Okay, there is a lot to unpack here...
Literally anything can be said about literally any movie ever created. I could be wrong but sounds like you're saying I shouldn't bring my subjective opinions to a discussion about a movie. Personally, if I were you and had a problem with the use of that word and was interested in having a discussion about something, I would have asked for clarification on what was meant by it but, sure, I guess just saying "thats a dumb meme" and moving on works too.
Yes, literally anything can be. However, criticisms of media tend to include arguments and examples to reinforce those arguments. So, yes you should bring your subjective opinions, but maybe build an actual argument first if you are going to play critic. If you are going to churn out a lazy critique then I am not going to put in the effort to ask you to clarify your lack of effort. Your first post about the movie was a reasonable and generalized take on why you didn't like it. I gave a meme reply about you being wrong, and then you replied with a bunch of empty phrases used in a 100-level film critique course.
First, sure, but that's not really a defense of the film as much as just a statement. If the general discussion was "Far from Home is worse than most MCU films" then yeah, but I'm talking about it as its own film. I don't really try to judge movies relative to others. B, I don't agree. On a super broad scale of "you know the bad guy will lose", sure, but on the level of basically being able to run a play-by-play in real-time with the film I definitely don't think so. Scene to scene I could basically tell everything they were going to do, I mouthed a few lines of dialogue out as characters said them because the dialogue was so bland and full of tropes and recycled lines that you could probably give the script a once-over and recite it verbatim (that's hyperbole, of course). Most Marvel films I'd say, sure, you likely have some general idea what's going to happen, but there tend to be moment-to-moment surprises, even if they're not massive plot twists. Plot is a lot more intricate than synopses; you can have an overall-predictable plot that's written well enough and cleverly enough that the moment-to-moment dialogue and actions aren't rote and predictable. That's where I feel like most Marvel movies lie. I feel like this one isn't even there.
I don't actually believe you were reciting lines with the characters, but this is a more believable criticism overall even if it isn't actually addressing any specifics of the movie.
I added "if you know the character" intentionally, since all you need to know is Mysterio is about illusion and trickery and you've already figured out "oh, all the elementals are fake, illusions he made, and he's just trying to look like a hero". Where they tried to be "clever" with it was, in the trailers, making it look like he was a hero in this interpretation and the Elementals were the villains.
Well, yes, if you know for sure that
Mysterio is the villain then yes you can make plenty of inferences. But you still didn't know for certain until things actually happened. Then hindsight kicks in and you pat yourself on the back for being right all along. It would have made for a more interesting movie to do something different with Mysterio for sure, but it plays out like every other Marvel movie.
Sounds like we're on the same page here.
In general, I think we certainly are. But we are doing high brow analysis now so we can't actually agree on anything.
I'm talking about their evolution in their movies, not during the Blip. Character arcs and development is a core conceit of filmmaking. I 100% absolutely disagree that nobody really evolves in these movies, even if the evolution can be rather standard. Even a blander film (from a critical standpoint) like Doctor Strange has him evolve from a wealthy, selfish egotist to finding passion in something and realizing that he does care about saving people. He starts out barely acknowledging other people and constantly talking about himself to listening, finding some level of humility (though certainly still cocky) and letting people in. His worldview is pretty literally expanded. His changes are not only referenced by plot, but shown in his dialogue (for one extremely small and specific example, the fact that he expected things of others early on without any response on his part, then later on would actually thank people for things), the way he carries himself, the way he acts around others, and through his actions. I picked Doctor Strange because I enjoyed the movie but I think it was, artistically, kinda mediocre and shares a number of problems with Far from Home, but I still think it did a much better job with the basics at the very least.
Doctor Strange is probably one of the most cheesy examples to use. He is basically a Mr. Scrooge that finally realizes he is capable of empathy. I liked the movie as well, but there still isn't any depth there.
If there was a movie that had a toddler in it and thirty minutes of the movie was the toddler screaming and pooping on the floor, it may be realistic but that doesn't make it a better movie. Real-life dialogue and conversations are generally not very interesting or creative, at least not the majority of the time, either; hence why I didn't complain that people spoke in too grandiose a manner or that conversations weren't meandering enough.
FFH was a slightly hyperbolic stereotype of American teenagers and seemed pretty accurate. It at least aligns with other terrible movies about teen angst and relationships.
Similar to above, I hugely disagree. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, another MCU film I'm not a big fan of, explores the concept and idea of family in an amazingly organic way. We've already seen how similarly-dysfunctional people can be brought together in the first, but the sequel then digs a little deeper into that concept, the whole movie having him search for his biological father, feeling like it would fill some hole in his heart of an incomplete family, only to realize at the very end that blood isn't what's important and that, in this case, Yondu was more of a father than Ego ever could have been. It explores the concept with Nebula and Gamora as well, their relationship as sisters and their relationship with their, uh, "adopted father".
