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.

I’m not really one to offer insightful feedback to be honest.

I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not really one to offer insightful feedback to be honest.

I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.

As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.

 Formosa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not really one to offer insightful feedback to be honest.

I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.

As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.

What the Picard said. I've lost my faith in reviews, when dooseys like TLJ were given good reviews.

Speaking as someone the has rarely read anything Cpt. Marvel related, what's up with her Mohawk hairdo when she has on the hood part of her costume? Was this ever in the comics? Frankly, it just looks stupid to me.

Mohawks are cool.

End of.

With Mohawks, we wouldn’t have punk. Stands to reason, dunnit!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Mohawks are cool.

End of.

With Mohawks, we wouldn’t have punk. Stands to reason, dunnit!

True. Mohawks are very cool. I think I’ll be going to see this on the first Sunday.

Yes its from the comics. Its also generally been a part of the kree uniform in the past.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Speaking as someone the has rarely read anything Cpt. Marvel related, what's up with her Mohawk hairdo when she has on the hood part of her costume? Was this ever in the comics? Frankly, it just looks stupid to me.

It was, early on, until she ditched the mask. I don't think she'll have it long, it's just a thing for comic fans.

Mohawks are often a Marvel visual signature for alien races generally though. Think Yondu from GotG or Gladiator, you might know from the X Men cartoons.

Edit: Removing post written before reaching the mod post...

Can you then link us to such treatment?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m not really one to offer insightful feedback to be honest.

I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.

As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.

What the Picard said. I've lost my faith in reviews, when dooseys like TLJ were given good reviews.

Never had any. My view is Trust yourself - watch the trailer, make your descision and live it. If you need to be told what to like and why - thats up to you

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?

Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.

While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.

Nor is it fair to negatively judge the actor/actress for doing their best in a bad or poorly received movie, but Hollywood does it daily by not giving them roles. Not to mention the idiots judging Kelly Marie Tran for doing her best with the sewage sandwich that was her part in TLJ...

EDIT: No, I'm going to leave this one in. It's a point worth making even if it's not entirely on subject.

If someone I know is not being paid to give a good review, gives a good review, then I will take it on board and use it to consider if I want to spend money on the film, this is what reviewers are supposed to do, so if Doc gives it a good review I will use his review and others from the general public and then decide if I want to see it in the cinema, normally I would just go and see it, I don't feel like I can for this one, I felt the same about infinity war, I thought it would be a CGI headache.

Otherwise me and frazzled could end up spending £70+ (family, popcorn, tickets) on a terrible movie in the off chance it's good

Not saying your wrong or anything mordon, just explaining myself.

Some of my friends think the movie will be a gak show and will avoid it. Then again, one of those friends thinks Tokyo Drift is the best Fast & Furious film and thinks Heat is an awful film. The other one said that the first Avengers film was ok, but Battleship was better. I don't listen to them much.

I'll be seeing it opening weekend.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not liking marketing is not a legitimate concern though.

Why?

 reds8n wrote:
..

uh huh course he is.

He is. He quite often states his bias and Democrat-voting leanings. He's not some random YouTuber.

But if you want to just react to headlines rather than listen to him, then you're just as bad as the rest of them.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.

I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.

I don't see how it takes away from anything those people have done.

Using a more contemporary example (in more ways than one), Kevin Spacey's performance in Bryan Singer's Usual Suspects is fantastic. His own personal history will never take away from that (nor Bryan's, for that matter). If you view everything through a lens of who the person is then you'll never enjoy anything.

If you cannot separate the art from the artist then some day someone will get removed from directing a Marvel movie because of jokes made a decade ago... oh wait...

I know I am pretty solid on the fact that no amount of internet vitriol is going to sour the fact that Captain Marvel looks like it'll be a fun, cool movie, just from the trailers alone. Double positive that my wife is eager to watch it with me. So its a big "shrug" for me.

I could care less what Brie Larson declares, one way or the other. All that matters to me is that she makes a good Captain Marvel for 2 hours. Supposedly Scarlet Johanssen is a raving witch to work with, and I like most of her roles.

