Ww84

[False God]

Clearly. Handing such a gimme to those who would already be looking for reasons to very publicly and vocally hate the film had to have been an oversight. There's just no benefit to it.

If every movie was made with what haters thought in mind, all we'd get to watch is CinemaSins on the big screen.

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean... there are plenty of reasons to consider this movie a bad movie. My own original thoughts on it mention the Steve body switch merely in passing, noting it was weird. Of course when you get into a conversation about the body switch, thoughts get expanded, but I don't think people don't like this movie simply because of the body/mind swap. The movie is a jumbled mess that goes from boring to confusing to dark muddy fight scene. There are some minor good elements that probably made a great movie in a parallel reality.

[GloatingSwine]

If every movie was made with what haters thought in mind, all we'd get to watch is CinemaSins on the big screen.

Or the Disney live action remakes....

[Chen]

I mean... there are plenty of reasons to consider this movie a bad movie. My own original thoughts on it mention the Steve body switch merely in passing, noting it was weird. Of course when you get into a conversation about the body switch, thoughts get expanded, but I don't think people don't like this movie simply because of the body/mind swap. The movie is a jumbled mess that goes from boring to confusing to dark muddy fight scene. There are some minor good elements that probably made a great movie in a parallel reality.

This. The body swapping is a stupid plot hole for a dumb reason but it doesn't really substantially change the movie. In fact, by not actually addressing it at all, the movie would have been the same if they did just re-create Steve's body from nothing. And as such it would still have all the OTHER problems it had.

[Traab]

This. The body swapping is a stupid plot hole for a dumb reason but it doesn't really substantially change the movie. In fact, by not actually addressing it at all, the movie would have been the same if they did just re-create Steve's body from nothing. And as such it would still have all the OTHER problems it had.

I agree its hardly the one thing that makes the movie bad, but there is a difference between "These scenes dont work and confuse the story" and "What the actual *&@#& were they thinking to include something that becomes even more morally reprehensible the longer you think about it?" Its like the complaints about Man of Steel, where clarks dad basically tells him he should let people die to protect his secret, or whatever the wording was. Its just this jarring, terrible scene that basically violates everything that makes someone a hero as well as being deeply out of character in general.

[Kitten Champion]

I agree its hardly the one thing that makes the movie bad, but there is a difference between "These scenes dont work and confuse the story" and "What the actual *&@#& were they thinking to include something that becomes even more morally reprehensible the longer you think about it?" Its like the complaints about Man of Steel, where clarks dad basically tells him he should let people die to protect his secret, or whatever the wording was. Its just this jarring, terrible scene that basically violates everything that makes someone a hero as well as being deeply out of character in general.

I think in this case - though couching this by saying I haven't seen the actual movie - this is a matter of unfortunate implications. The WW84 creative team didn't think an aspect of their movie through, anticipating one reaction (a fun reference for classic WW fans) and getting another (That's kind of squicky).

Man of Steel on the other hand, that's how Jonathan Kent was supposed to be portrayed. That scene is part of the thematic underpinnings of the movie, and is boldly highlighted for its significance. It's just that the philosophic vision for Man of Steel as portrayed in its many speeches and symbolic imagery was and is... controversial. Ya'know, for lack of a more diplomatic word. You can't really remove it from the movie as Clark's arc - such as it is - doesn't make sense without understanding the Kent's mindset.

The comparison for the WW84 which comes to mind for me isn't another Superhero movie though, it's The Crimes of Grindelwald. As in, the whole thing with Nagini being revealed as actually being a Korean woman once-upon-a-time. I'm sure in Rowling's mind that was going to be a neat connection to the Harry Potter series as this nugget of lore inserted into her prequel thing-y. However, a lot of the audience didn't view it that way, and for something that added nothing to the overall narrative and could've been wholly removed, we now have to deal with the implications for Nagini's role in the Harry Potter novels as a whole.

Edit: Like was said though, Nagini's reveal wasn't the reason The Crime of Grindelwald isn't a beloved masterpiece, it's just one link in a chain where you can point to and say "that's not the greatest decision you could've made".

[LaZodiac]

You're right in every respect except for JK Rowling doing it on accident. I have no faith she didn't have at least a part of her having it be entirely on purpose.

[Kitten Champion]

You're right in every respect except for JK Rowling doing it on accident. I have no faith she didn't have at least a part of her having it be entirely on purpose.

