"Boring" Films vs Viewing Conditions

[Too Much Fun]

I don't think viewing conditions affect my enjoyment of a movie...whether it's good or not affects whether or not I enjoy a movie. I saw "Blade Runner" in a film class where the professor would hype up what we see before we watch it. I had heard about this movie for years and was extremely curious about it. I also thought it had a really cool, evocative and ominous title, and was primed to love it since I generally love sci-fi and I'm pretty sure the professor did a good job of setting it up as something great.

It was one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. The production design, special effects, and make-up were magnificent, but I couldn't care less about any of the characters or the story. The voiceover narration bugged the hell out of me too. Perhaps the most hackneyed, annoying voiceover narration I've ever heard. I don't think seeing it in the dark with headphones at home would have changed that opinion, in fact it probably looked more impressive in a lecture theatre on a bigger screen.

I saw that movie in my twenties and thought it was shallow, empty, and overrated. I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a significantly less mature teenager and found it mindblowingly unforgettable. I just saw "Altered States" a few months ago and it's one of the movies where the strength of the visual inventiveness was almost enough by itself to impress me, but I was happy with the performances and writing too. "Blade Runner" just isn't all that.

I think it's one of those movies where people let the 'message' (which I really didn't see until people explained it to me, and still am not impressed with) and brilliance of the special effects blind them to how ultimately hollow it truly is. "2001: A Space Odyssey" (and to a lesser extent, "Altered States") are just so much classier, presented with a more clear focus and elegance in their storytelling.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There is absolutely no debate about the fact that today's generations absolutely have a lower attention span than the pre-television pre-internet generations. This is a verifiable scientific fact. There is no reason for anyone to get defensive about that fact - it isn't anyone's fault, and it isn't a sign of lower intelligence. Today, children are simply conditioned, because of our technologies, research tools, and media, to expect answers to come immediately, for things to be accessed immediately, and for images to last no longer than a second or two. So, of course a movie like 2001 or Blade Runner will be more difficult for someone born in the 80's to enjoy than someone born in the 40's. It requires more work on the younger person's part than it requires of their parents to pay attention to the film. Again, it isn't their fault - they've just been conditioned, all their lives, to think and receive information at a certain pace, and to watch 2001 requires them to receive information at a pace they have never been taught to think at.

Here's another objective fact: 2001 is an excellent film. But it is not an easy film. It requires constant attention on the part of the viewer, and it requires them to think constantly about the images and sounds they are receiving. It requires the viewer to consider, never lagging for a second, every image they see, and to ask themselves, during every image, "What is the significance of this image? What is that music cue trying to tell me? What ideas come to my mind as I consider that image, and that one, and that one? What does the shift from this image to that other image tell me?" The viewer must constantly be interacting with the film in this way, and let me make a promise - for any viewer who actually does this, for the full 2 and a half hours (and it undoubtedly requires a long attention span), it is one of the best film experiences they will ever have. However, if you tune out, or stop considering the images and sounds on the screen, or if you sit back and wait for the movie to tell you something, or wait for something plot-related to happen, then you will be bored. There is a certain, specific, active way to watch this film, and it cannot be watched passively, as, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark can be watched. And that's why certain people hate it - because they are either unable or unwilling to spend 2 and a half hours thinking at such an intense level about something that is, really, just a piece of entertainment. It is for that reason that I have never, and will never, read Finnegan's Wake; I'm just not interested in giving it the attention it requires. 2001, though, I chose to watch in the way it required me to, and I fell in love with it.

If there is anyone who claims to hate this film, they are required to have sat through the whole thing first while having this sort of dialogue in their heads from start to finish; they have to have considered all the pictures, sounds, music cues, lines of dialogue, camera shots, everything - and then, if they still hate it, fine; I'm perfectly willing to enter into a dialogue with them. They may have very good points. But anyone who claims to hate it because it is boring should say rather, "I simply don't have the time, energy, or inclination for it." To call it boring without having watched it in the way I've described would be like only partially understanding Middle English, and then claiming that Canterbury Tales is boring. To have a valid opinion about it, you at least have to give it the time and energy it requires in order to "read" it.

