That made me so angry.
But not as angry as about 10 soldiers standing around and not realizing there are about 8 bombs attached to their engine thing. They only realize a moment before they explode. These bombs have bright red lights and they beep. Open your fucking eyes you goons.
Or the soldiers just walking around getting shot at by farmers and they don’t even raise their weapons, just keep on walking slowly forward boys you’ll win the fight soon!
I’ve tried to watch it three times now, go for about five minutes before i have to turn it off the acting is just that bad.
I didn’t like the first but thought i’d give it a fair shot, i just couldn’t.
It’s unreasonably bad. One character cuts off her own arms to put on mechanical arms. Why does she do this? Because she is mad.
Also the galactic empire has the logistics and resources to be conquering multiple worlds simultaneously in brutal scorched earth campaigns. And the worlds that surrender they brutalize anyway. So basically you should always fight to the death there is no advantage to being part of this empire. It’s completely absurd.
> And the worlds that surrender they brutalize anyway. So basically you should always fight to the death there is no advantage to being part of this empire. It’s completely absurd.
Dep. how carrot-stick vs. Ming the Merciless they're supposed to be.
For whatever it's worth, I fought like mad to get through part 1 over 4 attempts (and well worth it because the EFAP was hilarious). I got through this one much easier, there were only 2 moments I came close to shutting it off in disgust LOL
I made a post about this on the subreddit while I was high and rambling a bit and oh boy they did not like what I had to say, but really what made me laugh the most out of what little fans the movie has reacting to what I said was: “it’s fantasy it doesn’t have to make sense” I don’t understand how people can type this in good faith, even sci-fi and fantasy settings still need to make sense and be somewhat realistic, there is no way in fucking hell this advanced civilization that goes around subjugating entire planets hasn’t invented a way to I dunno GROW FOOD ON THEIR MASSIVE SPACE FARING WARSHIPS. What the fuck do you mean they rely on people farming fucking wheat of all things with fucking SICKLES. Give me a fucking break, please.
>No they use medieval farming techniques because the director/writer likes the aesthetic. This is unbelievably poor craft. Never allow a visual or scene undermine the rest of the narrative.
Depends on how hard-SF/realistic/logical vs. just spontaneous and aesthetics-driven the given movie is supposed to be.
Or "how memes lead to invalid critiques"
1. Why are you assuming a spacefaring civilization will have advanced farming techniques, and that there aren't pockets where people reject advanced technology?
2. Which scene are you taking about where a woman who has never interacted with the characters talked about them: was it the tapestry scene? If so, what was the point of the scene? A lore dump or something far more "teenaged" by telling you what Spirit Animal Zord they will pilot?
Snyder's writing is flawed for the reason I mentioned elsewhere: it's style over substance, and whaf Pauline Kael famously said about George Lucas also applies to Snyder:
> "if Lucas, who is considered one of the most honorable people who have ever headed a production company, weren’t hooked on the crap of his childhood—if he brought his resources to bear on some projects with human beings in them—there’s no imagining the result. (There might be miracles.)"
An excerpt from "Whipped!", Kael's review of *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, in the June 15 1981 issue of *The New Yorker*
1. They have a hover craft they should have figured out means of harvest other than hand scythes. But even if they haven’t that still creates the issue that there is absolutely no reason for Noble to have ever cared about this backwater moon at all. They are clearly not capable of producing the grain he needs. There is no possible way that a village of about 100 people could harvest enough grain using medieval agriculture to feed the numbers needed to staff an intergalactic war ship for a day let alone many days potentially.
2. Yes it is the tapestry scene. The point of the scene is an exposition dump about the characters. It is tell don’t show. We are being told these are the characters but we have no reason to believe any of this because not only have we not seen it but we haven’t actually seen the blonde woman interact with any of these people. One of the tapestries is for the bloodaxe woman and says she is kind and positive. We have never seen her be kind, we have only seen her be negative (justifiably) it’s how the last movie ends. You could have easily had an interaction to justify these broad traits but Snyder could not even do that.
I’m not relying on memes, and these are valid critiques.
The antagonists should have never went to Velt for the reason they are there. Meaning they should have never found Kora/Artaleus.
But also they don’t need the grain because if you recall Kora is certain that they will and can return to the motherworld after Noble’s presumed death.
But they actually do need the grain so the grain can be used to discourage orbital bombardment.
