Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seems to be two camps so far:

1. Those who think it was ok, acknowledge the serious flaws in the film, but enjoyed the rest.

2. Those who hate it with a fiery hyperbolic passion and who will argue with anything about how wrong they are if they don't agree.

Ain't the internet great?

Ed_Bodger wrote:I did read the comic and it does explain the strike cruiser point

Then why raise it as a flaw?

Ed_Bodger wrote:but it does not explain why they were so nervous.

Because it was their first battle as front line Marines. Playing a completely different role to normal. Oh, and knowing they were only *12* marines going in against a foe that has apparently wiped out *100* marines. Knowing you are trying to save a priceless relic dating back to the time of the Emperor, and doing so with your company Captain in tow. Would you be at all nervous about that?

Ed_Bodger wrote:If anyone was nervous it should have been the newly promoted Sgt who had just had everyone else in his squad killed but as they keep banging on about 'we shall know no fear' I would assume nerves would have been a private thing they did not broadcast.

Nervousness is not the same as fear, for a start. They also only said it about 5 times, twice at a ceremony where that is part of litany. Sorry if that's too many

They didnt want clone marines. THat was the exact opposite of waht they wanted. The way they react to oncoming battles, with the bravado and the true nervousness underneath it, helps making them identifiable.

Ed_Bodger wrote:Where does it say the Captain and Apothecary are 300 years old?

In the extras, by the people playing them. It's also why the Apothecary was able to "talk back" - they were part of the same intake, just took different routes. (Note you infer this from their conversation, so if you wont paying attention you will miss it)

Ed_Bodger wrote:Having watched it again it was a gak film that was not worth the money.

Except it was a good quality film, not flawless but certainly better than average, with excellent voice actors who clearly gave a crap about the subject matter.

Ed_Bodger wrote:Why it cost you £26 I don't know.

£17.99 + £8 postage. Why did yours cost £9 more? There werent any different UK postage options....or was this more hyperbole to help inflate your spposed wasted money?

HBMC - damn having to agree with an Aussie, especially right now

Finally got my copy today! "just" 12 days after the confirmed shipping email.
I had no isssue with any damages from lack of packeting and it arrived before christmas. So I guess I'm content aslong as the film was worth it(from what I know it should be).
Now I just have to wait for my friend to get here so we can watch it.

First of all I have just emailed the company asking why mine cost more, second I hated the film and thought it was poor quality, you saying you liked it is not going to change my opinion. Haven't watched the extras and have no intention of doing so watching the film twice has confirmed my opinion it is weak and not consistant with fluff - explain the bizare chaplain crozius power.

As an ex army officer I can say from experience that you are nervous going into combat and most of those nerves are based on fear, not just of death and injury but many things, however it is still fear. Therefore if they know no fear why are they nervous.

Finally the incident where they all assume that Proteus fires his bolter out of first battle nerves illustrates the fact that they are highly inexperienced according to all the fluff I have read this just would not happen.

You can say how much you like the film till the cows come home it is not going to change my enjoyment level or the fact that I believe I wasted money.

Ed_Bodger:

Regardless of the quality of the current film, it's no worse than what's done to the background on a daily basis on the Internet, and your money isn't wasted because the payment is towards them producing another (and hopefully higher-budgeted) film. Sometimes you have to support journeyman work, and if you're going to let imperfection get in the way of improvement, then why are you in this hobby? Why didn't you quit when you failed to paint your first model to the standard shown in the painting guide?

Nurglitch wrote: Why didn't you quit when you failed to paint your first model to the standard shown in the painting guide?

I don't quite understand your point here my painting improvement is personal development and as I improve I gain satisfaction from bettering myself and having created a better model. Paying money to someone for them to improve does not appeal to me. After all if I pay someone to decorate my house and they do a crap job I don't pay them to get better I get rid of them and get someone better in to do the job.

Ed_Bodger wrote:As an ex army officer I can say from experience that you are nervous going into combat and most of those nerves are based on fear, not just of death and injury but many things, however it is still fear. Therefore if they know no fear why are they nervous.

WTF man did you even watch the same movie that I did.

AND WE SHALL KNOW NO FEAR

Ed_Bodger wrote:First of all I have just emailed the company asking why mine cost more,

http://ultramarinesthemovie.com/shop

If you didnt buy it from tehre, at that price, you were doing something wrong.

Ed_Bodger wrote:
second I hated the film and thought it was poor quality, you saying you liked it is not going to change my opinion.

I dont need to change your opinion. I can however point out the flaws in your opinion and correct your inaccuracies, meaning that other people wont be influenced by them.

