Captain Marvel and the ethics of film criticism.
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
- Status
yes, I can because I can show you from a film making stand point how to use a better VFX. it is called practical effects. practical effect ensure your movie quality feels like a film and not a game. which is a better quality for the film.
this is an example of practical effects post TDK.
Now you can try and make fun of me but if you ever go to film school and you care about effects, be influenced by the work in DOFP to black panther, it will help your GPA score in the end.
the opinions of the film professor marking your project will say the same.
So, only professionals who went to film schools are allowed to have an opinion and be taken seriously?
That disqualifies you, right?
That disqualifies you, right?
"better", "feel", "quality"
All subjective terms for a subjective value judgement. Something may feel more like a film to you but not to me. I may think the BP special effects are better. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Prove to me one is better without relying on simply asserting it's true.
I can't help but feel you're confused about your terminology here and numerous people are trying quite patiently to explain that to you.
By the way, if you don't mind my asking a personal question, is English not your first language?
I'm not making fun of you, I'm making a point. I prefer cheesecake to trifle, that doesn't make it better.
And an opinion is subjective, by definition. Another professor may feel otherwise. One critic may agree, another might disagree. Even if there's consensus it tells us nothing other than the fact of that consensus, everything else is interpretive.
At least I think we can agree that all art is subjective. Except "Orville" which was proven last week is without a doubt to be the best Trek show on tv and simply a great show. The evidence is the episodes themselves. Otherwise everything is up for debate when it comes to movies and tv shows.
Jason
Jason
No, that does not disprove his feeling one is better than another as better is a subjective opinion. Also, no one need make fun of you as your posting more than suffices that amusement.
Funny thing about art, technological improvement isn't artistic improvement. That's why vinyl has made such a comeback in recording. That's also why some don't like the redone special effects TOS.
Last edited:
In that other case, the complaint is about software manufacturers caving in to pressure groups to change video games to feature more female content, particularly in games based on real life historical events like WWII (Call of Duty or any other game set in the past) or to change a game with a female character in it to make it less 'objectionable' (the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot and its sequel.)
I have no problem with there being more people of color or more females in videogames, as I myself am of color, but I don't think that they have to be shoehorned into every game 'just because' diversity (while it would be cool to have black soldier characters in WWI or WWII videogames, the reality of history says otherwise, particularly in the U.S. Army, Navy, and the USAAF), and the same applies to women as well in many of all of these historical scenarios, even with the facts of the Soviet Union's air force having an all-woman squadron, there being a female sniper in the Red Army with the most kills, there being a female sniper in the Finnish Army with the most kills around the same time, Jewish women being partisans around the same time, and heroic all-black fighting units like the Harlem Hellfighters (U.S. Army, WWI), the Black Panthers regiment (U.S. Army, WWII) the Tuskegee Airmen (USAAF, same time) and the Red Ball Express (U.S. Army, ditto). If a game's going to be done about past eras, historical accuracy should be adhered to even if the feelings (some would use the alternate spelling feewings ) of whatever online activists are out there are hurt (videogames set in current 21st century conflicts are fine, as well as ones set in a sci-fi setting like Quake, Halo, etc.) Personally, I wish that said online activists would do the hard work of themselves getting the video games that they want to see made get made; as has been said, nobody is responsible for how happy they feel about a videogame (or any other work of fiction/entertainment) but them, and if they don't like it or feel happy about it, they can see, read, watch, or play something else.
As to the OP and like-minded people complaining about Captain Marvel, the same thing I said applies-for myself, this guy's got his ticket to see the movie tonight, and is highly stoked to see how Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman will fare on the big screen, haters be dammed.
Are we seriously having the "practical vs. CG VFX" debate?
This isn't rocket science: anyone that states that CG is inherently superior to practical is being both ignorant and a snob. Anyone that makes the converse argument is being both ignorant and lazy in their thinking.
There's are some things CG is *very* good for. There are many things CG is *very* bad for. Same with practical effects. It's all about using the right tool, for the right job and the very best of modern visual effects are most often the ones that seamlessly blend CG and practical to the point where most of the audience can't tell where one begins and the other ends...or don't even know it was a VFX shot at all.
And never forget that whichever discipline is being employed, there are always artists behind it and their individual and collective talents are ultimately what determines any quality that can be assessed objectively.
The work that has been exhibited in Marvel movies over the years has ranged from sub par, to so-so and occasionally, a stunning display of technical and/or artistic mastery. So pretty much like any body of work in a creative medium.
This isn't rocket science: anyone that states that CG is inherently superior to practical is being both ignorant and a snob. Anyone that makes the converse argument is being both ignorant and lazy in their thinking.
There's are some things CG is *very* good for. There are many things CG is *very* bad for. Same with practical effects. It's all about using the right tool, for the right job and the very best of modern visual effects are most often the ones that seamlessly blend CG and practical to the point where most of the audience can't tell where one begins and the other ends...or don't even know it was a VFX shot at all.
And never forget that whichever discipline is being employed, there are always artists behind it and their individual and collective talents are ultimately what determines any quality that can be assessed objectively.
The work that has been exhibited in Marvel movies over the years has ranged from sub par, to so-so and occasionally, a stunning display of technical and/or artistic mastery. So pretty much like any body of work in a creative medium.
