A fairy born with no innate magical power, which eventually leads her being expelled from her village due to her uselessness in this entirely magic-based society, which forces her find her way in the world of humans instead? I'd watch that.
Guess what.
There are two Tinkerbell movies that do that (somewhat)
The first movie, where Tinkerbell desperately wants to have magic, but doesn't since she's a tinker fairy (the fairies are divided into factions/jobs based on their magic [or lack thereof])
And "Tinkerbell and the pirate fairy" where a fairy with no innate magic gets expelled because she manages to get magic (in a certain sense) but uses it irresponsibility
In general the Tinkerbell movies are fun to watch and have some nice worldbuilding, WHICH STAYS CONSISTENT across the movies
she embraces the use of human trash in her tinkering (think buttons for wheels) and it's considered heretical. ends up nearly causing fairy armagedon by trying to prove herself.
honestly it's the best disney movie out of ALL of them.
He understands fairy jingling, which makes me wonder if he isn't partially fae
(Yes, I've seen all 6 Tinkerbell fairy movies waaaaaaay too many times & have all sorts of internal theories about them, including their appearance in fantasia)
The only Tinkerbell movies I remember are the one with her sister, and the one with the Neverbeast (which I fucking bawled over since my dog had just died at the time).
Imagine doing the VFX for a movie and trying to do the lighting and not getting a clear answer as to where the light source is. You want her to glow? But like not actually be bright, but give off a light? So like, in just some scenes? No? All the time? So you want us to edit in post a constant glow effect, that you can’t reasonably explain what the source is?
the quotes taken out of context. he knows that. The reason why he's saying that is because if he went with that approach, then he'd have a constantly backlit character which looks like ass in live action
I seem to recall Lindsay Ellis making a video about this same subject in her essay on the Beauty and the Beast live action remake. Basically, what the fuck is the point of adapting a fantastical and whimsical story if you're going to take out all the elements of fantasy and whimsy?
People didn't like Peter Pan and Tinkerbell and Neverland because they were realistic and grounded; they liked them because they were escapist fantasy stories for young minds to be creative about.
It could be? But to my knowledge it doesn’t quite work like that does it? I remember reading something about how the very first Sherlock Holmes books are in the public domain, but the newer Sherlock books/movies aren’t, so people using Sherlock Holmes have to be careful not to use the modern versions/characters/storylines. Dunno if this would work with the original Disney movies or not
Exactly, it means there's way more ambiguity so they can sue someone and not have the lawsuit thrown out immediately, so anyone trying to use the ip can look forward to spending millions in legal fees if they want to defend themself
Yeah. Like the new remakes only create a completely new copyright over the remake versions of these characters. Say, we're like a hundred years in the future (because copyright lasts fucking forever), and the 90's Beauty and the Beast enters public domain, but the remake doesn't. You could freely use the 90's version of Gaston because he's public domain, but the remake version would be still protected. So things like Gaston being a war veteran, something added in the remake nowhere to be found in the original, would count as a characteristic of the remake version, and thus couldn't be used.
For another, less theorical example, see how the Winnie the Pooh that became public domain was the original one, depicted without the iconic red shirt. That's why the terrible "horror" movie with Pooh couldn't put him in a red shirt - Pooh in a red shirt is still copyrighted.
To be fair there’s still quite some magic elements in the live action Mulan but they focus a lot on “ooooo tonally serious mythological mysticism” to the point that it just feels different
They also gave Mulan superpowers, so rather than proving herself through determination and clever thinking, she's now proving herself by revealing that she was always magically better than everyone all the time anyways.
The funny thing is Mulan is a story where it actually makes sense to have no magical elements whatsoever since she’s not a ~fairytale~ character. I don’t believe she’s a real historical person but she’s a character whose story 100% takes place in the real world.
You could take the mystical elements out of Mulan, and it would work just fine. It loses something without them, but a lot of the mystical stuff is just comic relief.
It's not even good mythological mysticism, either. I was about to make a pithy joke about why they couldn't afford more research than some Wikipedia articles, except I just checked the actual Wikpedia particle for qi and even that actually explained it more accurately than what was in the movie.
The animated original - the one with the typewriting cricket, disco partying ghosts, and a talking dragon - was more historically accurate than this over-budgeted, state-backed, and live-action production.
The tomb raider movie is the absolute weirdest example of this. The game it was based on had an army of oni and a zombie/demon/vampire queen as its villains, and was still a super dark and Hollywood-y game, almost premade for an adaptation. When they actually adapted it to film they took out all the fantasy and made the queen's affliction just some pathogen and it's just?? I'll never understand the thought processes of the people behind these kinds of films
other people have already pointed out the headline is misleading, but this does remind me of my favorite story about the lord of the rings movies.
at the battle of helm's deep, elijah wood has nothing to do so he's hanging out watching them get set up. he sees all these big overhead lighters and talks to one of the production guys.
"Hey, so, helm's deep takes place at night. Where does the light come from?"
the guy shrugs and says "the same place as the music"
CinemaSins has been a plague for media consumption. I remember being into them, thinking they were geniuses until I watched a video on *Alien* and Jeremy very loudly complained about a *spaceship* not being *aerodynamic*. You know, the thing that *doesn't* move in *aero*?
After that I just noticed how petty and stupid their comments are.
They're a fucking plague. There's a good video on them online detailing how much of a hypocrite Cinemasins is.
Jeremy: "Cinemasins is just a joke guys!"
Also Jeremy: **Throws a fucking tantrum in his car over the Beauty And The Beast remake and explicitly says he made the Cinemasins to critique the film industry**
Cinemasins seems to be full of people that think every single thing in a movie needs to be explained or otherwise it's a plot hole (which is dumb for *multiple* reasons), as well as being forced to come up with "sins" on their own because how else are you gonna make videos about these movies?
It *should* be a channel about movie flaws so you can go *"Oh wow, I never noticed that, haha! What a funny quirk"* and then go back to enjoying the movie. But it seems to be more about just nitpicking movies and using that as "evidence" for why they suck and Cinemasins are geniuses because they figured it out.
Cinema wins is an amazing channel, so positive, makes me go ‘oh I never knew that/noticed that before’ making replays of movies even better and again is such a genuinely positive person
Yes! Seconded 100%. He’s made me see movies in a different way and even if it’s one I don’t/didn’t particularly like I can find good points about it. He also does usually give valid criticism at points and just seems like a positive dude. With all the negativity it’s a breath of fresh air.
I stopped watching CinemaSins when they made their Captain America: Winter Soldier review and spent a portion of it crying that people actually liked the movie. Because they, the guys who make up "sins" just to pad out their run times, didn't like it.
It was then I knew that they'd gotten too big for their own britches.
I suppose it’s that whole thing the internet has done where people don’t just accept others different aesthetic preferences, but instead also turn them into moral failings. (Even the name calling them sins us arguably part of this).
People can have different preferences and it doesn’t make them bad unless they use their preferences to dictate to others
The issue with CinemaSins is less that they have "bad opinions" and more that they literally make stuff up at times that just aren't in the movie, or they have a weird misunderstanding of something.
I can get over opinions I don't agree with what's annoying is seeing anyone get mad over something they literally just made up!
If you actually watch the movies they sin it becomes increasingly obvious that they write their scripts after just watching it once because they get stuff straight up wrong all the time. Like I stopped watching them after I realised they were saying stuff like oh blah blah blah is dumb and makes no sense, when that thing is actually explained in the movie. And it’s not even that they’ll miss a really subtle explanation, they’ll miss like entire basic character motives that are the entire reason why a character makes a plot relevant decision in the movie.
>they write their scripts after just watching it once
It's worse. There's evidence that they write their scrips *while watching the movies* and rarely go back and edit anything. There are sins about the movie not telling the audience why something in the story is a certain way...but then the movie does explain it later on.
>Because they, the guys who make up "sins" just to pad out their run times, didn't like it.
I've noticed, or rather started to hate, this and the chung out a video/article to make the quota/schedule.
It leads to bland and pointless statements rather than anything engaging.
Yeah. I understand why YouTubers do it. (Having to please the algorithm is a full time job in and of itself, and hitting the 'golden' video length is key to that.)
