New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 167

Thread: Cruella

  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    I mean, it seems totally fair to say that reviewing something is putting it on trial.
    Yep (adds more characters to pass the character threshold)
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Bergen

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    That's fair, but even then, Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were all standalone movies that told a complete story, and yet. The BTTF trilogy, ESB, and The Last Crusade did not need to be made, yet they all added on to the mythos of the original. Sure, by the time you hit Jaws 6 you're probably tapping an empty well, but there's no shame in taking an established property and trying to see if you can't flesh something else out of it.
    I'd argue that in this case you very much are asking, and answering, the question "Why does this need to exist". It's not a statement of "X doesn't need to be made". It just asks for a deeper justification for it's existence than "money". Something that can compel me as an audience member to watch it. Because I'm not watching something just to give Disney money. They're a business. They don't need my charity. So, the question?

    "Why did TLC need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if Indiana had to team up with his father on one of his adventures?"

    It's not much, and TLC was probably very much a cash grab. But it's a reason that I would agree with. I, having watched Indiana earlier, would very much like to see how he plays off on one of his adventures if his father is around.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryring View Post
    It just asks for a deeper justification for it's existence than "money". Something that can compel me as an audience member to watch it.
    Asking why does something need to exist is also a personal and political thing. Things exist for humans make stuff, and we feel “fulfilled” by the making, the sharing, and the experiencing. Why one thing is more fulfilling on a personal or political level is subjective.

    But no while someone can ask why is this something that may interest me that is not what went down in page 1 of the thread. It was asking why does someone think this is a good idea. It was about prejudgment of the worth of something, before seeing it, like you can judge the idea of something, even though art is not a meta construct but also an experience besides things like plots and themes. Music changes things, style changes things, dialogue changes things, delivery changes things, acting changes things, etc.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Retired Mod in the Playground Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2004

    Default Re: Cruella

    I enjoyed it, but it's not exactly a work of genius. Some of the plot twists are eyeroll-worthy, but I think the cast does a good job of selling you on something that, in lesser hands, would be absolutely awful. (Emma Stone and Emma Thompson play off each other quite well, Paul Walter Hauser is kind of adorable, in an odd way.) But I can see where, for some people, the performances aren't enough to paint over the flaws in the plotting. (The Big Plot Twist is something out of a daytime soap opera.) Basically, it's a turn-off-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-popcorn flick, not a psychological study or a socio-political commentary. If you go in hoping for the latter two, you'll probably hate it.

    It's stupid, absurd, and kinda trashy (as trashy as Disney will get anyway), but if you can take it on its own terms, it can be a fun little romp.

    As for continuity with the various versions of 101 Dalmations, I prefer to think of it as an AU. Makes more sense that way. Familiar bits and pieces re-arranged into a distinct story, rather than anything that's supposed to actually connect directly to the parent work. Now, if Disney is stupid/greedy enough (and they just might be) to try and fit this into existing continuity or do yet another 101 Dalmations that picks up where this left off...

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryring View Post
    I'd argue that in this case you very much are asking, and answering, the question "Why does this need to exist". It's not a statement of "X doesn't need to be made". It just asks for a deeper justification for it's existence than "money". Something that can compel me as an audience member to watch it. Because I'm not watching something just to give Disney money. They're a business. They don't need my charity. So, the question?

    "Why did TLC need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if Indiana had to team up with his father on one of his adventures?"

    It's not much, and TLC was probably very much a cash grab. But it's a reason that I would agree with. I, having watched Indiana earlier, would very much like to see how he plays off on one of his adventures if his father is around.
    By that logic every movie is a cash grab. "Why does Raiders of the Lost Ark need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if a college professor punched some Nazis in the desert?" It was greenlit because it was expected to make money. Spielberg regularly turned in gold because his stuff made money. J. J. Abrams regularly turns in crap because his stuff makes money. If you get to the nuts and bolts, all hollywood movies exist for the sole reason of making money.

    Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2021-06-07 at 08:12 PM.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Bergen

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    By that logic every movie is a cash grab. "Why does Raiders of the Lost Ark need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if a college professor punched some Nazis in the desert?" It was greenlit because it was expected to make money. Spielberg regularly turned in gold because his stuff made money. J. J. Abrams regularly turns in crap because his stuff makes money. If you get to the nuts and bolts, all hollywood movies exist for the sole reason of making money.

    Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.
    {Scrubbed} Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.
    Last edited by truemane; 2021-06-08 at 09:06 AM. Reason: Scrubbed

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maryring View Post
    {Scrubbed} Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.
    You're both right. Maryring is right that 'to make money' is a perfectly fine justification for those who made the movie to make it, but not the audience to watch it. Peelee is right that none of that makes "need to exist" a great term to use for something one personally doesn't want to see.
    Last edited by truemane; 2021-06-08 at 09:07 AM. Reason: Scrub the quote

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aedilred's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    I think that while asking whether something deserves to exist is a little reductive, the fundamental question at its core is one worth asking. And I think the assumption that "People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it" is, to the extent it's true, insufficient to dispel the question altogether, or at least the idea behind the question.