Seriously? No, there is not much to take seriously in this thread.
Unless you are an artschool asshole you can only tell that spfx is bad in retrospect.
Tell me how bad you think Black Panther is in 5 years.
Does it hold up?
Is it embarrassing?
How ever could we have been so foolish as to believe in those rhinos.
Tell me how bad you think Black Panther is in 5 years.
Does it hold up?
Is it embarrassing?
How ever could we have been so foolish as to believe in those rhinos.
I was in theatre for many years, got a lot of reviews, some good, some not so good. They were by individuals who were paid to review my work. At one time, I had an opportunity to sit down with one of these critics. She’d given me some reviews on both ends of the spectrum. It was after a particularly harsh review and I was just trying to see what I could do better. She put her drink down , looked at me and said, and I’ll never forget this: “It’s just my opinion, kid.”
Reviews by their very nature are opinions. The way an individual sees something is shaped by their experiences. Yes, critics should have a well-informed education and knowledge of what they’re discussing. Yes, film criticsm is a dying art. Now, anyone with a blog or a YouTube channel can post their review. But there’s a big difference between Pauline Kael and Jeremey from Geeks + Gamers. At the same time, these are both individuals positing an opinion. One is just a little more informed than the other.
If reviews were subjective, they’d all be exactly the same.
As for Captain Marvel, I’m not 100% sold on it. It has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding it, just that I’m a little worn out with the Marvel formula. But I’m giving it a chance Saturday morning. So I too can have my own objective opinion on it.
Reviews by their very nature are opinions. The way an individual sees something is shaped by their experiences. Yes, critics should have a well-informed education and knowledge of what they’re discussing. Yes, film criticsm is a dying art. Now, anyone with a blog or a YouTube channel can post their review. But there’s a big difference between Pauline Kael and Jeremey from Geeks + Gamers. At the same time, these are both individuals positing an opinion. One is just a little more informed than the other.
If reviews were subjective, they’d all be exactly the same.
As for Captain Marvel, I’m not 100% sold on it. It has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding it, just that I’m a little worn out with the Marvel formula. But I’m giving it a chance Saturday morning. So I too can have my own objective opinion on it.
Better CGI for landscapes, yes.
BP doesn't look much better than SM regarding the CGI characters' fighting in long shots - the trademark weaknesses of CGI (read: physics, lack thereof) are still present. Which isn't to say either is sub-par. Both are great and anyone who marveled at Star Wars in the 70s and 80s could suspend their disbelief over stop motion-based f/x (which were still pretty great and very much time consuming to do).
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. "Professional" means you are getting paid for your work.
If there was some kind of factual criteria reviews were supposed to be built on, then shouldn't they all be basically the same? Even medicine has opinions and biases, or else you wouldn't go to three different doctors and get differing opinions on what is wrong.
one is better factually. the same as having a gpa grade of 4.0 is better than 3.0
4.0 can get you to Harvard film school. the best college in the world
3.0 can get you to USC, a great school but not as good as Harvard
Funny thing about art, technological improvement isn't artistic improvement. That's why vinyl has made such a comeback in recording. That's also why some don't like the redone special effects TOS
Art is about improving your craft, espeically when a person talented knows how to use it. ie. there is no way a guy like james cameron would ever have one of his directed movie looking like black panther without all the technological improvement films have made since the first hong king film to star wars to titanic to avatar.
james as an artist will never settle for a ps2 game effect like black panther as it wont be good enough for his artrstry that will demand the best and the best in not having
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. "Professional" means you are getting paid for your work.
If there was some kind of factual criteria reviews were supposed to be built on, then shouldn't they all be basically the same? Even medicine has opinions and biases, or else you wouldn't go to three different doctors and get differing opinions on what is wrong.
that's one definition of professional, the other and maybe most important is to not be fraud in the work you do or to not be objective that is being professional.
yes medicine have biases but doctors don't usually lie to patients unless it is an honest mistake. that is not been professional or ethical that doctors will be bias for the sake off?
what many critics are doing with captain marvel is wrong. calling a movie mediocre, generic, bland and giving it a pass because the lead is female and nothing more or because they can bare to give an mcu movies a bad score. this is real bias. it hurts films.
Do you have proof of this? Or is it a function of what you want to see? I've seen many movies that when I broke them down, I saw them as not being "good", but when watching it was entertained. They were more than the sum of their parts.
I think the best thing for someone like you, is to go see the damn movie and make up your own mind about what is there. There's no reason for you too care this much about critics reviews unless you have an agenda that they go against.
How? I see lots of different movies through the course of any given year, without giving much thought to what critics say.
The CGI in BP was spectacular when they showed us Wakanda and everything about it. The only time it had dodgy CGI was the final battle between Killmonger and T'Challa, but even that had better FX than DOFP which gave us those goofy Sentinels and that Futurama rip-off Quicksilver scene.
Spider-Man 2 was loaded with silliness as well, like Doc Ock's whole character, that overdone train scene, the nonsense of the 3rd Act, MJ's whole character, etc.
Fair for its time, but not as good re-reviewed today.
Last edited:
- Status
