# Biggest Surprise/Disappointment of 2013



## Stunna (Jan 1, 2014)

So, out of all of the films you saw in 2013, which ones did you anticipate that ultimately disappointed you, and which ones did you begrudgingly see that turned out better than you had expected?

*Biggest Surprise:* Tie between _Monsters University_ and _Frozen_

I expected another dud of a sequel from Pixar like Cars 2, but University was actually a pretty good movie with an awesome ending and message.

But then there's Frozen. The marketing for this film was terrible. The trailers made it look like a lame comedy, but my love for this film now that I've seen it (four times) is no secret. 

*Honorable Mentions:* _The Great Gatsby_ and _Warm Bodies_

*Biggest Disappointment:* _Man of Steel_

Yeah... we all were duped by this one, weren't we?

*Honorable Mentions:* _Iron Man 3_ and _The Wolf of Wall Street_


----------



## BiNexus (Jan 1, 2014)

Stunna's bad and should feel bad. 

Biggest Surprise: Pacific Rim

Biggest Disappointment: The Desolation of Smaug


----------



## Fay (Jan 1, 2014)

Biggest surprise: Hobbit 2

Didn't expect to like it so much, hadn't even seen the first one because I was not interested (seen it now though ). Being bored and convinced by hobbit stans on the internet lead me to the cinema and I have no regrets.

Biggest disappointment: movie 43. Such a great cast and an interesting concept, I had high expectations...not even low expectations would have saved this movie for me .


----------



## James Bond (Jan 1, 2014)

Someone get Fay's signature a sandwich, stat.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jan 1, 2014)

Biggest disappointment for me was The Hobbit aswell. Next film won't disappoint me as much because I can already see it being just like this movie was.

For biggest surprise I don't know. Movies I saw this year didn't impress me that much. But I'm gonna say Gravity.


----------



## Arya Stark (Jan 1, 2014)

Biggest surprise was Catching Fire or Gravity for me. 

Disappointment would be Thor 2. Frankly I didn't have big expectations from MoS and IM3 (especially MoS as it's tone was obvious from its trailers). I find nerd rage for IM3 overrated -no associations to comic, i liked the twist- MoS was around avarage film. It was just too "try hard" for my taste.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 1, 2014)

Cars 2 wasn't bad Stunna and I didn't think Man of Steel would be good. 

*Biggest surprise*

The Internship. Thought it would be kind of lame sequel to the Wedding Crashers but it was definitely its own movie and was an enjoyable ride. 

*Biggest disappointment*

This entire year for movies. In a year when I see trailers for Iron Man 3, Wolverine, Elysium, Pacific Rim etc. There was a lot to be excited for. Not a SINGLE movie has lived up to expectations this year outside of Star Trek for me.


----------



## Yasha (Jan 1, 2014)

Biggest surprise: The Wolverine and Rush

Went in without expectation, came out with a broad smile.


Biggest disappointment: Stoker

Park Chan Wook failed to deliver on his Hollywood debut.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 1, 2014)

Surprise - Fast and the Furious 6, The Wolverine

Disappointment - Pacific Rim


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Jan 1, 2014)

Wasn't really surprised or disappointed by anything.

Everything that was shit I knew would be shit, everything that wasn't was obvious as well.


----------



## Delta Shell (Jan 1, 2014)

James Bond said:


> Someone get Fay's signature a sandwich, stat.



Hahahahahaha


Surprise. Enjoying Anchorman 2. Thought it would be plop. 

Disappointment. Hobbit 2: Subtitle it was kinda ploppy


----------



## Detective (Jan 1, 2014)

The correct answer to biggest disappointment of 2013 can only be one film in question:

A Good Day To Die Hard

Many young men got their hearts crushed on Valentine's Day 2013, and it didn't have anything to do with women.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 1, 2014)

I dunno Detective. I think it is only supposed to apply to movies you expected to be good. Did anyone expect that movie to be good?


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 1, 2014)

Detective said:


> The correct answer to biggest disappointment of 2013 can only be one film in question:
> 
> A Good Day To Die Hard
> 
> Many young men got their hearts crushed on Valentine's Day 2013, and it didn't have anything to do with women.



I had my doubts when i discovered this was made by Max Payne's director.