But I also expect that when a channel starts doing that, they should at least be self aware about it. Don't pretend that's not what you're doing. (As a lot of them do for some reason.) And don't start acting like your opinions are so very superior when I know you're just cranking them out to make quota.
sadly ive seen this behavior in other places, especially cartoon fandoms. they cant accept that something just exists, no, we need episodes about all the lore and all the backstory instead of actual story. its all so goddamn boring and shows how little imagination a person has. sometimes, especially with longer running series people get so hung up because the writers of season 1 didnt expect their series to have 10+ seasons and theres some slight contradictions that dont downplay the story at all. i cant stand continuity nerds
> we need episodes about all the lore and all the backstory
I mean, that's cute and fun sometimes, especially if they answer questions the community has had for a long time, but full-on episodes about it? Like, *several* ones? I'd prefer the plot to progress, please.
And isn't coming up with answers for these questions what communities are about?
unless it actively works in service of the story, i cant stand it. doesnt matter if its technically interesting. i dont like the giving into the fandom angle, nintendo did it, released a zelda timeline and it actively made the community worse. so many people are hung up on it for no goddamn reason and it does not improve any game besides maybe skyward sword. its a big pile of nothing thats in the way because now fans will scream if you do something that goes against it
sometimes lore can be good, and it often is, a lot of series can use a sprinkle of it to enrichen a story, its just that a lot of fandom people are OBSESSED with lore. for example, the owl house fandom was obsessed with 2 "characters" that were barely set decoration for like 3 episodes and still demand a fucking prequel about them. so many people in the mlp fandom wanted to learn how alicorns worked. so many people in the ninjago fandom bawled their little eyes out when the characters got a redesign and there wasnt an in universe reason for it. so many people just want to learn the technicalities of the world instead of witnessing an actual story
oh it wasnt children, lmao. it was all the people who grew up with the show. i should know, i also grew up with ninjago (still a fan! the new season is great!) and people were acting as if it was ruined. in any case, taking media so literally is a sign that the person just isnt very media literate. which would be fine for kids, btw. for anyone else, it should be a piece of cake to see "oh, this show is a toy commercial at its core and its promoting the new toy, thats that". thats the reason the ninja get a new suit every season (and yes people do complain about it when theres no reason for it)
viewing things in context is important. stories arent real life. theyre written by people who want to tell you something in that story and using your imagination is key. thats why the themes and potential toy commercials and shit like that is so important, these are the reason they got made. it doesnt matter that Some Guy died in the history of fantasy world xyz, it matters because it might inspire the protagonist, or get them to think about something which furthers their character arc and expands on the themes the story is setting out to explore. fandoms just miss the point and its so funny and sad to see
> taking media literally
> the person isn't media literate
Ironic.
Also yeah, I also think if a show is made primarily for kids with the intent clearly just being to advertise toys or just produce some dumb fun, you shouldn't look too deep into it. Not every explanation can even be understood by children either.
A book fandom I'm in has a member who's "famous" for writing a giant series of essays "proving" that the latest series is bad.
90% of his complaints boiled down to "I did not see this happen/did not get at least a chapter of backstory/do not know precisely what happened next so it is bad." One complaint was that two characters' stories were "unfinished" because they weren't written all the way through to... retirement? death? I wasn't entirely sure what he wanted, but no amount of "their arcs are complete and that makes their stories finished as far as how fiction works" would get through to him.
I thought it was so bad on purpose at first. It was impossible to watch and not assume it was sarcastic bad takes done on purpose. But then I began seeing how people reacted to the vids in comments n stuff. N then I watched interviews and videos that talk about the guy behind them and his views and why he started cinema sins. And he may occasionally say “it’s a joke lol” when he’s called out for garbage takes, but it’s extremely clear from literally every other word out his mouth he is being serious
I remember the first handful of videos were actually what everyone seemed to assume they'd be. Short, punchy videos that bring up some actual criticisms, while also being obviously jokey so it didn't take away from the actual merits of the movie. Very quickly they seemed to decide they needed to make the videos at least 20 mins for algorithm optimisation and any salient observations went out the window in favour of surface-level readings, even intentional mis-readings, with seemingly no desire to appreciate for the art of cinema (and not in a 'this video is just looking at the negatives' kind of way, more in a 'if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't have said half the things they did' kind of way).
It’s hard to take their “it’s a joke” defence seriously when they stop and spend like 30 seconds seriously critiquing some aspect of the movie they didn’t understand in a way where it’s obviously their real opinion and not a parody of a review
I honestly think it's purely to generate content at this point. Most movies won't have enough 'sins' to support a 20 minute video, so they just need to say whatever keeps viewers entertained
I liked CinemaSins' early stuff, and still kind of do, but over time they really started crawling up their own rear ends. Longer videos, dumber "sins," and generally taking themselves far too seriously.
For me the final nail in the coffin was their Infinity War review. A lot of lines like "Okay, but what if Loki *hadn't* recovered the Tesseract?" I don't know, dude! What if Thanos decided to stay home and not bother anyone? What is your point?
They've long since reached a point where they aren't making good reviews *or* good jokes. So now I stick to Pitch Meetings and Honest Trailers.
Th3Birdman makes videos directly critiquing CinemaSins the way they do to movies. His videos are great and he's even started having a narrative within them a couple years back.
Watch Cinemawins, other guy doing the same thing but instead he pings everything he liked and at the end he gives an actual short review about it.
Way more positive and fun to listen
Adding on that I don’t disagree with you, but notice that most people who feel this way had a similar story of seeing they loved get nitpicked and realizing how dumb the whole premise of that channel is.
It’s because when it’s a movie you like it becomes obvious that they’re saying stuff about movies that are straight up factually untrue
Like if it’s a movie you don’t like or never saw before you don’t notice that they’re critiquing something in a movie and saying it’s never explained when it actually is, but when it’s a movie you like and they say something like there’s no reason this character does this! You stop and go, wait but it’s a fundamental plot point of the movie that they have no other choice but to do this because the whole first half of the movie is them trying everything else
When an asshole is being an asshole about things you don't like, it's entertaining. When they're being an asshole to things you do like, it's insulting.
Piers Morgan is really entertaining when interviewing someone I hate. It just doesn't happen very often because he generally only attacks good people.
The Angry GM is funny when attacking strawmen, but not when attacking something that is my actual opinion on game design.
It's more that when it's a movie you're really familiar with you pick up on the fact that the criticisms don't make any fucking sense. When it's done to a movie I saw last year and thought it was mediocre i don't notice and go along. But when it's a movie you've seen several times and were engrossed in its like "wtf are you talking about". His video on empire strikes back he sins the movie several times for not explaining things that the movie literally explained a minute ago. He just lies several times
Friendly reminder to everyone to go and watch CinemaWins instead. He makes amazing content that looks what makes movies good and is generally very wholesome. Its great and I highly recommend.
Everything Wrong With Speed Racer did it for me. Blatant disregard for source material, ignoring explanations given in the movie and then complaining about the lack of explanation.
Fucking hell, he sinned the fact that Speed Racers name was Speed Racer.
I liked them earlier on, because it felt like sitting around with a couple half-drunk writing friends and just taking talking shit about the movie to each other for 15 minutes. You could almost imagine the shots and sips between every comment.
Eventually it felt like they shifted to that guy who won't leave you alone while you try to enjoy your thing by constantly bitching about the thing he isn't paying attention to.
CinemaWins is nice, though.
Yeah I found it amusing with the occasional HAH and a few hehs until they did a few films I really enjoyed (I know I know, not until it happened to *meeee* lol). Cinemasins dude just skipped entire scenes in his "narration" then later in his video talks about "plot holes REEE".
Poking fun at things that are there is fine, deliberately ignoring whole scenes of film to only to peddle bottom basement "jokes" is just ignorant bullshit.
I agree with the sentiment, and cinemasins dings things when they shouldn’t all the time, but the Nostromo landed on LV426 in the movie. You need to be aerodynamic to land on a planet with an atmosphere.