    And this was a commercial enterprise. Everyone who worked on the project was (one hopes) paid for their time and effort. Even if this were a labour of love I think it would be fair to ask whether it deserves to exist, but in that case the question would at least be easier to answer. Nobody was asking whether Parasite deserved to exist, but if they did, the answer would be "of course it does", not "the question is unfair".

    But this part is also interesting: "Someone thought they could get a good story out of it". Because at heart movie criticism is about cinema as an artistic endeavour whereas movie creation is principally about cinema as a commercial enterprise. We can assume that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that they could get a good story out of it, but we can't guarantee that. The most we can say is that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that the concept was capable of being spun out into a movie that would turn a profit.

    Which is really what the question is getting at, I think. We like the idea of people creating things because they have a creative idea which they want to express, and we also have a vision of the artist as a largely lone individual trying to translate their vision into their medium of choice. The (artistic) successes or failures of the resulting art can therefore all be placed at the door of the artist. With novels, music, fine art... it certainly doesn't capture the whole range, but there's often some validity to it.

    With cinema, though, we still like the idea of the director as sole creative force (hence why the director tends to get the blame when things aren't to the audience's taste) but on a project like this, it's not at all accurate. This is a project which will have emerged from the bowels of Disney's corporate structure and been run through committee after committee, gaining approval for largely commercial reasons, to the point where the creative control that any individual can exert upon it is minimal. And we clearly accept that, at least to some extent, because the director's name hasn't been mentioned once in the course of this thread except in a quote from a press release, even by those defending it.

    So I don't think the "value the time/effort/thought" argument carries nearly as much weight as it would do on a more auteur-led project, and on movies of that type I usually am much more sympathetic to them and willing to overlook flaws because at least it has heart. That doesn't fly with me for this type of movie.

    Looking at the BTTF/Star Wars, etc. discussion, I think those can actually be instructive, in particular when looking at the commercial/artistic distinction. An established, successful property will probably always make money. But artistically, one of the factors to be taken into account is how the new movie will interact with what's already there: will it add to it, or detract from it? Many of the complaints about the Star Wars prequels that one sees are not fundamentally that the films themselves are bad as films (although they mostly are!) but that the portrayal of elements of the universe, characters in particular, jars with or cheapens the original characterisation of Yoda, Vader, etc.

    Does Cruella add anything to the 101 Dalmatians story, then? It feels a bit like it's falling into the trap of the "Just So Story" prequel formula that met such derision in Solo (from, of all people, Star Wars fans!). Rich Burlew himself has commented on the pointlessness of origin stories for villainous characters seeking to explain/justify their present characters, in Origin of PCs and Start of Darkness, and on that I broadly agree.


    I haven't seen Cruella, and I probably won't. It might be a masterpiece. But it feels like the sum total of its concept pitch was "what if Maleficent, but for one of our other classic movies?" Which, if true, is fine. Up to a point. Studio staff gotta eat. I can mentally file it with all those other popcorn summer movies that I have no interest in, are of no particular artistic value, and will leave little lasting impact on cinema as a whole. So long as we recognise that there's more to cinema than this and that being profitable doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.
    GITP Blood Bowl Manager Cup
    Red Sabres - Season I Cup Champions, two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Anlec Razors - Two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Bad Badenhof Bats - Season VII Cup Champions
    League Wiki

    Spoiler: Previous Avatars
    Show
    (by Strawberries)
    (by Rain Dragon)

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Aedilred View Post

    And this was a commercial enterprise. Everyone who worked on the project was (one hopes) paid for their time and effort. Even if this were a labour of love I think it would be fair to ask whether it deserves to exist, but in that case the question would at least be easier to answer. Nobody was asking whether Parasite deserved to exist, but if they did, the answer would be "of course it does", not "the question is unfair".
    Have you read the 1964 Susan Sontag essay “Notes on Camp” ? If you have not type “Notes on Camp” into Google and it should be the first result as a pdf. Yes it is some pages long but it is a quick read of criticism and it will answer your question.

    Pretty much it answers the idea of “is it good or bad” with a different set of questions that Susan goes through with her notes, like is it interesting, is it fun, is it the right mix of artifice and self awareness that it just flows. If it is not than Susan says it is not camp (though it can be something else that is enjoyable, or it can be sour or bitter) but camp has this whimsy feeling and yadda, yadda, yadda (just go read the essay )

    Asking where a story sits in a “meta fashion” , as it creating a grand continuity is the project for some projects but not Crueler, and not Camp. Camp is being aware of the structure and not wanting to play in the preconceived rules, to play in the realm of sensibility and not a more fixed form like an idea. Sensibility is like Jello it is not a solid or a liquid, it has rules, but not the rules you expect, there are no systems or proofs, art has never been a math equation and when you are turning it into one you are being very meta and bringing expectations of the form and substance into your perception without you realizing it.

