Well, that's hard to say. I guess that's why there's value in looking at... other reviewers' reviews? I think comments like cafenowhere's above are interesting to know. I think that for a lot of sf/f movies most of what can be gleaned has to do with relatability (LJ doesn't think that's a word) of characters and the expectation/desire for a familiar story trajectory - I mean, that's something I noticed about myself in watching this movie, how much I expected certain things to happen in a certain way, and when they didn't, I actually felt like, "well, that's weird." Or how I felt Loki's character to be unconvincing and inconsistent - how much of that was just my reaction to not seeing the kind of villain I expected from a summer blockbuster?
The one thing I always look for in modern action movies is the ultimate bad guy's nationality and position vis-a-vis the good guys, because I always find it encouraging when the bad guys are not stereotypical foreign boogeymen types, but I have no idea whether the popularity of even these non-stereotypical-bad-guy movies indicates that audiences don't want stereotypical foreign boogeymen. Judging by the popularity of movies like Taken, it probably doesn't mean anything.
So...does writing movie reviews do that for you? I mean, you say it gets you thinking about how you would write things differently. That sounds kind of a step removed from deciding what you think about things, but maybe not.
Well, what I think about things pretty much determines how I would write things differently, so I'd say yeah. I would add, however, that that's also why I see the movie in the first place, not just why I would write a review. The review sort of sums up my reaction to the movie, but it doesn't usually spell out my thoughts as a writer, specifically.
First off, none of this is impersonal to me, at all. It's very personal - I was just trying to explain why heroes are more interesting to me than antiheroes, but even that stuff is all personal preference.
What I mean by antiheroes not having rules is that nothing they do is really a violation of their role, because they don't have to answer to anyone. That doesn't mean they may not have a personal code to live by, of course, and usually they do, but as far as social norms, it tends to be sort of anything-goes. But here, I may be thinking of a particular sort of lead character that is popular in "gritty fantasy" that I have no interest in - I think I'm better off talking about the hero type that I do write about instead of criticizing something that I'm not sure encompasses what other people would consider an antihero. Because usually "antihero" to me means "asshole that people look up to," and that's not a very well-thought-out or fair perspective.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in the rest of your comment starting with The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication. I mean, I tend to think heroism and hero cults are destructive and deceptive, which may be something I should have said earlier. A long time ago I decided that the point of what's now Junction Rally, as an exercise, was seeing what would happen to these archetypes if they were put into the "real world" and forced to actually play the hand they're dealt. But within that, it's what happens to the "paladin" that I'm most intrigued by.
This isn't something particularly novel in and of itself - I think the recent enthusiasm for "dark, gritty fantasy" comes out of a similar place, a desire for fantasy fiction that isn't full of stereotypes, but yet is still sort of... in dialogue with the stereotypes. And has more profanity, apparently. But I think my approach and emphasis is markedly different. I'm more sentimental, among many other things :P
no subject
The one thing I always look for in modern action movies is the ultimate bad guy's nationality and position vis-a-vis the good guys, because I always find it encouraging when the bad guys are not stereotypical foreign boogeymen types, but I have no idea whether the popularity of even these non-stereotypical-bad-guy movies indicates that audiences don't want stereotypical foreign boogeymen. Judging by the popularity of movies like Taken, it probably doesn't mean anything.
So...does writing movie reviews do that for you? I mean, you say it gets you thinking about how you would write things differently. That sounds kind of a step removed from deciding what you think about things, but maybe not.
Well, what I think about things pretty much determines how I would write things differently, so I'd say yeah. I would add, however, that that's also why I see the movie in the first place, not just why I would write a review. The review sort of sums up my reaction to the movie, but it doesn't usually spell out my thoughts as a writer, specifically.
First off, none of this is impersonal to me, at all. It's very personal - I was just trying to explain why heroes are more interesting to me than antiheroes, but even that stuff is all personal preference.
What I mean by antiheroes not having rules is that nothing they do is really a violation of their role, because they don't have to answer to anyone. That doesn't mean they may not have a personal code to live by, of course, and usually they do, but as far as social norms, it tends to be sort of anything-goes. But here, I may be thinking of a particular sort of lead character that is popular in "gritty fantasy" that I have no interest in - I think I'm better off talking about the hero type that I do write about instead of criticizing something that I'm not sure encompasses what other people would consider an antihero. Because usually "antihero" to me means "asshole that people look up to," and that's not a very well-thought-out or fair perspective.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in the rest of your comment starting with The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication. I mean, I tend to think heroism and hero cults are destructive and deceptive, which may be something I should have said earlier. A long time ago I decided that the point of what's now Junction Rally, as an exercise, was seeing what would happen to these archetypes if they were put into the "real world" and forced to actually play the hand they're dealt. But within that, it's what happens to the "paladin" that I'm most intrigued by.
This isn't something particularly novel in and of itself - I think the recent enthusiasm for "dark, gritty fantasy" comes out of a similar place, a desire for fantasy fiction that isn't full of stereotypes, but yet is still sort of... in dialogue with the stereotypes. And has more profanity, apparently. But I think my approach and emphasis is markedly different. I'm more sentimental, among many other things :P