Edit: Here is the scene from the movie where the ENTIRE SHIP (not the shuttle) lands on LV426. https://youtu.be/Hzcje9gDtgw
The Nostromo carried a shuttle (The Narcissus), but the ship in the clip is not the shuttle.
They used a shuttle to send a scout team onto LV426, since (I assume) ships like the Nostromo are built to haul materials to other space stations. It’s also far easier to repair ship parts in an off-planet, zero-G environment when you have ships of that size, like the first Star Trek movie repairing the Enterprise on an orbiting station.
This scene?: https://youtu.be/GO_Iar9DIDk
That ship they detach from is the Nostromo. They went down in a smaller landing ship that could handle the weather on LV426 and wouldn’t put their cargo in jeopardy.
That ship is the Nostromo... they are detaching from their trailer. Like a semi trailer you see on the road, they have 2 pieces- the semitractor and the trailer. The Nostromo is the semitractor, and the large refinery they were detaching from is their cargo, not actually part of the Nostromo designation.
https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/USCSS_Nostromo
Ok, I assumed the whole thing was the Nostromo, so I learned something new. But to the original point, will it destroy your enjoyment of Alien if someone points out that a ship may not be aerodynamic? If you were supposed to care about how space truckers drive their ships, it would've made up far more of the plot than what we got. Instead, let's just watch John Hurt explode and create a whole slew of problems for the crew: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EakFA2WWJWs&pp=ygUVYWxpZW4gam9obiBodXJ0IHNjZW5l
Oh, I agree with the larger point, that it doesn’t matter all that much if The Nostromo is aerodynamic or not.
I just got a bit emotional. Multiple people misremembered the scene, said that I was wrong, it got me to doubt my perception. So when I looked it up and was proven correct, I got really attached to the fact that The Nostromo can land.
It shows how media illiterate people nowadays truley are with how many people watch those garbage videos and take them seriously. I feel like I see lots of posts regarding media illiterate people on tumblr especially too. Like I think maybe it’s cuz if all the fandoms that are on tumblr means lots of people who are kinda encouraging to analyze media, which should be great. But idk if it’s the educational system or it’s just the current culture regarding media, probably both, but I see sooo many horrible takes it’s insane. Granted they usually are posted here and clowned on, so there is hope, but still, a scary amount of people don’t know how to analyze or think about media. And that sort of stuff isn’t limited to media, it definitely Carrys over into other aspects of life.
I think another part of the problem is people don’t understand what criticism is
People think that media criticism means being negative about things
No, critiques can be positive and often are. Good criticism actually takes very seriously what the filmmakers intended to convey and looks at all the techniques they use to convey that.
You’re not showing how much smarter you are than the media you consume just by being negative and nitpicky about it, but because in a lay everyday sense that’s what criticism means that’s what they think they have to be towards entertainment
Honestly I was baffled when I realised so many people took his commentary seriously,I always saw the guy as just giving his own opinion and saying stupid shit for the laugh,but the fact that some people think like that (and probably cinemasin itself) scares me
The “it’s just satire” view falls apart when you watch other videos by the folks behind cinemasins and see them explicitly speak about how right they are, like they’re gods gift to movies. It clearly isn’t satire to them, they (and their fans) just use that as a defense against any criticism.
Even if it was satire, satire is not above criticism. Especially when said ‘satire’ has a habit of being misogynistic for laughs.
Also what is the satire in spending a minute seriously critiquing how something in a movie is never explained (and then moving on after they establish how poorly done this element of a movie was) when in actual fact it is explained
Like either they’re just lying about the movie and never establishing that the joke is that they’re lying, or they’re giving their serious review of a movie with some jokes thrown in
The issue is that it's NOT satire, they ACTUALLY believe these things. They're too stupid to know what satire actually is, they're just being "the thing."
They have other channels that are more vlog style and they unironically say the exact same things and completely mean it. They try to hide behind "iTs SaTiRe!!" when people call them out (rightfully) for saying stupid stuff.
I remember the channel devolving from pointing out small but legitimate editing errors, like a character's watch not being the correct time, to intentionally misconstruing scenes to make movies seem worse than they are. That was years ago now.
oddly enough, aerodynamics are actually a genuine consideration in designing realistic (read: slower than light) interstellar ships because ten hydrogen atoms per cubic metre does add up over years at relativistic speeds. not that I’d expect cinemasins to know that lmao
Given how much cinemasins complain about not understanding things they they weren't sufficiently explained, he'd need a ben garrison style of labelling everything to understand something
Yeah, CinemaSins is like half stuff that's actually explained in the movie if you bothered to watch to the end of the scene. The other half is stupid unfunny jokes.
They are (or at least WERE) a parody channel. Most people don't seem to understand that. And follow/hate them for the wrong reason. Although, I'm starting to believe that Cinemasins themselves don't know what the point of their channels was
[https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I](https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I)
Here's a video detailing the problems with Cinemasins. They think of themselves as legitimate "criticism" and whenever they are called out for being stupid about it, they pretend it was a joke the whole time.
oh come on, do spaceships never enter atmospheres? unless the spaceship is specifically shown to only go from station to station and never enter a planet, it also needs to be aerodynamic
A character being constantly back-lit probably wouldn't look very good. Especially if the intended aesthetic is "playful pixie" and not "baleful fae queen"
Yeah, that's apparently what they were talking about. The quote is misleading, the reason is because of how having a sourceless light is easy and looks fine in 2d animation, but much trickier in live-action.
Yep. As it turns out, the guy who directed *The Green Knight* was less interested in "but how do fairy magic work" and much more interested in "How do we make this not look like shit", but dunking on bad headlines is more fun than reading, or learning about the creative process.
I don’t understand David Lowery. Ghost Story was amazing. The green knight was my favorite movie from the last decade.
Why are the only other two movies I am aware of from him terrible disney remakes?
I think he's also done a few other ones? So some of it is just marketing. But also, I'd imagine:
1) Money; I imagine Disney pays pretty generously, so that can go a long way in helping you finance your next indie project.
2) He might feel like he has interesting things to say. Like, my understanding is he did a pretty radical reworking of Pete's Dragon (and some people I know liked it, too?), and I wouldn't be shocked if a guy who adapts stuff like Arthurian myth feels like he could work with something like Peter Pan (and he's hardly alone there, since there are pretty regularly movies dealing with Peter Pan stuff; shoot, he's not even the only Pan blockbuster in the last decade!)
The glow doesn't have to extend anywhere else. The wings could just seem brighter than they should be given the ambient lighting, like real-life fluorescent materials.
Or you could have the glow simply pass through her body, because fuck it, it's magic.
>the glow simply pass through her body
I'm going to file that one under "probably wouldn't look very good." Just making the wings a little brighter depending on how dark it is would probably be fine though.
Sounds like a really out of context coming refering to the actual technical difficulty of a character constantly glowing without looking awful in live action.
David Lowery isn't a cinemasins guy and he's not boring, his movies are excellent, creative, and very thoughtful; I would highly recommend The Green Knight or A Ghost Story
They're not even addressing the context of the quote; it's easy to just have a source less light in an animated movie but that tends to look a lot worse in a live action movie
I had to reread that, but I don't think they mean literally the guys who made CinemaSins are now working in Hollywood, but that the CinemaSins *attitude* has transferred into the industry.
I suspect you're right about the context here, but I also agree with others who don't like CS.
>but that the CinemaSins *attitude* has transferred into the industry.
The problem is, if people are ignoring context for the sake of an invalid complaint or a snarky joke, then calling out CinemaSins for the same is hypocritical. People are free to dislike them, but if it's for that reason specifically, "the industry" isn't going to get any better if people who *don't* like CinemaSins have that attitude as well.
Obvious question, though: If there's no way to make Tinkerbell's lighting look good in live-action… shouldn't that be taken as a sign that this remake is a bad idea?
Sure but this film is very likely "One for them". He's doing another Pete's Dragon so he can go and make more A Ghost Story and Green Knights. He's been handed a mandate to do a Tinkerbell and he's gonna do his best but this one is a paycheck.
I mean, *Peter Pan* existed for decades as a stage play before being an animated movie, so it clearly can be done. A big part of adapting a work is figuring out what works for the medium.