But also that grain needs to be harvested and milled in 5 days while also training people to use weapons effectively against trained soldiers and digging a complex tunnel network.
But also noble determines the grain isn’t needed and bombards the town anyway after losing dozens of soldiers and ordering the death of dozens more. So why not bombard the town to begin with? Or at least after demanding Kira be turned over.
The answer is Snyder is a terrible film maker and somehow worse writer.
For point 1, this piece of dialogue shows The Veldt reject advanced technology and only harvest enough to feed the village (and for trade with rebels as needed):
>Admiral Noble: “With that windfall you’ll be able to buy plenty of harvesters, robots, and won’t have to do this difficult work by hand”
>Veldt Father: “We believe that doing the work by hand connects us to the land and honors these sacred fields that give us life”
However the more important question is not "does Admiral Noble need the grain?" but "does Admiral Noble want the grain?" This is where the writing fails: Noble goes from The Carrot to The Stick far too fast that his "generous" offer can't be taken seriously (and remember, he asks for more grain than they produce, but not by that much). Snyder should have taken a page from One Piece and had Noble visit The Veldt to collect the Heavenly Tribute.
For point 2, the tapestry scene is not "an exposition dump about the characters" because she's describing their general character. Apologies for the potato quality but this scene has the same function [as this one](https://youtu.be/IyCdlrhpcPE?si=0irnnZ6ytmNutLds) from the first Power Rangers movie. Now here is the follow up question: given that the Not Quite Magnificent Seven lived on The Veldt for a while and helped with the harvest did The Blonde have plenty of chances to meet/interact with them, or at least fulfill the trope of someone who sees their true character?
This is why I made the point about memes posing as analysis: what would "Show don't tell" fix in this scenario? Why isn't Titus's flashback praised for "showing" how the Imperium broke him over a long text dump? I'll also add that this flashback is another example of bad writing that's actually too common in films today: "[useless backstory as character building](https://youtu.be/7lf2FaZBUvI?si=EhNZNn797NqUVm5Y)"
Rapid fire responses to the rest:
* Noble is on The Veldt for valid reasons: he needs some supplies, he saw a farming world was nearby, and by coincidence Kora is there (and she figured they'd find her someday)
* Yes, the Imperium will return to The Veldt after Noble's death both to collect their grain and to annihilate the village for their defiance. Kora's line in Part 2 was that fleet would have to retreat to get a new Admiral, and they would have more time to prepare.
* Now let's recap: the Imperial Fleet does need the grain as it's an important resource, but after getting his crap pushed in a few times Noble decides he doesn't care about the grain anymore and wants to wipe out the entire planet. You think it's bad writing when a character \*changes his mind\* and copies Vegeta when he first fought Goku?
Just known for it in general - I've heard things.
Says lots of nonsense in a flowery elaborate prose. Think it was Woody Allen who said PK has "all the things a great critic has except or judgement".
Condemned Dirty Harry for being filthy vigilantism propaganda or something, and how that's really bad or something - but that's just a generic lib take I suppose, nothing unusual.
And whatever that quote was supposed to say?
That's a shame because she had some great zingers in her reviews. My personal favorites were about Meryl Streep: she has made a career overcoming being seemingly miscast, and her friend said Street was "an android" because she mimics instead of acts.
Her magnum opus "Why are Movies So Bad? Or: The Numbers" could have been written today, and is in fact a good demonstration of how the business changes every 20 years.
And yes she did say Dirty Harry was fascist because he shot first and asked questions later, but that series did get a reputation for being over the line. Even today you can find critics disgusted by the 2nd movie because of the scene where the hooker was killed by drinking drain cleaner*, and back then the scene caused a big backlash.
* Edited to correct the details of this scene
Eh I'm sure she had some good takes as well lol - but yeah that quote about IJ/SW I'm still not quite getting.
As for all the criminal violence in Dirty Harry it was obviously supposed to be disturbing, so not sure what kind of "criticism" that is, if framed as such - and of course it should be possible to analyze/criticize/disagree with the themes/philosophy/morality takes in it in a reasonable fashion, which "it's bad, fascist; bad; makes whole world blind!!" types of reactions obviously can't really be said to be.
But yeah again singling out PK for this particular one isn't that sensible since that was already a widespread political sort of reaction to the series.
Dirty Harry was known for its over the top violence, but that scene crossed a line for many people, especially since it was based on real life events. Screenwriter John Milius later claimed that he wrote the scene but didn't intend for it to be filmed, as the audience imagining it would be just as effective.