I was already worn out on the franchise after the 4th movie. I already went into the movie skeptical. Die Hard has been washed up for a while


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 1, 2014)

Biggest Surprise: I dunno, maybe Hobbit 2.

Biggest Disappointment: "A Good Day to Die Hard"


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 1, 2014)

I really enjoyed Blue Is the Warmest Color. I really did not expect to.


----------



## Detective (Jan 1, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Did anyone expect that movie to be good?



We all did, in our heart of hearts.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 1, 2014)

Anyone who was duped by Man of Steel is just dumb. Zack Snyder is an objectively bad director and Sucker Punch is objectively the worst film of the 21st century, and Watchmen was one of the worst adaptations out there. 

Anyways, biggest surprise for me was; Frozen , went in expecting a good movie, and got my second favorite movie of the year and my second favorite animated Disney movie after Beauty and the Beast.

Biggest disappointment was; Before Midnight. It's still my 3rd favorite film of the year and is a fantastic movie, but I was expecting something different I guess. I'd still say the Before Trilogy is a perfect trilogy though.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 1, 2014)

Noone except fanboys were duped by Man of Steel. Biggest disappointment was Elysium, just really bloody average and Pacific Rim, not a bad film but potential was squandered. 

Biggest surprise was Gravity, the 3d experience was something else.


----------



## Ae (Jan 2, 2014)

*Biggest Surprise*
Warm Bodies. I thought it was going to be really bad. 

*Biggest Disappointment*
Gravity. Was really hoping for movie of the year, didn't even make my top 10.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Anyone who was duped by Man of Steel is just dumb. Zack Snyder is an objectively bad director and Sucker Punch is objectively the worst film of the 21st century, and Watchmen was one of the worst adaptations out there.
> 
> Anyways, biggest surprise for me was; Frozen , went in expecting a good movie, and got my second favorite movie of the year and my second favorite animated Disney movie after Beauty and the Beast.
> 
> Biggest disappointment was; Before Midnight. It's still my 3rd favorite film of the year and is a fantastic movie, but I was expecting something different I guess. I'd still say the Before Trilogy is a perfect trilogy though.



I don't think you know what the word objective means.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

It's odd to even call Sucker Punch the subjectively worst movie of the 21st century.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jan 2, 2014)

*Biggest Surprise*

_Pain and Gain_. Immensely entertaining movie that used Michael Bay's flaws as strengths.

*Biggest Disappointment*

Most of the summer, really? In all honesty, just a lot of average movies that I was looking forward to on all fronts, and bad movies where I had average expectations.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

I didn't really expect much out of it, but Ender's Game was quite a poor adaptation.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 2, 2014)

I'd watch Sucker Punch 50 times before watching Catwoman, meet the Spartans, *insert genre* movie,


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Blitzomaru said:


> I'd watch Sucker Punch 50 times before watching Catwoman, meet the Spartans, *insert genre* movie,



The difference between Sucker Punch and other bad movies is at least most of those can be enjoyed ironically. Sucker Punch is just bad. What makes it even worse is it tries to be something it's not.
I like to compare Snyder to Kishimoto, both of them think they are smart and desperately try to make things that seem smart when they are anything but.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jan 2, 2014)

Blitzomaru said:


> I'd watch Sucker Punch 50 times before watching Catwoman, meet the Spartans, *insert genre* movie,



I feel like this is the wrong thread, but I totally agree. And I think I spent half that movie looking at my friends with this pose:


----------



## Rukia (Jan 2, 2014)

I have wanted to watch Sucker Punch for a long time now.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 2, 2014)

Yaknow, if Sucker punch was R-Rated and had nudity, I'd bet half the people who hate it would love it...


----------



## Rukia (Jan 2, 2014)

Blitzomaru said:


> Yaknow, if Sucker punch was R-Rated and had nudity, I'd bet half the people who hate it would love it...


Snyder did that with Watchmen and it didn't save the film.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 2, 2014)

Rukia said:


> Snyder did that with Watchmen and it didn't save the film.



Too much big blue dick.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Blitzomaru said:


> Yaknow, if Sucker punch was R-Rated and had nudity, I'd bet half the people who hate it would love it...



Maybe more 13 year old plebeians would like it.
Doesn't change the fact that it would still be a pointless piece of objective shit.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

Rukia said:


> Snyder did that with Watchmen and it didn't save the film.