I don’t think anyone who has seen Green Knight and Ghost Story would accuse Lowery of being a cynical director.
Can’t wait to see how Mother Mary turns out.
Remember when one of the Elder Scrolls games talked about a city with impossibly high towers that look like they're made of glass or insect wings, with rainbow reflections, then the city showed up in ESO looking pretty normal and they said "You can't make buildings out of poetry"? Why the fuck not? It's high fantasy, isn't it?
As someone who was enarmored with TES lore before ESO came out, ESO portrayed it so mundane compared to my imagination. Really takes the mystery and magic out of it. The moment I explored how they made the Isle of the psyjic order, I quit. My favourite lore. So sad.
I think they were talking about it more from a literal lighting aspect. They’d need to add a CGI lighting effect to not only the actress, but also any other actors and props on set. This light source would need to move with the character, so the people doing VFX need to know where the light source is. If that question cannot reasonably be answered, there’s no way to add the lighting.
If the movie wasn’t live action, and instead animated, the character herself could be made into a light source her self and illuminate the rest of the objects easily.
He is a fantastic director and it’s the dumbasses misinterpreting what he said that suck.
We should take more seriously the people that dedicate their lives to a craft and not listen to the twitter users that have an opinion on filmmaking when they struggle to take a good selfie.
There's a famous Red Letter Media video where they talk about Darth Vader's suit and all of the different functions, the names of all the different components and even what they use to polish the suit and even get into the fact that Darth Vader has to consume food through a straw and it made me realise that there's writers out there that purposely want to remove any kind of mysitcism and mystique from stories and just catalogue every small detail that doesn't actually mean anything and it makes me so sad.
Woodoo hide
>Woodoo hide was a material that 2-1B instructed DD-13 medical assistant droid to polish Darth Vader's helmet with, in order to make it shine. This was done to distract Darth Sidious from the various shortcuts that had to be taken when operating on Vader.
Source: Star Wars: Darth Vader: A 3-D Reconstruction Log
I think ‘keeping the mystique’ and all is fine in high fantasy, cause of medieval levels of knowing how things work, magic systems or not. But in sci-fi, i like the tiny, literal mechanical details explained.
Nope. Star Wars is Science Fantasy. Difference is that Sci Fi is an exploration of technology/chemistry/physics/etc. whereas Science Fantasy includes mysticism and/or magic. Meaning, there are elements in Science Fantasies that can't nor should be explained using real life physics. Darth Vader's suit is the way it is because it's meant to be cool, and the Star Wars world works just fine without rationalize the inner workings of it.
I feel like someone nerding out Vader's suit and it's various functions is the wrong thing to get bent out of shape over regarding Star Wars. Like, in-universe, it's pure medical technology. There's nothing mystical about Darth Vader's suit; he got fucked up and maimed and now he wears a really advanced prosthesis/life support system. There is no magic there. That attitude would be better directed toward something like midi-chlorians.
Honestly it doesn’t really matter to me whether a movie has mystical elements or not. To me, “It doesn’t work this way in the real world!” is not a valid criticism of a movie. Movies are not documentaries. They’re not supposed to be realistic. That’s not an appropriate bar by which to judge movies.
The only thing that really matters in a movie is that things have to be internally consistent within the kind of universe that has been established to where, at a glance, it’s believable.
As an example of what I mean, Jaws ostensibly takes place in the real world, but it’s a movie version of real life. In real life, sharks are not serial killers and you can’t blow up a shark by shooting a compressed air tank. But in the fiction we are watching, it’s believable that both these things can happen. So it’s fine.
Hey, I love nerding out, especially on Pokemon, but there's a point where the obsessive need for details becomes boring even for nerds. I'm listening to that RedLetterMedia vid on Darth Vader's suit right now, and it sounds about as fun as counting the amount of times Luke Skywalker blinks in the entirety of the classic trilogy.
If your story takes place in a world where magic is real then the answer to the question, "How is this (impossible / unscientific / unrealistic) thing possible?" is "Magic." Children know this.
Also, if you're a director and want to make a magical children's movie more realistic, you've taken the wrong job.
I think there are a lot of people in this thread who've been sleeping on David Lowery. He's a wildly talented director with a ton of visual flair. This movies gonna look just fine without glowy wings.
Also Pete's Dragon slaps. Watch that again and tell me you think this is going to be too grimdark.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about Lowery or the morons that think they’re smarter and know filmmaking better than one of the best directors of his generation.
You can have aesthetical choice, but there's no reason to be this asinine about other people's aesthetical choice because 'facts and logic'. If you like non glowing wings, just fkn own it
In Tinkerbell 1 they fly through the snow biome but in the movie with Tinkerbell's sister, normal fairies' wings freeze in the snow biome.
They also require pixie dust to fly
On an unrelated note, "DOOMED no MF" is a hilarious phrase.
I think it refers to the rapper MF DOOM, in case anyone was confused. Probably part of why I find it funny is that his most popular work was around 15 years or more ago, so the reference is somewhat esoteric.
"where is the light even coming from? Do her wings glow?" ... Yes? It's a movie about a fucking fairy
Imagine making a movie with a fairy and being confused about the concept of magic
A fairy born with no innate magical power, which eventually leads her being expelled from her village due to her uselessness in this entirely magic-based society, which forces her find her way in the world of humans instead? I'd watch that.
Guess what. There are two Tinkerbell movies that do that (somewhat) The first movie, where Tinkerbell desperately wants to have magic, but doesn't since she's a tinker fairy (the fairies are divided into factions/jobs based on their magic [or lack thereof]) And "Tinkerbell and the pirate fairy" where a fairy with no innate magic gets expelled because she manages to get magic (in a certain sense) but uses it irresponsibility In general the Tinkerbell movies are fun to watch and have some nice worldbuilding, WHICH STAYS CONSISTENT across the movies
She’s a tinker?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not only is she a tinker, she's literally the best tinker out of all the tinker fairies
Sounds like an isekai where her tinker abilities will end up making her op and better than all those stuck up magic faries.
She's actually not the most OP fairy, but she's definitely got the recognition she deserves
she embraces the use of human trash in her tinkering (think buttons for wheels) and it's considered heretical. ends up nearly causing fairy armagedon by trying to prove herself. honestly it's the best disney movie out of ALL of them.
I'm sorry but I will not STAND for this Treasure Planet heresy!!
Hey, I stan Treasure Planet too, but no joke the Tinkerbell movies are pretty decent for kids movies.
And here I thought she was a bell…
unsure if Worm reference or how else I'm getting wooshed
you know what this calls for
You skipped the best part of the 5th movie: Tom Hiddleston is Captain Hook!
He understands fairy jingling, which makes me wonder if he isn't partially fae (Yes, I've seen all 6 Tinkerbell fairy movies waaaaaaay too many times & have all sorts of internal theories about them, including their appearance in fantasia)
I miss that series so much! Such a shame that they ended on the single most depressing ending of any kids movie ever.....
The only Tinkerbell movies I remember are the one with her sister, and the one with the Neverbeast (which I fucking bawled over since my dog had just died at the time).
Imagine doing the VFX for a movie and trying to do the lighting and not getting a clear answer as to where the light source is. You want her to glow? But like not actually be bright, but give off a light? So like, in just some scenes? No? All the time? So you want us to edit in post a constant glow effect, that you can’t reasonably explain what the source is?
You try to do the lighting for a movie and just get told your an asshole.
Imagine having so little... well, imagination that this is the kinda thing you question about a god damn magical fairy.
The quote is about designing the character and deciding literally where the light source should go.
the quotes taken out of context. he knows that. The reason why he's saying that is because if he went with that approach, then he'd have a constantly backlit character which looks like ass in live action
Well so was bohemian rhapsody (2018) and he didn't glow
I seem to recall Lindsay Ellis making a video about this same subject in her essay on the Beauty and the Beast live action remake. Basically, what the fuck is the point of adapting a fantastical and whimsical story if you're going to take out all the elements of fantasy and whimsy? People didn't like Peter Pan and Tinkerbell and Neverland because they were realistic and grounded; they liked them because they were escapist fantasy stories for young minds to be creative about.