Ed_Bodger wrote:Haven't watched the extras and have no intention of doing so watching the film twice has confirmed my opinion it is weak and not consistant with fluff - explain the bizare chaplain crozius power.

"not consistent with fluff" - huh? Have you ever read BL stuff? Or compared different editions of the same army? If you're loloking for consistency with GW fluff, you're looking in the wrong place.

Plus, as has been explained, there is only one glaring difference to fluff - the crozius power. And that could be a cooler version of litanies of hate, essentially. Remember that in game /= only possible way to represent something.

Ed_Bodger wrote:As an ex army officer I can say from experience that you are nervous going into combat and most of those nerves are based on fear, not just of death and injury but many things, however it is still fear. Therefore if they know no fear why are they nervous.

Reread what you just wrote, and note how you have gone from "most" to "all". Mild fallacy there. I have given many sensible reasons other than simple "fear" why they would be nervous. Being nervous about living up to 10k years of expectations is NOT fear.

Ed_Bodger wrote:Finally the incident where they all assume that Proteus fires his bolter out of first battle nerves illustrates the fact that they are highly inexperienced according to all the fluff I have read this just would not happen.

Sigh. Does the fluff you have read mirror the events leading up to the scouts ascension to marines? No? Then a unique event (by your admission) produced different results - who would have thought it!

Ed_Bodger wrote:You can say how much you like the film till the cows come home it is not going to change my enjoyment level or the fact that I believe I wasted money.

You, personally have wasted some money as apparently you paid too much for the item (did you ship it somewhere other than UK??), some 35% more, wont watch the extras and apparently discount the comic, which explains some of the new squads behaviour really, really well, as being valid fluff. However the rest will hopefully go into making other, better films.

Ed_Bodger:

Sure, but the thing about painting your house is that there's no particularly company that owns the colour blue (or whatever colour scheme you plan to paint your house). House-painting is a competitive market, so you can afford to go somewhere else if the start-up you chose didn't do a good enough job.

House-painting is simply a bad analogy to film-making; there's too many discontinuities to draw any useful kind of comparison.

Take Warhammer 40,000, for example. I don't think people understand the incredible improvement in production values that GW has gone through. Improving production value is the only way they have to expand their audience, and there's a feedback loop involved whereby small improvements are accompanied by increased sales, and each set of improvements in one product line serves as a proof of concept for implementation in another line.

So there's a sweet spot, whereby the film is going to be good enough to pay for itself and serve as proof that there's a market for the 40,000 IP beyond games. Not enough sales and it's going to be evidence that pursuing film projects isn't worth it for any production house, and too many sales and it's going to be evidence that you can sell any old turd with a sufficient 40,000 gloss.

I don't think we have to worry about too many sales, but I do think we have to worry about too few sales.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer any film to be strictly canonical, but the problem there is that the 40,000 canon itself is notoriously inconsistent, and the fans themselves have a tremendous variety of opinion on what exactly constitutes canon and what would be cool to see on film.

So far the 40,000 property has been very successful in a niche market, with some bits and pieces breaking through to the mass market. The First Heretic, for example, is incredible as Black Library publications go, but pretty run of the mill and small fry as even genre fiction goes.

Personally I find it amusing that such badly written books are lauded and land on bestseller lists (however briefly), but equally badly written films are reviled by dedicated fans.

Nurglitch wrote:
Personally I find it amusing that such badly written books are lauded and land on bestseller lists (however briefly), but equally badly written films are reviled by dedicated fans.

That's completely subjective man... I'm sorry but I think some of the BL books were actually pretty entertaining and on target for fluff, as well as being in general far more consistent with fluff. I wouldn't compare 'dawn of war' with 'Storm of Iron' for example. This movie was gak (to me) even compared to the limited succeses of Black Library. That's just my opinion, and you are every bit as entitled to yours, but the difference is I won't pass of my opinion as some factual scientifically verified law of the universe, which neither side of this debate should do.

No, it's really not subjective. You can enjoy bad writing, or find its content interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bad writing. Bad writing includes things like inconsistent style, use of subject inappropriate colloquialisms, uneven rhythm, etc.

As for "scientifically verified law of the universe"... Do you know how I can tell you don't know either science or writing?

Empirical facts aren't things that can be verified. The rules of good writing are normative, like mathematics, ethics, and so on: they prescribe rather than describe, and it happens to be a fortuitous (and somewhat mysterious) fact of cognitive science as to why they work out so well.

