• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s not wrong, but there a couple of problems:

    A) Your average movie goer isn’t capable of telling from a trailer if a movie is going to be garbage or not. Heck, your average movie goer can’t tell from watching THE MOVIE if it’s garbage or not.

    B) Levi’s last flick, while not exactly a hot mess, wasn’t exactly great either. The Skittles product placement was 110% un-necessary and backpedaling to go “no, no, it’s a family movie, see?” lowers the bar for family movies.

    Just looking at this year, Cocaine Bear and The Machine probably didn’t need to happen.

    • coyootje@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like you can’t really watch trailers anymore nowadays, they tend to give away a lot of the story already. For example, I watched the trailer for the Meg 2 and it already gave away most of the twists and who would die. I know that they have to try and hype you up but it sucks when they basically spoil the movie.

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually enjoyed cocaine bear. That one felt like a breath of fresh air to the usual garbo. Was genuinely a fun film to watch where it felt like you were also watching people have fun making it.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You getting snobby about Cocaine Bear?

          Some movies are good because they are completely aware of how ridiculous they are.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Self awareness can be fun, that doesn’t make it a good movie.

            I laughed so hard at Betty White, swearing like a sailor, feeding people to a giant New England crocodile in Lake Placid, but I’d never dream of calling it a good movie.

            Wanted has Morgan Freeman delivering the classic line “Will somebody, please, shoot this motherfucker?” Again, does not make it a good movie.

            • snooggums@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Good thing I did not say that being self aware automatically made a movie good.

              Lake Placid is an excellent horror comedy beyond Betty’s character. You just have bad taste and try to pass it off as objective criticism.

        • FoxBJK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the premise of the movie didn’t give that away from day one!?

    • homoludens@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your average movie goer isn’t capable of telling from a trailer if a movie is going to be garbage or not.

      Of course not. A trailer is just an ad. That’s like expecting to be able to tell if a smartwatch is good after watching an ad.

      So a possible solution could be professional/expert reviews. We need to be able to trust them though (no bought reviews etc.) and they shouldn’t be snobbish against pure entertainment movies. Unfortunately this will only work if people actively seek out those reviews (at least I can’t think of a way to actively push the reviews to the consumers), which does not work as long as movies are consumed in order to not think. Which they will be as long as they are as shitty and brainless as many are right now.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        We used to have that back in the day with Siskel and Ebert. Two, classically trained film reviewers, who had a show that aired the week before the films they were reviewing were due to come out.

        Of the two, Ebert would go easier on pure entertainment movies than Siskel would. They didn’t always agree, but when they did, you could be assured it was either really good or really bad.

        We don’t really have an equivalent in this day and age with review embargoes and such.

        • adam_y@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Classically trained film reviewers?

          Not sure that’s even a thing. Sure, they were educated and well informed, still…

          If you are after a popular film critic that really engages with the material, we have Mark Kermode in the UK. I might not agree with everything he thinks, but he’s consistent enough that you can use his opinion as a yardstick. I strongly recommend you check him out.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Film criticism and journalism are both college level courses.

            I took classes in literary ctiticism, but that wasn’t my major.

            • adam_y@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, yeah, ‘classically trained’ means something very different here. My bad.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          While S & E were great for explaining why they liked or did not like movies, their opinions were still opinions and at best they gave middling reviews to the types of movies they did not like even when those movies were the best of their type.

          Plus Ebert gave Anaconda a high rating and praise. Fucking Anaconda.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            He liked Spawn as well which I still have not entirely forgiven him for! But like I say, of the two, he was the one who went easier on populist media than Siskel did. That’s probably why putting the two of them together worked better than anyone else who inherited the shows they left as they bounced around from one to the next to the next.

            Who else had their platform before Siskel died? Rex Reed + somebody else was one, and I think there was one more pair as well.

            Rex Reed sticks out because he turned into a giant bitchy queen when he really hated a movie and it was hilarious.

