Typical Movie Arguments That Irk Me...

Drive

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:42:19 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"It's too slow and boring, should've had more action!"

Why That's Bullshit:
There's a distinct difference between what you want and what a filmmaker's vision is. Drive is not about car chases or action; it's a crime/drama/thriller. Just because it doesn't have the action you expected it to have, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad movie - it just means it isn't for you. Because the film was not tailor-made to your vision, you have no right to wander around saying "Dude it was the worst movie ever!" That just makes you look fucking inane.

Let the Right One In

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:42:30 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"It's foreign and subtitled! I don't want to read subtitles! It'll be so boring"

Why That's Bullshit:
Imagine for a second that you spend months and months making a motion picture. For the sake of argument, let's say you wrote and directed it, and poured your heart and soul into the finished movie.
Now let's imagine that your distributor needed to release it in non-English countries, and it needed to be subtitled. How would you like it if non-English speakers automatically hated your movie because it was in English?
Being subtitled doesn't mean bad or boring. It means you have to concentrate on the movie. And that's the thing about movies: you should give them your full concentration without any distractions.

King Kong

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:42:37 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"It's old! Effects are crappy and it's boring"

Why That's Bullshit:
What's your favourite movie right now? For the sake of argument, let's say it was made 5 years ago. Now fast-forward 25 or 30 years. Now your favourite movie is about 35 years old and would look rather dated. Would you then hate it?
Who cares about how old the movie is? If a movie is good, it'll grab your attention regardless of its age. Why does it matter if the picture is a little grainier, or if the audio sounds dated? Give a movie a chance.

District 9

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:44:39 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"Those aliens were shit! They should've destroyed those humans easily! Would've been better with big battles of humans vs. aliens!"

Why That's Bullshit:
This criticism is another case of your expectations being different from an artist's vision. District 9's aliens are weak grunts, the equivalent of worker ants. They don't have the ability to go to war, and they're starving and desperate. Once again, just because the movie wasn't full of alien combat or anything stereotypically "cool", doesn't mean it's a bad movie, and you have no right to call it as such.

Rear Window

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:49:14 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"Eh it's so predictable now, I knew what was gonna happen."

Why That's Bullshit:
I'm not kidding, someone literally watched this after seeing Disturbia and said they could see where Rear Window was headed. Well yeah, when your mind has been tarnished by plenty of imitators, you will have those movies in the back of your mind.
But when Rear Window was first released so many decades ago, nobody had seen anything of the sort. It was fresh and original. You're a fucking retard if you call a classic film unoriginal because you've seen the films that the classic inspired.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:25:47 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"The book was so much better!"

Why That's Bullshit:
Oh here we go. The juicy complaint from the pseudo-intellectuals who think they're superior because they have the patience to read a book.
Xanadont said it best: the complaint comes from "people who don't understand that adaptations between two different mediums necessitates certain sacrifices, reconstructions, embellishments, and other tricky and subjective decisions."
People dislike Tom Bombadill's exclusion from Fellowship of the Ring, but would it REALLY have made an impact on the plot? No... It would've been a useless plot digression that'd give more people cause to call the film boring or too long. Take FOTR on its own terms, and it's a marvellous standalone movie which gives vivid life to Tolkien's excellent ideas.

No Country for Old Men

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:29:01 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"WTF was with that ending?"

Why That's Bullshit:
We get so many happy, upbeat endings because Hollywood knows what people want: to walk away with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Everything needs to be wrapped up tidily and filmgoers don't want to engage their brain.
And then when they're confronted by something like No Country for Old Men, they shit themselves. I actually remember talking to a friend who worked in a video store a few years back. Someone hired this movie on the day of release, and returned it to complain that the disc skipped a few scenes and went straight to the credits when in fact he saw the whole movie but couldn't grasp this. They couldn't double-check the time-codes on their DVD player or think about the ending; their first thought was that the disc fucked up.
Brain fodder doesn't hurt, people...

Michael Clayton

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:57:02 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"It didn't make sense!! It was shit!!"

Why That's Bullshit:
Not every movie is designed to be properly digested in one sitting. In some movies, if you miss the littlest detail or dialogue exchange, you may find yourself lost. It's true of many movies, ranging from Michael Clayton to more complex films like Mulholland Drive. Not every stab at this type of complex film is successful, granted, but if a film does in fact make sense and/or has room for you to create your own interpretation, this complaint is utterly naive.

Australia

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:57:13 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"This is so stupid!" (referring to cultural-specific things they just do not understand)

Why That's Bullshit:
I could put an array of movies on this list to address this point, but Australia deserves some love. I can't tell you how many times people have complained about the scene in which Nullah (the "African Australian" as some have called him...you know what? Your retardation is off the charts if you've used that term) prevents the stampede from going over the cliff. They say his "magical powers" are fucking stupid and the scene is cringe-worthy. These retards, however, are just naive about Aboriginal culture. They are very in tune with the land and animals. After all, it's theorised they travelled to Australia during the freaking ICE AGE, and were stuck with spears and arrows until the white settlers arrived.

Transformers

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:22:22 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"It's just a dumb action movie! If you don't like it, go watch Gone with the Wind."

Why That's Bullshit:
This is actually an argument in defence of a terrible movie, and it's almost always wrong. Whenever people express how much they detest something like Transformers, the fans immediately leap in and say "It's just a dumb action movie! It's fun! If you don't like it, go watch a boring artsy drama." Or something to that tune. And ultimately, the argument is tiresome. I don't want Transformers to be Gone with the Wind or something, I want it to be Die Hard, Lethal Weapon or The Terminator. By that I mean, I want a good action movie which is stylish and competently written. Not a film like Transformers that's boring and filled with inane dialogue.
Just because we hate dialogue like "Bumblebee, stop lubricating the man!", doesn't mean we want characters discussing their feelings. Just because we hate robots with testicles, doesn't mean we'd prefer to see a wedding ceremony. Just because we hate shaky-cam and frenzied editing, doesn't mean we want a 5-minute shot of a character staring at another character.
Maybe we'd prefer genuinely witty dialogue in our dumb action films. Maybe we prefer action we can follow easily without getting a migraine. Maybe we prefer creativity, not 15-year-old boy smut like testicles on a robot.
Please learn the distinction between "Good fun dumb action movie" and "Horrendously dull, witless action movie".

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:23:15 GMT

The Typical Argument:
"Read the comics/books, it'll make more sense!"

Why That's Bullshit:
I chose Star Wars for this because it's notorious for having an entire "expanded universe" of comics, books, videogames, television shows, and so on. The Broadway play probably isn't far off.
If anyone picks up on any plot inconsistencies, or questions why a random character shows up on one occasion then is never seen again, the nerds automatically tell them to read the comic or novel that expounds on a certain character and their rich history.
Which is complete bullshit.
Another good example of Akira. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and later found out it was compressed from a huge comic book series. When I said I couldn't follow it, I was told to read the comic and it'll make more sense. Again, bullshit.
Why the FUCK should I have to do additional homework? I'm watching a feature film, I expect to have the full experience and all the information I'll need. I don't expect to have to spend another two weeks of my life reading a book or comic to fill in the blanks left by a movie. Especially in Akira's case, what's the point in making an adaptation of a comic if viewers have to go read the comic anyway? Shouldn't the adaptation be able to stand as its own entity?