The Worst Excuse For Bad Movies: “They Meant To Do That”
Picture this scene. It’s the Olympic games in China and we’re at the diving competition. A German diver stands majestically at the base of the diving board as cameras flash around him in a dance of light like an indoors arora borealis. The crowd starts to quite down and the flashes die off. The arena is now calm and quite and the German diver extends up onto his toes, bounces, and then quickly strides up the diving board… gives one giant bounce… flies up into the air…. and then when in the air he inexplicably starts flailing around like an injured bird with his arms and legs kicking everywhere and eventually comes crashing down onto the water in a smaking belly flop. The majestic diver looked more like an 8 year old fat kid making his very first jump off a board than a world class olympic diver and the results were horrible. The judges show their scores that average out to be about 0.5 out of 10. The German finishes in last place.
The German diver and his coach angrily run up to the judges podium and protest! “Why did you give me such a low score?” the German demands. “Because your dive was terrible with no form, no grace, no technique and it all resulted in a terrible belly flop. That’s why.” respond the judges. “But…” the German shoots back at them, “That’s exactly what I was TRYING to do. That’s what I was going for!”
So the question is… since a horrible, graceless, ugly and awful dive is exactly what the diver was going for… should the judges re-evaluate their scores and give him a 10? Or should the judges stick with their score because regardless of intent, a bad dive is a bad dive and should be scored as such?
To me, the answer to that question is obvious. If a dive was ugly and awful to watch with little to no merit to it, then regardless of intent, it was still an ugly, awful to watch dive with little to no merit. Period.
Yet some people in an attempt to defend movies they like will pull out this card. “You don’t understand” they’ll say. “That’s what they were trying to do”.
Now before I go on any further, let me say once again that all film is subjective. Like any piece of art we can all see different things, we can all have different emotional responses and we can all have different impressions when looking at the exact same thing. That’s the most beautiful thing about film. I have no problem saying I appreciated a movie that others thought sucked, and no problems when others enjoyed a movie that I thought was horrible. That’s the formula for good discussion. What I DON’T like is when people (and I confess I do this myself sometimes) make excuses by trying to make it look like faults with the movie are actually YOUR faults.
Let’s look at a movie like “Meet The Spartans”. The film was nothing but an orgy of poorly delivered pop culture spoofs that had little no zero comedic merit, a cesspool of incoherent dialog, no story, no plot, no sense, no humor garbage. It’s totally 100% ok for someone to look at that film and say to me “I disagree, for whatever reason it resonated with me, made me laugh and I was entertained”. That’s totally fine… I’ll think they’re nuts… but no problem. But I actually had a couple of people say this to me:
“But John, I just think you didn’t get it. The movie is supposed to be that way. They meant to make it a collection of pop culture jokes. I think if you watch it again and kept that in mind, you might like it a lot more”
Just because a director MEANT to do something, doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do… nor does it mean they did it well.
Let’s stick with the “Meet the Spartans” example for a moment. I understand they were going for spoof pop culture jokes. I get it. But a few other films did that too, with the only difference being that they did it well! Films like “Top Secret”, “Hot Shots Part Deux” and the king of them all “Airplane” all did what “Meet the Spartans” was going for… but they did it, and Spartans failed.
Let’s bring this up to “Speed Racer”. One of my biggest complaints about that film was the dialog. To me, it was beyond horrible. It was cheesy, lame and simply indigestible. I wrote in my review that I completely understood it wasn’t supposed to be Shakespeare. They weren’t going for Oscars on this one. I understand this. But that’s no excuse for not still making the dialog “good”. Make it silly, make it tongue in cheek… but you can do that and still make it GOOD. Many other films have done that.
Once again, it’s totally fine for someone to say to me “I disagree John, I thought the dialog was fine and it worked”. Fantastic! Just don’t make the excuse “That’s what they were trying to do” because that just simply doesn’t hold up.
- How would a cop respond if you told him you MEANT to park in the passing lane?
- How would your girlfriend respond to you blowing your load in your pants before she even got them off you if you told her you MEANT to do that?
