Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

[Liquor Box]

Making money is basically guaranteed with the way they market these streaming shows. All they have to do is get people to watch the first season (and sign up for an account in the first place) to call it a success.

It being good is completely irrelevant, which is why so many are so terrible...and why they can afford to hand off production to people with little experience, who they can pay less.

Something being good is arguably detrimental in the streaming model. Seasons beyond the first are incrementally less lucrative, since season 2+ brings in less NEW subscribers than season 1. And the subs being new is what matters.

Being able to drop the show and move on to the next one is preferred in some ways.

I don't think this is right. If you are looking at streaming services, people might sign up in the hope that something is good, but if it is not good (and there's nothing else to keep them there) they will let their subscription lapse. In additional a lot of people choose what to watch from word of mouth - so something being widely thought of as bad will lead to less people signing up.

[Peelee]

Nobody on this planet cares about your "effort", they just want results.

Spoiler

Show

Just as a quick example, I hated The Last Jedi but I think it was great that Rian Johnson tried to do something different with his Star Wars movie, even if it didn't work out well. I respect the effort despite disliking the result. No risk, no reward.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

The Youtube algorithm rewards rage. Creators need a way to stand out from the rest, and the extremes of love and hate attract more attention, which means the more demented takes earn more money.

Being fair and honest doesn't get as many clicks.

Then why are video essays so prioritised?

Love, Mok.

[warty goblin]

I just want to reiterate that this thread isn't about whether or not you think any movie is good or bad. The main reason I made this thread is I'm so worn out by the discourse around geek culture and how everything these days is a war, it makes me want to quit caring about movies altogether sometimes because I know just how tiresome it's going to be watching everyone argue about it.

I definitely feel you on this, I pretty frequently avoid talking about things I like here because it just isn't worth the drama.

I think this is mostly a result of filtering. If you and your buddies go to see a movie, maybe Alice likes it and Bob doesn't while Fred and Samantha were pretty whatever about the whole thing. You have a variety of opinions that have a pretty good chance of being broadly representative, and they're talked about in an existing group. That acts as a limiter on how heated most people want to get because the group itself matters, and also means the pool of participants is fairly small, which limits the odds of getting super extreme views in the first place. And you probably talk about the movie for a couple days and move on.

But if Alice or Bob goes online to talk about the movie, they will probably find groups that have self-selected just to talk about the movie. They are guaranteed to getting people with comparatively extreme views. Neither the pro or anti movie groups are likely to contain many Freds or Samanthas, and nobody has any stake in the group beyond it being a place to talk about the movie.

That right there is enough to charge up the tone of discussion. But now you add in the explicit algorithmic filter of modern social media, and things get worse, because they filter very strongly for the most extreme and therefore engaging stuff. So you get self-selected groups with extreme views being shown the most extreme takes in those groups.

And people like attention and excitement. You can get some attention by coming up with really good content about how they love/hate the movie, but that's hard and there's a limited amount to go on. But finding someone from the opposite camp that said something bad, and sharing that around is exciting - they said bad things about us - and sure to get lots of attention. So the worst, most extreme takes get the most, worst attention, and things can spiral from there.

This makesit pretty easy for it to seem like everyone is super mad, because all anybody sees is the most extreme like .1% of responses, and not the 5/10 watch when you're bored responses even if that's what most people feel about the thing.

[Saintheart]

I have a cynical and pessimistic hypothesis that part - and only part - of the marketing/defence of a mediocre film now includes a social media, if not outright media, strategy designed to vilify part, if not the majority, of a set of fans with single classification epithets.

Put simply: if you didn't like a film, or you didn't like the character development of a particular person of a Given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, or you thought the character development was inept, amateurish, or just plain inconsistent, there are decent odds a media reporter, or people online, or even the film's creator will say you - or a group of people which can be reasonably taken to include you - have a problem with Actual, Real Life People of the Fictional Person's Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology.

This is a particularly easy tactic to take when, amongst millions of Twarts or Pests or whatever they're called these days, there are at least one or two mentally disturbed people who do dislike Real Life People of given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, but who dislike aforementioned Fictional Persons because they are of Race/Sexual Preference/Religious Preference/Pronoun Preference/Class/Ideological Preference, not because they are a really, really badly-written Fictional Person. As in: it's easy to say you're an 'ist' when you have the same opinion of Fictional Person but the reason your opinion is the same is because it is poorly written.

