Does success breed contempt?

[JunkMonkey]

Yep. It seems it is all about the mind blowing CGI effects and the end meaning of the movie. The core meaning of the script and story (good or bad) seem to be, well, "Huh? Yea, well, the story had deep meaning. But the effects made up for that." What?

True, there are so many ways you can gussy up: "I have daddy issues!" (which is what 90% of superhero movie appear to be 'about' *)



*the other 10% is Wonder Woman.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Okay, you guys can trash me now because I liked The Fifth Element. I did not like it the first time I saw it. It is just funny (although I still hate that stupid radio show guy) . I can sometimes tolerate stupid if its also funny

 

[The Big Peat]

My glib answer is yes, but what doesn't? We are a breed that mostly finds contempt easy, enjoyable, and perhaps necessary. Even the many of us who pride ourselves on being reasonable, broad-minded, and respectful of others do it from time to time.

More to the point...

I am a big believer that certain parts of taste, such as genre fandom, become big parts of our identity, and we all know people react savagely when they feel that their identity is being belittled. When flagship projects relating to our taste fall very short of our desires, and seem to be communicating things about that taste that run very counter to ours, we often perceive it as a belittling of our identity.

And thus we react savagely. With contempt.

So yes, success breeds contempt. Or perhaps more precisely, success creates the level of magnitude needed to create a threat, which creates good conditions for contempt.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

There is also the aspect of misidentifying the core values of a movie, such as not realizing a movie is a comedy and is not making a serious attempt to get any serious messages across except to relax, enjoy, and have a good time, which results in holding a movie to a different set of criteria for which it was never meant to be identified with. I'm sure this happens all the time. Movies are edited to create a flowing coherent stream of ideas, and if the flow is not perceived then it could be very likely that the movie falls flat and it appears to be nothing more than a bunch of disconnected scenes that are legitimately not worth watching.

I also figure that in the hey day of critics, fifty years ago, who communicated their professional opinions by words printed on paper, that comedies could be seen as not being funny, but were not mistaken for drama. It was more likely that drama could be referred to as unintentional comedy, which would have been a negative review.

Fast forward to today where everyone who has access to the internet, can write up an opinion about something that inadvertently applies the wrong standards for which it was never intended, and come up with legitimate reasons why they didn't like it. At the same time there are also people reading more into something than what it is and giving it a positive boost, again, based on reasons that don't exist.

Another thing that comes into play is the age of the person. For some topics, the older the person, the less there was to compare something to, so that when it first came out it meant a great deal and maybe still does. The younger the person, the more things they have seen to compare something to, so older works seem to be clunky, out dated, visually lacking, looking nothing like what followed them.

I like Blade Runner 2079 but don't see it as science fiction. It's a future age political action thriller with scifi props that proceeds at a very slow pace through a great deal of darkness, which is very dark and nothing else. The dark scenes in the original Blade Runner, a true science fiction movie, were filled with things to look at and think about.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Another thing that comes into play is the age of the person. For some topics, the older the person, the less there was to compare something to, so that when it first came out it meant a great deal and maybe still does. The younger the person, the more things they have seen to compare something to, so older works seem to be clunky, out dated, visually lacking, looking nothing like what followed them.

On the other hand the older you are the more likely you are to have been endlessly exposed to the same story/plot/ideas. The older a person is the more context they have (if they've been paying attention).

Watching someone slickly trotting out something is often far less interesting than watching the older, earlier attempts by writers or film makers struggling to nail down the concepts in the first place.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Something that's easily overlooked with Avatar is that it's family-friendly SF, which can be really hard to find. Most classic SF films just aren't suitable to watch with a young family. Additionally, what could be suitable is often directly targeted at boys, with few if any female characters present and often sexualized if they are. I guess that's one reason why Avatar enjoyed so much success on top of it's stunning visuals. As a dad with young kids that made it a pleasure to watch, share, and enjoy with them.

