Entertainment Quality

[skruloos]

LOL...I have a DEGREE. TV and FILM.

And we never studied superhero movies in class. We were way too snotty for that.

But for pure fun, suspension of disbelief, and enjoyment...we are certainly free to overlook the fact that these movies were never Shakespeare to begin with, and just have a good time watching them.

That's what your film school taught you? Wow. Mine concentrated on showing how even pulp/pop fare should follow the same rules as other "Shakespeare"-type movies. I mean, after all, they are still films, right? Why should film criticism rules apply to certain genres of film and not to all?

Sorry, but as a film student you should know that film is film (even genre film) and can be analyzed and criticized regardless of your personal feelings. You might CHOOSE to not analyze it but that's your choice. It doesn't mean that it can't be done or that it is any less valid.

 

[deathfromabove]

I couldn't disagree more. It was a poorly written, and poorly executed film.

 

[Backdrifter]

haha...so true. let's face it, james marsden was just additional eye candy. no offense to his acting abilities but he was up against patrick stewart, ian mckellen, hugh jackman and famke janssen.....he was never meant to have a big leading role in this franchise.

Which was the wrong approach to begin with. Cyclops should have been the hero...Scott and Jean should have been the syzygy of the series ("Divine Couple") Wolverine should have been reduced to a Han Solo/Jack Sparrow type character.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy

 

[danoyse]

That's what your film school taught you? Wow. Mine concentrated on showing how even pulp/pop fare should follow the same rules as other "Shakespeare"-type movies. I mean, after all, they are still films, right? Why should film criticism rules apply to certain genres of film and not to all?

Sorry, but as a film student you should know that film is film (even genre film) and can be analyzed and criticized regardless of your personal feelings. You might CHOOSE to not analyze it but that's your choice. It doesn't mean that it can't be done or that it is any less valid.

Mine too...but it didn't stop us from endlessly quoting the "Airplane" movies whenever the opportunity presented itself.

I can rip all 3 movies to shreds from a *film school* point of view. It's easy. But it's just not how I watch them. It's like "Star Wars"...I can make all the Joseph Campbell hero analogies, or I could just play the videogame.

Your education doesn't make a difference...you can either enjoy it, or you can't. I did. Not really concerned that someone thinks I'm less of anything because of it. Now that's snotty.

 

[Dr. Manhatten]

If quality and entertainment don't equal the same things, then does that mean boring "quality" movies have more value than a solidly entertaining movie?

 

[danoyse]

If quality and entertainment don't equal the same things, then does that mean boring "quality" movies have more value than a solidly entertaining movie?

Excellent point.

 

[skruloos]

Mine too...but it didn't stop us from endlessly quoting the "Airplane" movies whenever the opportunity presented itself.

I can rip all 3 movies to shreds from a *film school* point of view. It's easy. But it's just not how I watch them. It's like "Star Wars"...I can make all the Joseph Campbell hero analogies, or I could just play the videogame.

And that's fine. Like I said, preference doesn't really have anything to do with quality. I like a lot of bad, poorly made movies. I can pick them completely apart. It doesn't mean that I don't like them or enjoy them any less. But I can still recognize they're bad movies.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

Well, to me an entertaining movie has qualities that I do like about it. I don't generally care if the populace likes or dislikes a certain movie I like . All I know is that I like it so I'm not really concerned with what everyone else thinks of it if it's good enough for me.

 

[liamoversion2]

Yeah, but everyone, is it so bad to ask that a movie be both entertaining and be quality, i.e. well made, at the same time? That it have a screenplay that makes enough sense not to be distracted enough for it to, itself, become comedic? (which for me, was the case with X3)

 

[danoyse]

And that's fine. Like I said, preference doesn't really have anything to do with quality. I like a lot of bad, poorly made movies. I can pick them completely apart. It doesn't mean that I don't like them or enjoy them any less. But I can still recognize they're bad movies.

Good for you.

I didn't think it was a poorly made movie. I thought it could have been a little longer, but as it was I enjoyed it very much.

I can go all film snob and tear it apart if I wanted to...I can do it with most movies. But I liked it, so what's the point? To act like I'm so much smarter than people who enjoyed the thing? Please. I have better things to do.

 

[liamoversion2]

edit

 

[skruloos]

If quality and entertainment don't equal the same things, then does that mean boring "quality" movies have more value than a solidly entertaining movie?

Depends on what value system. As far as advancing film as a narrative art form? Then yes. "Quality" movies would have far more value. For individual enjoyment? Well, that becomes subjective.