And the problem is that calling someone an '-ist' of any particular stripe serves two useful purposes from the point of view of the film's creators: it serves to disguise said real flaws with character development, and also serves as handy marketing for the rubbish film. If you can't get people into the film on good word of mouth, bad word of mouth will also do in a pinch.

I'd be more sympathetic with Hollywood directors and actors lashing out with generalised comments dunking on the character of their fanbases if said directors and actors were doing so from the standpoint of being amateurs and not paid six or seven figures to turn out digital cowpats for peoples' viewing "pleasure".

[Saph]

Why do people get so angry at bad movies?

For the most part, they don't. The reason that you feel as though lots of people do is because you're getting manipulated by the marketing and social media departments of the entertainment companies. See Saintheart's post above. Marketing strategies nowadays are mostly about narratives, and standard narratives require both a hero and a villain.

[Bohandas]

*What* existing character arcs?

What happened to Rey's parents? Nothing. They're no one.

What's the deal with Snoke? Nothing. He's dead!

Weren't they looking for Luke so they could learn the ways of the force? Luke's too shellshocked to teach anyone the ways of the force. Buy he'll eventually agree to help right? Like Yoda? Well he will, but then he'll die in the next scene for reasons that are only half explained.

I have a cynical and pessimistic hypothesis that part - and only part - of the marketing/defence of a mediocre film now includes a social media, if not outright media, strategy designed to vilify part, if not the majority, of a set of fans with single classification epithets.

Put simply: if you didn't like a film, or you didn't like the character development of a particular person of a Given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, or you thought the character development was inept, amateurish, or just plain inconsistent, there are decent odds a media reporter, or people online, or even the film's creator will say you - or a group of people which can be reasonably taken to include you - have a problem with Actual, Real Life People of the Fictional Person's Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology.

This is a particularly easy tactic to take when, amongst millions of Twarts or Pests or whatever they're called these days, there are at least one or two mentally disturbed people who do dislike Real Life People of given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, but who dislike aforementioned Fictional Persons because they are of Race/Sexual Preference/Religious Preference/Pronoun Preference/Class/Ideological Preference, not because they are a really, really badly-written Fictional Person. As in: it's easy to say you're an 'ist' when you have the same opinion of Fictional Person but the reason your opinion is the same is because it is poorly written.

And the problem is that calling someone an '-ist' of any particular stripe serves two useful purposes from the point of view of the film's creators: it serves to disguise said real flaws with character development, and also serves as handy marketing for the rubbish film. If you can't get people into the film on good word of mouth, bad word of mouth will also do in a pinch.

I'd be more sympathetic with Hollywood directors and actors lashing out with generalised comments dunking on the character of their fanbases if said directors and actors were doing so from the standpoint of being amateurs and not paid six or seven figures to turn out digital cowpats for peoples' viewing "pleasure".

Agreed on all counts

[GloatingSwine]

What happened to Rey's parents? Nothing. They're no one.

"What happened to Rey's parents" is not a character arc. A character arc is where a character grows and changes so that they align their wants and needs within the story and overcome the challenge the story presents them by doing so.

Always expecting the new character to be related to an old character you knew *is the whole problem*. It's always been the problem. It was the problem with the *entire* old EU. Why do you think the absolute best bit of Star Wars since 1983 is The Mandalorian, a show about someone you've never heard of related to nobody you knew about who was nothing to do with anything and which explored an expanded the universe, and why the worst bits of that show are when Boba Fett shows up (and the best bit of the Boba Fett show is when it turns back into The Mandalorian for a couple of episodes).

Rey's arc went from looking to be handed a place to belong in the story by right of inheritence to claiming it through her own actions.. (That was, in fact, her character arc in The Last Jedi, a movie which had character arcs for all three of its protagonists in a way that neither of the other sequel movies did for anybody).

What's the deal with Snoke? Nothing. He's dead!

"What's the deal with Snoke" is not a character arc. He is not a character. Kylo Ren is a character, and he has a character arc in The Last Jedi (He goes from excessive reverence for past strength and glory to wanting to destroy any element of who he was and anything that could have any hold on him, which is why Snoke died).

