Are movie geeks (us) just too fussy these days? (1 Viewer)

[ChrisBEA]

Oh Jessica Alba...There was a girl in my developer class who looked just like her. What a fine day that was when she showd me her moedeling portfolio...witht the more adult pictures (playboyish).

:star: :b :star: Yummmm....

Anyway, if you've seen the trailers, you know what I mean. I'll be seeing this, maybe not opening night, but I will, sad but true.

I'm no film snob I love all types of movies and wouldn't really call myself fussy. I mean check out my DVD collection, I think there's a title in there for all tastes, although it's probably easy to see where my main interests lie.

 

[Zen Butler]

Honey with my girl, Jessica Alba.

Well after 3 episodes of Dark Angel last night, I'm so there. We were laughing at the acting all last night, but she would just do this thing and we'd all go, "Yeah, this is a great show." She is insane.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Don't forget, there are those without imagination. I could name at least two people that don't like movies. Period.

 

[George See]

A true "film buff" will probably not say any of the above. They just won't see any of it in the first place.

I find it disturbing that to be a true "Film buff" you have to enjoy certain movies and dislike other movies based upon some imaginary list of whats "good" and what's "bad". I always thought of a "Film buff" as someone who really likes movies and watchs a whole heck of a lot of them. Not someone who has different tastes than someone else. It's all opinion.

 

[TheLongshot]

Don't forget, there are those without imagination. I could name at least two people that don't like movies. Period.

I wouldn't say that those who don't like movies don't have imagination. They probably focus on other things, like books...

Jason

 

[Angelo.M]

George: nicely put.

What I find troubling is when, as happens at HTF and elsewhere, the very nature of subjectivity is called into question when critiquing film. There's no accounting for taste, nor should one have to account for one's taste. Of course, insulting those that don't share your opinion is, simply, not cricket.

For most films nowadays, you find just as much hyperbole on both sides of the loved it/hated it fence. Plenty of dirty pool on both sides. I try to examine first what I liked about a particular film, and then critique what I didn't. That goes for art films and blockbusters alike.

It is possible to love film and have no difficulty enjoying both In the Mood for Love and Old School, and seeing the good and bad in both.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I wouldn't say that those who don't like movies don't have imagination. They probably focus on other things, like books...

They don't do that either. As a matter of fact, I think they reject fiction altogether. I really feel sorry for those people.

 

[Malcolm R]

Pretty much describes my father to a "T". He doesn't watch movies (unless forced by situation), he doesn't watch any kind of series television, doesn't read books, doesn't listen to music very often (usually just talk radio).

On TV he generally watches news channels, weather channel, and professional sports. Nothing else. He reads newspapers and news magazines. He likes hunting and fishing and will sometimes watch outdoor shows or read magazines on those subjects.

Just a small listing of the myriad things he and I do NOT have in common. :frowning:

 

[TommyT]

As a film snob myself I always like to consider the following when I see a film:

Story: Is the story intriguing? Does it have multiple dimensions? Does it keep you guessing, enthralled, etc? Was it well written or if it was a book, was it well adapted?

Acting: Are the actors involved able to convince you that the characters they play are REAL? Are the characters deep in personality, thought, feeling? Too many actors these days are praised for playing 1-dimensional characters that are really written for them & not very challenging.

Special FX (if applicable): Are they convincing as well? Do they look like CGI creations? This is one reason why I didn't like Spider-Man last year: Spidey LOOKED fake. The Hulk looked semi-fake but when you look closer you see that his creators really worked on his facial expressions, bodily movements, etc.

Direction: Did the director do his/her job? Did they bring the elements of the film together in a cohesive whole? Were there any plot points left dangling? Where there themes that didn't work or came off cliched?

Disclaimer: with many of the films I see, particularly summer action blockbusters, most of this goes out the window because, let's face it, action cinema ain't exactly that deep of a genre.

Now, for the Hulk Debate because it fits very well into this thread: Most people didn't like it because they were expecting a film dominated by SFX & a giant green beast smashin' everything in sight. Well, that DID occur but not on the grand scale the film's naysayers were expecting. The big finale could've been fleshed out better but I thought the film was excellent because Ang Lee DID focus on the drama of the characters. And I enjoyed it more than I ever expected even after seeing the title character in the trailers was totally computer generated. Seeing that made me very skeptical but fortunately I was pleasantly surprised. Now, I own the DVD & its one of the best I've seen this year.

 

[Rob P S]

I am fussy, but I am not a snob - I just see what I want to see instead of what everybody else is seeing. I don't care if I'm the only person left who hasn't seen The Matrix - I'll get to it when I get to it. I just got around to seeing The Terminator and Scarface this year - both in a theater. I love action and dumb comedies as much as anyone, but I also would rather support the little movies that need it, like American Splendor, The Guys and Tully. But then, I can appreciate the merits of everything from Au revoir les enfants to Chill Factor. Everyone should have the courage of his own convictions and don't let the box office reports tell you what to see.

 

[Jim Bivins]

I don't believe for a second that movie geeks,buff's, etc. can be too 'fussy'! If your critisicsm is based on some knowledge of the filmaking process and love of the craft and not simply uneducated, vile dialog. I mean, I say a movie 'sucks' or 'rocks' often enough, but I will always elaborate as to why, or how I came to that conclusion.

Ultimately, being fussy is simply a sign of ones passion for the medium. Most big blockbuster's I go to with little expectations, because it's usually formula and, once in awhile, it's entertaining enough for me to walk away knowing I got that out of it.

Every year there are a few real gems out there, and a few more entertaining romps, and a lot of crap. This is the life of a film geek, your as passionate about great movies as you are bad ones. You still get excited over the 'big summer movies' as you do the less mainstream, or independent films.

I don't want to sound harsh with this statement, but perhaps one that is having difficulty with this concept, should re-evaluate why exactly they go to movies. Maybe there is a different medium out there for you to discover. Ask yourself why you love movies, be honest with yourself. Maybe you simply go for the wrong reasons, maybe you need to diversify, or, maybe your love for movies just isn't there.

But, that's just my opinion.

Later
Jim

 

[George See]

! If your critisicsm is based on some knowledge of the filmaking process and love of the craft and not simply uneducated, vile dialog. I mean, I say a movie 'sucks' or 'rocks' often enough, but I will always elaborate as to why, or how I came to that conclusion.

Sometimes you just don't like it...there's no reason for it you can't describe in detail why you don't like it. I don't like broccoli, I can't elaborate i just don't like it.

 

[Estevan Lapena]

City of God: Best of movie I've seen this year (in theater).

Films do mostly suck today (at least from Hollywood), because they are made not for quality, but for the amount of how much money they can suck out of the populous at once. They pump everything with flashy CG and big name actors to hopefully trick the average Joe into spending 10 dollars at the theater. Movies are no longer regarded as films now as much as they are products. Now, not all of this is new, but it seems to be occurring to a MUCH larger extent than before. Your best chance is looking into foreign or independent films for good, quality films.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Fussy, heck yes, that's half the fun. It's especially fun finding out that "one man's trash is another man's treasure." Nitpicking is another thing altogether. I read one time that John Milius insisted that every firearm that was used in his movies be authentic as to the time period depicted in his films. Everytime I watch one of his movies I always check that out. I have never found one of his movies to be "wrong" in that respect. His being an NRA board member, I would expect this of him. An excellent example of this would be in the film "The Wind and The Lion."

 

[Jim Bivins]

George,

If your a food geek you would!

 

[Jim Bivins]

Plus, there's ALWAYS a reason to like or dislike something, you just may not know what it is, or be able or willing to elaborate.

Jim

 

[Rob Bartlett]

Actually, I think the attendence for last year was the ebst since the 1950's, around the time television was invented. Of course, I only liked a couple of the films in last year's top ten, and only felt one movie was truly for the ages, so that, for me anyways, says how much populariy correlates with quality.

Indeed more movies used to be made for adults, not very demanding or discriminating adults. Thye were the kind of product that you would usually see on Lifetime. Full of melodrama, awkward pauses, and sterrible half-monologues.

Of course, now we're overrun with the sort of thing some people might consider "cartoonish.". But a the majority of such bad movies are fairly easy to spot.

By the way, are today's "serious movies" getting less screens then they were years ago. I don't mean percantage-I mean, would you say that the flat number of theaters Mystic River appeared in-the the exact number of people who saw it-are lesso then something comparable would have been ten years ago?

And I don't think Star Wars would have been bitchslapped on the internet-(although backlash would ensue), but something more like The Godfather would. It seems the more "prestige" or critically acclaimed movies are harshly attacked on the internet. Hey, one may think X-Men sucks, but it's not like it's going to grab any awards, but Traffic ? That overrated piece of crap? Yeesh. I think our short attention spans have affected moviemaking lesso then moviegoing. We have a vast history of film, and we get oversensitive when we induct a movie into the "classics" club. It's like some "punk kid" horning in on his elder's territory. Also, with a very ubiqutious media, we get tired of product as fast as we got into it. It's sort of the "tear-down the hero" syndrome.

I've completely lost all stock in the "they don't make 'em like they used to" club when someone applied that thesis to The Goonies .

 

[Chris Atkins]

Now, for the Hulk Debate because it fits very well into this thread: Most people didn't like it because they were expecting a film dominated by SFX & a giant green beast smashin' everything in sight. Well, that DID occur but not on the grand scale the film's naysayers were expecting.

That's a great point, Tommy. And I think HULK 2 will be the better for it (much like the relationship between X-Men and X-2).

As for the general "fussiness", I think most of it has to do with expectations.

Exhibit A: the new Star Wars movies. While some still like to conveniently forget how much better AOTC was received around here than TPM (you know who you are ) I think most people just cannot jive the new movies (especially TPM) with the vision they carried around in their head for 16 years.

The little I know about Episode III makes me think it will play even better...as long as some haven't made up their mind to hate it already.

Exhibit B: Matrix. Same thing as SW...people had expectations how the story would play out. I initially fell pray to this as well, so I have some personal experience here.

 

[Tim Glover]

I consider myself "fussy" or at least have a small window of films that I like. I'm probably more guilty of bias toward a film, saga, etc...than I should be. When the bias is positive, I tend to overlook faults or at least rationalize those to myself. When my bias is more negative, then the flaws are more obvious. I think we all do that from time to time.

What I see a great deal with some of my friends and my good friends here is flip-flopping to whichever the tide goes.

This is just my opinion of course, but since Ep.1 we're suppose to dislike Ep.II or any decision GL makes. On the other hand, The Matrix brothers (can't spell their names ) are the next best thing since sliced bread.

When we discount Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions; then we "just didn't get it" or these are "just really intelligent adult sci-fi films".

Like I've clearly pointed out...I'm very guilty of bias and personal objectivity.

What concerns me of my "fussiness" is that the past few years, the only films that really have me juiced and overly anxious are the Star Wars films and LOTR films. I know there are other great films out there but it seems that these deliver something that I find lacking in most other movies.

Sorry for my rambling. :b

 

[MikeFR]

One thing that annoys me is the constant bashing of CGI as if there were some magical period of movie making where special effects were completely seamless and perfect. Its very common to hear things like "the cgi was so distracting", "it took me right out of the movie" etc. ALL special effects are distracting to some degree but cgi seems to be held to a different standard than other methods. Bad CGI is bad CGI just like any other bad effect is a bad effect. Why the double standard?

Its almost at the point where any CGI is bad just because you can tell its not real. No kidding its not real, neither is that guy in the puppet suit or the matte painting behind him yet that doesnt 'take you out of the movie' .