The Fallacy of Low Expectations: An Excuse for Bad Film-Making?

There has been an interesting discussion going on among film-buffs in the past week or so in light of the successes and failures of two movies, GI Joe: Rise of Cobra and District 9. The /Filmcast: After Dark (Ep 64) series had the author, Laremy Legel on the show after his post on Film.com entitled The Fallacy of Low Expectations or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate the G.I. Joe .

Much of this has to do with whether or not is legitimate for directors, film studios, and everyone else to excuse poor film-making in the sense of low expectations. Otherwise, the "What did you expect?" review that excuses a bad film from criticism. This flies mostly in the face of the stark contrast of movies between 2008 and 2009, and certainly, with movies that have come out just in the past few weeks. Why is it that in a world of The Dark Knight and Iron Man we should allow for things like Wolverine and Transformers 2 to exist? Much less, make money (and lots of it)?

[SIDE NOTE: Go and read io9.com's "Summer 2009: What Just Happened?" story - An excellent view on the situation]


On a personal level, I find the original article offering a compelling critique of the current situation we face with many of our movies, but I'm not totally sold on the entire idea. I think it is totally fair to expect a "good movie," especially given what we have been seeing with prized franchises over the past several years. However, what can be defined as a "good movie" ultimately becomes a bit of a subjective discussion. Certainly, expectations play into that as well. I do feel like there is some level of a handicap involved when directors like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers are involved with any movie. Expectations, similarly, are often quite high when well-loved franchises are involved.

Something like Batman Begins comes to mind when there is a well-known director attached, known for his dark and complicated dramas, jump-starting a franchise that had otherwise been left for dead. Successes in that sense become the model for what people want to go after. But if I'm honest, if GI: Joe had attempted to do the same thing, I'd have been mad as hell. A "serious" GI: Joe wouldn't have made sense, and it wouldn't have been fun. If it is true that Sommers set out to make his movie like a cartoon, he succeeded. It was what made the movie fun to watch, despite it otherwise being a "bad movie." If we were so serious about our movies, we would never have the Troma Series to laugh at. Or totally awesome movies like My Name is Bruce and Bubba Ho-Tep (Sorry Bruce, I do love 'ya). If I were to go into those expecting some kind of thought-provoking movement in my mind, I'd have been severely disappointed. But they are good fun, and have their own place in film.

To me, "bad movies" can be good because of my lowered expectations, and I don't feel sorry for doing it. I can certainly see how that would give certain directors an excuse for doing whatever the hell it is that they want to do, but at the same time, it lets me enjoy movies for what they are - entertainment. I often feel like this is creating some kind of rift amongst nerds across the country, around the world, and I often ask myself why its even that important in the first place. We're all more than welcome to be mad as hell about how franchises from our childhood are being "destroyed." But when it comes down to art vs story vs money, right now, money wins. If you don't want "bad movies" to be made anymore, the easiest way of preventing it would be to stop spending your money at the theater. Nerds, unfortunately, cannot take their own medicine. Furthermore, with the constant seeping of nerd culture into the mainstream, there seemingly is not much we can do to prevent the MTV-approved madness into the theaters anymore.

This is where movies like District 9, Moon, 500 Days of Summer and Cold Souls come in. Films like these are made on a small budget, with a narrow focus, and a greater emphasis on film making. Its no wonder that these films have become the darlings of the 2009 summer film season. Although they likely won't make as much money as your average big-budget blockbuster, they will likely be successful in their own right as independent films.

What we have left to wonder is how things like Where the Wild Things Are, The Road, and The Surrogates will do in the face of all of this. For that matter, Sherlock Holmes and Avatar. Will they live up to expectations?

And, what is a good movie? Obviously, we all have diferent opinions and tastes, but, in general I think that term includes not only good CG's and FX's, a solid and complex or at least mature script is needed. That's the word, the script.

Maybe GI: Joe is a popular success, but I'm pretty sure everyone will forget this film soon. While, for example, Dark Knight, will remind in their minds. That's the difference.

