Top Gun 2: Maverick should you believe the hype?
I am of the opinion that when a sequel to a movie comes out after a long period of time then the movie has a tendency to be shit. Think of the Godfather 3, the Star Wars prequels, and the Disney Star Wars movies. It always seems like a shameless cash grab to release a […]
Top Gun 2: Maverick should you believe the hype? Read More »
I am of the opinion that when a sequel to a movie comes out after a long period of time then the movie has a tendency to be shit. Think of the Godfather 3, the Star Wars prequels, and the Disney Star Wars movies. It always seems like a shameless cash grab to release a movie after a long time, hoping in desperation that the last couple of die-hard fans will spend their hard-earned money on tickets for the film.
Now, imagine my surprise when I saw the sequel to Top Gun getting raving reviews. I was actually shocked and had long ago dismissed it as another shameless cash grab. The reviews were so overwhelmingly positive that I simply had to go and see them for myself.
But is it any good?
It definitely has good aspects, however, I wonder if our taste in movies has been lowered to such a degree that when a competent movie like this comes along it is shouted as a great film. I don’t think the movie deserves the degree of praise it gets, in that regard I think it might be a bit overhyped, but the question is if it’s good and the answer to that question is, much to my surprise Yes, and here is why.
If someone was to make a sequel to Top Gun then this is probably the best it could ever hope to be. The original Top Gun was not that great of a film if we are honest, it had some good music and some good dog fights, but it had too much 80s cheese to be considered a great film. What it did have was charm. Most of that charm has been transferred over, but it is done much more tastefully. The movie takes itself more seriously.
The story is about Maverick played by……You already know who it is…. it’s Tom.
So Maverick is old now and technology is starting to take over, soon pilots will be obsolete and replaced. This theme of automation replacing people is placed right at the beginning. As Maverick keeps saying in the first film, “It’s not the plane, it’s the pilot”. At one point in the film, we see a character named Rooster whose scanner breaks down and he is forced to make a crucial shot without help, Luke Skywalker style. Later on, Rooster and Maverick fight enemy pilots in a very old plane. Maverick comes out of the fight the victor indicating that it is indeed the pilot that matters.
Where was I? Right.
Maverick is getting older and he is asked to train The new Bach of Top Gun pilots. The only problem is that his former wingman and best friend Goose, who died in the first film because of an error Maverick made, has a son (Rooster) and he is in the program. Maverick is keen on keeping him out of the sky after what happened to his dad and Rooster hates Maverick for what happened to his dad. And the drama unfolds from there.
The film is made up of the relationships between the characters.
Maverick and Roosters start out adversarial but by the end they both like and respect each other. Their relationship makes sense and the core of the conflict comes from Maverick’s own conflicting emotions. He feels guilty for what happened to Goose and he promised Rooster’s mother he would keep him out of the sky.
Maverick also rekindles his relationship with Penny, who has been recast by the (almost) always solid Jennifer Connelly. Their relationship is believable and sweet and most importantly it doesn’t overstay its welcome and it’s never a source of forced drama like most romantic subplots.
Rooster has a rivalry with a fellow pilot named Hangman. Hangman is so annoying and smock is the only portrait in Hollywood movies. He is a walking cliche of “I am so good and handsome” he doesn’t feel real in the slightest. He and Rooster’s relationship is also too similar to Maverick and Iceman in the original film. So much so that it feels more like a rerun rather than an original rivalry.
Speaking of Iceman!
The scene where Maverick meets up with Iceman again has to be my favorite of the film. Iceman helps Maverick navigate the situation he is in and the emotional bond and respect between the two characters are excellently portrayed.
Now, since Val Kilmer is sick in real life Iceman has to be sick in the film as well. Throughout the film Maverick and Iceman text each other. This is a genius way of getting around the situation and still having Iceman present in the film.
The action scenes are absolutely amazing!
I am normally not a fan of dog fights since I never really seem to identify who is who in the sky and who is shooting who, but here it works wonderfully. I caught myself holding my breath for some of the action sequences.
The passing is also incredible, giving time for the training to the mission, the relationship between the characters, and the kickass action all without ever dragging. The movie flew by in the theater (See what I did there)
I have to walk a bit about what I did not like about the film.
First of all, the movie is a bit unrealistic. This might sound like an insane thing to say when watching an action movie and I know all movies are unrealistic to a degree. The problem is the amount of convenience in the film. Hangman finds out who Rooster’s dad is by chance. Having a whole military base blown up only to have one unfarmed plane they can escape in, and so on. It’s not really the biggest of problems, but at some point, I did notice the amounts of convenient solutions was too large to ignore.
The movie becomes predictable as a result of the many overly convenient moments. An enemy aircraft will have them on the robes only to be blown up by the most clutch moment, this happens more than once and I was able to perfectly predict when it would happen.
My biggest problem with the film is I feel the movie wants to have its cake and eat it too. Maverick is set up to be the mentor character, but in the end, he is the star of the show anyway.