        • Haus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t always agree with Gene & Roger, but I did watch them every Saturday. What made it a little weird for me was watching Roger’s magnum opus Beyond the Valley of the Dolls as a young adult, and trying - never succeeding - to reconcile that movie with this man I grew up listening to.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I give props to Ebert for putting his money where his mouth is and actually writing a movie. While not a great movie, he was still willing to go through the process of writing a screenplay and getting the movie made.

    • CeleryFC@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cocaine Bear was freaking awesome! Sometimes people don’t need an amazingly deep experience and just want to relax and enjoy themselves and have a good time.

      • King Mongoose@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about Cocaine Bear but you’re absolutely right about the “amazingly deep experience”.

        On the other hand, I don’t need a movie to treat me like a drooling idiot either. Which is more or less the topic at hand.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue your second statement in A) assumes that a movie can objectively be rated good or bad. Plus it also seems to claim to know exactly what people want to see from a movie. Never s fan when someone seems to say, “I know better than you do what you like.”

      I’ll agree a trailer doesn’t always do a good job. But to claim a person can’t tell if what they watched is good is hardly a statement a same person would make. Possibly a narcissist would say it. Or someone else full of themselves.

      There is obviously technique that can be graded, but that doesn’t make a movie.

      • coyootje@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, movies are art and art is (mostly) subjective. Not everyone likes going to the Fast and Furious movies for example but the audience that’s there for it tends to love it. Same with things like Star Wars or Top Gun. All you can objectively say is whether the movie was technically shot well and for that you need knowledge of making movies.

        • RyanHeffronPhoto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Movies are made for different reasons. Some are made for the ‘art’, but some are made simply for entertainment. Shitty B-movies are a whole genere about being so ‘bad’ they’re fun, and that’s they’re purpose. Fast and Furious movies aren’t being made for the art.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Movies can absolutely be objectively rated good or bad, all the component pieces can be good or bad, writing, acting, directing, pacing, hell, even lighting, editing and special effects.

        The problem is your average movie goer can’t tell the difference. Sure, if something is ESPECIALLY bad like the visual effects in the Flash, they’ll pick up on that.

        Quite more often something can be entirely awful and the reaction is “Well, I had fun…” That doesn’t make it “good”.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can have a good movie with poor elements and a poor movie with great elements. I’d even argue you can have a good movie with bad acting. Plus, it’s all about the intent of the movie, as with any piece of art. Cocaine Bear had an intent. It fulfilled that intent. Claiming that art can objectively be rated is naive.

          • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Plan 9 From Outer Space is a terrible movie.

            Ed Wood is amazing.

            I’m sure you can tell the difference.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know what you expect to accomplish with this. If you want to make an argument by example, be prepared to make it exhaustive, otherwise it’s simply anecdotal. Anecdotes does not an argument make.

              My point is that this is a very subjective realm. You can know all you want about technique and still make a bad movie. And someone who knows nothing can still make a good movie. The odds don’t work in their favor, sure, but it’s possible. Technique just helps, but it’s neither a requirement nor a guarantee. And part of determining whether a film is done well is knowing the film’s purpose and theme. Cult classics exist for a reason. They aren’t “bad.” They’re just not popular with folks who didn’t get it. You will always be colored by your biases. You can not like a film but that doesn’t mean it was unnecessary. You aren’t an authority as much as you want to pretend to the throne.

              • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not at all subjective and, again, if you doubt that, sit down and watch Plan 9 and Ed Wood back to back.

                One is generally accepted to be the worst film ever made, the other won two Academy Awards.

                If you legit can’t tell why which film falls into which category, you’re precisely the problem I outlined in A)

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I feel like you just like hearing yourself talk because you clearly ignored almost everything I said. If you’re going to act like a brick wall, there’s no point in discussion until you even come close to remotely acknowledging any of my points let alone refuting them. I get you took a film class. It doesn’t make you an auteur.