Why Movies Suck Now Part Two: The Reality

[Aulleas123]

Is it really "super-left-wing" to be elitist and say that everyone is moronic. That is an very RIGHT WING perspective!

Remember it is Hollywood that is super-lefty, which Movie-bob continually rails against. This guy plays video games, that automatically makes him more right-wing than most (Violence and competition are the over-riding elements of video games that conservatives love and liberals hate, who'd rather just sit in a circle and sing kum-bay-ah)

It's called lowest common denominator, you pretty much HAVE to dumb down to go mainstream or at least can't make it too smart. You seem to be quite selective about that you read so I will repeat what moviebob has already made clear "a person is smart, but people are stupid."

Of course there are right-wing elitists, and yes they are obnoxious but usually in the "LOOK AT ME, I BELIEVE THAT SOCCER IS THE DEVIL'S SPORT AND THAT GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE AND HIPPIES!" way. However, if you think that Left-wingers can't be elitist, I would invite you to go to many of the college campuses, lobbying groups, unions, and radio stations, who enjoy telling people the "rights and wrongs" of our society, just like right-wing elitists. While many of MovieBob's viewpoints could be seen as "slightly liberal but more common sense" (like his obvious distaste for Sarah Palin) he does have many that show off to be lock-in-step-liberal (criticizing deregulation).

I will agree that there is an element to social loafing and crowd behavior with movies and entertainment (which is why I often go to movies alone, well that and I'm a loser). However, ultimately people will form their own opinions about movies, that's what reviews are all about. That's what MovieBob does, and I appreciate that. It's just when I read the article as well as some of his reviews, it seems that he (and many others in the entertainment circle) believe that all of the population has a below average intelligence. Obviously, this is impossible since 'average' is meant to be around the middle of the population, according to statistical procedures and the population generally not being a skewed group as far as intelligence; half will be above and half below. I don't think entertainment people get this and they seem to think themselves as being better.

Maybe it's just me thinking this out loud.

 

[Treblaine]

Of course there are right-wing elitists, and yes they are obnoxious but usually in the "LOOK AT ME, I BELIEVE THAT SOCCER IS THE DEVIL'S SPORT AND THAT GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE AND HIPPIES!" way. However, if you think that Left-wingers can't be elitist, I would invite you to go to many of the college campuses, lobbying groups, unions, and radio stations, who enjoy telling people the "rights and wrongs" of our society, just like right-wing elitists. While many of MovieBob's viewpoints could be seen as "slightly liberal but more common sense" (like his obvious distaste for Sarah Palin) he does have many that show off to be lock-in-step-liberal (criticizing deregulation).

I will agree that there is an element to social loafing and crowd behavior with movies and entertainment (which is why I often go to movies alone, well that and I'm a loser). However, ultimately people will form their own opinions about movies, that's what reviews are all about. That's what MovieBob does, and I appreciate that. It's just when I read the article as well as some of his reviews, it seems that he (and many others in the entertainment circle) believe that all of the population has a below average intelligence. Obviously, this is impossible since 'average' is meant to be around the middle of the population, according to statistical procedures and the population generally not being a skewed group as far as intelligence; half will be above and half below. I don't think entertainment people get this and they seem to think themselves as being better.

Maybe it's just me thinking this out loud.

Regardless of elitism (which Movie bob even admits to, so what is the big deal) I don't get how you can call him a "lefty"???!

I mean you don't have to be a Hilary-Clinton-worshipping-hippie to not be a fan of Sarah Palin... I mean BY GOD she cost McCain the election if nothing else did. There are so many better Republican leaders in American politics other than her. I mean she is just a BAD politician, even if her opinions are in the right place, she is incompetent. Like the wolf-hunting from choppers. I find that incridibly fucking awesome and also necessary... but not knowing about the Bush Doctrine?!? Asking in an interview "what does the Vice President ACTUALLY DO?!?"

And it's utterly ridiculous to make accusations of closet-communism simply because someone recognises that deregulation had some bad side effect. Come to your senses man, I get it that you are conservative but that doesn't mean you must ALWAYS support deregulation to the point of thinking people are "left-wing", a hard term more reserved for the likes of Michael Moore *spits*.

Look, ALL industries need regulation of some sort, as what about monopolies?

Monopolies are the fundamental weakness of capitalism, a conservative government who believes in free market principals need to ensure no company becomes powerful to buy up a whole market and take the freedom out of free-market. That is NOT THE SAME as socialist ideals of massive nationalisation and state-control, tax and fund, control-control-control. There are shades of grey between a government doing nothing and becoming a totalitarian state. The world doesn't work in absolutes of "no regulation, ever" or "everything regulated, as much as possible". It's a matter of balance.

I think it is perfectly reasonable as a die-hard capitalist to be in favour of regulation of industries like the cinema and feature film market considering the billions of dollars at stake.

Also you said:

"it seems that he believe that all of the population has a below average intelligence. Obviously, this is impossible since 'average' is meant to be around the middle of the population"

Excuse me... but that's ridiculous. It is YOU who came up with the "thinks everyone below average" as PURE SUPPOSITION! That means you know they didn't say it but imply they did say or think it, then you criticise for that being contradictory when they are your own words... but you imply they said that.

I will say it AGAIN!!! What MovieBob said:

"A (singular, one, individual) person is smart! But PEOPLE (Plural, group, mob, crowd) are stupid!"

Why do you KEEP ON OVER AND OVER being this back to individuals??!

 

[Aulleas123]

It is YOU who came up with the "thinks everyone below average" as PURE SUPPOSITION! That means you know they didn't say it but imply they did say or think it, then you criticise for that being contradictory when they are your own words... but you imply they said that.

I will say it AGAIN!!! What MovieBob said:

"A (singular, one, individual) person is smart! But PEOPLE (Plural, group, mob, crowd) are stupid!"