Sure, but I don't really have the energy or mindset to care what her authorial intent really was. I'm just going by the usual reason a reference is included into a prequel to a popular Hollywood property - and the reason given for WW84's dilemma - because the reference evokes memories of the works we presumably have some deep-seeded affection/nostalgia for and [that = good enough].

Honestly, whether Rowling understood what she was doing with Nagini or she was wholly ignorant of it... I don't think either way makes her look particularly wise.

[Dienekes]

Apologies for the tangent but having not seen Grindelwald, what was the problem with Nagini? A snake that was too clever to be just a snake in the original series is now a person who I assume got transformed into a snake via magic mumbo jumbo.

Seems pointless, but fine.

[GloatingSwine]

"White man keeps transformed asian woman as pet" is not exactly a Good Look.

But by JK Rowling's standards it's positively woke, so.....

[Kitten Champion]

Apologies for the tangent but having not seen Grindelwald, what was the problem with Nagini? A snake that was too clever to be just a snake in the original series is now a person who I assume got transformed into a snake via magic mumbo jumbo.

Seems pointless, but fine.

Well, the main thrust of it was turning what was little more than a pet - with no agency or basic humanity - of the White wizard supremacist in the books into what is now canonically understood to be a Korean woman with a horrible disease, steps on several pretty ugly stereotypes.

Then, when prompted on Twitter, Rowling decided to explain that Nagini is a reference to Naga, which she credited as being Indonesian folklore and thus it's all okay, apparently. With the actor herself being Korean and the Naga myth primarily being rooted in Hinduism, the tweet reeked to many of "it's all Asian so whatever" kind of mentality.

The underlining point for many critics was that Rowling wanted to force diversity into her Wizarding World and had been trying to rewrite what many perceive as her more parochial sensibilities through these kinds of abrupt retcons, and genuinely doesn't know what she's doing.

Lastly, when it was optimistically argued that all the contention surrounding Nagini would be resolved by the movie's release which would put her into some kind of thoughtful context, the answer turned out to be no. She's superfluous... and in a movie that's so ineptly assembled stands out as yet another thing rammed into the script.

[The Glyphstone]

IIRC, she didn't even get any dialogue. Just stood around next to the villain, frowning and looking like eye candy in a dress every scene she was present in.

[Traab]

You're right in every respect except for JK Rowling doing it on accident. I have no faith she didn't have at least a part of her having it be entirely on purpose.

I will be honest, I dont believe much of anything rowling has revealed about her characters after the books came out. Primarily because almost every single one of them had absolutely no hint in the novels and it made no difference to the events. Its like revealing that dennis creevy was actually not anglican. Okaaaay? It just felt like strange attempts to stay trending in twitter or something more than expanding her universe in ways that matter. Maybe believe is the wrong term, a better one might be "care" i dont care, because most of her reveals are meaningless and not supported by anything. They just feel like silly things being tossed out at random to trigger a discussion. Sorry for the tangent, it just always seems to bug me whenever her reveals get brought up and the motive behind them.

[Dienekes]

"White man keeps transformed asian woman as pet" is not exactly a Good Look.

But by JK Rowling's standards it's positively woke, so.....

I mean, it's the villain. Literally Magic Mega Hitler, so I don't really expect them to get the good looks treatment.

Well, the main thrust of it was turning what was little more than a pet - with no agency or basic humanity - of the White wizard supremacist in the books into what is now canonically understood to be a Korean woman with a horrible disease, steps on several pretty ugly stereotypes.

Then, when prompted on Twitter, Rowling decided to explain that Nagini is a reference to Naga, which she credited as being Indonesian folklore and thus it's all okay, apparently. With the actor herself being Korean and the Naga myth primarily being rooted in Hinduism, the tweet reeked to many of "it's all Asian so whatever" kind of mentality.

The underlining point for many critics was that Rowling wanted to force diversity into her Wizarding World and had been trying to rewrite what many perceive as her more parochial sensibilities through these kinds of abrupt retcons, and genuinely doesn't know what she's doing.

Lastly, when it was optimistically argued that all the contention surrounding Nagini would be resolved by the movie's release which would put her into some kind of thoughtful context, the answer turned out to be no. She's superfluous... and in a movie that's so ineptly assembled stands out as yet another thing rammed into the script.

But this seems fair enough criticism. Though a part of me feels it may be less bad if written better. Person with problem lashing out at others about it is something that happens in real life. Quite a lot and can be examined in fiction easy enough. It just seems like she didn't examine it all just kinda threw it in. Since the whole "she said nothing/had no agency" stuff other posters have brought up.