I really agree with everything you said here. I recently posted a thread about the difference in opinion on 20012 between two critics, one who complained that "nothing happens" and the other who appreciates the film on all the levels you mentioned. i wish that debate would have continued because it would serve as a microcosm on the generation gap in film that you mentioned here. Unfortunately, that debate stopped just as it begin.

Thank you for your insightful post.

 

[Tulin]

I've never seen the Godfather films and have no plans to; I find the entire genre repellent.

That's me too.

LOATHE gangster films and anything that glorifies them.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

I really agree with everything you said here. I recently posted a thread about the difference in opinion on 20012 between two critics, one who complained that "nothing happens" and the other who appreciates the film on all the levels you mentioned. i wish that debate would have continued because it would serve as a microcosm on the generation gap in film that you mentioned here. Unfortunately, that debate stopped just as it begin.

Thank you for your insightful post.

Yes, thank you, Ubik!

And thank you, FSM, for pointing me to that debate! I watched all 9 parts of Chase's rebuttal, even though I'd given up on Matthew's "review" after his third utterance of "...and more landscape," pegging him as one not worthy of any further attention.
I totally agree with everything Chase said, but he's gonna give himself an ulcer if he keeps letting himself get worked up over some idiot's worthless comments.

And Teelie's comment on that other thread...

I've never really been able to watch 2001. Every time I try it just bored me to sleep, one time literally. I'll have to give it a try again sometime and have a coke or something caffienated to keep me awake until it's over.

...kinda validates my reason for posting this thread.

 

[Rii]

I've never seen the Godfather films and have no plans to; I find the entire genre repellent.

That's me too.

LOATHE gangster films and anything that glorifies them.

Ah, a kindred spirit. Nice to meet you.

It extends to games for me as well, which (together with superhero games, which simply don't interest me) rules out the entire 'urban sandbox' genre.

 

[stj]

Boredom is an emotion. It is amazing how many people think their feelings are important to strangers on the internet.

The interesting thing is why you think it's boring. Usually it boils down to "Nothing happens." It is surprising how often this is factually incorrect.

And conditions, including unobvious things, do very much affect my viewing. If Inception hadn't been so original in premise, I would have rated it a below average movie. But, how much effect did the fact that the last movie I saw in a theater before Inception was (bet you guessed this one,) Shutter Island lower my interest in the DiCaprio character? My guess is, a lot.

 

[DonIago]

Perhaps one of the issues is that both the lovers and haters tend to use "boring", "slow" and "bad" interchangeably.

I find 2001 slow, but not boring or bad.

ST:TMP I find slow and boring...I'm not sure whether it's bad, but it's certainly not amongst my favorite Trek films.

I only saw Blade Runner in the past month, and it was the Final Cut. I'd call it slow with some exceptions, and I suspect some people find it boring, but the FX must have been amazing for their time. I don't really understand the stellar reviews some people give it, but I'm removed from the period in which it was released as well. I guess I'd call it bad in the sense that the plot (not to be confused with the underlying ideas) is relatively uncomplicated by my preferred standards, but overall...I think I perhaps lack a proper context to judge the film on whether it's good or bad.

All of this reminds me of why I continue to buy DVDs despite having a large collection at this point. I still find myself in moods where I don't want to watch anything I have, while I have movies I've yet to watch (the Godfather trilogy) because I haven't been in a mood where I wanted to watch them, but I realize I should.

The Godfather is not a slow or difficult film to watch - it's compelling as hell, from start to finish. You might find yourself surprised, if you just make yourself sit down and put it on.

For the record, I wasn't calling The Godfather slow or difficult. I simply haven't been in the mood to watch it. Mob violence is a genre that I don't often get into.

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

I was "ready" for all three films when I made my final decision.

Blade Runner (the non-Decker is a replicant version) is a cool film. I like it. Epic Sci-fi Noir.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Director's Cut Super Special Edition With Revved Up Special Effects) is a cool film. I like it. It needs a new name though, to better fit with the TOS film series, like Star Trek: The Man in the Machine.

