The Big Picture: Stone Soup

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

DVS BSTrD:
Character Archetypes2 + Standard Plot2= $2
Glad you brought up such a sedimental favorite.

Haha! I see what you did there :-)

Rednog:

You kind of missed the point of the argument. The argument doesn't apply to something like Nintendo games because they are sequentially being formulaic their previous iterations. While something like the Avengers was formulaic in the overarching plot it was still used for something new. We haven't had an Avengers movie before. However if this was say Avengers 4 and they were still sticking to the same, Act I: Introduce Avengers; Act II: They disagree; Act III They band together it would be a big problem.
Same with the Flinstones, while it uses tropes from sitcoms and the honeymooners it wrapped them up into something new, it's not like they had another prehistoric 60's parody around.

If Nintendo made a game that sort of felt like Zelda and carried the plot of say Metroid and looked like Mario one could argue and say yea sure it's formulaic and really doesn't bring anything new to the table, but it is a solid new game/series. Whereas with the current Nintendo franchises it's like oh look, it's formulaic and that's bad because we've seen the exact same thing before.
There is a big difference between following tropes and being a slightly off carbon copy.

PS: Just because a person makes videos for the internet doesn't suddenly make their word gold. Just because someone like Bob, Yahtzee, Jim, Extra Credits say something it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly nor expect to post their argument and have it suddenly be the end all be all of an argument. It could be a well rationalized argument but very few, if any, arguments are the final answer to a problem.

The irony of your opening statement amuses me to no end. Fantastic post script, by the way. Not only does it highlight a glaring assumption of authoritative opinion, but also projects that the view in question is some kind of all purpose fit, wherein the qualifiers of the argument tell you exactly when it fits, and yet my use of applying it to a parallel media with a set of titles that use formula as a way to present either a new mechanic, aesthetic, thematic feel or other such non-story related component of gaming somehow is the option within the qualifications that breaks the mold? Man, how did I not recognize that one? That with only slight variations in the story allows them to focus on characters, locations, combat, movement, and a new experience, but that doing so doesn't allow them to use a formula that works well, regardless of who created it, offering these minor tweaks as the points of interest rather than the formula itself?

You say it doesn't apply to video games, because video games are copying each other. And movies and television don't? So, western movies don't tend to follow one of a small few scripting ideas? Romcoms and Sitcoms don't have an arc where several people meet, at least two of them fall in love, they have a giant fight via some misunderstanding, then it's resolved to the benefit of most, with minor tweaks being things like location, circumstances of the misunderstanding, and whether or not they're writing letters to each other through time? Just because video games are younger, and their genesis is still fresh enough to be seen, doesn't exclude them from this argument. Formula is like concrete--it's not the reason you buy a house, but if it's broken, then you won't buy anyway.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Bob. Good formulas allow the work to be focused in other areas.

On a side note, that pic of Fred's shocked face is one of the funniest pics I've seen of him.

I just want to say that I love how you keep using stills from the movie Pleasantville when you're talking about sitcoms because of how that movie talked about them. It just straight up amuses me.

I wonder if bob will ever do a 'big picture' about cartoons like 'the centurions', 'M.A.S.K(Mobile Armored Strike Kommand)', 'Samurai jack', 'Darkwing duck', 'Tailspin' or even my old favorite, 'Swat Katz: the radical squadron', now thats an oddball one, it stopped because they thought it was too 'violent' in the 90s... oh wait, that explains it, the 90's sucked, damn you 90's for killing my favorite show after only 2 seasons, Megas XLR or Samurai jack is more violent than it was, thou it never killed as many people off camera as swat kats, i never counted though.

I know its a lot of different series and its a blend of good and bad, but im a old fan of all of them, dont know why though.

He has already done 'Bravestar', a more... unique-looking cartoon, i guess is the word and flintstones now, which i can understand. it was the most hardlived cartoon for a longtime, until another 'scrappy doo' character was introduced, or thats what i remember at least, Bob did do a video about this kind of thing. I have seen all of the ones ive mentioned, though never in the original language on tv, only dubs, which was a bit of a drag.

I dont hate the Flintstones, but they get tiring really fast.

And i do agree with Bob on how any old formula can work if you do it right in some unique any such as characters or new environment. (though why he choose a pic of Avatar to express anything positive confuses me, especially for the environment thing because it didnt do that well either while having complete shit characters and more plot holes than a block of swiss cheese at a gun show)

Honestly, I only watched the Flintstones because I'd watch any cartoon back when I was little. The jokes got old fast, and I was never very fond of the standard Hanna-Barbera techniques for limited animation. I don't know how many times I saw Fred's walking loop on top of that endless livingroom, with his head bobbing around on top of his collar :P

Cry Wolf:

MovieBob:
Stone Soup

MovieBob takes a good look at the Flintstones.

Watch Video

Moviebob, do you understand that more than one of your own reviews invoke the same reaction you describe at the begining of this video from a significant number of viewers? I'd suggest that you take a look at your status as a film critic - you know, the fact that you run a minor weekly webseries as the sum monument to your abilities. You're only in a position to be a hypocritic when making such statements about the work of others.

TL;DR - You actually are pretty bad at movie criticism, and should deflate your own ego a bit.

What i was thinking when viewing this, wasnīt that the entire point of his Artist review? Missing the point of everything and disregarding it for being shallow and formulaic? Not that people arenīt allowed to have their own opinions, just find it strange to hear this from Moviebob.

Though he might have a point, though i often have a problem with films being too formulaic. I know most movies are that way, but sometimes it just gets too obvious, for example when a movie goes through every cliche step by step.

I do think things can be TOO close to formula.

Avengers was formula + a cast we love.
Flintstones was formula + stone age humour.
Matrix was formula + bullet time + agents + other cool stuff.

Avatar was formula +....uh...3d blue cats or something.

I've watch the matrix loads of times, watched flintstones over and over. I have no desire to see avatar again.

Going to a food analogy, there is nothing wrong with making a burger to "Formula"

Bun, meat, sauce.

eddible, maybe even enjoyable, however if you go beyond the formula and go

Bun, meat, cheese, slice of pineapple

you get something a lot more enjoyable.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 59787)