Glad I didn't waste time on the movie then.

[Dr.Samurai]

Re: Agency

It seems to me that complaining that a Korean woman chose to be loyal and devoted to a white man is removing agency from her. Like... everyone else in the Potter-verse is allowed to be a death eater or secretly working for Voldemort but if it is a person of color it's a problem.

He's evil. He controls, abuses, kills whoever he wants. If he has Nagini under mind control or if she actively follows him, she is no different than any other character in the same circumstance. Except for some people, she is, because she's not white.

[LaZodiac]

The issue is that there's a lot of bigoted **** attached to Asian folk and reptiles. It's not just that this character is a Korean woman who becomes the slave of a wizard nazi, it is a number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues.

Also it is worth noting that she didn't... choose, to be loyal. The curse just forces her to become a snake. And also it is mentioned among other things that Voldemort basically nursed himself back to health on her milk. It's all sorts of gross unfortunate implications that all stem from the decision to make this basic ass Evil Snake Pet into... a living sentient woman who was cursed to become a mindless serpent, and who receives no characterization beyond being a morality tether for another character.

And for the record if any other character WAS in her predicament, we would hate that as well! Like how everyone ****in' hates the werewolf character because the presentation of lycanthropy comes off as just bad AIDS symbolism.

[Ramza00]

Re: Agency

It seems to me that complaining that a Korean woman chose to be loyal and devoted to a white man is removing agency from her. Like... everyone else in the Potter-verse is allowed to be a death eater or secretly working for Voldemort but if it is a person of color it's a problem.

He's evil. He controls, abuses, kills whoever he wants. If he has Nagini under mind control or if she actively follows him, she is no different than any other character in the same circumstance. Except for some people, she is, because she's not white.

Symbolism is not just something that comes out of nothing, it is not Creatio Ex Nihilo, it always build on existing imagery and symbolism even if the reader is not aware of it. It is an additive process, layers upon layers that add new meaning onto old until it becomes shorthand and you forget the old. How many people remember the female maiden names of the the 4 mothers who birthed their grandparents (aka the female great grandparents) ? These details, these gifts, these meanings did not come out of nowhere, we merely forgot them, much like you can not remember the name of 4 out of 8 great grandparents.

One aspect of criticism, one of many, is asking why are you adding to harmful stereotypes? It is always a choice, and you do not have to do it. It is an act of “Agency” on the creator when they choose to continue said stereotypes that hurt people, it is a choice.

In the last page I referenced the Thermian Argument, where writers give in universe reasons why they continue toxic stereotypes. Yeah, you have in universe reasons, that you created, but one of the reason art is art is due to the cultural influence, and you are playing a carnival game.

It is a cultural product when it is beneficial, and when people criticize your toxic storytelling choices, it is merely a story stop being sensitive.

[Traab]

The issue is that there's a lot of bigoted **** attached to Asian folk and reptiles. It's not just that this character is a Korean woman who becomes the slave of a wizard nazi, it is a number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues.

Also it is worth noting that she didn't... choose, to be loyal. The curse just forces her to become a snake. And also it is mentioned among other things that Voldemort basically nursed himself back to health on her milk. It's all sorts of gross unfortunate implications that all stem from the decision to make this basic ass Evil Snake Pet into... a living sentient woman who was cursed to become a mindless serpent, and who receives no characterization beyond being a morality tether for another character.

And for the record if any other character WAS in her predicament, we would hate that as well! Like how everyone ****in' hates the werewolf character because the presentation of lycanthropy comes off as just bad AIDS symbolism.

Snakes dont have milk, he used her venom. Unless you are talking about something other than the whole book 4 tri wiz thing. If so my bad. And honestly, I dont recall hearing anything serpent related to insulting asians. Im not saying there arent any, just that ive heard a LOT of nasty bigoted things for a lot of races and such over the years, but nothing related to asians and reptiles that I can think of offhand.

[LaZodiac]

Snakes dont have milk, he used her venom. Unless you are talking about something other than the whole book 4 tri wiz thing. If so my bad. And honestly, I dont recall hearing anything serpent related to insulting asians. Im not saying there arent any, just that ive heard a LOT of nasty bigoted things for a lot of races and such over the years, but nothing related to asians and reptiles that I can think of offhand.