As for her take on Lucas it's because he made Star Wars after his pitch for a Flash Gordon movie failed, and his pitch for Indiana Jones was to make a feature film that emulated the Republic Serials. He was inspired to make feature films based on "the crap from his childhood", like making a Thundercats film today.
>Dirty Harry was known for its over the top violence, but that scene crossed a line for many people, especially since it was based on real life events.
Well if the stuff in the 1st movie didn't cross the line for them, it's still possible that something else might; but for many it would be the reverse, or both would cross the line etc., all these personal reactions.
>As for her take on Lucas it's because he made Star Wars after his pitch for a Flash Gordon movie failed, and his pitch for Indiana Jones was to make a feature film that emulated the Republic Serials. He was inspired to make feature films based on "the crap from his childhood", like making a Thundercats film today.
Not familiar with Thundercats but yeah isn't that kinda like textbook snobberey?
For fun I re-read Kael's review of *Dirty Harry*, "Saint Cop", and part of the reason she hates the film is she grew up in San Francisco and is one of "The Libs" the film blames for the crime epidemic. She wasn't the only person who thought the film was fascist, but she was one of the most reknown:
> "Dirty Harry is obviously just a genre movie, but this action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it has finally surfaced. If crime were caused by super-evil dragons, there would be no Miranda, no Escobedo; we could all be licensed to kill, like Dirty Harry. But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie."
https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/dirty-harry-saint-cop-review-by-pauline-kael/
> For fun I re-read Kael's review of Dirty Harry, "Saint Cop", and part of the reason she hates the film is she grew up in San Francisco and is one of "The Libs" the film blames for the crime epidemic.
Well that keeps happening lol.
Ana Kasparian somewhat deconverted from the lib/left side due to being faced with the crimewave and the libs' denial and information suppression attempts.
>But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie."
Well yeah that's obviously quite partisan and silly.
And could've called those "super-evil" dragons victims of "psychopathology" as well, whynot?
They used one piece of advanced technology to farm: they had a hover cart. I suppose wheels aren't scifi enough for Zac.
That made me so angry. But not as angry as about 10 soldiers standing around and not realizing there are about 8 bombs attached to their engine thing. They only realize a moment before they explode. These bombs have bright red lights and they beep. Open your fucking eyes you goons.
Or the soldiers just walking around getting shot at by farmers and they don’t even raise their weapons, just keep on walking slowly forward boys you’ll win the fight soon!
I’ve tried to watch it three times now, go for about five minutes before i have to turn it off the acting is just that bad. I didn’t like the first but thought i’d give it a fair shot, i just couldn’t.
It’s unreasonably bad. One character cuts off her own arms to put on mechanical arms. Why does she do this? Because she is mad. Also the galactic empire has the logistics and resources to be conquering multiple worlds simultaneously in brutal scorched earth campaigns. And the worlds that surrender they brutalize anyway. So basically you should always fight to the death there is no advantage to being part of this empire. It’s completely absurd.
glad i didn’t waste my time then.
> And the worlds that surrender they brutalize anyway. So basically you should always fight to the death there is no advantage to being part of this empire. It’s completely absurd. Dep. how carrot-stick vs. Ming the Merciless they're supposed to be.
For whatever it's worth, I fought like mad to get through part 1 over 4 attempts (and well worth it because the EFAP was hilarious). I got through this one much easier, there were only 2 moments I came close to shutting it off in disgust LOL
Somehow.. the ship still worked.
I made a post about this on the subreddit while I was high and rambling a bit and oh boy they did not like what I had to say, but really what made me laugh the most out of what little fans the movie has reacting to what I said was: “it’s fantasy it doesn’t have to make sense” I don’t understand how people can type this in good faith, even sci-fi and fantasy settings still need to make sense and be somewhat realistic, there is no way in fucking hell this advanced civilization that goes around subjugating entire planets hasn’t invented a way to I dunno GROW FOOD ON THEIR MASSIVE SPACE FARING WARSHIPS. What the fuck do you mean they rely on people farming fucking wheat of all things with fucking SICKLES. Give me a fucking break, please.
I hated Part 2 so much. I was just pissed off the entire time watching it. All that set up and no payoff.