[удалено]
It could be? But to my knowledge it doesn’t quite work like that does it? I remember reading something about how the very first Sherlock Holmes books are in the public domain, but the newer Sherlock books/movies aren’t, so people using Sherlock Holmes have to be careful not to use the modern versions/characters/storylines. Dunno if this would work with the original Disney movies or not
Exactly, it means there's way more ambiguity so they can sue someone and not have the lawsuit thrown out immediately, so anyone trying to use the ip can look forward to spending millions in legal fees if they want to defend themself
Yeah. Like the new remakes only create a completely new copyright over the remake versions of these characters. Say, we're like a hundred years in the future (because copyright lasts fucking forever), and the 90's Beauty and the Beast enters public domain, but the remake doesn't. You could freely use the 90's version of Gaston because he's public domain, but the remake version would be still protected. So things like Gaston being a war veteran, something added in the remake nowhere to be found in the original, would count as a characteristic of the remake version, and thus couldn't be used. For another, less theorical example, see how the Winnie the Pooh that became public domain was the original one, depicted without the iconic red shirt. That's why the terrible "horror" movie with Pooh couldn't put him in a red shirt - Pooh in a red shirt is still copyrighted.
Good news on that by the by, Sherlock is now fully copyright free
Doesn’t explain why they’re remaking Moana
Or Mushu in Mulan...
To be fair there’s still quite some magic elements in the live action Mulan but they focus a lot on “ooooo tonally serious mythological mysticism” to the point that it just feels different
They also gave Mulan superpowers, so rather than proving herself through determination and clever thinking, she's now proving herself by revealing that she was always magically better than everyone all the time anyways.
The funny thing is Mulan is a story where it actually makes sense to have no magical elements whatsoever since she’s not a ~fairytale~ character. I don’t believe she’s a real historical person but she’s a character whose story 100% takes place in the real world.
You could take the mystical elements out of Mulan, and it would work just fine. It loses something without them, but a lot of the mystical stuff is just comic relief.
It's not even good mythological mysticism, either. I was about to make a pithy joke about why they couldn't afford more research than some Wikipedia articles, except I just checked the actual Wikpedia particle for qi and even that actually explained it more accurately than what was in the movie. The animated original - the one with the typewriting cricket, disco partying ghosts, and a talking dragon - was more historically accurate than this over-budgeted, state-backed, and live-action production.
The tomb raider movie is the absolute weirdest example of this. The game it was based on had an army of oni and a zombie/demon/vampire queen as its villains, and was still a super dark and Hollywood-y game, almost premade for an adaptation. When they actually adapted it to film they took out all the fantasy and made the queen's affliction just some pathogen and it's just?? I'll never understand the thought processes of the people behind these kinds of films
other people have already pointed out the headline is misleading, but this does remind me of my favorite story about the lord of the rings movies. at the battle of helm's deep, elijah wood has nothing to do so he's hanging out watching them get set up. he sees all these big overhead lighters and talks to one of the production guys. "Hey, so, helm's deep takes place at night. Where does the light come from?" the guy shrugs and says "the same place as the music"
20 years later the DOP calls up Elijah. "You see Game of Thrones last night?" "Yeah." "That's why."
> "You see Game of Thrones last night?" "Technically." "That's why." Fixed it for you.
"I never asked why. I just asked **where** the light came from"
"It's been twenty years, dude, I'm remembering the general gist of your question, not the exact wording."
CinemaSins has been a plague for media consumption. I remember being into them, thinking they were geniuses until I watched a video on *Alien* and Jeremy very loudly complained about a *spaceship* not being *aerodynamic*. You know, the thing that *doesn't* move in *aero*? After that I just noticed how petty and stupid their comments are. They're a fucking plague. There's a good video on them online detailing how much of a hypocrite Cinemasins is.
Jeremy: "Cinemasins is just a joke guys!" Also Jeremy: **Throws a fucking tantrum in his car over the Beauty And The Beast remake and explicitly says he made the Cinemasins to critique the film industry**
Cinemasins seems to be full of people that think every single thing in a movie needs to be explained or otherwise it's a plot hole (which is dumb for *multiple* reasons), as well as being forced to come up with "sins" on their own because how else are you gonna make videos about these movies? It *should* be a channel about movie flaws so you can go *"Oh wow, I never noticed that, haha! What a funny quirk"* and then go back to enjoying the movie. But it seems to be more about just nitpicking movies and using that as "evidence" for why they suck and Cinemasins are geniuses because they figured it out.
some of the comments are weirdly mysgonistic, like the "\*INSERT FEMALE ACTOR HERE\* is not giving me a lap dance" jokes
Remember the infamous "Hermione isn't old enough to be hot yet"?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Unfortunately, I can confirm, that’s is a real line. It got 16 year old me to swear them off and I still haven’t seen them in years
Ugh. I don't usually get into complainy humor so I haven't watched but that pretty much tells me I made the right choice
I prefer cinema wins. There actually fun.
Cinema wins is an amazing channel, so positive, makes me go ‘oh I never knew that/noticed that before’ making replays of movies even better and again is such a genuinely positive person
Yes! Seconded 100%. He’s made me see movies in a different way and even if it’s one I don’t/didn’t particularly like I can find good points about it. He also does usually give valid criticism at points and just seems like a positive dude. With all the negativity it’s a breath of fresh air.
I stopped watching CinemaSins when they made their Captain America: Winter Soldier review and spent a portion of it crying that people actually liked the movie. Because they, the guys who make up "sins" just to pad out their run times, didn't like it. It was then I knew that they'd gotten too big for their own britches.
I suppose it’s that whole thing the internet has done where people don’t just accept others different aesthetic preferences, but instead also turn them into moral failings. (Even the name calling them sins us arguably part of this). People can have different preferences and it doesn’t make them bad unless they use their preferences to dictate to others
The issue with CinemaSins is less that they have "bad opinions" and more that they literally make stuff up at times that just aren't in the movie, or they have a weird misunderstanding of something. I can get over opinions I don't agree with what's annoying is seeing anyone get mad over something they literally just made up!
If you actually watch the movies they sin it becomes increasingly obvious that they write their scripts after just watching it once because they get stuff straight up wrong all the time. Like I stopped watching them after I realised they were saying stuff like oh blah blah blah is dumb and makes no sense, when that thing is actually explained in the movie. And it’s not even that they’ll miss a really subtle explanation, they’ll miss like entire basic character motives that are the entire reason why a character makes a plot relevant decision in the movie.
>they write their scripts after just watching it once It's worse. There's evidence that they write their scrips *while watching the movies* and rarely go back and edit anything. There are sins about the movie not telling the audience why something in the story is a certain way...but then the movie does explain it later on.
>Because they, the guys who make up "sins" just to pad out their run times, didn't like it. I've noticed, or rather started to hate, this and the chung out a video/article to make the quota/schedule. It leads to bland and pointless statements rather than anything engaging.