They also hint that Maverick is going to die on this mission and when he takes a shot to protect Rooster the film is heavily indicating that he is dead. Yet, you can’t kill Tom Cruise now, can you? This is also a problem, when actors become too big, you know they are not going to die in a role, I am never concerned with a Tom Cruise Character since I know he will be fine at this point, but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t build it up as if he is going to die and instantly backpedal.
The last thing that really bugged me was the sheer amount of flashbacks and cutaways to the first film. The movie operates as if you have not seen the first one, but is it really this movie’s responsibility to catch you up to speed?
I say no. It should be your responsibility to see the first film before seeing the sequel. Plus the conflict between Maverick and Rooster is more justified when you know the backstory. Too much time is wasted on flashbacks and dialog hinting at the past.
Overall
Top Gun: Maverick is a strange case. I still maintain that the film is being reviewed so positively because we are starved for decent and competent movies. That being said, the film is still solid and worth watching. It falls into some cliches but manages to excite the original film.
What makes for a good adaptation?
Is the book always better? Can you ever adapt something fully? Why are people so obsessed with adaptations? Why are video game movies always so bad? All these questions and more will be answered in this post on adaptations where I will be laying out how to do it well, and how to do it
Is the book always better?
Can you ever adapt something fully?
Why are people so obsessed with adaptations?
Why are video game movies always so bad?
All these questions and more will be answered in this post on adaptations where I will be laying out how to do it well, and how to do it not so well.
I will primarily talk about the book-to-movie adaptations since those are the most common and also the ones I have the most experience with.
Cinema and literature are very different from each other, while they both seek to tell stories and both go about it in different ways. It should be mentioned that when I say reading I don’t mean audiobooks, not that there’s anything wrong with them, but for the sake of keeping it as simple as possible, I will not be referring to them, since I feel they make for a slightly different experience than traditional reading.
What movies do better
Movies can convey a lot and they can do it a lot more effectively. If you imagen a book describing the environment like the interior of a room or a luscious landscape, a movie can convey this by simply showing it taking seconds to show what in a book would be paragraphs of texts.
A skilled actor can in the same way convey a lot of different emotions with a simple facial expression. In a book, it would take time to write out how all the people look at any given time and situation. This also works the other way around, a terrible performance can take you right out of the film.
If a film is good it can use clever scene transitions and good cinematography to enhance the experience. You can also play around more with a frame, moving actors in the background and creating movement and excitement.
Movies can also use color in different ways. Personally, I really like when movies use colors in different and smart ways. I even did a breakdown on the movie Tau where I looked at how that particular movie used colors to great effect.
By far the biggest advantage films have over books is the music. Music can enhance a scene or film. You probably have your favorite movie scores or soundtracks in the back of your head. My personal favorite is Howard Shore’s “The Lord of the Rings” where the music makes the world come alive in a whole different way.
What books do better
Books are more of an active activity where you have to engage with the text. You can easily look at your phone for a minute or two while watching a film without missing much, but when you read the experience is such that if you stop the reading stops as well, making for more of a commitment since you have to focus on what is in front of you. This can be a good or bad thing depending on who you are.
Books also have a good way of stimulating your imagination, you have to imagen what the characters look like, and what the setting looks like. You have to imagen pretty much everything about the story. There might be descriptions, but those are simply components that you have to put together and visualize for yourself.
A book is not restricted by things like budget or special effects. If you want a dragon in your book, fine, not a problem
A movie with bad effects can easily pull you out of the experience. Special effects are one of the reasons movies look old, whereas books are the same, they might read differently compared to contemporary literature. We still read the works of Shakespear today, will future generations watch the movies of this era? probably not.
It is worth mentioning that cinema is a relatively new form of art, at least compared to books. So making statements on the future of films is not possible.
Is the book always better?
The answer is of course no. Sometimes the movie is better than the book, I would say the book is better 80-90% of the time, with very few exceptions.
I will say, if I have seen the movie first I will be more forgiving than the other way around. Most of the time the movie feels like a watered-down version of the book trying desperately to cash in on an already established franchise.
It is important to know what to adapt and what NOT to adapt. An example could be the big monsters/squid things at the end of watchmen. It was definitely a good idea not to include them.
Adaptations I like
To be a good adaptation you have to take liberties and do something different than the book. I like it when they use the story of the book as more of a blueprint instead of a one-to-one adaptation.
Here is a comprehensible list of movies I feel are better than the book for whatever reason.
List:
Blade Runner
Very different from the original book. Both are what I consider Cyberpunk classics, it all comes down to personal preference since both are so different. Cyberpunk is a very visual subgenre and thus it lends itself great to cinema.
Jaws
The movie is a classic creating the blockbuster we know today. Having the shark be unseen throughout the film only enhances the suspense since you never know when the shark will attack. The book is horrible and full of unlikeable characters not hard to top at all.
Psycho
The film is just better, perfectly directed by Alfred Hitchcock, with suspenseful music and S-tier performances, especially from Anthony Perkins. The book is forgettable and not nearly as good.