Weren't they looking for Luke so they could learn the ways of the force? Luke's too shellshocked to teach anyone the ways of the force. Buy he'll eventually agree to help right? Like Yoda? Well he will, but then he'll die in the next scene for reasons that are only half explained.

No? They were looking for Luke because they thought he would swoop in and save them. They didn't even know any of them *could* learn the ways of the Force. They were trying to bring him back and having him reject that was absolutely the correct thing to do because the story needed to move on from the same four people forever.

[druid91]

"What happened to Rey's parents" is not a character arc. A character arc is where a character grows and changes so that they align their wants and needs within the story and overcome the challenge the story presents them by doing so.

Always expecting the new character to be related to an old character you knew *is the whole problem*. It's always been the problem. It was the problem with the *entire* old EU. Why do you think the absolute best bit of Star Wars since 1983 is The Mandalorian, a show about someone you've never heard of related to nobody you knew about who was nothing to do with anything and which explored an expanded the universe, and why the worst bits of that show are when Boba Fett shows up (and the best bit of the Boba Fett show is when it turns back into The Mandalorian for a couple of episodes).

Rey's arc went from looking to be handed a place to belong in the story by right of inheritence to claiming it through her own actions.. (That was, in fact, her character arc in The Last Jedi, a movie which had character arcs for all three of its protagonists in a way that neither of the other sequel movies did for anybody).



"What's the deal with Snoke" is not a character arc. He is not a character. Kylo Ren is a character, and he has a character arc in The Last Jedi (He goes from excessive reverence for past strength and glory to wanting to destroy any element of who he was and anything that could have any hold on him, which is why Snoke died).



No? They were looking for Luke because they thought he would swoop in and save them. They didn't even know any of them *could* learn the ways of the Force. They were trying to bring him back and having him reject that was absolutely the correct thing to do because the story needed to move on from the same four people forever.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Rey's 'Character Arc' is that she somehow magically discovers she's force sensitive with zero training.

Then in the next movie she goes to Luke, who refuses to train her until eventually she falls for Snokes trap.

The closest thing to a genuinely interesting character arc in the movies is Finn, and he gets sidelined starting in the second one.

Leaving aside that it regresses or destroys all the character arcs of the OT characters because the writing was lazy bull****.

As for Mandalorian, Mandalorian is great *precisely because* it's connected back to the rest of the movies. Sure, there's new characters but the Crux of the show is literally a character that the fan base calls "Baby Yoda." Trying to say it's somehow charting new territory is.... A little odd considering it's primary value is *in* it's good use of Nostalgia.

Likewise, Book of Boba Fett is at it's best when it's not doing anything crazy or new. Boba and the Sand People are cool. Boba teaming up with the spy kids bikers less so.

[Murk]

For me, there are two types of bad movies that I can get (mildly) angry about:

Movies that are part of a franchise or series
As has been mentioned already!
While compartmentalisation is great, emotionally a bad movie can also diminish my enjoyment of movies I did enjoy. In that case it's not just a bad movie, it's a movie that made something I enjoyed worse. That goes for franchise movies (Star Wars has of course been mentioned already), but also serials (if the ending to a series is bad it can also retro-actively make the start worse).

In the same vein, adaptations! When there's a great book or comic or play or game that's turned into a terrible movie... I know it shouldn't impact my enjoyment of the source material, but it does. At the very least it impacts my ability to talk about the source material without having to clarify "no not the stupid movie".

Movies with a negative real-world effect
Like movies that have a harmful moral, that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, spread misinformation, etc.
Here too it's not just a case of the movie being bad. A bad movie I can shrug about and move on; but a movie that actively makes the world a worse place not so easily.
Lately (or has this always been the case?) I've seen a lot of movies with "your family is special and needs to be loved no matter what" messages which peeve me out particularly.

[Peelee]

Movies with a negative real-world effect
Like movies that have a harmful moral, that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, spread misinformation, etc.
Here too it's not just a case of the movie being bad. A bad movie I can shrug about and move on; but a movie that actively makes the world a worse place not so easily.
Lately (or has this always been the case?) I've seen a lot of movies with "your family is special and needs to be loved no matter what" messages which peeve me out particularly.