 

[Montero]

I like both Avatar and Fifth Element - they're entertainment, they're time to turn my brain off from grim things and put my feet up. When I was at school, the school librarian also contributed to the report card - she was an English graduate - and I was invariably criticised for not reading enough literature and reading sf and thrillers. Though I also read a lot of nature books and some autobiographies. But I don't want to have my brain and boundaries stretched all the time, I don't want to work all the time, sometimes I just want to sit back and slurp brain candy - ideally well put together not factually stupid and inconsistent, non-annoying brain candy - but slurp is on the menu.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

When I was at school, the school librarian also contributed to the report card - she was an English graduate - and I was invariably criticised for not reading enough literature and reading sf and thriller

What an excellent way to kill a child's love of reading! I wonder whose bright idea that was? The teachers and school librarians that I have known—and I have met a lot, first as a student, then as the mother of four children and a school volunteer—were just glad to see that a child was reading something. And if they knew a child wasn't reading the books they took home from the library each week, the librarians would search through the whole library for books that would speak to that child's particular interests.

I remember when I was in school—long ago as it was—no teacher ever said to me, "What are you reading? No, no, you should be reading real literature instead of that!" On the contrary, no matter what I was reading—and quite often it was fairy tales or fantasy—they said, "Teresa always has her nose in a book. Isn't it wonderful?" Librarians would say to me, "If you are enjoying that book, here are some others like it that you might also enjoy."

 

[Dave]

"Does success breed contempt?"

In a very general sense, yes!

People appear to dislike other successful people, people who have made their own fortunes, been incredibly lucky, or who have somehow achieved fame. Instead they seem to like to favour and love the underdog. I don't think it is just envy, but something more. Without becoming political, you see that commonly in the reaction to public figures, businessmen, sportsmen and actors. As an example, why do people hate David Beckham so much but love Eddie the Eagle so much? In the same way, people refuse to visit some popular restaurants with good hygiene and awards, but they will pay over the odds for some "local" greasy-spoon food made in a tent because in appears to be artisan.

So, why would it be any different with TV shows and film?

one of the pleasures of watching Red Dwarf when it first aired was being one of the few who actually watched it from episode 1

I had the same experience when The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was first on BBC Radio 4. It was a kind of underground success and only a very few people knew about it. Episodes were recorded on audio cassette and exchanged hands.

How un-cool to like something that the ignorant masses likes!

Exactly, once it became better known, repeated, made into a popular book series, TV series and film, then it was no longer cool to like it. Fans began to be much more critical of it.

I didn't dislike Avatar and it is yes a good family-friendly film that is also Science Fiction, but I don't rate it as highly as it gets in "greatest science fiction film" charts. Maybe the 3D was the most important thing about it and why I'm still not getting it. I couldn't say why other people hate Avatar so much, but I don't think it is only because it was successful. The thing is, "popularity" is not the same as "critically acclaimed" or "worthy" or "greatest". However, box-office takings can be quantifiably measured, everything else is subjective.

I do remember Avatar being heavily advertised. There were also many interviews and clips on TV and much promotion of the CGI rather than the substance. In general, if film that needs a huge advertising budget it is because the studio thinks it will flop (or not make back the money spent and there was a big budget for the "cutting edge" CGI). As mentioned, if a film is "very cool" then it doesn't need advertising. Films such as Napoleon Dynamite and Everything, Everywhere All At Once just get huge word-of-mouth advertising and grow on the back of that.

Then there are films that initially flop, but later become some kind of "cult" film later. There are plenty of those around.

The Fifth Element is a film that didn't have as much box-office success as expected. I first saw it on DVD and didn't think much of it, but it has grown on me since because I hadn't appreciated that it wasn't to be taken so seriously, and there is a lot of humour there.

I felt that Villeneuve's Dune didn't quite succeed, because it was dull to look at, and being interesting to look at is, for me, an intrinsic part of Dune. However, Lynch's Dune didn't succeed either, because it was very hard to follow, and overall it failed more than Villeneuve's.

I think some books are too hard to adapt to film, and no film can ever do the book justice. I think Dune is definitely one of those books. Therefore, everyone expects the film to be better than it can ever be.

 

[Montero]

Huh. And I've never heard of Napoleon Dynamite...

What an excellent way to kill a child's love of reading! I wonder whose bright idea that was?