The theme of family in GotG 2 was incredibly forced. Oh hey Yondu was really just hard on him because he was the father Peter never had. I know, let's have Peter and his real dad play magic catch in the front yard, just like all those kids back on earth. Welp, we can't have any happiness so five minutes after meeting papa it all has to fall apart. I will concede that the relationship building between Nebula and Gamora was really well done, and added a lot to later films.
And I'm curious what makes him more interesting in this than previous iterations to you, since the movie Beck is basically just any generic Mysterio from the comics, just underutilized and with way fewer interesting scenes and abilities.
Because there is a real face behind it this time. A rugged, handsome face of a guy with some acting chops. And the illusion tech was still hella cool and stayed at least somewhat true to the character. Obviously comics and animated versions have a lot more leeway on what they can do visually and stay on a budget. I'd be surprised if
Mysterio is actually dead and this wasn't just some set up for a later Sinister Six film.
In a good Mysterio appearance, in the comics, he's almost the Marvel equivalent of Scarecrow, though infinitely more flashy. He either uses his illusions to distract and confuse his foes, or he uses them to create nightmarish dreamscapes forged of their own mind (so he'd have them think; in reality, it's all tech [generally]), a chance for the hero to confront the dark side of themselves them and grow from it. Not...I dunno...sicing drones on his foe and having a shootout.
Eh, I just think you are wrong here. The dreamscapes were really cool visually and a bit mind-bending and deceptive. Peter is still too innocent in this iteration to have much a dark side. Unless he just really blames himself for Tony, which wouldn't make a lot of sense.
I played Spider-Man PS4 release date. It was very good and enjoyed it. While I appreciate all the assumptions of what I wanted and expected of the film, I've basically been telling you this entire time what I wanted from it—
Up until this post you haven't said what you wanted, so all I was left with was assumptions. You complained a bit, but offered no real examples of what you didn't like.
I assume you're interested in a discussion and not just "winning", given the effort in your response, so if you want clarification on anything all you have to do is ask. Which you get in responses, so I feel you're being a little hasty in being so dismissive. You also seem to be arguing (and I could be way off) less that this movie was decent and more that I shouldn't like other MCU movies, which doesn't have much to do with the quality of this movie. Of course, I just explained why I don't think it's the same as other MCU films so I do look forward to hearing your thoughts rather than assuming and pre-emptively dismissing them. :] I thought I made it pretty clear my expectations weren't very high before the film. Had it the depth of the game I'd be super happy with that, obviously, but I expected it to have the depth of...most okay-to-decent movies, ones that tend to accomplish more than this film in 3/4 the runtime.
I mean, there is no winning when arguing about any kind of media. I was mostly just giving you a hard time because you have mentioned that you want to work on your critiquing skills and I wanted to take you to task over it for no real reason other than to do it. Otherwise, you will end up just being another Saddam who writes paragraphs of criticisms that have no substance or original thought (not saying you do this). To me, this just isn't the movie for such an in-depth analysis. It is another generic superhero film that just happen to have some characters I like and some decent visuals. That is just my personal subjective take.
I mean if you just take a few of my critiques and don't do those, that's what they would've had to have done to make me like it. Saying "I don't think there was anything they could have done to make you like it" is nothing more than a meme trope response.
Okay, so if they would have added "soul" you would have liked it. Very tangible and very cool.
It can literally be used in every movie discussion ever. lol jk, but, for real, it's a bizarre answer that seems to insinuate you (contrary to saying you don't understand what I expected several times) very thoroughly know my expectations and what I want from a movie. Especially when my post was all about what I wanted from the movie. I like most of the MCU films. I didn't expect a Mysterio movie, but I don't think it's absurd of me to expect a character to be interesting. Batman Begins used a B-list Batman villain interestingly, and he had half the screen-time of this one. I mean damn they could've just given me a flashier Scarecrow with a fishbowl head and it would've been a way more interesting use of character than watching fishbowl-head spin around in a cloud of green dust while shooting lasers for 90% of his scenes in-character. Ant-Man had one of the most laughably bad Marvel villains but at least it used his abilities in interesting and varied ways. Even Homecoming kept putting Vulture in constantly differing situations so that he'd have to use his suit and general moveset creatively, like on the boat or in the warehouse and on the plane. I didn't want a ton from the movie, I just wanted it to be interesting in some way, to bring more than the absolute bare minimum to the table, and sometimes just nothing at all.
I still don't know exactly what you want. The examples you gave from other Marvel films about character development, depth, motivation, etc. are for the most part just as bad as everything in FFH. There is rarely any depth to it and I think you have just convinced yourself otherwise in some of these cases. I liked Mysterio overall. His
predictable woe-is-me revenge plot doesn't really explain the entirety of his character but it isn't like there are any other deep or even consistent motivations in the MCU. Hell, while Thanos is at least consistent, there is all of a few minutes explaining his motivation and how he came to the super specific conclusion he did. But, that is off the topic of FFH. At the end of the day, FFH was fun and you are wrong for not liking it. Stop trying to be so contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Show Posts