There are a few myths Hollywood loves for either plot convenience or because it's such a well-known "fact" that they just toss it out there. Examples include but are not limited to:

• You cannot report a missing person until they have been missing for 24/48 hours (you can report a missing person at any time).
• When arrested, you are entitled to one phone call (you may be allowed as many as you want or none at all, at your own expense or the expense of the party you are trying to call).
• cops must read you your Miranda rights when they arrest you (they only are required if the police question you, and then only if you are a suspect).
• cops must keep you on the line for X amount of time to trace the call (land-line tracing happens instantaneously and usually automatically, and cell phone tracing does not need a live call).
• you can press charges against other people (only the government can - if cops ever ask if you want to press charges, they're really asking more or less "if the DA decides to press charges will you be amenable to being a witness for the prosecution?". Regardless of your answer, the DA may choose to or to not press charges at their discretion)

Many of these tropes can be incredibly harmful - the whole" X time before you can report a missing person" example being the easiest to have potential to cause harm.

[Bohandas]

I just realized that I screwed up my earlier explanation. I said 'arcs' but I think I meant 'hooks'

[Trafalgar]

Why spend so much emotion on something so unimportant?

I think it has to do how much "ownership" a fan feels over a certain franchise or character.

For example: In my opinion, "Thor: The Dark World" and "Star Trek: Into Darkness" are both more or less equally bad movies. But I was frothing mad after seeing Star Trek while only mildly annoyed at Thor.

I grew up in the 80s. For comic books, I mainly read X-Men and Batman related books. There was an X-Men/Asgard crossover but that's the only time I remember buying a book with Thor in it. So when the movie sucked, I really didn't care. I have no opinion on how close MCU Thor is to the comic book Thor.

Star Trek is different, though, because my father raised me to be a Trekkie. In the 80s, reruns of the original series would run every weekday night at 7pm and I had probably seen every episode several times before I turned 10. There were hundreds of TOS books published in the 80s and I read a good number of them. I saw ST II through VI in the theatre. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is probably the first movie that effected me emotionally and it is still one of my favorite all time movies.

So I took Star Trek: Into Darkness personally. I hate how the characters are portrayed (Kirk doesn't act like Kirk, Spock doesn't act like Spock, Kahn doesn't act like Kahn, Uhura doesn't act like Uhura, etc). The plot is dumb. The director threw in explosions and underwear scenes just to keep the viewers attention. The worst part, though, is the cheap attempt to latch on to the emotional climax of the Wrath of Khan even though there is very little established about the relationship between new Kirk and new Spock to make them anything like friends.

My wife was never into Star Trek so her reaction to Into Darkness was Meh... For me, it was when I stopped following the franchise. I didn't see Star Trek Beyond in the theater. I have seen a couple of episodes of the new series but I am not interested enough to pay for a streaming subscription.

[Liquor Box]

I have a cynical and pessimistic hypothesis that part - and only part - of the marketing/defence of a mediocre film now includes a social media, if not outright media, strategy designed to vilify part, if not the majority, of a set of fans with single classification epithets.

Put simply: if you didn't like a film, or you didn't like the character development of a particular person of a Given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, or you thought the character development was inept, amateurish, or just plain inconsistent, there are decent odds a media reporter, or people online, or even the film's creator will say you - or a group of people which can be reasonably taken to include you - have a problem with Actual, Real Life People of the Fictional Person's Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology.

This is a particularly easy tactic to take when, amongst millions of Twarts or Pests or whatever they're called these days, there are at least one or two mentally disturbed people who do dislike Real Life People of given Race/Sex/Religious Preference/Gender/Class/Political Ideology, but who dislike aforementioned Fictional Persons because they are of Race/Sexual Preference/Religious Preference/Pronoun Preference/Class/Ideological Preference, not because they are a really, really badly-written Fictional Person. As in: it's easy to say you're an 'ist' when you have the same opinion of Fictional Person but the reason your opinion is the same is because it is poorly written.

And the problem is that calling someone an '-ist' of any particular stripe serves two useful purposes from the point of view of the film's creators: it serves to disguise said real flaws with character development, and also serves as handy marketing for the rubbish film. If you can't get people into the film on good word of mouth, bad word of mouth will also do in a pinch.