Stand by me
Stephen King wrote a good short story here. However, it all comes together better in this Rob Reiner classic where the relationships between the boys carry this film as it does in the book. I still find myself thinking of the ending scene, in the book that scene doesn’t hit as hard. A fine book, but a great film.
2001 a space odyssey
Arthur C Clark is a LEGEND within sci-fi. Like Stand by me, the book is okay at best, but the film is one of the most iconic films of all time! Period. Directed masterfully by the GOAT Stanley Kubrick and the film is definitely better than the book.
Apocalypse now
Just like Blade Runner, the two titles in question here are both very different from each other. I personally love the descent into madness Apocalypse now presents. The book was a little underwhelming for me.
Shawshank Redemption
Mr. King is back with Shawshank Redemption! and the short story is not good. I do not like it, I thought it was a pale imitation of the film (I know the book came out first). The film just works on almost every level whereas the novella is just another King story, if it weren’t for the film no one would talk about the book.
Video Game adaptations
The reason Hollywood adapts so many books is that they already have a fanbase. It is therefore not as much of a financial risk since they know that if they play their cards right the hardcore fans will go see it.
This is also the reason why they have come for our precious Video Games. You might have seen an uptick in video game movies, the reason might be because Video games have taken over reading as the most popular pastime.
Video Game adaptations should be an easy sell right? I mean the story is right there, so why is it that so many video game adaptations fail? Well, let’s take a look.
First of all, video games are different from movies (I know, shocking). Games are made in a way where you are in the driver’s seat, you control where the characters go and what they do. Furthermore, many games today have a multi-layered narrative where your actions matter in terms of what happens in the story and in the game. You can go anywhere in a game, but in a movie, you are constrained to what they show you.
Another reason for the lack of success regarding game adaptations comes in the form of a fundamental lack of understanding from the filmmakers.
Take the resident evil movies. The director Paul W.S Anderson researched the franchise a lot, looking at all kinds of different speed runs for the game. The problem is that those who do speedrunners have mastery over the game and that mastery is not representative of the real game. As a result, the resident evil movies become these hyper-action movies, the problem is that Resident Evil is a horror game at its core. All the tension is removed from the movies because the main characters kill all the zombies with ease.
Another case study could be the new uncharted film with Tom Holland in the leading role. First of all the casting makes no sense at all. Tom Holland and Mark Whalberg are both too young to play the characters of Nate and Sully. Tom Holland might have the fun quips, but he lacks the maturity of Nathan Drake.
Uncharted was always a cinematic experience, focusing on big set pieces, fast dialogue, and epic cutscenes. The game feels cinematic by its nature, so adapting it seems pointless to me.
Tomb Raider, Assassin’s Creed, and Warcraft were all forgettable adaptations that didn’t live up to the franchises they came from.
Unlike the movies better than the book list, there are ZERO videogame movies that I think are good. Some might be enjoyably bad like Mortal Kombat, but the vast majority is total crap and forgettable garbage.
The Whicher is an interesting case study. It was adapted from the fantasy series of the same name by City Projekt red back in 2007, getting more and more popular with every subsequent release in the series. The third installment of the game “The wild hunt” was a giant success.
The reason a game adaptation of a book works well is that you can have a lot of time exploring every plot threat. The witcher 3 clocks in at 103 hours if you do the main and side quest and 172 hours if you are a completionist. This is so much better than having a 2-hour movie.
The only way to make a good adaptation for big fantasy series is by taking time. The Peter Jackson movies were good because he took his time and he cut exactly what needed to be cut.
Harry Potter was a film per book and the last one was cut into 2 parts and yet they still cut a lot, and missed a lot of content. To this day I am still mad they did not include my boy Peeves!
Maybe we should not adopt books into movies anymore, but into games instead.
Why are people obsessed with adaptations?
Seriously? Why do people go on and on about the next Game of thrones? People discuss what would make a creative adaptation and what would make a great adaptation. I don’t think the end all be all is to be adapted. I think a bad adaptation can tarnish the original work, at least in the eye of the public.
Mass Effect is always mentioned as “something that would make a good adaptation”, but I have to disagree completely. The appeals of Mass Effect are
- A) Getting to know your crew
- B) Exploring planets and the citadel
- C) The gunfights
- D) have sex with blue aliens
While D sounds like the most important aspect of what makes Mass Effect, however what truly makes the game great is its characters, getting to know them through Dialog and their special Loyalty missions is what the whole franchise is really about. They might make fighting the reapers a CGI spectacle, but I fear they will miss the beating heart of the series.
They also kind of have to cast the original cast. Can you imagen Garrus sounding different from the games? The whole time I would think, that is not Garrus.
Saying that Mass effect is a story-driven game and thus it becomes easier to adapt is missing the point completely.
Conclusion
Movie adaptations are dying, to adapt something you have to do a tv series or a game.
While I might sound negative toward adaptations and in most cases I am. I do believe there are ways to do it right. By taking liberties and using the original story as more of a blueprint, while using the medium to its fullest potential.
I still don’t think being adapted is the end goal, I don’t see why movies or TV shows are inherently better than the book.