A movie can have bad characterization. It can have plot holes galore. It can have bad cinematography and set design. It doesn't mean there won't be people who like it. Sure, it's a poorly made movie but someone can still like it. Preference has nothing to do with quality.

 

[skruloos]

Good for you.

I didn't think it was a poorly made movie. I thought it could have been a little longer, but as it was I enjoyed it very much.

I can go all film snob and tear it apart if I wanted to...I can do it with most movies. But I liked it, so what's the point? To act like I'm so much smarter than people who enjoyed the thing? Please. I have better things to do.

No. I simply do it to try to explain why I didn't like it. That's the thing. I did not enjoy the movie very much at all and I can find reasons that would attribute to that disappointment based on what I normally value in other films I have analyzed.

 

[The Batman]

Yeah...this flick just wasnt satisfying. too many plot holes and mistakes. The killing of cyclops was wrong, wrong, wrong. the phoenix saga was butchered.

And i cant blame people for claiming those who like the movie will accept anything thrown at them, especially since they keep throwing lame excuses like "It's just an adaption" or "This is film, not the comics" without even thinking about what they typed.

I mean, Lord of the Rings fans wouldnt stand for some of the crap they pulled in this flick, and neither would harry potter fans. Why should we? Honestly, some just like the movie because it has more action and comic flavor to it, which is sad. Some may have liked the emotional story, but some just liked it for the dumb jokes and action, and you could tell.

 

[zanos]

True. But X2 got quite good ratings on a lot of fronts, certainly much better than X3. You can like X3 all you want, from a filmmaking standpoint, X2 was simply better.

The first Batman film also got pretty high ratings. Nowadays it's a target of constant ridicule on these boards and basically a joke. Revenge of the Sith also got great reviews. I rest my case on that film. At the end of the day a critics review is no more valid than the opinion of your average joe. It means even less to fans of the actual source material.

But just because a movie is well made and critically acclaimed doesn't mean you need to like it. But quality seldom has anything to do with personal preference and enjoyment. I know people who love Ed Wood movies. Doesn't mean they're good, well made movies.

That's only if you're under the misconception that the quality of the first 2 films is that much better than X3. Unlike you and many on here my opinion is not biased. I am not part of some pro X-Men 3, pro Ratner, pro Fox fanclub. I fully expected this film to be garbage and had no expectations of it. However I can see why Singer fanboys may not like it. They're still in denial that the first 2 films had horrible underdeveloped characters and fairly dull and uninspiring stories.

 

[WorthyStevens]

Right, bud. This coming from a guy with an X-Men avatar... Take a film analysis class. Besides, 55% of critics think the film is no good. You may not like critics, but it is something to consider. The film is bad. It has some exciting moments, but overall it is a bad film.

Where do you get that figure from?

Please don't say Rotten Tomatoes, because for your 55% to be correct, there would be more negative reviews than positive. Which isn't the case.

 

[The Guard]

The emotional scenes in this movie were basically "Please cry now" moments. Like someone on another thread mentioned, all that was missing was a guy with a sign in the background that reads "Cry now". Someone died, people broke out in tears, next scene and it's all forgotten.

So were the emotional scenes in X3. I mean, honestly. It's not like ALL the emotional scenes were "cry now" moments. Angel making his choice? Rogue making hers? Bobby and Kitty? Magneto and Pyro? Magneto and Mystique? Phoenix VS. Xavier?

Compare that to X-MEN, which has: Wolverine saves Rogue. Cyclops and Xavier. Logan and Jean. The emotion in X-MEN absolutely is on the level of previous films.

I mean I didn't expect much from it I suppose, but they didn't even characterize Jean properly. She was some nobody standing around in the background for most of it. If you're going to put her in the movie, at least give her a decent part...

She had a decent part. Or did you not see her taking up a third of the film, illing Scott, Xavier, turning the tide at the end...being one of the focal points of Wolverine's arc...that's a decent part by any definition.

I've never seen such a bad adaptation in my life...

You haven't seen CAPTAIN AMERICA, have you?

It was really dishonest to give the fans the finger like that... becaus that's basically what happened - they took a look at the ending of X2 and said 'ok, how can we make a third film and do as little as possible with Jean to keep the fans happy?'

What the hell are you talking about? She has as much, if not MORE, screentime than she had in X2.

And the most frustrating thing is that they had two concepts into which they could have developed a mind blowing movie... but they did not capitalize on it... why wasn't Jean established as a threat to the entire world?

Because it's not important to the plot. I think it was implied she was pretty damn dangerous, myself.