I'd be more sympathetic with Hollywood directors and actors lashing out with generalised comments dunking on the character of their fanbases if said directors and actors were doing so from the standpoint of being amateurs and not paid six or seven figures to turn out digital cowpats for peoples' viewing "pleasure".

I agree with you that this happens, but I don't think it is a deliberate tactic on the part of the industry. I just think it's a case of over-sensitivity on behalf of the characters and too quick to assume '-ist' type behaviour when it may not exist, but I think they genuinely suspect it. It is probably exacerbated by the same sort of tribalism that seems people get angry about films - if someone identifies with some media because it's a depiction of a group they support they may also have that almost tribal desire to support 'their side' and 'win' the argument. Even on these boards, there were a couple of times where people expressed critical views of female characters in the OotS comic some people were very quick to suggest that there was a gender bias there.

[DaOldeWolf]

I don't think I've ever in my life seen a movie that put me in actual rage. My reaction to a bad movie is usually to just get bored or laugh at it for being terrible depending on what type of bad it is. But online it feels like every movie has at least some people who are just frothing mad, like seeing a bad movie is somehow the worst possible thing that could ever happen to a person, and sometimes they stay mad at it for years after the fact. Sometimes over movies they haven't even seen but just assume are bad.

I just can't wrap my head around this mindset. Why spend so much emotion on something so unimportant? Is it just internet echo chambers creating an ouroboros of rage? I know social media can certainly make me irrationally mad sometimes. I think people who are online all the time just get angrier and angrier and anything they don't like just makes them explode. I've seen people get harassed for months and sometimes even years just for saying something positive about a film someone else didn't like.

Another trend that bothers me is how people seem fine with the idea that if a director makes a bad movie they must be a bad person and it's perfectly okay to insult and degrade them on a personal level. Making bad art is an artistic failing, not a moral one.

Btw, this is about extreme and lasting anger, not just you got mad at a movie and think I'm calling you at, and it's not about any movie in particular, this isn't a thread to argue about specific movies on.

Its pretty simple. Its called commitment (with a bit of expectation and attachment in the mix). Its that same feeling that keeps you from moving away from your familiy because of what they mean to you, the feeling of disappointment when your job doesnt fit with what you believed it to be, even your life is full with all sorts of desires, things that you love and want to protect and when things go south you can blow a fuse. Human beings give this to all sorts of stuff from objects, to living beings, to even concepts and ideas. Its what happens when your favorite restaurant closes and you cant have your favorite food anymore. Or when they change the recipe of your favorite dish for the worst.

There is a sense of conflict and loss, usually accompanied with a feeling that something important is slipping from your control. Sometimes, the feeling is strong enough that people would fight to try to save what they valued. Anger (because of the unwanted result) and sadness (because of the loss) are usually involved in how people tend to react to these situations if acceptance is impossible for the person.

I would say some venting is perfectly healthy for any individual. And of course, some things are more intimately more important for some than others. That is when toxicity appears. For some, that toxicity takes the form of making it more than it needs to be. For others, it comes from not giving it enough value and disrespecting those that do. What is important is to find a middle ground in this kind of stuff, in my opinion, at least.

[Saintheart]

There are a few myths Hollywood loves for either plot convenience or because it's such a well-known "fact" that they just toss it out there. Examples include but are not limited to:

• You cannot report a missing person until they have been missing for 24/48 hours (you can report a missing person at any time).
• When arrested, you are entitled to one phone call (you may be allowed as many as you want or none at all, at your own expense or the expense of the party you are trying to call).
• cops must read you your Miranda rights when they arrest you (they only are required if the police question you, and then only if you are a suspect).
• cops must keep you on the line for X amount of time to trace the call (land-line tracing happens instantaneously and usually automatically, and cell phone tracing does not need a live call).
• you can press charges against other people (only the government can - if cops ever ask if you want to press charges, they're really asking more or less "if the DA decides to press charges will you be amenable to being a witness for the prosecution?". Regardless of your answer, the DA may choose to or to not press charges at their discretion)

Many of these tropes can be incredibly harmful - the whole" X time before you can report a missing person" example being the easiest to have potential to cause harm.

I know my attempt to walk in slow motion away from an exploding building turned out rather less cool than Hollywood assured me it would be.

