Anti-intellectualism, younger generations, and literary criticism

Vivi

I actually enjoy the Transformers movies for what they are. Being silly, badly written and being the only big budget giant robot movies out there. I don't gush about them.

DonZabu

This whole discussion with Vorpy made me realize something: we've basically established that there are two sides to the meaning of any given work: how it relates to the author and how it relates to the viewer. What I'm thinking here is that, if there's a lot that can be said about how the work relates to the audience, then there probably isn't going to be a lot you can say about how it relates to the author, and possibly vice-versa. One compensates for the other.

Let me illustrate this with Transformers:

-How It Relates To Michael Bay: He likes blowing stuff up and making tons of money.

-How It Relates To the Audience: It indicates a progressive downturn in general intelligence, our standards as viewers are in the toilet, they're only gonna make more crap like this if we respond positively to it, or, more neutrally, it indicates that audiences like spectacle movies more than thinking movies, for better or worse, etc.

Obviously, this theory needs ironing out, but how does it sound on its surface?

Malkavian

^^^I'd be less sarcastic if you weren't so antagonistic. I only started with the sarcasm when you started guessing what my post would be in an attempt to dismiss it. Also, while I certainly don't need to reply to people I disagree with, neither to do you, but that would be boring.

^^And I don't have so massive hatecock for them. I just think they're bad movies. I also think this about the Smurfs, Avatar, Wolverine Origins, Blade Trinity, Pirates of The Carribean 2&3 and dozens of others.

Vivi

Malvakian, you are a consistantly sarcastic person, to the point where that is an insult.

Vorpy

ワード

Malkavian

^^Nah, I'm just so good-looking that my fingers resent that they can't convey my beauty over the internet.

^No one's saying you're not allowed to enjoy the movie.  However, the job of a critic is to look at a film in all it's parts and discern the whole, not to judge how entertaining it is, because that's the real amount of subjectivity. Like I said, if we're judging the quality of a film by it's entertainment value, then The Room and Manos: Hands of Fate are masterpieces.

vandro

Oh dear, Malkavian, you can't win with vivi, sarcasm is to them as saying nigger is to black people.

Vivi

That doesn't even make sense...

Malkavian

Saying 'nigger' to a black person gets them really really mad. (for good reason)

You are upset by my supposedly indulgent use of sarcasm and compared it to a persona insult.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Vivi

Vandro, shut up. Actually I'm black and I don't give a crap about that word.

And I was talking to you Malk.

Malkavian

Dammit there's a joke there! Curse myself and the sacrifices I make for taste!

vandro

I say nigga to my hearts content, I wasn't raised in the racist US, so it holds no cultural value to me, there's even a panamanian artist that goes by that as his stage name.

Vorpy

ワード

Vivi

What Vorpy said. I don't have a problem with sarcasm that isn't excessive and being snarky for snarkiness sake.

Malkavian

Imma stop here, because I have a good feeling that as soon as the mods see this thread it's gonna get nuked.

Malk out. Peace, yo.

Vorpy

ワード

DonZabu

I think you're blowing the rageboner aspect out of proportion.

Vorpy

I'm doing that on purpose because rageboner is fun to say.

DonZabu

Yeah, you got me there, it is fun to say.

MillerCross

Meh, hatecrush is better.

Maaaaaan, what happened to this thread. I slept thinking "Lol, I'll have a meaty post by Glenn to discuss later" but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo...I just got bullshit.

RedEyedAbyss

"How It Relates To the Audience: It indicates a progressive downturn in general intelligence, our standards as viewers are in the toilet, they're only gonna make more crap like this if we respond positively to it, or, more neutrally, it indicates that audiences like spectacle movies more than thinking movies, for better or worse, etc."

Responding to this notion: so fictional media is a measure of intelligence now? I can understand calling someone stupid for being suckered into Scientology or Objectivism or global warming denialism or some other cult / fringe movement (though really, that still has little, if anything to do with intelligence as it does emotional appeal), but stuff that people generally know isn't real? That's a stump in the forest of society's issues at best.

