Hubilub said:
He did not say that if you thought movies were ruined by modernization you're the worst kinda person. He just said that if you prefer 80s action shlock before more modern action you're the worst kind of person. I believe that what you consider to be him insulting people who dislike modern action, I consider to be him being very patronizing to people who prefer 80s action shlock, generalizing them as people stuck in an inferior past.
I think we may have listened to the review with entirely different senses of context. What I took away from that insult wasn't that he was taking the piss out of people who
prefer that sort of entertainment, since even he admits that he's got a soft spot for it. I think he meant people that considered the genre ruined, post-90's. This doesn't speak to me as "hah, look at that backward hick trying to understand moving pictures" so much as the cinematic equivalent of "don't you hate those douchey hipsters that reply to every music-based question with 'their first album was better'?" Again, he does express his fondness for that specific genre.
I have to say, though, the picture that went along with it muddled the context with its "you inbred piece of trash" overtones to the point that I'm not certain I'm any more right than you are.
I've taken both of our perspectives into consideration, and I must say that I find your point of view to be less plausible. If your point of view is correct, then all he's saying is that The Expendables only caters to people who hate modern action films and want everything to return to action movies of the 80s. That means Bob thinks there aren't any other people in the world who would want to see an 80s-esque action film, which is where I think this argument falls apart.
I'm still having a pretty hard time imagining him take a shit on a generally well-liked (by me, as well) genre that he's endorsed within the very first line of the review. It seems to me that his problem with The Expendables was that it fell short of delivering on the benchmarks he'd expected from it, not its genre. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that he may have been offended by what a terrible homage it was, like he wanted it to be a good movie, but it turned out to be crap (by his standards) and now he's pissed off that a (subjectively speaking) bad movie is making serious bank.
But hey, I won't claim to know what his intentions were, or whether he's right or wrong. I'm just playing devil's advocate, here.
Come to think of it, I'm starting to believe he may have gone on several different tangents that he should have been more concise, in order to prevent them from all blending together into one big rant seemingly aimed at a single target.
On the other hand, he could simply be generalizing people who want more of the 80s in terms of action, exactly like he generalizes anyone who went to see The Expendables over Scott Pilgrim by calling them sheep.
I'm pretty sure he was using the two films as broad examples to illustrate a larger point, not as the focal points of his argument... but that's a bit of a nit-pick, innit?
That still shows him off as a hypocrite. He did after all say that we nerds need to stop looking down on people for not wanting to go see the films we consider more creative or better than the latest blockbuster.
I'm pretty sure he's mostly hung up on how bad that one particular movie was, though.
...my head is starting to hurt. Sleep deprivation is taking its toll. Sorry if the literacy and/or logic level(s) start to drop.
And what did he expect? It doesn't matter how creative Scott Pilgrim is, the people that are actually interested in the premise is in an incredibly small demographic. And what part of Scott Pilgrim's marketing made it look creative and interesting? I've seen trailers, and all it looks like to me is a movie with flashing lights trying to be a more lighthearted Tron.
You've absolutely got me there. I have no plausible alternative explanation. I could probably pull one out of my ass if I make another pot of coffee, though.
The last people that deserve hatred for this is the movie going public. Why should they be insulted because they:
1) Don't want to watch a movie that is not for them
Technically speaking, they shouldn't. I wouldn't consider the insult grievous by any means, though.
2) Don't have interest in a film that hasn't done enough to catch their attention.
I think you've already answered what I would've replied with.
3) Rather go with their gut feeling than listen to reviewers.
Oh, wait, I get it, these are rhetorical. Heh.
None of these options deserve the hatred and insults Movie Bob dishes out in this review.
It didn't feel all that targeted, though. Again, there's a lot of tangents that sort of became assimilated into the overall rant. Sort of like he alternates between ranting and critiquing with no real cues for us to tell what mode he's in.
Scott Pilgrim's failure won't mean that creative films will sell less. When did Scott Pilgrim market itself as "A creative movie"? It never did. It marketed itself as sort of an action movie for video game nerds with the obligatory teenage romance thrown in there, something that is VERY alienating for some people. The only thing that will happen now that it fails is that people will decide that making movies based on comic books that aren't incredibly well-known and that are targeted for demographics that aren't very large isn't a good move. And that's how it's supposed to work. If Movie Bob wants people to watch movies that aren't meant for them just so that Hollywood will make more films that aren't meant for them, he is asking people for a lot.
Besides, ranting about how the chances of creative movies being made are lowered feels kinda pointless when Inception did so well in box office and critically. And Inception wasn't alienating anyone, it was targeted to a very large audience. It proved that movies don't have to take so immense risks like Scott Pilgrim did just so they can be creative.
I'm currently firing on about two of six cylinders, so I'll just concede these points and move on. However, I don't think anybody expressly said that he had to
like the trends that he's powerless to control.
And I have a final pointer I really should have brought up sooner: The Expendables has now helped prove that making R rated films isn't a risky business. That means that A LOT of films we might really want (like comic book films) don't have to pussy out on action or themes. Weren't it for films like The Expendables, Watchmen might not have been made with the same flair it had, if it would even be made at all. I think that's worth to be put into consideration.
I'll certainly give it credit for that, if you like.
His attitude is still pretty inexcusable to me. He did say nerds shouldn't lose their cool over the masses going to see a blockbuster instead of a film that doesn't interest them, yet here we have him flaming about.
And that's kinda why I even bothered to question the accusations, because, well, he's normally pretty consistent. Either he isn't, or we're missing something. I'm still undecided.
[sub]Sorry about the time it took to reply, you really forced me to think quite a bit there. I applaud your wit[/sub]
Quite alright, you've been both a scholar and a gentleman.
