ghostrunner wrote:I haven't seen it yet, but "movie of X is not like the real X" is dumb criticism.
Very much so.
Can't a movie be a good movie then you learn more about the subject and you change your mind because you find that it treats that subject dishonestly?
Just a thought.
Fagen's dismissiveness is just a little much. He's always prickly, so whatever. Sharks don't chase typically people and boats, but I don't think Jaws is trying to accurately portray shark behavior. Hurt Locker is apparently dismissed by a lot of vets as laughably unrealistic, but as a movie it works. I don't know why people act as if movies are setting out to be definitive statements on a given subject. If that's what someone is after, I think they should stick to non-fiction.
I guess it depends on the approach. You have movies that appear to set out for historical accuracy. Like biopics that tick off the boxes, but then those aren't usually very good movies. That Gettysburg movie from 15 years ago or so that was supposedly very accurate and detailed, and was also super boring.
From what I know about Whiplash, it's sort of a psychological thriller about a teacher and a student. It sounds like you could just as easily set it in a culinary school.
Fagen is not the first criticism I've read. Can't recall if it was posted here but some former jazz prodigy turned Southern Cal jazz prof said it was just a terrible premise and dishonest to the subject.
I haven't seen "Whiplash", but I don't know why I as a moviegoer should give a flying crap if it's a realistic portrayal of jazz music or anything else.
I guess if it's a subject you're passionate about, it matters more.
I know next to nothing about jazz, but I loved Whiplash (as did most people).
I know a lot about the NFL Draft, which is part of the reason I thought Draft Day was a turd. Granted, it wasn't critically acclaimed, but most reviews I read thought it was an above average popcorn movie.
33anda3rd wrote:Is it ok to praise a movie if it does get all the truths and nuances of the real thing?
Movies have different aims so I don't see why not.
Then why is it not ok to criticize a movie if it gets the reality of the thing wrong?
If this is important to someone, they're watching movies for different reasons than me. Which is fine. But saying it's like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is pretty ridiculous.
MrCrowesGarden wrote:I guess if it's a subject you're passionate about, it matters more.
I know next to nothing about jazz, but I loved Whiplash (as did most people).
I know a lot about the NFL Draft, which is part of the reason I thought Draft Day was a turd. Granted, it wasn't critically acclaimed, but most reviews I read thought it was an above average popcorn movie.
I think this is unavoidable when you have some expertise. Cops and lawyers probably laugh at tv shows all the time.
I see people in movies hacking FBI computers using interfaces that look like they're designed for an 8 year old [ENTER PASSWORD:_________ ], but I can look past it.
I watched Nightcrawler again. That character is so fascinating and slippery to me. You're just so used to the sociopath being charming and smooth. This guy is aspbergery and graceless and feels like that guy in high school or college that sat at your table and no one liked and was always asking for really big favors.
Still can't believe Gyllenhaal didn't get a nom for that.
I hope someone travels from whatever dimension Westeros is in so they can tell me whether Game of Thrones is any good.
Also, it's 2015 so we can all now speak with some authority on the quality of Back to the Future 2. Almost every detail is wrong. Terrible movie, am I right?
33anda3rd wrote:Is it ok to praise a movie if it does get all the truths and nuances of the real thing?
Movies have different aims so I don't see why not.
Then why is it not ok to criticize a movie if it gets the reality of the thing wrong?
If this is important to someone, they're watching movies for different reasons than me. Which is fine. But saying it's like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is pretty ridiculous.
They're maybe not watching for different reasons, but are receptive in different ways. Those folks are maybe a bit more cynical, as viewers, than you or others.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much. I think that something that's hyper-real like "The Wire" should get a bit of extra credit over something that's enjoyable but not at all real like "Brooklyn 99."
People who know about jazz school = very small circle
The producers can probably handle the bad press from people in the overlap between the two circles. I have a friend who was a nationally ranked fencer, and he hates "Highlander" because the sword fights are rubbish. But he admits that accurately depicted sword fights wouldn't be super-exciting to the average viewer.