Likewise what makes a good film is pretty well documented, if you've actually studied film and taken time away from your busy day doing important stuff like rendering and animation to consider stuff like composition et al formally rather than just winging it because that how stuff looks in films you've seen. That's leaving aside the story-telling element entirely. Mind you, if this forum was about quality books and film, we wouldn't be discussing 40,000, so I suppose it's a wash.

The deliberate anachronisms in Shakespeare are certainly not marks of inconsistent style and bad writing. Not that I'd compare this silly little comic-book movie to Shakespeare, Citizen Kane, or any other "classic" works of genius, but the point that what is "bad writing" and what is "good writing" is subjective. I enjoyed the film. It's not a work of genius, but for what it was supposed to be and given the budget I thought it was pretty good. People who hate this movie, as with anything 40K that draws fanatical hate from its own fans, is getting an awful lot of really angry "my point of view is the only correct one" posts in here lately. I predict this thread is not long for the chop by one of the MODS given that it has descended into ridiculous "nerd debate" and personal attacks. Unsubscribe (again).

BrassScorpion:

Yeah, there's just something about deliberate anachronism that works. You know why? Because it's a consistency of style! The key-word is "deliberate". And, for reasons that may elude you, consistency of style is not a mark of inconsistency of style...

Nurglitch wrote:No, it's really not subjective. You can enjoy bad writing, or find its content interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bad writing. Bad writing includes things like inconsistent style, use of subject inappropriate colloquialisms, uneven rhythm, etc.

As for "scientifically verified law of the universe"... Do you know how I can tell you don't know either science or writing?

Empirical facts aren't things that can be verified. The rules of good writing are normative, like mathematics, ethics, and so on: they prescribe rather than describe, and it happens to be a fortuitous (and somewhat mysterious) fact of cognitive science as to why they work out so well.

Likewise what makes a good film is pretty well documented, if you've actually studied film and taken time away from your busy day doing important stuff like rendering and animation to consider stuff like composition et al formally rather than just winging it because that how stuff looks in films you've seen. That's leaving aside the story-telling element entirely. Mind you, if this forum was about quality books and film, we wouldn't be discussing 40,000, so I suppose it's a wash.

You know how I can tell you put the ass in assumption? Talking down to people while you have very little idea what their background or experience is, while slinging absolutes around like it's going out of style.

You want an argument, fine. You say it's not subjective. I DISAGREE. Your like or dislike of anything creative the very definition of subjective. There are no absolute rules for creativity, in fact, absolute rules would destroy true creativity in favor of endless iteration. There are guidelines and standards sure, but in general, the sum can indeed be more or less than the sum of it's parts, especially to individual tastes.

Unverifiable empirical facts aside, it makes no matter. We aren't talking about the existence of dark matter, quantum tunneling, string theory or any other form of physics that can be mathematically proven (in varying degrees in varying circumstances) but not physically observed in lab conditions. I am happy you are so impressed with yourself for your memorization of scientific terminology and tenuos grasp of it's relationship with practical philosophy and the arts, but we are talking about people liking or disliking a cg cartoon about space soldiers.

I think under the tightest scrutiny from a panel of experts, this movie would not be looked upon favorably in any way shape or form. But guess what, some fans like it despite that. By the 'rules' though, it is gak from top to bottom. Some BL books fall much more comfortably into the 'guidelines' of literature than this film does into the 'guidelines' of movie making. And your degree of liking or disliking either of them is not a rule the rest of us must follow. Just my opinion, but I think most would agree with me there.

PARAGRAPH REDACTED BY THE MODQUISITION FOR FLAMING.

Mods, I hope you leave this in, the gentleman only received a response in equal tone to his own.

If you have an issue with a poster's tone, hit Alert Moderator. If you feel you must respond, keep your own response as polite as you can make it. Your argument will be more convincing, and you will do a better job of showing that the other person is out of line, if so. Two wrongs do not make a right. Much less escalating it by flaming.

MajorTom11 wrote:

I think under the tightest scrutiny from a panel of experts, this movie would not be looked upon favorably in any way shape or form. But guess what, some fans like it despite that. By the 'rules' though, it is gak from top to bottom. Some BL books fall much more comfortably into the 'guidelines' of literature than this film does into the 'guidelines' of movie making. And your degree of liking or disliking either of them is not a rule the rest of us must follow. Just my opinion, but I think most would agree with me there.

I certainly agree with you MajorTom, I have just run out of bothered to argue with either or them.

Thread temporarily closed while being reviewed.

Edit. Going to re-open now. Private warnings have been issued. Everyone is now put on notice. Further breaches of Dakka Rule #1 on this thread, either directly or indirectly via sly remark, will be taken as prima facae evidence that the poster wants to be suspended at least through the Christmas vacation. I gak you not.