[Trafalgar]

• cops must read you your Miranda rights when they arrest you (they only are required if the police question you, and then only if you are a suspect).

This is not accurate. Anything you say to a cop can always be used against you in a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether you are a suspect of any crimes. For example, when you get pulled over, the police officer will usually ask you something like "Do you know why I pulled you over?" If you answer "Because I was doing 85 in 30 mph zone", you just admitted to breaking the law. If the case went to court, the cop will testify you said this and you will probably be prosecuted.
If you answer "Because there are 2 kilos of cocaine in the trunk", you just gave the cop the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

A Miranda warning is required when a police officer detains (not necessarily arrests) you. "Detain" means that a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave. So in the above scenario, if the police put you in the back of the cop car, you might reasonably consider yourself detained. (If you have never been in a police car, you can't open the back doors from the inside). If the cops then question you without reading a Miranda warning, any statements made while detained may be inadmissible in court. Your defense attorney would have to make a motion to have those statements removed. Note that statements made before you were detained would be still admissible.

[Peelee]

This is not accurate. Anything you say to a cop can always be used against you in a court of law. It has nothing to do with whether you are a suspect of any crimes.

Fair, I should have said "they only are required if the police question you, and then only if you are in police custody". Also, gotta love the wording there - "anything you say can and will be used against you". Anything you say cannot and will not be used in your favor because then it's hearsay.

[Dragonus45]

I didn't want to bring it up but the obvious example is literally any Star Wars media since 1997 when the Special Editions came out. The word toxic doesn't even begin to describe how awful I've seen people behave over it. Borderline murderous maybe. Like to the level where at least one actor contemplated suicide and and others quit social media to avoid the ocean of harassment being sent their way. I once saw a person on this very site actively hope George Lucas would die. I specifically didn't want to name any movies because I know that'll just lead to people arguing about them which is not the point of this thread at all.

So not going into Star Wars related specifics, I feel like that kind of thing is more common in franchises where people feel attached/invested in a long term story or universe. Then you get something bad, and they feel betrayed. Add in the whole bit where the internet causes people to be more hyperbolic and performative at times, and that caustic take downs of media are super popular just on their own, and you get a potentially caustic combination. Not helped is that in the last few years I have noticed an uptick in premise bait and switch setups with a side of creator "take that" commentary in a couple cases that can really fan the flame wars.

[jasmi03]

I used to, a lot, but it doesn't really bother me anymore. The worst thing that a movie can possibly do is put one more bad movie in the world, and that's not so bad. As for Birds of Prey, I thought it was just okay.

I wonder if the director is proud of her work? Perhaps the studio meddled with it too. I don't know.

I don't think that's the case with Birds of Prey. Supposedly Margot Robbie, who not only starred but also produced, had the most creative control, including having a say over which characters were in the movie.

[sktarq]

Well in a block of cases I don't like to pay money to be insulted and or have my time wasted. I mean if that is your thing more power to ya (well from you but that's the point in such a setup).
And most often the movie insults my intelligence. Sure a dumb movie can be fun from time to time but it usually needs either a winking self awareness or an almost amateurish earnestness to pull off. Otherwise is can be painful. For example, the driving patterns in Mad Max Fury Road are painfully inconsistent with the world story told (I mean seriously they waste gas, tyre material, and hard to replace parts so much it makes a mockery of any implication that these things are rare). Trying to hold theory of movie while also incorporating the visual evidence against it can one a headache. My general reaction to pain includes responses like anger. It's pretty rare tbh but can include things like the 2014 Godzilla or mother! (with purposeful lower case and exclamation point because MEANING!!! and ALLEGORY!!!!) which about the last movies I can think of that actually got me angry.