I was probably thinking of that yeah, and got my wires crossbreed with the order to milk Nagini.

Here are some things Reptiles have that racists believe Asians have; scaled yellow skin, slanted slit eyes, lispy s's due to their forked tongues, claws, and so on. There's other reptile and snake associations with the whole "in Veitnam they'd slither around and ambush you like cowards" and so on. It's all nasty stuff that is, correctly, forgotten about in modern day.

[Dr.Samurai]

The issue is that there's a lot of bigoted **** attached to Asian folk and reptiles. It's not just that this character is a Korean woman who becomes the slave of a wizard nazi, it is a number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues.

I would just say that, up until you educating me on this, I had no idea. So I ask, is it reasonable to expect an author to know this "number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues"? Because I didn't.

Secondly, is it then reasonable to expect that when these factors are revealed to said author, they should care as much as other people do and take action?

Because again, to use myself as an example, I don't. I appreciate the different perspective on this but I truthfully do not see the harm and I HIGHLY doubt that many people saw racism when they watched the movie.

[LaZodiac]

I would just say that, up until you educating me on this, I had no idea. So I ask, is it reasonable to expect an author to know this "number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues"? Because I didn't.

Secondly, is it then reasonable to expect that when these factors are revealed to said author, they should care as much as other people do and take action?

Because again, to use myself as an example, I don't. I appreciate the different perspective on this but I truthfully do not see the harm and I HIGHLY doubt that many people saw racism when they watched the movie.

If Nagini was the only time JK Rowling shoved her foot in her mouth, wrote a racist stereotype, or generally made an ass of herself publically, I'd be more inclined to assume she might not know.

But, suffice to say, it is simply the latest in a long line of a woman pissing any respect she had away because she just can't stand those trans folk.

[Ramza00]

If Nagini was the only time JK Rowling shoved her foot in her mouth, wrote a racist stereotype, or generally made an ass of herself publically, I'd be more inclined to assume she might not know.

But, suffice to say, it is simply the latest in a long line of a woman pissing any respect she had away because she just can't stand those trans folk.

Yep context matters. People create good faith, skeptical, etc based off history with an individual person.

[CharonsHelper]

Snakes dont have milk, he used her venom. Unless you are talking about something other than the whole book 4 tri wiz thing. If so my bad. And honestly, I dont recall hearing anything serpent related to insulting asians. Im not saying there arent any, just that ive heard a LOT of nasty bigoted things for a lot of races and such over the years, but nothing related to asians and reptiles that I can think of offhand.

The only one I've ever heard is the old "dragon lady" trope - which I'm not sure counts as a "reptile" thing, since dragons aren't real. Which interestingly, my wife (who is from China) had never heard of before I mentioned it at one point.

[False God]

I would just say that, up until you educating me on this, I had no idea. So I ask, is it reasonable to expect an author to know this "number of factors that all compound into one gigantic mess of issues"? Because I didn't.

Yes. If you're going to write about it, you should know something about it. And many authors do this because it adds a level of credibility and quality to their writing that is plainly visible. Now, JK may not have thought Potter would blow up like it did when she wrote it, and just not given two kicks, but that's....not a good excuse.

Secondly, is it then reasonable to expect that when these factors are revealed to said author, they should care as much as other people do and take action?

Yes. Because if your ultimate argument is "I don't give a hoot." Well then the complaints about your character, or JK's, are justified. Mistakes are understandable, but as mistakes they should be corrected. If you make a mistake and just say "Well, I don't care." then that's all on you, because people should care. Because not caring perpetuates the acceptability of such things.

Because again, to use myself as an example, I don't. I appreciate the different perspective on this but I truthfully do not see the harm and I HIGHLY doubt that many people saw racism when they watched the movie.

If you don't see the harm, you don't understand the issue. If you didn't see the racism, ignorance is an acceptable excuse...once. If you knew, saw, and still don't care well...that's on you. And if your response to that is "I'm okay with that." Then understand some people may not be okay with you. As people are thusly not okay with JK.

[M1982]

Well, the main thrust of it was turning what was little more than a pet - with no agency or basic humanity - of the White wizard supremacist in the books into what is now canonically understood to be a Korean woman with a horrible disease, steps on several pretty ugly stereotypes.

But isn't that the point? He's supposed to be wizard Hitler, isn't he?