The complaint was that I wasn't reading up to my intellectual level. I think she underestimated the intellectual level of the books I was reading. I wish I'd had a "you'll enjoy this too" librarian. Mind you, I actually liked her as a person, she was alright, just had very fixed ideas on reading material. At primary school they wrote on my report cards that I read too much and they were worried I didn't play enough. On the last day of summer term you could have a bring in your toys day. No way was I bringing in MY toys. So I brought in library books and sat at a table and read them. With occasional interruptions of "are you sure you don't want to do something else?" "No." And I didn't manage to identify the underlying thought, though I can now, that being miles away in a sailing boat in the Lake District, or riding in the Australian outback, or whereever the book was set, was far more fun that an overheated classroom full of overexcited kids.

 

[Vladd67]

I have had people complain about sci fi and fantasy being 'sad' and if you take the slightest interest you are a nerd. Yet these same people know the entire family histories and daily happenings in a fictional London square and an also fictional northern town.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I have had people complain about sci fi and fantasy being 'sad' and if you take the slightest interest you are a nerd. Yet these same people know the entire family histories and daily happenings in a fictional London square and an also fictional northern town.

This was my impression of how things were back in the 80s, and also applied to video gaming as well. Things have certainly moved on greatly in the gaming department, mainly since the introduction of the Playstation and it being 'socially acceptable' to having a games console in the living room. This led to a bit of a backlash, with some long-time gamers seeing the late-comers as 'casual gamers', a term which was usually used derogatively.

I would say that the same has also happened with the fantasy genre, especially since the introduction of Game of Thrones, where it suddenly became cool to talk about programmes with dragons, magic and sword fights. Science fiction is a little different, and whilst the Star Wars and (to a lesser extent) Star Trek franchises are extremely popular, movies/tv shows with spaceships in them are still a turn off to many people.

But that's fine, and whilst I can see no reason why anyone would want to watch the (increasingly unbelievable) goings on of characters in Manchester, London, Liverpool and Emmerdale, if they see no reason why I should be interested in the adventures of people in a galaxy far, far away then so be it. We probably both think that the other is missing out, but the world would be an incredibly dull place if we all liked the same things.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I also think that there's a fine line between what can be described a sci-fi, fantasy or a combination of both. It could be argued that any work of fiction that deals with concepts that are widely regarded as impossible should be fantasy rather than science fiction, or at least be weighted heavily in that direction.

The Fifth Element I enjoyed the first time I saw it, but when I watched it for a second time I didn't - it was all a bit too much, a full-on audio and visual experience. There's plenty of concepts in there, many of which I hadn't realised until they were highlighted earlier in this thread. It's almost as if there are 'easter eggs' in there to be enjoyed by those who recognise and spot them; but whilst many movies have such things as extra bonuses to heighten the enjoyment of the show, this movie's success seems to rely on them. It's also a little too long and a little too silly for my tastes, but there's little doubt that the vision of the director is fully realised here, as it was with Cameron's Avatar; this was the film they wanted to make, and they made it.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Something that's easily overlooked with Avatar is that it's family-friendly SF, which can be really hard to find. Most classic SF films just aren't suitable to watch with a young family. Additionally, what could be suitable is often directly targeted at boys, with few if any female characters present and often sexualized if they are. I guess that's one reason why Avatar enjoyed so much success on top of it's stunning visuals. As a dad with young kids that made it a pleasure to watch, share, and enjoy with them.

I do think that there is plenty of family-friendly 'classic' science fiction out there. From as early as the Flash Gordon serials, Lost in Space, Star Trek, The Jetsons. Tron, Back to the Future etc. - but thinking about it, they probably are more designed to appeal to boys rather than girls. (Lost in Space was usually the boys going out having adventures whilst the girls stayed home).

I think that this is one of the reasons why Star Wars was so popular and so successful; it has universal appeal to all ages and sexes. It's a trilogy of movies that is fun for all the family, and whilst Leia gets to wear 'that' outfit at the beginning of ROTJ (although she does deliver payback on the responsible party), she is one of (if not the strongest) female roles in science fiction.

