A Dry Spicy Take Regarding AC.

[The Twilight Mexican]

It's X-2's ending he disliked. He didn't think Tidus should come back.

 

[Makoeyes987]

So of course he'd kill him by having him kick a bomb that looked like a Blitzball.

It all makes sense...

Well he can feel proud, cause he singlehandedly chilled any desire for an FFX-3.

 

[leadmyskeptic]

AC could have been a movie "specifically for fans of FFVII", and have been more skillful in its pacing, characterization, plotting, et cetera et cetera...trying to suggest that the team behind it essentially sat around constructing it, going "Well guys, we're not concerned with making a GOOD FILM here, that's not what FFVII fans really want to see...they want fight scenes!" or something, almost seems insulting. Especially considering part of the big reason FFVII was the landmark it was was that it paid so much attention to narrative quality, often resembling a "good film".

 

[VanuriaFellspar]

AC could have been a movie "specifically for fans of FFVII", and have been more skillful in its pacing, characterization, plotting, et cetera et cetera...trying to suggest that the team behind it essentially sat around constructing it, going "Well guys, we're not concerned with making a GOOD FILM here, that's not what FFVII fans really want to see...they want fight scenes!" or something, almost seems insulting. Especially considering part of the big reason FFVII was the landmark it was was that it paid so much attention to narrative quality, often resembling a "good film".

This is a bit more accurate to what I was trying to say. Crisis Core was also made for fans of FFVII (by way of it being made due to the popularity of the initial title) and managed to flesh out the world without being a retread of events seen in its successor. Obviously, some leeway is granted because it is a prequel, but it still could have also suffered from the same problems AC has.

Yes, of course the movie was made for fans of the game, but just because that's the case doesn't mean you can get away with lazy writing and so-so characterizations. A lot of OVAs based on existing properties, since they were brought up, manage to do this - they bring newcomers up to speed without it being unnecessarily padded or drawn out. Cowboy Bebop: The Movie was mentioned and is a good example. But as it was also mentioned, there are examples out there that the opposite holds true, YGO being one of them. And my criticism for AC is true for those, too.

You can always make a good film and still be catering specifically to the fans. Unless you set out to make a parody or a b-movie shlockfest, that should always be your first intention.

 

[Makoeyes987]

AC could have been a movie "specifically for fans of FFVII", and have been more skillful in its pacing, characterization, plotting, et cetera et cetera...trying to suggest that the team behind it essentially sat around constructing it, going "Well guys, we're not concerned with making a GOOD FILM here, that's not what FFVII fans really want to see...they want fight scenes!" or something, almost seems insulting. Especially considering part of the big reason FFVII was the landmark it was was that it paid so much attention to narrative quality, often resembling a "good film".

How did FFVII resemble a "good film?"

And if FFVII was somehow a good film, FFVI must've been a fucking religious experience, lol.

And no one's saying the writers sat around saying they weren't concerned with making a "good film," what they were concerned with was hitting particular notes of important character interactions and events that showcased the best of all the characters. Choosing which to include and focus on that would resonate most with the fans. Which for the most part, they did. The movie was meant to be fun and above all entertaining.

You know, like a movie based on a game for their fans. The entire premise of AC was for the "Reunion" to feature Cloud and the others in a new sequence of events that culminated in Cloud vs. Sephiroth.

And yes, most fans wanted to see Cloud vs. Sephiroth again in a badass fight in high def. To say otherwise is to deny reality.

The very first thing that they agreed upon in making AC was bringing Sephiroth back for Cloud to fight. Why?

Because it's a badass struggle of good vs. evil that's hooked fans since the game was started.

The entire hook and tease for bringing those two back started with Kingdom Hearts: Final Mix. After beating Sephiroth, a new optional boss for the game, the player's awarded a bonus scene called Showdown of Fate. Which is just an intense, albeit short fight scene between the KH incarnations of Cloud and Sephiroth. That bonus scene was popular and furthered the idea of having the two return in a more modern medium, except in their own story again.