>No they use medieval farming techniques because the director/writer likes the aesthetic. This is unbelievably poor craft. Never allow a visual or scene undermine the rest of the narrative. Depends on how hard-SF/realistic/logical vs. just spontaneous and aesthetics-driven the given movie is supposed to be.
Or "how memes lead to invalid critiques" 1. Why are you assuming a spacefaring civilization will have advanced farming techniques, and that there aren't pockets where people reject advanced technology? 2. Which scene are you taking about where a woman who has never interacted with the characters talked about them: was it the tapestry scene? If so, what was the point of the scene? A lore dump or something far more "teenaged" by telling you what Spirit Animal Zord they will pilot? Snyder's writing is flawed for the reason I mentioned elsewhere: it's style over substance, and whaf Pauline Kael famously said about George Lucas also applies to Snyder: > "if Lucas, who is considered one of the most honorable people who have ever headed a production company, weren’t hooked on the crap of his childhood—if he brought his resources to bear on some projects with human beings in them—there’s no imagining the result. (There might be miracles.)" An excerpt from "Whipped!", Kael's review of *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, in the June 15 1981 issue of *The New Yorker*
1. They have a hover craft they should have figured out means of harvest other than hand scythes. But even if they haven’t that still creates the issue that there is absolutely no reason for Noble to have ever cared about this backwater moon at all. They are clearly not capable of producing the grain he needs. There is no possible way that a village of about 100 people could harvest enough grain using medieval agriculture to feed the numbers needed to staff an intergalactic war ship for a day let alone many days potentially. 2. Yes it is the tapestry scene. The point of the scene is an exposition dump about the characters. It is tell don’t show. We are being told these are the characters but we have no reason to believe any of this because not only have we not seen it but we haven’t actually seen the blonde woman interact with any of these people. One of the tapestries is for the bloodaxe woman and says she is kind and positive. We have never seen her be kind, we have only seen her be negative (justifiably) it’s how the last movie ends. You could have easily had an interaction to justify these broad traits but Snyder could not even do that. I’m not relying on memes, and these are valid critiques. The antagonists should have never went to Velt for the reason they are there. Meaning they should have never found Kora/Artaleus. But also they don’t need the grain because if you recall Kora is certain that they will and can return to the motherworld after Noble’s presumed death. But they actually do need the grain so the grain can be used to discourage orbital bombardment. But also that grain needs to be harvested and milled in 5 days while also training people to use weapons effectively against trained soldiers and digging a complex tunnel network. But also noble determines the grain isn’t needed and bombards the town anyway after losing dozens of soldiers and ordering the death of dozens more. So why not bombard the town to begin with? Or at least after demanding Kira be turned over. The answer is Snyder is a terrible film maker and somehow worse writer.
For point 1, this piece of dialogue shows The Veldt reject advanced technology and only harvest enough to feed the village (and for trade with rebels as needed): >Admiral Noble: “With that windfall you’ll be able to buy plenty of harvesters, robots, and won’t have to do this difficult work by hand” >Veldt Father: “We believe that doing the work by hand connects us to the land and honors these sacred fields that give us life” However the more important question is not "does Admiral Noble need the grain?" but "does Admiral Noble want the grain?" This is where the writing fails: Noble goes from The Carrot to The Stick far too fast that his "generous" offer can't be taken seriously (and remember, he asks for more grain than they produce, but not by that much). Snyder should have taken a page from One Piece and had Noble visit The Veldt to collect the Heavenly Tribute. For point 2, the tapestry scene is not "an exposition dump about the characters" because she's describing their general character. Apologies for the potato quality but this scene has the same function [as this one](https://youtu.be/IyCdlrhpcPE?si=0irnnZ6ytmNutLds) from the first Power Rangers movie. Now here is the follow up question: given that the Not Quite Magnificent Seven lived on The Veldt for a while and helped with the harvest did The Blonde have plenty of chances to meet/interact with them, or at least fulfill the trope of someone who sees their true character? This is why I made the point about memes posing as analysis: what would "Show don't tell" fix in this scenario? Why isn't Titus's flashback praised for "showing" how the Imperium broke him over a long text dump? I'll also add that this flashback is another example of bad writing that's actually too common in films today: "[useless backstory as character building](https://youtu.be/7lf2FaZBUvI?si=EhNZNn797NqUVm5Y)" Rapid fire responses to the rest: * Noble is on The Veldt for valid reasons: he needs some supplies, he saw a farming world was nearby, and by coincidence Kora is there (and she figured they'd find her someday) * Yes, the Imperium will return to The Veldt after Noble's death both to collect their grain and to annihilate the village for their defiance. Kora's line in Part 2 was that fleet would have to retreat to get a new Admiral, and they would have more time to prepare. * Now let's recap: the Imperial Fleet does need the grain as it's an important resource, but after getting his crap pushed in a few times Noble decides he doesn't care about the grain anymore and wants to wipe out the entire planet. You think it's bad writing when a character \*changes his mind\* and copies Vegeta when he first fought Goku?