>Implying Watchmen wasn't popular.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> >Implying Watchmen wasn't popular.



Popular doesn't mean good.
Watchmen was arguably one of the worst graphic novel adaptations of all time. It was utterly soulless and while many  scenes were directly lifted from the panels of the comic Snyder just filmed them as if they had no meaning. The guy is easily the biggest hack in Hollywood today.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

Never read the novel.  But that Snyder comment is an overrated one if I ever heard it.

But there's a certain level of popularity that a series reaches before you can no longer just dismiss it as shit.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

Does that include Twilight?


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 2, 2014)

This convo just can't end well. Popularity does not equal quality and quality in art is subjective. 

When Rica grows up to become a real boy he may come to understand that you can't call all of your opinions objective and be taken seriously.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Never read the novel.  But that Snyder comment is an overrated one if I ever heard it.
> 
> But there's a certain level of popularity that a series reaches before you can no longer just dismiss it as shit.



What about Naruto and Twilight?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> This convo just can't end well. Popularity does not equal quality and quality in art is subjective.
> 
> When Rica grows up to become a real boy he may come to understand that you can't call all of your opinions objective and be taken seriously.



There are objective means to critique all artforms.
I mean if you look at something like The Room, it is in no way subjectively good on an unironic level. Therefore there must be a certain level of objectivity when it comes to art.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

There's no such thing as an objective standard to criticize art. Every standard we use to define good cinematography, music, etc, are just borrowed from the opinion of a critic before us.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> What about Naruto and Twilight?



What about them?

I'm more directing this those who say things like Titanic or Star Wars is shit, it's so hipster I dunno how you're gonna take it seriously.  It withstood the test of time and millions of people like, so if a few call it shit then that leads me to believe they're saying it to be edgy.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> What about them?
> 
> I'm more directing this those who say things like Titanic or Star Wars is shit, it's so hipster I dunno how you're gonna take it seriously.  It withstood the test of time and millions of people like, so if a few call it shit then that leads me to believe they're saying it to be edgy.



Well Naruto and Twilight are shit. That's what's about them.

But Star Wars is pretty mediocre if we're talking about the original trilogy. Just because something had a lasting impact on popular culture doesn't mean it's good.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Well Naruto and Twilight are shit. That's what's about them.
> 
> But Star Wars is pretty mediocre if we're talking about the original trilogy. Just because something had a lasting impact on popular culture doesn't mean it's good.



Naruto is not shit, it's pretty good.  Twilight's bad, but not shit.  Shit would imply it has no serious selling factor.

As for the second part of the post you pretty much just proved what I said.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Naruto is not shit, it's pretty good.



It's cute how you actually think that.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

How does that imply that it has no selling factor? Crap sells.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

^Is nobody paying attention to what I've been posting?  What did I say about levels of popularity?



Rica_Patin said:


> It's cute how you actually think that.



You're so caught up in feelings you can't even see the point I'm making.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

Stunna said:


> How does that imply that it has no selling factor? Crap sells.



Mider posts even more nonsense than he thinks I do.
Just ignore him.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

It doesn't matter if something stands the test of time. Quality is wholly subjective. Someone's opinion on something doesn't determine if they're trying to be edgy. The reasons that back up that opinion do.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2014)

> Naruto is not shit, it's pretty good. Twilight's bad, but not shit. Shit would imply it has no serious selling factor.
> 
> As for the second part of the post you pretty much just proved what I said.



The problem is you're using subjective terms and expecting us to have the same opinions. Shit, for me= bad. Shit for many people= bad. So I have no problem saying "Twilight" is shit, because I don't see shit as a higher level of bad like you apparently do. Therefore, Rica is free to say that because you guys are using different standards of judging something.

With that said, Rica's just kinda trolling you guys. He makes a lot of claims and throws around terms like 'objective' as if he has some universal super-insight that we all lack- reminding me of dear Tetra. But unlike Tetra, he isn't really making any points. Just claims. 

