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.

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.

I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?

I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.

That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view.
Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?

Now if a movie is truly, truly bad your mind will disconnect with it and not allow this kind of relaxed viewing. Anakin & Padme's "love" story bordered on this, and thus is a major reason that EpII is considered one of the worst SW films. Also the lack of a compelling single villain to drive the action

Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.

-

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.

I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?

I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.

Because one can still appreciate the sheer spectacle of a movie even whilst acknowledging that it was pretty dumb and didn't make much sense.

The prequels were poorly written, but I still loved the battle scenes and Lightsabre duels.

So, unlike what Grotsnik said, you aren't 'simply watching it.' You are in fact considering what you're watching, or you wouldn't be acknowledging that it was pretty dumb and didn't make much sense while appreciating the spectacle.

 Galef wrote:

That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view.

Accepting the premise of the movie is not the same as not thinking about the movie.

Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?

I don't understand the relevance of the question (or indeed what you mean by 'perfect story'). Life never fits a story telling narrative (except, very rarely, by sheer accident).
No one, so far as I know, is positing the idea of believing magic space wizards are real. This isn't a 'suspending disbelief' question- again, accepting the premise of the film is not the same as not thinking about what you are watching.
Most of the big flaws of the prequels (and TFA for that matter) are actually internal- they stand out for being inconsistent or incoherent with what was already established, or laughable on a very basic point of human (or alien) nature. Or, for TFA basic physics- that travel time and distance are real, and you can't see explosions from the surface of another planet in a different star system, much less as they happen.

Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.

Not going to lie. It has never occurred to me to distort my mindset in order to watch something.

 Galef wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.

I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?

I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.

That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view.
Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?

Now if a movie is truly, truly bad your mind will disconnect with it and not allow this kind of relaxed viewing. Anakin & Padme's "love" story bordered on this, and thus is a major reason that EpII is considered one of the worst SW films. Also the lack of a compelling single villain to drive the action

Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.
-

I only notice issues with a film if it intrudes on the narrative structure enough to disconnect me. I seldom notice the "obvious blue screen" effects etc that friends comment on - truth be told I prefer it that way. I might think about them afterwards but if I am into the film then i am into it and it needs something to jar me out of it. However some films i just can't connect with and I just watch it mentally picking it apart because I am nto enjoying it.

On the prequals I could not accept alot of what was happening and that throws me out of the link and so I notice everything bad about as i go along.

This is another reason I absolutely hate any form of talking or loud eating when in the cinema - can disconnect me.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.

I rarely see this happen. More often than not they go to it, watch it, like it even if they see the flaws, then respond to other people's adoration by digging their heels into the flaws and losing sight of what they liked. Contrary opinions get a lot of attention, and people inherently like to stand out. Rewatching a film is a totally different experience in many cases (as my daughter has quickly forced me to learn ) and if you go back to a film intent to see how bad the flaws are, they'll be all you see..

I do think you see this in some cases. A live-action version of the Simpsons comic book guy that kronk posted was in the comic store the other day gleefully and near-hysterically railing against every second and facet of Justice League, and it was blatantly obvious that he only bought a ticket so that he could loudly carp about it. Everyone isn't that guy, though.

The underlined bit absolutely happened with TFA. It might actually be an all-time great example of 'post-theater opinion drift'.

Cue me sounding like an old fart, but the internet has had a lot to do with this kind of phenomena, whether we're talking about movies or politics. You get these zones that are one part echo chamber and one part combustion chamber, in which negativity and extreme views are both repeated and augmented. That just doesn't happen the same way with real-life conversation. Even at the comic store, most folks were just tuning out the aforementioned goofball.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/dec/04/echo-chambers-are-dangerous-we-must-try-to-break-free-of-our-online-bubbles

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How long until the UK gets The Last Jedi and I'll have seen it?



*flails excitedly*.

Also, just read a fan theory that Rey has been cloned from Lukes lost hand.

Pretty sure that's not really how cloning works. Male donor would only produce male clones. On account they're clones.

you could in theory produce a female clone (XX) from a male doner (XY) but not the reverse, although they wouldn't fit the classic definition of an identical individual

Ahh! Ahh! AAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

So very totally not long now!

I'm calling it now.

Rey was conceived by the force just like Anaken.
Snoke is Darth Plagus.
Fin and Poe fall in love this episode.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm calling it now.

Rey was conceived by the force just like Anaken.
Snoke is Darth Plagus.
Fin and Poe fall in love this episode.

She's all the bits of Anakin that were not hate and rage he forced out to become Vader. This includes the few things he actually loved about sand, which is why she's so desperate to stay on Jakku.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I only notice issues with a film if it intrudes on the narrative structure enough to disconnect me. I seldom notice the "obvious blue screen" effects etc that friends comment on - truth be told I prefer it that way. I might think about them afterwards but if I am into the film then i am into it and it needs something to jar me out of it. However some films i just can't connect with and I just watch it mentally picking it apart because I am nto enjoying it.