Are adaptations always bad?
90% of the time I would say yes.
Pawn’s Gambit quick review
Pawn’s Gambit is the second book in the Immortal Techniques series written by Rob J Hayes. I did a mini-review on the first book “Never Die” which I liked a lot. In the post I explain why I thought it was a perfect Getaway book for potential fantasy readers. Pawn’s Gambit differs from the first
Pawn’s Gambit is the second book in the Immortal Techniques series written by Rob J Hayes. I did a mini-review on the first book “Never Die” which I liked a lot. In the post I explain why I thought it was a perfect Getaway book for potential fantasy readers.
Pawn’s Gambit differs from the first book enough to justify its existence. The first book followed a team of badasses trying to assassinate the emperor.
In this book we have a God named Natsuko recruiting a woman called Yuu to participate in a game the gods made. The God who wins gets to rule over all the others and is basically in charge of what gets done in the divine realm and on earth.
Yuu is a recurring character from the first book, however, this time she is the main character with a point of view whereas in the first book she was introduced fairly late. Yuu is a strategist and thus she doesn’t actually do a lot of fighting herself.
The story is more about how Yuu avoids fighting and still gets what she wants through cunning and planning. This is very different from the first book which was all-out action all the time. The action scenes in the book are great and well written, there are not as many as in the first one given the focus on planning and strategy.
The cast in this one is smaller with Yuu taking up the majority of the page time. I do like Yuu as a character and the scene where she is introduced is particularly good. However, I do feel like the book is very repetitive in Yuu´s struggles. She mentions her grandmother a lot and she expresses a lot of regret about events happening in the first book. I felt it was too much at times, and she kept talking about it, it grew tiresome towards the end.
Yuu works with one or two partners at a time with the God Natsuko disappearing from the story from time to time. This leaves Yuu with whoever she is partnering up with in a given situation. The supporting cast changes a lot and their chemistry is lacking at times.
In Never Die you had a real team in the first book with different personalities that all worked well together. This made it so the dialog and situations never got stale, the characters played off each other in a good way. Pawn’s Gambit suffers a bit in this regard. Some of the supporting cast are great! Like the king/emperor of thieves named Fang, but they don’t stick around long enough to leave a proper mark.
Overall I liked the first one more since the dynamic team and kickass action made for a better overall experience. While Yuu is a decent character she doesn’t have what it takes to carry a story like this.
A good second book that is worth recommending, but it falls short of the first one. I will say that the climax of this book is way better than the first. It was very creative and well handled.
I recommend this book to all who like:
- Eastern-inspired fantasy
- well-written fight scenes
- A strong female lead
- Twist and turns
What makes something generic?
What makes something generic? It’s easy to see when something is bad or good, but how do you identify what makes something generic? If people asked you about a particular movie you could say it was good or bad, but most often than not people would say “eh” or “it was fine” these are phrases
What makes something generic? It’s easy to see when something is bad or good, but how do you identify what makes something generic?
If people asked you about a particular movie you could say it was good or bad, but most often than not people would say “eh” or “it was fine” these are phrases most commonly used to describe something generic.
Something right down the middle of the quality spectrum. Something generic will not leave you with a strong sense of anything after consumption. Most things are like this, most things you eat will be “fine”, most movies will be “okay”, nothing spectacular nor awful. In my post about Netflix movies, I concluded that most of their movies are like this.
But why is there so much generic stuff out there?
I think that there is more generic stuff now than ever before. One of the main reasons for this is because there is more stuff now than ever. People crank out content at an alarming rate. There are more movies to watch, books to read, or games to play than ever before.
More content will automatically mean more generic stuff.
There is a battle going on for people’s attention since there is more content and art to consume than ever before. While the amount of art and content has risen over the digital age we still only have a set amount of time doing the day. This means people make content to grab attention and not necessarily for the sake of making good art.
People’s attention span is also nonexisting at this point since everything has to grab attention. Everything feels super fast-paced with no time to breathe at all. The rise of TikTok is a perfect example of this, with a format focusing on quick and short videos. This creates a surface-level appreciation for art, everybody is conditioned to only being able to pay attention for a brief period of time.
How to identify something generic
To identify what makes something generic one must first realize what makes something good and bad. If we take movies as an example.
It is important to consume a wide range of different kinds of movies both in terms of genres, but also in terms of quality. When you see enough movies like Transformers, The Room, or other terrible movies you start to automatically appreciate better movies. Now, if you only watch bad stuff the generic stuff appears to be good, for we judge things in relation to other things.
I have seen a lot of movies all from different decades, in different genres. I am not a fan of gangster films, they simply do not do it for me. However, when I watch the Godfather I can tell it’s a great movie. The way Coppola moves the camera and the way he transitions from scene to scene is next level, in combination with a beautiful score and a spectacular cast that all deliver great performances and you have yourself a masterpiece of a film.
Most films coming out today are just there, one does not feel anything watching them. It might have some cool things in it, but overall it was just “something to watch”. When people get home from work they just need “something to watch” that takes their mind off of work or their worries.