[Traab]

The only Cinema Sins video I've watched was the one for the Mad Max: Fury Road. The main things I remember are them complaining about a tree not being uprooted literally moments before it gets uprooted and a spectacular inability to understand character arcs. This kind of stuff is less "nitpicking the plot to the exclusion of everything else" and more "filling out complaints on the fly with literally no revision and no ability to understand media in order to churn out a video that only YouTube's algorithim could see merit in."


Sometimes you just have to make room for more onscreen baby deaths. Everyone knows that deep themes and high stakes are constructed from dead babies. The next Fantastic Beasts film is supposed to be "big", so I anticipate 3-4 times as many baby murders.


In all fairness, there is a deleted scene in which Credence and Nagini say words to each other. However, the editors were right to cut it out -- it really doesn't do anything. Nagini also doesn't join Grindlewald at the end because it would have been out of character for her to do something. Also in all fairness, Nagini's personality is one part moldy cardboard and one part ugly tropes, and she should never have existed.

Cinema sins is a lot like Death Battle. They do a lot of stuff just to trigger responses. Watch it if you find them amusing, not to find serious consideration of a movies flaws. The sins list is a solid swirl of real issues, joke issues, and wrong issues. The last two make people want to discuss it in the comments section which means people come back to the video a few times to reply to replies and such.

[Kitten Champion]

The main problem with Cinema Sins is that they popularize a way of viewing and critiquing media which is pretty shallow and can be actively harmful in one's comprehension and appreciation of a work. Deconstructing a work into talking points that treats art criticism as though it were empirical analysis where one could derive whether a work is good/bad through this warped Sin-esque measurement system where they're objectively "right" but lack any genuine critical thought or emotional engagement with it.

Sure, they've got the insulating element of being essentially a comedy routine, and Cinema Sins can do some effective comedic delivery if nothing else... but every time I see someone claiming one of their videos as justification for a work being terrible or claim they've "destroyed" a particular piece of media, I just cringe.

It's kind of like how certain people discover the concept of tropes - or just the TVtropes website - and start seeing all media through the prism of recurring fictional elements and clichés. It's annoying, basically.

[GloatingSwine]

The main problem with Cinema Sins is that they popularize a way of viewing and critiquing media which is pretty shallow and can be actively harmful in one's comprehension and appreciation of a work. Deconstructing a work into talking points that treats art criticism as though it were empirical analysis where one could derive whether a work is good/bad through this warped Sin-esque measurement system where they're objectively "right" but lack any genuine critical thought or emotional engagement with it.

Sure, they've got the insulating element of being essentially a comedy routine, and Cinema Sins can do some effective comedic delivery if nothing else... but every time I see someone claiming one of their videos as justification for a work being terrible or claim they've "destroyed" a particular piece of media, I just cringe.

It's kind of like how certain people discover the concept of tropes - or just the TVtropes website - and start seeing all media through the prism of recurring fictional elements and clichés. It's annoying, basically.

They also make hostile edits to the work for the sake of jokes about it.

If you watch Cinemasins, you are watching youtube wrong as well as watching movies wrong.

[Ramza00]

They also make hostile edits to the work for the sake of jokes about it.

If you watch Cinemasins, you are watching youtube wrong as well as watching movies wrong.

Yeah I liked Cinemasins in 2013 when the videos were short.

But when the videos became longer I realized more of their craft and what they are doing. If you are not familiar with the founders of Cinemasins they are two former SEO, search engine optimizers, and viral content creators prior to creating the Cinemasins youtube channel.

They do those hostile edits and other things for they understand how to create engagement and other algorithm nonsense. And it becomes far more obvious the longer the videos get, for they get more money with how YouTube restructured their algorithm from short videos to long videos. They are incessant nitpickers trying to fill time. But that is not worse of it, in my opinion creating nonsense and hostile edits to fill time and drive engagement means they are not doing anything in good faith, it is all a hustle.

And you are allowed to do hustles, not everything has to be done in good faith but why should I care about you when I know you are not on the level and I can see the grift one is doing?

[Traab]

Honestly? I dont get the issue. I mean, why the heck is ANYONE taking cinemasins seriously as a source for determining whats "wrong" with movies? From the first time I watched it I knew it for what it was. An amusing joke not to be taken seriously. The closest they get to "seriously" critiquing is poking fun at tropes. Half their "plot holes" are blatantly not, and all in all, they arent reviewing the movie like say, nostalgia critic, just doing fast edits and funny comments. You might as well take HISHE as your source of movie reviewing.