On the prequals I could not accept alot of what was happening and that throws me out of the link and so I notice everything bad about as i go along.

This is another reason I absolutely hate any form of talking or loud eating when in the cinema - can disconnect me.

It's interesting to note the different ways that people absorb movies. For me, it's largely about the visuals... I rarely notice plot issues unless they're really obvious. Even most of the bigger issues with TFA only really clicked when I was talking about the movie with friends afterwards... At first watch, they were just things that happened. I'm far more likely to be jarred out of my absorption by bad special effects than by bad writing.


Funnily enough, I have the same thing with music... There are songs I've been listening to all my life that I couldn't for the life of me tell you the lyrics to, because I tend to focus on the sound rather than the words. My wife will poke fun at the lyrics to a song I like, and I'll be all 'What on earth are you talking about?'...

 gorgon wrote:
I'm old, and perhaps my memory is growing hazy. But I don't remember it being a 'thing' in my youth to plunk down good money for a movie in order to hate-watch it. It seems to be something people do now.

I agree there's a lot of people who enjoy hate-watching popular movies, and they happen to be quite vocal on the internet. But I'm not sure all much negative criticism is necessarily due to people going in to a movie already decided to hate-watch it.

I mean, personally I love movies and every movie I watch I sit down hoping I'll enjoy myself for the next couple of hours. I absolutely hate that feeling part way through a movie when I realise I hate what I'm seeing on the screen.

In contrast, I remember about 30 minutes in to The Force Awakens when I realised I was really enjoying myself, and it was such a relief to have good Star Wars on the big screen again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.

I don't think it was your intent, but there seems to be an assumption in your post that analysis of a film is inherently critical. That watching and not thinking is the way you most enjoy a movie. That's probably true for a lot of movies, but not all of them. Some movies are appreciated more as you think about them, as you realise all the interesting ways that parts of the film connected together that weren't immediately apparent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It's interesting to note the different ways that people absorb movies. For me, it's largely about the visuals... I rarely notice plot issues unless they're really obvious. Even most of the bigger issues with TFA only really clicked when I was talking about the movie with friends afterwards... At first watch, they were just things that happened. I'm far more likely to be jarred out of my absorption by bad special effects than by bad writing.

I think different films the focus should be different. Sometimes visuals make the film, other times it is the the plot. For Star Wars, its the characters. That's why I loved TFA but hated the prequels, even though the plot in TFA wasn't really that much better than the prequels. Because TFA had fun, engaging characters, and that's what I love in Star Wars movies.

Funnily enough, I have the same thing with music... There are songs I've been listening to all my life that I couldn't for the life of me tell you the lyrics to, because I tend to focus on the sound rather than the words. My wife will poke fun at the lyrics to a song I like, and I'll be all 'What on earth are you talking about?'...

I'm the same. I used to know the lyrics to every song I loved, but then a friend showed me to focus on different instruments, and hear the song with that as the thing you're focusing on. Now many of my favourite songs I know maybe one line in the chorus, if that

 sebster wrote:


I don't think it was your intent, but there seems to be an assumption in your post that analysis of a film is inherently critical. That watching and not thinking is the way you most enjoy a movie. That's probably true for a lot of movies, but not all of them. Some movies are appreciated more as you think about them, as you realise all the interesting ways that parts of the film connected together that weren't immediately apparent.

I would like to invoke Moff's Law.

Turning my brain off can be fun, but if it's absolutely necessary to avoid glaring flaws and plot holes then the movie is probably just gak. A good example is Chappie which I recently watched on Netflix. I could ignore the bonkers and brain dead logic many of the characters seemed to run on for most of the film up until the climax at which point people just stopped acting like people and started acting like... whatever kind of moron wouldn't throw he plot into the blender.

 LordofHats wrote:
Turning my brain off can be fun, but if it's absolutely necessary to avoid glaring flaws and plot holes then the movie is probably just gak. A good example is Chappie which I recently watched on Netflix. I could ignore the bonkers and brain dead logic many of the characters seemed to run on for most of the film up until the climax at which point people just stopped acting like people and started acting like... whatever kind of moron wouldn't throw he plot into the blender.

That law is good law. I really like that bit at the end "There is nothing wrong with liking a work for what it is without thinking about it too much. Moff's Law is a response to those who tell critics that they're being stupid by analyzing the work and should just sit back and enjoy it mindlessly."