- How would your College professors respond to you saying you should be given a pass because you MEANT to get an “F”?
- How would we respond to Brett Ratner claiming he should be anointed the next Francis Ford Coppola because he MEANT to disappoint so many people with X-Men 3?
Obviously you don’t criticize a film for having not enough laughs when it’s not a comedy. Obviously you don’t criticize a film for not having enough action when it’s a love story. Obviously you don’t criticize a film for not having good animation when it’s not an animated film. You do have to look at a film in relation to its genre and adjust your expectations from there. HOWEVER you can’t just take a flaw in a film and slap the “They meant to do that” band-aid on it. Bad dialog is bad dialog regardless of genre or target audience. Bad acting is bad acting regardless of genre or target audience. Unfunny jokes are unfunny jokes. Bad action is bad action. So on and so on.
There is certainly a place for understanding a director’s intent. But intent does not replace the result. The German diver’s intent does not change the fact that the end result was a poor, terrible dive that deserved a last place finish. In the end, the label “The Meant To Do That” can be slapped on absolutely anything regardless of how truly bad or awful something is, and thus it’s pretty much a meaningless argument.
Let’s just enjoy the movies we enjoy and express the reasons they worked for us without feeling the need to make excuses for what other people see as flaws. We don’t need to “defend” then things we enjoy, rather just express what, how and why we enjoyed them. Ultimately I think that leads to better discussion anyway.
Just my two cents on a grey Monday morning/afternoon.
45 Comments, Comment or Ping
HAZMAT
speedracer.
May 12th, 2008
anon
hey john. can’t you put a filter on your site that automatically bans anyone who types “that’s what they were going for”
i hate those people so much.
May 12th, 2008
Phil Gee
“Then you’re gonna love me” (little Batman for ya there)
No, i think you’re preaching to the choir for the most part but there are always exceptions to the rule. One of people’s criticisms of Superman Returns for example, was that it wasn’t action packed and Superman didn’t fight anyone so it was a pretty sorry excuse for a comic book movie. But Bryan Singer always intended it to be a melancholy, nostalgic film instead of a rollercoaster. Does that mean it’s a sorry excuse for a big budget blockbuster epic? It’s all subjective (same goes for Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’).
May 12th, 2008
Steven Carroll
I completely agree with you John. In this case then, I will also state: I enjoyed Spider-Man 3. It was not a good film though (I admit this before john tries to shoot me). It was just fun, but not good.
May 12th, 2008
anon
phil gee
the first mistake was trying to make those two movies something other than a comic book movie.
besides ironman wasn’t intended to be a an action packed blockbuster and it was FUCKING INCREDIBLE!
unlike those two pieces of garbage.
May 12th, 2008
Jon H
It *would* be nice if people said “I enjoyed that movie because the director tried to do this” instead of “This movie was fucking genius because the director tried to do this”.
May 12th, 2008
Nazz
Even though I agree that that the phrase “They meant to that” is a bad excuse, I was trying to find some fault with the diver analogy and I can’t (yes, I’m not that smart). At least it is a better analogy that the writer strike/chair analogy (you all know what I’m talking about) ;p
May 12th, 2008
Alex
This pretty much sums up “Transformers!”
May 12th, 2008
brian
sorry john but i disagree.
I think that alsong as the film makes clear its direction. To use your analgy, aslong as the diver makes it clear what dive he plans to preform before he is selected to go infront of the pannel, its fine.
I understand what your getting at. But I feel that aslong as the film demonstates to the potential audiance the dive it wishes to do, it should be measured on that. The real problem is when trailers mislead the audiance etc.
This IS a problem, a common one.
Brian
May 12th, 2008
geoff
john, i totally agree.
May 12th, 2008
John
Hey Brian
You said:
“aslong as the diver makes it clear what dive he plans to preform before he is selected to go infront of the pannel, its fine.”
Completely disagree. The intent does not replace the result. The result is ultimately the threshing floor. A bad dive, intended or not, is still a bad dive and should be measured as such.
