354 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonata]

 Film Crit Hulk writes some of the most illuminating, deep and compelling articles about movies. He's not only a very professional critic who never try to simply use sarcasm and harsh lines to gain popularity, but actually explain his reasons and he always has something extraordinary to say.

(He does all of this with the gimmick of the Hulk writing a deep cinema article so he use ALL-CAPS and the so-called "Hulk Speak", but believe me, it's worth it.)

Now, this guy does something that 90% of critics actually do not even consider: he take videogames seriously. He wrote beautiful articles on why videogames are not art yet and about the potential they have. And he finally said his own on the MASS EFFECT 3 ENDINGS.

He liked the original endings, even before the Extended Cut. A lot. And I want you to read this article without prejudice, actually trying to believe what he's saying. Because Film Crit Hulk might be damn right, and we might have missed the opportunity to appreciate the very first "Citizen Kane" of the videogames world. 

Please take your time and read this article, you won't regret it.

Film Crit Hulk Smash: A Few Words On The Ending Of MASS EFFECT 3

Modifié par Jonata, 07 août 2012 - 02:19 .

[Dav3VsTh3World]

DOES HE ALWAYS WRITE WITH CAPS LOCK ON?

[Banul]

I started to read it, and then stopped when I realized it was all in caps.

[Bill Casey]

What a fantastic troll...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 août 2012 - 02:30 .

[Taboo]

"THE ORIGINAL ENDING OF MASS EFFECT 3 IS BEAUTIFUL, STUNNING AND POETIC. AFTER A LIFETIME OF WAR AND FURY, SHEPARD COMES FACE TO FACE WITH THE CATALYST (REPRESENTED BY THE FORM OF A CHILD, MUCH LIKE THE ONE SHEPARD HAD BEEN DREAMING OF ALL GAME) AND YOU HAVE A LONG, IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CYCLES."

LOLWUT?

Poetic? Oh Lord are we in trouble...

[ld1449]

One must wonder at your ability to read at all, considering that the OP told you flat out he always writes in caps.

[Oni Changas]

[A0170]

"HULK KNOW WE SEEMINGLY CAN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT VIDEO GAMES THIS DAY AND AGE WITHOUT GETTING INTO THAT LAME QUESTION "ARE VIDEO GAMES ART?" BUT HULK ARGUE THERE'S DAMN GOOD REASON FOR THAT. IT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO HAVE ABOUT THE MEDIUM. BECAUSE UNTIL BOTH GAME MAKERS AND AUDIENCES FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY ART IS, AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEIR MEDIUM CAN BECOME ART, THEN IT CAN'T REALLY HAPPEN."

Modifié par A0170, 07 août 2012 - 02:41 .

[someguy1231]

He's got to be trolling...

[Peranor]

HULK ANGRY! HULK SMASH!

Btw, does Hulk support dinosaur DLC?

[Oni Changas]

You gotta read it in Ultimate Warrior's (or Spoony as Warrior) voice. Twice as hilarious.

[Omanisat]

I tried. I really did. But the ****ing CAPITAL LETTER beat me. Oh well.

[ld1449]

I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.

Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.

Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.

The primary reason symbolism cannot be something you base the backbone of your story on is because symbolism is fully malleable to each individual person. That's why its considered an abstract concept within literature. It'd be like me holding up an ink blot picture. Someone will say they see two people dancing, someone else will say they see nothing but an inkblot.

This is why your story must be based solely on the concrete pieces of literature, exposition, central themes, character development, dialogue, plot and plot progression. Things that arent malleable, they happen in the story so they happen.

Think of a story as you would a building, with symbolism being the minor things, like a coffe table, curtains, a night table, things like that.

Mass effect three just foreclosed your home and left you with the night table, curtains and coffee table. Hardly a good trade off.

Whenever an Author cries symbolism as part of a defense of his work, most other authors don't take him seriously, or damn near outright dismiss it as crap right off the bat. Any person that can defend criticism with facts (X thing did not happen because of X or Y thing did happen because of Y) That's fine.

But the moment an author has to say to a major piece of story "Its symbolic"

Then he's most likely full of ****.

And before some of you people jump down my throat that symbolism is used all the time, take note that I specified major pieces of the story. If someone were to ask in a story why did you name the character So and so, and the author says

Well his name is kinda symbolic because it derives from such and such who did X thing in his lifetime so it kinda paralells that"

That's symbolism that can and should be used. Cherry over a delicious desert.

Modifié par ld1449, 07 août 2012 - 02:45 .

[hoodaticus]

Interesting.  Though his entire justification for the ending is that it played to the series cycle theme.  This disregards all the other themes in the series and incorporates much less of Mass Effect than IT or the EC.  Which was the point - that the endings deleted so much of Mass Effect.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 07 août 2012 - 02:47 .

[WindfishDude]

I'm sorry, but that guy is a tool and he uses the same 'counter-arguments' that the Moriaty guy from IGN did, to tell us all off.

Dude has decided that ME3's endings are about cycles 'It was always about cycles, ever since ME1!' he rants, all in caps. And because it's all about cycles and returning to Eden, it's a masterpiece! It all makes sense, 3 choices to break the cycle. It's so perfect!