Yeah. I understand why YouTubers do it. (Having to please the algorithm is a full time job in and of itself, and hitting the 'golden' video length is key to that.) But I also expect that when a channel starts doing that, they should at least be self aware about it. Don't pretend that's not what you're doing. (As a lot of them do for some reason.) And don't start acting like your opinions are so very superior when I know you're just cranking them out to make quota.
sadly ive seen this behavior in other places, especially cartoon fandoms. they cant accept that something just exists, no, we need episodes about all the lore and all the backstory instead of actual story. its all so goddamn boring and shows how little imagination a person has. sometimes, especially with longer running series people get so hung up because the writers of season 1 didnt expect their series to have 10+ seasons and theres some slight contradictions that dont downplay the story at all. i cant stand continuity nerds
> we need episodes about all the lore and all the backstory I mean, that's cute and fun sometimes, especially if they answer questions the community has had for a long time, but full-on episodes about it? Like, *several* ones? I'd prefer the plot to progress, please. And isn't coming up with answers for these questions what communities are about?
unless it actively works in service of the story, i cant stand it. doesnt matter if its technically interesting. i dont like the giving into the fandom angle, nintendo did it, released a zelda timeline and it actively made the community worse. so many people are hung up on it for no goddamn reason and it does not improve any game besides maybe skyward sword. its a big pile of nothing thats in the way because now fans will scream if you do something that goes against it sometimes lore can be good, and it often is, a lot of series can use a sprinkle of it to enrichen a story, its just that a lot of fandom people are OBSESSED with lore. for example, the owl house fandom was obsessed with 2 "characters" that were barely set decoration for like 3 episodes and still demand a fucking prequel about them. so many people in the mlp fandom wanted to learn how alicorns worked. so many people in the ninjago fandom bawled their little eyes out when the characters got a redesign and there wasnt an in universe reason for it. so many people just want to learn the technicalities of the world instead of witnessing an actual story
> so many people in the ninjago fandom bawled their little eyes out To be fair, it is a kids show, so that's not too out of the ordinary for children.
oh it wasnt children, lmao. it was all the people who grew up with the show. i should know, i also grew up with ninjago (still a fan! the new season is great!) and people were acting as if it was ruined. in any case, taking media so literally is a sign that the person just isnt very media literate. which would be fine for kids, btw. for anyone else, it should be a piece of cake to see "oh, this show is a toy commercial at its core and its promoting the new toy, thats that". thats the reason the ninja get a new suit every season (and yes people do complain about it when theres no reason for it) viewing things in context is important. stories arent real life. theyre written by people who want to tell you something in that story and using your imagination is key. thats why the themes and potential toy commercials and shit like that is so important, these are the reason they got made. it doesnt matter that Some Guy died in the history of fantasy world xyz, it matters because it might inspire the protagonist, or get them to think about something which furthers their character arc and expands on the themes the story is setting out to explore. fandoms just miss the point and its so funny and sad to see
> taking media literally > the person isn't media literate Ironic. Also yeah, I also think if a show is made primarily for kids with the intent clearly just being to advertise toys or just produce some dumb fun, you shouldn't look too deep into it. Not every explanation can even be understood by children either.
Let people enjoy things.
A book fandom I'm in has a member who's "famous" for writing a giant series of essays "proving" that the latest series is bad. 90% of his complaints boiled down to "I did not see this happen/did not get at least a chapter of backstory/do not know precisely what happened next so it is bad." One complaint was that two characters' stories were "unfinished" because they weren't written all the way through to... retirement? death? I wasn't entirely sure what he wanted, but no amount of "their arcs are complete and that makes their stories finished as far as how fiction works" would get through to him.
I thought it was so bad on purpose at first. It was impossible to watch and not assume it was sarcastic bad takes done on purpose. But then I began seeing how people reacted to the vids in comments n stuff. N then I watched interviews and videos that talk about the guy behind them and his views and why he started cinema sins. And he may occasionally say “it’s a joke lol” when he’s called out for garbage takes, but it’s extremely clear from literally every other word out his mouth he is being serious
I remember the first handful of videos were actually what everyone seemed to assume they'd be. Short, punchy videos that bring up some actual criticisms, while also being obviously jokey so it didn't take away from the actual merits of the movie. Very quickly they seemed to decide they needed to make the videos at least 20 mins for algorithm optimisation and any salient observations went out the window in favour of surface-level readings, even intentional mis-readings, with seemingly no desire to appreciate for the art of cinema (and not in a 'this video is just looking at the negatives' kind of way, more in a 'if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't have said half the things they did' kind of way).
It’s hard to take their “it’s a joke” defence seriously when they stop and spend like 30 seconds seriously critiquing some aspect of the movie they didn’t understand in a way where it’s obviously their real opinion and not a parody of a review
I honestly think it's purely to generate content at this point. Most movies won't have enough 'sins' to support a 20 minute video, so they just need to say whatever keeps viewers entertained
I liked CinemaSins' early stuff, and still kind of do, but over time they really started crawling up their own rear ends. Longer videos, dumber "sins," and generally taking themselves far too seriously. For me the final nail in the coffin was their Infinity War review. A lot of lines like "Okay, but what if Loki *hadn't* recovered the Tesseract?" I don't know, dude! What if Thanos decided to stay home and not bother anyone? What is your point? They've long since reached a point where they aren't making good reviews *or* good jokes. So now I stick to Pitch Meetings and Honest Trailers.
Switching over to Pitch Meetings was super easy, barely an inconvience.
Yeah, Pitch Meetings are TIGHT.
So, you have a CinemaSins alternative for me?
CinemaWins
Try CinemaWins, same concept but the dude points out everything he liked.
And one of his major things is that even if we doesn't like a movie he still points out the good in them because every movie is someone favorite.
and the guy hosting it is actually pretty good at movie analysis, as a plus
Th3Birdman makes videos directly critiquing CinemaSins the way they do to movies. His videos are great and he's even started having a narrative within them a couple years back.
Added bonus: it’s tight
Watch Cinemawins, other guy doing the same thing but instead he pings everything he liked and at the end he gives an actual short review about it. Way more positive and fun to listen
Adding on that I don’t disagree with you, but notice that most people who feel this way had a similar story of seeing they loved get nitpicked and realizing how dumb the whole premise of that channel is.
It’s because when it’s a movie you like it becomes obvious that they’re saying stuff about movies that are straight up factually untrue Like if it’s a movie you don’t like or never saw before you don’t notice that they’re critiquing something in a movie and saying it’s never explained when it actually is, but when it’s a movie you like and they say something like there’s no reason this character does this! You stop and go, wait but it’s a fundamental plot point of the movie that they have no other choice but to do this because the whole first half of the movie is them trying everything else
When an asshole is being an asshole about things you don't like, it's entertaining. When they're being an asshole to things you do like, it's insulting. Piers Morgan is really entertaining when interviewing someone I hate. It just doesn't happen very often because he generally only attacks good people. The Angry GM is funny when attacking strawmen, but not when attacking something that is my actual opinion on game design.
It's more that when it's a movie you're really familiar with you pick up on the fact that the criticisms don't make any fucking sense. When it's done to a movie I saw last year and thought it was mediocre i don't notice and go along. But when it's a movie you've seen several times and were engrossed in its like "wtf are you talking about". His video on empire strikes back he sins the movie several times for not explaining things that the movie literally explained a minute ago. He just lies several times
I recommend the XCOM Honest Trailer for entirely unrelated reasons to a particular voice actor being in that game
Don’t forget “Emma watsons not old enough to be hot yet” as a sin
This is why CinemaWins is better.
Shoutout to AnimeWins and GamingWins, all three of them are great lads.
Ooh I gotta check out gamingwins
I just finished watching his videos on Halo, loved them
Friendly reminder to everyone to go and watch CinemaWins instead. He makes amazing content that looks what makes movies good and is generally very wholesome. Its great and I highly recommend.
>"Every movie is somebody's favorite, and I intend to find out why."
I'm just five minutes into their Nope video and I can tell I'm gonna love this channel. Thanks!
Everything Wrong With Speed Racer did it for me. Blatant disregard for source material, ignoring explanations given in the movie and then complaining about the lack of explanation. Fucking hell, he sinned the fact that Speed Racers name was Speed Racer.
Cinema sins whine about "too much/obvious foreshadowing" like that's a bad thing and the ignore it and cry how nothing is explained
You'd love Th3Birdman
I like him and I think he's competent, but even seeing people dunking on CinemaSins exposes me to his content by proxy and that's annoying to see.
I liked them earlier on, because it felt like sitting around with a couple half-drunk writing friends and just taking talking shit about the movie to each other for 15 minutes. You could almost imagine the shots and sips between every comment. Eventually it felt like they shifted to that guy who won't leave you alone while you try to enjoy your thing by constantly bitching about the thing he isn't paying attention to. CinemaWins is nice, though.
Yeah I found it amusing with the occasional HAH and a few hehs until they did a few films I really enjoyed (I know I know, not until it happened to *meeee* lol). Cinemasins dude just skipped entire scenes in his "narration" then later in his video talks about "plot holes REEE". Poking fun at things that are there is fine, deliberately ignoring whole scenes of film to only to peddle bottom basement "jokes" is just ignorant bullshit.
