this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
118 points (97.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43747 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Example; the Legend of Zelda: BotW and TotK weapon degradation system. At first I was annoyed at it, but once I stopped caring about my β€œfavorite weapon” I really started to enjoy the system. I think it lends really well to the sandbox nature of the game and it itches that resourcefulness nature inside me.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 36 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

A big complaint I saw about the live-action Cowboy Bebop adaptation for Netflix was that the acting was too cartoony/over-the-top.

Personally, I thought the acting was spot-on for what they were trying to accomplish. It was meant to be a live-action anime, so it was never intended to be 100% tethered to reality to begin with. The characters are meant to be characters, and I thought they did a great job with it. Spike, Faye, and Jet were all perfectly-cast, IMO, and they all felt like their original characters felt from the animated series. There are so many times where you can just close your eyes and listen to them talk to each other, and it feels exactly like it felt watching the anime on Adult Swim back in the early 2000s as a kid.

I honestly loved the live-action adaptation and thought it was amazing. I'm still immensely disappointed that the reception was so poor that Netflix decided to cancel it halfway through the story. There are so many characters I wanted to see that didn't appear until later in the original series. I would've loved to see a live-action Toys In The Attic or Heavy Metal Queen.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

People have a boner for Simpsons seasons 3-8, the Conan years.

The Simpsons were excellent pretty much through season 12, much of seasons 13 and 14 are still legit.

I don't disagree that most of the best episodes are in that era... But Trilogy Of Errors is forever my favorite Simpsons episode, and that's S12E18. (Linguo... Dead??? "linguo IS dead.")

I woukd go as far as to say that seasons 9 - 13 all contain at least one 'top 30 of all time' episode.

The fall off was not swift with Conan's departure.

[–] gwilikers@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Rewatched the Golden Years of the Simpsons recently and I think it's crazy that season 2 isn't included in that era. Season 2 Simpsons is fantastic.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

While I understand people's criticisms of Sucker Punch, I still really enjoy the movie and its soundtrack.

One of the most common criticisms I see is that their outfits have sex appeal. It's a totally valid criticism, but at the same time, I see this as Babydoll choosing an outfit that is the exact opposite of the unsexy hospital gowns she's forced as a way to escape her reality. I would do the same to be honest.

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The movie Tomorrowland. I don't understand why anyone could not like it. Maybe because I watched it in German, but I love this movie. It has character, it has character arcs and development, it has fun gadgets and delivers more than once a great message, that's motivating and gives you something to think about. It has an amazing fantasy world and I enjoy the dialogues too.

Sure they could've shown more of the high tech society and some lines are a bit cheesy, but I never saw the audience to be 18+ and more on being also entertaining to kids.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corno@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

Sonic Adventure 2's mech stages. I actually loved those stages and was really surprised to learn that so many people didn't like them, I always found it so satisfying getting good combos!

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Everybody says Dark is a better Stranger Things (around the Season 1/2 time period), but Dark is a really boring alternative to Stranger Things that replaced cool Lovecraftian shit with boring ass "it's sooo deep when you call it a time travel paradox instead of endless meandering and plotholes".

And to be fair, Stranger Things Season 4 (which was already in decline) also retconned all the cool Lovecraftian shit with boring ass "some random asshole has super powers for literally no reason".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iamhazel@beehaw.org 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I didn't read the GOT books. That said, I enjoyed the show through to the last episode and wouldn't have thought twice about any of it if the fans weren't so angry. Idk why but I just don't have the ability to be critical of (or follow very well) story or writing, or anything really. Maybe I'm just too good at suspending disbelief?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee -3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Almost every case of movie purists. The Hobbit trilogy was great. The new Star Wars trilogy was great. The old ones are great too.

I have similar issues with music and video games. I almost always love the most hated albums or games in a series based on the loudest commentary online. I also find the most popular entry to be kind of meh. I think average people have boring taste or just follow a crowd or something.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 66 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The lack of interpersonal conflict in Star Treks overseen by Gene Roddenberry is a good thing. Humanity got their shit together, made Earth paradise, and went exploring the galaxy and other frontiers in life. Shoehorning conflict and darkness into the newer series destroys what made it unique.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I couldn't quite pinpoint what I didn't like about the newer series, but you've nailed it - the hyper realistic tone it now has really clashes with the explorative nature of the old series.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There are some ways in which the newer shows like Discovery are realistic, but there are also ways in which they are stupid.

For example, two federation officers in a life or death situation where they have two minutes to solve an urgent crisis, and they decide to spend 60 seconds of that having an emotional heart-to-heart.

If that was in TNG, they'd have got the job done like professionals, and then had the friends chat later in ten forward. Because that's how people with jobs get their jobs done.

TNG era was quite cheesy in some ways, but it kept characters real in that they always acted appropriately for their role and position, not just like a bunch of emotional oddballs who get to be in charge of a spaceship for some reason.