2001: A Space Odyssey is really, really boring. It has cool bits, like "Open the Pod Bay Doors, Hal." And AI killing flight crew scenes. But it's so friggin' long and so slow and so endlessly psychedelic at the end that I can't actually sit through the damn thing. Maybe if Nicole Kidman was naked in it I could, but she isn't and I can't.

As for the whole thinking man's bullshit: that's bullshit. Either a movie is good and someone likes it or it's not and someone doesn't. Don't try to bullshit your way out of it.

 

[Reverend]

It just so happens that the other day I watched 'North by Northwest' for the first time and while it defiantly deserves it's high praise, there were stretches where I found myself bored, though I don't quite understand why. It's certainly not slow, the plot is relentless and there's always something going on. This actually worries me as I tend to consider myself in possession of a reasonable attention span but I'm starting to wonder if modern cinema's steadily increasing tempo in editing over the last few decades has somehow skewed my perceptions.

'Primer' on the other hand was genuinely boring and impenetrable.

 

[Small White Car]

Blade Runner & 2001 are two of the BEST SF films ever made, STTMP is a heady & subtle Trek episode, and Planet Of The Apes is up there with the best of 'em.
None of these flicks was made specifically to appeal to a mass audience- they're *thinking peeps* movies.

If TMP was a "thinking person's" movie than I'm clearly not one.

What was I supposed to be thinking of during the 25 minutes of "flying through V'GER" shots? That special effects are awesome?

How is this any different from the modern special-effects-bonanzas that "thinking people" seem to disdain? What makes TMP better than The Changeling? The fact that it has a lot of special effects?

That doesn't make it smarter.

And no, I wasn't drunk when I watched it. I've seen it several times, actually.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I would say that the Godfather has never held much interest for me. That said, it is superbly made, and worthy of every bit of praise. The fact that I personally have no desire to watch them again (I loathe the glorification of gangsters as well) doesn't mean I can't appreciate great film making. I encourage everyone to check it out. I think that was the same point that Chase was trying to make to confused Matthew.

2001 is the really the only speculative, idea-driven sci fi out there. Aliens are too - well, alien - to be properly depicted. The distances in space feel as vast as they truly are, that even getting to areas in space man routinely goes (the station, the moon base) take a lot of time. Space is the adversary to mankind - being that mankind itself is the protagonist of the film.

 

[Gaith]

2001 is the really the only speculative, idea-driven sci fi out there.

Contact
Gatacca

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah i might have overstepped my self on that one...
But Gatacca, as Chase says, does spoon-feed its material, and its moral dilemma to you. As does Contact. Neither deserve to be mentioned in the same context as 2001, even though they aren't bad films

 

[Kelthaz]

If there is anyone who claims to hate this film, they are required to have sat through the whole thing first while having this sort of dialogue in their heads from start to finish; they have to have considered all the pictures, sounds, music cues, lines of dialogue, camera shots, everything - and then, if they still hate it, fine; I'm perfectly willing to enter into a dialogue with them. They may have very good points. But anyone who claims to hate it because it is boring should say rather, "I simply don't have the time, energy, or inclination for it." To call it boring without having watched it in the way I've described would be like only partially understanding Middle English, and then claiming that Canterbury Tales is boring. To have a valid opinion about it, you at least have to give it the time and energy it requires in order to "read" it.

This is exactly why I made my post. You can't tell people that their opinions on a movie are worthless just because they didn't watch a movie in an extremely strict manner. The only requirement in order to call a film boring is that you must sit through the entire film. Yes, if someone is talking on the phone the entire time I wouldn't care about their opinion either, but when we get down to "how much caffeine you've had to drink" or "you had to be wearing headphones" it's getting a little over the top. What if a cat jumps on my lap distracting me for a few minutes or I have to use the bathroom halfway through the film? Did I just waste 90 minutes of my life and have to restart the movie? God forbid I need to get a snack.

If this topic had simply been asking people why they found any of the films boring and slow I would have absolutely no problem with it. What I am bothered by is the accusation that if you don't watch the movie EXACTLY how the OP outlined than your opinion is worthless. There shouldn't be rules and conditions that a person has to follow in order to watch a movie beyond, you know, watching the movie.