When consuming art one should be able to feel something, whether it would be a positive or negative emotion doesn’t matter. The worst feeling is indifference and apathy. Once you enter a state of apathy everything becomes meaningless to a degree. People in this state grow more cynical, they can’t empathize with others as easily and they don’t feel motivated about anything.
Art should make people feel something, whether that be Fear from a good horror film, excitement from a nice action flick, or sadness from a drama. No matter the genre one should feel something when it comes to art. If we start to experience art with apathy then we start to see the world with apathy and thus no improvement to the world can be made.
The Beauty of Silence
Shinji Ikari is one of the most iconic and well-realized protagonists in anime (and in everything else). Even though he has garnered a lot of controversies or even hate over the years for being let’s say, less than brave when he has to. I feel like that is what enhances his character. Surely if you
Shinji Ikari is one of the most iconic and well-realized protagonists in anime (and in everything else). Even though he has garnered a lot of controversies or even hate over the years for being let’s say, less than brave when he has to. I feel like that is what enhances his character. Surely if you had to battle aliens in a giant mech that causes you great pain both physically, but also psychologically you would properly feel similar to him.
His youth is also a factor. I simply love how Eva is a story of youth and adolescence. Childhood is an often-overlooked aspect of Eva´s story, but one that I feel creates great value. One of the things Shinji does that speaks to me in particular, is when he listens to music. In scenes of isolation like when he runs away from his responsibilities he always listens to music.
He tries to block out the world. It can be hard to face your responsibilities, especially when you at the same time feel like everyone hates you. His age also makes it difficult for him to understand others. He lacks perspective and understanding of others. Eva is a show where no one is psychologically healthy. That aside, I still think him trying to block out everyone is very powerful.
Shinji listening to music, so he does not have to confront others or who he really is, is something that always resonated with me, it is something I still do from time to time. However, I would argue that you should not.
FINALLY! With that long-winded intro about Shinji out of the way, I can finally talk about what I really wanted all along.
So many people have headphones on these days. In my opinion, it is mostly young people, I too tend to do the same. At this point, it is not to block out the world. At least that is not the goal, but an aftereffect. I walk with either music, a podcast, or an audiobook.
When I wait in line I listen to something. When I walk from A to B, I listen to something. When I work out, I listen to something. I always have something in my ear, and I think most people do the same.
What is lost by doing this is silence. Peace and quiet. It is no secret that nature has a tranquil effect on us humans. It is well documented that spending time in nature is good for us. When you walk in nature taking in all its beauty it becomes a meditative experience. Nature brings inner calmness. This calmness is easy to miss if you have too much noise in your life. In order to achieve peace and quiet in your mind, you must first remove noise, and take in the world as it is.
It is also very difficult to approach someone with headphones on. This might sound like an arbitrary problem, but humans are social creatures, with a need for socializing. We have a need to make connections with other people. Having headphones in might hinder that process ever so slightly.
We have grown cynical as a society. One of the reasons for this is because we are so set in our own way. We become incentivest to only notice ourselves, by constantly having something playing in our ears. We create these bobbles. We become more likely to notice other people by removing our headphones. When you do not have something constantly playing you start to notice other people and what they might be struggling with.
The question is do you listen to music because you want to or because you can’t stand silence?
How to not be Overwhelmed
There is so much to do and so little time! If you are anything like me (and I hope that you are not) you find yourself with a feeling of being overwhelmed by the many options in entertainment. This sinking feeling of dread and stress appears when you are faced with the realization that you
There is so much to do and so little time!
If you are anything like me (and I hope that you are not) you find yourself with a feeling of being overwhelmed by the many options in entertainment. This sinking feeling of dread and stress appears when you are faced with the realization that you cannot possibly see all the movies, play all the games, or read all the books you want to, for you do not have the time.
There are simply too many options for things to experience. The entertainment industry is booming and new stuff is being produced all the time, at an alarming rate.
A couple of years ago I got into reading, you know, like books and stuff. I quickly found someone talking about books online, so I could get some inspiration and some recommendations. This is where the first problem appeared. You do not have to follow that many people to get a staggering amount of recommendations.
Since I did not read that fast back then all the books quickly overwhelmed me, I could not enjoy the book I was reading. I was constantly thinking of the mountain of books I had yet to read.
It does not have to be books, it can be movies, series, anime, and so on. I will be using movies as an example, but the point stands for art in general.
FEAR NOT! I am here to give you some advice on how to avoid being overwhelmed.
TIP 1 cut the crap
The first thing I am going to say is, almost everything is total crap! Okay, that might be oversimplifying a bit, but listen to this. Most things being made are straight-up not that good, to begin with. Most movies being made are either bad or generic. By cutting away these movies you save yourself a lot of stress.
TIP 2 choose wisely and reflect on what you like
The second point to keep in mind is that of all the good stuff, most of it is for you. It doesn’t resonate with you, either because it was not made with your demographic in mind, or you simply do not have the interest. Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, but if you don’t really vibe with fantasy, well, then it is all for not. I haven’t liked any Marvel movies, so it would be stupid for me to keep wachting them. Clearly some people like them, but they are simply not for me.