Years ago, there were a scriptwriter crisis in Hollywood, and they migrated to TV series. Making serious and complex stories like Battlestar Galactica, Lost and others. In the course of time, some returned to Hollywood and we saw some good SiFi films like Dark Knight or Star Trek.

But this situation has ups and downs like you said. For example, Termination Salvation, for me, was a huge disappointment. I consider it the worst film performed by Christian Bale, really plain. Beeing him there, I hoped more script and complex characters, but...

I have high expectations in District 9, Avatar, The Surrogates... We'll see what happens.

In short, we have to demand better quality on these movies. We all are part of the mainstream, so let's show our opinion. If some film is bad, just let's don't see it ^_^

YSSMAN

Why is it that in a world of The Dark Knight and Iron Man we should allow for things like Wolverine and Transformers 2 to exist? Much less, make money (and lots of it)?

Hollywood has been doing this forever. They make good movies, and then do a cut-rate job on the sequel which they know is guaranteed to make money based on name recognition.

Dark Knight was something of an exception, but it still wasn't up to the standards of Batman Begins, and so we're left with the old axiom that sequels are never as good as the original.

I can think of a handful of cases where sequels actually lived up to or exceeded the original film - but it is rare. Hollywood keeps making them because people keep going to the theater to see them. So that answers that question. The only question we have left is why people keep falling for sequels...

newnikita

In short, we have to demand better quality on these movies. We all are part of the mainstream, so let's show our opinion. If some film is bad, just let's don't see it ^_^

While I completely agree with everything else you said, the problem with this solution is that someone has to see these movies to decide that no one should see them and personally, short of a few people, I don't trust most reviews, especially those coming from "professionals."

YSSMAN

Much of this has to do with whether or not is legitimate for directors, film studios, and everyone else to excuse poor film-making in the sense of low expectations. Otherwise, the "What did you expect?" review that excuses a bad film from criticism.

I don't think you understand the problem present in that excuse. That is an excuse defending a bad film as good, not saying that it is bad but we shouldn't care. It is way too often preceded by something like, "This is the best movie of the summer. Stuff blew up and I saw boobies, and it was AWESUM!!!1!!11!!!!one" It is what occurs after I see a line of comments saying just how cool and awesome a movie is and then I waltz in and lay down the ten plot holes obvious to anyone who can take their eyes off the main actresses breasts long enough to bring their brain above pure animalistic thought. Never have I seen Michael Bay ask what the critics expected when they pan his crap. He doesn't care because he got money. This is purely a fan's excuse to defend his bad taste.

Quote:

Why is it that in a world of The Dark Knight and Iron Man we should allow for things like Wolverine and Transformers 2 to exist? Much less, make money (and lots of it)?

It is allowed because it makes a crap ton of money because they are pandering to the lowest common denominator. I understand why big budget, over the top films are made. Without them District 9 and Watchmen would not have happened. Where they run into a problem is two things: First, they hand the projects to guys who specialize in effects stuff, but have very little actual ability to tell a coherent story. Transformers being given to Michale Bay was a complete and total shock because it was produced by Spielberg. I mean, if any man shows that he can tell a story in a coherent manner and have entertaining effects it is him. He has obviously lost his touch, judging by Minority Report and War of the Worlds, but when he gave the franchise to Bay he couldn't have found a less Spielberg-like guy in mainstream Hollywood.

The second sin is that they are doing it to long-loved franchises, who have large histories that are more coherent than the movies. In the case of both GI Joe and Transformers (to a degree Star Trek) I have recently been watching the first seasons of them, and while they are far from perfect their stories are coherent and even smoothly serialized over multiple episodes. You cannot take something like that and show little care for how the story is told just as long as it looks good. You also can't just start to willy nilly change even the look without expecting some backlash. And when it happens you have to make sure it makes sense. Robot designs exposing gears and pistons (the robot equivalent of muscles and joints) does not make sense. Accelerator suits stolen from Starship Troopers (Book, not movie) do not make sense. Updating a franchise's look to fit a more modern looking aspect is one thing (see X-Men, Batman, and Spiderman) but when you have the original fans, whom you are trying to cash in on, asking what they are looking at you made a mistake. From there they definitely aren't concerned with eye candy anymore and are clinging to the story, meaning we see the plot holes.