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Discovery was trash. Lasted until season 2 but the plot holes and inconsistencies and bad writing was too much for me. Not to mention the 'member berries. And the key jangling, and tech ahead of its time breaking all manner of canon. Agreed the over emotional stuff came off as trite and out of place for what was essentially a space navy.

So, they can detect anomalies all over the milky way? In real time? Writers said that Klingons represented Trump supporters? Why? Or, with the baddies destroyed they didn't have to travel in time. So why did they? Capital ships manoeuvring like borderline fighters? Plot contrivance from the writers? Okay. TNG or DS9 had their flaws but it was superior writing and seemed to be written for adults or did not insult its audience's maturity, regardless of age. Discovery seems to have been written for kids or emotional teens. Lots of pew-pew action, too.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

Well said. Discovery was more about individualism and the "rich tapestry" of family histories to show that these characters have inherited their greatness and that no one else is equipped to be in the singular intense situation they are now in.

TNG was more about the mission. Sometimes family history came into it, but most of the team was just doing the best they could given the circumstance and their characteristics were more quirks that helped the overall effort. At least that's how it felt. Not one single character was more special than another.

No particular heroes, just professional heroics.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 38 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Lord of the Rings (the books) are terribly written by modern novel standards and while the story is amazing their value purely as literature is quite low. I will always defend people who loved the movies and couldn't get into the books.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 18 points 1 week ago

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree completely. They are written in a different style than we're used to today, but they're masterfully done. To me, the movies are largely good adaptations, but the books are far superior.

But that's the nice thing about taste: everyone's entitled to their own.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I've read the Hobbit and the fellowship a few years ago. I absolutely adored the Hobbit, genuinely think that is an awesomely written book. Fellowship however, is not a fun read, despite the content in the book actually being good. But the act of reading it is not.

I enjoyed it a lot. The only parts that annoyed the hell out of me was the constant singing and the overly long ring council. The rest I have only fond memories of. Granted it was a long time ago.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 33 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The Original Mafia game is generally criticized for being a linear game in an open-world, but I think its linear nature is one of its strengths, because it gives the narrative a tight, driving focus that open world games tend to lack.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I've only played 2 and I feel the same way about it. I wish more games did this approach of using an open world as a setting for a linear game to perform.

You get the best of both worlds with this approach. The feeling of the world being more real and lived in, whilst having the tightness of the storytelling of a linear game.

I've always defended how mafia 2 did it and never understood why people wanted it to be more open world. The story had me gripped too much to even think about that stuff.

I always find it weird in some open world games where something in the story is described as being a race against time or so important it needs to get done now, but as the player you can just forget that for a bit and go do something else before continuing. Even just the ability to do that takes me out of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Shadow of the Colossus was linear, but I don’t recall anyone complaining.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I think Mafia received that criticism because of its surface level similarity to GTA, which is known for packing a ton of random side content in its open world.

In Mafia there is genuinely nothing to do out in the world when driving around outside of the main story missions, except for occasionally a mechanic at a garage will offer you some small mission to steal a newer and faster car. Because of that, people complained that the open-world part was pointless and a waste.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Was it? You were in an open environment ~~and you could do the opponents in mostly any order~~.

Scratch that. I guess I'm think of post game when you can replay the battles.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ariel in Disney's A Little Mermaid doesn't drop everything for "a man".

She is clearly interested in land culture from the opening of the film, spending her time collecting shipwreck items and trying to learn what they are. She also isn't interested in the hobby her father wants her to do, singing.

King Triton is abusive when destroying Ariel's collection of artifacts, which makes you think of what else is going on with how he parents her.

So, Eric shows up and seems like a way out. It isn't a lot of information to go off of for adults, but it is something solid for a teenager.

And what did she give up to gain her legs? Her voice. People interpret it as her giving up being able to speak for herself, but it is her giving up the thing that her father cares about.

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In the original cartoon, it is explicitly shown that Triton does not like, or enjoyed or wanted to harm or hurt Ariel by destroying her collection. He wanted to protect her from her own follies and didn't know what else to do. At worst, flawed but well intentioned.

This is obvious on the shot of his face, showing his sad expression, hurt and regret as he looks back at her and as she starts crying, as he leaves. This important nuance was completely cut out from the live action film. Doing so recontextualised the entire scene.

Which in the film does make him look like a crazy asshole father, do not know why this was done as it just unnecessarily vilifies him without reason and removes previously shown emotional depth and context from the cartoon. My guess was because he = man, and man = bad, which went along with some people working in the film and some others saying that she had dropped everything for "a man."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Also I can't look past the fact that there's absolutely no way that they wouldn't establish a form of nonverbal communication. ASL? Enthusiastic head nodding?!

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I heard a lot of complaints about the twins in borderlands 3.They're shallow, they're obnoxious, they remind you of wanna be tiktok influencers, on and on.