Honestly what is worse is when a movie just kills emotion/reaction from me. Last Jedi The Force Awakens (okay both) did that. In part because it went back reopened a story that already had arcs that I was emotionally attached to and then changed them. Han Solo went from being a selfish man out for himself to man willing to fight for others (from a smuggler to a general) and then that whole development was just woofed out the window. So it didn't just mess with the movie it was in but by context changed a previous one. Now if I was more seriously emotionally attached to was had been retroactively changed (and some people include those stories as part of their own self identity so I'd expect them to be seriously attached) that would be maddening instead I just stopped watching/paying attention to anything StarWars. Now this is mostly a function of having a story that one is extending. A bad ending can mess with a good beginning (hi Game of Thrones) and when you start adding new more endings to something with an ending it is even more twitchy because having had one ending people can judge what they consider the whole story and choose to care about it as a block. There is a whole set of questions about how people attach to an incorporate stories into identity here (I mean enough people put Jedi as a write in response to the UK census that it was put on the official form the next time round). Plus questions of since the fanbase collectively is what grants an IP value questions of conflict over legal vs societal ownership also come up in a way similar to people who own critical infrastructure or powerful platforms that are reliant on 3rd party effort to derive value (youtube/Facebook). This deeper complexity likely drives this body of irritation to be the dominant response to questions like this IMO.

Finally some people get angry with a movie because they think the movie promotes bad values. Either by accident (say 2016's Passengers for example) or by design (take your pick here) the movie promotes things the viewer finds objectionable. I think this is pretty self explanatory in general though there has been a lot of examples. And people have A LOT^TM ways to be angry at whatever wrongthink/wrongvalue they think is being being promoted/Trojan Horsed in the media in question so it has become a party everyone can join in on. I also think John Waters has made a career out this, which good on him.

So there are multiple reasons people get angry and YMMV

And that said I often find a MST3K or Angry Joe style rant far more entertaining than the original work being ripped on so I can see how wanting to do that for oneself is also emotionally self validating.



EDIT: I will also point out that serious fans show a lot of similar reactions to religions. Like fans of Apple/Ferrari/etc have the name brain scan reactions to those brands as followers of religions do to religious iconography. (source currently in another city). Branding is a WEIRD and powerful force. There is no reason to think that a media brand couldn't have as much if not more power. The power of a good story is immense and can collect fans. And if you fanclub a story enough.... the behavior will probably look similar/identical with all the dark reactions that mean we can't discuss the religion side of that here.

[Yora]

No reason to be angry at bad movies. But plenty of reason to be angry at people trying to sell you bad movies as masterworks and breakthroughs of movie history.

[Satohika]

It's a cultural thing. American understanding of criticism and comedy is basically bullying and humiliating people.

[Forum Explorer]

Spoiler

Show

Just as a quick example, I hated The Last Jedi but I think it was great that Rian Johnson tried to do something different with his Star Wars movie, even if it didn't work out well. I respect the effort despite disliking the result. No risk, no reward.

I can agree with that. I do tend to have a lot more respect for something if I can see that the creator is trying. They might fail, sure. But they tried. Though personally, The Last Jedi is the only good film in the ST. For pretty much exactly that reason. TFA is a retread of A New Hope, and The Rise of Skywalker was...random? It felt like it was completely disjointed from The Last Jedi and spent more time going back on what The Last Jedi did then trying to build something new.

So when it comes to levels of bad and my emotional response here's how I break it down:

1. It's bad (Technical issues): Usually seen in fanficiton, this is bad spelling, bad grammer, the writer clearly doesn't speak English. The only real emotion I feel regarding these is disappointment if I really like the concept, but the writer couldn't actually execute it. See: Browse through fanfiction sites, you'll find plenty.

2. It's bad (Boring or banal): This only upsets me when it's being done by a movie or well published writer because they should know better, damnit! And also because now I've actually spent money and time on this product. I'm expecting better. See: I think we've talked about Star Wars enough. So my example of this is the Hobbit movies. Which were so long and so padded that I was just bored. Like I would've rather spent that time mopping floors, because it's more entertaining and something productive would be done.

3. It's bad (That's not what I'd do/I can't take this seriously): Basically the author does something I disagree severely with, to the point where it ruins my enjoyment of the show itself. It's still technically good, and original, but well, my investment in the characters and setting is gone. This at least doesn't ruin my previous enjoyment of the story. I do tend to get extremely passionate about these ones as I'd love to just talk your ear off on what they should've done instead. See: Harry Potter. I quite liked the early books. But I simply could not take Voldemort seriously as a threat, and trying to make him one apparently requires society to have the intellect of a braindamaged shrew. Another example I think more people would agree with is the Mass Effect Endings, though personally I didn't mind that one.