So why are you guys eating out of his palm? He just wants to get a rise out of you, while the only rise he'll get out of me can be found within my pants. *winks*


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 2, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> The problem is you're using subjective terms and expecting us to have the same opinions. Shit, for me= bad. Shit for many people= bad. So I have no problem saying "Twilight" is shit, because I don't see shit as a higher level of bad like you apparently do. Therefore, Rica is free to say that because you guys are using different standards of judging something.
> 
> With that said, Rica's just kinda trolling you guys. He makes a lot of claims and throws around terms like 'objective' as if he has some universal super-insight that we all lack- reminding me of dear Tetra. But unlike Tetra, he isn't really making any points. Just claims.
> 
> So why are you guys eating out of his palm? He just wants to get a rise out of you, while the only rise he'll get out of me can be found within my pants. *winks*



Yet again, another NF member who doesn't understand what the word "trolling" means.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> The problem is you're using subjective terms and expecting us to have the same opinions. Shit, for me= bad. Shit for many people= bad. So I have no problem saying "Twilight" is shit, because I don't see shit as a higher level of bad like you apparently do. Therefore, Rica is free to say that because you guys are using different standards of judging something.
> 
> With that said, Rica's just kinda trolling you guys. He makes a lot of claims and throws around terms like 'objective' as if he has some universal super-insight that we all lack- reminding me of dear Tetra. But unlike Tetra, he isn't really making any points. Just claims.
> 
> So why are you guys eating out of his palm? He just wants to get a rise out of you, while the only rise he'll get out of me can be found within my pants. *winks*



Great > Good.  Worse/Shit > Bad.  By the context I'm surprised you didn't pick this up.

I know Nensense is trolling/baiting, that's what he does.  I'm playing along because this can spur some good discussion if other members enter their input.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm inputting.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Great > Good.  Worse/Shit > Bad.  By the context I'm surprised you didn't pick this up.
> 
> I know Nensense is trolling/baiting, that's what he does.  I'm playing along because this can spur some good discussion if other members enter their input.



Because once again, people have different standards. You say shit doesn't sell, but I think it can. Popularity is usually a matter of marketing. Even "The Last Airbender", a movie I remember you loathing, managed to snag $300,000,000 worldwide even though it made like 10% during the opening week. So it was pulling in big cash long after everyone knew the movie sucked. If you try to argue that fans of the source material would see it anyway, tell that to Dragonball Z and Speed Racer fans. 

If he says Naruto is shit, then it fits his standard of what constitutes as 'shit'. The only issue is him claiming it's objective, which when you think about it, is kind of a stupid word anyway as it's impossible to be truly objective. 



> Yet again, another NF member who doesn't understand what the word "trolling" means.



Yeah, you rock that straw man, Rica!


----------



## Ae (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> Objective quality > Personal enjoyment



If you both view movie objectively, shouldn't you two like this same things?


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2014)

That's why no one should use the word objective, because everyone is very subjective when it comes to determining objectivity. 

Miller and Rica probably both would agree that good movies usually are created from good scripts, good direction, good acting, etc. But everyone has different opinions as to what constitutes good scripts, good direction, good acting, etc. 

That's why everyone should just shut up and watch the singing killer sushi. 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vDo_4C_lw[/youtube]


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

MH I remember why I don't even attemp conversation with you, it's like speaking to a senile old person.

I'll continue this discussion if others want to but MartialHorror I'm ignoring until I see some semblance of him actually knowing what's going on.


----------



## Ae (Jan 2, 2014)

What...? He couldn't have made a better post. My post before his wasn't even a real question. I was making it obvious that you and Rica aren't as objective as you think.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2014)

Mider T said:


> MH I remember why I don't even attemp conversation with you, it's like speaking to a senile old person.
> 
> I'll continue this discussion if others want to but MartialHorror I'm ignoring until I see some semblance of him actually knowing what's going on.



Because God forbid people actually consider their own opinions. If I was wrong, then this debate between you and Rica probably would not even be happening. But if dodging arguments by pretending I don't exist validates your presence on this forum, you have my blessing. 

But remember, Mider T, you shall never achieve the objective greatness of this. [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vDo_4C_lw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mider T (Jan 2, 2014)

MartialHorror said:


> Because once again, people have different standards. *You say shit doesn't sell, but I think it can.* Popularity is usually a matter of marketing. Even "The Last Airbender", a movie I remember you loathing, managed to snag $300,000,000 worldwide even though it made like 10% during the opening week. So it was pulling in big cash long after everyone knew the movie sucked. If you try to argue that fans of the source material would see it anyway, tell that to Dragonball Z and Speed Racer fans.
> 
> *If he says Naruto is shit, then it fits his standard of what constitutes as 'shit'. The only issue is him claiming it's objective, which when you think about it, is kind of a stupid word anyway as it's impossible to be truly objective.*
> 
> ...