So it's kinda insulting to somehow degrade the fact that yes... Sometimes people *do* like fanservice like that. That's real. That's valid. Why the hell do you think Shueisha and Toei revived meathead monster Saiyan Broly and gave him a new backstory in Dragonball Super's new movie?

Because people want to see Broly throw down with Goku and Vegeta. That's the core motivation. And after FFVII, Kingdom Hearts Final Mix, and fans still being hungry for more from one of the most popular FF's yet... Yes. That's what prompted Advent Children. A Reunion of the characters so Cloud and Sephiroth could fight once more.

At first the film was originally going to be a short about Cloud and some orphans but then... Well. They realized that probably wasn't quite ambitious enough for a film with FFVII's characters in it.

This is a bit more accurate to what I was trying to say. Crisis Core was also made for fans of FFVII (by way of it being made due to the popularity of the initial title) and managed to flesh out the world without being a retread of events seen in its successor. Obviously, some leeway is granted because it is a prequel, but it still could have also suffered from the same problems AC has.

And Crisis Core fleshed out more of it's world because it was a game. A game you could put in over 35 hours of playtime, exploring and fleshing out every bit of the characters you want. To transpose Crisis Core's story into a film would strip it of most of the level of depth and character that it's able to convey thanks to being a game that allows the player to take their time and discover what they want of the story at their leisure. Forget the leeway being a prequel gives. There's just a huge difference in how a story can be told via a movie versus a game. Especially when it's a movie that's carrying on from a game.

Like, that understanding seems to be lacking in how some judge how AC had to pick and choose what was important and what to leave behind for either imagination or subsequent stories. Because if AC were to include everything, well it'd be a bore-fest and no one would care.

I would hope Cowboy Bebop the Movie would be a badass movie, because transposing the story of Cowboy Bebop, a story told via anime, should come quite easy since it's... An anime movie. There should certainly be no fidelity loss in transposing the storytelling from anime to the big-screen, as an anime. So yeah. Of course it'd be good. AC isn't the same situation or context.

If you think AC is so lacking in character development and fleshing out its story, what is it that it needed? What's an example of what you'd change and add to it so it'd meet the threshold of a "good film?"

 

[ForceStealer]

trying to suggest that the team behind it essentially sat around constructing it, going "Well guys, we're not concerned with making a GOOD FILM here, that's not what FFVII fans really want to see...they want fight scenes!" or something, almost seems insulting.

Because that's a wholly inaccurate interpretation of what was said. The OP specifically said that it was a good video game film, but a terrible film in general because if you come in without knowledge of FF7 you won't know what's going on. And that is what the remarks that it never intended to do anything other than that were responding to.

And the Bebop and Trigun movies aren't terribly good examples because those aren't sequels. They are extra-long midquel episodes that slot in anywhere within the series of two largely episodic shows. They had nothing to establish outside what basically every episode of Bebop and Trigun establish at the outset, only with more time.

 

[Kai Schulen]

How would it compare if you've seen the Avengers without having seen any of the other Marvel movies? I'd argue it's still pretty entertaining then, but I'll admit it's a poor standalone movie.

I actually watched the Avengers without seeing any of the other Marvel movies and bare minimum knowledge of said Marvel characters that are featured and...

....and yeah, it was a pretty meh movie. All the action was fun to watch, but I couldn't really remember what the plot was because I was preoccupied with "wait what plot points am I missing out here". I suppose to other Marvel fans who watched all other Marvelverse movies would have found things less confusing and enjoyed it more, so.

Why did I watch the Avengers? I got free tickets at the time, so.

 

[leadmyskeptic]

I guess a lot of the discussion about Cloud v. Sephiroth has made me realize, that I suppose that was one of the major problems I had with it...that it was essentially all structured to build up to something that was just a rehash of what we'd already seen in a game. I actually remember cringing when he first 'appeared', especially considering it seemed that so much of Sephiroth's power over Cloud was due to his fractured identity (he represented a psychological element in Cloud personally apart from his threat to the world, thus that final unloseable showdown in the game), and that was no longer present. So I suppose some parts of it can be boiled down to just that: do you hunger to see these two throw down once more, or does the thought kind of seem mundane to you? And so it either pleases or off-puts.