Once you can differentiate pieces of art, then you will be golden. It takes a bit of time, and it is important to reflect on what you value in art.
When you cut out all the bad and generic movies, along with those who you simply do not have any interest in, then you find the amount of art and media to consume is a lot smaller than before.
But how do I know what is good and what is bad?
Well, you can’t know if a movie is good unless you watch it. What you can do is start to recognize patterns. Maybe you dislike most modern comedy movies and find them painfully unfunny. In that case, it would be safe to skip it, unless something special catches your attention. Maybe you dislike a certain director or actor, in which case just skip their movies.
TIP 3 popularity is not always good
This brings me to the last point; What is popular is trash and bad. You should not follow the herd when it comes to these sorts of things. When Game of Thrones was at its highest, it felt like everyone was talking about it, but if you do not like fantasy or violence then maybe the show isn’t for you. I know it can be hard to not be involved with what everyone else is into, but trust me you are better off spending your time consuming something you actually like. Do not let the HYPE get to you, stay strong. That means you have to stay strong when people around you get excited and start talking about the newest show they watch.
Scores, what they are and why no one is using them right
It is common practice to leave a score after a review. This score comes in many different forms. The most common one is probably the 1-10 score. 1 being the worst and 10 being the best. On Goodreads (a site for rating books) you choose 1-5 stars. The Legendary Film reviewing duo Siskel and Ebert
Scores, what they are and why no one is using them right Read More »
It is common practice to leave a score after a review. This score comes in many different forms. The most common one is probably the 1-10 score. 1 being the worst and 10 being the best. On Goodreads (a site for rating books) you choose 1-5 stars. The Legendary Film reviewing duo Siskel and Ebert had a simple thumbs up or thumbs down system. All these systems have problems and I will go over why in just a bit, but first the overarching problems with scoring art.
In math, you do not get points for having the answer right. You get points for having the equation right. The number at the end is not as important, what is important is how you arrived at the number. The important thing is your trouble solving
The MOST important thing to keep in mind is that the score is only really relevant to the person giving the score. It has little to no value to anybody else.
Personally, I use a 1-10 score and I use it to simply categorize different books, films, anime, and so on. All the 10s I give are somewhat equal in quality. The same can be said for all the 9s and so on. But this only really has relevance for me. Everybody has a different idea of what a 6/10 means, some people might think it is an okay score, others might think a book receiving a 6/10 is totally worthless. My 6 might be your 8 or your 7 might be my 9, we simply can not say and we will never reach a consensus on this. I like using it because I like to categorize things. I have the score I give down to a science at this point. But it is still only relevant to me since you have no idea of what my 7/10 is and I can never fully understand you 7/10.
I often have discussions with my friends about what score a film or book should have, but instead of talking about the work, we end up talking about what constitutes a good work. Is it 6, 7, or 8 out of 10. Much time is wasted arguing semantics.
Also, The Idea of giving a numeric number to a piece of art is a strange thing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and art is a very subjective thing. What I argue is that giving a piece of art a score is also a subjective exercise.
If you go on Goodreads you will find a 1-star review and a 5-star review on every single book. If there was a real mathematical way of assigning a score, then there wouldn’t be a divide. We would all simply agree.
The same goes for movies on IMDB or Letterboxd. We can average the score out and make a list like the IMDB250 movies of all time. However, no one is going to agree with the list. None is going to say that is exactly the top 250 best films, they nailed all of them.
People have what I call “look at the number effect”, where they will only focus on a number over everything else. People will see a number on a movie site like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and then make a judgment on whether to see it or not.
We see the same when students of all ages get their grades. They all look at the number instead of the feedback. To think, we have made a society where your knowledge and worth as a student is being compiled down to a grade. You are always told to get good grades so you can enter a good school, so you can get a nice job and so on. It is not a surprise that people have an obsession with numbers. Everyone is conditioned to value numbers more than reason. It is no wonder people have such a focus on numbers.
The Siskel and Ebert system is way too simple in my opinion. It takes all the nuances out of the scoring and simply provides a good vs bad system. The problem is that most movies are a 5/10 a down the middle generic piece of art. The thump system does not take into account the genericness of most art. Most art being produced is just okay.
To some it’s all up
Art is subjective, giving a score to art is subjective, different scores mean different things to different people. Society only values numbers and not people, thus by avoiding scores in the review you force people to consider the art itself and not the bloody number at the end.
Originality
Everything has already been said Every story has already been told Everything has already been said Every wise word has already been uttered Every inspirational quote has been said Every great work of writing already contains all the wisdom Every word has been written Every thought has been had Why even do or say anything?
Everything has already been said
Every story has already been told
Everything has already been said
Every wise word has already been uttered
Every inspirational quote has been said
Every great work of writing already contains all the wisdom
Every word has been written
Every thought has been had
Why even do or say anything?
