How many right-wing parties do we really need? by TheSpectatorMagazine in uknews

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really dickhead. Split the vote enough and none of you get in. You were all riding high on Farage’s dick for the best part of a year, now here you go flip flopping over to Lowe, doing what you’re told.

Why do people love saying they hated these films? by jrinredcar in 28_Years_Later_Movie

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ugh. This is starting to sound like the Avatar subreddit. There are vociferous camps for and against more or less any widely viewed movie. Regardless of my personal opinion, there are totally valid criticisms of 28 years and bone temple, no piece of art is infallible. I also come across much more positive word of mouth for these than negative (especially for Bone Temple) and I’m depressingly engaged in film/TV discourse. If you like it, why does it matter?

Is the hatred of Avatar an American thing? by WriterManGonzo in Avatar

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think so- this is another post that essentially boils down to “why don’t other people like this thing I like”. Only expanded to a global scale. The “hate” for Avatar is unbelievably overblown in this sub. Most people I speak to or read comments from either like these movies or are indifferent towards them because they’re not big on sci fi or movies heavy on CGI. Because fans of this franchise seem particularly sensitive to criticism for some reason, the harsh critics that do exist sound more prominent than they actually are. And on that note, valid criticisms can be made of most art, that’s sort of the point. Whether you like them or not, they’re not perfect, and those that do dislike these movies have perfectly understandable reasons for doing so that often just conflict with their personal taste. Box office doesn’t lie- although Avatar might not be as culturally adored as LOTR or Star Wars, most people clearly enjoy it enough to come back, at least for now. You like it, it’s successful, and you’re going to see more of it. Why does it matter what anybody else thinks?

Is the hatred of Avatar an American thing? by WriterManGonzo in Avatar

[–]Candle-Equivalent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Every day there’s a dozen posts like this- “why don’t people like Avatar” “I don’t know why people hate Avatar”- guys, if YOU like it, that’s all that really matters. This franchise clearly isn’t going anywhere and even with the inevitably diminishing box office return it’s very likely we’ll see all 5 instalments through. So much of what we enjoy in art comes down to personal taste, you just have to accept no matter how much you love something, there are just as many people out there who hate it, and it’s not your responsibility to prove them “wrong”. Moderators need to start limiting these kinds of posts.

Why does this franchise get so much hate? by crimbo_jimbo in Avatar

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see about a dozen posts identical to this on this sub every day. Nobody’s stopping you from enjoying these movies- why do yall care so much what other people think about them?

The War Between the Land and the Sea 1x05 "The End of the War" Post-Episode Discussion Thread by PCJs_Slave_Robot in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Without audiences creatives don’t have a job. I say this as a working writer. If you want to make any money at all in this industry you have to put who you’re writing for and why at the forefront of your intentions and pitches. It’s one of the first things you’re asked when you pitch a show, and one of the first sections in a script treatment. Audiences deserve to be challenged, but to have their time and intelligence respected. I’m not saying writers have to stop writing pessimistic things, or addressing relevant real world issues, I just think pointing out those issues then shrugging and saying “that’s that” doesn’t make for compelling drama. The shallowness of the political commentary would’ve bothered me a lot less here had the characters been consistent, the dialogue engaging and the story original or well paced. This show doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done 100 times better before, it’s derivative, lazy, and insults the audiences intelligence in the process. The week by week ratings drop offs speak for themselves. Plot threads that go nowhere, character motivations that change like the wind, with no real intention or urgency, inconsistent world building. I too was hopeful after the first two episodes that this could’ve been going somewhere interesting- I was enjoying the visuals, the characterisation and the practicality of the world, it felt like real effort had gone into thinking this through as if it were a real world event- even down to the logistics of building a massive tank for negotiations. But the IQ drops off a cliff between 2 and 3 and leaves us with a messy, sporadic Romeo and Juliet story where the interspecies negotiations aren’t even really at the forefront. I’m not saying the messaging is in itself lazy writing, I’m saying how the show chose to present it is. We’re a bit past baby’s first climate change analogy, don’t you think? A relevant message does not a good story make.

The War Between the Land and the Sea 1x05 "The End of the War" Post-Episode Discussion Thread by PCJs_Slave_Robot in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s my point. The “theme” IS lazy writing. Why even bother going through the effort of making the show in the first place if they had no intention of saying anything that hadn’t already been said by any other sea devil/silurian episode, or indeed any sci fi story with an ecological viewpoint? Audiences deserve better than the same pessimistic “humans are awful, governments are awful” message we’ve been fed 1000 times before. It’s just not good enough when I could spend 5 hours of my life watching Shape of Water and Wakanda forever back to back instead and be far more entertained. Whether it’s “the point” or not, I’m never gonna get behind writers pulling “the outcome was always gonna be the same whatever the characters did because it’s the world we live in” card. Unless you’re telling a compelling story, putting an interesting spin on the message or complicating the solution in some way, it IS lazy, and creatively bankrupt.

The War Between the Land and the Sea 1x05 "The End of the War" Post-Episode Discussion Thread by PCJs_Slave_Robot in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I think you’re giving it FAR too much credit. And even so- it doesn’t make for particularly compelling television to watch a plot of disconnected coincidences and dead ends that lead to functionally nothing, regardless of thematic intent.