But other things include including the entirety of the main cast whilst barely using them at all (those are some characters from the original I WOULD have liked to spend more time with), the conclusion feeling rushed, and Cloud's 'grieving-mode' character just not being someone you want to spend a feature-length story following. I found it difficult to get invested. These are just off the top of my head.

Oh, and I'm not denying that people desire fanservice, thats why they call it fanservice, lol, and it certainly can be a logical way to go profits-wise, it just seemed like the discussion, almost like a thought experiment, was "approach AC as a piece of art, what do you make of it?" Unless of course, I misunderstood.

 

[Makoeyes987]

AC is for the most part, Cloud and Tifa's story. With heavy leaning towards Cloud. The film reunites the main party but it is specifically from the perspective of Cloud. His returning and regaining his will to live and putting down Sephiroth again is the heart of the film. The scenes with the team reuniting to fight Bahamut SIN was meant to reunite us with everyone from the game, but much like "Lightning Returns", the film is most certainly centered around Cloud and his progression. He's the hook, and main force of FFVII. Everyone has their favorites that they wish would be catered to, and for better or worst, the Compliation has tried to use each of the characters in all the various entries.

...Except Red XIII. He got screwed something fierce

Cloud having a personal journey to traverse in the film and recover from is why he's given Geostigma and given post-game story of withdrawal and isolation. They pretty much wanted to convey that regaining of connection again since they thought it would be memorable to show that emotion in their new high def graphics, especially with Cloud and Tifa, the orphans, his friends, etc. They wanted to create drama and emotion.

And it all started thanks to Nomura and the design team wanting to do something really fucking cool, which was see Cloud and Sephiroth fight again. Better than what they did in Kingdom Hearts. When the writers handed Nomura the storyline proposal of just Cloud, Tifa and the orphans he essentially said, "this is boring and has no action, no one's gonna like this."

And honestly, the Cloud vs. Sephiroth fight in AC was kinda underwhelming to me. It wasn't until ACC when they went all in with the violence and blood of the combat did the fight truly shine. The original cut of AC's fight against Sephiroth seemed far too rushed and like a teaser. Sephiroth was mostly no-selling the fight without actually doing anything. And they changed that.

The simple addition of Sephiroth impaling Cloud through the chest and unfurling his black wing as he tells him, "Is this the pain you felt before, Cloud? This time, you won't forget..." Made that fight real, and worth returning to. That made the fight worth revisiting alone. The subsequent additions made their showdown worth it.

 

[ChipNoir]

Here's the simplest bottom line I have: I believe strongly in structured films. Three act structure, cambellian archetypes, blah blah blah.

AC doesn't follow ANY of the traditional film rules. It doesn't even feel like an OAV where the story is self contained as an extended episode. It feels like it also wants to follow cambellian structure but fails abysmally at that by missing out on a few steps and making the 90% of the film the Refusal of the Call, and then 180s in the last 15 minutes.

AC is the season finale of what should have been a tv series. It's written entirely on the basis of not just VII meta knowledge, but TWO YEARS of events that are never even referenced, but are expected to be known in order for any of this to really make sense. Even those don't give a ton of depth to the villains, who as far as I recall, pop into existence between the end of the novels and the beginning of the movie.

Asking me to have presumed empathy for a character that is acting totally different from the last time I saw him is a LOT. I shouldn't have to look up new information from a different medium to enjoy a film. If it wants to call itself a movie, it needs to behave like one.

Now you can argue that a lot of films eschew traditional constraints, but the crew involved are not experienced enough in film making to do something like that.

It's entertaining, but I refuse to call it something it's not trying to be: A competent film.

 

[Roger]

This is a bit more accurate to what I was trying to say. Crisis Core was also made for fans of FFVII (by way of it being made due to the popularity of the initial title) and managed to flesh out the world without being a retread of events seen in its successor. Obviously, some leeway is granted because it is a prequel, but it still could have also suffered from the same problems AC has.