MartialHorror said:


> That's why no one should use the word objective, because everyone is very subjective when it comes to determining objectivity.
> 
> *Miller* and Rica probably both would agree that good movies usually are created from good scripts, good direction, good acting, etc. But everyone has different opinions as to what constitutes good scripts, good direction, good acting, etc.
> 
> ...





Masterpiece said:


> What...? He couldn't have made a better post. My post before his wasn't even a real question. I was making it obvious that you and Rica aren't as objective as you think.



The first bold is something I never said.  The second is silly because Nensense is classifying something as "objective shit" which makes no sense and I think everyone here realizes how stupid that sounds.  The third isn't even my name so ...?


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2014)

Me: 





> You say shit doesn't sell, but I think it can.



Your response:





> The first bold is something I never said.



Your original claim:





> Naruto is not shit, it's pretty good. Twilight's bad, but not shit. Shit would imply it has no serious selling factor.



Okay, I guess you literally did not say "Shit doesn't sell". But "Shit would imply it has no serious selling factor" is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Blitzomaru (Jan 3, 2014)

I actually liked Watchmen. I liked the revised ending. I also think the first 5-10 minutes are some of the best I've seen in a movie in a long time.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 3, 2014)

I thought "Watchman" worked better in parts than as a whole. Actually, that sums up my feelings towards the majority of Snyder's flicks.


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 3, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Popular doesn't mean good.
> Watchmen was arguably one of the worst graphic novel adaptations of all time. *It was utterly soulless and while many  scenes were directly lifted from the panels of the comic Snyder just filmed them as if they had no meaning. *The guy is easily the biggest hack in Hollywood today.



You must have watched a different movie, Snyder even made some things longer and used songs a lot of time to convey emotion.


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 3, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> There are objective means to critique all artforms.
> I mean if you look at something like The Room, it is in no way subjectively good on an unironic level. Therefore there must be a certain level of objectivity when it comes to art.



Certain things just can't be measured. When Metropolis was released it was objectivelly bad and unoriginal at the time, Blade Runner was objectivelly boring and soulless, a critic even said it was space porn.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 3, 2014)

Art can't be objectively anything.


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 3, 2014)

I know, i'm saying how people viewed them at the time they were released to show that art isn't objective


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 3, 2014)

I had great expectations for Thor: The Dark World, but it was awful.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2014)

Stunna said:


> Art can't be objectively anything.



Er what? Filmmaking CAN in fact have objective traits that may render it good or bad. Subjectivity comes when you measure the degree in which it is good or bad.

Acting is a skill and can be measured objectively to a point. This is why you have academies, textbooks, methods etc. This is why its so competetive. So, while you probably cannot objectively claim that Daniel Day Lewis is/was a better actor than Jack Nicholson; you can certainly claim that Jennifer Lawrence is a better actress than Megan Fox and this is not a subjective claim whatsoever.

A movie with terrible acting, terrible plot holes, horrid dialogue etc. can objectively be called a "bad" movie. This is not to say that one cannot like it or dislike it. 

I would say that a lot of it is in fact subjective but that does not mean that there are not any objective criteria when gauging the merits of a movie. Adaptations especially fall prey to the objective eye because they are compared to their source material. If nothing at all about filmmaking is objective then nobody can tell anyone whether a movie is good or bad. The room is just as good as a Clockwork Orange. 

Anyways, I liked Watchmen.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 3, 2014)

The standards used to gauge good acting, writing, cinematography, and other things are just based off of the opinions of critics before us.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2014)

Stunna said:


> The standards used to gauge good acting, writing, cinematography, and other things are just based off of the opinions of critics before us.



What are you talking about? A fine piece of filmmaking can be easily distinguished from a terrible film and its those mechanics that enable us to distinguish between them. Acting is a SKILL. Not everyone can ACT. If your ridiculous statement is true, then I am just as good of an actor as Daniel Day Lewis because you know....everything is subjective.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 3, 2014)

Yup. Everything is subjective. It's your opinion you're a better actor than Lewis, and it's my opinion that you're probably atrocious in comparison.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 3, 2014)

Have to side with Stunna here. There is very little you can claim to be objective if you can claim anything at all when it comes to art.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2014)

Stunna said:


> Yup. Everything is subjective. It's your opinion you're a better actor than Lewis, and it's my opinion that you're probably atrocious in comparison.