Even today, any child sat in a cinema watching the opening to Star Wars would be glued to the screen.

 

[HareBrain]

It doesn't just happen with success, though.

The Dark is Rising is a much-loved children's book by Susan Cooper. I'd suggest its fans are probably just as ardent as Tolkien's, and I think they got every bit as angry about the risible, execrable 2007 film version as people have about Rings of Power, even though it pretty much disappeared without trace.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It doesn't just happen with success, though.

The Dark is Rising is a much-loved children's book by Susan Cooper. I'd suggest its fans are probably just as ardent as Tolkien's, and I think they got every bit as angry about the risible, execrable 2007 film version as people have about Rings of Power, even though it pretty much disappeared without trace.

I think that Tolkien would have been angered and appalled at the treatment his work has received on the big screen. On the other hand, it has financially secured his descendants for all eternity, so not a bad compromise.

 

[HareBrain]

I think that Tolkien would have been angered and appalled at the treatment his work has received on the big screen. On the other hand, it has financially secured his descendants for all eternity, so not a bad compromise.

When Tolkien was first negotiating film rights to LOTR, he said in a letter to his publishers, something like "I want quality or I want money". He was well aware he probably wouldn't get both, so I'm not sure how angered he would have been, given the payment. I'm pretty sure he would never have watched any of it, though.

 

[paranoid marvin]

When Tolkien was first negotiating film rights to LOTR, he said in a letter to his publishers, something like "I want quality or I want money". He was well aware he probably wouldn't get both, so I'm not sure how angered he would have been, given the payment. I'm pretty sure he would never have watched any of it, though.

I didn't know that he'd said that; so turning The Hobbit into a three movie epic, which (at least) trebled the income his estate received from it gave him one of the things he wanted (if not the other). I suppose that when you have been an active participant in two world wars, literary concerns have to be put into perspective.

 

[HareBrain]

so turning The Hobbit into a three movie epic, which (at least) trebled the income his estate received from it gave him one of the things he wanted (if not the other).

I'm not aware of what the rights deal was for The Hobbit -- did the Estate get a %age?

I watched an interesting video last year about why the Hobbit was changed from a two-film to a three-film version. There were two subsidiary industry players (one of them Harvey Weinstein) who were entitled to a cut of the first film in any Hobbit series, but not the following episodes. Increasing the number of films therefore gave the main makers a higher %age of the profit overall. (I'm not sure how big a part this played, but it gives an idea of the artistically destructive financial shenanigans going on.)

 

[Swank]

If success breeds contempt, where is it for Alien, Aliens, Stars Wars (OT), E.T., Jaws, Terminator 1-2, Jurassic Park, LOTR, Matrix, Iron Man, The Incredibles, The Dark Knight, Inception, Gravity, Men In Black, Mad Max: Fury Road, 12 Monkeys, Ghostbusters, The Martian, Wall-E or Back to the Future? All of those movies where huge financial and pop-culture successes. No one spends any time criticizing any of them.

So let's turn it around: Why is success confused with quality? Are Twilight, GI Joe: Retaliation, Batman vs Superman and Armageddon above contempt due to their financial success?


There is a huge middle level of film that is successful and well made, despite having glaring flaws that nerds and critics find hard to ignore. I brought Fifth Element into this thread just to make the point that I thought those goofball characters were more sympathetic than anyone in Avatar, but both of those films are flawed (in different ways).

There is never going to be nearly as much discussion about the flaws in Europa Report as there will be about Justice League. Almost no one saw Europa Report compared to Justice League, so there just aren't as many potential critics available. That is a way "success breeds contempt", but not in the causal manner we're discussing.



Another factor in all of this is the directors themselves: Are the best works by beloved directors the earliest or latest? Does going to see the latest Lucas, Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, JJ Abrams, Luc Besson, Wachowski, Peter Jackson, M. Night Shyamalan, Joss Whedon, John Carpenter or Michael Bay movie really seem like a better idea than watching something they made 10-40 years ago? We kind of expect that a great filmmaker is going to keep it up, and that just doesn't seem to the case.