Unpopular opinions go here

[Bedrockgames]

For sure, there's no deep emotional or intellectual stuff happening in Dracula, which is what Shelley is focused on with Frankenstein.

I wouldn't say Dracula isn't deep. It does have a lot of layers, starting with how it is actually constructed as a collection of a number of different mediums (there is something very fascinating about how it does that). And as a masterclass on horror, it is a real achievement (I would also say Dracula is scarier than Frankenstein). Frankenstein I think very much hinges on the conversation between the creature and Victor. If that part of the book works for you, everything I think falls into place well. For me that is what made it so magnificent.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have seen a number of films with over 70% critic scores I thought were terrible or boring.

I don't understand why you think this is an issue.

Unless we live in a hive mind, you are going to disagree with other people from time to time. (And given your history here, maybe more than that. )

I think it is better to take them case by case, rather than as a group. I look for critics who are good at giving their honest reaction to what they experienced in the theater, because a lot of critics seem to be searching for the smartest opinion on a given film rather than just their real reaction to it

So, I know professional critics. Quite a few of them. They don't really do this, although I'm sure there are a few bad critics for online sites that do. But for the most part, this sort of complaint about critics is largely made up to justify a difference of opinion with the critics.

Having said that, I 100% agree with finding the critic you vibe with and following them. I noticed decades ago that Peter Travers (formerly of Rolling Stone) and I normally agree about 90% of the time. Even today, I check to see what he's said about a movie if I'm on the fence about seeing something.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That said, the whole point ... the whole philosophical import of Burgess's book has to include Alex maturing. That's absolutely central to the message of the book. By omitting it, Kubrick is making a completely different point that is arguably diametrically opposed to the one made in the book.

I agree. Also what I find interesting too, and going by memory is Burgess and the American publisher both have very different accounts of how that came about. But I am for letting the work stand as it was intended (and obviously there was reason he constructed that way)

 

[Thomas Shey]

The word "most" was important throughout my post.

I was reacting primarily to the first sentence, which seemed to refer to the range of reviews, rather than the range of reviewers. There are some otherwise well-respected reviewers who are vulnerable to the flaws I noted, especially the second one.

Yes, there are definitely bad critics, just as there are bad people in every industry.

They are not the whole or even the majority of critics.

If you are always running into sloppy critics, you should look elsewhere for your criticism. (The RT Top Critics list is generally a pretty good start.)

Sloppy critics are one thing; biased ones are another, and nothing I've seen over the years suggests that they aren't fairly common.

Mind you, the answer to that is that you learn about subjects a given critic is unreliable in (or is all too reliable in a negative way) and avoid them when the subject is in their bad areas (some are, too be fair, self-aware enough to try avoiding reviewing material they know they won't have some resemblance to an even approach, but in some context a critic doesn't have that choice).

 

[jdrakeh]

The only three books you need to play a years long Shadowrun campaign are the original Seattle Sourcebook, Shadowbeat, and Sprawlsites.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dr. Strangelove is a terribly unfunny movie for one thats so often recommended as a comedy. I get when its trying to be funny, but it just isn't, and it isn't an issue of not getting what its like to live under threat of M.A.D or whatever. Its just stupid and unfunny.

Humor ages strangely. Personally I still find Doctor Strange Love very funny. And I still find Young Frankenstein very funny as well (which I just saw again recently for Halloween). But watching them both as I age, I can also see how the pacing of the humor, the jokes, etc are not going to land with everyone (especially younger audiences----not suggesting you are younger as I don't know your age).

Also humor is communal. I watched Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein with my wife the other day. I remember seeing it when I was younger but don't recall finding it especially funny. However something about seeing my wife's reaction to it (she thought it was hysterical) caused me to appreciate the humor and start laughing).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't understand why you think this is an issue.

Unless we live in a hive mind, you are going to disagree with other people from time to time. (And given your history here, maybe more than that. )

Lol. I wasn't saying it was an issue. I was just using it to demonstrate where I think the idea that critics are 'typically correct' falls short. Movies are subjective. Critics are still giving their subjective opinion on movies (often that opinion will be shaped by factors outside the critic as well) and so I think there have been many, many instances, where at least for me, critics were wrong (or at the very least judged a movie unfairly or gave a film undo praise)

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, I know professional critics. Quite a few of them. They don't really do this, although I'm sure there are a few bad critics for online sites that do. But for the most part, this sort of complaint about critics is largely made up to justify a difference of opinion with the critics.

With all due respect, you may know them, but you can't get into their mind any more than I can. My impression of critics is very different here. Obviously it is speculation, I can't prove a critic is doing this, but I would argue in a lot of instances it seems very apparent this is what is being done. I also think it isn't anything nefarious about critics but just part of human nature. There are critics who are honest. I think it is very challenging to be 100% honest about your reaction to movies because people use that reaction to judge your intelligence and other things about you (so I do think a lot of times, critics are aiming for a review that is less about how they reacted and more about how they want to be seen by people)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't worry about it being changes to the source material but I share your reaction here, in that a lot of movies today seem to over prioritize the political and social message, often to the detriment of the story and characters (nothing wrong with political or socially conscious movies, but it becomes the primary goal, and when it is done in ways that feel reductive or humorless, I tend to get annoyed). And a lot of changes feel forced for that reason/ Also something about the way they do this, just doesn't land well with me a lot. I think there is a disingenuousness about it that bugs me (like they aren't making the movie they want but are making a movie that will safely navigate online conversations). That said, I wouldn't want to take that annoyance and extend it to create a general rule that changes to source material are a bad thing. I want filmmakers to use novels as a springboard, not just a paint by numbers adaptation. I also wouldn't want to take that as a general rule that messaging in movies is bad. I do want an honest movie. This is one of the reasons I like Starship Trooper's handling. It does have a heavy handed political message. But it was his honest reaction to the source material and it has an edge and humor to it that is entertaining (also he was honest about not finishing the book, which I respect given how sacrosanct finishing books are in science fiction fandom). It is also a reason why I liked Starship Troopers, Heinlein was presenting his worldview honestly.

Yup. As I said above, I want a work to be what it says it is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But I think a lot of times reasons for name changes are either to make the character more relatable to the audience of the place and time, or to distinguish the movie version versus the book version (which makes things handy when comparing them).

I believe it was in the adaptation of Earthsea that they swapped the main character’s username and Truename- probably because the latter sounded “cooler”.

“Bruce” Banner became “David” in the TV show allegedly because the original wasn’t manly enough. Note that at the time, Bruce Jenner was one of the world’s most famous athletes and was on the Wheaties box.

I was more puzzled than annoyed that they changed the name of a Doctor in The Silence of the Lambs. In doing so, they eliminated a scatological joke Hannibal was making at his expense. That’s fine, but it didn’t improve the character, and eliminated an “Easter Egg” for people who read the books.