>It's a superhero movie, it's not made to take so seriously.
>It's a comedy, it's not made to take so seriously.
What do you think of people who use this kind of argument? It's a valid answer or just an excuse to cover up the mistakes of the work?
>>81628420
It's not, all of pixar's previous films were taken seriously.
>>81628420
The latter.
If you're trying to tell a story it should be told well.
Anything less is a bad story and if you're defending a bad story then you have poor taste.
Sometimes it's a valid point to make, depends on the context.
If you say something is bad for real reasons, or just have a legitimate criticism, yeah that kind of response can be a cop out and/or form of damage control.
However, if you are unfairly critiquing something or....taking something too seriously, which IS possible and some people DO do, then it's a fair response.
Example....let's say something is a comedy show, and something is obviously done as a sight gag and not meant to effect continuity at all, and you start autisming about the physics of a cartoon universe and how a joke fucked up your idea of what's "canon", then yes....please stop taking it so seriously.
On the flipside, if you think a joke was bad and have a real reason for WHY you think the comedy doesn't work, that's just your opinion and you're welcome to have it.
In a third scenario, if you're watching a comedy and you just hate jokes to begin with, then don't fucking watch it.
There's a Simpsons joke. It's from the Poochy episode. Homer has become the VA of a new cartoon character, and he's doing some PR with the elderly lady who does the voice of Itchy. She's in the Androids Dungeon comic shop, doing a Q&A with Homer, sort of a stand in for comiccons I guess.
Some grown adult nerd asks her something to the effect "How come in episode XX, where Itchy turns Scratchy's rib cage into a xylophone, he hits the same rib twice but produces two clearly distinct notes. Are we supposed to believe this is some sort of magic xylophone? Guh. Right. I sure hope somebody got fired over that screw up."
If you have to be reminded that a cartoon/cape movie whatever is for children, you're probably that faggot.
depends on what you're responding to
it's a perfectly valid counter-argument against say, autists who complain about the iron man suit not being technologically viable
>>81628420
It really really depends. There are times when something aims to just be fun rather than something meant to be taken seriously. Usually it's a valid excuse for nitpicks with the plot.
On the other hand, it's definitely not an excuse for something that's simply low quality. When it's a valid excuse, it's usually because the subject in question has enough other attributes to make up for whatever the complaint is.
>>81628420
>mfw an animation/ comedy/ capemovie fails to be funny and someone uses this argument.
A lot of people used this with The Martian.
>who cares if the plot is superficial and Matt Damon managed to fix everything easily, it is a heartwarming comedy, dude, it's not to take so seriously.
>>81628898
Comedy and comic books don't go hand in hand, a comic book CAN be funny, but it isn't the rule of thumb. There are as many "Adult" or "dark" comics or storylines out there as there are kiddy , silly, or comedic.
So in the context of cape stuff, it really all depends on what's being taken "too seriously". If someone is complaining about realism or something like >>81628730 said, yeah, youre taking it too fucking seriously.....but then if someone says "man, i didn't like dance off scene, it was fucking dumb" just for example, or "that emo Parker crap in Spider-Man 3 was lame", but someone says DUDE ITS BASED ON COMICS, STOP TAKING IT SERIOUSLY
Yeah that's a cop out, just because something is capeshit doesn't mean it needs to be camp, funny, or goofy by a rule of thumb. Not that it HAS to be serious either, but we all have our preferences.
>>81629296
>DUDE ITS BASED ON COMICS, STOP TAKING IT SERIOUSLY
I FUCKING HATE THIS
>>81628681
there's a huge difference between insignificant stuff like that and huge glaring plot holes
>>81628420
>mistakes
Everything you see was meant to be shown
>>81628681
Just because that guy overreacted to such a minor mistake doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.
I thought The Good Dinosaur was a decent movie.
>>81629969
Not necessarily. Yeah, you would think that, in an animated program, where each visual detail needs to e painstakingly and purposefully crafted, you would expect there to be no mistakes, but little mistakes can still happen. It's true that you'll never see a stage hand that accidentally ended up in the shot, but you get other stuff. Like those little flubs where a character, say, loses their hat in one shot, in the next shot the character appears in the background wearing what should be the lost hat, then in the third shot the hat is gone again. That happens all the time. It's not supposed to, but sometimes those things slip through.
"Your criticism is nitpicking that has no real bearing on the effectiveness of the work" is fine. You can acknowledge that something doesn't jive with your understanding of the world or meet your standards for good art, and then explain why you're willing to suspend your disbelief or overlook a flaw.
"The genre, tradition, or intended audience of the work means that your line of criticism is inappropriate, misplaced, or unwelcome" is bad. Context and intention don't make a work immune from criticism, although good criticism tries to take those things into account. If you think someone's missing important contextual information, give it to them. And then continue the argument from there.
In the middle you have "Your criticism does affect the work, but not in ways that hinder the goals of the work's creator." This is the big gray area, but just because a creator didn't think about or doesn't care about something doesn't mean you're not allowed to.
no excuse for shit skills
>>81629109
THIS
Same with Avengers.
>There are no stakes in this film.
>Relax. Don't take it so seriously.