4. It's bad (What on Earth were you thinking?): This is something so bad, so stupid, that it retroactively ruins everything. Sometimes it's a plot hole that completely undercuts a pivotal scene. Sometimes it's a plot twist that comes out of nowhere and is disagreeable. And Sometimes it's a questionable concept that disgusts you so much you regret ever picking up the book in the first place. Either way, Example: The Golden Compass series. I made it through the horribly blatant anti-church propaganda. I made it through the quite frankly completely irrelevant storyline about the scientist in the Amber Spyglass. But the ending had such a stupid plot twist that it completely ruined my enjoyment of the entire series.


So of them, four is the only one that I actually feel anger about. And those are thankfully very rare.

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly what is worse is when a movie just kills emotion/reaction from me. Last Jedi did that. In part because it went back reopened a story that already had arcs that I was emotionally attached to and then changed them. Han Solo went from being a selfish man out for himself to man willing to fight for others (from a smuggler to a general) and then that whole development was just woofed out the window. So it didn't just mess with the movie it was in but by context changed a previous one. Now if I was more seriously emotionally attached to was had been retroactively changed (and some people include those stories as part of their own self identity so I'd expect them to be seriously attached) that would be maddening instead I just stopped watching/paying attention to anything StarWars. Now this is mostly a function of having a story that one is extending. A bad ending can mess with a good beginning (hi Game of Thrones) and when you start adding new more endings to something with an ending it is even more twitchy because having had one ending people can judge what they consider the whole story and choose to care about it as a block. There is a whole set of questions about how people attach to an incorporate stories into identity here (I mean enough people put Jedi as a write in response to the UK census that it was put on the official form the next time round). Plus questions of since the fanbase collectively is what grants an IP value questions of conflict over legal vs societal ownership also come up in a way similar to people who own critical infrastructure or powerful platforms that are reliant on 3rd party effort to derive value (youtube/Facebook). This deeper complexity likely drives this body of irritation to be the dominant response to questions like this IMO.

Small point of order: you mean The Force Awakens. Han Solo wasn't in The Last Jedi. Which is a surprisingly common mistake.

[Elkad]

I get angry at movies supposedly based on a book, that then twist it out of shape.

Anything from Jurassic Park to Pet Semetary to Dune(the 80s one) to Beastmaster to... well, everything.

Leaving stuff out because it won't fit in the movie? Sure. But don't change the story.

And they ALL do it. It's gotten to the point where if it's based on a book I've read, I just flat won't go see it. Because I know in advance I'll be disappointed.
Tom Cruise as Reacher? Oh hell no.

[sktarq]

Small point of order: you mean The Force Awakens. Han Solo wasn't in The Last Jedi. Which is a surprisingly common mistake.

Absolutely correct you are.

The Last Jedi did something very similar with Luke that TFA did with Han and I had TLJ on the brain from above responses.

[Caledonian]

People were angry at George Lucas' altered re-release of the original Star Wars movies for much the same reason that they'd be upset if Leonardo da Vinci came back and painted a mustache onto the Mona Lisa and put an old Elvis in the background behind her.

The re-releases and the prequels were an ego trip for Lucas, and in the process of making them he tainted the entire franchise of which the original originals were a part. He changed what "Star Wars" meant.

[Alabenson]

Speaking for myself, for a movie to make me actually angry it needs to be more than bad, I have to feel that the movie actively holds me and/or the source material in contempt. Compare, for example, Batman and Robin and Dragonball Evolution. Both movies are bad, but Batman and Robin is still recognizably Batman. Yes, its goofy, campy and childish, but it still feels like its trying to represent the character while trying to entertain the audience. Dragonball Evolution, on the other hand, is a heaving mass of "did not care" that put zero effort into accurately representing any aspect of the material it was allegedly adapting.

Also, as someone who is financially literate, the middle portion of It's A Wonderful Life fills me with some of the most frothing, blind, white-hot rage imaginable.

[Forum Explorer]

Absolutely correct you are.

The Last Jedi did something very similar with Luke that TFA did with Han and I had TLJ on the brain from above responses.

To be fair, Luke was set up to be like that by TFA. TFA had already established that Luke had gone into exile and abandoned everyone after Kylo Ren fell to the Dark Side. TLJ just ran with it and gave an interpretation on what that would look like.