Except that its not considering that acting is a skill. If somebody does not have that skill than they are objectively not as good as someone that does. This can hardly be argued. I don't know how to act; therefore I am not a good actor. This is an objective statement. 

If acting was completely subjective then there wouldn't be academies, textbooks, schools etc. that teach you how to act. 



			
				Cyphon said:
			
		

> Have to side with Stunna here. There is very little you can claim to be objective if you can claim anything at all when it comes to art.



Its easy to argue that if you want to make it that vague but I am arguing on the merits of filmmaking and there are definitely objective meters when it comes to how good or bad a specific film is.

"Art" itself constitues many different categories. Would you say that the same degree of subjectivity that you are applying to film would apply to novels as well? A novel being "well-written" is merely subjective? 

Just because Art as in paintings or images is purely subjective does not mean everything else the constitues as art follows suit.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Its easy to argue that if you want to make it that vague but I am arguing on the merits of filmmaking and there are definitely objective meters when it comes to how good or bad a specific film is.



The problem is that nobody gets to decide what those meters are so the meters themselves are subjective. I understand what you are trying to say but it just can't be.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> The problem is that nobody gets to decide what those meters are so the meters themselves are subjective. I understand what you are trying to say but it just can't be.



The bolded does not follow. Because there is disagreement over the meters does not imply that the meters themselves are subjective. Acting is not entirely subjective, plot holes are not subjective, etc.

I don't know how to act; therefore, I am not a good actor. This is an objective statement unless you can prove that it is not. 

There are many mechanics within films that can be gauged objectively and there are many that can only be gauged subjectively. It is a mix of the two; it is not entirely one or the other.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> plot holes are not subjective



This I agree with but again, that is something that is actually measurable and can be checked. 



> I don't know how to act; therefore, I am not a good actor. This is an objective statement unless you can prove that it is not.



All I would have to do to prove you wrong is to say that I think you are a good actor. 



> There are many mechanics within films that can be gauged objectively and there are many that can only be gauged subjectively. It is a mix of the two; it is not entirely one or the other.



What mechanics do you believe can be measured objectively?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 3, 2014)

Powerful Lord said:


> You must have watched a different movie, Snyder even made some things longer and used songs a lot of time to convey emotion.



It's cute how you think you know things.



Powerful Lord said:


> Certain things just can't be measured. When Metropolis was released it was objectivelly bad and unoriginal at the time, Blade Runner was objectivelly boring and soulless, a critic even said it was space porn.



The theatrical cut of Blade Runner was objectively boring and shitty thanks to the studio meddling.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> This I agree with but again, that is something that is actually measurable and can be checked.



Then it is not entirely subjective like you or Stunna have claimed. 





> All I would have to do to prove you wrong is to say that I think you are a good actor.



This is nonsensical and cannot be applied to something that requires a skillset. 

I don't know how to play soccer; therefore I am not a good soccer player. Is this too subjective?

I don't know the first thing about carpentry; therefore I am not a good carpenter. Is this too subjective?

Of course not. The objective criteria in these situations are having the skills required to excel at the certain craft. 




> What mechanics do you believe can be measured objectively



Most cannot. Most enter definite gray areas when ventured further but some like originality (i.e groundbreaking) are objective. Acting is objective to a point. Many technical aspects are objective to a point. It really does depend on the category explored. For example; a historical drama that gets nearly all of its facts wrong is not a very good historical drama. A romance movie with no romance is not a very good romance movie. 

I agree with you that it is MOSTLY subjective but I don't believe that it is mutually exclusive.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 3, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Then it is not entirely subjective like you or Stunna have claimed.



Close enough though. Especially to the point where 999,999/1,000,000 times you say something is objective you will be wrong.  



> This is nonsensical and cannot be applied to something that requires a skillset.
> 
> I don't know how to play soccer; therefore I am not a good soccer player. Is this too subjective?
> 
> ...



Your examples don't work because again, you can be measured. Your soccer skill is determined by things where we can compare you to others. Can you outrun the guy? Did you beat him one on one? Did you score more goals? 