Like hell it did, game starts of with you riding on a train, fighting against Shinra guards, headed for the same train station as Cloud for absolutely no reason then to echo FFVII, then you fight Sephiroth for absolutely no reason then to echo FFVII. Then your main plot involves taking on clones of a powerful SOLDIER First Class in a longcoat that can sprout one wing. You sporatically encounter Yuffie, whose character is defined by stealing your stuff, even tho the War was still ongoing when you first meet her and the turning Wutai into a tourist resort postwar to bring in money that sparked Yuffie's hunt for treasure has not happened yet. Zack has to meet Aerith by falling through the roof of her church, just like Cloud, Zack has to deal with a amoral Shinra scientist who just Hojo again in every way.

Advent Children and Dirge of Cerberus sucked but they did more original world building for the world of FFVII then Crisis Core ever did, that installment stuck to familiar ground for dear life.

 

[Kain424]

I'd argue a lot of what makes Crisis Core work is the connection of its game mechanics to the narrative. Plotwise, it's working against known future events, so it toes a line that may or may not even be there for the player to invest in. If any of it works, it works despite itself.

Here's the simplest bottom line I have: I believe strongly in structured films. Three act structure, cambellian archetypes, blah blah blah.

AC doesn't follow ANY of the traditional film rules. It doesn't even feel like an OAV where the story is self contained as an extended episode. It feels like it also wants to follow cambellian structure but fails abysmally at that by missing out on a few steps and making the 90% of the film the Refusal of the Call, and then 180s in the last 15 minutes.

I'll disagree with this. Advent Children follows plenty of "traditional" film rules. It even has a Three Act structure. But it's also a sequel. It does pre-suppose certain knowledge, but that's generally what sequels do. Cloud not getting his mojo back until the near-end of the film is also a fairly common trope of sequels and just films in general.

the villains, who as far as I recall, pop into existence between the end of the novels and the beginning of the movie.

Kind of, except you see them appearing in Advent Children. But then, this isn't something films never do either.

 

[Clement Rage]

Gather round, children, for I shall tell you a tale of darkness and despair.

Once upon a time, there was a very great man, of the name of Syd Field, who saw a truth. And he spake this truth onto others, and eventually committed it to paper. A truth regarding how to sell scripts to Hollywood. For Hollywood is a place of thwarted hope, and filled with the soul of the damned (aspiring screenwriters). And the screenwriters heard the words of Syd, and heeded them. And the rulers on high (studio executives) heard the words of Syd, and heeded them. And his words became legend, as the Screenwriters Bible, and woe betide those who did not abide by the Word of Syd. The souls of the damned and the rulers on high constructed their idols in his image, and refused the worship of false idols.

The followers of Syd had grown to love the Word of Syd, and his rules, but they had forgotten much. The Words of Syd were True, for he was a very great man. But the Words of Syd were but one truth among many.

For the Words of Syd were written for the intent of selling scripts to Hollywood . The Words of Syd were not the rules of making good films .

 

[Clement Rage]

More seriously: Structure is just structure. A certain structure or its absence is not good or bad by itself. If you believe there is a structural issue with something, you need to be able to say why this negatively affected your viewing experience, rather than just assuming it's a bad thing by default.

Bad editing? How? Why?

Bad characterisation? How? Why?

Lazy writing? How? Why?

You get the idea.

 

[leadmyskeptic]

More seriously: Structure is just structure. A certain structure or its absence is not good or bad by itself. If you believe there is a structural issue with something, you need to be able to say why this negatively affected your viewing experience, rather than just assuming it's a bad thing by default.

Bad editing? How? Why?

Bad characterisation? How? Why?

Lazy writing? How? Why?

You get the idea.

