The Fallacy of Low Expectations

[ojimaru]

Laremy Legal wrote an interesting article titled The Fallacy of Low Expectations or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate the G.I. Joe (http://www.film.com/features/story/fallacy-low-expectations-i-learned/29584523) on Film.com (http://www.film.com/). He got on this week's /Filmcast Afterdark (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/14/the-filmcast-after-dark-ep-62-should-you-ever-lower-your-movie-expectations-guests-laremy-legel-from-filmcom-matt-singer-from-ifc-news/) to talk about the article and discuss/debate it with the hosts of /Filmcast and their guest Matt Singer from IFC News (http://ifc.com/news).

I'm still digesting the information, arguments and counter-arguments, so if anybody can come up with a better, more concise summary, please do so. But the gist of it is that film makers that go about cashing cheques for hundreds of millions shouldn't be in the mindset of making a mediocre movie, totally disregarding the source material their movie is based upon, and finally turning around at critics and telling them that they're judgement of the movie is wrong.

The discussion was very interesting, especially as the summer blockbuster season wears off and we've seen our fair share of flops that cost hundreds of millions each, while at the same time there were gems that did the complete opposite. While I confess that the argument of different genres and requirements of special effects have a significant impact on the costs, should we go into a movie and lower our expectations beforehand, turning our brains off for the sake of convincing ourselves this was another $10 of entertainment well-spent?

[vegan]

It's an interesting business tactic. I went to a screening of Mega-Shark vs Giant Octopus last night with Q&A afterwards, so this was on our minds after the movie. The people who make those movies are filthy rich from them, because they cost nothing to make but tons of people buy them. It's all about return ratio. Roger Corman make a million films for a dime, but he's quite well off, too.

[yssman]

The blogger makes an interesting point, but I don't think its entirely legitimate. In all honesty, there is no simple equation as to how a movie should be A) Good or B) Bad and have either make I) A lot of money or II) Totally flop. Frankly, there are too many movies that fit into any combination of those categories that arguably don't belong there that it eventually ends up creating some kind of cyclical conversation.

Getting to the main point...

Do lowered expectations make for a legitimate reason to have a "bad" movie? No. But I suppose I would ask why it would even matter in the first place. There is, in my opinion, too much of a superiority complex floating around in the industry today that even makes this a problem in the first place. We poo-poo GI: Joe because its "dumb," but did it not serve its point in the first place? It was entertaining, and it made money. A lot of it. What's wrong with that? Oh, right. Its GI: Joe. And it's dumb. We can't have that anymore.

[cucumberboy]

I agree to an extent. Here's the deal. If everybody says that a movie is alright if you expect nothing from it, the filmmakers will see that and adapt, and so the big-budget flicks may start to degenerate in quality. If people want to lower their expectations to enjoy a crappy movie, that's fine with me.

But if someone says they didn't like GI Joe because it was dumb they'll be told that they're watching the movie the wrong way. No. I'll go into the theatre with the mindset I want, and it's unfair of any filmmaker to expect me to have lowered expectations for their movie. It's bullshit to say that someone should appreciate bad art because it's intentionally bad.

[gglynn00]

Great points!!!

I like to think that I am able to enjoy movies based on what I feel they are trying to accomplish...

For example, I know in my heart that anything made by Michael Bay or starring a member of the Wayne's brothers is not going to stimulate me intellectually. What I am going to get from these types of movies is a bunch of bouncing boobs and explosions, and yes I agree that it is kinda like watching porn in the fact that the story is secondary to the action.

It is rare that an action movie does anything different than this, but usually the ones that do tend to be classics, i.e. Die Hard With a Vengence...(at least for me)

Now, the same will be the inverse in a couple of months when the Oscar bid flicks start coming out...I know that I will have to watch them in an entirely different fashion than the Summer blockbusters. I will find them just as entertaining, but in a different manner.

For me, I guess it is all just based on expectations...

[poltah]

I liked a movie like G.I Joe. Because it was very thorough in it's stupidity. It knew exactly what kind of movie it was supposed to be. It was a big dumb action ride.

I disagree with the TRS guys on the whole "my 12 year old self would love this". My 12 year old self would hate this movie. Because I wouldn't be in on the joke. I wouldn't get what this movie was. I would have thought that it was dumb, instead of it being dumb fun.

Now take a movie like Transformers 2. This is a dumb movie that tries a lot of stuff, but doesn't succeed in any of it.
It has big robots sure, but the craftmanship is poor. The action isn't well directed at all. The script is dumb, but not on purpose. It's second hand writing. The only good filmmaking in that movie was the CGI.

I will not excuse a movie. What I expect doesn't come in to it. If I expect a bad film, it's still a bad film.

Transformers 2 is a bad movie. And while G.I Joe isn't a good movie, it succeeds any way because it's exactly the kind of movie it wants to be. Transformers 2 isn't the movie it wants to be.

[Bret]

he was on the slashfilm cast recently discussing this very article. I recommend you check it out.