Same with carpentry. Do the things you build fall apart?

Good acting is opinion. You can compare to others but who says what rates as good acting? Do you stare off into space better than another person? Do you put more heart into your lines? Not really sure how you would measure these things? Does being louder mean more emotion or that they are just screaming? 


As to your point about historical documentaries it depends. You can measure the facts but the facts alone aren't what everyone will judge it by. Was the narrator good? Did they bring up interesting questions or explore interesting themes about the history? 

So you may hate it because it is factually all wrong while someone else might think it was great in every other way and think it was a good movie.


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 3, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> It's cute how you think you know things.



If you liked it or not isn't important, if you think this scene was emotionless then you must be numb

[YOUTUBE]ZoRpYM66vQI[/YOUTUBE]

For the record i don't think Zack Snyder is a good filmmaker, but i do apreciate his work on Watchmen


----------



## The Weeknd (Jan 3, 2014)

Biggest Surprise: Catching Fire
Biggest Disappointment: Hobbit 2. Trash.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jan 3, 2014)

i love you man. -


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 4, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Close enough though. Especially to the point where 999,999/1,000,000 times you say something is objective you will be wrong.



I would say that its more like 90 percent. 





> Your examples don't work because again, you can be measured. Your soccer skill is determined by things where we can compare you to others. Can you outrun the guy? Did you beat him one on one? Did you score more goals?
> 
> Same with carpentry. Do the things you build fall apart?
> 
> Good acting is opinion. You can compare to others but who says what rates as good acting? Do you stare off into space better than another person? Do you put more heart into your lines? Not really sure how you would measure these things? Does being louder mean more emotion or that they are just screaming?



I don't believe that good acting is merely opinion. First of all, an actor must know how to act. An actor must be able to imitate a certain character, emotion, etc. If somebody cannot do this then they have failed the initial requirement of being an actor. This is measurable and objective. There are specific skills required and if you don't have these then you will not be a good actor. For one, an actor must be confident in his role. An actor must captivate or convince the audience of his role. It becomes easier to think objectively when you have certain roles in mind. For example, Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln's mannerisms, voice,etc. have been well documented and acted as a gauge for DDL's performance. 



> As to your point about historical documentaries it depends. You can measure the facts but the facts alone aren't what everyone will judge it by. Was the narrator good? Did they bring up interesting questions or explore interesting themes about the history?
> 
> So you may hate it because it is factually all wrong while someone else might think it was great in every other way and think it was a good movie.



True but we can say that it wasnt a good "historical documentary" no?


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 4, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I don't believe that good acting is merely opinion. First of all, an actor must know how to act. An actor must be able to imitate a certain character, emotion, etc. If somebody cannot do this then they have failed the initial requirement of being an actor. This is measurable and objective. There are specific skills required and if you don't have these then you will not be a good actor. For one, an actor must be confident in his role. An actor must captivate or convince the audience of his role. It becomes easier to think objectively when you have certain roles in mind. For example, Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln's mannerisms, voice,etc. have been well documented and acted as a gauge for DDL's performance.



I understand your Lincoln example but that is still only 1 aspect of acting which is basically being a good copy cat or mimick of antother person. So I can see where you could compare to said person and measure objectively how well they matched them to an extent. 

Still not sure of the rest though. What actor isn't confident in their role? And how do you even display confidence in a role where you are supposed to completely lack confidence? IMO there are just too many nuances and minor things people could pick at to null any objectivity. 



> True but we can say that it wasnt a good "historical documentary" no?



From an on paper standpoint, yes. But as a movie (even with the label of historical documentary) it can still be considered good.

I am mainly playing devils advocate on this point though. I really doubt many are judging documentary's on much more than how accurate they are most of the time. My point is simply that they could.


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 6, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> Well Naruto and Twilight are shit. That's what's about them.
> 
> But Star Wars is pretty mediocre if we're talking about the original trilogy. Just because something had a lasting impact on popular culture doesn't mean it's good.



You didn't like The Empire Strikes Back?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jan 6, 2014)

Powerful Lord said:


> You didn't like The Empire Strikes Back?



The stuff on Hoth dragged on for far too long. I had some other issues with it as well (the dialog of course). But it's at least the best of the original trilogy.