May 12th, 2008
Joseph
this post is so long i aint even gonna bother reading it lol
May 12th, 2008
HandnHalfSword
John:
I haven’t seen Speed Racer, but That pretty much sums up Superman Returns for me.
That was an awful movie, even though the director accomplished everything he tried to do. It’s just that everything he wanted to do was so wrong.
May 12th, 2008
John
Hey Handhalfsword,
Superman Returns is a great example. For me, what Singer was going for worked and I enjoyed it immensely on that level.
However, for someone like you who didn’t like what he did, I can’t just shoot back at you with “You’re wrong, because that’s what Singer was going for.”
We both recognize what Singer was going for. You thought it was bad, I thought it was great.
May 12th, 2008
JamieM
I mostly disagree with you John. Your analogies don’t work because film is (for the most part) an artistic pursuit, there’s no 10/10 formula. A diver has a real goal to aim for, he/she/the coach/the judges all know what a 10/10 dive is, thats what he’s there for, all the divers are going for the exact same thing. But in the case of film, directors they must try to do each movie differently from all those before it (when they don’t we instantly see through it, eg, will ferrell recently) while still entertaining/impressing us.
Of course Meet the Spartans is still a pile of shit, they were going for low-brow comedy; it wasn’t funny.
Speedracer was going for exciting; it wasn’t.
The policeman is upholding a law that we’re all aware of, the girlfiend was hoping to get off herself, the student knows what’s required to not get an F and Ratner made a fine entertaining movie that just wasn’t up to the standard set by Singer (FFC didn’t want to make Godfather3, he was having financial/contractual problems).
So, my most important point: when people get angry at the “they meant to do that” line it means their own hope/expectation was off the mark. An extreme example to show how ridiculous it is would be someone saying Schindlers List was crap because it wasn’t very funny and someone replying “it wasn’t meant to be” and so first guy says “thats no excuse”. That’s whats happening.
I like to stick up for Gerry and The Fountain, two movies a lot of people dislike. They’re disliked because they’re not what people want/hope to see. Fair enough, but it’s unfair to then say they’re bad movies.
May 12th, 2008
steven
john
aren’t most of the examples you made in this post invalid cause your listing situations which have pretty straight forward rules? like meaning to get an F on a test. or parking in the passing lane.
movies don’t have the same rules of success or quality that everyday rules and laws have. i know people who hated lord of the rings, but it’s a generally favorable movie.does any filmmaker really know for sure what the audience is going to hate or love? was speedracer a film that was geared toward a certain audience and you didn’t care for certain things that would be more straight forward to a kid watching it? does speed racer of all films need a compelling plot? don’t take this the wrong way..i’m just asking you
i think the line “they meant to do that” is bullshit if the person doesn’t have 100% proof that they really intended to do that. but thats just me
May 12th, 2008
John
Hey JamieM
You said this:
“They’re disliked because they’re not what people want/hope to see.”
Dude, I 100%, totally and whole heartedly disagree with you. This is something that drives me nuts. You’re basically telling people why they think what they think. You should not do that.
You just have to accept that other people may see the same thing you do, and hate it. You can’t start making excuses and telling people WHY they thought was they did.
You’ll just have to accept that there are people, who got “The Fountain”, who understood it and knew what it was going for… and still hated it.
You also said:
“Of course Meet the Spartans is still a pile of shit, they were going for low-brow comedy; it wasn’t funny.
Speedracer was going for exciting; it wasn’t.”
In YOUR (and mine) opinion. You just made my argument for me. Regardless of what they were going for, those films struck you and me as terrible. The “They meant to do that” argument is invalid and pointless.
But in the same way, you don’t just get to pick and choose when to use it when it’s a movie YOU like.
May 12th, 2008
Andy D
For Speed Racer, how about “They meant for kids to enjoy this movie, not us +20yo geeks they knew would spend their weekend debating it on a blog” :P Nah, I’m kidding, I haven’t got a clue what the target audience was, but I know that kids ARE loving this.