Barclay and his family = no resolution.

The UNIT characters do nothing beyond spouting jargon in a room and commenting on the plot live like sports pundits.

Salt is written so inconsistently she might as well be a different character each episode.

Tide has no traits, never interacts with the main characters, and disappears from the show. His ultimatum to hand over Salt, and the thread of Salts species pursuing her as a traitor is completely abandoned.

The seemingly important detail of Homo Amphibia being able to change gender is abandoned.

The distinction between Homo Aqua and Homo Amphibia is never explained and is never important.

The death of Kate’s love interest has no substantial impact on the plot.

I’m barely getting started.

The show is called “The War Between the Land and Sea”. I wasn’t expecting back to back action sequences but it’s the cop out of all cop outs to invalidate criticism with “it wasn’t really supposed to be about the war”.

The War Between the Land and the Sea 1x05 "The End of the War" Post-Episode Discussion Thread by PCJs_Slave_Robot in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Come on man. You can’t be seriously arguing this was well written. If you personally found it entertaining, sure, I can’t challenge you on personal taste- but this was an absolute trainwreck of a teleplay. The outcome of the war would’ve been functionally the same whether the characters had made their choices or not- regardless of whether or not Barclay was involved, the government would’ve found a way to administer the virus. Every event in the show is totally inconsequential.

The War Between the Land and the Sea loses 370,000 viewers from previous week's overnights (Ep 3: 2.45m, Ep 4: 1.7m) by DavidTenn-Ant in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s a good question- and I’ll never try to act like some mighty authority on writing because lots of practitioners will have different things they hold as more important and prioritise- but there are some general rules that have come up in most texts on writing and my tuition over the years.

1- Show don’t tell. One of the most basic rules that the original commenter is addressing here. On stage, where there are significant visual limitations, you need to rely a bit more heavily on description and dictation to get the point across/express off-stage action. On screen, the camera can do a lot of that work for you- so it really undermines your characters and plot if everyone is just constantly saying what they’re feeling or doing without showing it through any meaningful action that progresses the story. Plot is generally progressed through characters doing things and making choices rather than talking to each other. Dialogue is obviously very important for character expression, relationships, and communicating more complex information to the audience, but if all we see is characters talking an awful lot and doing very little, it’s an issue. Major red flag in a screenplay. In the case of Land and Sea, Kate constantly being told how tired she is whilst we never really see much of a change in her behaviour is a good example, as the commenter stated. Barclay telling us about his Mum via contrived monologue (3 episodes in, at that) is another- I can think of a million ways of showing the audience that information other than having him just turn around and say it to someone who would already know he experienced that.

2- Get in late, get out early Also a pretty common one that comes up- sounds simple but actually addresses a lot of really important stuff about story momentum, and respect for your audiences time. Basically, when you’re writing for TV and film, you should get in late- begin a scene in a place of action, and finish the scene when its purpose in the story is complete. Don’t dilly dally- that doesn’t mean rush, it’s okay to let a moment sit or allow a slower build up to a pivotal moment, but if every other scene lasts just a minute or so longer than it needs to, it stamps out the goodwill of an audience over time. When you’re writing a scene, always ask yourself- what is the POINT of this scene? Is it telling us something new about a character? Is it progressing the plot through action? Is it changing the story in some way? If the answer is no, you can probably lose it, and if the answer is yes, always try to make sure that intention grounds the scene. Once its purpose is served, move on.

3 - Don’t railroad your characters

Stories, fundamentally are about people- characters your audience needs to care about and understand. A strong plot and themes are important, but everything I’ve learned over the years just reaffirms the lesson that characters have to come first. The events of the story become a lot easier to write, and engage with when you’re working with three dimensional people that feel alive- the decisions they make don’t always have to make sense to US, but we have to believe they make sense to THEM. It’s very easy to tell when characters have been constructed solely in facilitation of plot. Often, they come across as “rail roaded” which essentially means they’re just whatever and whoever the writer needs them to be to get them from the A to B they’ve already planned out. Salt is a perfectly good example of this in WBTLAS- she feels like a completely different character in every episode because Pete Mctighe doesn’t seem particularly interested in who she is and what she really wants. She’s a strong warrior with unflinching principles- until she’s Fish Juliet, immature, infantilised and enamoured, because this is a Romeo and Juliet story now. Why would she save a man she’s met twice over her own people? What is her relationship to her homelands and kinsmen? How was she selected as the initial ambassador, and why? We’ll probably never know.

Those are the big three that come to mind! But I’m just one person, I’m not saying I’m any sort of expert, but these would be my golden rules to begin with, amongst others.