You have properly heard the fact that there only exist about seven plots and that is it. All stories follow the same tired story beats and plot structure.
It is pointless to add anything to the canon of art and thought. The chances of your words and work being original are practically zero. Thus, the question arises
why do anything?
Let us assume all of the above is true. You are still obligated to make art and should never stop in the pursuit of higher knowledge.
For it is not the work or the thought in itself that matters, but the way you express it. What matters is your specific ankle and unique perspective. If you have an interesting way to tell one of the seven plots then by all means do it!
If you have a special talent for conveying complex thoughts in an easy to decide way, then you should absolutely do that, even if the ideas are not yours.
.
Reviews, Spoilers, and Everything in Between
Reviews are a strange phenomenon to me. There seems to be an abundance of them, and they garner a lot of controversies, yet also remain totally arbitrary and sometimes downright useless. This post is going to be about reviews both in a professional and amateur sense. I am going to look at why they exist,
Reviews are a strange phenomenon to me. There seems to be an abundance of them, and they garner a lot of controversies, yet also remain totally arbitrary and sometimes downright useless.
This post is going to be about reviews both in a professional and amateur sense. I am going to look at why they exist, why they are useful, and why we should just probably get rid of them altogether. (I know we are going in a lot of different directions).
And yes I will also be talking about Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the concepts will be transferable to different mediums, meaning that if I talk about movies the basic ideas will also be relevant for book reviewers, gaming reviews, and so on.
The first thing to consider is that “best” will always depend on what criteria you value and think is important. This is true for reviewers as well.
An example
One of my friends loves action movies; he is practically incapable of enjoying anything else. Sometimes he surprises me, but 99% of the time a movie has to have a lot of fight scenes or explosions for him to enjoy them. If I asked him what he thought of Citizen Kane, I would guess he doesn’t like it at all. To him the criteria of a good film is action and plenty of it.
Does this mean he is wrong? Well, yes for I have the objectively best opinions on anything ever (said everyone on the internet).
The criteria people think are important, are most often also what people disagree on. Every sports fan has probably had discussions regarding which team is/was the best and which player is the GOAT, and so on. It all depends on the criteria put forth.
Understanding that everyone has biases and different criteria for what makes a good film is vital to understanding the concept of reviewing.
There are two types of reviewers: the professional ones and the amateurs.
The most famous example of a professional film reviewer is the legendary duo Sisskle and Eibert. There are of course other examples, but those two seem to be the penikale.
What Rotten Tomatoes does is collect all the reviews from these professional reviewers and give them a score dependent on if this review was positive or negative. When people criticize Rotten Tomatoes and say, they gave this and that movie a 10% what were they thinking!
Well, Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t give scores, they simply collect them, don’t shoot the messenger.
The second group of people are the amateur reviewers, these people are most common on Youtube, but can be found other places. Anybody can be a reviewer, you simply have to film yourself talking about something and put it up online.
I have no real problem with amateur reviewers, but I feel most of them fall into pitfalls. These pitfalls make the review unfun and kind of useless.
Why reviews are kind of useless
Most reviews are made as consumer reviews, which means they are intended to convince the person watching whether they should go see the movie, buy the game, or read the book. Reviews are intended for people who have not experienced what you are talking about, and thus they should avoid spoilers as much as possible.
The lack of spoilers are what makes reviews inherently boring to me. What most people do when they review is they tell you the plot in the most non spoiler way, which I could just as well have read on wikipedia.
Then they talk about if they liked it or not. This is where the problem arises, for they can not explain why they like something or dislike something in any details whatsoever, for they cannot spoil anything. The result is this shallow overview of a film, book or anime. They will say things like “I really like this character, but I can’t tell you why since it would be a spoiler”. This sentiment feels like a particular bad waste of time.
A reviewer I like is Mark Kermode from England. If I am on the fence about a movie, I will check him out and see what he has to say. Not because I agree with him all the time, but because he is so good at explaining why something is good or bad to him specifically. And since I somewhat know his taste and criteria, I can easily navigate what movies to watch. This is where reviews are good if you find someone who can convey why you should read or watch something.
I have a good grasp of what I like and dislike, so I am not interested in reviews on popular things, since I already know if I am going to watch them or not. What I seek is to discover new stuff, since there is an abundance of entertainment being spitted out every day.
There are two ways of doing a review.
The first is focused on the text (meaning the work itself)
The second is focused on the reviewer (how the person reviewing thought)
You can not describe anything in detail due to fear of spoilers and you can not explain why you like something because that would also be spoilers. A review is in that regard kind of like a snake eating its own tail, it is inherently uninteresting.
This brings me to what I value.
I value in-depth Analysis of something, filled with examples of what is good and bad. I like a hybrid of the 2 mentioned before. First a look at the text and then how it worked for me and made me feel.
There seems to be a lot of so-called video essays on movies, games and anime. These essays seem to have replaced traditional reviews.