In all honesty, I can see the flaws in Speed Racer, and I love the movie, not despite those “flaws” that lots of critics have listed, but BECAUSE of those flaws. The movie was (nearly) everything I was hoping it would be, even though I wasn’t particularly looking forward to it at all. It was entertaining, and had a little something for all ages.
And “Car Kung Fu” is my newest favourite thing ><
May 12th, 2008
Nazz
Hey Jamiem,
Thanks for using those examples to see the faults in the diver analogy. I told you I was not that smart. But still, I think Speed Racer was a bad movie (4/10 for me)
And to John,
What’ is, in your opinion,a worse excuse? “They were trying to do this” or “You just don’t get it”?
May 12th, 2008
John
Hey Nazz,
Actually, JaimieM was wrong about the diver analogy. Diving is subjective… that’s why is has like 10 judges who all give their own scores. It’s not objective like sprinting where the clock dictates the winner.
As far as your question… I think they’re both equally irritating. :P
May 12th, 2008
Seth Grimes
John:
Although the defense”They meant to do that” is extremely overused nowadays,I disagree that it is a bad defense.
—-”You’re wrong because thats what Singer was going for”—-
That’s a perfectly logical defense.By saying they meant to do it that way you are showing how the other person’s opinion is flawed(their expectations were wrong).In essense,you are exposing the fact that that person had a faulty presuppositional idea of the movie.Take Superman Returns,for instance,when someone says that that it was bad because it didn’t have enough action,you can simply show them that their expectation of the movie was wrong.They expected that because it was a comic book movie it would be filled with action,but no,that was a false expectation of the film.It wasn’t the director’s fault that the unhappy audience member wanted something else.If someone were to go see The Fellowship of the Ring(a film I think most people would agree is very good) and then say the movie was bad because it wasn’t very realistic, it would be perfectly reasonable to remind them that if Jackson were going for reality he probably wouldn’t have made a fantasy film,(i.e) Jackson wasn’t going for reality.
Ask yourself.Is a film bad just because it dosn’t fit someone’s else’s faulty presupposition.
By saying “They meant to do that”you are actually saying “Your opinion is wrong because your expectations were wrong.
May 12th, 2008
Grant
Somehow I can’t help but feel my comment on Speed Racer yesterday was a big reason you posted this hah hah. Well, like I said, I feel that some of these movies try to be corny on purpose (Speed Racer, Snakes on a Plane). Hell, Snakes on a Plane was literally spawned from a “What’s the worst movie concept ever” contest. As I said earlier, it was my opinion that SR was simply trying copy the campy (nearly laughably horrid) style of its anime counterpart. But really, did these movies beg to be taken seriously? However, there are the movies that begged to be taken seriously like Street Kings and 88 minutes that were pretty crappy. Those ones I will whole-heartedly agree with you on. But also some of the analogies you used I found myself disagreeing. As you stated, something like driving is subjective. Movie making is OBJECTIVE based. Movies beg to have a different style, each director wanting to make a movie in its own way, not to have a set formula like the rules of the road (although some unfortunately do, and as you stated, Speed Racer did, which I will agree with you on). However, I suppose maybe I should end this on that note that all our opinions are objective is well. We all have our opinions on something; you feel this movie is horrible and I will respect that (in fact, the analytical side of me completely agrees with you in your review). I won’t go around trying to change it. So I gave my two cents on the movie, and I gave my two cents on this. If you don’t agree with me, I accept that, because as I said, our opinions our objective.
May 12th, 2008
Andrew James
I’m not going to disagree with you on your overall point, but the diving analogy is kind of a bad one. JamieM is right on. Diving is not 100% subjective. There are certain things divers are trying to accomplish for the judges that are NOT subjective (size of splash, angle at hitting the water, jump height, number of flips, etc, etc).
With movies, everything is subjective (as you said). No particular camera angle is “wrong”, no dialogue is not funny or dramatic, no acting is “bad.” These things all can be measured by a standard that everyone is generally aware of and knows what the record is, the limitations of or qualities of are.
