All I meant, is that the hardcore fans are often times so obsessed with the fact that things are different, that they aren't actually considering whether or not those changes make things better or worse. The fact of the matter is that when you are changing mediums and creators, there are changes that are pretty much going to need to be made, especially if you're dealing if you're dealing with an older property that might not be entirely politically correct today. Yes, sometimes those changes are unnecessary and hurt the story, but there are a lot of times where those changes have improved things, like giving some characters more depth, or adding interesting new layers to the story.
Okay, but when you get to the point that, in your evaluation, the changes are more unnecessary than beneficial, you're likely to push back, and the most immediate way is to complain about the changes in and boycott the next project, and far too many intellectual fans respond to the pushback by deriding and insulting the intelligence of the fans doing the pushing. That's wrong, whether you've seen the freaking movie or not.
People can not like a behavior and prefer other people not do it, even if there is no law against it.
Fair enough.
Technically it does hurt the show since they have lost at least one potential viewer, and possibly more if you talk other people out of watching it.
That is literally not my problem. It's the job of the studio's marketing department to entice me to watch. If they can't, it's on them. If my thumbs-down take is more persuasive with others than the marketing material, that's multipally on them.
There is a difference between saying you are not interested in something, and saying something is bad.
And I'll say it again: Just because the concepts are different doesn't mean they can't work in conjunction. It's entirely possible to decide that you're not interested in something
because you think it's bad, and say so.
Yes, trailers are made to try to get you to see a movie, and you can tell from a trailer if it's interests you, but you cannot say if a movie is entirely good or bad based solely on the trailer.
Sure you can. People have done it for ages.
There are a lot of movies I haven't seen because the trailer didn't interest me, but I am not about to argue with people about if it was good or bad, because I do not know, all I know is that I didn't like what I saw in the trailer.
And that's more than enough information to make a final determination. Trailers play to your instincts. There 's no problem in trusting them and saying so.
And there have been times where the trailer didn't really interest me much, but then when I heard people talking about how good it was, or heard about how there was a lot of really good stuff that wasn't in the trailer, and that led me to give it a try and I really enjoyed it.
Me too, but that's rare in my experience. It's the exception to the rule, not the rule.
This "basic business sense" has created a culture of entitlement that gives customers license to engage in verbal and emotional abuse without consequences. It's horrible and no business should accept it.
The problem is not accepting it tends to create enterprises with managers and employees that display the same type of abusive entitlement, where they look down on and abuse even the most innocent customers and expect to be paid anyway. In my life I've been on both sides of the counter. The assholes on both sides should face consequences, but that requires standards of behavior. Customers as a whole won't establish one, so it's up to business to make the first concession. "The Customer is Always Right" is that concession.
(cracks knuckles) Here we go...
You literally asked and I said I don't care. That's not 'tacit permission'. It's answering your own question.
You didn't stop with "I don't care." You said "I don't care, but you're an idiot anyway." That's the short version. For the full version, read your own damn post.
If you openly state you're judging things you haven't watched, then there's nothing ignorant about my assessment. You're admitting your total lack of basic knowledge up front.
(sigh)
The trailers and promotional materials
are the basic knowledge, and I really find it fascinating how you can actively ignore them or another's assessment of them just so you can tell people "I'm smarter than you cause I saw a movie and you didn't." I don't see what you get outta that other than you spent money I saved for more important stuff. Real brilliant, dude!
As for my 'election', people are free to jump in and tell me I'm wrong. I'm more than willing to change my assessment of what most people think if there's actual evidence against it. So far you're the one that seems to be at odds with basically everyone in this conversation.
Ooh! Before I answer, funny story!
See, I was around when Rudy Giuliani was the Mayor of New York City. It was a big deal at the time because not only was he the first Republican mayor of the city in ages, 9/11 happened toward the end of his second term.
Now, every now and then my siblings and I risk discussing politics with each other, and one evening my brother and I got to talking about Giuliani. My brother, a die hard liberal, had a civil service job that was effected by Giuliani's policies, so he wasn't exactly a fan. At one point, when I mentioned Giuliani's popularity, he balked, saying "Everybody I know
hates Giuliani!"