That's not a bug, that's a feature. Guys, Handsome Jack was bottled lightning. He was a masterpiece of good writing, good design, well placed improv, and just plain dumb luck. They were never going to pull that off again. You'd need to open a real vault to find that level of treasure.

The Calypso's are exactly what they say on the tin. They're all those obnoxious, unfunny things I mentioned because sometimes villains aren't well thought out, complex characters. I fucking love shooting Troy in his smug hot topic weeb face. I don't need to consider the complexity of a man driven to an extreme or the show erosion of one's moral character in pursuit of power, they were two shitty kids on an ego trip with no regard for the damage they did. It is plain, and simple, and easy.

Are there problems with the rest if the story? Absolutely. Are there some awful plot-holes? Oh my fuck, yes. But are the Calypsos the thing that ruined the game? Fuck no, they're fine and perfectly shootable as a bad-guy needs to be.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 18 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

The Zelda complaint is extra bullshit considering other open-world games like Just Cause do exactly the same thing by giving the guns limited ammo, so you constantly have to switch weapons based on what the enemies drop.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Considering in prior Zelda games you didn't have to worry about your sword being unusable or your shield breaking (inb4 "what about...", there's like three circumstances in a dozen plus games, cmon.), I can understand why folks weren't so keen on it in the new ones. Yeah you could run out of magic, arrows, or bombs, but that boomerang wasn't going anywhere.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I mean if I run out of RPG ammo in GTA I can buy more for a universal currency I don't have to keep beating crime lords down with a big stick until one of them drops a fresh one.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think there would have been less issue with the Zelda weapon system if they started you with a bigger inventory space or made the tree guy who expands it someone you talk to and learn where to meet them later at the beginning of the game.

[–] DrPop@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is kinda what happened in Tears of the Kingdom.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I think I missed that because I saw him in another spot wandering around before he went to the central hub place he stays at for a long time

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

I think if you're comparing open world games to open world games then yeah, BOTW doesn't do anything too terribl differenty, but when you compare BOTW to other Zelda games then it's very different and that's where the criticism comes from.

Personally I feel BOTW is a very competent open world game, probably one of the better ones I've played but I still didn't gel with it because I was already strongly feeling fatigued from too many games becoming open world and not making that leap particularly well (Mass Effect Andromeda and FFXV coming to mind for me personally), what I wanted was a more traditional Zelda game and that's simply not what BOTW was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

One that always stood out to me was the ending of the Tom Cruise war or the world's movie.

Now to be clear, this is not a good film and I don't recommend that anyone bothers to go watch it, but a criticism I regularly saw was that the ending was bad - the aliens all just die suddenly.

That was literally the only thing that film got right from the source material. They changed literally everything else in an attempt to modernise it, it didn't work but they at least kept the ending and that's the bit people didn't like.

[–] Thehalfjew@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah. It's a movie about surviving. Not winning. And the opening sets up the end.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It seems like a lot of people complain about Doctor Who not really having any canon or rules, and contradicting itself constantly (sometimes within the same episode) but I don't think that's necessarily a failing because it's not trying to do that at all.

The trend these days is for a lot of shows, especially sci-fi ones, to be sort of 'internet-proof' and be designed to withstand the people who go through frame-by-frame looking for little errors and contradictions to pull apart, and Doctor Who ignores that completely and just aims to be big fun campy dramatic nonsense, which I think it mostly succeeds at. I think the only cardinal sin for that show is don't be boring, which IMO it pulls off more often than not.

And it's fine to not like that of course, but I don't get it when people try to call the show out for not doing something it's never really tried to do, at least since it came back in 2005.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kayday@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

Joker: Folie Γ  Deux.
The first movie was not about Joker, it is about Arthur. Joker is the unfortunate identity he takes on as a result of the events of the first film. But at the end of the day, he was just a guy. He was delighted but bewildered at the people rallying behind him.

!Folie a Deux picks up is after the police inevitably apprehend Arthur. He is on medication, and speaking to a mental health professional regularly. He doesn't want to be Joker, but everyone around him expects him to be. The tragedy of the ending is that Arthur rejects the love and admiration he has earned, knowing it will not redeem him to the people who hate and fear him now. He chooses to be completely alone and powerless to stop hurting people.!<

As far as the musical numbers went, they were infrequent and clearly a representation of the connection between Arthur and Lee. There was at least one scene where we view Arthur from the perspective of onlookers after he finished singing and dancing, but all they saw was him staring at a TV or something. I always felt like the songs added to character development, but even if they weren't your thing they were brief and heavily outweighed by scenes with just dialogue.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In the last season of The Crown, Princess Diana's "ghost" makes an apperence to Charles and the Queen. People were super upset, saying that it's offensive to speak for her in that capacity.

That show is not fantastical, and they have never shown "ghosts." I took it as those characters having a mental conversation with her, like, technically talking to themselves, as part of their grieving process, and not that the actual spirit of Diana came from the afterlife to tell Charles it's cool.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί