Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Gray Lensman]

I agree with all of your points. It's one thing to have remade Ben-Hur the first time, since the original was a silent film and in B&W. But what could the second remake give you that the Heston one didn't have?

I also dislike the farcical remakes, too, though something like 21 Jump Street works for me.

One of the things with comedic remakes is that you can easily tell the difference between who loved the original and is making a comedic tribute, and those who dismiss the original and merely want to make money ripping on it. Often just by watching the trailer.

[godisawesome]

Execution matters for a lot. It's probably best to avoid making a remake of a film that is iconic though- at least without a well considered plan. The remake of Ben-Hur was doomed from the start, attempting a redux of something that won All The Oscars and was also a cultural icon.

I will say that I get turned off when the remake changes genre- transforming a drama into a farce comedy because the look is dated is just weak.

I agree with all of your points. It's one thing to have remade Ben-Hur the first time, since the original was a silent film and in B&W. But what could the second remake give you that the Heston one didn't have?

I also dislike the farcical remakes, too, though something like 21 Jump Street works for me.

Arguably, the real reason some people have such an easier time decrying remakes, reboots, and later sequels is because there’s a *specific* standard they have to meet to really justify themselves - whereas original stories and films have a more *general* standard to meet of “be entertaining”, and if they fall beneath that general standard, they just get forgotten, while the franchise film forever dies in the shadow of the previous success it failed to match.

The successes and failures become more diagnosable when you can go into specifics, and recognize where new films bring in new elements to offset whatever areas of weakness they have, or bring in new things that fail to compensate for their weaknesses. For instance, the Star Wars PT had definite weaknesses in execution, but attempted to compensate with pure lore and epic scale, and that at least gave it something to build back on when AOTC stunk. In contrast, the Star Wars ST started off actually matching most of the execution in directing, art design, and acting… but because it was light on lore and consistent plot arcs, it couldn’t really recover after TLJ screwed it all up.

[Gray Lensman]

Arguably, the real reason some people have such an easier time decrying remakes, reboots, and later sequels is because there’s a *specific* standard they have to meet to really justify themselves - whereas original stories and films have a more *general* standard to meet of “be entertaining”, and if they fall beneath that general standard, they just get forgotten, while the franchise film forever dies in the shadow of the previous success it failed to match.

The successes and failures become more diagnosable when you can go into specifics, and recognize where new films bring in new elements to offset whatever areas of weakness they have, or bring in new things that fail to compensate for their weaknesses. For instance, the Star Wars PT had definite weaknesses in execution, but attempted to compensate with pure lore and epic scale, and that at least gave it something to build back on when AOTC stunk. In contrast, the Star Wars ST started off actually matching most of the execution in directing, art design, and acting… but because it was light on lore and consistent plot arcs, it couldn’t really recover after TLJ screwed it all up.

My take on the sequel trilogy is that it was done in by too many errors in the planning stages. There wasn't a basic outline to follow (or it wasn't enforced), enabling the second film to muck things up by throwing out nearly everything set up by the first film. This forced the third one to waste time getting back on track, in addition to the absolutely lazy modeling it had. There's more, but I don't want to derail things with a rehash of stuff - all I can say is that my issues don't involve any whining about how the film may or may not be "woke".

I am so sick of people using that word as a film criticism.

[godisawesome]

My take on the sequel trilogy is that it was done in by too many errors in the planning stages. There wasn't a basic outline to follow (or it wasn't enforced), enabling the second film to muck things up by throwing out nearly everything set up by the first film. This forced the third one to waste time getting back on track, in addition to the absolutely lazy modeling it had. There's more, but I don't want to derail things with a rehash of stuff - all I can say is that my issues don't involve any whining about how the film may or may not be "woke".

I am so sick of people using that word as a film criticism.

To keep it short but tragically and bitterly funny, TLJ is a film that wanted the credit of being progressive and deliberately tried to thumb its nose at the right, but also spent much effort and time in trying to demote an inconvenient male lead who was black so it could pimp out the main female character to the Neo-Nazi School Shooter…

…But that wouldn’t have been an issue with either a plan or a more cooperative and enthusiastic second director - it’s not like there weren’t obvious crowd-pleasing directions to take things after TFA with yet still more room to improve.

To continue the “details show a more accurate diagnosis on franchise films” idea - The Amazing Spider-Man series arguably struggled because it was way too impatient in its second film, which meant less time to let its strengths percolate and grow to compensate (like Gwen played by Stone), while the MCU films try to compensate for any weaknesses with sheer spectacle and MCU ties but with even greater patience than the Raimi films.

[Gray Lensman]

To keep it short but tragically and bitterly funny, TLJ is a film that wanted the credit of being progressive and deliberately tried to thumb its nose at the right, but also spent much effort and time in trying to demote an inconvenient male lead who was black so it could pimp out the main female character to the Neo-Nazi School Shooter…

…But that wouldn’t have been an issue with either a plan or a more cooperative and enthusiastic second director - it’s not like there weren’t obvious crowd-pleasing directions to take things after TFA with yet still more room to improve.

To continue the “details show a more accurate diagnosis on franchise films” idea - The Amazing Spider-Man series arguably struggled because it was way too impatient in its second film, which meant less time to let its strengths percolate and grow to compensate (like Gwen played by Stone), while the MCU films try to compensate for any weaknesses with sheer spectacle and MCU ties but with even greater patience than the Raimi films.

That was the thing for me - Johnson reduced the rope of the black actor into experiencing pain for comedy, and the Latino actor into trying to charm his way out of something, while elevating the white guy playing a space nazi school shooter. Don't see how that qualifies as "woke" by any stretch of the imagination.

Most non-MCU superhero films, or maybe all non-MCU shared universes have issues with producers being too impatient. They see the billion dollar films and want it NOW, forgetting that Marvel took several movies to set that up. And tried to make each film good by itself - the world building wasn't allowed to take over the movie.

[CSTowle]

I believe it's come up before, but the reason people are cynical about sequels or reboots is that most of us are old enough to have seen that 1. This is show business, and the emphasis is on the business side. And 2. Studios absolutely make the choice to rehash old IP because there's a built-in nostalgia factor and it's seen as a safer investment than an unknown property. Now, this doesn't mean a sequel/reboot/etc. can't be good. After all, it's not the director or screenwriter or actors' faults if the people providing the funds to make the film are cynical businessmen looking for a cheap and easy return on investment.

But it does mean it's going to have a few hurdles. Along with that nostalgia factor is a higher standard for performance on any new version/sequel/reboot to meet the rose-glasses elevated status of the original property. When they (usually) fail to meet those standards they're going to be judged more harshly than an original product would be. If you have a bad, or even middle of the road, product and you're asking someone to buy a rehash of an old property that they love they're understandably going to be disappointed.

On the other hand, if you have something that meets or exceeds expectations you can really win people over. I'm old enough to remember when people thought Jack Nicholson was the ultimate Joker, and we've had two good ones since (3, if you count Mark Hamill) who I'd say were better than Jack. And it shows in fandom and their love of those portrayals. Another example I'd give is the new Jumanji movies. When I heard they were doing that I made the noises you'd expect, but was forced to watch them (lost a bet) and have to admit they were different enough and good enough that I'm glad they were made.

Though when you have truly awful additions to franchises fans have loved for decades (Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Star Wars) it can not only harm the franchise but can actually lessen the enjoyment for some (I'm able to compartmentalize, but can understand those that can't) for the originals. Of course, this being show business, they can always wait for the inevitable reboot/rehash and hope for the best.

[PCN24454]

"Gray" morality in fiction is overrated because it actively lowers the stakes of any conflict.

If it's impossible to win a conflict, then why do we care about losing?

[CSTowle]

Some people like realism, or having their own morals/viewpoints being challenged I'd imagine. There's also the idea that it's noble to try even when you know you're going to fail. I don't need straight gray, but when a villain is so clearly mustache-twirly and the hero can do no wrong and is awesome at everything I find it hard to root against or for either of them. There's nothing there but a tale I've seen thousands of times before, and (like reboots) you're going to have to give me more than that to keep my attention. Others don't like to be challenged, like having their worldviews/opinions affirmed, and don't like to have to think about shades of gray. So, to each their own I guess?

[Jim Kelly]

We need a Controversial Opinions topic for the TV and Film forum. I think there was one but it sank to the bottom of the sea.

[David Walton]

MATRIX RESURRECTIONS is the best film of the series.

A huge box office hit right as omicron and holiday gatherings converge might not be a great thing in terms of public health.

[godisawesome]

I believe it's come up before, but the reason people are cynical about sequels or reboots is that most of us are old enough to have seen that 1. This is show business, and the emphasis is on the business side. And 2. Studios absolutely make the choice to rehash old IP because there's a built-in nostalgia factor and it's seen as a safer investment than an unknown property. Now, this doesn't mean a sequel/reboot/etc. can't be good. After all, it's not the director or screenwriter or actors' faults if the people providing the funds to make the film are cynical businessmen looking for a cheap and easy return on investment.

But it does mean it's going to have a few hurdles. Along with that nostalgia factor is a higher standard for performance on any new version/sequel/reboot to meet the rose-glasses elevated status of the original property. When they (usually) fail to meet those standards they're going to be judged more harshly than an original product would be. If you have a bad, or even middle of the road, product and you're asking someone to buy a rehash of an old property that they love they're understandably going to be disappointed.