Wasn't that how she was intitially described? Wouldn't that have made the issue of the cure much more pertinent?

No, since in this story, it was confined to the US.

Wasn't that the damn point to begin with? Why wasn't the cure story tied into the Phoenix story properly?

It was. The Cure was what ended up making her go off the deep end.
Power and control.

It's like they spliced together two completely different movies and had two totally separate resolutions for them... Why wasn't Jean's dark side explored? The extent of her abilities? Why not involve the government? Wouldn't that have made for some great exposition?

What movie were you watching?

Yes. The out of character dialogue was an absolute disgrace...

Which out of character dialogue?

Didn't they resolve the love triangle between Logan, Jean and Scot in X2? Why was it revisited in X3?

Why? Because Phoenix/Logan always have a connection in the comics. Why would Logan's feeling suddenly change?

Pyro was still friends with Iceman at the end of X2... what the hell happened in the interim?

Pyro was clearly jealous of Bobby and rejected the peaceful, healing ways of Xavier's dream, and any authority. In X3, he was clearly still jealous of Bobby, and trying to "one-up" him. What changed? Pyro joined Magneto and gave in to his dark side. Pretty logical, really.

Why is he suddenly saying he wants to kill Xavier?

Because he hates Xavier. And it's called "bravado".

Why is Storm telling Rogue that the cure is a no go for ethical reasons when there's a man who has blue skin and fur sitting right beside her?

Because Storm feels that the cure is wrong, and that it is a tool of oppression. That's made pretty clear.

The movie had no depth.

Riiight. Ethical questions, moral questions, and societal issues...and it has..."NO depth". Riiight.
A good movie engages you and makes you the audience at least try and take a journey with the characters and move with the film.
Yeah. Film is a hard thing to argue over. People may enjoy the film, but looking at it critically, it is deeply flawed with massive plot holes and suffers from extremely bad dialgoue, poor acting, underdeveloped ideas and characters.
These "massive plot holes" you speak of aren't that big. "Poor acting" is almost nonexistent in this movie, and the dialogue is not "extremely bad". It's solid, pretty much all the way through. As for underdeveloped ideas and characters...every movie ever made has this. Including X-MEN and X2.

Right, bud. This coming from a guy with an X-Men avatar... Take a film analysis class. Besides, 55% of critics think the film is no good. You may not like critics, but it is something to consider. The film is bad. It has some exciting moments, but overall it is a bad film.

Critics have not "hated" this film, they've felt it doesn't live up to X2's standards. Read the reviews. They're glowing on a lot of details. So "no good" is a bit hyperbolic.

I can rip all 3 movies to shreds from a *film school* point of view. It's easy. But it's just not how I watch them. It's like "Star Wars"...I can make all the Joseph Campbell hero analogies, or I could just play the videogame.

Exactly. Almost any movie can be ripped to shreds on some level via film school standards.

Yeah, but everyone, is it so bad to ask that a movie be both entertaining and be quality, i.e. well made, at the same time? That it have a screenplay that makes enough sense not to be distracted enough for it to, itself, become comedic? (which for me, was the case with X3)

Comedic?

And i cant blame people for claiming those who like the movie will accept anything thrown at them, especially since they keep throwing lame excuses like "It's just an adaption" or "This is film, not the comics" without even thinking about what they typed.

Those are valid arguments. You can't just stick The Dark Phoenix Saga onscreen.

I mean, Lord of the Rings fans wouldnt stand for some of the crap they pulled in this flick, and neither would harry potter fans. Why should we? Honestly, some just like the movie because it has more action and comic flavor to it, which is sad. Some may have liked the emotional story, but some just liked it for the dumb jokes and action, and you could tell.

It's got both. That's whyt people like it. It's fun, it's emotional, and it's thought provoking.

 

[skruloos]

The first Batman film also got pretty high ratings. Nowadays it's a target of constant ridicule on these boards and basically a joke. Revenge of the Sith also got great reviews. I rest my case on that film. At the end of the day a critics review is no more valid than the opinion of your average joe.

I never said it was more valid. However, a lot of film critics actually have studied film and filmmaking so they can criticize a film based on objective criteria. Again, this is not an indicator of whether or not you will like it, but an indicator of the quality of the filmmaking.

It means even less to fans of the actual source material.

And the opinions of said fans means even less than any other opinion to me.