I really think an Emperor's New Clothes metaphor works here. You are supposed to see the big explosions, crazy action, and hot chicks and not notice that the story has no clothes (plot). But these stories have a built in fan base, and we see. Perhaps it is because we are 30+ years old and we have reached point where our brains have begun to overpower the testosterone overdose we were dealing with the last 15 years or so, but whatever it is we see past the booms and boobs and there isn't much left.

Quote:

However, what can be defined as a "good movie" ultimately becomes a bit of a subjective discussion.

What is subjective about plot holes? Crap came out of nowhere or the dialog sounds like it is being delivered by a robot or whatever, these are not subjective things. These are, without question, signs of bad film making. When a mute character begins speaking without explanation it is not coherent storytelling. If you don't see how that is bad then you either aren't paying attention or you have bad taste, but it is not something that makes sense from a new perspective.

Subjective is when I feel that the preachy bits of Wall-E or Happy Feet are overdone and unwelcome, while others agree with the message and feel it adds to the films. Subjective is live human actors in CGI films pulling me out of my immersion, while others think the contrast adds. But these are not the issues we are talking about.

Quote:

But if I'm honest, if GI: Joe had attempted to do the same thing, I'd have been mad as hell. A "serious" GI: Joe wouldn't have made sense, and it wouldn't have been fun. If it is true that Sommers set out to make his movie like a cartoon, he succeeded. It was what made the movie fun to watch, despite it otherwise being a "bad movie."

It is not that he wasn't all dark and serious about it. Iron Man and Star Trek (to a degree) shows you can have fun with it and still have a good movie. There are certain things required for a movie to be good.Plot holes in your story are not one of them. Note: I haven't seen GI Joe yet, but when every single review mentions multiple plot holes I already know what happened, and having watched many of the cartoon episodes this week I can tell you he didn't make it like the cartoon.

The only time GI Joe or Transformers cartoons made me say, "What the?" is when it is an animation error, and those are often so brief you have to go back to confirm you saw it. It is not enough to remove you from the film. As for characters, in just four episodes of GI Joe I could tell you that Scarlet possibly has a thing for Snake Eyes and Snake Eyes hides his mysterious appearance, it isn't just about being a bad ass ninja. I can also point out the blatant deus ex machina in the third episode. Even a good cartoon can stay coherent and not have you scratching your head as to what is going on half the time.

Quote:

If we were so serious about our movies, we would never have the Troma Series to laugh at. Or totally awesome movies like My Name is Bruce and Bubba Ho-Tep (Sorry Bruce, I do love 'ya). If I were to go into those expecting some kind of thought-provoking movement in my mind, I'd have been severely disappointed. But they are good fun, and have their own place in film.

If you do not see how these movies here differ from what we are talking about I cannot explain it.

I loved Eight Legged Freaks, Slither, Crank and The Transporter but think that X-Men 3, Spiderman 3, and Transformers were horridly bad. Can you see the difference?

Danoff

Hollywood has been doing this forever. They make good movies, and then do a cut-rate job on the sequel which they know is guaranteed to make money based on name recognition.

Dark Knight was something of an exception, but it still wasn't up to the standards of Batman Begins, and so we're left with the old axiom that sequels are never as good as the original.

I can think of a handful of cases where sequels actually lived up to or exceeded the original film - but it is rare. Hollywood keeps making them because people keep going to the theater to see them. So that answers that question. The only question we have left is why people keep falling for sequels...

This is not just about bad sequels though. The fact that there are exceptions show that you can make a good sequel. What you will often find however is that when you get a bad sequel something in production changed. Too often the studio goes for a cash in and doesn't wait for the full head production crew to become free again.

But if we can have good sequels, not necessarily better or even equal in quality to the original, but still a good movie it is because it is being done by someone who still respects good film making practices.

When you get a sequel that is just a bad film in general you have to look at whether the writers, directors, or whatever changed, or if the studio pressured production for time in order to get a quick cash in. When these things happen bad film making has the opportunity to slip in and no one at the studio cares.

In the end a bad sequel is down to the same thing as a bad movie in general: Film makers that have little respect for either their audience or the quality of their own work.

TB

While I completely agree with everything else you said, the problem with this solution is that someone has to see these movies to decide that no one should see them and personally, short of a few people, I don't trust most reviews, especially those coming from "professionals."

I believe I am getting a good sense for crap based on what information I can get and what I can see here on GTP.

It's extremely stupid for any director to pooh-pooh what critics say, and to defend bad movies as nothing but a rollicking good time.

You only have to look as far back as "T:3" or "Batman: Icecapades" (weirdly, both movies have Arnold Schwarzenegger in them...) to see how foolish this fallacy is. Just because your numbers are good now doesn't mean that people will still remember your movie a year later... or care enough to buy it off the shelf as a DVD.

The people who will remember it will remember the bad taste it left in their mouth. I think TF2 has ruined the "bad movie" genre for everyone... as I have decided never to watch G.I.Joe in the cinema. TF2 was one of the first bad movies where I didn't see males aged 18-25 walking out of the cinema pumping their fists in the air... it was more like they were completely deflated. Michael Bay had somehow done the impossible. He made bloody, limb-ripping action boring. There's only so much an audience can take in one sitting.

(13 year olds and the thirteen-at-heart obviously didn't have much of a problem with it... )

Compare that to Iron Man. There were good action sequences, but just enough to leave you wanting for a sequel. And the Robert Downey wisecracks filled in the blank spaces very well... managing to cover up the plot holes that you would have otherwise been looking for. TF2 had nothing in the way of good humor (Jar and Jar are a poor substitute for true rib-cracking comedy) or good story or even a believable romantic story-arc. Nothing that you could say you haven't seen anywhere else.

When I hate a movie... I know it's because I have high standards. When my guy-friends hate a movie, then I know it's truly crap. The quiet bits between the action sequences are so bad in TF2 that even non-critics get bored and start picking holes in the non-sensical plot. It's a sign of terrible directing. Movies like Iron Man and Star Trek, on the other hand, move you so briskly along that you don't have time to dissect them or to wonder about glaring plot holes. You just sit back and enjoy.

I think it's in the cyclic nature of cinema. It's the late 90's - early 00's all over again. Movies come to a point where nobody actually cares much for blockbusters, and people start watching stuff like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" while the latest "Blade" installment falls by the wayside. Come next year or maybe the year after, people will be wondering why nobody is watching blockbusters anymore.

FoolKiller

I don't think you understand the problem present in that excuse. That is an excuse defending a bad film as good, not saying that it is bad but we shouldn't care... This is purely a fan's excuse to defend his bad taste.

It all goes back into the same point, I think. We are letting bad film-making happen because of our own lowered expectations. I know I've used the "What Did You Expect?" defense multiple times, particularly with GI: Joe, and that certainly makes me "part of the problem." The main issue I have with the entire question is why it is so important in the first place. While I love a film with a strong plot, character development, etc. I also enjoy my campy, senseless violent, and otherwise "stupid for stupid's sake" movies as well. The "mystery" part of the discussion, of course, is whether or not people like Bay and Sommers intend to make their movies this way. Like you point out, I don't think they'd fess up to it either, and it does all of the views a disservice by day's end.

FoolKiller

It is allowed because it makes a crap ton of money because they are pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Where they run into a problem is two things: First, they hand the projects to guys who specialize in effects stuff, but have very little actual ability to tell a coherent story.

The second sin is that they are doing it to long-loved franchises, who have large histories that are more coherent than the movies.

Agreed on both points. Its about money, and its about how easy it will be to make it. I have to admit my own personal horror involved in the fact that they're looking to make a bunch of Hasbro board games into movies. Especially when they have the "pop" directors attached to some of the projects. Full Disclosure: Clue is one of my favorite movies of all time. That movie works because of the clever writing and the colorful cast. Could you imagine what would happen in a Monopoly movie? What about Trouble? Wow. How the hell are they going to do that?

FoolKiller

What is subjective about plot holes? Crap came out of nowhere or the dialog sounds like it is being delivered by a robot or whatever, these are not subjective things. These are, without question, signs of bad film making... If you don't see how that is bad then you either aren't paying attention or you have bad taste, but it is not something that makes sense from a new perspective.

Subjective is when I feel that the preachy bits of Wall-E or Happy Feet are overdone and unwelcome, while others agree with the message and feel it adds to the films. Subjective is live human actors in CGI films pulling me out of my immersion, while others think the contrast adds. But these are not the issues we are talking about.

I think all of this depends on what you're going on as a "bad movie." We can focus squarely on plot holes, if you wish. Poor character development, bad story telling, bad special effects, etc can all step up to the plate to ruin any given movie. The trick here, is whether or not the final package allows you to forgive it. Plot holes are in everything, even our beloved Back to the Future and Star Wars: Episode V.

I'm willing to forgive when I had a good time, and didn't worry about them. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Less likely to complain, sure, but at least I'll admit that GI: Joe was a "bad movie."

Side thought: I think part of the problem now is that we're being sold "an experience" versus "a good story." To me, Transformers 2 was more about the visuals than anything else. I've thought for some time that by turning off the volume, it would at least look like a good movie. The rest? Inexcusable. Then again, I guess that doesn't always work. I've always thought of 2001 as "an experience," but that has a fairly interesting story and a complex plot as well. Hmmm. This theory needs more development...

FoolKiller

If you do not see how these movies here differ from what we are talking about I cannot explain it.

I loved Eight Legged Freaks, Slither, Crank and The Transporter but think that X-Men 3, Spiderman 3, and Transformers were horridly bad. Can you see the difference?

I know the difference, and I put those there for a reason. They clearly are riddled with plot holes, bad storytelling and poor special effects (etc)... But their mission is different. We let these guys off the hook because of lowered expectations, and perhaps mainly because of intent (or a lack thereof). Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment... If we can excuse these movies for the same reasons that we condemn others, where are the actual rules for what is a "good" or "bad" movie? How can we even follow them if we are so willing to break them?

This is where I feel like someone like Quentin Tarantino would go mad. We are over-analyzing far too many of our movies to actually enjoy them. Expectations, personal preferences, and other pretentious feelings create a complicated web of judgment that prevent us for seeing most of these movies as what they are - entertainment. While I'm fairly certain that a man like Tarantino sets out to make the best movie possible almost every time, the best doesn't always come out. I trust that a director and screenwriter like him will make good decisions by the end of the project, and if he doesn't, then its a poo-poo on the entire thing. Although, I think that becomes a situation with intent once again. Grindhouse was an interesting experience that was ultimately very polarizing. Some people loved it, others hated it (I was in the "not so good, but whatever" crowd). But, as you say...

FoolKiller

In the end a bad sequel is down to the same thing as a bad movie in general: Film makers that have little respect for either their audience or the quality of their own work.

I think you summed up the situation pretty well there.

A "good" bad movie never gives you time to think.

It fills every single minute with something interesting and compelling for the audience. It'll give you humor in one scene, character development in another and rip-snorting action in the next. Best case scenario: it gives you two-out-of-three at any one time.

It gives you something unique, not seen in other movies. Something you'll remember for months afterwards.