[tsmith15]

I have a different mindset for the kind of movie I'm going to see. When I go to Transformers or G.I.Joe all I want is action, special effects, explosions, and imho they both succeeded in that aspect. When I go see the Oscar type movies later in the year like Slumdog/Benjamin last year I'm looking to make emotional connections, have profound issues about life brought to mind, and come out with some sort of moral. When I see a comedy I want to laugh, et cetera.

Because of this I end up enjoying more movies than the average person, and I am also sometimes surprised when a movie has things I don't expect in it (such as the action in Pineapple Express.)

I do, however, understand the argument that filmmakers will start using this mindset in MAKING the movies more and more, if the finances back it up. When these shallow action movies are raking in the dollars there's less of a need to make "intelligent" movies. Everything goes in cycles though, so maybe people will eventually tire of these CGI rides and start hankering for something more traditional and it'll all shift back in the other direction.

[poltah]

I have a different mindset for the kind of movie I'm going to see. When I go to Transformers or G.I.Joe all I want is action, special effects, explosions, and imho they both succeeded in that aspect. When I go see the Oscar type movies later in the year like Slumdog/Benjamin last year I'm looking to make emotional connections, have profound issues about life brought to mind, and come out with some sort of moral. When I see a comedy I want to laugh, et cetera.


But you still want good action right? Inventive original action? Fun action?
I mean, a movie having action just means that action is happening. Both The Matrix and Transformers 2 have action.

When you're gonna watch Slumdog Millionaire or Benjamin Button, you don't want drama. You want well acted well written drama.

[ojimaru]

As pointed out by Laremy, a "fun" action movie has absolutely no need to be shallow and inconsequential. Take for example the Bourne Identity trilogy: they had great action sequences but never had the need to be as "loud" as Transformers or GI Joe. Action movies can be smart and any other genre element in it can be well written, directed, and acted.

The fact is that these directors get the privilege to direct a big budget movie, cash in hundreds of MILLIONS, spend it on goodness knows what, and in the end all that comes out is a pile of steaming dog poo. This is especially aggravating when they take on franchise projects and toss out all the original content. Optimus Prime wasn't a hotrod, and what's that about "accelerator suits"?

[clack12]

You guys are aware that action movies are allowed to have a plot right?

[ojimaru]

SO, the Avatar teaser trailer is out and it looks fantastic, as harped about by /Film and TRS. But the estimated cost of the film being around $300 million? That's 10 times what District 9 used! If somebody who has avoided either film's hype train, would he/she be justified by walking into Avatar expecting "just pretty CG" with no memorable content (a la both Final Fantasy films)? On the other hand, should the movie goer expect to see shoddy third-rate special effects from a relatively low-budget District 9, especially since both director and main actor are first-timers?

[darknessgp]

SO, the Avatar teaser trailer is out and it looks fantastic, as harped about by /Film and TRS. But the estimated cost of the film being around $300 million? That's 10 times what District 9 used! If somebody who has avoided either film's hype train, would he/she be justified by walking into Avatar expecting "just pretty CG" with no memorable content (a la both Final Fantasy films)? On the other hand, should the movie goer expect to see shoddy third-rate special effects from a relatively low-budget District 9, especially since both director and main actor are first-timers?

the problem is that money != quality. "Budget US$237 million[2]" (Wikipedia), but it also has some big-ish stars in it, not to mention James Cameron. I'm sure a good chunk went to salaries. District 9, I'm convinced spent almost all it's money on special effects, they looked great.

As pointed out by Laremy, a "fun" action movie has absolutely no need to be shallow and inconsequential. Take for example the Bourne Identity trilogy: they had great action sequences but never had the need to be as "loud" as Transformers or GI Joe. Action movies can be smart and any other genre element in it can be well written, directed, and acted.

The fact is that these directors get the privilege to direct a big budget movie, cash in hundreds of MILLIONS, spend it on goodness knows what, and in the end all that comes out is a pile of steaming dog poo. This is especially aggravating when they take on franchise projects and toss out all the original content. Optimus Prime wasn't a hotrod, and what's that about "accelerator suits"?

I agree, Action movies can be smart and any other genre element in it can be well written, directed, and acted. The key word there is CAN. I wouldn't necessarily say they HAVE to be. I can enjoy movies from almost any genre that is just a plain bad movie.

Yea. I'm almost always confused when they pick up an existing IP and then throw almost everything away. What's the point? I guess so they can guarantee some sales? However, I also think some fans are super picky about things. It didn't bother me that OP wasn't a hotrod. The accelerator suits made for ONE interesting chase/fight scene. We've had enough of these existing IP movies for everyone to know that they won't represent the source material, and while it saddens me, I won't go on a nerd rage about it. I understand it won't be like the source, and I'll keep an open mind about it, call it a "re-imagining" and consider it it's own thing. Take Battlestar Galactica, I know many many people that LOVED the old show, and absolutely refused to watch the new version of it. Even though the new version, IMO, is way better than the old... What did they gain from refusing to watch it? I got to enjoy 4 seasons of a great show.