Smart People

__________________

This only applies if 'we' all agree that we're writing for the same reasons and/or working towards something. As that's not the case, at least to my knowledge, then BD will/can write as she pleases. So long as she doesn't break site/legal rules and laws.

Not if you're just putting out there if/why you liked a film. Some reasons are, or are considered, more reasonable (and are certainly more helpful) than others but, without any goal or structure in place, they're all as legitimate as each other.

I don't agree with this either.

This, however, is 100% accurate IMO.

Meh. I think that applies to most people that write reviews, but certainly not all.


Quite right, at least, on a movie site away.


I don't know if I know exactly what BD means by this "unattractiveness" thing that everyone's jumped on, but if it's just something about a person that she doesn't like, then I'm with her 100%.

*Having just read that, BD is now off re-evaluating her opinion. *


I agree with both of these paragraphs, but I think that the first one illistrates why BD, appears, to be so taken aback by what's been said. It was just her opinion. That said, I'm a little suprised that BD seems to have taken what was said so personally when, as Yoda says, she's writing a review on a film site where most reviews are a lot more in depth and often analyse, at least to some degree, the different aspects of filmmaking.

Thanks Honeykid.

I'm just taken back by the personal attacks about my opinion.

Also I'm taken back by some saying some of my criteria for judging whether I like a movie or not and sharing that with others is consider "invalid", not what proper movie lovers should do.

It's almost as if I'm being told, "You don't belong on this site if you don't judge and share that opinion on a film the way I think you should."

I've never acted like that toward anyone here. I don't think it's called for but I will defend a person's right to post what they like anyway, even if they are putting me down and seem to be saying, I should use different criteria, shut up certain aspects of my personal criteria about about a movie or leave because I'm just too low quality to be considered a proper movie lover.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

I think it'a alright to post your personal thoughts too, especially around here, but some people seem to know how to push some people's buttons based on what they say. I don't think that you're getting harangued or harrassed because of a single opinion. I think it's something to do with the total presentation of the way you look at things, and once again, you can say whatever you want as long as it's not hate speech. I just think that some of our members have a problem with what they see as a double standard. Your cutting slack to certain people you see as being prejudiced against (gays) in real life but not allowing similar people ("the unattractive") in films (which are, after all, just as real as anybody else) the same slack. I could be completely ridiculous here, and I don't want to criticize you at all personally. I'm just trying to explain what I believe I'm seeing here. I realize that many people have a problem with consistency, but they usually are so comfortable with themselves that they don't realize what they give off to others. This involves everybody in this thread, and not just one person. It most definitely involves me too, especially when I'm full of it.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

First off, let me reiterate that I'm not trying to attack your POV on this, just wanting you to clarify your stance on basing your interest in films, more or less, on the attractiveness of the actors.

Please explain how unattractive people are trendy? If you ask me, the "unattractive" are more down to Earth, than the plastic surgery-having phonies. Then again, I don't consider myself an attractive person.

It wasn't so much about "look how cool we are." In fact, it reminded me of Election in certain spots.

You really didn't say much, or elaborate on why you didn't like it until you were repeatedly asked.

BD, you offer some interesting conversations, but even I can't comprehend the reasoning behind turning to critiquing the attractiveness of the actors in the film. Again, I don't mean to come off as attacking your stance, I recognize individuality and think that reviews should be written differently per reviewer. It's just you don't hear about someone talking about the attractiveness or the unlikeable qualities of the actors very often.

For me, yes, for the most part.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I do not base my interest in films solely, or even mostly, on the attractiveness of the actors but it does factor in sometimes and when it does, I mention it. I don't think I'm the only person this holds true for either, by a very long shot.


Okay, first let me say, I can't stand looking at plastic surgery type phony looking people very well. If I were in casting those people wouldn't get jobs from me unless there was a storyline or character based reason why that was especially called for, because I find that icky. I think the trend toward elective plastic surgery is terrible. The results are very often awful, IMO.I don't think it should be used a lot because kids are getting this stuff done now. It's just crazy to me.

What is unattractive to me, may not be to others, but the trend toward scruffy, "nerdy", and "real" looking people is what I've been seeing in many films. The thing is some of these actors may look real but are just not like what I enjoy seeing blown up on the screen. I find real people often look better than some of these folks who just look kind of groady sometimes. I'd prefer more average looking people personally than plastic or scruffy. Now if you don't see this trend going on in movies and other media projects, I don't know how to force you are anyone else to see it my way. I have no need to try. We just might see things differently in that regard.


Really? Now I liked Election a great deal. It was clever and funny. Smart People didn't remind me of it though, sadly. I wish I'd seen what you saw, of Election in Smart People.

You are right I didn't say much. I said what I wanted to say. That wasn't meant to wave a red flag at people it was just what I was thinking when I thought about this movie.



Thank you for saying I offer some interesting conversations. That's nice.


I don't see why people wouldn't talk about that if the film were so lacking that this became what you were thinking about. Maybe people are afraid to write what they are really thinking because others might say it's wrong to think that way though. Perhaps people think that real movie lovers shouldn't think that way. I've always been an unique individual. I don't feel I have to be like everyone else in how they do things.

Actors are often cast by how much money they can bring into the box office. Those actors often can bring in that money because people want to go see them or identify with them or find them attractive and sexy. Some might wish they could be like those actors or be with them.