A "bad" bad movie relies on the same schtick as in the previous one in the series to win the audience over. Or, it may even be the first movie, but relies on tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) so cliched that you'll feel you've seen the movie a million times before in dozens of other really bad movies.

A "bad" bad movie actually takes you out of the moment. Actually gives you time to pause, think, and wonder why the hell you're spending so much money to watch it. These jarring moment can come about due to bad acting (TF2), a monotonous story (Terminator) or simply too much of the same (TF2).

A "good" bad movie never tries to insult your intelligence by pretending to be "serious" (Street Fighter: Legend of Chun Li versus Street Fighter: Van Damne in Blonde... Van Damne's version was terrible, but infinitely better than the new one), and yet never slaps you with a scene or plot premise so ludicrous that you can't swallow it (TF2 Robot Dream / Riddle. GIJoe Brain-reading device). If it does, then it's laid the foundations for the premise well enough that you can ignore it. (All of Star Trek. Tony Stark building a portable nuclear power device in a cave)

It's all about the script and the direction. A good director can make gold out of even the worst ideas. A bad one can turn even the best movie premise into garbage.

Good filmmaking moves you.

A good movie entertains you.

if it does neither, it is neither of the above.

niky

And the Robert Downey wisecracks filled in the blank spaces very well... managing to cover up the plot holes that you would have otherwise been looking for. TF2 had nothing in the way of good humor (Jar and Jar are a poor substitute for true rib-cracking comedy) or good story or even a believable romantic story-arc. Nothing that you could say you haven't seen anywhere else.

And this brings me to what I will call the Jar Jar Effect (JJE). The JJE is when a director/writer knows the movie is a bit too serious or action oriented and needs something to give it emotion. The problem is that it should be there if it is a good story. Episode I throws in Jar Jar as some stupid comedic relief. Very little comedy is found elsewhere in the film. The most common defense for this that I have heard is that Jar Jar is serving the same role as R2 in the original trilogy. But he isn't. Lucas may think he is, but he isn't R2 is there, why do we need Jar Jar for that? Simple, in the original trilogy R2 had some comedic relief duties, but Han's comments, Han vs Lando, etc all add their own humor. That was sorely missing from the prequels.

Good comedic relief should emulate real life. You and your friends sit and talk and laugh, even when no one is telling a joke a funny quip or comment is thrown in. It is what we see in Iron Man. Heck, last night I watched Star Trek V (Shush, I bought the whole set on Blu-Ray and felt it deserved at least one watch) and as horrible as that movie can be there were still some very humanizing comedic moments. For instance, Starfleet Command tells Kirk that he has to go because they need their best commander, they need Jim Kirk. Kirk gives a small, smug "of course they do" look off to the side. Or this conversation:

Spock: As you so often point out , doctor, I am half human.
McCoY: Yeah, well it doesn't show.
Spock: Thank you, Doctor.

It isn't out of place because it is how the characters are and it feels like natural conversation (as natural as talking to a Vulcan can be). It is the banter of two long-time friends that have been doing this to each other for decades. The audience can relate and enjoy this. But when Jar Jar Binks, a Wayans Brother, or any stereotype that stands out from the rest of the cast of characters appears on screen we all know it is going to be bad.

Quote:

Movies like Iron Man and Star Trek, on the other hand, move you so briskly along that you don't have time to dissect them or to wonder about glaring plot holes. You just sit back and enjoy.

I agree here. With Star Trek I watched and enjoyed, but weeks after I found a huge freaking plot hole that should have meant everything after about 20-30 minutes in shouldn't have ever happened. But when you watch the film you don't see it. That is partly because you are distracted by the entertainment, and the other is that it isn't apparent until so late in the film that you don't have the opportunity to go back and realize it until after the film is finished.

Quote:

Come next year or maybe the year after, people will be wondering why nobody is watching blockbusters anymore.

So, could Neil Blomkamp become the sci-fi version of Robert Rodriguez or Tarantino? It is that effect that allowed them to have their small films rise from obscure Indies into Hollywood heavyweights. And Rodriguez still makes story driven movies for ~$30 million that out do the blockbusters with ten times larger budgets.