One of the things I really hate is how everyone is constantly tiptoeing around spoilers they where a fucking mindfield! – Quote ME Ralle
I think the reason people do reviews is simple, it’s easy. You do not have to do a tremendous amount of work, since you can not talk about anything spoilery. People who love movies or books who want to do content online for it can easily make a standard review.
When I first got into anime, reviews were the whole game. Everyone did them the same way. You would rate the following categories from 1-10.
- Story
- Characters
- Animation
- Music
- Enyoment
This is the worst way of reviewing anything. First of all, aren’t the characters part of the story? Isn’t enjoyment connected to the other aspects? You properly enjoyed the story, characters, animation, or something else connected to the story like the subject matter or themes, thus you can’t separate it and value it on your own.
Scoring the elements individually instead of together is a terrible idea. It would be like a food critic tasting each ingredient instead of the dish as a whole.
The problem is also when all reviews have a score attached to them. For no one seems to use scores right.
There is so much crap to watch and nobody has time to watch it all. We need reviews to tell us what is good and what is not. However, when everyone is doing reviews, reviews themselves become more content to consume and thus reviews are once again like a snake eating its own tail.
Rotten Tomatoes is a good visual indicator for the average perception of the critics. It is easy to scan their page and see what is considered good and bad.
Some movies are critic-proof though. Take the transformers they get worse and worse, critics hate them and people with more than two brain cells also seem to hate them. But despite the constant bad reviews they still sell a lot of tickets. No matter how much the critics give them crap, they still provide. The opposite is also true, every Marvel movie with the exception of one or two always gets a high score on rotten tomatoes despite being really terrible.
In conclusion, I feel reviews are a totally shallow exercise, which is a result of the excessive need to avoid spoilers.
Are original Netflix movies any good?
I have been bombarded with opinions regarding Original Netflix movies. Most people I talk to have a tendency to mention their movies in a negative light. I have heard over and over again that the Netflix originals were inherently bad and or underwhelming. As a wannabe journalist, I thought to investigate whether that claim was
I have been bombarded with opinions regarding Original Netflix movies. Most people I talk to have a tendency to mention their movies in a negative light. I have heard over and over again that the Netflix originals were inherently bad and or underwhelming.
As a wannabe journalist, I thought to investigate whether that claim was true. This means that I just had to watch a bunch of original Netflix movies and blog about them, which I have done.
I am now ready to make my judgment, are they bad? Do they suck? or are the haters wrong? The answer is more nuanced than that, so let’s explore the question in a little more depth.
Part 1 The Directors
One of the biggest reasons why I feel Netflix has to keep producing original stuff is so they can platform great filmmakers.
Bong Joon-Ho made Okja
Martin Scorsese Made The Irishman
The Coen Brothers made The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
I am a fan of all these filmmakers. Even though the films in question are the weakest from these directors by far. The fact that Netflix provides a place for them to make movies is in my opinion very important. Another favorite of mine, Charlie Kaufman also has a film on Netflix. If the studios have given up on actual legends in Hollywood, in order to pump out bad superhero and Star Wars movies, then so be it.
Part 2 Variety
Netflix gives great variety when it comes to its production. They made a good period piece in “The King”. A trippy as all hell arthouse film like “I am thinking of ending things”, decent sci-fi films like Tau, a great suspenseful movie in The Call, and so on.
I might be burned out when it comes to Hollywood and going to the movies in general, that is entirely possible. It just feels to me like all Hollywood does is make the same kind of “designed by committee” films over and over and over again. Where Netflix is more creative and interesting despite missing from time to time. I would much rather watch a film like “The Harder They Fall” then the new Disney Star Wars films.
It appears to be harder and harder to get a movie made in Hollywood. I have heard Spielberg and Scorcese both talk about how hard it is to get a movie these days. These two are not unknowns, but legends. They might not be marketable anymore.
Hollywood is a business more than anything else. People in Hollywood are only someone if they sell tickets, but that is a discussion for another time. If Netflix is the new home for these kinds of filmmakers then I am all for it!
Part 3 The Quality
Now to what might be the most important aspect of this entire post.
Are they any good?
The boring answer is some are bad, some are decent to good.
The biggest problem with Netflix movies is that none of their films is that remarkable. While I might like “The King” it is not a movie I’m going to watch again, in fact, this sentiment can be said about a lot if not all Netflix films. I might also like the movie Tau, but I would not consider it a top Sci-fi film.
None of the good Netflix films goes above and beyond. They are all fine, decent, and other non-flattery words. They don’t really stand out as something great. None of them are “classics” we are going to revise in the future.
The lack of greats would not really be a problem if all the films were decent, but this is not the case. While some of the films are good, most are terrible. All original Adam Sandler movies are terrible. Most of the films I have blogged about are underwhelming and or bad.
The vast majority of Netflix films are terrible, bad, uninteresting, and sucks. All the good ones are simply nothing special. The problem becomes clear.
HOWEVER! It is worth keeping in mind that the alternative (Hollywood) also produces a lot of mediocre crap. Netflix is at the very least creative in creating new stuff. They try and fail till they make something good. They might not have anything special right now, but I feel they have it in them to make something truly great in the future.