 

[DonIago]

Indeed. I think the LotR movies are some of the best cinema out there, and deserve kudos for their balance of slower-paced narrative and gung-ho special effects sequences, but no matter how much I like them and no matter how good I make my viewing conditions, there's no way I can sit through them (extended editions, anyhow) without taking several breaks these days. The material is just too "dense", for lack of a better term, for me.

And hell, Peter Jackson himself went on record as saying one of the perks of DVD is that you can stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. instead of staying riveted to the screen for 3+ hours.

 

[Ubik]

If there is anyone who claims to hate this film, they are required to have sat through the whole thing first while having this sort of dialogue in their heads from start to finish; they have to have considered all the pictures, sounds, music cues, lines of dialogue, camera shots, everything - and then, if they still hate it, fine; I'm perfectly willing to enter into a dialogue with them. They may have very good points. But anyone who claims to hate it because it is boring should say rather, "I simply don't have the time, energy, or inclination for it." To call it boring without having watched it in the way I've described would be like only partially understanding Middle English, and then claiming that Canterbury Tales is boring. To have a valid opinion about it, you at least have to give it the time and energy it requires in order to "read" it.

This is exactly why I made my post. You can't tell people that their opinions on a movie are worthless just because they didn't watch a movie in an extremely strict manner. The only requirement in order to call a film boring is that you must sit through the entire film. Yes, if someone is talking on the phone the entire time I wouldn't care about their opinion either, but when we get down to "how much caffeine you've had to drink" or "you had to be wearing headphones" it's getting a little over the top. What if a cat jumps on my lap distracting me for a few minutes or I have to use the bathroom halfway through the film? Did I just waste 90 minutes of my life and have to restart the movie? God forbid I need to get a snack.

If this topic had simply been asking people why they found any of the films boring and slow I would have absolutely no problem with it. What I am bothered by is the accusation that if you don't watch the movie EXACTLY how the OP outlined than your opinion is worthless. There shouldn't be rules and conditions that a person has to follow in order to watch a movie beyond, you know, watching the movie.

You're wrong - there absolutely are conditions, for all art, under which the artwork must be taken in. The only stuff that is easily understandable by everyone, in every walk of life, is stuff that is AIMED at everyone, and is therefore dumbed down, watered down, and produced for mass consumption. And that's product, not art (think Transformers 2). But in order to appreciate, say, The Crucible, you must understand something of the history of McCarthyism. Otherwise, you'll just think it's about witches. To really appreciate, say, American Beauty, it helps to have lived in a suburb, or at least have a vague understanding of North American culture - to someone who grew up in a war-ravaged Middle East, the movie would seem quite insignificant, petty, and perhaps boring. The best works of art are made for a specific audience in mind, who are watching it with a specific set of experiences and expectations.

Now, whether you agree with it or not, certain movies require a heavily intellectual and active approach. Otherwise, you're not watching the movie properly. Not all great movies require that - as I said, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Empire Strikes Back, are masterpieces, and they don't require any thought at all. But 2001, and A.I., for another example, require that sort of constant questioning I described. If you don't do that, you'll be bored (and you'll miss most of what the movie is doing and saying), guaranteed. Now, if you resent a movie that demands that sort of specific approach, you're free to say, "That's inappropriate for a film. I resent that filmmaker. He has no right to make an audience watch a film the way HE thinks you should watch it." Fine, fair enough. I don't agree, but it's a fair argument. But you certainly aren't right if that makes you say, "It's a bad movie." You have no idea if it's a bad movie. You've never learned the language of the movie in order to take it in.

My mother hates Star Trek. She says it's boring. Her reason? "Everyone always has these silly bumps on their forehead." My mother is incapable of watching a show that has people in makeup pretending to be aliens. She is incapable of suspending her disbelief in this way. But, such a suspension of disbelief is necessary, if you're to watch Star Trek. So, my mother's opinion, that all Star Trek is boring, carries very little weight. The show isn't aimed at her, or her kind of audience member.