YSSMAN

It all goes back into the same point, I think. We are letting bad film-making happen because of our own lowered expectations. I know I've used the "What Did You Expect?" defense multiple times, particularly with GI: Joe, and that certainly makes me "part of the problem."

And this is why I think we aren't seeing eye to eye on this question. To me it is a sign that I should never see the movie if I value my brain cells. To you it is a justified defense of a bad movie, which to me had all you need to make a good movie. To you it is a defense, for me it is an offense. When my friend and I walked out of Transformers he said, "That is the best Michael Bay film ever, not that it means much," and I responded with, "Well, what did you expect? It's Michael Bay. Remember Pearl Harbor?"

If I go into a movie with low expectations, as I did with Transformers, it is not good, or acceptable, if they are met. But with Transformers, I felt I owed it at least one proper viewing, as it was most likely my most cherished childhood franchise. My expectations were low. I expected a bad movie. That didn't mean it was acceptable that it was.

Quote:

The main issue I have with the entire question is why it is so important in the first place. While I love a film with a strong plot, character development, etc. I also enjoy my campy, senseless violent, and otherwise "stupid for stupid's sake" movies as well.

These are not stupid for stupid's sake movies. Nothing about them feels that way. This is not Evil Dead, Bill & Ted, Wayne's World, Snakes on a Plane or anything by Mel Brooks. One screenshot (not marketing) from a stupid for stupid's sake movie compared to one from any of these films will immediately show the difference. If Michael Bay wanted to do comedy he should quit picking up the subject matter he does.

Even then, purposely stupid movies don't do bad film making moves that pull you out of the entertainment altogether. They revel in their bad story and make it part of the entertainment. Some even blatantly point out the obvious weaknesses (Wow, for a security guard he had an awful lot of information).

Quote:

The "mystery" part of the discussion, of course, is whether or not people like Bay and Sommers intend to make their movies this way. Like you point out, I don't think they'd fess up to it either, and it does all of the views a disservice by day's end.

I am almost positive (at least I hope) Michale Bay did not intend to make Pearl Harbor a worthless piece of crap film that is far outshone by the same story told 30 years earlier. These guys pick up subject matter that does not lend itself to stupid for stupid's sake. If that is what they are trying to do (Bay should be shot for PH then) then they are doing much worse than the god awful remakes of things like The Dukes of Hazzard and Starsky & Hutch. Those were at least obviously on purpose.

If they intend to make them stupid on purpose they fail at doing it, and if they are supposed to be serious they fail at doing. Either way, they fail.

Quote:

I think all of this depends on what you're going on as a "bad movie." We can focus squarely on plot holes, if you wish. Poor character development, bad story telling, bad special effects, etc can all step up to the plate to ruin any given movie. The trick here, is whether or not the final package allows you to forgive it. Plot holes are in everything, even our beloved Back to the Future and Star Wars: Episode V.

I bolded the important part. The errors in these film do not slap you in the face. They move on and let you keep going without pondering it too much. No mutes suddenly start speaking without reason. There are things that are so glaringly bad that you cannot keep your mind in the story.

Quote:

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment... If we can excuse these movies for the same reasons that we condemn others, where are the actual rules for what is a "good" or "bad" movie? How can we even follow them if we are so willing to break them?

As you said: Intent. It parodies bad movie making. Purposely B movies are parodies of every problem with mainstream movies. Look at product placement in any Mike Meyers film. Poorly done product placement is painful to see (thanks for blocking the entire camera with that Mt. Dew bottle), but what Meyers does is throw it in your face in an obviously funny way to mock its traditional role. Wayne's World had every single product placement done within two minutes as they actually made their own versions of all the commercials, while using it to make a joke about how Wayne's World (the show in the movie) would never sell out to product placement. Or Dr. Evil can repeatedly attempt to get people to eat a Hot Pocket, to the point that for a year after it left theaters my friends and I couldn't see a Hot Pocket without saying, "Would you like a Hot Pocket? They are very tasty." in a Dr. Evil voice. It was a perfect combination of effective product placement and parody of product placement.