That's only if you're under the misconception that the quality of the first 2 films is that much better than X3. Unlike you and many on here my opinion is not biased. I am not part of some pro X-Men 3, pro Ratner, pro Fox fanclub. I fully expected this film to be garbage and had no expectations of it. However I can see why Singer fanboys may not like it. They're still in denial that the first 2 films had horrible underdeveloped characters and fairly dull and uninspiring stories.

Ah. You ARE biased but not in the biases you mention. And sorry but the first 2 films actually had scenes that worked for the stories they wanted to tell. They may not have been perfect to the comics but then again they were never meant to be. They were meant to work in the context of the film. Each scene actually helped flesh out each character, whether it was Cyclops monologue to Xavier, Wolverine's monologue to Rogue, or Storm's scene with Kelly in X1 or Storms scene with Nightcrawler in X2. Each character became vulnerable and were able to distill human emotion as they dealt with the issues they faced. We got very little of that in X3. We had the moment where Magneto chastises Pyro. We got a moment when Beast was seeing his human hand. We got it with two of Angel's scenes. But where else?

Did we really get to see why Rogue chose to take the cure and did it really have nothing to do with Bobby? Storm was constantly in "chastise/angry" mode. Wolverine was Cyclops and completely unlike his character in either the movies or the comics. What about Jean? When she wasn't crying or trying to get up on Wolverine, she was a zombie. Yes. Fantastic characterization there.

No. You're every bit as biased as all the people you mentioned. You're simply pro-Comic and anti-Singer.

 

[kah]

If quality and entertainment don't equal the same things, then does that mean boring "quality" movies have more value than a solidly entertaining movie?

A good, and often asked question about all forms of artistic expression. And for those who think this is "just a fun movie adapted from a comic book and not Art" and therefore is not subject to Pirsig's idea of Quality, well, this will just fall on deaf years, but . . .

In every form of Art, music being the one I know most about, the concept of "quality" comprises two things - entertainment and provocation. Provocation in terms of "questioning the norm", not in terms of low brow sexual contexts (which, of course, can also be entertaining ).

If either is missing, then the result is not "quality", therefore there cannot be a "boring quality movie". By definition, if it's boring, it's not quality.

Now, "boring", like pretty much everything artistic, is subjective. I find "Das Boot" incredibly boring, but at the same time I respect, and appreciate, it's generally accepted quality. The problem isn't with the film, it's with me.

In this context, "value" is also highly subjective. In a discussion about entertainment versus quality, which value is one talking about? Crap can be very entertaining. But "entertaining" is a very personal choice. Quality has a more catholic (lowercase "c", don't go balistic on me) aspect.

Since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (or something like that), I'd say "quality" has more "value" than "entertainment" does, and therefore "Das Boot" has more value than "Howard the Duck" (which I personally adore - but that's just me).

 

[zanos]

I never said it was more valid. However, a lot of film critics actually have studied film and filmmaking so they can criticize a film based on objective criteria. Again, this is not an indicator of whether or not you will like it, but an indicator of the quality of the filmmaking.


And the opinions of said fans means even less than any other opinion to me.


Ah. You ARE biased but not in the biases you mention. And sorry but the first 2 films actually had scenes that worked for the stories they wanted to tell. They may not have been perfect to the comics but then again they were never meant to be. They were meant to work in the context of the film. Each scene actually helped flesh out each character, whether it was Cyclops monologue to Xavier, Wolverine's monologue to Rogue, or Storm's scene with Kelly in X1 or Storms scene with Nightcrawler in X2. Each character became vulnerable and were able to distill human emotion as they dealt with the issues they faced. We got very little of that in X3. We had the moment where Magneto chastises Pyro. We got a moment when Beast was seeing his human hand. We got it with two of Angel's scenes. But where else?

Here's the problem. You and many other pro singer fans are so starved for any kind of GENIUNE character development and growth in his films that you'll just about eat up any scene where they're talking to someone other than Wolverine. Scott talking to xavier while he was unconscious in bed is meaningless because the film had never really established their bond. At least not in the way it did with him and Wolverine by the sequel. Compare Cyclops' scene with prof x or even jean with that of a visibly upset Wolverine after Xavier is blown to bits. See the difference? One is meaningful, the other just falls flat. That's because Cyclops as a character was never geniune and nothing more than a plot device, just like Jean, Storm and Professor X. You could give a rats ass about any of them except for Rogue and Wolverine. This is the magic of Singer.

Did we really get to see why Rogue chose to take the cure and did it really have nothing to do with Bobby? Storm was constantly in "chastise/angry" mode. Wolverine was Cyclops and completely unlike his character in either the movies or the comics. What about Jean? When she wasn't crying or trying to get up on Wolverine, she was a zombie. Yes. Fantastic characterization there.