So again, your thesis is correct, the analogy is bad.
May 12th, 2008
Andrew James
Oops. This sentence was meant to apply to the first paragraph:
“These things all can be measured by a standard that everyone is generally aware of and knows what the record is, the limitations of or qualities of are.”
May 12th, 2008
Nazz
Hey John,
I can see your point that the judges’ score are all subjective but the thing is they are there because they know the, for lack of a better word, rules example how the diver makes the splash or in a synchronized thing, if the divers are really synchronizing with each other and what not. As JamieM said, the judges know what a 10/10 dive is.
Film, on the other hand, is art. I personally think a better analogy would be like when a painter draws an ugly painting and when people hate it, he said “It’s supposed to be ugly”. The point being, ugly is ugly.
And by the way, thanks for the quick reply. Also, I love your editorial posts, it really gets people going.
May 12th, 2008
Louis
Hey John -
I agree with your point of view, but disagree with your metaphor.
Competitive sports have a clearly defined direction which you can take in order to succeed, whether it be scoring as many goals as possible, or making sure the water doesn’t splash and that your body is perfectly straight. You can add creativity to it but the outcome is clearly expected and quantifiable (even easily comparable to every other athlete to ever perform within the same discipline guidelines).
Art (and movies), on the opposite spectrum, allows you to go in a million directions that could either bring success or not depending on who your audience is. Speed Racer shall remain an absolute piece of trash to both you and I but for an 8 year old, it might be the movie that completely defined their sugar-rushed childhood.
Guiseppe Tornatore once said that he would rather create a film that fails to please audiences but that he is tremendously proud of than another one that finds massive appeal but that he personally hates. Perhaps how confident he felt about his work just had a direct correlation with his ability to defend it in spite of critics.
One could approach your point of view with a food metaphor. Certain types of food might taste great for some and taste like crap for others - (aka caviar, beer, liver) but there comes a point where people should stop arguing that it’s ’supposed’ to taste a certain way when it’s been sitting on the counter for a month and there’s mold all over it.
May 12th, 2008
Mkfreak2
John, what would say to movies like Grindhouse and Shoot ‘Em Up whose charm lies almost solely in the fact that they are BAD movies, even though it’s “tongue in cheek” badness. That’s exactly what intentional badness is, and there is a certain charm, especially in sci-fi/horror movies. But, critics like Michael Philips just see the badness and put Shoot ‘Em Up on their “Worst of 2007″ list.
One of my favorite movies is The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, a film that spoofs the ever loving shit out of Plan 9 from Outer Space simply by being as terrible as possible. It’s fucking hilarious. That’s intentional badness, and it works perfectly. But, Roger Ebert just saw the badness and gave it 1 1/2 stars.
Your Meet the Spartans example is especially poor because the film was not trying to be bad. It tried to be funny and failed. It thought it was clever, but was not.
My point is, maybe you should look at the film’s intentions. You seem to think that intentions have absolutely no bearing if you ended up hating the film. You also seem to think that the opinion “I don’t think you understood it” or “That’s what he was trying to do” is invalid. How can you say that? If i genuinely feel that you missed the point of a film you hated, why can’t i tell you that?
May 12th, 2008
JamieM
John
I think you misread me a little.
You said:
“You just have to accept that other people may see the same thing you do, and hate it. You can’t start making excuses and telling people WHY they thought was they did.”
I absolutely accept that people disagree with my opinion. That’s why I used the Fountain/Gerry example. They’re movies that a lot of people hate, I like em, so be it.
The problem is “it’s not my cup of tea” and “it’s a poorly made movie” are very different criticisms but people end up saying the same thing: “it wasn’t good”. People should only call something a bad movie if its poorly made and doesn’t achieve what it’s going for and you personally didn’t enjoy watching it. Right?
Someone may not have thought The Fountain was a good movie but their point is usually that the plot was crazy and barely made sense. It’s still a beautifully shot movie with great music, but since people label it “bad” it’s assumed everything about it is bad.