I agree wholeheartedly that in 'reviewing' something, people should ideally be able to articulate with some degree of specificity what they either enjoyed or took issue with, although you expect different things in a proper 'review' as opposed to a quick 'opinion poll'. Using 'editing' as the example, if somebody complained that they thought a film was edited poorly, I'd be able to intuit that they meant "the way the scenes in the film are cut together is either disorienting, undercuts dramatic movement, or some combination". If I was just asking someone whether they enjoyed a film or not, that would be enough for me regarding the specifics of editing, because it lets me know that they felt it damaged the experience, even if I don't agree (in a proper 'review', I'd expect more). Where I take issue is more when people JUST rattle off "It sucked!", or "It was badass!", lol. Not only because it doesn't make for much of a conversation, but because it leaves you with the niggling feeling that maybe they haven't really considered at all why they enjoyed or disliked something, and are either reacting kneejerk or possibly on preconceived emotions they had before they even watched the damn thing.

I get the impression that AC is just one of those things, though, where people aren't so much "seeing" different things in the material, or even disagreeing about what it achieves/doesn't, so much as what IS there either meeting their expectations or not. If that makes any sense?

 

[Clement Rage]

I was more talking about structure, and that the absence of a specific structure is not in itself a criticism unless it causes an additional problem.

'Bad editing' is something I see a lot, and it's kind of interesting, because bad editing is very difficult to identify, it's so tangled up in cinematography, directing, sound design, etc. Maybe the editor had no good cuts to work with.

I never get a clear answer when I ask for more information.

Everyone's free to like or dislike what they like, of course.

 

[Kain424]

Bad editing can be a relatively simple thing to identify, but there are certainly differing ways to edit a film. But probably the easiest way is to match continuity from shot to shot. For instance, I was literally just watching Legends of the Fall, and noticed this bad editing. Brad Pitt's character's brother is hacking up bubbling blood from his mouth, which is streaming down his face. In the next shot the guy is fine. Then Brad Pitt covers his mouth, but in the reverse shot his hand is off camera. Whether or not this makes or breaks the scene is up to the viewer, but it's something I noticed and took me out of the scene.

 

[Clement Rage]

Oh, sure, but that kind of continuity error happens in basically every feature film, it's just impossible to keep track of all the spinning plates.

 

[Kain424]

It's certainly common. That's why I called it probably the easiest to spot. But I am saying I think the editing in Advent Children is actually quite excellent, which would preclude it from being terrible "on every level" as I've seen some people say.

 

[Clement Rage]

Fair enough. Sorry.

 

[Ite]

I fully pony up to saying in this very thread that AC “fails on every level” and I think that includes editing. The film has had as many re-cuts as Blade Runner if you include the Venice Film Festival release. Even ACC, the widely accepted “best” version, has one of the clunkiest openings I’ve ever seen.

Sc. 1 (~20 seconds long) we are flying through the clouds, descending into a canyon. Some creatures run towards the camera and we get two sudden snapshots of various body parts, breaking up the long take. The creatures jump up a mountain and roar at a jungle ruin. This has 0 relevance in the film.
Context For Non-FF7 Fan: This is a recreation of the secret ending, and the sudden snapshots echo the opening train from the original game. It provides no link between the game and the film. It’s very pretty but should probably be cut.

Sc. 2 (~45 seconds long) “498 years earlier” Someone wheels someone in a wheelchair through a partially constructed building. You don’t get to see who they are, the film focuses on body parts, lower jaw, leather pants, and scenery (a city) and their conversation is so vague and cryptic that it gives nothing to a first time viewer and it doesn’t provide any new insight for a repeat viewer.
Context for Non-FF7 fans. None. Cut it.

Sc. 3 (~30 seconds long) “Two weeks earlier.” A snowy mountain with some radio voiceover of some people investigating inside. They signal to some air support and we get our first name “Reno” and first character face.
Context For Non-FF7 Fans: The crater is the game’s final dungeon and the characters are lesser bad guys that you either defeat or let run away, so your investment in them and what’s going on is dependent on how much fan fiction you read.

The film is now 3 short vignettes depicting disparate events happening at disparate times. The expectation created by this editing is that we’ll understand how all of these things connect by the end of the film. ACC fails in this regard.