MillerCross

I disagree with Zabu's theory, as it focuses way too much in external analysis of a work. Specifically, external analysis of a work to events that don't affect said work.

If, say, we were studying the market/current industry and specific movies impact on it, I'd be A-OK with it. But the implication that a work and the enjoyment derived from it has something to do with the audeience's intelligence is...well, it's a really stupid belief. 

glennmagusharvey

@Juan_Carlos: I woke up to an unexpectedly gigantic thread too.

Anyway, in reply to your point: Fine, point taken.  I just feel that:
1. There's some sort of excessive positive feedback between content producers, promoters, and critics, and especially in big-investment media (such as movies, as opposed to say, animated series), you get a fair amount of creativity stagnation until something suddenly breaks the mold and makes it big.
2. Even though academia might be studying lesser-known works, there's still a fair amount of people, including critics, paying attention to and generally praising genres and works that happen to be popular at the time, also resulting in creativity stagnation.

One thing I like about the recent spate of "indie" games that are pretty popular on Steam these days is that they're starting to do a fair job of shaking up the videogame market, away from a glut of things like triple-A FPS shooters.

I don't feel like replying to stuff other people have posted, not because of what they posted or who they are, but for unrelated meatspace reasons.

MillerCross

1. There's some sort of excessive positive feedback between content producers, promoters, and critics, and especially in big-investment media (such as movies, as opposed to say, animated series), you get a fair amount of creativity stagnation until something suddenly breaks the mold and makes it big.

Notice that the comment you just made is referring to a condition (Or at least, I'm going on by that assumption due to grammar). If there's one thing the film industry critics has shown throughout its history, it's the hatred of creativity stagnation and works that don't go anywhere differently. It's been to the point that otherwise good movies (To my consideration, at least) have been dismissive due to the lack of innovation.

2. Even though academia might be studying lesser-known works, there's still a fair amount of people, including critics, paying attention to and generally praising genres and works that happen to be popular at the time, also resulting in creativity stagnation.

I haven't seen it in genres, but I definetly know what you mean. Although I wouldn't say that it's "genres and works that happen to be popular at the time" so much as "genres and works that happen to be popular with the critic at the time"

People forget that critics have opinions and preferences too and that those shift with time as normal people's do as well.

glennmagusharvey

Well there is a notable rise lately of negative critics--those who see their role not as some sort of fair judge of quality, but as quite literally a "critic", finding and mocking the faults of works.  Examples of such include Zero Punctuation and the Angry Video Game Nerd.

I'm not sure what this means, though one could say that this is first a result of the internet allowing more niche productions successful, and second that this is kinda shaking up the field of criticism itself.  Though I'd hope that this behavior doesn't put a chilling effect on creativity itself.

RedEyedAbyss

In the Angry Video Game Nerd's defense, he does give slack to stuff when he feels it's due, and he's not always bashing things. Personally, he doesn't irritate me to the same extent as other negative critic acts because he is so caricatured that he often comes off as mocking the melodramatic nerds that take their fictional media far too seriously.

MillerCross

wait...

are you actually saying, implying or even thinking that the AVGN is an actual critic?

I mean, I may understand ZP, as it does have a slant towards actual criticism (Even if I think that pointing out just the flaws of something is not a proper critique). But all the critic does is moan and bitch in an over the top fashion for comedy value.

How is that even a review?

Wicked223

Noun

1. An account intended as a critical evaluation of a text or a piece of work.

   The newspaper review was full of praise for the play
   .

IanExMachina

>But all the critic does is moan and bitch in an over the top fashion for comedy value.

How is that even comedy?

MillerCross

NounAn account intended as a critical evaluation of a text or a piece of work.The newspaper review was full of praise for the play

How is what the critic does a critical evaluation of a text or a piece of work?

I think I've pointed out the flaws in calling the AVGN and his ilk a proper reviewer before...