• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Media criticism has become so full of right-wing messaging, that quality-slop doesn’t sound off-base. Kinda like poes law.

    These CHOADS take the time to learn media-criticism jargon and aesthetics, but they use those to make single-digit ‘your Dad’ type complaints. The most popular being the existence of black actors.

    I’ve seen people vehemently argue scientific accuracy in Star Wars. People are aggregated right now at the “unrealistic” casting of black actors in a Cyclops movie. Next to this insanity, quality-slop sounds pretty reasonable.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      I like their stuff, it’s entertaining enough for me. Not winning any major awards but I’m sure it’s fun for the actors and viewers.

      Blumhouse also.

  • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I think I know what OOP means here. Films that people only like because they’re “good movies.”

    I think the Avatar films fall into this category, as do most of the “Oscar bait” movies.

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Nah, this is things like most Tarantino films, particularly Pulp Fiction, where it’s a good movie, but every 17 year old you meet who loves it only loves it because everyone else loves it.

    • Ach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Huge box office numbers =/= people calling a film good. People have absolutely been turning out in record numbers for the films, but have all been shit talking them endlessly for fifteen years.

      I’m not arguing its sensible. Look at Call of Duty and the rhetoric around how bad they’ve become, but the same people whining always buy them.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Avatar is not a good film and this I refuse to watch it. In this six part series I will lay out my reasoning, beginning with the moon…

      • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        You know how like some stuff is goodbad but people like it because it’s not awful? Like, when it’s not made with minimal effort and it seems like someone actually tried write believable dialog.

        What are goodbad movies like that movies like that but good.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          The amount of money spent making Avatar movies could probably have paid for universal K-College education for every American for decades with enough money left over to bribe the politicians into voting for something regular people want for a change!

      • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        You know how some restaraunts have a reputation for serving “good food” (I.e. gourmet food), but just because it’s fancier food it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll actually like it more?

        So, what are some foods that people only like because they’re fancy? (I’d argue caviar is one)

        Same idea, but for movies. What are some movies that people only like because they’re seen as being “good movies”?

            • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              I would debate it. I’ve heard that it’s gross. I’ve never had it though. I’m not fancy enough.

            • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Popular might not be the word. Bananas are popular, I can buy the in virtually every store in the country. Caviar is actually pretty hard to get, so it’s clearly not a thing that very many people like.

              I would say that it’s “regarded as good” because it’s exclusive, scarce, and expensive. Like, rich people like it (because they can get it) and therefore it’s good.

              I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to contribute some nuance because I think this is what OP was getting at.

              • Barrymore@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                17 hours ago

                In the same vein that lobsters used to be seen as poor food, bugs of the sea. And now we make them scarce and market it as fancy, selling it as a delicacy

                • [deleted]@piefed.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  Lobster used to be boiled to the point of being hard and rubbery before being served as poor food. Cooking it to the right texture and serving with butter and other things that make it delicious was a later development.

                  Same with the less popular tough meat cuts, where specific preparation is needed for it to be delicious BBQ.

                  It isn’t scarcity or marketing as much as it is specific preparation being necessary before it becomes enjoyable to eat.

        • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I feel like this is most of shakespears work. Having read a lot of it, i was deeply unimpressed. I found it grueling to work through any of his pieces. And yet theyre universally beloved. Pretty sure its just because everyones teacher told them the book was good.

          Its weird though, to kill a mockingbird was actually good, and yet it doesnt recieve nearly as much fanfare as something like hamlet or romeo & juliet. Feels like people just like shakespear because everyone else likes shakespear.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Its weird though, to kill a mockingbird was actually good, and yet it doesnt recieve nearly as much fanfare as something like hamlet or romeo & juliet

            You and I have different friends. One halloween we had a ham costume competition

          • Velypso@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Imo shakespeare is like seinfeld.

            So incredibly influential and popular that reading/watching is boring because everything that has been said by them has been said by everyone else, but better years/decades/centuries later.

            I agree that shakespeare is a slog, simply because ive seen probably 50 “hamlet” television episodes that are better

            Another great example: West-side Story is just a much better version of romeo and juliet which is slow for no reason in comparison.

          • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Shakespeare’s influence on pretty much all English writing, fiction, theatre, film, narrative form of any sort is so utterly massive it’s almost impossible to fathom. His use of plot has informed how plots are constructed ever since. His use of language is still a massive influence on the way we speak today, and phrases he invented are so rooted in our cultural language we forget they were his. Going on a “wild-goose” chase. Having a “heart of gold”. To “vanish into thin air”. Even: “Knock knock, Who’s there?” was his.

            His works might be hard work for today’s student since the language isn’t the language of today. But pick pretty much any genre defining film from 50 years ago and it will seem a bit slow, and flat, and stilted compared to today’s films. “It’s been done better since!” His works are from 500 years ago!

          • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            Shakespeare’s collective works span virtually every genre and introduce virtually every character archetype that is still used in modern literature and media. His works are brimming with word play, which often has triple or quadruple meaning; often dramatic, philosophical, and comedic at the same time. He was so prolific and such a good writer that there are conspiracy theories that he was actually several different playwrights sharing the same pen name.

            Granted it’s not as easy to appreciate his works today because of how the English language has drifted over the last 500 years, but what other work of literature from 500 years ago can you even point to as being popular today in its original form?

            If you want to give Shakespeare a fair shake from the literary appreciation point of view, try reading an annotated copy of his works that provide context and translate the less familiar turns of phrase. It probably won’t make you enjoy reading his works, but it should at least help you understand why he’s so revered.

            In terms of actually enjoying Shakespeare, well… He was a playwright, not a novelist! His works are meant to be seen on a stage. There are some really good performers out there whose emotivity can help bridge the language gap. Some troupes also tweak the dialog to make it more accessible to a modem audience, but I don’t generally like that because they tend to lose the puns or at least diminish the layers or the poetry.

            • nagaram@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              17 hours ago

              The 2009 BBC Hamlet with David Tenant and Patrick Stewart is, without a doubt, the best possible version of hamlet on stage, on film, in its entirety.

              I worked through and annotated hamlet and then watched that version. Just me, a dark room, popcorn, and a cozy spot.

              It has made me obsess over Hamlet. Such a wonderful story!

    • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Like how Shindler’s list is supposed to be good? I’ve never seen it. Also Citizen Kane? It’s a hard watch these days. Actually, it might be a little more relevant in the Trump era.

      Fight Club is probably in this category. It’s not… I did not enjoy it, but it has so much hype around it.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I think the Avatar films fall into this category

      Nah, those movies are ass. They just have amazing special effects.

      • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        That Bane one was one of the most poorly-structured, plot-hole-filled messes I’ve ever seen. Nolan is awful but you’re supposed to like his movies because they’re ‘good’ (if you like things that look very nice but with no characters and terrible dialogue).

        • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I thought we liked the first two because they were good and the third one because Bane’s voice was so funny.

    • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I… understand this. Hearing this made the whole idea make sense to me. Christopher Nolan’s films are fantastic, everyone knows that… but when you get down to it, they’re… alright.

      • kamenlady@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I didn’t understand Tenet.

        As in, i couldn’t hear/make out what they where whispering to each other the whole time.

        • mastertigurius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          That’s because according to Christopher Nolan, the audio system in your home cinema setup or local cinema setup isn’t worthy. He took audiophile snobbery to the next level. I love most of his films, but he needs to allow the sound engineers to master the audio so that it works for everyone.

      • Štěpán@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I should rewatch Tenet. I think I liked it, and I see criticism all over the internet recently.

        • TheRealKuni@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Don’t be afraid to like stuff. The internet is often diametrically opposed to liking stuff, because SOMEONE doesn’t like it, and they’re going to be the loudest voice.

      • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        I liked Tenet, but I also made a conscious decision not to think about the plot too hard and just accept it’s vision of it’s own universe.

        I feel like Nolan movies aren’t really about the plot so much as the conceptual notions and visual spectacle. They are almost impressionistic, the plot is just a framing device for everything else.

        I kinda think Nolan knows this and gives you a hint by burying the dialog in the mix, your really not supposed to care about the story that much.

        • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I made the mistake to watch Interstellar with my brain switched on because people were hyping the super-accurate science so much. I left so angry because the movie is so fucking dumb. Sure, the black hole was fun. But the 5 seconds it’s on screen is not enough to carry the rest of the stupid as fuck plot.

          • corvi@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            So, I like Interstellar for what it is, but I’ve also made a fun game of it.

            I like to ask people if they can name Cooper’s son. Most people don’t even remember he was in the movie.

            It’s kind of a reverse situation of Jake Sully being the only name I can remember from Avatar.

    • janAkali@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No? Most of his stuff are terrible movies.

      But, I am watching them for fucking around with cool ideas and crazy visual scenes. Couldn’t care less about plot, characters, sometimes logic, etc.

      • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Nolan is literally telling the audience that the story doesn’t matter by deliberately burying the dialog under the music and sound effects.

        • [deleted]@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Nolan is wrong. His best movies, which are his earliest movies, have great stories and music and effects and are worth multiple watches.

  • BanMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The new Star Trek show is being called competency porn, which kind of fits this description. Although that’s been Star Trek for a long time. I think folks are upset they’re targeting youth with the last couple series… which, the average ST fan now being 92 years old, doesn’t exactly shock me.

    • Guitarfun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Starfleet Academy seems like it’s trying to be Harry Potter/Hogwarts. Star Trek Discovery has so much forced drama. Many of the characters are super annoying and in both shows I feel like a sense of professionalism is completely lost. Sure Starfleet isn’t exactly a military organization, but it’s pretty damn close and I just can’t take those shows seriously. I barely made it through Discovery. It was really hard watch. Picard and Strange New Worlds were just OK.

    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Targeting youth with: prodigy ✅ academy [I wait to binge] disco [maybe?] snw [nah] moopsy trek 2 [that’s launching a full spread, not just targeting the kids]