    Camp is a playfulness that attacks the “necessity” of that specific form being assumed into being, and assumed it was necessary to always be molded in that fashion, much like Oscar Wilde stand out during the Victorian Era and his books of sayings but also literary works are bringing your eye to perceive the world in a different way than before.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Maryring View Post
    Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.
    Then it's a good thing I went on to explain how I see a marked difference between "why should I watch this movie" and "why does this exist", isn't it? I agree with the former question being used, I disagree with the latter.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    Asking why does something need to exist is also a personal and political thing. Things exist for humans make stuff, and we feel “fulfilled” by the making, the sharing, and the experiencing. Why one thing is more fulfilling on a personal or political level is subjective.
    Look, if someone feels fulfilled making their passion film, that's great for them, but it's not a reason for me, the viewer, to care.

    I'm looking for a film that is entertaining in some fashion. There's a bunch of ways a movie can go about that. But if it doesn't do that job well, I don't really care about it.

    Subjectivity also doesn't prevent measurement. Some films are definitely more well liked than others. Extremely few people are going to claim that Jaws 4 is better than the original. For all practical purposes, that agreement is so complete as to be objective.

    Sure, it's fine to enjoy a bad movie, or not get enjoyment from a popular one, but we absolutely can talk about quality, same as we can discuss the relatively quality of cheeseburgers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.
    Sometimes people put in time, effort and thought, and the thing is still not great. That is the nature of life.

    We can judge both the end product and the apparent contributions of each. A number of people have suggested that the plot for this movie is weaker than the acting. That seems reasonable to me. One can dislike a film without putting the blame on a particular actor if they apparently did the best they could with what they were given to work with.

    I also concur that the assumption that anyone thought it would have artistic merit is simply invalid. It is a certainty that it was considered likely profitable, but it is fairly unlikely that it was anyone's passion project. Quite a lot of people, at least some of the time, do work simply because they have bills to pay. Not everything you work on is something you necessarily believe in.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Look, if Sometimes people put in time, effort and thought, and the thing is still not great. That is the nature of life.

    We can judge both the end product and the apparent contributions of each. A number of people have suggested that the plot for this movie is weaker than the acting. That seems reasonable to me. One can dislike a film without putting the blame on a particular actor if they apparently did the best they could with what they were given to work with.

    I also concur that the assumption that anyone thought it would have artistic merit is simply invalid. It is a certainty that it was considered likely profitable, but it is fairly unlikely that it was anyone's passion project. Quite a lot of people, at least some of the time, do work simply because they have bills to pay. Not everything you work on is something you necessarily believe in.
    I never claimed it was a passion project. Even people who work to pay the bills (most people) can take pride in what they do. I'm hardly passionate about my work currently, but I take a great deal of pride in being able to help people, especially in emergency situations. Saying "does this need to exist" about art is inherently insulting, especially because the answer is nearly always "no." There was no reason for Parasite to exist. There was no reason for Star Wars to exist. There was no reason for Citizen Kane to exist. Nobody actually questions those, though, despite them having the exact same answer to that question.

    If a movie sucks, take it to task for sucking. I have zero problem with that. But "does it need to exist" is not taking it to task. It's asking an unfair question as a double standard because very little art actually needs to exist and most art doesn't need to answer for that.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Thufir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I never claimed it was a passion project. Even people who work to pay the bills (most people) can take pride in what they do. I'm hardly passionate about my work currently, but I take a great deal of pride in being able to help people, especially in emergency situations. Saying "does this need to exist" about art is inherently insulting, especially because the answer is nearly always "no." There was no reason for Parasite to exist. There was no reason for Star Wars to exist. There was no reason for Citizen Kane to exist. Nobody actually questions those, though, despite them having the exact same answer to that question.

    If a movie sucks, take it to task for sucking. I have zero problem with that. But "does it need to exist" is not taking it to task. It's asking an unfair question as a double standard because very little art actually needs to exist and most art doesn't need to answer for that.
    I disagree. Because while the question tends to be phrased along the lines of "Why does this need to exist?" I think the general subtext is more "Why did someone feel the need to create this?" And that's usually very easy to answer, even if the answer is just "Because it's cool/fun."
    It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept. The creative people may have done great work, but the foundation of the thing is bad from the get-go, whatever you do with it. In this case, I'm willing to believe that the film has good performances, fun moments, interesting themes, etc, but all those things can be found and could have been featured in a film which was not centred around an entirely unsympathetic, cartoonish villain best known for her desire to skin puppies and turn them into a coat. The problem does not lie with the creativity put into the work, but with the decision to put that creativity to work specifically on a film about Cruella De Vil instead of something else.
    (I'll also note that I'd be willing to believe the question "Why did a Cruella movie need to exist?" could possibly have an answer beyond "Disney thought it would make money," but I've yet to see one)
    "'But there's still such a lot to be done...'
    YES. THERE ALWAYS IS."

