Originally Posted by DorneyDave
Well yes, to them it does.
Movies being "good" or not isn't a fact, it's objective from person to person.
Missing the point. Movies, just like any other form of art, are to be judged on both objective and subjective terms. Personal preference isn't the quintessential criteria for whether or not a movie is good or bad. Of course it can't be narrowed down in a factual sense, but one can still exercise their better judgment as well as
their own preferences.
I'll say one thing, the propensity of this fan community to immediately assert their favorite whatever as being synonymous with quality is reaching new levels of absurdity. The folks who freely talked about their guilty pleasures...those are the ones I miss. I have a lot more respect for someone who can admit that they enjoyed something in spite of its flaws than I do the zealous fanatic who takes a bizarre sense of pride and ownership in the things that they like.
This sort of thing makes me wonder if people have this same mentality about the food they eat. If a hot dog is someone's favorite thing to eat, do they also swear up and down that it's the best food the world has ever seen? It may taste good (akin to how a film like MoS is enjoyable
), it may satisfy a craving (akin to how MoS is "the Superman movie I've always been waiting for!!!"
), but none of that stuff makes it good, nor should supersede the myriad of other important standards by which food (movies) should be judged.
Personally, I feel that the MoS fanbase by and large falls into this "I like it, therefore it's the best" group, and a huge part of it is based upon their analyses of the movie as well as their knee-jerk reactions to criticism. Stuff like "This is Superman for the 21st century" isn't exactly what I'd call legitimate praise; that sort of commentary is far too vague and trite to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I've found the criticisms of the film to be far more lucid and reasonable than the praise, but even in this case, many of the more defensive fans take certain criticisms so far out of context to the point of being unrecognizable, and then they "rebut" them as such. A perfect example is this fallacy about MoS not being like the Donner films. Write this down and take it to the bank, but not one critic has ever said that MoS is a failure for not being like SM '78, not even implicitly; this one of several
falsehoods that indignant fans have convinced themselves of. On the other hand, what has indeed happened is that some critics have compared and contrasted the two, since they...you know...feature the same protagonist
to illustrate certain points. We don't live in a vacuum, folks; favorable and unfavorable comparisons between the two are inevitable, as well as being fair game. What's hypocritical is that the defenders cry foul whenever MoS is compared unfavorably to S:TM, but they're just as quick to wax poetically about how superior an adaptation this movie is to its predecessors. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.