----------



## MCTDread (Jan 6, 2014)

Biggest Disappointment: Man of Steel

Biggest Surprise:  Word War Z and Monsters University


----------



## Powerful Lord (Jan 7, 2014)

Rica_Patin said:


> The stuff on Hoth dragged on for far too long. I had some other issues with it as well (the dialog of course). But it's at least the best of the original trilogy.



I see, most people really liked it, with many places putting it as one of the best sequels ever made, and many times as one of the best films.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 8, 2014)

Dissapointment : Elysium and Only God Forgives and Pacific Rim.

Surprise : Hmm. None I guess. At least for me, I don't remember watching an exceptionally good movie that came off as a "surprise."



Pseudo said:


> I really enjoyed Blue Is the Warmest Color. I really did not expect to.



Actually this is exactly how I felt.

I don't like romantic films, and I expected it to be dull and cliche. But turned out to be a real good movie.

So yeah, Biggest Surprise : Blue is The Warmest Color.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 8, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I understand your Lincoln example but that is still only 1 aspect of acting which is basically being a good copy cat or mimick of antother person. So I can see where you could compare to said person and measure objectively how well they matched them to an extent.
> 
> Still not sure of the rest though. What actor isn't confident in their role? And how do you even display confidence in a role where you are supposed to completely lack confidence? IMO there are just too many nuances and minor things people could pick at to null any objectivity.



You can usually gauge this if you are knowledgeable about the character that the actor is trying to portray. DDL played Christy Brown in my left foot. He played a mentally disabled character and it would be extremely easy to tell if he was confident in the role or not. Say for example if in one scene he started to speak normally (he isn't supposed to). 

There are many objective components to it initially. Lets say an actor is supposed to play a character that is serious but we see that every now and then he is smiling or making goofy faces. We can obviously tell he is not confident in his role or is just a bad actor. These examples are extreme of course but I am just trying to establish instances in where an actors abilities can be gauged objectively.


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 8, 2014)

Snowpiercer was a huge fuckin' letdown

What a massive tonal mess. It almost felt like three different movies put into one.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 8, 2014)

> The standards used to gauge good acting, writing, cinematography, and other things are just based off of the opinions of critics before us.



Nope. You can tell the difference between a poorly written film and one bursting with ideas. Stunna you say some suspect shit now and then but this was pretty dumb.


----------



## A. Waltz (Jan 8, 2014)

i was surprised at how good Frozen was. didn't expect it to get the response it's gotten. everybody i know in real life seems to love that movie. lol. when it first came out back in thanksgiving, i didn't even know about it. it has so much attention right now that it feels like it just came out last week. haha. 

i was very disappointed in iron man 3. 

i was shocked at how enjoyable thor 2 was, though i do admit the lack of a proper and formidable and developed villain did kind of suck. but thor 2 was pretty fun to watch. was much better than iron man 3.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 9, 2014)

How about Only God Forgives?  A lot of us watched the trailers and were excited about the film.  And it ended up being the most divisive film of the entire year.  It didn't even get a wide release in the states.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 9, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> Nope. *You can tell the difference between a poorly written film and one bursting with ideas.* Stunna you say some suspect shit now and then but this was pretty dumb.



There haven't been much instances where we have agreed which is why I would like to point out that I could not agree more in regards to the bolded.




			
				Rukia said:
			
		

> How about Only God Forgives? A lot of us watched the trailers and were excited about the film. And it ended up being the most divisive film of the entire year. It didn't even get a wide release in the states.



Yeah, very divisive and I believe it has to do more with the subject matter and style more than anything else. I personally loved it and thought Gosling was very good. Oh and the soundtrack was just stunning.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 9, 2014)

Ennoea said:


> Nope. You can tell the difference between a poorly written film and one bursting with ideas. Stunna you say some suspect shit now and then but this was pretty dumb.


Then you believe in objective art?


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 9, 2014)

Here we go. Art isn't singular, a piece of fiction can be better written than another. Maybe it's in the execution, in the dialogue or getting the most out of the actors. Whatever it is, some films are simply better than others and you don't need to go on Rotten Tomatoes to see that.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 9, 2014)

You don't have to be an arse to elaborate, you know. It was just a question.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 9, 2014)

Strike me down Stunna, that's the only way you shall become the master


----------

