Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:
Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:
(Even the title suggests a comment on the current state of American foreign policy.)
iMURDAu wrote:Read the review. The main complaint is that the movie requires you to have seen all of these Marvel movies and actually bothered to care about them and think about them after watching them.
Oh and it's also an advertisement for all the previous movies. It's really almost like Marvel wanted you to watch all their movies before seeing this one. Why would they ever do such a thing? Could you imagine if an author wrote a book but expected you to have read previous works?
How out of touch is the reviewer? My favorite part of the article:(Even the title suggests a comment on the current state of American foreign policy.)
Yup. Sure is. That's exactly what they thought of when Infinity War came out. In 1992.
That's definitely getting the Bunk smh gifSpoiler: show
Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:Just, does nobody remember the old time-y serials of the 1940s?
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:This reminds me of the Plinkett Rogue One comments review, where someone mocked him saying "They have to explain what the force is now?" and Plinkett just straight up put up clips from Empire and Jedi /specifically/ explaining the fucking force and Han Solo's motivation to anyone who'd watch them first.
*yt clipped*
Movies needing to play their characters so they work on their own is a perfectly good criticism. Most classic movies manage that perfectly well. Sarah Conner T2 is badass and doesn't need the context of Sarah Conner T1 to work. John Connor was barely a character in T1 so he got explained all over again and the horrors of Judgement Day were shown off in the iconic playground scene in T2(Which again, is explaining the premise in a sequel).
There's so many examples of this. I'm surprised you guys thought it wasn't a valid criticism.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Rogue One was the eighth Star Wars movie, it's still perfectly natural to criticize it for relying too much on people being impressed because VADER killed the faceless assholes, instead of some fresh villain without 40 years of memetic badassness to use as a crutch.
If everything interesting about the movie comes from outside the movie, why bother with the movie?
A Combustible Lemon wrote:Rogue One was the eighth Star Wars movie, it's still perfectly natural to criticize it for relying too much on people being impressed because VADER killed the faceless assholes, instead of some fresh villain without 40 years of memetic badassness to use as a crutch.
If everything interesting about the movie comes from outside the movie, why bother with the movie?
Star Wars is like the best example of why this criticism exists and is needed. How much of the prequel trilogy's defense is just repeating things that are outside the prequels?
Tesseracts wrote:What's so stupid about this? It's probably accurate. Even if it's not it's a matter of opinion.
Carrie, on hearing of Siphonophores wrote:I heard you like jellyfish, so I put jellyfish in your jellyfish.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests