What has happened to people? (1 Viewer)

[Cees Alons]

Hundreds of movies are made each year, millions of books have been written and may paintings are painted and will be painted. It would not only be odd if I happened to like all of them, there's in fact much more chance that I really adore only a few. Let alone the possibility for me to exprerience many of those works of art.

So, from the information theory point of view, the announcement that I don't like any one of them carries much less information than when I say I do love it. Like "dog bites man" is not in the same league of news as "man bites dog" is.

Yet, people seem to think they are stating something very personal and wonderful if they tell us they don't like a work of art. Or don't consider it "art" at all.

This thread shows some of the interesting mechanisms around this. When the OP tries to make an observation and (to help us understand his point) mentions the title of a particular movie that's often criticized, more than one poster (although I don't believe they missed the real point of the original post) feel an urge to comment in a very negative and vehement way on that specific movie (note that for the sake of the discussion it would have sufficed to say something like: "Yeah, Jonny, but your example isn't too strong, because many people really don't like Transformers-2").

This thread also shows the difference between the people expressing their admiration or their disdain of a certain movie. The latter saying things like "it stinks", it "IS" dumb, mindless and confusing, it "WAS" the shittiest piece of shit, or "IS" crap, apparently stating it like facts, using equations and hyperboles. While the ones liking it say things like "I liked it", "it worked for me", "I enjoyed it". Not too absolute and almost apologizing.

I have yet to read someone say that a movie he liked felt "like the soft, warm left breast of the Venus of Milo, but then in real flesh invitingly, lovingly and lustily put in his eager hand" or "this movie smells and tastes like cool vanilla pie with the finest whipped cream, topped with a beautiful red and spickled strawberry and delicately powdered and flavoured with the finest of chocolate powder lovely sending it's tickling and interesting scent to my nose".


Cees

Edited by Cees Alons - 7/12/2009 at 08:30 pm GMT
Edited by Cees Alons - 7/12/2009 at 08:31 pm GMT

 

[David Norman]

Don't know about the rest of you, but I love that last paragraph of Cees'

Sounds like a stereotypically Southern manner of describing something pleasant though if you actually wrote something like that you'd get branded an Snobby Elitist B**tard, a Wine Sipping Effete, or some other such term.

Maybe it's being born during Eisenhower, but I actually agree with the OP with his basic sentiment though the idea of the Unpleasable Critic or Above it All Too Cool for Their Own Good person is not new.

 

[Brian Borst]

I never got why people do that in the first place. If I've just seen a bad film, I'm not one to go to some message board and complain about it. I tend to forget the film, or something. There are tons of good movies out there, and I tend to focus my attention more on those movies.
I also think it doesn't really help to just say 'this film sucks'. I don't even try to argue with somebody like that, if it's a favorite film of mine he's complaining about. If he can give me decent arguments about why he thinks the film was bad, I would want to listen to that. Just stating your opinion without diverging on it isn't constructive. But hey, it's still the internet.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

I also think it doesn't really help to just say 'this film sucks'. I don't even try to argue with somebody like that, if it's a favorite film of mine he's complaining about. If he can give me decent arguments about why he thinks the film was bad, I would want to listen to that. Just stating your opinion without diverging on it isn't constructive. But hey, it's still the internet.

My definition of a great film critic -- not just "good", but truly great -- is someone who can write a negative review of a film you like, and you still learn something from reading it. There aren't many like that. The late Pauline Kael was one.

 

[Ed Moxley]

People try to read too much into movies. I can't imagine why. C'MON PEOPLE....... IT'S JUST A MOVIE! A movie is good to me if it has three things........a good picture, good sound, and is entertaining. So, I like a lot of movies that others hated, such as Crank.
I feel sorry for people that won't allow a movie to entertain them. That's all it's supposed to do. It's a movie, not a documentary.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, especially when it comes to being part of a "Movie Board", I can't see anything wrong with giving honest opinions -- praising a film when you enjoy it, or bashing a film when you don't. It can be a lot of fun stomping on a film you thought was "terrible" or "worthless", moreso even than in writing what you enjoyed about a good one. I've found that some of the most entertaining critical reviews to read are the bad, ruthless ones; and I've also found that when I write my own notes, there may be more colorful things to write about with the negatives rather than the usual positives ("good story", "stylish direction", "fine acting", etc...).

I also am not one to buy into the routine when people ask: "Why are you criticizing this movie?? Could YOU do any better??" Movies are allowed to be loved, worshiped, and also panned. As viewers, this is our right; it has nothing to do with whether or not we could make a better film ourselves. This would mean that nobody could ever say a film stank?

I agree that I often like to hear a lot more than just a simple "that sucked", as I like more specifics (just like I wouldn't be satisfied with a basic "that was great"). But you know, something else to consider is that sometimes a movie is so unbearably awful that it's not even WORTH the effort to waste our time with more than two words on it!

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

I never got why people do that in the first place. If I've just seen a bad film, I'm not one to go to some message board and complain about it. I tend to forget the film, or something. There are tons of good movies out there, and I tend to focus my attention more on those movies.
I also think it doesn't really help to just say 'this film sucks'. I don't even try to argue with somebody like that, if it's a favorite film of mine he's complaining about. If he can give me decent arguments about why he thinks the film was bad, I would want to listen to that. Just stating your opinion without diverging on it isn't constructive. But hey, it's still the internet.

I've read countless complaints on here regarding all sorts of things--food, restaurants, the general level of service at a business, quality of goods, mismanagement at theaters, etc. I've never seen anyone say that doing so is somehow wrong or gauche, the fact that one can have many good experiences notwithstanding. So I see nothing wrong with complaining about movies, as if they're some magical exception. Why should they be? What's the basis for saying that an expressed opinion can only be a positive one? The inability to articulate one's dislike well is a different issue.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst

I also think it doesn't really help to just say 'this film sucks'. I don't even try to argue with somebody like that, if it's a favorite film of mine he's complaining about. If he can give me decent arguments about why he thinks the film was bad, I would want to listen to that. Just stating your opinion without diverging on it isn't constructive.

Especially when it involves someone disliking a movie that I myself really enjoy ... or a classic that usually gets rave reviews in general .... I too am very interested in hearing a person's angle as to what he/she did not like about it. When someone doesn't like, say, CITIZEN KANE, I'm really interested in hearing why not.

But at the same time ... and I know this probably will not be very popular to say ... I sometimes feel that whoever is in the "minority," given the general reputation of any particular film, is more at liberty to explain his position. In other words, it's not so much those who 'appreciate' CITIZEN KANE who have to elabortate; it's more those who find it an 'unappealing' movie who are in the position of making their stand.

On the opposite side, I'm obliged to be the one who has to go into more detail as to why I enjoy something like DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, when its general reputation is THE PITS! This is not to say there are "right and wrong" opinions, but many movies are overwhelmingly considered either "good" or "bad", as some sort of general reputation.

 

[Ken Chan]

People can be particularly negative because they feel like they've blown their $10. For some, it's a reaction to the fact that the "movie industry" is not attempting to make good, entertaining movies; they're in it just to make money -- as much money as they can before people figure out that the movie is a hack, or the movie maker is a hack, or the movie executive is a hack. Being a hack is a lot easier if you have millions of dollars in the bank.

Other people are excessively negative because they themselves are hacks.

Originally Posted by SoldanoCrush

I understand a lot didn't like Transformers... I was just bringing it up as an example.

There are plenty that thought Dark Knight, Departed, and 2001 were crap.

Those people are wrong.

But seriously, forget any individual's opinion of those four movies, including mine or yours. Billions of people see a movie -- you can find "plenty" with any given opinion. Would you say that the "average" opinion of The Dark Knight is indistinguishable from that of Transformers 2?

It's the implied false equivalence there. I get that your point is really the individual complaints. And to bolster that, someone that "hates" a "well-regarded" movie can be even more irrational: "Why is everyone so crazy to like this movie which is so obviously horrible?" But even then, it's not that any individual opinion is "wrong" -- although being able to articulate it and base it on content that actually appears in the film is a minimum requirement.

Maybe it's the tribalism that elbows out honest debate on a variety of subjects. It's much easier to declare that you're right than to actually find and weigh all the relevant facts. The world is much simpler when you're always right. Except it's a trap: if it's so simple, why are all these other people wrong? Why can't they see it?
And so the resentment builds. Anything you don't instantly love, you instantly hate. There is no middle ground, because middle ground requires nuance, and nuance requires complexity, but you don't do complexity; the world is simple.

 

[Michael Elliott]

If Hollywood is lazy then I really don't see why professional critics should really waste time and breakdown the heart and soul of some piece of crap that will make $200 million today and then be replaced the following year by the latest "cool" thing.

I find it rather pathetic when a "reviewer" keeps thinking he's deep and really digging into the "true meaning" of a film yet he's too blind to realize that just because someone doesn't share his opinion that the other person didn't "see" something in the movie. Even a great critic can screw up be it Ebert or Kael. It's not like either one of these critics are going to go to 42nd Street and bother reviewing some of those films. I mean hell, Ebert bashed the hell out of certain films because rape was shown as being funny yet he seemed to forget joking about rape and making fun of blacks for a certain Russ Meyer film. Is Ebert really saying you shouldn't write a "funny" rape scene yet he himself has done it? Do I call him a bad critic for this?

You could show 2001 to one-hundred different people and all of them might come away thinking the film was about something different. There are countless opinions as to what happened in THE SHINING but not everyone is idiots because they don't share one opinion.

What I do find strange is why people will pay $10 just to watch a movie that they're going into it hating. It happens countless time with either summer blockbusters or especially horror movies. You find these types on various message boards. Some have mentioned IMDB and while there are some smart people on the boards, I usually try to make them come here and post or other boards where they'd fit in better.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Originally Posted by Cees Alons
I have yet to read someone say that a movie he liked felt "like the soft, warm left breast of the Venus of Milo, but then in real flesh invitingly, lovingly and lustily put in his eager hand" or "this movie smells and tastes like cool vanilla pie with the finest whipped cream, topped with a beautiful red and spickled strawberry and delicately powdered and flavoured with the finest of chocolate powder lovely sending it's tickling and interesting scent to my nose".


Cees

Well, here you go!

SPHERICAL FRUIT COCKTAIL WITH LOTS OF SQUIRTS OF LEMON STRAWBERRY'S., 16 November 1998

You can't ask for a better sweat factory than this chewy delight from naughtyland. An awesome sex scene every 10 minutes that lasts exactly 4, heck, you can practically set your watch by it. You can't ask for a better movie on Cinemax at 3:15am.

As I stood naked in the darkness of my cold rec room watching this suger-coated circus at 3:45 in the morning, I cried at the power and boldness that this ripe fruity gem poured out on me. The glow shined through the 21 inch +
screen and lit up the room and my naked body, illuminating every shadow that it casted off of the objects that accompanied me and grew stronger with every frame of sparkling radiance. Every now and then I think back to my time of watching this salty pebble and wonder if it was all a dream, or maybe a mere fantasy that took over and made me Brock Landers for 82 minutes of fluffy floating. -***1/2 stars

This crazy guy has a lot of reviews like that.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0144230/comments?order=date&start=10

 

[SoldanoCrush]

Cees Alons hit it right on the head...

""" This thread shows some of the interesting mechanisms around this. When the OP tries to make an observation and (to help us understand his point) mentions the title of a particular movie that's often criticized, more than one poster (although I don't believe they missed the real point of the original post) feel an urge to comment in a very negative and vehement way on that specific movie (note that for the sake of the discussion it would have sufficed to say something like: "Yeah, Jonny, but your example isn't too strong, because many people really don't like Transformers-2"). """

I'm glad this conversation has sparked some interesting debate

 

[Kirk Tsai]

While I don't totally disagree with the OP's message, I find the reverse--people NOT caring--to be even more disturbing than people spewing venom. After all, we are on this forum, and others on the IMDB forums because we have opinions on movies and are trying to seek others' opinions. We're trying to communicate our opinions and ideas using words on the web, with many people we don't know, it's natural sometimes we let hyperbole get the better of us.

From what I have read of the past, the public discourse on movies seems to have dwindled. Dialogue on what movies meant mattered. The two highest profile critics in the past, Kael and Sarris, were as famous for their thoughts as their personalities. But people say things like "people just want to be entertained" as if those are valid rebuttals to criticism. Of course a big blockbuster such as Transformers 2 is meant for enterainment, but many of us believe it is a bad movie precisely because it failed to entertain. If "it's just a movie" is no more of a thoughtful defense than "it sucks" is a probing critique, it also shows an additional belief that movies as a form is incapable of providing more than just the lowest of entertainments. That worries me more than hatin' on bad movies.

 

[John Kilduff]

For several years, I reviewed movies for The 80s Movies Rewind. I was probably one of the youngest writers that site had, having typed up pages from the age of 19 to the age of 23. As such, looking back on some of my reviews, I feel they were poorly written. Age is a major factor when it comes to stuff like this. Something I've come to find beyond that, though, is that sometimes the posters on the IMDB will get so vicious that they'll wish death upon anybody they disagree with. Very nasty stuff. I'm just a viewer, not a poster...I wouldn't last one hour on those boards.

Sincerely,

John Kilduff...

I think this is a far better forum to discuss entertainment

 

[Steve Christou]

Kirk Tsai says Transformers 2 "failed to entertain", the film must be entertaining on some level it's already grossed $672m in just 20 days and how many levels does a film like this have? I think people, of all ages, got what they expected from the film, and they've gone back to see it again and again, and if you expected something more, tough titty.

Looking at the Transformers 2 review thread and amongst the "shit" , "garbage" "stinker" and "bleh" there are some who look like they've actually been entertained by Transformers, gadzooks is that possible?

 

[Mike Frezon]

This one's easy (and what a great thread to be started by a veritable newbie to the forum! ).

To summarize what others have already more eloquently pointed out:

1.) This is the internet. And we are discussing, in particular, behavior on discussion forums. Human nature dictates that people are much more likely to opine on things they don't like--for it is those things which seem out-of-the-ordinary to them (making those situations "man bites dog" and worthy of talking about).

2.) People don't seem to be able to express themselves as well as in the past. And adding on the seemingly increased opportunities available on the internet, we see more and more people expressing themselves, but not necessarily well. Add to that that some people think it improves their net worth to express critical (which, for many, means negative) opinions on things. In other words, it makes them, for some reason, feel better about themselves.

I think that's the crux of the sentiment expressed by the OP: "when did it become so cool to hate everything?" People like to kvetch and the internet provides a remarkable format for kvetching (anonymously, it one prefers). And, as we have all experienced, some people are much more talented and entertaining at kvetching than others. So it is in life.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I spent some time debating whether or not I'd respond to this. It is a bit of a loaded question, though unintentionally so.

I think this might be asking the right question in the wrong place. I cannot speak to the message boards of imdb, or AICN, or Comingsoon, or Superheroeshype, or Transfans, or TheOneRing, or theforce.net, or so on and so forth. Having been a member of HTF for about 8 years, and most specifically through the Movies (Theatrical) forum, I can speak to that. I don't care about the rest of it. I come here to talk movies. Not just to praise, not just to defend, and not just to belittle. But this forum is about discussing movies. We are going to disagree, and we are going to do so all of the time. And that is what I want. I learn very, very little from people I agree with.

Originally Posted by Ed Moroughan

It's not only the Internet it's around in real life too. Example: While talking on the phone with an old friend we got onto the subject of the movies of Summer 2008. He said he thought The Dark Knight was the best comics movie ever. I said I still thought Superman was the best. He proceeded to roll right over my "I liked TDK too" and called the movie gay, me gay, Christopher Reeve gay, stupid because he couldn't stay on his horse, and that Superman Returns was better. To that I just said "Hmm" and managed to end the call about then. I don't comment on films anymore much, either in life or on HTF, I'm tired of being told I'm dumb or I didn't get it. I like what I like/You like what You like. Savvy?

This will always come down to a matter of liking it or not liking it, but the pourpose of discussion is often a bit deeper. Why did "we" respond the way "we" did. In doing that, we examine the film a bit more rigorously. This can be a double-edged sword. Maybe you see the flaws, but maybe (just maybe) you can see the genius. I try and avoid name-calling. I absolutely call my friends "gay" for their movie choices, but that is in person and meant in jest. It has little to do with the film, and everything to do with our friendship. On this board, most posters try to focus on the film, not the member.

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

While I don't totally disagree with the OP's message, I find the reverse--people NOT caring--to be even more disturbing than people spewing venom. After all, we are on this forum, and others on the IMDB forums because we have opinions on movies and are trying to seek others' opinions. We're trying to communicate our opinions and ideas using words on the web, with many people we don't know, it's natural sometimes we let hyperbole get the better of us.

From what I have read of the past, the public discourse on movies seems to have dwindled. Dialogue on what movies meant mattered. The two highest profile critics in the past, Kael and Sarris, were as famous for their thoughts as their personalities. But people say things like "people just want to be entertained" as if those are valid rebuttals to criticism. Of course a big blockbuster such as Transformers 2 is meant for enterainment, but many of us believe it is a bad movie precisely because it failed to entertain. If "it's just a movie" is no more of a thoughtful defense than "it sucks" is a probing critique, it also shows an additional belief that movies as a form is incapable of providing more than just the lowest of entertainments. That worries me more than hatin' on bad movies.

Thanks Kirk. I am not so doom and gloom (because we, on the whole, on getting some great films - it has been a GREAT decade). But I agree about the level of discourse.

My greatest enjoyment on HTF has come from defending a film I loved. Not with insults or snarkiness. With competent arguments based on the film itself, on why and how I responded to the film the way I did. I love to defend a film. I want films that are good enough to be defended.

I enjoy ripping a film I don't like a new one. Unlike some members, I can still enjoy a competently worded diatribe I recognize the cognitive dissonance, but I am more than willing to listen to reasons why people like it. Unfortunately, this quickly boils into "what did you expect, Citizen Kane" or accusations of snobbery. There are Oscar-bait dramas I hate just as much as some of the mindless blockbusters I hate. It is not the genre, but the execution.

People should still be obliged to use manners with one another, especially over the internet. And that goes both ways.

 

[Ken Chan]

Quote:Originally Posted by Steve Christou

Kirk Tsai says Transformers 2 "failed to entertain", the film must be entertaining on some level it's already grossed $672m in just 20 days and how many levels does a film like this have?
I paid my money before I walked into the theater. If movies had to "work off tips" -- say, X dollars go to the theater directly, and then some multiple to the studio based on satisfaction -- the numbers would look different.

The real effect will be seen in the inevitable Transformers 3. Will it drop off like for The Matrix or Pirates of the Caribbean?

"Along with Star Trek one of the most entertaining films of the year."

That last one was mine, though I did enjoy Star Trek a whole lot more.

Given that gap, it's hardly a ringing endorsement. If a film that is a whole lot less entertaining is still among the most entertaining, it's a pretty sad year for the movies -- and there I'd agree with you.

 

[Steve Christou]

What makes me laugh is the excuses the haters come up with when a movie they don't like makes a killing at the box office, sometimes it's "yes alright it's made nearly a billion at the box office but if you take this and this into account and that too, than the film really isn't successful at all is it?", or this "...okay it's made $700m in 3 weeks, so what, doesn't prove anyone actually liked it." and the old classic "yeah well Titanic has grossed twice as much as that, doesn't seem so impressive now does it?".

And than there's the sweaty panicky nailbiting hater with "a huge weekend but this shit is going to sink like a stone next weekend, I can tell, it has to drop, word of mouth will get out and kill it, I know it will, wait and see." I'm not making this up, people have been posting this sort of the thing on the forum for years now.

 

[Andrew Pierce]

The issue with internet discourse is most succinctly explained by the guys over at Penny Arcade

www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

We're all here to talk about movies. We're not going to like all of them. I think the issue for the OP may be that you're personally identifying with some films. So if someone says that Transformers 2 is a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible movie, you feel that that person is attacking your taste, or is in some way slighting you or invalidating your viewpoint. They almost certainly are not, and you shouldn't feel slighted. Unless you're Michael Bay. Everyone has their own opinion, and none of them are wrong. Except for that one guy who keeps giving every Pixar film bad reviews.

OK, if someone says you're gay to like the original Superman, ok, yeah that's an example of a personal attack rather than an attack on the movie. I think that's the exception rather than the rule. At least on this forum.