Ok so Storm is angry. So? Oh I forgot you're used to her not saying much. As for Jean what difference does it make if she's a zombie or a barbie? She's still the same wooden empty character she always was. At least the writers were consistent. Wolverine was fine. You're overexaggerating.

No. You're every bit as biased as all the people you mentioned. You're simply pro-Comic and anti-Singer.

Actually you would be wrong. I could care less whether this film resembled the comic. Singer and just about ever hack director who's done a marvel film dashed any hopes of that. So you see I'm not biased.

 

[tkenji69]

Which was the wrong approach to begin with. Cyclops should have been the hero...Scott and Jean should have been the syzygy of the series ("Divine Couple") Wolverine should have been reduced to a Han Solo/Jack Sparrow type character.

This was never going to happen... Stewie... NOBODY cares about Cyclops... Singer definitely didnt care about him, with his incessant whining and basic non existence in the first two movies... FOX didnt care about Cyclops from day one when they didnt give his character a star actor like wolverine...No reason for Ratner to care about him as well. The only ones who care are the comic book "geeks". Watch all three movies again and imagine that the title of the film is Wolverine and it will all be good.

 

[skruloos]

Here's the problem. You and many other pro singer fans are so starved for any kind of GENIUNE character development and growth in his films that you'll just about eat up any scene where they're talking to someone other than Wolverine. Scott talking to xavier while he was unconscious in bed is meaningless because the film had never really established their bond. At least not in the way it did with him and Wolverine by the sequel. Compare Cyclops' scene with prof x or even jean with that of a visibly upset Wolverine after Xavier is blown to bits. See the difference? One is meaningful, the other just falls flat. That's because Cyclops as a character was never geniune and nothing more than a plot device, just like Jean, Storm and Professor X. You could give a rats ass about any of them except for Rogue and Wolverine. This is the magic of Singer.

I don't think so. Cyclops' monologue was not even a plot device as it did not even forward the plot at all, which is one of the reasons why the scene DOES work. You're so busy complaining about the fact that Cyclops wasn't the lead character and that's fine. I realize he wasn't the lead and I realize exactly why they focuses on both Rogue and Wolverine. However, Singer had the smarts to actually include scenes that revealed different sides of the characters whether or not it had something with direct relation to the plot. That's because these are character moments that exist out of the plot and this is the reason why Ratner's film fails in character development. Was the scene between Storm and Nightcrawler really needed? No. But it gave the audience a time to breathe and allowed us to actually see two sides of a different issue. Of course, if all you want is going by the numbers with nuances as subtle as sledgehammers, then all of this is going to fly over your head.

Ok so Storm is angry. So? Oh I forgot you're used to her not saying much.

Except what she DID say previously at least had her showing different emotions. The scenes with her and Kelly are completely different than the ones she has with Wolverine or with Nightcrawler. She's actually has other emotions other than angry.

As for Jean what difference does it make if she's a zombie or a barbie? She's still the same wooden empty character she always was.

Ah yes. Subtlety certainly escapes you. No wonder you prefer Ratner's approach to "character".

Wolverine was fine. You're overexaggerating.

No. Wolverine was NOT fine. He was Cyclops in Wolverine clothing.

Actually you would be wrong. I could care less whether this film resembled the comic. Singer and just about ever hack director who's done a marvel film dashed any hopes of that. So you see I'm not biased.

How does anything you just contradict my saying that you're Pro-Comic and Anti-Singer? Every argument you have made regarding this, and even this response, shows your anger at your precious comics not being adapted to your specifications.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I just view X3 as a continuation of X2, X3 isnt a stand alone movie, and it didnt need to be.

 

[Backdrifter]

This was never going to happen... Stewie... NOBODY cares about Cyclops... Singer definitely didnt care about him, with his incessant whining and basic non existence in the first two movies... FOX didnt care about Cyclops from day one when they didnt give his character a star actor like wolverine...No reason for Ratner to care about him as well. The only ones who care are the comic book "geeks". Watch all three movies again and imagine that the title of the film is Wolverine and it will all be good.

It's called a character arc and good writing.

 

[cookiva]

Ratner couldnt do anything else with him. He was brought on a few weeks before filming started, and had basically no control. He was there for name. Fox controled it. You blame anyone, blame them, the writing crew, and Matthew Vaughn. The next true X-flic will come out when Marvel starts truely creating their own films, so they can do justice to their characters, rather than Fox **** them up.