Unpopular opinions go here

[Reynard]

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

That and extremely tiresome philosopolitical screeds.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: Movie Critics

I will forever remember Siskel & Eberron reviewing The Running Man (Arnold Schwarzenegger action flick) and completely misunderstanding the film. It was very much an “Old Man Yells At Clouds” moment.

Re: game movies:

I’d want to see someone TRY to adapt Munchkin, Cards Against Humanity, M:tG, and Paranoia for the big or small screen.

 

[Reynard]

Funny. Me, too.

Me, too.

Respectfully, that's a personal opinion hiding behind an appeal to authority. And suggestive that you need to read a lot more books. Frankenstein is an absolute classic for a reason.

It continues to frustrate me that you don't seem to understand the difference between offering a biographical detail for context, and appeal authority. Immensely so.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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).

I have been soldiering through History of World, Part II, on Hulu. I probably saw the original more than 100 times (it was the first VHS cassette my family owned.)

While there are still some very funny bits, for the most part, the new one is largely a giant waste of time, as much as I'd love to love it. (Mel Brooks should be on the Mt. Rushmore of comedy, in my mind.)

This feels very much like something he could have written in the 1980s (the CGI effects would have been trickier back then), but since he didn't, it mostly falls flat today, IMO.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Re: game movies:

I’d want to see someone TRY to adapt Munchkin, Cards Against Humanity, M:tG, and Paranoia for the big or small screen.

I think we are getting to the point that the general public is familiar enough with fantasy tropes, thanks especially to Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, that a parodic take seems inevitable. Going with Munchkin -- assuming the naming rights wouldn't be an issue for the film -- seems like a good route.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I actually know and talk to them about your jobs. You imagine what they're doing. And you feel this is equivalent?

No, but I don't think someone on the internet saying they know critics means a whole lot to be honest. I have known critics too. I have a very different impression of what is going on than you do. And I still think knowing someone doesn't give you access to their thoughts. I've known plenty of people in key jobs, like the security industry for example, where it they say one thing about why they are doing it, but eventually over time you start to suspect there are other motivations people aren't sharing. If someone is sculpting their opinion to have the smartest take, or for any other reason that isn't their genuine reaction, they are rarely going to share that with you. They are just going to tell you it is what they honestly think

I could imagine you're an anthropomorphic kangaroo typing at a keyboard. That wouldn't make my opinion comparable to someone who actually knows you.

Sure, but that isn't what I am doing. I used to be a string reporter and have been pretty engaged in online criticism. I am no pro-critic, but I think my opinion on this is more informed than imagining a kangaroo typing

 

[Reynard]

I think we are getting to the point that the general public is familiar enough with fantasy tropes, thanks especially to Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones, that a parodic take seems inevitable. Going with Munchkin -- assuming the naming rights wouldn't be an issue for the film -- seems like a good route.

Wouldn't CAH just be a Andrew Dice Clay comedy special?

 

[overgeeked]

It continues to frustrate me that you don't seem to understand the difference between offering a biographical detail for context, and appeal authority. Immensely so.

Oh, I do. Which is why I keep mentioning it. I even got a minor in philosophy to back it up.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I have yet to have a movie critic's opinion matter to my viewing choices. Or any Hollywood award, either.

The same goes for RPGs: awards mean zip to me, and I never bother to pay attention to 'authors'.

I do pay attention to a few companies, based upon proven production standards.

To render this in opinion format: awards and authors don't matter to me; quality of maps and detail of product does. I'm the one who is going to add the polish and make a product come alive at the table.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Whats peculiar is that I find a lot of old comedies funny. Arguably most of them. I enjoy the Three Stooges just as much as Abbott and Costello, and even the Marx brothers.

I think some types of comedy age better than others, even types that don't work for everyone. "Who's on First?" still tends to work for a lot of people because once you understand its a case of really bad communication fail right at the start, all that has to work is for Lou Costello (or whoever is replacing him in doing the bit) becoming progressively more frustrated for reasons you quite understand but eh doesn't. That's not a universal (nothing is) but frustration is not a time-bound source of humor.

Sometimes more subtle humor fails because it requires a particularly cultural context to work. The Three Stooges is distinctly a matter of taste (they never did anything for me), but slapstick is slapstick, and if modern versions work for you or ones from your particular culture, others likely will too (Jackie Chan demonstrated that for decades).