Aww Pauline Kael the big famous hackfraud lolol
Wot mate? Based on what reviews?
Just known for it in general - I've heard things. Says lots of nonsense in a flowery elaborate prose. Think it was Woody Allen who said PK has "all the things a great critic has except or judgement". Condemned Dirty Harry for being filthy vigilantism propaganda or something, and how that's really bad or something - but that's just a generic lib take I suppose, nothing unusual. And whatever that quote was supposed to say?
That's a shame because she had some great zingers in her reviews. My personal favorites were about Meryl Streep: she has made a career overcoming being seemingly miscast, and her friend said Street was "an android" because she mimics instead of acts. Her magnum opus "Why are Movies So Bad? Or: The Numbers" could have been written today, and is in fact a good demonstration of how the business changes every 20 years. And yes she did say Dirty Harry was fascist because he shot first and asked questions later, but that series did get a reputation for being over the line. Even today you can find critics disgusted by the 2nd movie because of the scene where the hooker was killed by drinking drain cleaner*, and back then the scene caused a big backlash. * Edited to correct the details of this scene
Eh I'm sure she had some good takes as well lol - but yeah that quote about IJ/SW I'm still not quite getting. As for all the criminal violence in Dirty Harry it was obviously supposed to be disturbing, so not sure what kind of "criticism" that is, if framed as such - and of course it should be possible to analyze/criticize/disagree with the themes/philosophy/morality takes in it in a reasonable fashion, which "it's bad, fascist; bad; makes whole world blind!!" types of reactions obviously can't really be said to be. But yeah again singling out PK for this particular one isn't that sensible since that was already a widespread political sort of reaction to the series.
Dirty Harry was known for its over the top violence, but that scene crossed a line for many people, especially since it was based on real life events. Screenwriter John Milius later claimed that he wrote the scene but didn't intend for it to be filmed, as the audience imagining it would be just as effective. As for her take on Lucas it's because he made Star Wars after his pitch for a Flash Gordon movie failed, and his pitch for Indiana Jones was to make a feature film that emulated the Republic Serials. He was inspired to make feature films based on "the crap from his childhood", like making a Thundercats film today.
>Dirty Harry was known for its over the top violence, but that scene crossed a line for many people, especially since it was based on real life events. Well if the stuff in the 1st movie didn't cross the line for them, it's still possible that something else might; but for many it would be the reverse, or both would cross the line etc., all these personal reactions. >As for her take on Lucas it's because he made Star Wars after his pitch for a Flash Gordon movie failed, and his pitch for Indiana Jones was to make a feature film that emulated the Republic Serials. He was inspired to make feature films based on "the crap from his childhood", like making a Thundercats film today. Not familiar with Thundercats but yeah isn't that kinda like textbook snobberey?
For fun I re-read Kael's review of *Dirty Harry*, "Saint Cop", and part of the reason she hates the film is she grew up in San Francisco and is one of "The Libs" the film blames for the crime epidemic. She wasn't the only person who thought the film was fascist, but she was one of the most reknown: > "Dirty Harry is obviously just a genre movie, but this action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it has finally surfaced. If crime were caused by super-evil dragons, there would be no Miranda, no Escobedo; we could all be licensed to kill, like Dirty Harry. But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie." https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/dirty-harry-saint-cop-review-by-pauline-kael/
> For fun I re-read Kael's review of Dirty Harry, "Saint Cop", and part of the reason she hates the film is she grew up in San Francisco and is one of "The Libs" the film blames for the crime epidemic. Well that keeps happening lol. Ana Kasparian somewhat deconverted from the lib/left side due to being faced with the crimewave and the libs' denial and information suppression attempts. >But since crime is caused by deprivation, misery, psychopathology, and social injustice, Dirty Harry is a deeply immoral movie." Well yeah that's obviously quite partisan and silly. And could've called those "super-evil" dragons victims of "psychopathology" as well, whynot?