Why talking about attractiveness or lack thereof is off limits, I don't know. It doesn't just work one way either. There are times a really attractive person is assumed to be a bad actor before proving themselves by creating are really wonderful performance.



I'm glad things are cleared up for you for the most part.

The similarities were few and far between, but they were there. Maybe it was just the fact that both had teachers, I honestly don't remember where I was going with that right now.

I loved Election, but thought that Smart People was ok. So yeah, I have no idea what I was thinking comparing those two.

I think my main problem with the attract-o-meter was the fact that even the "attractive" people can star in bombs, they don't have to be unattractive to see that through. Yes, your comment about people going to see an attractive person in a movie simply because of who they are is something that happens, but that doesn't necessarily mean the movie will be good, it just means that it will make some money.

That's true it doesn't mean a movie will be good at all. Marketing looks and sex appeal has been factored in most movie projects. This practice has been in our society for as long as I can remember. I think it's always been part of the movie business. So the idea of commenting on looks, favorably or unfavorably, being off limits or wrong, when talking about movies, doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm not sure I see how any of this qualifies as a "personal attack." No one has suggested that you, as a human being, are shallow (except you yourself, as a joke in another thread). What's been suggested is that this particular criteria is shallow, and I think you've more or less acknowledged at much, save for a few half-heartened attempts to suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry if you feel that people are judging you completely as a person, but I honestly don't see any evidence that that's actually happened. I think this has all been perfectly on point and geared towards film.

No one has said you don't belong on this site, but as I said before, you're on a forum of movie lovers, so acting surprised or aghast when people expect or desire reasonably thorough, meaningful ways of talking about a movie just doesn't wash. You've been around here awhile and you can see that most of us take it pretty seriously, so I can't believe this actually surprises you.

Regarding opinion...here's what it comes down to: we all have our opinions and feelings, and in a purely technical sense no one can tell us this is "wrong." On the other hand, reasonable people have to acknowledge that there are ways of judging art that are more or less coherent; more or less arbitrary. If I told you I didn't like a book because the cover art bothered me, even if that was my opinion, would you really think I was using proper criteria for judging that book?

Similarly, while there's no one perfect way to judge a given film, there are things that are reasonable to take into consideration, and others which are arbitrary. You could give Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a bad review because there's a room full of squirrels in one scene, and a squirrel once bit you, but that's obviously not an indicator of the movie's quality.

That's the basic point of contention here. A number of people are suggesting that the attractiveness of the actors in a film is not generally a good criteria for judging it, and in response you simply seem to be reasserting that it's your opinion, as if the mere fact that you hold an opinion makes it unassailable. I don't think that it does, and I think this entire site is predicated on the idea that we can and should delve into each other's opinions, good or bad.

If you get all this from what's been said so far, then I think you're reading far too much into it. But I do think you should use different criteria, sure. I'm sure you think I should change my mind about any number of things, too, but I don't take it quite so personally.

I don't think whether or not you yourself would ever critique another opinion is beside the point. I could decide never to argue with anyone, but it doesn't mean that I can go to a public forum, post something so that people will see it, and then act aghast when people disagree with it, or criticize it. We don't get to dicate how other people respond to our opinions. Some people may argue all the time, and others may never, but neither obligates anyone else to follow the same principles. The same right that affords you the ability to state your opinion affords anyone else the ability to explain what they think of it.

You're talking about something different. Commenting on looks is one thing -- "well, Angelina Jolie's in it, so I'm sure it'll sell plenty of tickets." That's acknowleding the fact that sex appeal plays a role in some opinions. That's entirely different from letting it play a role in your own view of the film. Being aware of sex appeal, and commenting on it, is not the same thing as letting it influence you.

I'm late to this argument, so I'll stay out of it. But I've been studying everyone's posts, and I think I definitely fall into the "not lured by films with an attractive cast" category. I mean, I'm a twenty-something male, so there are plenty of women in Hollywood that I find scrumptious, to say the least. But I can't think of one example in which I actually chose to see a film - or even liked a film - just because somebody really hot was in it. I gotta have substance, you know?

A good example is Bride Wars. Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway, in my view, are two of the sexist, most charming women in Hollywood. But the story does nothing for me, and from what I hear, the film blows. So I won't be seeing it.

To answer this question:

"If I told you I didn't like a book because the cover art bothered me, even if that was my opinion, would you really think I was using proper criteria for judging that book?"

Yes I would. Why would I expect someone to read something that had cover art that bothered them and then actually discuss in detail to my specifications? I wouldn't. I'd think that was perfectly valid.

Eh? I wasn't asking about whether or not you would expect the person to read it, I'm talking about someone who reads the book, but bases their critique of it on the cover art alone. They would be literally "judging a book by it's cover." I hope I don't have to explain why that's bad, too.

Condescending much?

How was what Yoda posted condescending?

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

You don't think this sounds condescending?

"I hope I don't have to explain why that's bad, too."

I'm not even going to get into why that example doesn't correlate to any of this at all. If you don't think it's condescending, then okay but that's what I'm getting out of it.

I agree 100% with Yoda that judging a book by the cover is bad, in fact I think he made it sound much nicer than I would have.

Great! It's nice to have people you agree with. If y'all ever find someone who actually reads a book and then only judges that book by it's cover I'm sure you'll have a grand ole time with that person.

He was using it as an example.

Yes, that's true he was. In my opinion, it's not a applicable example for the original objections raised in this thread.