Fully agree with HBMC. I honestly couldn't care less what actors and directors do or say in their spare time. I do not watch films and TV shows to be friends with the people involved in those productions, I watch them to be entertained and nothing else. Hearing what Mel Gibson has to say about certain ethnic groups did not make me enjoy Braveheart or Lethal Weapon any less, and Brie Larson's activism sure as hell won't make any difference to me when I watch Captain Marvel.

The notion that 'you're still putting money in their pockets' also comes off as bollocks. They've already been paid their millions to star in the production, and what of the legions of other people involved? Do I deny everyone my business because one person involved said something stupid or did something gakky? I would never get to watch anything if that were the case. People say and do stupid gak all the time, it's perfectly human. Sure it sucks, but expecting every entertainer to have their moral compass dialed in to what you find acceptable is total lunacy.

Man, I thought "raped a child" was a low bar to hurdle, moral compass wise.

TIL

It's one thing to ignore political opinions, ignorance, or anything that's just words, but I struggle to understand how someone can consciously watch a movie or art where a major player (i.e. director) is a known child molester. It's not about putting money in their pocket. Someone like Singer is already wealthy. It's about not knowingly spending money on the work of a rapist.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, I thought "raped a child" was a low bar to hurdle, moral compass wise.

That's disingenuous and you know it Ouze.

But, to answer your heavily implied notion that we're somehow fine with child rape, does Polansky's personal actions somehow make Chinatown less of a piece of filmic history? Does it invalidate all the work that the hundreds of people who weren't Roman Polansky did on that film?

Chthulu Mythos is very interesting, and has spawned so many products and off shoots that it's nearly uncountable. Lovecraft himself was a raging anti-semite... so... should we throw out all the Chthulu stuff? Mel Gibson's been brought up in this thread already. He's not a nice person, to say it lightly. Perhaps even a little bit nuts. Does that somehow make him undeserving of the Best Director Oscar he won for Braveheart? Should he give it back?

Yes, cos Braveheart is a travesty

To be fair, watching a piece of media produced by a bad person is one thing, but honouring that person is another. Maybe Gibson should have his gong revoked for being an arse- that sets a good role model for society to follow. You can still go watch Braveheart if you want, but I don't see why that means Gibson should be above reproach and face no consequences.

All literature reviews are the author's opinion. It's only when people start treating them as anything you can take individually as fact that there's a problem. Pick a reviewer, read a few of their reviews of your favourite films and see what it is about them that they like or dislike, then use that as a guideline.

I don't look at review scores; they're all worthless, and Rotten Tomatos and the like are making a fortune over peddling snake oil. I read what was written, and see if I agree with it. Usually i go with the trailers, but then again they're no less misleading. Ultimately the only way to find out if you'll like a film is to watch it. That's what the studios rely on, unfortunately - all this hype, the marketing, special preview screenings - it's all to get people into cinemas on the opening night, before they've had time to listen to their mates tell them not to bother because it's crap.

 Ouze wrote:
Man, I thought "raped a child" was a low bar to hurdle, moral compass wise.

TIL

I'm obviously not condoning child rape, but you knew that already.

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's one thing to ignore political opinions, ignorance, or anything that's just words, but I struggle to understand how someone can consciously watch a movie or art where a major player (i.e. director) is a known child molester. It's not about putting money in their pocket. Someone like Singer is already wealthy. It's about not knowingly spending money on the work of a rapist.

To what end though? If the purpose is to punish these people and let them know what they're doing is not okay, that's what the legal system is for. If not for that, what other reason could there be? And it still doesn't address the problem of the countless others involved in their production. Do they all deserve to have their work reduced to 'a bad person directed this film, therefore it is not worth watching'? That just seems totally ridiculous to me.

 Formosa wrote:
If someone I know is not being paid to give a good review, gives a good review, then I will take it on board and use it to consider if I want to spend money on the film, this is what reviewers are supposed to do, so if Doc gives it a good review I will use his review and others from the general public and then decide if I want to see it in the cinema, normally I would just go and see it, I don't feel like I can for this one, I felt the same about infinity war, I thought it would be a CGI headache.