Just everyone keep it friendly now. Remember, you can disagree without going personal.

Nurglitch wrote:Sometimes you have to support journeyman work, and if you're going to let imperfection get in the way of improvement, then why are you in this hobby? Why didn't you quit when you failed to paint your first model to the standard shown in the painting guide?

So, basically, you're saying that anyone can make a really bad film and people buy it because next time it will be better?

Doesn't cut it.

What about that set of Chaos Marines you bought? (for example) But it's OK that they are lumps of lard with the fingers of a jazz player but next time they'll get it right.

Investors put in money expecting a return, they don't put in money saying "Oooh don't wory about this one but next time we loan you money it'll be worth it".

Codex pictures made a film which people watched and commented that the quality was not right, that the lighting and effects made it hard to see, that the animation wasn't quite right and there were plot holes you could sink the Titanic into. People don't buy things expecting the second iteration to be better. They expect it to work first time. That isn't being unrealistic, especially when the price is double what a brand new released film is!

I agree with Nurglitch that it's difficult to see how someone can enjoy BL books--even the better ones--and trash this movie. In terms of writing, I'd say that they are very comparabale (if not strictly equivalent, given that novels and scripts need to work at considerably different paces).

Manchu wrote:I agree with Nurglitch that it's difficult to see how someone can enjoy BL books--even the better ones--and trash this movie. In terms of writing, I'd say that they are very comparabale (if not strictly equivalent, given that novels and scripts need to work at considerably different paces).

I really don't see how one could feel the writing of this film was on par with the best offerings from the Black Library; I certainly don't feel that way, but to each their own of course.

Also, for whatever it may be worth, I support what MajorTom11 had to say. I don't agree with all of his sentiments concerning the movie, but liking or disliking something is entirely subjective. It is fine to debate points to try and convince or understand an opposing viewpoint, but telling someone their likes or dislikes are absolutely incorrect is definitely fallacious.

Plot holes? Inconsistent pacing? Awkward characterisation and dialog? This occurs in all BL books to some degree and I (I won't speak for you) set it aside to enjoy what it's truly worth: some entertainment set in the grimdark.

The fact that there are many opinions doesn't indicate much about the "subjectivity" of taste. To the extent that "subjectivity" means that there can be no standards that effectively generalize between individual experiences, Tom is simply way off--although he may not be saying that. There is a reason why Shakespeare is studied in school rather than Dan Abnett and it's not merely because some stodgy old white men don't like Dan Abnett as much as Shakespeare. There are normative standards in literary criticism and this script rates well in line with BL novels.

There isn't a single BL book in existence you enjoyed? I'm not saying that any of them were exceptional don't get me wrong, not even one. But, I am saying that there is definitely a range of quality in there, as their should be from a multi-author line. All I said was that I personally enjoyed some of them as entertainment, and thought that some were much tighter and on-fluff than others.

I don't understand your point though, if creative writing were only worthy if it stood up to side by side comparisons with masterworks, we'd only end up with copies of masterworks, but no new ones. Of course it is worth it to bear those in mind as benchmarks, and of course most of the time those comparisons would be a reasonably effective way of judging writing. However, there will be exceptions, some books will simply be poorly written in technical terms but absolutely breathtaking to read all the same. (NOT putting BL in there lol!)

My arguement stands though, BL is not great, but I think in general most BL books hit more of the 'well written' criteria than the movie hits 'good filmmaking' criteria. And, as I thought I made so abundantly clear, it's just my opinion.

As for subjectivity, here is the definition:
1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

6.pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

7.Grammar .
a.pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
b.(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
c.similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.


So, how am I wrong in saying that any opinion a person has as to their likes and dislikes is by definition subjective, and therefore unassailable as a given fact due to their own self affirmation of their feelings. I like some BL books. I didn't like the movie. It's really not up for debate, or hypocritical, or combative. It's just how I feel about them. No more no less.

I agree with MajorTom11 points as well. His review on page 5 of this thread is pretty bang on. The movie is ok as far as the gimmick of a 40k movie is concerned but the flaws hold the film back. HBMC’s point about “those who think it was ok, acknowledge the serious flaws in the film, but enjoyed the rest” fits this film perfectly.

Probably the major flaw that held the movie back, it would have to be the script writing which hilariously enough happens to be the flaw with a lot of films, in particular films adapted from books/comics/other media. Therefore, should we really be surprised that the movie was flawed because to tell you the truth I am not.

