Controversial TV/Film Opinions

[Agent Z]

Most people who judge actors and actresses as just "pretty faces" don't know as much about acting as they think. There also tends to be a twinge of sexism in these comments when aimed at women.

Avatar should have been made in the 90s so we can never hear from it again.

All of the Star Wars movies (except Solo and maybe Rise of Skywalker) are around the same level of quality.

[Starter Set]

All of the Star Wars movies (except Solo and maybe Rise of Skywalker) are around the same level of quality.

Oh really? In your opinion Attack of the Clones is just right there with Empire Stikes Back?

Same level of quality?

[Agent Z]

Oh really? In your opinion Attack of the Clones is just right there with Empire Stikes Back?

Same level of quality?

Yes, I believe it is.

[Mark Trail]

Most people who judge actors and actresses as just "pretty faces" don't know as much about acting as they think. There also tends to be a twinge of sexism in these comments when aimed at women.

"Just a pretty face" comments have been directed at male actors forever going back at least as far as guys like Victor Mature and Tony Curtis, continuing through guys like Burt Reynolds in the 70s, Rob Lowe in the 80s and arguably unfairly snagging guys like Depp and Pitt in their younger days.

[CSTowle]

Most people who judge actors and actresses as just "pretty faces" don't know as much about acting as they think. There also tends to be a twinge of sexism in these comments when aimed at women.

Avatar should have been made in the 90s so we can never hear from it again.

All of the Star Wars movies (except Solo and maybe Rise of Skywalker) are around the same level of quality.

If you mean Avatar from James Cameron, you and I are in agreement but the ticket-buying public at large seems to strongly disagree. As far as quality of story and acting, below most of the Star Wars movies.

On Star Wars movies, the original trilogy probably get more credit than they deserve but they had a few things going for them. More charismatic actors and interesting characters like Han, Leia, Vader, Yoda, Jabba, Chewie, C3P0/R2D2, etc., etc. It had originality in effects and scope. And it had a coherent and simple storyline with easy to root for characters who seemed real (as opposed to the Prequels, where it had a coherent storyline but very wooden acting).

Setting one trilogy 20 years after the first and then another about 20 years after that means each subsequent trilogy had 20 years of evolution of film and should have at least been incrementally better. Even if you think they stayed stagnant (and that is a controversial opinion) that's still a failure, and also an unoriginal one coasting on the reputation of the originals.

I don't know what Marvel's going to be doing in 4 years, but I guarantee that an unbiased assessment will agree that they will have grown and adapted/learned from the good and bad of everything since the first Iron Man. Granted, they've put out a lot more product than the Star Wars franchise.

But they're at a point of comfort where they're comfortable pandering to comics fans with easter eggs (your Thanos-copters and the like, no need to spend the CGI budget on that but they made the effort) and they're showing off by scraping the bottom of the barrel to adapt fringey IP like the Eternals and Shang-Chi. You're not going to see the equivalent of that in the Star Wars franchise, and they're from the same parent company with the same amount of rabid core fanbase. Because one has been shepherded more successfully than the other and can afford to take those shots.

On male pretty faces, I thought the same about Leo and Brad Pitt. But eventually they showed me they had chops. I still think Natalie Portman's best performances are at least 20 years old, and Scarlet's best was her playing an emotionless alien posing as a human female ("Under the Skin", actually pretty good). Contrasted with Elizabeth Olsen or Zoe Saldana they're just pretty faces. Hopefully Portman can prove me wrong in the next Thor, but I won't hold my breath.

[Jim Kelly]

I stumbled on a conspiracy theory while thinking about animation and computer generated imaging.

Back when they started doing three dimensional animation, I never understood why this should look any better than two dimensional animation. I doubted that little kids were fussy about what was "realistic" and they were likely just as happy with a two dimensional image.

When I was a little kid, I really didn't like the stop motion cartoons that much and preferred the regular drawing cartoons. I liked A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS (1965) and HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS (1966) exponentially more than the stop motion RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER (1964).

So I've always thought that little kids were bullied into liking the more expensive three dimensional cartoons--even though two dimensional cartoons are just as good. But why did the big corporations do this?

My big revelation is that they wanted to figure out how to make animated characters to look like three dimensional people, but the technology wasn't there yet. So they started making all these computer animated cartoons for kids, as a way to perfect the technology. And they convinced us that we liked this better than the old school animation.

Once they had got better at computer animation, the next phase was to use it in a more realistic setting. So they moved on to super-hero movies, since they didn't have to be totally realistic with super-heroes. This allowed them to go further with the technology. And they made us feel like those were the movies we had to see.

The real objective is to get to where you can't tell the difference between animation and real life. That's what they want. They want a technology where they don't need to use anyone or anything from the natural world and they can do it all on a computer. They don't need to pay actors or pay for filming locations--they can just do it with a bank of computers.

But is this all for entertainment? No, I've decided. Getting people to buy into the animation at each stage is just the way to pay for it along the way. What they really want is the technology to create a false reality. That's the ultimate goal.

[CSTowle]

That's a conspiracy theory alright. I'd disagree. I think people were interested to see how far they could go when the technology was in its infancy up until today, and people are always on the lookout for something new. I don't think anyone had to be coerced, and as someone who agrees with you in preferring traditional animation to most computer-generated animation I can say from experience that not everyone was or is onboard. However, we're in the minority. I look at a Star Wars or Marvel film and the CGI looks not much different from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" in the '80s in terms of combining animation and live action. A bit better, obviously, but to my eye clearly not a seamless coexistence and is actually jarring and distracting from what's going on in a way that practical effects are not.