Quote:

This is where I feel like someone like Quentin Tarantino would go mad. We are over-analyzing far too many of our movies to actually enjoy them.

I am not over analyzing a movie when I request that the story being told (because they ARE telling a story) is coherent enough to not have me shaking my head. Tarantino's action connects his story, is part of the story. Sure he has had a few issues, but it still works. The same with District 9. In contrast, Bay and co. distract from the story with their action. Anytime you are telling a story you have to stop and ask if the current thing going on is important. The way to tell is to see if the story changes without it. If not, then it is more distraction than anything. Does Devastator need balls? Do the Jar Jar twins even have a role in the story itself? Does anything change if Bumblebee can talk? Does Venom work without seeing the man behind the mask the entire time?

FoolKiller

...then they are doing much worse than the god awful remakes of things like The Dukes of Hazzard...

Woah! Uncalled for. The Dukes remake was a good bad movie. So good, in fact, that I own it. It's a fun movie for disengaging your brain.

Danoff

Woah! Uncalled for. The Dukes remake was a good bad movie. So good, in fact, that I own it. It's a fun movie for disengaging your brain.

You will note I pointed out they did it on purpose. When that happens it leaves a lot of room for love or hate from the audience.


But you can admit you just like Jessica Simpson. We won't laugh......much

FoolKiller

But you can admit you just like Jessica Simpson. We won't laugh......much

I don't mind watching Jessica Simpson parade around - no. I also didn't mind a lot of the jokes. It's actually a very funny movie (sans Willie Nelson). I also don't mind all the drifting - lots of good driving to show off. Waaaay better driving than any fast and furious movie.

Hey... Tokyo Drift had great driving!

The problem with the "Fast and Furious" franchise is a lack of focus. The first one was pure effluence. Utterly. But it had characters you could almost care about, and an actual story. The second one dumped all of that for more of the same "fast cars, fast girls, etcetera"... with a plot and characters you could hardly bring yourself to caring about. The third one was an improvement in that it actually had a story. No matter how ludicrous it was, it attempted some form of character development and linearity. It wasn't great (it took itself waaaaay too seriously), but it was an improvement. So much of an improvement that it was motivation enough to try and catch the fourth one in the theater (I skipped 2 and 3)... though I wasn't expecting much. And it was absolutely horrible. But not horrible due to being a "bad movie", but it did the one thing you should never do in a bad movie... take yourself seriously.

But if you're a car lover, it's worth watching just to see cars like the RS200, the F-Bomb Camaro and the black Charger on the screen.

-

You don't have to do awful remakes of Dukes and Starsky and Hutch. I've been watching reruns, and the source material is bad enough that anything is an improvement. They deserve to have campy remakes (remakes which succeed, at least, in capturing the flavor of the shows). And this is from a guy who used to have the Starsky and Hutch lunchbox and coloring book. Damn do I miss the red tomato.

niky

You don't have to do awful remakes of Dukes and Starsky and Hutch. I've been watching reruns, and the source material is bad enough that anything is an improvement.

You take that back!

<starts singing>
Just'a good ol' boys
Never meanin' no harm.
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

At least they got Miami Vice kinda right. Kinda.

The only English-language film I've ever had to turn the subtitles on for.

Famine

The only English-language film I've ever had to turn the subtitles on for.

I had to do that for Snatch.

Ah, now you see I've avoided that mishap so far by avoiding anything Guy Ritchie has made.

My personal theory, having worked in film and along people of and in the industry, is that big-budget hollywood targets sensory stimulation and leaves anything cerebral for dead. They have the tools available that small production houses don't, and therefore they don't have to worry about the drama or plot or anything like that. It's just a techie-fest, or a showcase of what picture modern cinema is capable of producing.