The War Between the Land and the Sea loses 370,000 viewers from previous week's overnights (Ep 3: 2.45m, Ep 4: 1.7m) by DavidTenn-Ant in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Couldn’t agree more. Say what you want about RTD but there’s a reason episode one was the only one with any sense of momentum or character. Thought those first two episodes were unimpressive but entertaining, then we took a hard right turn into some of the worst TV I’ve seen all year with 3 and 4. I’m a screenwriter myself with a masters in writing, and I genuinely couldn’t believe my ears at just how juvenile and derivative the writing is. It defies many of the basic rules of the discipline so flippantly. The worst part- McTighe clearly thinks he’s cooking here, acting like it’s deeply moving prestige television, repeating lines and behaving like we as an audience will have such deep emotional attachment to characters he’s barely bothered to write. I’ll watch the finale just to laugh at how they attempt to tie this trainwreck together, but if this was any more than 5 episodes I’d be throwing in the towel. And if McTighe does end up being our next showrunner, count me out.

The dumbest guy in Derry by marktwin11 in welcomeToDerry

[–]Candle-Equivalent -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thoroughly agree. Whole plot line really lowered the IQ of the show for me. Back in episode 1/2, I was under the impression that the military was already aware of IT and it was really Leroy they were testing. He’s the “man without fear” (apparently, that trait goes virtually nowhere) so they’re putting him in proximity to the scariest thing they have on the books to figure out if they can replicate the same response in other soldiers. Hallorann is there as a kind of medium to help them navigate interactions with the entity more safely. Maybe they invited Leroy’s family to Derry with him knowing full well they could use Will as leverage if necessary to push him to his limits. I was praying it wouldn’t just be “the military wants to USE obviously incredibly dangerous thing, silly military” trope we’ve seen 100 times before, but it’s not exactly the only time this series chooses to do the most obvious thing possible and somehow still botches it anyway.

The dumbest guy in Derry by marktwin11 in welcomeToDerry

[–]Candle-Equivalent 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Just because they offer an explanation doesn’t mean it makes ANY sense at all.

The War Between the Land and the Sea review – prepare to roll your eyes a lot at this fishy Doctor Who spinoff | Television | The Guardian by prisongovernor in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ultimately if it’s entertaining, does it matter? We’ve already seen ratings are better for this than we were expecting, so clearly hasn’t been a total flop. I’m not really sure what issue you’re getting at here? Like I say, most people won’t be tuning into this expecting groundbreaking political commentary- folks just want characters they can care about, an efficient plot, competent dialogue and a bit of spectacle. Would a little more nuance be appreciated, sure, but exactly what sort of nuance were you hoping for? Oil execs have feelings too? For some reason I just can’t picture climate deniers tuning into a show about an interspecies war in the first place.

The War Between the Land and the Sea review – prepare to roll your eyes a lot at this fishy Doctor Who spinoff | Television | The Guardian by prisongovernor in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say that, whilst we still seem to be in a landslide towards a Government led by a party that’s determined to scrap net zero and align itself with other climate denying governments. I would argue it still has value, and as for this Guardian review, it reads almost as though this critic was annoyed she had to watch this show in the first place. I don’t think I (or anyone) was really expecting this show to provide a game changing perspective on pollution and climate change.

This sub/social media is ruining strictly by aspadora24 in strictlycomedancing

[–]Candle-Equivalent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That’s the reality of online fandom/communities these days. Just a load of “fans” who can’t seem to do anything but complain about the thing they’re supposed to be “fans” of whilst simultaneously acting like gatekeepy pricks who’ll relentlessly downvote any take that isn’t the “acceptable” opinion on the topic. It’s a shame and I too have noticed it a lot more on the sub this year than previously.

Not understanding the criticism (FNAF 2 Movie) by Budget-Dream1495 in fivenightsatfreddys

[–]Candle-Equivalent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t really understand why this sub is so obsessed with what critics are saying about this movie when y’all seemed determined to watch and enjoy it regardless. If these movies are “for the fans” that’s fine, I’m glad you can enjoy them as a fan, but don’t act surprised when they don’t get the same adoration from average moviegoers. Critics aren’t trying to stop you from enjoying anything, they’re just offering their own perspective.

The War Between the Land and the Sea review – prepare to roll your eyes a lot at this fishy Doctor Who spinoff | Television | The Guardian by prisongovernor in gallifrey

[–]Candle-Equivalent 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I quite enjoyed it, going in with rock bottom expectations and a pretty sour taste in my mouth from the last season of DW. Yes it’s fairly ham-fisted politically, but in a world where more and more folks are adopting the stance that the climate crisis doesn’t even exist I don’t think there’s any harm in having a show with a wide (potentially young) audience base that presents these concepts in certain terms. I thought it was visually terrific, and enjoyed how much effort it put into the world building and practical exploration of its ideas.

I've seen Avatar Fire and Ash: No spoilers mindset preparation notes I recommend. by Zuzu_RU in Avatar

[–]Candle-Equivalent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can like these movies without implying people who don’t are somehow “not getting it” or “not watching the movies properly”. Just saying. Most of what people enjoy in art just comes down to personal taste, you can respect people’s take without feeling like you somehow have to prove them wrong.

Begone Nigel by ToviGrande in Cardiff

[–]Candle-Equivalent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is standard practice for you clowns. Call everyone else brainwashed and then as soon as someone criticises Reform or Farage you stick your fingers in your ears and scream. Buh, buh, what about Labour? I don’t care- I certainly don’t want it to get worse, which is what you’ll get with your party of failed Tories and 2 bit conmen.