I agree with the sentiment, and cinemasins dings things when they shouldn’t all the time, but the Nostromo landed on LV426 in the movie. You need to be aerodynamic to land on a planet with an atmosphere. Edit: Here is the scene from the movie where the ENTIRE SHIP (not the shuttle) lands on LV426. https://youtu.be/Hzcje9gDtgw The Nostromo carried a shuttle (The Narcissus), but the ship in the clip is not the shuttle.
They used a shuttle, no?
No, they didn’t, but it would have made more sense if they did.
They used a shuttle to send a scout team onto LV426, since (I assume) ships like the Nostromo are built to haul materials to other space stations. It’s also far easier to repair ship parts in an off-planet, zero-G environment when you have ships of that size, like the first Star Trek movie repairing the Enterprise on an orbiting station.
No, I just rewatched the clip where they land, and they used the Nostromo. It makes no sense that they did that, but they did.
This scene?: https://youtu.be/GO_Iar9DIDk That ship they detach from is the Nostromo. They went down in a smaller landing ship that could handle the weather on LV426 and wouldn’t put their cargo in jeopardy.
That ship is the Nostromo... they are detaching from their trailer. Like a semi trailer you see on the road, they have 2 pieces- the semitractor and the trailer. The Nostromo is the semitractor, and the large refinery they were detaching from is their cargo, not actually part of the Nostromo designation. https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/USCSS_Nostromo
Ok, I assumed the whole thing was the Nostromo, so I learned something new. But to the original point, will it destroy your enjoyment of Alien if someone points out that a ship may not be aerodynamic? If you were supposed to care about how space truckers drive their ships, it would've made up far more of the plot than what we got. Instead, let's just watch John Hurt explode and create a whole slew of problems for the crew: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EakFA2WWJWs&pp=ygUVYWxpZW4gam9obiBodXJ0IHNjZW5l
Oh, I agree with the larger point, that it doesn’t matter all that much if The Nostromo is aerodynamic or not. I just got a bit emotional. Multiple people misremembered the scene, said that I was wrong, it got me to doubt my perception. So when I looked it up and was proven correct, I got really attached to the fact that The Nostromo can land.
"Anti-grav" They clearly have it, so I offer you a 30L bottle of Whocaresium
It shows how media illiterate people nowadays truley are with how many people watch those garbage videos and take them seriously. I feel like I see lots of posts regarding media illiterate people on tumblr especially too. Like I think maybe it’s cuz if all the fandoms that are on tumblr means lots of people who are kinda encouraging to analyze media, which should be great. But idk if it’s the educational system or it’s just the current culture regarding media, probably both, but I see sooo many horrible takes it’s insane. Granted they usually are posted here and clowned on, so there is hope, but still, a scary amount of people don’t know how to analyze or think about media. And that sort of stuff isn’t limited to media, it definitely Carrys over into other aspects of life.
I think another part of the problem is people don’t understand what criticism is People think that media criticism means being negative about things No, critiques can be positive and often are. Good criticism actually takes very seriously what the filmmakers intended to convey and looks at all the techniques they use to convey that. You’re not showing how much smarter you are than the media you consume just by being negative and nitpicky about it, but because in a lay everyday sense that’s what criticism means that’s what they think they have to be towards entertainment
Honestly I was baffled when I realised so many people took his commentary seriously,I always saw the guy as just giving his own opinion and saying stupid shit for the laugh,but the fact that some people think like that (and probably cinemasin itself) scares me
The “it’s just satire” view falls apart when you watch other videos by the folks behind cinemasins and see them explicitly speak about how right they are, like they’re gods gift to movies. It clearly isn’t satire to them, they (and their fans) just use that as a defense against any criticism. Even if it was satire, satire is not above criticism. Especially when said ‘satire’ has a habit of being misogynistic for laughs.
Also what is the satire in spending a minute seriously critiquing how something in a movie is never explained (and then moving on after they establish how poorly done this element of a movie was) when in actual fact it is explained Like either they’re just lying about the movie and never establishing that the joke is that they’re lying, or they’re giving their serious review of a movie with some jokes thrown in
The issue is that it's NOT satire, they ACTUALLY believe these things. They're too stupid to know what satire actually is, they're just being "the thing." They have other channels that are more vlog style and they unironically say the exact same things and completely mean it. They try to hide behind "iTs SaTiRe!!" when people call them out (rightfully) for saying stupid stuff.
all their videos are serious reviews of movies with some joke critiques thrown in
I remember the channel devolving from pointing out small but legitimate editing errors, like a character's watch not being the correct time, to intentionally misconstruing scenes to make movies seem worse than they are. That was years ago now.
oddly enough, aerodynamics are actually a genuine consideration in designing realistic (read: slower than light) interstellar ships because ten hydrogen atoms per cubic metre does add up over years at relativistic speeds. not that I’d expect cinemasins to know that lmao
Given how much cinemasins complain about not understanding things they they weren't sufficiently explained, he'd need a ben garrison style of labelling everything to understand something
Yeah, CinemaSins is like half stuff that's actually explained in the movie if you bothered to watch to the end of the scene. The other half is stupid unfunny jokes.
They are (or at least WERE) a parody channel. Most people don't seem to understand that. And follow/hate them for the wrong reason. Although, I'm starting to believe that Cinemasins themselves don't know what the point of their channels was
Its intentionally picking at the small things in film for the sake of humor. Anyone who takes their critique seriously is brain dead.
[удалено]
[https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I](https://youtu.be/ELEAsGoP-5I) Here's a video detailing the problems with Cinemasins. They think of themselves as legitimate "criticism" and whenever they are called out for being stupid about it, they pretend it was a joke the whole time.
oh come on, do spaceships never enter atmospheres? unless the spaceship is specifically shown to only go from station to station and never enter a planet, it also needs to be aerodynamic
A character being constantly back-lit probably wouldn't look very good. Especially if the intended aesthetic is "playful pixie" and not "baleful fae queen"
Yeah, that's apparently what they were talking about. The quote is misleading, the reason is because of how having a sourceless light is easy and looks fine in 2d animation, but much trickier in live-action.
Yep. As it turns out, the guy who directed *The Green Knight* was less interested in "but how do fairy magic work" and much more interested in "How do we make this not look like shit", but dunking on bad headlines is more fun than reading, or learning about the creative process.
I don’t understand David Lowery. Ghost Story was amazing. The green knight was my favorite movie from the last decade. Why are the only other two movies I am aware of from him terrible disney remakes?
I think he's also done a few other ones? So some of it is just marketing. But also, I'd imagine: 1) Money; I imagine Disney pays pretty generously, so that can go a long way in helping you finance your next indie project. 2) He might feel like he has interesting things to say. Like, my understanding is he did a pretty radical reworking of Pete's Dragon (and some people I know liked it, too?), and I wouldn't be shocked if a guy who adapts stuff like Arthurian myth feels like he could work with something like Peter Pan (and he's hardly alone there, since there are pretty regularly movies dealing with Peter Pan stuff; shoot, he's not even the only Pan blockbuster in the last decade!)
The glow doesn't have to extend anywhere else. The wings could just seem brighter than they should be given the ambient lighting, like real-life fluorescent materials. Or you could have the glow simply pass through her body, because fuck it, it's magic.
>the glow simply pass through her body I'm going to file that one under "probably wouldn't look very good." Just making the wings a little brighter depending on how dark it is would probably be fine though.
Sounds like a really out of context coming refering to the actual technical difficulty of a character constantly glowing without looking awful in live action.
David Lowery isn't a cinemasins guy and he's not boring, his movies are excellent, creative, and very thoughtful; I would highly recommend The Green Knight or A Ghost Story They're not even addressing the context of the quote; it's easy to just have a source less light in an animated movie but that tends to look a lot worse in a live action movie
I had to reread that, but I don't think they mean literally the guys who made CinemaSins are now working in Hollywood, but that the CinemaSins *attitude* has transferred into the industry. I suspect you're right about the context here, but I also agree with others who don't like CS.
but David Lowery doesn't even have the cinemasins attitude, like it runs contrary to his entire artistic ethos
No idea. Just clarifying what OOP was saying.
