I would want to do that would depend heavily on the specific medium we're talking about.
I have literally zero interest in shitty movies and shitty books, because I am not a big reader or movie buff, and have no desire to be a filmmaker or writer.
By your argument I should at least be willing to listen to albums I think I'd dislike, but if I am too put off by something to pay attention to it (which I would have to be, there are very few albums I actively dislike), what exactly am I learning?
Bottom line: I think that if you're willing to express an opinion on a work on its own terms (e.g. to repeat the example I used earlier, to say "I don't want to watch The Human Centipede because I don't want to see someone being shit on" isn't at all unreasonable) you should also be willing to actually experience that work.
@ Burgundy: I don't particular care to argue this point, but I actually think that, regardless of what the dictionary does or doesn't say, any definition which assumes a concrete distinction can be made between an intentional message and its underlying assumptions is inherently flawed. Our disagreement on this issue is not semantic, but metaphysical.
Or at least, if you're going to participate in a discussion, offer points and not reactions. And there's a big difference.
Basically I have a lot of hang ups here and my opinions aren't fully formed.
if I know I'm going to dislike something I am probably not going to want to partake in discussions on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
Or at least, if you're going to participate in a discussion, offer points and not reactions. And there's a big difference.
Basically I have a lot of hang ups here and my opinions aren't fully formed.
if I know I'm going to dislike something I am probably not going to want to partake in discussions on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
"I believe this work to have been poorly done because while character x does y, it is framed as z." as opposed to "I believe this work to have been poorly done because character x does y." That general kind of thing.
Or at least, if you're going to participate in a discussion, offer points and not reactions. And there's a big difference.
Basically I have a lot of hang ups here and my opinions aren't fully formed.
if I know I'm going to dislike something I am probably not going to want to partake in discussions on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
But you do.
No? No.
I am not about to go to a metal forum and tell them why I don't like Mastodon. Beyond being incredibly rude, it's just a waste of time.
Having a discussion about how a thing is done in a movie/book/game/etc. as opposed to what is literally happening.
But that wasn't what I was doing.
With John Green's books, I was saying that I had heard what other people who I trusted thought about a thing and went, "I don't think that this thing is for me." The Elfen Lied thing is slightly different: I had seen parts of it, reviews and in-depth summaries, and what I saw and pieced together made me feel deeply uncomfortable and morally repulsed in a not especially interesting way. I knew enough to know to stay away.
Comments
Look, I really, really don't care for your assertion that anyone's time could be so valuable that they simply can't afford to watch, read, or play something they don't think they'll like. Because it plays into this idea that media isn't about discussion, it's about value. How much net enjoyment you can glean from something.
Relatedly, I find your compulsion to defend things you haven't even seen/read quite baffling. Sometimes it comes off like you're saying you know more about this stuff than people who have actually seen/read the stuff.
but treating media that's primarily intended as entertainment as though it's primarily a contribution to some grand cultural discourse strikes me as a tad silly
Discussion can be about media but not the other way around. The idea that media exists solely to relay a message (which is what saying it's to create discussion implies) is one that absolutely infuriates me, because it completely rejects the idea of aesthetic beauty as important at all.
Media can too be about discussion.
The former has a message, the latter doesn't.
but then, if the message is just some uncritically absorbed set of cultural values and some trite, uncontroversial moralizing, for example, i don't see why anyone should feel obligated to give that any of their time
^ True, and a very good point.
If something's primary purpose is to like, chill you out, that's not a message, it's a feeling.
Fair enough.
But not everyone needs to be a critic. It's OK to just want to enjoy stuff.
I have literally zero interest in shitty movies and shitty books, because I am not a big reader or movie buff, and have no desire to be a filmmaker or writer.
By your argument I should at least be willing to listen to albums I think I'd dislike, but if I am too put off by something to pay attention to it (which I would have to be, there are very few albums I actively dislike), what exactly am I learning?
I am not about to go to a metal forum and tell them why I don't like Mastodon. Beyond being incredibly rude, it's just a waste of time.