Someone who believes 2001 is boring is exactly like my Mom. What they're really saying is, "I refuse to watch the movie the way Kubrick wants me to. I have no interest in doing that. No movie will ever convince me to do that, because that's not why I watch movies. So, I guess I'll never really know whether it's any good or not, because I have no idea what it's saying or doing. I guess I just resent the filmmakers' intentions too much to give him 2 and a half hours of my time and energy." Which, as I say, is fine. But your lack of desire to be manipulated this way by a filmmaker does not make the film bad.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

If this topic had simply been asking people why they found any of the films boring and slow I would have absolutely no problem with it.

Well, then it would've been just like all the other threads on the subject.

It's just that I know what a difference it makes when you see a good film under bad conditions, and I'd never heard this taken into account in these kind of discussions.

When I was in High School (around '81), we were presented the original Solaris... in an auditorium, with unruly teenagers, on a library projector (with reel changes and the obligatory film breakage), badly dubbed and cropped to 1.33, while sitting painfully on wooden chairs.
Needless to say, I grew up thinking of it as "that crappy Russian Sci-Fi flick".

I just recently watched it in widescreen, subtitled, with my headphones on, sitting in my comfy chair... and my reaction was a complete 180º!

...but when we get down to "how much caffeine you've had to drink" or "you had to be wearing headphones" it's getting a little over the top. What if a cat jumps on my lap distracting me for a few minutes or I have to use the bathroom halfway through the film? Did I just waste 90 minutes of my life and have to restart the movie? God forbid I need to get a snack.

Now, that's a bit of an overreaction. I never said anything about use of the Pause button. (Of course, when I'm seeing a movie in the theater, I always hit the bathroom within 5 minutes of showtime, and I never go in with drinks or snacks.)
But you bring up a good point: After the cat's gotten down from your lap, do you hit Rewind to go over what you missed, or do you just blow on through?

 

[Smiley]

I've seen all three of the movies on a quality DVD and fully alert, and I stand by my opinion that they have serious pacing and/or story issues. I've seen plenty of movies on VHS with tracking lines that I enjoyed despite the presentation issues. I saw Memento when I was half-asleep, and I could recognize its quality from that viewing, even though I knew that I would get more out of it watching it fully alert. Forbidden Planet and THX-1138 were both seen at a party where it was difficult to hear or pay attention to certain parts. Therefore, I have a neutral opinion on them.

If somebody is watching a movie with a reasonable level of alertness, and the movie still puts them to sleep, then the fault may lie with the source material, not the viewer.

2001 is easily one of the most boring movies I've ever watched. Thinking actively about the movie during the drawn-out space shots only makes things worse because I don't think there's anything more to the scenes than trying to capture some beauty and the thought that space is big. The audience can get the idea in about 20% of the time that the movie gives them.

I don't buy the argument that a movie like 2001 must be viewed in a certain way for somebody to have a valid opinion on it. It may be very different from most other movies, but since it is still presented in the standard movie fashion, the standards by which it should be judged are the same that apply to any movie.

 

[DonIago]

This is starting to remind me of how I felt when I burned-out in college as an English Writing major (got the degree eventually) and was sick of figuratively tearing books apart via analysis. I wanted to read for the enjoyment of reading and talk about the aspects I enjoyed talking about, not spend hours digging through the work and dissecting it looking for deeper meaning which may or may not have been the creators' intent.

Maybe some people feel that being able to analyze a work in-depth means they are better able to appreciate it than someone who doesn't perform that level of criticism, but does that really matter so long as the less-analytical person is still appreciating the film?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

2001 is easily one of the most boring movies I've ever watched. Thinking actively about the movie during the drawn-out space shots only makes things worse because I don't think there's anything more to the scenes than trying to capture some beauty and the thought that space is big. The audience can get the idea in about 20% of the time that the movie gives them.

It's one thing to think that the film is boring. that's fine. I would actually agree, to the point where I probably wouldn't pop it in when my buddies are over. But that has nothing to dow tih the film itself, a film which was not meant to have a narrative. There are a lot of films that i find truly boring, but that doesn't mean taht i would discredit their merits as a film. also this film, like other great films have to be taken in their cultural context. It was, perhaps the first serous science fiction film. The techniques used here are the same as those used in Star Wars (yes , they were. Lucas simply built a few tools that allowed him to have an easier time using this technique) and it influenced many other films that you probably liked.