On the other hand, if you have something that meets or exceeds expectations you can really win people over. I'm old enough to remember when people thought Jack Nicholson was the ultimate Joker, and we've had two good ones since (3, if you count Mark Hamill) who I'd say were better than Jack. And it shows in fandom and their love of those portrayals. Another example I'd give is the new Jumanji movies. When I heard they were doing that I made the noises you'd expect, but was forced to watch them (lost a bet) and have to admit they were different enough and good enough that I'm glad they were made.

Though when you have truly awful additions to franchises fans have loved for decades (Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Star Wars) it can not only harm the franchise but can actually lessen the enjoyment for some (I'm able to compartmentalize, but can understand those that can't) for the originals. Of course, this being show business, they can always wait for the inevitable reboot/rehash and hope for the best.

The thing for me is that I think the audience having a “higher standard” for a film is a *good* thing, ultimately - it requires sharper storytelling, more empathetic understanding of both the property’s characters and the audience, and a strong mix of both clear understanding if what made previous stories work *and* creativity to retell or continue the story.

Now, I also agree that enough bad entires can deaden some of the interest a franchise has… but that also seems to vary quite a bit depending on the franchise. I *do* think that the ST (and TLJ especially) is poisonous to some of the “Skywalker Sagas” future prospects… but the larger franchise can clearly shake it off for the Disney+ shows. Batman and Spider-Man both seem effectively immune to long term negative effects. Other like Ghost Busters seemed to have quickly allowed the audience to “cordon off” bad films to preserve the original.

[CaptCleghorn]

"Gray" morality in fiction is overrated because it actively lowers the stakes of any conflict.

If it's impossible to win a conflict, then why do we care about losing?

Sometimes "gray" is confused with giving the antagonist a plausible reason for their actions. Evil for the sake of evil isn't that interesting to me. But when there's a reason, the chance of "would I do that under those circumstances" introduces thought into the telling of a story.

[babyblob]

Sometimes "gray" is confused with giving the antagonist a plausible reason for their actions. Evil for the sake of evil isn't that interesting to me. But when there's a reason, the chance of "would I do that under those circumstances" introduces thought into the telling of a story.

i sometimes do enjoy Evil for the sake of Evil. not every character needs a deep back story or motivation. It is nice with some. But comics and media are just like real life in the sense some times people are just evil, some times people are just jerks and unlikable. I dont need a tragic back story for The Joker or Red Skull. I dont need to hear about how some evil crime boss was bullied as a kid and vowed to do what it takes to have power, or his dad didnt love him. Or his mom didnt hug him enough/ or too much.

Dont try and get me to feel sorry for a mass murder. i dont care what happened in The Jokers past, I dont care about Punisher having his family killed any more. To me they are nut jobs who murder and most of the time that works for the story.

Just give me an evil jerk who loves money and power and if he has to kill then so be it. Give me a guy that just likes to knife people for no reason just goes "Hey I want to do a murder that guy over there." For no other reason then im bored.

[Gray Lensman]

i sometimes do enjoy Evil for the sake of Evil. not every character needs a deep back story or motivation. It is nice with some. But comics and media are just like real life in the sense some times people are just evil, some times people are just jerks and unlikable. I dont need a tragic back story for The Joker or Red Skull. I dont need to hear about how some evil crime boss was bullied as a kid and vowed to do what it takes to have power, or his dad didnt love him. Or his mom didnt hug him enough/ or too much.

Dont try and get me to feel sorry for a mass murder. i dont care what happened in The Jokers past, I dont care about Punisher having his family killed any more. To me they are nut jobs who murder and most of the time that works for the story.

Just give me an evil jerk who loves money and power and if he has to kill then so be it. Give me a guy that just likes to knife people for no reason just goes "Hey I want to do a murder that go over there." For no other reason then im bored.

The best villains from the Disney films are the ones that revel in the role.

Don't try to tell me how a woman who wants to turn puppies into a fur coat isn't as bad as she first appears. I refuse to accept it. Nor can you make me appreciate how someone who calls herself the "Mistress of All Evil" is actually the victim.

And the Empire is not made up of heroes. They are patterned after the Nazis.

[babyblob]

The best villains from the Disney films are the ones that revel in the role.

Don't try to tell me how a woman who wants to turn puppies into a fur coat isn't as bad as she first appears. I refuse to accept it. Nor can you make me appreciate how someone who calls herself the "Mistress of All Evil" is actually the victim.

And the Empire is not made up of heroes. They are patterned after the Nazis.

Thats why I hated the Cruella Movie with Emma Stone. They were really trying hard to take a women who murders puppies the victim.

I will have to say that I really love The Empire. Heroes? No! Fun characters? Very!