|
Post by tonebone on Mar 28, 2022 12:26:36 GMT -5
I saw E.T. when it was first released and found it not bad but... disappointing. Too sickly sweet, too emotionally manipulative for my taste, then and now. Maybe if I'd been 12 instead of 24 when I first saw it, I'd have reacted differently. As it is, I still consider it one of Speilberg's least interesting films. Cei-U! I summon the different drummer! I was 12 when it came out and I liked it. But I'm not sure if I ever rewatched it and have no wish to revisit it. I find most of Spielberg's work too saccharine and emotionally manipulative, as you say. Isn't that the whole point of most art/fiction? To manipulate emotions? I don't think anyone ever set out to artistically leave your emotions untouched. "It was such a great movie... such a rollercoaster ride of feeling cold and numb inside." I think most people who complain about Spielberg's "emotional manipulation" is really complaining that he's GOOD at it. He's achieving what others wish they could in their movies, but haven't cracked the code. OR he's manipulating the wrong emotions - the ones they wouldn't choose to. Like, manipulating my abject fear is ok, but to make me feel distraught because ET is dead, is manipulative.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 28, 2022 12:32:16 GMT -5
What’s good about entertainment, whether it be wrestling, comicbooks or films, is that there’s something for everyone. Some people like certain things, other people don’t. The CRISIS discussion by @jaska is a case in point. Some like it, some don’t. Is consensus (or near consensus) possible in the world of entertainment? Is there something that is almost universally liked or disliked? In my life, I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t like BACK TO THE FUTURE. Sure, there must be someone on Earth who doesn’t, but every conversation I’ve had about it has been positive. E.T. is another example. Even my mother, who probably doesn’t gravitate towards sci-fi like other genres, liked that. On the other side of the coin, there are things that seem almost universally disliked. I can’t say I’ve known anyone who liked the movie HOWARD THE DUCK. I didn’t. But there must be someone on Earth who does. What of comics? What might be universally liked/disliked? It’s all about perception, of course. And who you speak with. As I type this, perhaps the postman will ring the door and start telling me how much he disliked BACK TO THE FUTURE (or maybe that won’t happen). I can only go by the conversations I’ve had, but here’s some examples: Peter David’s Hulk run, Greg Pak’s Hulk run, BATMAN: YEAR ONE, etc. Any time I have had a conversation about those runs, it’s been positive. On the other side of the coin, SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE, which is poor, seems to have been universally panned, whether by people I’ve chatted with or comic journalists. Can’t say I’ve heard much positivity about THE CLONE SAGA as a whole. Disappointingly for me, I have heard a lot of negativity about Bronze Age Spidey, but that’s one of my favourite eras, whether it be due to the development of Parker’s supporting cast, new villains showing up, Parker maturing, etc. So here’s your opportunity to let me know I’m not the only Bronze Age Spidey fan on Earth. What do you think is almost universally liked/disliked? Personally, I never found Back to the Future interesting. By the mid 1980s, I was already tired of filmmakers who worked with/for Spielberg, and was never much of a fan of the "Spielberg-izing" of fantasy films post-1982 (when E.T. was released--the worst mainstream sci-fi film released that year without question). BTTF was overloaded with far too many stereotypes of American culture / pop-culture to be amusing (more like obsessive), and the strong implication of McFly's guitar performance (at the dance) ultimately influencing Chuck Berry was downright offensive for reasons that should be obvious. Regarding Bronze Age Spider-Man, I've not met many who have a negative opinion of it, since it hit the decade of the 70s running with some of the greatest stories and art ever published. If it had a low point, it was between 1977-79, when it could no longer maintain the astounding highs of the Lee/Conway/Romita/Kane artistic force that made The Amazing Spider-Man one of the few examples of "must read" comic books.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 28, 2022 12:33:43 GMT -5