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Thufir View Post
    It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept. The creative people may have done great work, but the foundation of the thing is bad from the get-go, whatever you do with it. In this case, I'm willing to believe that the film has good performances, fun moments, interesting themes, etc, but all those things can be found and could have been featured in a film which was not centred around an entirely unsympathetic, cartoonish villain best known for her desire to skin puppies and turn them into a coat. The problem does not lie with the creativity put into the work, but with the decision to put that creativity to work specifically on a film about Cruella De Vil instead of something else.
    (I'll also note that I'd be willing to believe the question "Why did a Cruella movie need to exist?" could possibly have an answer beyond "Disney thought it would make money," but I've yet to see one)
    I very much disagree, points to "CinemaSins" and a whole host of similar YouTube channels. We are not in a desert of this type of criticism, instead we are awash in an over-abundance of it where people do not take the premises seriously and authentically.

    We are in an over-abundance of media, when you watch a tv or movie you are practicing something called "absence / presence" your brain turns off not your entire brain area but turns off brain areas tied to situational awareness of things happening in your room and it instead increases brain activity that provides a focused attention.

    You are simultaneously absent and simultaneously present. Your brain is somewhere else and you are in the imagination space. When you watch people on the TV screen your brain is tricking another part of the brain and is thinking those characters on the screen are really here and they are real instead of just being light and sound. Those fictional characters have motives, aura, etc. They are human.

    One must choose to accept absence / presence when watching a movie, one must make a leap of faith and buy into the experience to actually experience the experience. If one does not do so, they will get a different experience while watching the film. Literally your internal feelings and mind state that you bring into the film, internally, changes your perceptions of the external experience (the film.)

    -----

    Asking why something exists prior to the experience and "how was this a good idea" is not having the faith to engage in absence / presence. If you enter the critical mindset where you just want to be a critic or judge then you will not see. Especially when you tell the other person I do not want spoilers, even though I am very confident I know how the experience is going out, and I want to "argue" this but you are not allowed to bring anything into this thread that is spoilers (Yes this actually happen in this thread.)

    A different question is, Asking another person can you sell me on this idea and convince me to spend my hard earned money to spend $10 on a theater ticket and 2.5 hours of my time. This is is a different question entirely. One is CinemaSins, the other is making a social request.


    -----

    {scrubbed}
    Last edited by Peelee; 2021-06-08 at 01:08 PM.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Thufir View Post
    It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept.
    And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe? That question, hyperbolic or not, is never leveled against movies that check the same boxes so long as you (generic "you", not specific "you") like the outcome. And if personal taste is what dictates whether a story was flawed based on its very premise and concept entirely after the fact, then that's going to be a notion I wholly reject. The ends don't justify the means one time and not another time based off how entertained one is at the ends.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2021-06-08 at 01:09 PM.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
    Uhh, pretty often in my experience, especially when it comes to sequels. I remember having heard similar criticism for Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 3, and some others that I'm forgetting off the top of my head. No, not as often as for these "antagonist prequels", but I'd argue that "antagonist prequels" are more prone to falling into the relevant trap being critiqued.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    I never claimed it was a passion project. Even people who work to pay the bills (most people) can take pride in what they do. I'm hardly passionate about my work currently, but I take a great deal of pride in being able to help people, especially in emergency situations. Saying "does this need to exist" about art is inherently insulting, especially because the answer is nearly always "no." There was no reason for Parasite to exist. There was no reason for Star Wars to exist. There was no reason for Citizen Kane to exist. Nobody actually questions those, though, despite them having the exact same answer to that question.
    Again, all original works have a reason to exist, because the story hasn't yet been told. A sequel or prequel may or may not have a reason to exist, depending on the original.

    If all you are doing is cashing in on the original and providing nothing new, then...no, there's no artistic reason for it.

    Obviously an original work isn't a mere copy.

    If a movie sucks, take it to task for sucking. I have zero problem with that. But "does it need to exist" is not taking it to task. It's asking an unfair question as a double standard because very little art actually needs to exist and most art doesn't need to answer for that.
    Of course all art needs to answer for that.

    Music that is a tired rehash of an existing song, a painting that is a mere copy, cash grab books...People can and do criticize every form of art on the same basis. You make something based on another work, with no significant new message, and people will complain about the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thufir View Post
    It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept.
    Indeed. It is a criticism on the conceptual level. Not all concepts are equally interesting or good.

    Every other level of art is criticized, why not the concepts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    One must choose to accept absence / presence when watching a movie, one must make a leap of faith and buy into the experience to actually experience the experience. If one does not do so, they will get a different experience while watching the film. Literally your internal feelings and mind state that you bring into the film, internally, changes your perceptions of the external experience (the film.)
    I think everyone is aware of the suspension of disbelief.