I would add to that, though. I'd say that different films deserve different kinds of analysis. Pointing out the lack of safety railings in Star Wars is funny, but it isn't a sensible criticism because the films are space opera. Whereas pointing out the bizarrely dangerous stuff lying around the laundry room in the Fugitive is a genuine complaint, because that's meant to be a fairly believable, real world thriller.

Ah, but could Moff's Law not also be used to attempt to legitimise film based snobbery?

It's one thing not to like any given film, that's completely normal (I for one think Donnie Darko is a steaming pile, and always have), but quite another to go on and on and on about it to the point it's clear you're not so much criticising the film, but criticising people who are enjoying it.

We see such things when it comes to the Transformers films. Me, I have a weak point for all but The Racist One and The Dinobot One. I just kinda enjoy them. I know they're not good films. No need to belabour the point.

In fact, thinking about it, that's a toxic streak running through all the Nerd Lands. But that's a whole other topic.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah, but could Moff's Law not also be used to attempt to legitimise film based snobbery?

He accounts for that eventuality;

I don't know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they're pretty annoying themselves.

At the end of the day I think it really comes down to how you enjoy film. Different styles work for different people and I think this reflects a lot in the movies we like. For example, Battleship. It's stupid. It's so fething stupid. I mean it was bound to be, come on it's based on a board game everyone cheats at and then gives up on. That's how I feel about it. Other people though love it, and I can see why cause if you're not shaking your head in disbelief at all the tiny stupidities that pile on as the film plays out it's got lots of stuff to like. Cool set pieces, good effects, ship porn, a reasonably clever tie in to the actual board game, Sir Liam being awesome even though he's only in like four scenes or something.

In fact, thinking about it, that's a toxic streak running through all the Nerd Lands.

You should hear me rant about everything wrong with "fandom." I can go on for pages and it would be really awkward

And possibly hypocritical

I'll never understand what it is about Nerds that means we can't just accept people have varying tastes, and someone liking a given film isn't in fact a thinly veiled personal insult to someone that didn't (and indeed, vice versa. And the Fred Savage/Judge Reinhold film Vice Versa, wot I saw in the cinema in York many many moons ago)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And possibly hypocritical

I'll never understand what it is about Nerds that means we can't just accept people have varying tastes, and someone liking a given film isn't in fact a thinly veiled personal insult to someone that didn't (and indeed, vice versa. And the Fred Savage/Judge Reinhold film Vice Versa, wot I saw in the cinema in York many many moons ago)

I think that this is one of those questions where, if we figure it out, we could apply the answer to a lot of real life issues.

Religion, for one

True that, true.

 LordofHats wrote:
At the end of the day I think it really comes down to how you enjoy film. Different styles work for different people and I think this reflects a lot in the movies we like. For example, Battleship. It's stupid. It's so fething stupid. I mean it was bound to be, come on it's based on a board game everyone cheats at and then gives up on. That's how I feel about it. Other people though love it, and I can see why cause if you're not shaking your head in disbelief at all the tiny stupidities that pile on as the film plays out it's got lots of stuff to like. Cool set pieces, good effects, ship porn, a reasonably clever tie in to the actual board game, Sir Liam being awesome even though he's only in like four scenes or something.

Battleship is one of those weird films that's every kind of stupid imaginable, but still has you on your feet cheering when they powerslide the titular ship at the end. It's also a movie that's insanely loaded with effort, from the red peg missiles the aliens fire to the grid search late in the film. I also can't tell if the aliens are intentionally non-hostile to make a point or if that itself is a nod to the turn based nature of the game. I have a hard time considering it that bad since its obviously memorable. Speed Racer is similar in a lot of respects.

"They are not going to sink THIS battleship!"

Film is mean to be analyzed because all works have a message and sub-text. It is screenwriting 101. It is trying to tell you something about how the world works, and you are doing a film a dis-service by not trying to figure out what it is.

Even a movie like StarCrash is trying to tell you something about the world. Starcrash is mostly telling you to go to sleep. Most other movies have a better and more refined message.

I disagree.

They're there, primarily, to entertain.

Consider how my English Literature GCSE destroyed my love of reading. Rather than simply enjoying the story, we had to sit there, week after week, picking it apart and viewing it through a lens set not by the author, but by the Exam Board. We studied four books - Macbeth, Buddy, Empty World and Z for Zacariah. I really can't tell you much about any of those, barring Macbeth, and that's been gleaned through popular culture. So intent were they on subtext, they forgot to let us just read the damned things.

It seriously took me a good three or four years to re-learn reading for leisure.

By all means, pick it apart once you've seen it. But it seems peeps go in with a mental notebook, and dissect each scene as it unfurls - likely missing the plot as it develops.

Good example? Terminator Genisys. So many reviews claiming plot holes - when if they'd just paid attention to the plot, they'd have correctly identified them as plot hooks - mysteries to be explored in the next instalment (which we're now not getting).