One of the many things I love about this community is that we don't have much Kool Aid available. Short of having any Bob Kane defenders around, we seem to have just about every point of view represented, whereas facebook groups are often a hivemind where independent thought gets slammed. It is so refreshing to find folks here who don't think The Killing Joke was the end all, be all Joker story, or that John Byrne is the greatest comic creator of all time. That being said, I can think of at least two iconic stories that I've never seen anyone slam around here: Untold Legend of The Batman and Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow?I think what I find great about Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is that it SEEMS that Moore is throwing defeat after defeat at Superman. Killing his friends, his enemies, ruining his world, his life, revealing his identity. I would guess Moore had a longer list of bad stuff, but just picked the worst thousand he could think of. BUT, through it all, Superman never breaks character. He never stops thinking of others first, never abandons his friends, never gives up. Moore bends Superman about as far as he could, but it never once occurred to him to break him. He uses all of this turmoil around the character to even more strongly define him as the character we all, Moore included, grew up loving.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 28, 2022 12:35:50 GMT -5
Popular things are appreciated 95% of the time, unpopular things 5% of the time. 95% of people like at least one thing that falls into the 5% unpopular above. I was told there would be no math.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 12:39:52 GMT -5
Popular things are appreciated 95% of the time, unpopular things 5% of the time. 95% of people like at least one thing that falls into the 5% unpopular above. I was told there would be no math. Lol!!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 28, 2022 12:43:56 GMT -5
One of the many things I love about this community is that we don't have much Kool Aid available. Short of having any Bob Kane defenders around, we seem to have just about every point of view represented, whereas facebook groups are often a hivemind where independent thought gets slammed. It is so refreshing to find folks here who don't think The Killing Joke was the end all, be all Joker story, or that John Byrne is the greatest comic creator of all time. That being said, I can think of at least two iconic stories that I've never seen anyone slam around here: Untold Legend of The Batman and Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow?I think what I find great about Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is that it SEEMS that Moore is throwing defeat after defeat at Superman. Killing his friends, his enemies, ruining his world, his life, revealing his identity. I would guess Moore had a longer list of bad stuff, but just picked the worst thousand he could think of. BUT, through it all, Superman never breaks character. He never stops thinking of others first, never abandons his friends, never gives up. Moore bends Superman about as far as he could, but it never once occurred to him to break him. He uses all of this turmoil around the character to even more strongly define him as the character we all, Moore included, grew up loving. I guess that's the major difference between that and the stuff Moore went on to write for DC. The Watchmen broke, The Joker broke (and arguably so did Batman), and that stuff (along with Frank Miller's work) went on to inspire a whole generation of writers obsessed with breaking heroes.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 28, 2022 12:54:31 GMT -5
I think what I find great about Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is that it SEEMS that Moore is throwing defeat after defeat at Superman. Killing his friends, his enemies, ruining his world, his life, revealing his identity. I would guess Moore had a longer list of bad stuff, but just picked the worst thousand he could think of. BUT, through it all, Superman never breaks character. He never stops thinking of others first, never abandons his friends, never gives up. Moore bends Superman about as far as he could, but it never once occurred to him to break him. He uses all of this turmoil around the character to even more strongly define him as the character we all, Moore included, grew up loving. I guess that's the major difference between that and the stuff Moore went on to write for DC. The Watchmen broke, The Joker broke (and arguably so did Batman), and that stuff (along with Frank Miller's work) went on to inspire a whole generation of writers obsessed with breaking heroes. I 1000% agree. Watchmen, I don't mind, since they were created to be broken (Charlton inspirations, aside). It IS a lot easier to break than create. Also, as an addendum to my comments above, if you want to see Moore's love for Superman on the page, check out Supreme. Silver age Superman is in the guy's blood.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 12:55:24 GMT -5
I guess to me, Whatever Happened to the Man of Steel? was just an imaginary story, for whatever that was worth. It wasn't his actual "final story" in my mind or important to canon (old or new), and no different from prior imaginary stories he had over the years other than Moore's darker approach to storytelling. Basically just an entertaining Elseworlds story.