    This does not negate or replace criticism. If a viewer watches "The Room" and has difficulty buying into the experience, that is probably not a fault on the part of the viewer.

    Your entire argument boils down to saying that if a viewer has a problem with a film, then it is the viewer who is wrong. This, I disagree with.

    You criticize viewers for not having faith, and yet you never establish why they are entitled to our faith. I'm paying twelve bucks to be entertained. That's why I'm entitled to entertainment. There is no such reason why I must believe in the filmmaker.

    I would also disagree that CinemaSins inherently means there is no further need for criticism. Any given individual's opinion may differ from CinemaSins, and anyways, that is at least half entertainment in its own right, not pure criticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe? That question, hyperbolic or not, is never leveled against movies that check the same boxes so long as you (generic "you", not specific "you") like the outcome. And if personal taste is what dictates whether a story was flawed based on its very premise and concept entirely after the fact, then that's going to be a notion I wholly reject. The ends don't justify the means one time and not another time based off how entertained one is at the ends.
    Generally speaking, nobody consults us on if films are a good idea before the fact. If they had, I would cheerfully have given them my opinion, but pitches are generally limited to film executives and such. Of course criticism is leveled after seeing the film. That's when we have the most information to fairly criticize. Before production begins, we likely do not even know of the film.

    But when we do, we totally do mock the idea of yet another tired sequel. Look, they're remaking Space Jam this year. Is that necessary? Probably not. Are they going to somehow make it into a good movie regardless? Ehhh. Maybe. I'm not holding out much hope. Also not really seeing a ton of need for yet another Resident Evil movie that probably has very little unique to add, and will likely further the franchise's slide.

    The MCU has been overall, fairly good about giving most of the films space to breathe. Many are mostly original ideas(at least, in the sense of a film) or, as with Endgame, are a sequel that exists to answer questions following on from the previous film. There are exceptions. Iron Man 3 honestly didn't have a ton of original concepts to work with, but even there, I suppose I must give them some credit for the idea of "who is Iron Man without the suit?" which is....maybe not consistent with the rest of the world, but at least a potentially interesting question. The MCU hasn't had the same dearth of creativity at a conceptual level that other franchises have sometimes had. That's probably a major factor in their success.

    Even so, people totally do criticize the MCU when it appears that this is faltering.
    Last edited by Tyndmyr; 2021-06-08 at 02:47 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Tyndmyr why does the Simpsons exist, why does the Simpsons do references? Why do I care if something has an origin? Why do I care if something is original?

    -----
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
    Your entire argument boils down to saying that if a viewer has a problem with a film, then it is the viewer who is wrong. This, I disagree with.

    You criticize viewers for not having faith, and yet you never establish why they are entitled to our faith. I'm paying twelve bucks to be entertained. That's why I'm entitled to entertainment. There is no such reason why I must believe in the filmmaker.
    I also said you do not have to see the movie, you do not have to grant faith. But walking into a thread asking "Why was this made" and "who thought this was a good idea" is being combative when you also said I have not seen it, and then make an offhand remark do a lol did I guess everything about it without looking at spoilers.

    If you do not want to go see it then do not go see it. Your faith is your own!

    Quote Originally Posted by uncool
    And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
    Uhh, pretty often in my experience, especially when it comes to sequels. I remember having heard similar criticism for Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 3, and some others that I'm forgetting off the top of my head. No, not as often as for these "antagonist prequels", but I'd argue that "antagonist prequels" are more prone to falling into the relevant trap being critiqued.
    A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"
    Last edited by Ramza00; 2021-06-08 at 03:00 PM.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    Tyndmyr why does the Simpsons exist, why does the Simpsons do references? Why do I care if something has an origin? Why do I care if something is original?
    I haven't watched Simpsons in quite a few years, and honestly, I'm not sure why they still exist. I do feel they've gone downhill, though. Tends to happen to most series after a while. Either you finish the show up or you sort of run out of good material.

    I have a lot of respect for shows such as The Good Place, which complete their arc while things are still relatively strong and end the show on a good note, rather than eking out season after season until the show eventually goes downhill.

    I also said you do not have to see the movie, you do not have to grant faith. But walking into a thread asking "Why was this made" and "who thought this was a good idea" is being combative when you also said I have not seen it, and then make an offhand remark do a lol did I guess everything about it without looking at spoilers.
    Perhaps you need to reread my review. I explicitly stated that I saw Cruella.

    I admit my expectations were not particularly high going in. I thought it might be perhaps a 6/10 sort of film, and after seeing it, revised it to perhaps a 4/10. Not the worst film ever, but certainly not exceptional, and with some significant plot problems.