Otherwise me and frazzled could end up spending £70+ (family, popcorn, tickets) on a terrible movie in the off chance it's good

Not saying your wrong or anything mordon, just explaining myself.

Fair enough :0 I have never needed to reference a review myself - the Trailer tends to tell me what I want to know - I might ask friends what they think but they are not me so its not that helpful...... Its very rare I watch a film at the cinema i don't like and then its almost always because i am just going with friends: See Scream, Last Jedi, Wanted and a few others, all films I hated.

Ok, so maybe what I posted could have had some nuance. I wasn't intending to imply anyone was OK with child rape, although I see how that's how it came across. My bad, that was my poor communication.

I picked Roman Polanski because I assumed he would be the most non-controversial, extreme example of people in show business that you don't want to subsidize; a guy who admitted to raping a child.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
The notion that 'you're still putting money in their pockets' also comes off as bollocks. They've already been paid their millions to star in the production, and what of the legions of other people involved? Do I deny everyone my business because one person involved said something stupid or did something gakky? I would never get to watch anything if that were the case. People say and do stupid gak all the time, it's perfectly human. Sure it sucks, but expecting every entertainer to have their moral compass dialed in to what you find acceptable is total lunacy.

First, I disagree with the idea that you're not putting money in the pockets of these people when you see their movies. Yes, they did already get paid a flat rate, but almost all of the big stars get paid a percentage of box office, as well as residuals. So yes, if you buy a movie ticket for an odious personality, you're directly putting money in their pockets.

Putting that aside (although there is no honest reason to do so), movies are a business and if you pay to buy tickets to a movie, you're create a job for that person. This isn't some weird, extrapolated out morality: Odious people get paid because there is a demand for their work. So, directly subsized or indirectly subsidized, it makes no difference.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But, to answer your heavily implied notion that we're somehow fine with child rape, does Polansky's personal actions somehow make Chinatown less of a piece of filmic history?

No, but it does mean I don't want to subsidize his work anymore. I think we should draw a distinction between someone who did something terrible and is unrepentant (Roman Polanski, Mel Gibson) and someone who did something wrong and apologized for it, or at least made an effort at redemption.

And while it probably doesn't even need to be said, to be 100% clear, we better draw a distinction in terms of degree between even the worst possible interpretation of what Brie Larsen said, James Gunn, etc, and people like Roman Polanski. That would be an unacceptably wide brush.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Does it invalidate all the work that the hundreds of people who weren't Roman Polansky did on that film?

This is a tough question and I don't have a good answer. Sorry if that comes across as a cop-out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chthulu Mythos is very interesting, and has spawned so many products and off shoots that it's nearly uncountable. Lovecraft himself was a raging anti-semite... so... should we throw out all the Chthulu stuff?

I think we can at least measure people by the times they lived in. Abraham Lincoln can look bad if you take a few isolated things he said and look at them in a vacuum.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Mel Gibson's been brought up in this thread already. He's not a nice person, to say it lightly. Perhaps even a little bit nuts. Does that somehow make him undeserving of the Best Director Oscar he won for Braveheart? Should he give it back?

No, because he got that Oscar in 1995. I don't think it was established he was a hideous human being for another 15 years.

 Vulcan wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?

Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.

While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.

Nor is it fair to negatively judge the actor/actress for doing their best in a bad or poorly received movie, but Hollywood does it daily by not giving them roles. Not to mention the idiots judging Kelly Marie Tran for doing her best with the sewage sandwich that was her part in TLJ...

EDIT: No, I'm going to leave this one in. It's a point worth making even if it's not entirely on subject.

There have been plenty of good actors that made their bones in bad movies, but yes sometimes it impacts them badly-especially tentpole movies.

Eva Green in 300: Rise of an Empire comes to mind. Terrible movie, but she always does great.

Well no one seems to want to talk about the Captain Marvel movie at this point so I’m going to lock this down. Feel free to open a new one when someone has seen the movie and wants to talk about it. Thanks!