Heck, by comparison, Marvel's earlier classic What If? run is probably considered much lighter fare, but bad things were always happening to the characters there as well. Lot of sad endings.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 28, 2022 13:23:35 GMT -5
Definitely agree with Kurt (Cei-U) and a few others: Batman Year One thoroughly underwhelmed me. And it was more of a Jim Gordon story anyway. And I'll even go one further and say that I'm not as gaga over Mazzucchelli's art as everyone else seems to be - I don't hate it, I just don't think it's all that great, either. (I am, however, impressed with the number of double consonants in his surname.)Wpuld have been cool if he had been a bookkeeper.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 28, 2022 13:24:33 GMT -5
I think what I find great about Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is that it SEEMS that Moore is throwing defeat after defeat at Superman. Killing his friends, his enemies, ruining his world, his life, revealing his identity. I would guess Moore had a longer list of bad stuff, but just picked the worst thousand he could think of. BUT, through it all, Superman never breaks character. He never stops thinking of others first, never abandons his friends, never gives up. Moore bends Superman about as far as he could, but it never once occurred to him to break him. He uses all of this turmoil around the character to even more strongly define him as the character we all, Moore included, grew up loving. I guess that's the major difference between that and the stuff Moore went on to write for DC. The Watchmen broke, The Joker broke (and arguably so did Batman), and that stuff (along with Frank Miller's work) went on to inspire a whole generation of writers obsessed with breaking heroes. Julie Schwartz wasn't going to end his career by "breaking" Superman.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 28, 2022 13:31:52 GMT -5
I guess to me, Whatever Happened to the Man of Steel? was just an imaginary story, for whatever that was worth. "...Aren't they all?" - Alan Moore, from Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 28, 2022 13:35:09 GMT -5
I was 12 when it came out and I liked it. But I'm not sure if I ever rewatched it and have no wish to revisit it. I find most of Spielberg's work too saccharine and emotionally manipulative, as you say. Isn't that the whole point of most art/fiction? To manipulate emotions? I don't think anyone ever set out to artistically leave your emotions untouched. "It was such a great movie... such a rollercoaster ride of feeling cold and numb inside." I think most people who complain about Spielberg's "emotional manipulation" is really complaining that he's GOOD at it. He's achieving what others wish they could in their movies, but haven't cracked the code. OR he's manipulating the wrong emotions - the ones they wouldn't choose to. Like, manipulating my abject fear is ok, but to make me feel distraught because ET is dead, is manipulative. I guess but the thing is, you shouldn't be aware that it is happening. If you are conscious that you are being manipulated, that person isn't good at it.
There are a couple things I liked from Spielberg, but overall I find his products to be too schmaltzy. That extends to things he's produced, too. Even as a kid I didn't really glom onto his Amazing Stories, for the same reason. I much preferred The Twlilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which were on around the same time, and which were properly dark some of the time at least.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2022 13:38:14 GMT -5
Isn't that the whole point of most art/fiction? To manipulate emotions? I don't think anyone ever set out to artistically leave your emotions untouched. "It was such a great movie... such a rollercoaster ride of feeling cold and numb inside." True. But there is the way you go about it. When it is ham-fisted and obvious, it's not a good experience. No one likes being manipulated or seeing how people are trying to manipulate you. When something feels saccharine and schmaltzy (my reaction to E.T.) it to me is the creator telling me what I should feel and how I should feel about it instead of just telling the story and letting me react to it and find out how I feel about it. We all want to be moved by the stories we experience, but we want the feelings to be our own. We want to react to what we experience, not have what we are experiencing tell us this is how you must react to it. There's a difference between telling a story that will likely make people feel good and telling the story in a way that tries to force them to feel good, and between telling a story that will likely make them feel good and hittingthem over the head and saying you are supposed to feel good about this. For me, E.T. is ham-fisted and clunky, a vast disappointment coming from a storyteller who is usually skilled and nuanced in the way he tells a story. I compare it another film he directed which tells a story that should evoke a certain emotion-Amistad. Amistad is a story about horrifying things. Spielberg tells the story, shows us the horrifying things and has characters react in various ways to that horror but lets the audience react and feel as they are wont to do as they react to the story. It's not subtle, but it is nuanced and it lets the audience form their own reaction. He makes choices as a director about what to show and how to show it, but he doesn't tell the audience what to feel. It's manipulating them and trying to make them feel something, but it's not done in the ham-fisted manner that E.T. is where the audience is not a presented with a story and given the opportunity to frame their own responses to it, they buffeted by the ham-fisted presentation-you should cry here, you should gasp here, you should be heart-warmed here, etc. it's all paint by numbers and so story devolves into a script for the audience to follow not one for them to experience and react to as they will. Tell the story you want and try to evoke the response you want, but get out of the audience's way and let them experience that story, don't intrude on their experience by constantly instructing them how they should be feeling with your choices as a storyteller. Show them the things that can make them feel, don't tell them how they should feel, and E.T. to my mind is a ham-fisted presentation of a story that doesn't place the creator's attempts to make the audience feel behind the curtain of the story itself, and comes across as ham-fisted and clumsy (or schmaltzy and saccharine) instead of actually moving. -M
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Mar 28, 2022 14:25:12 GMT -5
Definitely agree with Kurt (Cei-U) and a few others: Batman Year One thoroughly underwhelmed me. And it was more of a Jim Gordon story anyway. And I'll even go one further and say that I'm not as gaga over Mazzucchelli's art as everyone else seems to be - I don't hate it, I just don't think it's all that great, either. (I am, however, impressed with the number of double consonants in his surname.)Wpuld have been cool if he had been a bookkeeper. I've always loved that word - three consecutive sets of double letters.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,097
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 28, 2022 15:27:48 GMT -5
I mispronounced Mazzucchelli's name far longer than Sienkiewicz's.
|
|