I didn't have the heart to mention to him that if Giuliani was elected twice in a city with a population of eight million people, "Everybody he knows" was not a valid cross section of the NYC voting public
And, Bubbles, "everybody in this conversation" is not a valid cross section of the general movie going public. It's an echo chamber, a very small one by comparison to the whole...and I consider it a point of pride to represent the dissenting opinion.
You *can* do anything. You can judge the quality of a movie based on what day of the week you learned it existed, if that's something you want to do. It doesn't mean your judgement isn't totally worthless.
And I'm still waiting for you to provide documentation establishing your authority to judge the worth of any opinion I have.
What governmental bodies are you imagining that have authority over anything like this? I'm talking about the most basic principles of knowledge and discovery. IE, judgements have to be based on *evidence* to be at all valuable. A judgement that is not based on evidence is not a judgement. It's just bias.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the point is to consider
all the available evidence, which includes trailers and promotional materials. Saying that the only valid evidence is the movie itself dismisses the other things out of hand and, frankly, is just as biased.
Well, firstly the studio doesn't actually make the trailer and secondly the trailer is not the movie.
Doesn't matter. The point of the trailer is to sell the movie the scenes are cut from.
Doesn't matter. The purpose of the ad is to sell the product.
Interest does not prove or disprove quality. Period.
It doesn't have to. It's not a court of law. It's a fucking movie.
What if the trailer editor butchered the jokes? Or didn't want to put the best jokes in the trailer? Or was just generally incompetent in a way the movie makers themselves actually weren't?
Literally none of that is my problem. If the trailer is cut in a way the creators don't like, it is up to them to correct it before it's released to the public.
Once again you're comparing completely different things. Executives are making judgements about who to trust to make things that they hope will be good. They're not making judgements about whether a finished product actually is good or not (except when they choose to dump something or give it extra promotion, which are actions that typically come *after* they've seen at least a version of the film).
The word "hope" is not in the average studio exec's vocabulary. The Movie Industry is a speculator's market, and the most timid speculators won't even greenlight a film project unless they're sure the film will be "good" (IE profitable) and the only data they have to go on is often that available before a word of the script is even written.
Of course not. I literally said everyone makes these sort of decisions. I, and others, just have the common decency to admit there's a difference between me not liking an actor's face and a movie actually being a bad movie.
Translation: "I'm better than you cause I'll watch a whole movie starring someone I hate." Whatever, man. I spent my money on a book,
Yes or no, depending on the subject. If someone is having a debate about the technical aspects of moviemaking and you have no knowledge about the technical aspects of moviemaking then your opinion pretty obviously isn't worth as much.
If someone is having a debate about whether a movie is good or fun or memorable, then anyone who has seen the movie has all the information they need to form an informed opinion. And anyone who hasn't does not.
There you go, ignoring evidence again...
Which is still entirely irrelevant to whether the actual movie is good.
See above...
And again, the creators usually have no input at all about how the trailers are put together, which scenes are used, how they're edited together (often in ways that have nothing to do with their actual position/effect in the film), what music is put over them, whether they give away too much information thereby undermining the journey of the actual film, whether they try to make a drama look like a comedy or vice verse, etc. All of those decisions are given over almost entirely to marketing people who don't give a damn about anything other than trying to catch people's attention by any means necessary, even if the means sometimes cause people to turn against the film after watching it because they expected something completely different.
Trailers are ads. Trying to judge the quality of a movie by watching a trailer is exactly as stupid as trying to judge the quality of a razor by looking at a bus ad or a tv commercial. That doesn't mean anyone is stupid for getting turned off by an ad. Marketing is a double-edged sword, and most products have so much competition that you couldn't meaningfully compare *every* option even if you wanted to (and we are obviously never under any obligation to want to compare every possible option anyway).
What it does mean is that insisting a product is 'clearly' good or 'clearly' bad on the basis of nothing but an ad or a general dislike for its color scheme or because you had a bad experience with a different product is basically tantamount to magical thinking. You have no reliable evidence at all about the actual product you're judging, yet you believe indisputably that you know what it is and isn't.
I already addressed this after your first comment on trailers and ads. Do you think I'll say something different just because you're more long-winded saying the exact same thing?