But practical effects are now, well, impractical. You can't do as much, it takes way longer when you can, and I'm of a tiny minority who are bumped by CGI. It's here to stay because it's the industry standard and the possibilities (assuming you can look at it and take it seriously, which most seem to) are endless. So while it looks to me like I'm watching a cartoon that the director wants me to take as seriously as a live-action film (with live action stars existing within the cartoon), I'm going to have to get used to it or continue to prefer "street level" stuff more than your typical superhero films (exception being cosmic or magic-based movies, as the cartooniness is baked-in for me so it's easier to accept than with Captain America or Iron Man).

[Kirby101]

"Just a pretty face" comments have been directed at male actors forever going back at least as far as guys like Victor Mature and Tony Curtis, continuing through guys like Burt Reynolds in the 70s, Rob Lowe in the 80s and arguably unfairly snagging guys like Depp and Pitt in their younger days.

Try Rudolph Valentino and Roman Navaro.

[Gaius]

None of the Mad Max films are good.

[thwhtGuardian]

None of the Mad Max films are good.

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone really say they were good Films with a capital f before, just entertaining which is entirely different. Tastes vary of course so one might not find them fun but that's a seperate issue than if they are good cinema.

[Mark Trail]

Try Rudolph Valentino and Roman Navaro.

Hey, I'm old but not THAT old.

[DrNewGod]

...They want a technology where they don't need to use anyone or anything from the natural world and they can do it all on a computer. They don't need to pay actors or pay for filming locations--they can just do it with a bank of computers...

I agree with this, but have a harder time believing it went as far back as the 1960s. Even the most visionary of SciFi writers could not believe what computer technology was going to make possible (they wrote stories featuring unbelievable tech, but didn't think it was going to happen). I still remember Ray Bradbury talking about how nobody in his professional fraternity understood what the transistor was going to make possible, and completely falling short on how much of human activity automation was going to be able to supplant.

Of course, once the tech was out there...well, there's a scene from The Player where the studio executives are engaged in a thought exercise about how they might eliminate writers from the film-making process.

[Mark Trail]

I agree with this, but have a harder time believing it went as far back as the 1960s. Even the most visionary of SciFi writers could not believe what computer technology was going to make possible (they wrote stories featuring unbelievable tech, but didn't think it was going to happen). I still remember Ray Bradbury talking about how nobody in his professional fraternity understood what the transistor was going to make possible, and completely falling short on how much of human activity automation was going to be able to supplant.

Of course, once the tech was out there...well, there's a scene from The Player where the studio executives are engaged in a thought exercise about how they might eliminate writers from the film-making process.

The original Super Friends show, of all things, nigh on fifty years ago, had an episode that posited a computer would be able to create completely realistic simulations of actors and actresses, thereby eliminating actual performers.

[JBatmanFan05]

None of the Mad Max films are good.

I love the first two. But I will admit I did not think Fury Road was good. So there's that little controversial opinion. (I may rewatch it to give it another shot, maybe I was tired when I first saw it or something)

[godisawesome]

If you mean Avatar from James Cameron, you and I are in agreement but the ticket-buying public at large seems to strongly disagree. As far as quality of story and acting, below most of the Star Wars movies.

On Star Wars movies, the original trilogy probably get more credit than they deserve but they had a few things going for them. More charismatic actors and interesting characters like Han, Leia, Vader, Yoda, Jabba, Chewie, C3P0/R2D2, etc., etc. It had originality in effects and scope. And it had a coherent and simple storyline with easy to root for characters who seemed real (as opposed to the Prequels, where it had a coherent storyline but very wooden acting).

Setting one trilogy 20 years after the first and then another about 20 years after that means each subsequent trilogy had 20 years of evolution of film and should have at least been incrementally better. Even if you think they stayed stagnant (and that is a controversial opinion) that's still a failure, and also an unoriginal one coasting on the reputation of the originals.

I’d argue that the PT *did* show about 20 years of evolution when evaluated in terms of the larger narrative ot built, and that narrative’s applicability to a massive multi-media franchise - which was why we’re *still* seeing its setting, conflict, and assets being mined for new shows like Bad Batch today. It also pushed the boundaries of special effects, arguably too much, and definitely succeeded in evolving in terms of score; I’d argue it’s Williams’ true highlight composition as an entire body of work for a single project.)

Where it was weaker and arguably took steps backwards was in dialogue and acting/directing from Lucas.

The ST, in contrast, got back to where the OT was in terms of dialogue and directing, and arguably was trying to evolve a bit there as well given that modern LFL/Disney had the budget to do so… but in terms of the larger narrative and it’s applicability to a multi-media franchise, it massively regressed - especially in The Last Jedi. Donkt get me wrong, JJ Abrams started it with a nostalgia trip, and then wrapped it up with a film that seemed to exude obligation as it’s only motivation in sloppily ending the story… But in no way was The Last Jedi anything but a massive step backwards for the entire franchise in terms of narrative, both on the micro and macro level. It’s easily the sloppiest, most sexist, most racist, most shallow, and most elitist story in the franchise, can’t stand on its own at all, but also mostly just parasitically sucks importance and meaning from previous films, leaving everything weaker in its wake.

You want to kill a franchise or even just a multi-entry story? Copy The Last Jedi.

…I would also argue this shows what really matters to multi-entry stories - compellling narratives.

Acting, dialogue, directing, all the little technical things that *can* elevate the mundane to the entertaining are great… but just *good enough* narrative conflict and character arcs ultimately have more staying power. People would (whether they admit it or not) much rather watch Hayden Christensen struggle to make “I don’t like sand” work when he’s got a competent arc to act out than they would like to watch Adam Driver play a boring serial killer the plot tries to treat like a romantic interest.