Well, Mr. Caps-Lock/Hulk man, I reject your arguments, and I say 'No, it was never about cycles and/or innocence through annihalation... that's something you came up with on your own, bro.'

I don't know this guy, and maybe he's super smart and has it all figured out, but to me, he just comes off as another victim of trying too hard to be clever while experiencing interpretive storytelling. And everytime someone gets a boner over stuff like that, Mac Walters gets his wings.

edit: @Poster below - what did I do?

Modifié par WindfishDude, 07 août 2012 - 02:50 .

[hoodaticus]

^ please censor yourself so the thread doesn't get locked.

[Peranor]

ld1449 wrote...

I personally disagree with the review however. Symbolism is subtle, this symbolism we see in the ending of ME3 is shoehorned in there like a square in a round shaped hole.

Furthermore, while Symbolism in literature is praiseworthy, its only praiseworthy when the symbolism is a cherry over a delicious desert. A bonus, not necessary to enjoy the desert itself.

Mass Effect 3's symbolism gives you nothing but the cherry, and you must imagine the desert.

The primary reason symbolism cannot be something you base the backbone of your story on is because symbolism is fully malleable to each individual person. That's why its considered an abstract concept within literature. It'd be like me holding up an ink blot picture. Someone will say they see two people dancing, someone else will say they see nothing but an inkblot.

This is why your story must be based solely on the concrete pieces of literature, exposition, central themes, character development, dialogue, plot and plot progression. Things that arent malleable, they happen in the story so they happen.

Think of a story as you would a building, with symbolism being the minor things, like a coffe table, curtains, a night table, things like that.

Mass effect three just foreclosed your home and left you with the night table, curtains and coffee table. Hardly a good trade off.

Whenever an Author cries symbolism as part of a defense of his work, most other authors don't take him seriously, or damn near outright dismiss it as crap right off the bat. Any person that can defend criticism with facts (X thing did not happen because of X or Y thing did happen because of Y) That's fine.

But the moment an author has to say to a major piece of story "Its symbolic"

Then he's most likely full of ****.

And before some of you people jump down my throat that symbolism is used all the time, take note that I specified major pieces of the story. If someone were to ask in a story why did you name the character So and so, and the author says 

Well his name is kinda symbolic because it derives from such and such who did X thing in his lifetime so it kinda paralells that"

That's symbolism that can and should be used. Cherry over a delicious desert.

Well said!

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

All I could think of while reading this review: www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par SergeantSnookie, 07 août 2012 - 02:55 .

[Ithurael]

I will say his interpretation of the ending is beautiful. But isn't that a bad think when you need to rely on your own headcanon during the game/movie in order to make is great?

Speculation should come at the end I suppose. We should have speculated on the origins of the reapers, the catalyst, and why they were harvesting us. Starkid should have just been a guardian left in the citadel by the protheans or the origin race that created the reapers.as a check when organics were ready to evolve on their own - not a master consciousness. Dark City did this pretty well.

Good review - kinda odd though. His interpretation comes way out of left field for me but to each their own. Though I hardly think ME3 is comparable to Citizen Kane! Not by a f*cking long shot.

[GreyLycanTrope]

"THE ORIGINAL ENDING OF MASS EFFECT 3 IS BEAUTIFUL, STUNNING AND POETIC. AFTER A LIFETIME OF WAR AND FURY,  SHEPARD COMES FACE TO FACE WITH THE CATALYST (REPRESENTED BY THE FORM OF
A CHILD, MUCH LIKE THE ONE SHEPARD HAD BEEN DREAMING OF ALL GAME) AND YOU HAVE A LONG, IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CYCLES. "

In the original cut? What?

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 07 août 2012 - 03:08 .

[Drudez]

OniTYME wrote...

[zambot]

OP thanks for posting this. I've found a new film critic that I really like (even if the CAPS make me partially blind). I found his review of TDKR particularly insightful as I was having trouble figuring out why part of me really, really likes that movie, and the other part of me felt it was hollow.

Back on topic, ultimately I think ME3's original ending failed on execution. It feels to me like HULK is reading a lot into authorial intent while giving the writers a pass on how they told the story. I agree from the 50,000 foot view that the theme is largely about stopping the cycle and different philosophical viewpoints on how to do that, but the execution of this was so poor that the message is largely lost. The Catalyst itself represents a huge mistake. You just cannot introduce such an important and powerful character 5 minutes from the end. You cannot have one (if not two depending on your pov) of the choices be philosophies you are fighting against for the entire trilogy suddenly become viable. And you cannot recycle ending footage and not expect a loud outcry, loud enough to drown out whatever message you were trying to tell.

So, yeah, I appreciate aspects of his analysis, but execution is as (or more) important than the message.

[Taboo]

The worst part about this is this guy writes film criticism.

He's why the film industry can't have nice things.

[MyChemicalBromance]

That was awesome. Thanks for posting this OP.

[D24O]

>MFW he talks about a long and in depth conversation with the Catalyst. I'd like his copy of the game.

Graned I enjoy reading his stuff, but I can't agree. The OE just wasn't ececuted very well, it was like I stumbled into the elevator to another game.

Modifié par D24O, 07 août 2012 - 03:08 .