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.
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.
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.
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.
What?
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”?
What?
What?
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
I unironically like shakespeare, but yeah, there is an element of inertia to his popularity.
A million flies can’t be wrong.
So like, the entire Marvel universe?
I sort of get what you’re saying, but that’s less because the movie is fancy. More that it has a high budget.
The first iron man was ok.
But otherwise yes.
Caviar is delicious.
Oh, sure. Not debating that. But it’s popular because it’s seen as fancy.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
I would debate it. I’ve heard that it’s gross. I’ve never had it though. I’m not fancy enough.
Basically little Gushers filled with fishy, salty juice.
It seems like once real gushers were invented, caviar would become obsolete.
Imo It’s good but not worth the hype. But i’ve never had the good stuff (And never will, now that I don’t eat meat)
Don’t worry, I understand you.
OG Avatar was basically “last of the space Mohicans”.
Also: Jesus tapdancing christ 🤦♂️
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!
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.
What?
Removed by mod
There was a movie in 2002 called the Pianist. If you were around then, you get it.
Do you mean the movie about the Holocaust? How does that fit in here?
I think the Avatar films fall into this category
Nah, those movies are ass. They just have amazing special effects.
… and somehow they still get butts in seats and lots of people enjoy them.
People want to see the cutting-edge cgi. In that sense it absolutely is qualityslop.
Did anyone really feel like the CGI was cutting edge at the time? Maybe I was hard to impress, but I felt like it was a bad movie with mid-grade CGI 🤷♂️
The first one felt pretty amazing at the time. It was enough that I left the theater feeling like I had watched a good movie. When I watched it again later on TV I was like… wait a minute, this isn’t good.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“Good movies”
“Oscar bait”
I think the Avatar films fall into this category
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.
It’s the Kill Bill movies where he finally included enough of Uma’s feet.
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.
Citizen Kane is actually phenomenal though
What did you not like about fight club?
The characters, plot, setting, dialog, etc.
Are you trying to get us to talk about Fight Club?
Like that, except you do like them, mostly because you walk away feeling like you experienced a “good film.”
Interstellar, Cloud Atlas, Inception, …
Memento, American beauty.
I thought this but opposite of Avatar, good writing/acting and low budget
Like everything Christopher Nolan makes.
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.
Like Tenet
I mean, fun idea on paper.
But as a movie i was whelmed. Great actors and shitty script
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.
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.
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.
I remember Neytiri because of the joke in Harley Quinn
Sure,
Timothy Afleck
I should rewatch Tenet. I think I liked it, and I see criticism all over the internet recently.
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.
I didn’t understand Tenet.
As in, i couldn’t hear/make out what they where whispering to each other the whole time.
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.
Tenet didn’t make any sense on paper. It made less sense on screen.
Only after batman and inception, his movies are overrated and annoying now.
But I genuinely love momento and the prestige T_T
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.
Nolan is literally telling the audience that the story doesn’t matter by deliberately burying the dialog under the music and sound effects.
Nolan is wrong. His best movies, which are his earliest movies, have great stories and music and effects and are worth multiple watches.
Hey, the Batman movies were good.
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).
I thought we liked the first two because they were good and the third one because Bane’s voice was so funny.
A24 produces quality slop
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.
Letterboxd vibes