In regards to the idea that supporting this movie supports the idea that a bigger and better movie could be released, I’d have to disagree with this. Most likely, a sequel would be less enjoyable as film trends, in particular films adapted from books/comics/other media tend to follow this pattern. This is not to say that a sequel couldn’t buck the trend.

Whoa there, Tom. You've got my point backwards. I have enjoyed many BL books--despite them not being masterworks. I enjoy them precisely because I'm not evaluating them alongside the greats. Same thing goes for this movie. The point that Nurglitch made, the very good point, mind you, is that people are willing to set aside their nitpickiness for a novel but not a script and that seems odd and a bit delusional. The fact that you acknowledgee that there are masterworks, meanwhile, is also a n acknowledgment that critique is not as simply as rote opinion.

Ah ok I misunderstood.

So, now that I've got it, allow me to (surprise) chip in lol.

I make a distinction between forming an opinion and offering a true critique.

On the opinion side of things, we all like things we know are bad from time to time, a crappy burger, a cheesy movie, britney spears, whatever lol. But we like it all the same, we may not advertise the fact, advocate for it or even acknowledge it but we all have our secret likes. I think so anyhow.

So forming an opinion isn't predicated on any necessary justification of such, it just happens all on it's own.

Offering a formal critique, one should be knowledgable in the subject matter, experienced enough with contemporary and classical works of similar intent and scope, and be able to make reference to items both objective and subjective to back up their still subjective evaluation. It has a bit more weight, but at the end of the day, it is still a person's opinion. What I think is important is that if you do offer a true critique, and not a blog of your thoughts on a particular subject, then people should find your opinion informative and well thought out even if they don't agree. A critique I suppose is an act of trying to convince or convey your opinion to others, while having an opinion is simply that, just having an opinion.

On to point #2 -
Books vs. Movies.

I think in many ways, it is easier to forgive books for small and medium flaws that it is movies. My reasoning is this -

With books, you have only to rely upon the writers skill with words and ideas, and your own imagination. A bolter will sound precisely as you imagine it. A word is spoken precisely as you interpret it, the shade of blue exactly as you like it. Much of the experience is as much reliant on the reader as the writer.

With a movie however, you must take in and evaluate the acting, the audio, the video, and all the nuances thereof. You are much more vulnerable to inconsistencies as you have no control over the experience. You pretty much just have to take it as is. Therefore, to me, movies are much more vulnerable to snap judgement and harder feelings.

There is just more to criticize with a film, so many more aspects that are blunt instead of the subtleties and interpretations of the written word.

That being said, poop is poop, and god bless anyone who enjoyed rhino surfing in the DOW novel lol.

Yeah, I think we are mostly agreed and I'm glad we could sidestep the semantics. That said, I honestly do endorse this movie for other 40k fans--just as I would a BL book. But as I have tried to make clear, I don't think people who aren't already fans to some extent would enjoy it. One poster mentioned that the people who like this movie are biased. Pretty obvious--people who aren't biased would not like the movie. Now could there be a 40k movie that would reach out to non-fans? I think so. I think there could be a movie that was good as a movie and still be true to 40k. That's certainly not what Ultramarines is, however, and I can't think of one BL book (aside from the works of Ian Watson) that's good, standalone scifi. I tend to agree that this movie is a step in the right direction, however.

Phew, cool. In my mini review, I actually said most fans would probably enjoy it, so looks like we are agreed on pretty much everything! +1 on Ian Watson, Space Marine and the Inquisition War pretty much cinched me 40k and GW in general

Anyways, in an effort to not come across as a nut, I will let this thread resume it's natural course and other people can yell at each other for a while lol

The comment about investors wanting it right first time is not quite right - true investors, as opposed to consumers, DONT always expect it right first time - theyre in it for the long term benefits.

I still dont know how Ed paid £35 for the film - did you buy it direct?

The £35 was probably including postage but it's still a disgusting price even without postage.

I don't understand why you think an investor is not a real one until they're a 'true' investor. Anybody who invest money wants some kind of return either back in monetary costs or other terms such as tourism etc.

No, it was £26.99 including postage, see the link I posted. There werent any choices in "upgrading" postage either. Which is why it seems a little suspect

There is a difference between investing for the immediate, and investing for the longer term. If you buy this film, dont like and dont purchase again - you are a consumer, not an investor. If you're in it for the long haul you will look for some return initially (which I, and many others, got) as well as expecting improvements in the future (which if it does well enough we shoudl get) to gain overall.

I saw the money i spent *now* to be an investment in getting more 40k films in the future, as well as getting an immediate return in the shape of the film, etc.