    A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"
    People ask this all the time. I can point to youtube videos right now questioning why they are remaking Highlander this year. People liked the original Highlander. They didn't so much like the sequels. The idea of another remake makes a lot of people nervous, specifically because it smells like a possible inferior cash grab.

    And for what it's worth, the Total Recall 2012 was...meh? Honestly forgettable for the most part. Many people did indeed ask why they would make that, and questioned if it was a good idea.

    You will obviously get more resistance the more people loved the original property, though. Remaking a property nobody has heard of isn't going to outrage many fans. Remaking fan favorites, well, that's going to be a lot more controversial.

    You seem to have some sort of belief that there is an unfairness at play here somehow, but all of this applies to literally everything.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"
    *raises hand*

    I did.

    I saw the previews for Total Recall and asked "WHY?" I saw the reviews with the plot changes after it came out and wondered "Who thought this was a good idea??"

    It was another case where they were never going to compare favorably to the original movie. You're going to remake a movie that featured Arnie at the height of his career? And you're going to do that with Colin Farrell, who is a good actor but NOT in the area of cheesy action movies? Yes, I wrote it off almost immediately. It didn't get discussed because it bombed at the box office, meaning anyone who was likely to discuss it didn't bother going to see it in the first place.

    The question was asked and answered with a giant shrug of indifference. The "cash grab" answer was readily apparent and nobody cared enough to defend its merits. Of which there are apparently very few.

    On the broader question of "Why does this exist" being a bad question....meh. It seems a valid shorthand for "Why THIS franchise or idea when so many better ones exist?" The question of why a movie was a good idea is also a valid one, because if you can't give a good answer to that I see little reason for me to care as an audience member.

    Take the new Matrix sequels for example. I see little value in trying to follow on from a completed trilogy with a pair of characters who died rather comprehensively in said trilogy. If they said that they were remaking the trilogy and bringing back the original actors to do so I would be on board. There's value in bringing the original into modern special effects, and there's a ton of value of re-writing Reloaded and Revolutions to have a good plot to accompany the action. Heck, the finale of Revolutions is mostly panned because of how bad the CGI was, since they were trying to do something beyond their capabilities at the time.

    In a case like that asking "Why are they doing it?" is a very good one, because the answer is "Keanu Reeves is popular again". That bodes poorly for the quality of the movie, since it means they probably didn't have a hot script leaping off the shelves at them demanding to be made.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Of course all art needs to answer for that.
    Cool. Then virtually no art needs to exist and we can stop this whole little "art" thingy once and for all. Problem solved, glad we decided art needed to answer for its existence.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodin View Post
    *raises hand*

    I did.

    I saw the previews for Total Recall and asked "WHY?" I saw the reviews with the plot changes after it came out and wondered "Who thought this was a good idea??"

    It was another case where they were never going to compare favorably to the original movie. You're going to remake a movie that featured Arnie at the height of his career? And you're going to do that with Colin Farrell, who is a good actor but NOT in the area of cheesy action movies? Yes, I wrote it off almost immediately. It didn't get discussed because it bombed at the box office, meaning anyone who was likely to discuss it didn't bother going to see it in the first place.

    The question was asked and answered with a giant shrug of indifference. The "cash grab" answer was readily apparent and nobody cared enough to defend its merits. Of which there are apparently very few.

    On the broader question of "Why does this exist" being a bad question....meh. It seems a valid shorthand for "Why THIS franchise or idea when so many better ones exist?" The question of why a movie was a good idea is also a valid one, because if you can't give a good answer to that I see little reason for me to care as an audience member.

    Take the new Matrix sequels for example. I see little value in trying to follow on from a completed trilogy with a pair of characters who died rather comprehensively in said trilogy. If they said that they were remaking the trilogy and bringing back the original actors to do so I would be on board. There's value in bringing the original into modern special effects, and there's a ton of value of re-writing Reloaded and Revolutions to have a good plot to accompany the action. Heck, the finale of Revolutions is mostly panned because of how bad the CGI was, since they were trying to do something beyond their capabilities at the time.

    In a case like that asking "Why are they doing it?" is a very good one, because the answer is "Keanu Reeves is popular again". That bodes poorly for the quality of the movie, since it means they probably didn't have a hot script leaping off the shelves at them demanding to be made.
    Was Total Recall 2014 somehow diminishing and make less the master piece that Paul Verhoeven did in 1990?

    Will Matrix 4 somehow diminish Matrix 1, 2, or 3?
    Last edited by Ramza00; 2021-06-08 at 04:15 PM.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Then it's a good thing I went on to explain how I see a marked difference between "why should I watch this movie" and "why does this exist", isn't it? I agree with the former question being used, I disagree with the latter.
    I would argue that the two are intrinsically linked. Unless we have suddenly entered some dystopian future where movies automatically deduct money from my bank account when they finish, them making money requires me to pay to see it, and me paying to see it requires me to WANT to see it.