Then there is Scene 4 which is a montage with a narrated introduction, a narration which doesn’t re-appear, and then Sc. 5 which is a bartender with no introduction listening to the radio and answering a phone (we don’t get to actually hear the phone call), cut to scene 6 which is a lone cyclist with a voicemail voice over summing up the previous phone call, and THEN the opening credits begin over a driving montage. Knowing FF7 inside and out still makes the first 5 minutes a vague, cryptic mess, and that’s not because AC is some sophisticated puzzle of a narrative, it’s because the story and the editing are bad.

The film doesn’t play with time jumps again, except to flash back and forth to a conversation had between Cloud and Tifa, where she’s trying to convince him to go be a hero. Unfortunately, the thing they keep cutting to is Cloud driving to the place she wants him to go, so there is no tension in the argument scene. It’s a BAFFLING editing choice, as far as “time jumps” go it removes tension and mystery, and it doesn’t follow the film’s established “XX ago...” title card motif, that, like the narration, is abandoned.

I keep thinking of things to add, but I think I’ve made my point.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I thought we'd established that the context of "non-FFVII fan" is irrelevant?

In either case, you do make fair observations about the clunky intro portion (it basically has five intros; and some of the visuals chosen for Marlene's narration sequence are plain puzzling), though I disagree with your assessment of the Cloud-Tifa argument. I don't think the tension you speak of there was a loss, because I don't think it was needed. In my mind, that scene actually works better as one of reflection for Cloud.

Does that scene play kind of like a hazy fever dream? Absolutely. But as anyone who has grappled with long-term depression knows, that's what living that way feels like. That's why I think it works.

One might even extrapolate that out to the rest of the first half of the film, though I think they could have still decided on just one or two of those intro vignettes.

 

[ChipNoir]

So of course he'd kill him by having him kick a bomb that looked like a Blitzball.

It all makes sense...

Well he can feel proud, cause he singlehandedly chilled any desire for an FFX-3.

Not just kill him. Nope. He has to torture the couple for just trying to be happy by making Yuna commit necrophilia in order to somehow create a new mega-fayth that not only brings Tidus back, but also apparently strips away his original memories and if Yuna gets too close to him she'll undo his existence. Thus reducing everyone we loved in X into cynical, nihilistic assholes. Oh and said Fayth has also resurrected every single person and thing that ever died, up to and including Syn and probably all the other villains too.

Nojima took any potential for happiness X-2 had and fisted it to death.

Things like this do make me worry about the VII remake a little.

 

[Kain424]

So I was going through that Advent Children opening and trying to see how the editing was. It's been a few years since I've seen it. And so far, I'm not really seeing the problems.

The Red XIII reveal is appropriately cheeky from an editing perspective. They know you know who it is, but they flash his paws and tattoo regardless. Like a purposeful obscuring. Maybe akin to James Bond's intro in Dr. No or the Ninja Turtles' intro in the first TMNT film, where they slap that title up and pause the film right before we get to actually see them. It's nothing masterful, but it does show clever intent and it's certainly not bad. It's also made clear they are not patronizing their audience. This is right where the game ended, but the story takes place a couple years after the main events, so they trust the audience is not too dumb to perform some simple subtraction.

The next scene gives some dialog with metatextual references not only showing how aware the creators are of the original game's legacy, but also with a bit of Final Fantasy VI referencing and response. It's nice. The editing cuts to show an affliction seen on a character's hand just as the dialog references it. Good editing.

In fact, I am surprised at how deliberate and calculated much of the editing here seems to be. It's very self-assured for people who make video games.

I was watching a scene from Bohemian Rhapsody today wherein there were 8 cuts in a few seconds just to show a guy sit down for brunch. That's clunky. And that film has been nominated for its editing.

 

[looneymoon]

Just to chime in - editing for an animated film isn't quite the same as editing for a live action film. Editing in the traditional sense, is basically keeping everything on screen consistent/coherent. For animation this needs to be mostly ironed out in the pre-production phase. The editing job is a lot different animation, as the editor would more than likely be involved in the scripting phase, and might have a say in completely writing/re-writing scenes. which is a lot different than someone who's working with a lot of raw footage in the post production.