Consider TFA. I saw it in the cinema three times.

First, was simply to see the first new Star Wars films in yonks, and the first Star Wars film where we had no idea where it'd end up since 1983's Return of the Jedi. Just to enjoy the film.

Second? To take in the cinematography and world building, now I was familiar with the plot - to appreciate another part of the film maker's art.

Third? Because I enjoyed it!

I dunno. I just think those going in to be hypercritical are missing the sheer enjoyment of seeing a new film - they're so obsessed with seeking subtext and reading between the lines, they forget to just see what's in front of them.

Let's be honest - there really aren't many people actually doing that.

It feels like it though - of course, most 'armchair critics' piling on the 'hip to hate wagon' are simply gleaning their opinions from somewhere online.

Still pretty pointless.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I disagree.

No, I Disagree!

Entertainment is a laudable goal but there are many movies not meant to entertain you at all, but educate, enrage, sadden, etc. Those are emotional responses not meant to entertain.

The only universal statement about film is that they are meant to tell you something about how the creators think world works. By not trying to see what this nuance is you are actually dismissing the work and treating it as somethign lesser than it is.

Now, that doesn't mean there are no pretensious reviews or reviewers out there, or that you even have to agree with their takes. I mean, one of my favorite interpretations of Star Wars is that it is Anti-government agitprop based on the Vietnam War; because it is amusing and a creative thought experiment. However, I don;t think that was Giorge Lucas' intent when he made it.

MacBeth is a cracking story on its own and does entertain, but it also tells us a great deal about human nature. To view it simply as entertainment is devaluing it.

I'm with Doc on this one, while I agree that there are some films that are certainly not designed to entertain but to inform or provoke a response, I don't think Star Wars is among them. At its best, it's 100% entertainment and fun, and anything beyond that is a bonus and/or the product of people overthinking it for the last 40 years.The only 'lesson' of Star Wars is that evil, power hungry tyrants are bad and people who stand up to them are good, which is pretty much a given.

I don't think it's a genre thing, plenty of more ambitious films with a point to make exist in genres dominated by entertainment-led areas (Logan or Watchmen spring to mind; totally unpleasant to watch and several steps removed from the common ideal of the comic book movie, but still excellent pieces of film), but I don't think they are inherently worth more or, conversely, that the ones without a point are worth less. Give me A New Hope and a 4-hour long Star Wars film that's also a stunning exploration of the human psyche, and I'll still take ANH every time because it's just about the most fun you can have sitting in front of a screen.

Not every film is made to purely entertain, but equally, I'd argue some definitely are, and for me SW is definitely in the latter category.

I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.

Oh absolutely.

Consider the difference between a good kid's film, and an awful kid's film.

They can be glorified toy adverts, but they still need some element of plot (Transformers The Movie vs Thundercats - LionO The Klutz Drops The Sword of Omens Every Five Seconds)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.

However, that is really boring to talk about. It is a boring, subjective binary.

Did you think the movie was entertaining? Yes/No

..... and what? The discussion is pretty much over.

I think The Dark Knight is a very entertaining film. However, I "hate" the subtext of the movie and the issues it raises and the answers it gives to those issues. If the only question we asked about a movie was, "Is it entertaining?" Then, they answer would be yes. However, there is a lot more to the movie than that one, simplistic and boring question.

Given that we've got 13 pages of conversation here over a handful of trailers for a Star Wars film, I think even if TLJ is a purely entertainment-led movie with no point or theme or commentary to make, I daresay there's going to be no shortage of discussion.

I'd also argue that whether or not you enjoy the film while you're watching it is more important than any discussion you have afterwards with this sort of movie.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh absolutely.

Consider the difference between a good kid's film, and an awful kid's film.

Honest question: what is the difference?

 Paradigm wrote:
Given that we've got 13 pages of conversation here over a handful of trailers for a Star Wars film, I think even if TLJ is a purely entertainment-led movie with no point or theme or commentary to make, I daresay there's going to be no shortage of discussion.

I'd also argue that whether or not you enjoy the film while you're watching it is more important than any discussion you have afterwards with this sort of movie.

Hmm. No, can't agree.
The fleeting enjoyment of two hours of being bombarded by light and sound can be pleasant*, but isn't more important.

*but often is distinctly unpleasant, given the current tendency to crank both of those up beyond normal tolerances. And the extra unpleasantness of being surrounded by fellow animals yammering and bleating while chewing their cud, and adding to the general stickiness of the floors.

 Easy E wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.

However, that is really boring to talk about. It is a boring, subjective binary.

Did you think the movie was entertaining? Yes/No

..... and what? The discussion is pretty much over.

Why does there need to be a discussion? Or can't people wax lyrical about what aspects they found entertaining, the discussion itself being entertainment.