You also said:
“In YOUR (and mine) opinion. You just made my argument for me. Regardless of what they were going for, those films struck you and me as terrible. The “They meant to do that” argument is invalid and pointless.”
You’re right, this exactly what I mean. We both know what they were going for and they did a horrible job at it. Who said “they meant to do that” as a defense of Meet the Spartans and Speedracer? not me!
May 12th, 2008
Sound Designer Dan
This is why Roger Ebert says, “A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it.” Yes, the Wachowski’s meant Speed Racer to be cheesy as hell and colorful as fuck but it all depends on the viewer.
It is not about how someone should “get it” or “didn’t get it,” it depends on how the viewer accepted the director’s presentation of their film.
Did John accept the director’s presentation of the film? No.
May 12th, 2008
Bruce
There is know wrong or right or good or bad, you say film is such a great art form because different people can get different things from it which make for good discussion then you contradict your self by saying how you cant say things like “thats how it was intended” or “its meant to be like that”. i personally think you couldn’t say anything about meet the spartans because there is know point to even talk about it its defiantly a week point, but if some one found it entertaining or funny then thats fine because you dont have have there sense of humor. Just because you know more about film than your average film watcher which makes u much better than them. if some one likes meet the Spartans then good for them just because you and a wide group of individuals didnt, doesn’t mean anything.
What is this standard of “good” you keep saying, is there such a thing as a good movie, or is it good because people like movies follow trends in what there told is “good” or “better”. By the sounds of it speed racer was trying to take its self really seriously while having really bad dialogue, which is what you would expect because a cartoon from the 60s wouldnt be aware of such things.
you say it doesn’t hold up, well ok, why did speed racer look like a cartoon? because thats the look they were trying to achieve based on the source material, why do lynch films have soap opera acting? why is “Team America” really over the top and all american? Becase………? and why………..?
people that dont get that are people who think there awesome and are all knowing about film and think things can only be done a certain way, they only notice directional changes in films there watching that are already perceived to be “good” its very pretentious.
you say this whole “thats what they suppose to do” argument doesn’t hold up but like you say film creates different responses from every one so if you can agree with some one saying “well i liked that bit” then should should be able to listen to them if they tell you something is meant to be like that and why.
this is all obvious as you start to end your statment with rules?
there is no rules in art john, only the ones created by old reviewers who are out of touch anyway.
May 12th, 2008
nbakid2000
John, I gotta disagree and I will echo others’ sentiments:
You say, “that’s the beautiful thing about art/movies, it’s subjective”.
Then you bring up the diver analogy and how the dive sucks. Yeah? By who’s standards? If the diver was TRYING to pull off a bad dive, and succeeds, then that means the dive was GREAT, because the diver accomplished what he was trying to do. Sure, it may have been a bad dive by GOOD (if you were expecting a perfect dive) standards, but the diver executed the bad dive perfectly.
Like someone mentioned “The Lost Skeleton” and “Grindhouse (Planet Terror): those movies are intentionally cheesy and bad. They executed what they wanted to do PERFECTLY, therefore, it’s not a bad movie if you understand the intent of the director and the movie. It’s only bad if you’re not expecting in your movies what those movies contain.
The only time the excuse “they meant to do that” doesn’t work is if the director or movie CLEARLY tried to deliver something that ultimately failed - like “Meet the Spartans”. They tried to make it funny (everyone knows this) and they failed miserably. No one is allowed to say “they meant to make it not-funny” because it’s clearly false.
I realize I’m repeating a lot of what everyone else has said, and I’m sorry, but they all said what I was gonna say if I had got here sooner.
May 12th, 2008
nbakid2000
And I believe there ARE exceptions for this rule…
I mean, if you want to say, “the dialogue in Speed Racer is bad” then yes, I can see where you could logically say that…even if they were aiming for it, it still means it’s not good. That doesn’t mean that the fact that the dialogue is bad necessarily is BAD IN ITSELF, just it means it sucks.
Get what I’m saying?
May 12th, 2008
WolfMarauder
I’m in the middle here John. As a film criticism student, and someone who writes about films, talks about films, and watches films every day just as you do, I am used to finding people who do attempt to cover their opinion with a bandaid. Whether it’s your example of “they meant to do that” or the more common “you just don’t get it”, I absolutely agree with you that that is annoying, and it isn’t a valid critique.
HOWEVER - I am going to have to back JamieM about your diver analogy, because I do think it doesn’t quite fit the situation.
You are right - diving, like film, like dance, like music, etc. is subjective. But subjectivity is not what’s on trial here as you, yourself, love to say. Films are subjective, and that is one of many reasons you earn my respect day after day, John. You just don’t find a lot of people who have experience with film criticism who think that way. They grow snobby, arrogant, and full of themselves. No disputing it.
But.. diving is still different from movies. You used words like “form”, “technique”, and “grace”. You used them because dives are judged on these things. People’s opinions of what “graceful” is are subjective… but there’s also a specific definition of what “grace” is, and people are looking for it.
With film, there are no rules whatsoever for it being a film, other than its physical properties. There is no requirement for a movie to do something within itself in order to accomplish being good, unlike a dive, where there ARE certain areas it has to be in order to be good.
Looking at Speed Racer (which I hated as well, but pretend for the sake of the argument that I liked it), I would not say that it is wrong for you to like it because you didn’t like the dialogue. If you didn’t like the dialogue, that’s too bad that you didn’t enjoy the movie, that’s what I’d say. However, if I DID like the dialogue, despite recognizing the fact that it is silly, does that mean I like bad dialogue all the time? No. It means I liked it in Speed Racer because it worked. Now, again, I didn’t like Speed Racer or its dialogue in reality, so let me try an example of something I did like. I will taker Jamie’s example of The Fountain, which was my second favorite film of 2006.
A lot of people, as he/she said, discriminate against The Fountain because it is not spatially or temporally congruent. It’s confusing, meandering, and often uncontextualized. Despite the fact that I love the film to death, if somebody told me they didn’t like it because it didn’t make any sense to them, I’d say, that’s too bad, I really enjoyed it. It made sense to me. But what the other guy said is true: the film does feature a large amount of lacking in the sense department - the only difference is that I liked what I found in it, and the other person did not (or didn’t find anything at all).
BUT - is The Fountain bad because it features nonsensical images and stories? No… it isn’t - just like Speed Racer isn’t bad because it has terrible dialogue. It all depends on what you, as the spectator, see within it. But there is still a difference between intentionally writing something some way, and doing so accidentally.
It’s tricky to explain, because there are so many wrong impressions you can get. However, I’ll try to sum it up thusly: if you hate the Speed Racer dialogue because you think it is of poor quality period, then that’s fine. You’re not “watching the movie wrong” if you don’t like the dialogue, which is why I agree with you that saying “it was intentional” is not an excuse to defend a film. But, if somebody DOES like the Speed Racer dialogue, and they like it because it was intentional, then that is ALSO a fair reading. It is simply something they chose to take into account, and you didn’t. There’s nop rule that says you have to, or even that you should. But they chose to, so their reading is going to be different.
But relating it back to that dive, subjective or not, there are rules to what makes a good dive in the olympics. If there weren’t, why would they all be trying to perfect the same dive, instead of all trying to do something different. Movies aren’t like that. Movies, everyone tries to make something new. Divers are just trying to perfect one thing.
May 12th, 2008
Moe
Nice to read some interesting and lively debate here. Well done.
May 12th, 2008
Michael
I think a bunch of people on here are missing the point.
As was said in the article, film is subjective. If I watch Speed Racer and think the dialog blows, you telling me “it was supposed to be that way” is an attempt to standardize film, which it can’t be.
In other words, I 100% agree with this post. It is a lame excuse.
May 12th, 2008
Glen
I agree with John as well. A movie can recognize its cheesy, campyness but still be a good movie. A bad movie is a bad movie. However, I don’t think is analogy of a diver fits in this situation.
When a diver steps up to the edge of the platform, both the diver, the coaches, any informed audience members and the tv comentators all know what dive the diver is attempting. So the judges know exactly what to look for. There is some subjectivity built into it as one judges score will be different from the next. Although each dive is judged on its own merits (then held up against the other divers to determine a winner) there is a multiplier built in to each dive (the degree of difficulty) that is applied to each dive before it is even attempted. So while “bad diver” meant to give a bad dive it’s may have a “negative multiplier” attached to it before the diver even attempt it.
Movie criticism (judging) is much more subjective. And while movie of certain styles/genres maybe more popular or garner critic acclaim there is no built in (degree of difficulty) modifier. As well there are no “standards” set to define such modifiers.
For example (simplistic):
Dramatic film: + 10
Involving a Gay Relationship: +7
Gay male relationship: +10
Gay male cowboys: +15
Set in 50’s - 60’s: +10
Out of a possible 100 score: this movie has a 52/100 before anyone even judges it because of it’s content. In other words, because it attempts something that has been deigned to be more difficult to achieve the lowest score it can possibly get is 52.
May 13th, 2008
Grant
Okay, earlier I gave a statement disagreeing with John. After I thought about it, I could see his point. I do feel that some moviesare meant to be intentionally cheesy, but I understand how for SOME movies, if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work, and it sucks. Perhaps I should just say this:
Just because a movie is good doesn’t necessarily mean it’s entertaining, and just because a movie is entertaining doesn’t mean that it’s good.
May 13th, 2008
The Other James Taylor
Here Here John. Well put.
May 13th, 2008
Kristina
Post so long.
Responses even longer.
My eyes. My eyes…
Great post:)
May 13th, 2008
JamieM
John seems to have given up debating this one.
May 13th, 2008
John
Hey JamieM
Well, yeah, cause I’m right. No argument here successfully counters my point. But that’s my opinion.
It’s not my job to try to convince people who have a different point of view that they’re wrong and I’m right. It’s all about opinion.
I’m not going to argue and debate with people just because they express a different point of view and why they hold it. That’s exactly what they should be doing. :P
May 13th, 2008
JamieM
I gather from your reply you didn’t bother reading my last post but whatever, your website, I probably wouldn’t bother arguing with everyone who disagreed with me if I had a website. Though if I were to write opinionated editorials on that site…
Anyway, “John has spoken”, I guess it must be left at that.
May 14th, 2008
Dragonslayer
Oh, they meant to have shitty dialogue in High School Musical. Oh, they meant to have the Phantom of the Opera be a little pussy (sorry John, I did not like that movie). Oh they meant to make such a dumb sequel like Son of the Mask. Oh, they meant all that when they made these movies.
Bull. Shit.
May 14th, 2008
Mkfreak2
John, you said:
“Well, yeah, cause I’m right. No argument here successfully counters my point. But that’s my opinion.
It’s not my job to try to convince people who have a different point of view that they’re wrong and I’m right. It’s all about opinion.”
So, I guess that means we can never have a successful point-counterpoint, educated discussion regarding films, then. It will always end in “Well, it’s all subjective, so that’s your opinion. I’ll stick to mine.” You sound incredibly self-important.
May 14th, 2008
John
Hey MKFREAK2
Really… me saying “I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong” is being “self important”? REALLY? I think you’ve got that backwards.
Point and counterpoint is good… but when the “counterpoint” isn’t strong enough to persuade, then all you end up doing is repeating yourself back and forth… at that point debate ends and mindless repetitive verbal diarrhea sets in… eventually degrading to the type of thing you just did… engage in personal insults… like what you just did. Well done.
I heard your argument, you heard mine… we don’t end up agreeing. Not agreeing to totally cool. Sometimes arguements persuade and brings something new… and if it doesn’t, then move on. We don’t have to agree to share different opinions and enjoy the exchange.
May 14th, 2008
Reply to “The Worst Excuse For Bad Movies: “They Meant To Do That””