    To that end, you could phrase "they want to make money" as "they want me to see it" and therefore the real, specific answer to "why does it exist" should be whatever quality they believe it has which will get people to see it.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lurkmoar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    Was Total Recall 2014 somehow diminishing and make less the master piece that Paul Verhoeven did in 1990?

    Will Matrix 4 somehow diminish Matrix 1, 2, or 3?
    For the former, my answer is yes. To be perfectly honest, the former film hasn't been changed and I acknowledge that.

    For the latter, can't comment on something that hasn't come out. But I'd rather see John Wick 4, then The Matrix 4.
    Last edited by Lurkmoar; 2021-06-08 at 07:38 PM.
    Don't know your name but bring the pain.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Aedilred's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bristol
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Cruella

    I think we have got hung up on the particular semantics of the specific question "[why] does this need to exist?" Very few things need to exist and art is hard to defend on that basis unless you believe that art is essential for the sustenance of the human spirit - which I do, but I recognise is hardly a universal view.

    Perhaps a better way to phrase what is essentially the same question is "[why] does this deserve to exist?" Plenty of things deserve to exist that don't need to, including a lot of living organisms. On the artistic side, Michaelangelo's David doesn't need to exist, but it unquestionably deserves to: a work of such outstanding merit that it represents something close to the pinnacle of its artform and which even if it leaves the viewer cold on a conceptual/artistic level can be admired for the quality of the craftsmanship.

    Movie 43, by contrast, neither needs nor deserves to exist.

    I think it's the latter question that's really being asked about movies like Cruella. Is either the concept or the resulting movie meritorious enough to justify the time and resources spent in its creation and being demanded of the audience, or is it solely about the benjamins?
    GITP Blood Bowl Manager Cup
    Red Sabres - Season I Cup Champions, two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Anlec Razors - Two-time Cup Semifinalists
    Bad Badenhof Bats - Season VII Cup Champions
    League Wiki

    Spoiler: Previous Avatars
    Show
    (by Strawberries)
    (by Rain Dragon)

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Aedilred View Post
    Perhaps a better way to phrase what is essentially the same question is "[why] does this deserve to exist?"
    I think we should step back even further. How about, "is the premise of this movie, regardless of the execution, engaging enough for me to bother going to see." The whole concept of justifying its existence is, while not a red herring, certainly is a bunny trail-level tangent.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    confused Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Aedilred View Post
    I think we have got hung up on the particular semantics of the specific question "[why] does this need to exist?" Very few things need to exist and art is hard to defend on that basis unless you believe that art is essential for the sustenance of the human spirit - which I do, but I recognise is hardly a universal view.

    Perhaps a better way to phrase what is essentially the same question is "[why] does this deserve to exist?" Plenty of things deserve to exist that don't need to, including a lot of living organisms. On the artistic side, Michaelangelo's David doesn't need to exist, but it unquestionably deserves to: a work of such outstanding merit that it represents something close to the pinnacle of its artform and which even if it leaves the viewer cold on a conceptual/artistic level can be admired for the quality of the craftsmanship.

    Movie 43, by contrast, neither needs nor deserves to exist.

    I think it's the latter question that's really being asked about movies like Cruella. Is either the concept or the resulting movie meritorious enough to justify the time and resources spent in its creation and being demanded of the audience, or is it solely about the benjamins?
    It is about semantics but it is about rudeness.

    Arthur Schopenhauer describes contempt as the conviction of the utter worthlessness of another human being. Now we are not talking about the worthiness of a human being we are talking about the worthiness of a media property, a piece of art.

    We have a thread where people said they like a thing, others say it is meh, and we have people who have not seen the thing yet they feel the need to express contempt and say a thing should NEVER have existed, and it was always a bad idea.

    You can not divorce the conversation’s ideas from the context of the conversation. This is a social exchange and one group of people want to express contempt at another people’s opinions, they want to be rude. They could choose to not voice an opinion, I do not go to a Super Bowl party and say Football sucks. It may be a valid opinion to hate football and hold it to contempt, I am allowed to have an opinion. But football deserves to exist for it is worthy to some people even if I find it boring with no sensible plot, it is just chaos and aesthetics, and it gets people hurt and is a waste of money and good beer. But why go to a Super Bowl party and voice this opinion?

    ————

    Asking why did it interest you, or why would it be worth my time and hard earned money are not functionally the same questions as express contempt at others. Language is social and when you ask a football fan at the Super Bowl party why does this excite you, excitement being something that sparks joy. Excite meaning to call out forth, and the suffix -ment means to do an activity. Asking someone is not rude, but proclamating like a king on high something is worthless without having seen it is not the same as asking.