Why do you KEEP ON OVER AND OVER being this back to individuals??!

First off, you seem angry in your reply post, calm down a bit and don't use the "its the internet" excuse, just because we're typing instead of talking doesn't mean that we have to go crazy. You're letting the internet get to you, no point in getting pissed over one ignorant slob such as myself.

Second off, I just reread what I wrote and realized it made no sense. To clarify my poorly chosen words, I meant to write that certain people in elitist circles believe that everyone around them is an idiot. I simply mean to say that this assumption is dangerous because people are much smarter than believed to be. Apologies, elitism's just a pet peeve of mine.

Finally, I bring forth the individual again and again because (to me anyway) it seems pointless to bring up a crowd mentality, such as the quote you mentioned (brilliantly brought to us from Tommy Lee Jones) because a crowd doesn't buy one ticket to see a movie. The quote was meant to be used in the context of a crowd in a public setting, which is how experiments on crowd behavior developed in social psychology and limited sociology (maybe for huge crowd). It is not meant for markets and certainly not for individual decisions.

A crowd doesn't decide if a movie is good or bad. Ultimately, a movie is decided on by the individual and not by some crowd. If another Twilight movie comes out, you most likely will not see it (I don't know, maybe you're into sparkly vamps, I'll assume not), the movie will do well anyway. You as the individual made the choice not to see it, just like the many individuals went and saw the movie anyway. Unless you have a posse of 50 or so, I can't imagine that the crowd mentality is influencing your decision to see a movie, judge a movie, and critique a movie.

Yes, the sales of that movie might reflect a movie's strength, but who cares that Twilight sold a bunch of tickets, it doesn't make the film good. It just reflects on the strength of it's fans. If a hundred guys in a room call an object a pig when it is clearly a mouse, it doesn't matter what the crowd says, it's still a mouse.

And with the capitalism bit, I agree with you. Although it seems that we would agree that complete regulation is a bad thing, just like complete deregulation is also bad. I'd lean a bit more towards dereg but others might want to control more. That's what I seemed to get from Bob, although you're right, I don't know Bob and it's not right for me to assume unless he flat out says it.

 

[Guest_Star]

God.. one thing I cannot stand: subtitle snobbery.

I'm here to watch a movie, not read a book.

So... I assume you don't like subs cuz your lips get's tired?

Two things.
First, this sort of snobbery is precisely what I was referencing. "Ololol, you dont like subs, you're retarded".

Nah, it's not snobbery, it's just a dig at your reading level. If you refer to the dialogue in a standard length film as "a book", I doubt you have "Moby Dick" on your bedside table.

No, I just want to properly experience the movie -- hearing the lines spoken, and watching the movie. Not hearing the movie, and watching the lines spoken.

Unless you have some reading disability, or there's something wrong with your eyes, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do all three: Hear the lines, watch the movie and see the lines of text. I could understand it if the text was on a different screen, so you had do move your eyeballs to read it, but it's not.

Dubs on the other hand, there's a thing that serious degrade a movie experience. I've seen som bad subs in my days, but I've yet to come across a good dub.
Animated movies are one thing, they are dubbed in their original form. Feel free to watch "Akira" or "Toy Story" or whatever in what language you prefer. Unless the voice actors are really crap, it wont have too much impact on the whole movie experience.
But in live-action? Hell no, watching the actors mouth being out of sync just ruins all. Even if I don't know the original language too well, it's still too annoying to watch, because I know how the sounds are made. You know one dub that actually works? Darth Vader in the original trilogy. Because you don't see his lips!

Second, you insult my intelligence and, of course, make some pretty basic errors within your insult. Nice.

Carnt insult ppl without giving them sumthing to make face. Dosnae sting as much if the barb is blunt, know whatamsayin?

 

[Hexador]

Hey, I don't mind dubbing if it helps cool movies/animes reach audiences either.

But I wont watch a dubbed version of anything unless I absolutely have to see it. Especially animes.

There is nothing worse than hearing english voice actors trying to sound natural when they say names like 'Fukuyama' and 'Yayoi', or listening to dubbed fight scenes (DBZ in japanese is so much better).

Edit: Although, the dubbing for Afro-Samurai wasn't bad.

 

[rddj623]

Great stuff, with a realistic non-cynical ending that I wasn't expecting.

 

[webchameleon]

[...]And with the capitalism bit, I agree with you. Although it seems that we would agree that complete regulation is a bad thing, just like complete deregulation is also bad. I'd lean a bit more towards dereg but others might want to control more. That's what I seemed to get from Bob, although you're right, I don't know Bob and it's not right for me to assume unless he flat out says it.

I was really confused by Bob's article this time. I've heard him in his videos make observations no Far-Leftard could possibly make without help, yet this article was so relentlessly whiny, vitriolic, and anti-property, I couldn't even believe the same person wrote it.

 

[hexFrank202]

It's a little naive to think movies are worse now than they were before. Frankly, they're almost exactly same more or less, there was always a sea of shit with a few great movies floating to the top, and a few hidden under the surface. That hasn't changed at all really.

You... didn't actually read the article, did you?

I read it. What are you getting at? 0_o

Hello? Point 6 would like to have a word with you. Please put some thought into what you're saying before you post something stupid.

I know. I was stating my opinion, which happens to be similar to that point. Nothing wrong with that is there, buddy?

Dumbass.

Well alright, that makes sense. So you agreed with Moviebob, but made it sound like you didn't know he said the same thing? I guess that can happen. But I'm still somewhat suspicious of you in reality just pulling Internet Argument Technique #3
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

 

[JUSTINtimeforalaugh]

Has anyone else noticed that he TOTALLY called Transformers 3 making over a billion dollars?