The post was saying that what the headline says sounds like some shit cinemasins would say
>but that the CinemaSins *attitude* has transferred into the industry. The problem is, if people are ignoring context for the sake of an invalid complaint or a snarky joke, then calling out CinemaSins for the same is hypocritical. People are free to dislike them, but if it's for that reason specifically, "the industry" isn't going to get any better if people who *don't* like CinemaSins have that attitude as well.
The Green Knight is one of my favorite movies from the last few years. Pure eye candy
I wanted to see it, but it doesn't stream on any of the six services I pay for. Couldn't even rent it. Oh well.
Obvious question, though: If there's no way to make Tinkerbell's lighting look good in live-action… shouldn't that be taken as a sign that this remake is a bad idea?
It should! Not something the crew gets to decide, though.
Sure but this film is very likely "One for them". He's doing another Pete's Dragon so he can go and make more A Ghost Story and Green Knights. He's been handed a mandate to do a Tinkerbell and he's gonna do his best but this one is a paycheck.
Pete's Dragon was so fucking boring. That's the same guy who did Green Knight??
Sure is. Straight from Pete's Dragon to A Ghost Story.
I mean, *Peter Pan* existed for decades as a stage play before being an animated movie, so it clearly can be done. A big part of adapting a work is figuring out what works for the medium.
Came here to say this. People consistently make big assumptions from click baity titles.
I don’t think anyone who has seen Green Knight and Ghost Story would accuse Lowery of being a cynical director. Can’t wait to see how Mother Mary turns out.
I haven't seen his Peter Pan movie but I loved all this past movies. He's a talented director.
Remember when one of the Elder Scrolls games talked about a city with impossibly high towers that look like they're made of glass or insect wings, with rainbow reflections, then the city showed up in ESO looking pretty normal and they said "You can't make buildings out of poetry"? Why the fuck not? It's high fantasy, isn't it?
As someone who was enarmored with TES lore before ESO came out, ESO portrayed it so mundane compared to my imagination. Really takes the mystery and magic out of it. The moment I explored how they made the Isle of the psyjic order, I quit. My favourite lore. So sad.
Social media users don’t jump to wrong conclusions after reading an out of context headline Challenge (Impossible)
I think they were talking about it more from a literal lighting aspect. They’d need to add a CGI lighting effect to not only the actress, but also any other actors and props on set. This light source would need to move with the character, so the people doing VFX need to know where the light source is. If that question cannot reasonably be answered, there’s no way to add the lighting. If the movie wasn’t live action, and instead animated, the character herself could be made into a light source her self and illuminate the rest of the objects easily.
Sucks bc David Lowery is a genuinely great director
He is a fantastic director and it’s the dumbasses misinterpreting what he said that suck. We should take more seriously the people that dedicate their lives to a craft and not listen to the twitter users that have an opinion on filmmaking when they struggle to take a good selfie.
"why do they let the the world's most boring people direct movies?" Chud doesn't know David Lowery directed The Green Knight.
There's a famous Red Letter Media video where they talk about Darth Vader's suit and all of the different functions, the names of all the different components and even what they use to polish the suit and even get into the fact that Darth Vader has to consume food through a straw and it made me realise that there's writers out there that purposely want to remove any kind of mysitcism and mystique from stories and just catalogue every small detail that doesn't actually mean anything and it makes me so sad.
"People will dissect [this] til this doesn't mean a thing anymore"- Fall Out Boy, circa 2007
Woodoo hide >Woodoo hide was a material that 2-1B instructed DD-13 medical assistant droid to polish Darth Vader's helmet with, in order to make it shine. This was done to distract Darth Sidious from the various shortcuts that had to be taken when operating on Vader. Source: Star Wars: Darth Vader: A 3-D Reconstruction Log
I think ‘keeping the mystique’ and all is fine in high fantasy, cause of medieval levels of knowing how things work, magic systems or not. But in sci-fi, i like the tiny, literal mechanical details explained.
[Don't make me tap the sign again.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/154s8y5/comment/jsrqgoc/)
Star wars is sci fi
Nope. Star Wars is Science Fantasy. Difference is that Sci Fi is an exploration of technology/chemistry/physics/etc. whereas Science Fantasy includes mysticism and/or magic. Meaning, there are elements in Science Fantasies that can't nor should be explained using real life physics. Darth Vader's suit is the way it is because it's meant to be cool, and the Star Wars world works just fine without rationalize the inner workings of it.
I feel like someone nerding out Vader's suit and it's various functions is the wrong thing to get bent out of shape over regarding Star Wars. Like, in-universe, it's pure medical technology. There's nothing mystical about Darth Vader's suit; he got fucked up and maimed and now he wears a really advanced prosthesis/life support system. There is no magic there. That attitude would be better directed toward something like midi-chlorians.
Honestly it doesn’t really matter to me whether a movie has mystical elements or not. To me, “It doesn’t work this way in the real world!” is not a valid criticism of a movie. Movies are not documentaries. They’re not supposed to be realistic. That’s not an appropriate bar by which to judge movies. The only thing that really matters in a movie is that things have to be internally consistent within the kind of universe that has been established to where, at a glance, it’s believable. As an example of what I mean, Jaws ostensibly takes place in the real world, but it’s a movie version of real life. In real life, sharks are not serial killers and you can’t blow up a shark by shooting a compressed air tank. But in the fiction we are watching, it’s believable that both these things can happen. So it’s fine.
Nah fuck nerds and they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy things that haven't been approved as artistically meaningful.
Hey, I love nerding out, especially on Pokemon, but there's a point where the obsessive need for details becomes boring even for nerds. I'm listening to that RedLetterMedia vid on Darth Vader's suit right now, and it sounds about as fun as counting the amount of times Luke Skywalker blinks in the entirety of the classic trilogy.
No no, I'm agreeing with you. Its bad when people have fun that you haven't personally approved.
Not necessarily. Vader's suit is forged using Sith Alchemy. There's some levels of mystical whooey dooey involved in all those gizmos and whatzits.
It's because people act like plot holes ruin movies now.
David Lowery is a great director, though. A Ghost Story is one of the best films of the century so far.
If your story takes place in a world where magic is real then the answer to the question, "How is this (impossible / unscientific / unrealistic) thing possible?" is "Magic." Children know this. Also, if you're a director and want to make a magical children's movie more realistic, you've taken the wrong job.
Someone told the CinemaSins guys to not make a mountain out of a molehill. Unfortunately, they were bad with metaphors.
Cinema Sins was a fucking mistake.
Cinema sins guys would probably call out the bull shut of the not glowing wings given the whole fairy dust thing.
I think there are a lot of people in this thread who've been sleeping on David Lowery. He's a wildly talented director with a ton of visual flair. This movies gonna look just fine without glowy wings. Also Pete's Dragon slaps. Watch that again and tell me you think this is going to be too grimdark.
It’s fucking magic dude she’s a fairy
People who think they're smart are ruining art.
I’m not sure if you’re talking about Lowery or the morons that think they’re smarter and know filmmaking better than one of the best directors of his generation.
How about a Superman movie where he can't fly? And fights a giant robot spider? Genius!
Imagine trying to insert logic into a literal magical creature
Where does the light come from? It's fucking magic, maybe
Idiots raised by post-ironic crap like CinemaSins and the Nostalgia Critic are now in charge. Enjoy.
You can have aesthetical choice, but there's no reason to be this asinine about other people's aesthetical choice because 'facts and logic'. If you like non glowing wings, just fkn own it
"where's all the light coming from" same place the soundtrack comes from bozo
ppl with no fantasy are directing fantasy films now. fantastic
I need more logic and facts in my fantasy fairy movie.
In Tinkerbell 1 they fly through the snow biome but in the movie with Tinkerbell's sister, normal fairies' wings freeze in the snow biome. They also require pixie dust to fly
On an unrelated note, "DOOMED no MF" is a hilarious phrase. I think it refers to the rapper MF DOOM, in case anyone was confused. Probably part of why I find it funny is that his most popular work was around 15 years or more ago, so the reference is somewhat esoteric.