    They are not functionally the same. You can not divorce the semantics from when and where you use them, the context matters!
    Last edited by Ramza00; 2021-06-09 at 10:28 AM.
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AvatarVecna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014

    Default Re: Cruella

    You're complaining about people "demanding" you perform emotional labor to convince them this movie is worth watching, but it's not like you're not putting that emotional labor in anyway - anybody who says even one word against the movie gets a dedicated section of wallpost explaining why they're wrong. If you think you're not obligated to defend the movie to anybody, you could always close the thread...so I guess everybody who's posted here is just living rent-free in your head.

    And the movie doesn't really need anybody defending it. It's doing just fine at the box office, regardless of how a number of people seem disinterested in finding out the complex emotional tapestry of the puppy-skinner; I've heard pretty great things about the costume design in particular, which makes sense for a movie that focuses on her role as a fashionista and trendsetter. But I'm not much for fashion movies, and while the right kinda "villain origin story can interest me" (I really like Maleficent, Wicked, and Twisted, for example), this particular villain doesn't evoke the same interest in me to get to know them as a person.

    I also think it's weird that you've got this whole side-thing going where you're insisting that it's not the same character? Which I mean hey, that might be technically legally correct to the disney canon, but also the movie is sold as a movie about Cruella de Vil, that's an undeniable fact. You made a comparison to Batman, where different Batmen are not assumed to take place within the same canon, but they're still all following along canon lines. They are different Batmen from each other, but they are all in the approximate area in which the Ur-Batman, the ideal Batman, exists. This movie, to hear you tell it, is like if we went to see a Batman movie and its a movie about "what if bruce wayne was from krypton, and when the planet blew up he was on a survivor pod that landed in Kansas, and he was raised to be a really good person by his small-town parents, and it turns out he's got amazing larger-than-life superpowers and he's gonna use them to make the world a better place. Now don't get me wrong, I love a good Superman movie as much as the next guy, and I of course agree that it's perfectly acceptable to say that Superman doesn't have to be like Batman. But if this is essentially a Superman movie, then why call it a Batman movie?

    "She's the heartless monster who would skin a hundred puppies for profit" is why people care about Cruella de Vil as a character. Getting in her mind is what the trailer is selling. If this (functionally) is not, in fact, the character we're already interested in, then why call it a Cruella de Vil movie, instead of making it into its own original story? Disney knew the baggage this character comes with, so why plop her name in the title if they were really making something more original than based on the old stuff?

    (I mean...if I had to guess, I would assume the answer is "if we don't make a movie about somebody from 101 Dalmatians, we lose our copyright on that property". But far be it from me to accuse Disney of being really stingy about letting their IPs open to the public.)


    Currently Recruiting WW/Mafia: Logic's Deathloop Mafia and Book Wombat's A Small Wager - A Practical Guide To Evil

    Avatar by AsteriskAmp

    Quote Originally Posted by Xumtiil View Post
    An Abattoir Vecna, if you will.
    My Homebrew

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AvatarVecna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2014

    Default Re: Cruella

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramza00 View Post
    But football deserves to exist for it is worthy to some people
    Also, "some people like it, therefore criticism is the height of rudeness" is a bad argument. A film being good (and AFAICT, this is a good film for what it's trying to be...but not good for what it was selling itself as) does not mean that the film deserved to exist if the process of its creation was problematic. There are many critically-acclaimed films that have won piles of awards that only exist because the director was being an abusive dictator behind the scenes because he treated his vision for the film as more important than the people who would help craft it.

    While this isn't quite as serious as physically or emotionally abusive directors who create masterpieces, it and many a live-action remake/sequel/prequel before it exists for securing copyrights and riding the trend of "sympathetic villain stories". Some are handled much better than others: I didn't like Maleficent as a movie, but I enjoyed Maleficent the protagonist and how she was explored. The Jungle Book was my favorite of the remakes for actually being better than the original, but that's partially cuz they made the story make sense, and making the story make sense required making Shere Khan a more understandable villain, where in the cartoon he's just evil and oozing charisma and an absolute bully and it's fantastic. The villain was worse, but it was in service of improving the story. But regardless of how the results turn out, the fact is that this ugly or beautiful tree is growing from poisoned soil - cynical soulless corporate politics, unwilling to let go of anything old that makes money, and unwilling to take risks on anything new.

    Regardless of the quality, I do not personally wish to reward moviemaking decisions that grow from this soil, so no matter how beautiful the tree may or may not be, I'll not be taking part. It's why I skipped Beauty & The Beast, it's why I skipped Aladdin even though I kinda thought/hoped it would be worth seeing, and it's why I'll be skipping this one, no matter how pretty all the dresses are.


    Currently Recruiting WW/Mafia: Logic's Deathloop Mafia and Book Wombat's A Small Wager - A Practical Guide To Evil

    Avatar by AsteriskAmp

    Quote Originally Posted by Xumtiil View Post
    An Abattoir Vecna, if you will.
    My Homebrew

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Ramza00's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Cruella

    Only mods can close threads AvatarVecna
    Stupendous Man drawn by Linklele

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •