Film and Expectations (I suppose games too)

[Octopus Rex]

Sometimes we see a film and it's shit. We hoped it would be ace, but it's a real let down.
Sometimes we see a film and it's bloody ace, but we had no idea what we were going in for.

The movie is getting dinged because of failed expectations. It is (if not explicitly, then implicitly) supposed to be a fairly high-brow film that comments on the human condition. People are going to it expecting either well done suspense like Alien or an interesting exploration film. It's obvious there are big themes that it's trying to address but the absolute failure of characterization means the message isn't conveyed clearly and the audience has no emotional investment in the film. The much maligned Transformers franchise, on the other hand, is pretty transparently an excuse to have giant robots beat the shit out of each other and that's exactly what it delivers. For that reason I enjoyed Transformers more than I did Prometheus.

Now for me, I dislike Transformers for exactly the same key flaw: I have no emotional investment in the film due to (in my opinion) terrible characterisation.

So there's all kinds of expectations going on here. For my part, perhaps I'm expecting good characters from films that you know full well will not have them (just perhaps). Or perhaps I just want good characters. I guess I didn't really expect Transformers to have them, I just wanted it to.

The key question here is this:

If you expected a film to be good and epic, but it was a real let down, do you think your opinion would have been different had you somehow magically gone in there with no expectations? Obviously it's pretty much all subjective (we live in post-modern times after all), but on a personal level do you try and retain some consistency? Can a film deliver poorly on it's high-expectations and still be better than something that easily surpasses the low-expectations you had for it? Do you try to get some kind of perspective on it? Or is the key feature of a film's quality that of meeting the expectations placed on it? Do you try to set aside everything you've heard about it and everything people (including the makers) have told you about it? Or getting gee'd up part of the fun?

Have you ever wished you hadn't got so hyped up for something because in the end it just made something a let down? How much does the heavy publicity and media saturation of hollywood have to do this? Are we mislead? Or is it your own fault for just thinking about it waaaaaay much? Do any of you avoid seeing an advertising leading up to films you have already decided to see? Or is that an expectation in and of itself? If you decide to skip all the press are you already too hyped?

Have you ever been under-hyped for something? Is that even possible?

Will your expectations at the time matter at all when you watch it in 10 years? Or will you just have a new set of them?

Hmm. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[Fixer]

Underhyped? I think Fight Club probably comes in as that for me.

In the UK it was basically advertised as a boxing movie. The marketing was terrible. There was a poster with soap on it and the TV spot I saw was 10 seconds long at best. "The first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club* *scenes of people punching* *explosion* rated 18.

When some University buddies dragged me to it I thought it might be a fairly standard popcorn flick. Was pleasantly surprised by the acting, the decent script, thought provoking jabs at consumerism, spitting at the new VW Bug and the excellent twist.

[Logic_Bomb]

I'd say I have some baseline expectations that are standard basic ones where if too many aren't met then I won't like the film. What they are vary from film to film. I try to not have any grandiose expectations and pitch them low as often as possible and just take the movie in as objectively as possible. I find this way films can surprise me by being in good in ways I didn't expect. For example, for Thor I was expecting it to be a fairly sub-par super hero movie and I tried to not have many expectations of it and it turned out much better than I'd imagined (well, except for most of the stuff that happened on Earth). I haven't seen Prometheus yet and I've been avoiding spoilerizing it for myself as much as possible. I'm just going to go in expecting some sci-fi mental stimulation, good cinematography, maybe a sense of awe and mystery thrown in, and interesting characters.

[Octopus Rex]

I'd say I have some baseline expectations that are standard basic ones where if too many aren't met then I won't like the film.

This may be just semantics, but I would make a distinction between expectations and, say, criteria for quality (for want of a better phrase) which is what I think you're talking about there. Expectations being a presumption about the film before seeing it, criteria being the standards required for you to enjoy it. Does that make any sense?

@Fixer - was it good being underhyped for Fight Club? Are you glad you saw it like that? Or do think being a bit more excited would've helped?

[Kirjava]

I think this is definitely true. I went into Snow White and the Huntsman (because I am a sucker for trailers) thinking it was going to be a fairly gritty take on the Snow White legend- which it was, but it was overlong with too many extraneous characters and a lack of investigation of the ones we got half a glance at. On the other hand, I saw Iron Sky tonight and I was of the opinion going in that it was going to be guff. It was, but it was extremely entertaining guff, and a bit cleverer and more referential than I had given it credit for in advance. All this is my fault obviously for judging books (or in this case movies) by their covers, but Octo's thesis here is essentially correct.

I know Transformers is one of your bugbears Octo, and by the time I'd seen the third one I was fully onboard with you. The first one has half a heart, at least- the relationship between Bumblebee and Sam earns a little credit for being charming. The second two drop this completely, and while the third is at least not as out-and-out racially unpleasant as the second, it's still an overblown sexist dumb-ass fest that can no longer shield itself with the old, 'just a popcorn movie' excuse. The trilogy takes itself way too seriously to get away with that. It's just stupid, crude, violent and offensive. If that's what we're calling a popcorn movie, we shouldn't have them in the cinema IMO.

[Misiok]

If you expected a film to be good and epic, but it was a real let down, do you think your opinion would have been different had you somehow magically gone in there with no expectations?

Of course! When I want to see the Transformers, I didn't go to the cinema expecting an epic story told in the span of 3 2-3 hour long movies, I expected giant huge fucking robots beat the fucking living metal shit out of each other. And I got that. However, I hated the everlasting shit out of Shia LeSouck. Such an annoying character/actor. I also very much disliked 3 scenes in the second movie. The 'gangsta niggaz' twins, and the giant dangling balls of that mega transformer. Also, the over the top fanservice from that walking pair of boobs I don't even remember of.

However, for better or worse, my movie taste is changing. No longer do I want to watch movies that focus on stupid/childish/teenage humour, like American Pie, most of the American made 'comedies' and most definitely the romances. My taste basically changed to blockbuster explosions and action movies, like Transformers, the Avengers (plus the actors were awesome, and I remember two female characters from it, aunt Robin and Scarlet, woo!). This said, I was disappointed with Avatar in a way. Mostly I was expecting only lots of pretty CGI and kick-ass 3D, instead I got pretty CGI and just decent 3D (maybe because my cinema sucks, I don't know, apparently it was very good in 3D, oh well), but I don't think I'd want to pay to go see it again, while I wouldn't mind going to see Avengers again. Also, the whole pocahontas love story was unneeded and seriously gimped my enjoyment of the movie.

To sum it up, I never go to cinemas to watch a movie without reading up on it, be it tvtropes (I don't mind spoilers in most cases, not to mention how that demonic website killed almost all of my enjoyment from movies/series) or other forums/websites, so I almost always know what to expect. That said, I'm a cynical person, and I always expect bad things to happen, so when a movie surprises me, I can only be more happy than angry/sad.

That said, when I started watching Game of Thrones without knowing the books, I was very, very pleasantly surprised with the story, presentation, actors and the boobies. I quickly joined the growing group of people who hated Geoffrey, and without really knowing what to expect from each episode, I can only look forward to it and its pleasant surprises. I had a pretty similar experience with Spartacus too. Also when I started watching Avatar: The Last Airbender, I kind of expected a kiddy story with some nice kung fu and special effects (I have no idea how I started watching that, how I even wanted to start watching that) and ended being a fan of the series.

For games, and me being a gamer, I guess I'm more hyped for games than movies (with some exceptions), however I haven't been hyped much lately though. I can most certainly say I was incredibly hyped for DoW 2, for its beta, for Chaos Rising, Retribution and Space Marine and got a bit disappointed with the last one. I mean, I really like the single-player, and I am positively surprised that they managed to do what they did with the Darksiders' engine and even make it multiplayer-able, however I was really let down with the MP portion, after my hype dissipated. It felt so underwhelming, even for a blatant console port, and the DLC's for monies only helped fuel my disappointment with it, and today Space Marine isn't even in the top 100 most played games on steam (from steamstats) whereas Jedi Academy (a game I compared it with in older threads) is still on the 53# position (thanks to xfire) with a living and one could say, thriving MP community, with about 654 players per day. As a 40k fan, this makes me really sad.

Other disappointments - Fable 3, a major one, being a fan of the first one (I really liked it for what it was, not for what it tried to be), I really liked how it worked, the scar system, the magic, the whole good/evil metamorphosis and decision making - that was cool, and then we got gimped on Fable 2, and got Fable 3, a monstrosity that I call 'The Fart Simulator'. Seriously, maybe it's a British thing, but is farting in peoples' faces seen as a big thing in Britain? Because apparently that's what you do when you say 'no'.

Other than that - anything that Capcom releases, anything that has Capcom on the cover/in the credits/anywhere I expect to be milked to hell and back, the game to be watered down or blatantly unfinished with tons of 'DLC BUY NOW' crap. After MvC 3, Tekken v Street Fighter (or the other way around, who cares) DLC fiasco I don't expect much quality products from them anymore.

Now good news, I am hyped for anything new Relic releases, despite everything, I really look forward to CoH 2 and the possibility of DoW 3 being all that was good in DoW 1 and 2.


Also, funny thing is - when Starcraft 2 was being released, literally days before its world-wide release I didn't care for it. I'm not an avid fan of the game, or its scene, but I remembered fondly the first game, and the growing hype of the Internet (which I was sort of following, reading due to boredom) infected me, and literally few days before the game was out, I ordered the CE edition out of the blue, I still don't know why, because in the last 2 years after it got released I rarely touched it. I finished SP once and while it was okay, felt lacklustre. That said, I didn't expect an OMGAWESOME story (having seen the few screenshots from 4chan from the last cinematic of the game, and reading about older Blizz's 'storytelling' ways from WoW) I was still disappointed, so there's that.

[Octopus Rex]

I never go to cinemas to watch a movie without reading up on it

I'm curious, why? It's fine, I'm just interested what you get out of it. (not saying you shouldn't or anything)

@Kirjava: for the record, I've seen Transformers twice I think. I quite happily watch robots hitting robots. I think for me it's just the sheer amount of that ilk of film (adaptation/remake/prequel of nostalgic cash-in, heavy on SFX, light on substance or plot) has just become overwhleming, hence my repetitive nagging. Transformers became the bugbear I think simply because of it's sheer omni-presence over the past few years and continual community commentary.

[Paladin]

I dunno. For me it's not so much a matter of expectations as just fairly consistent standards. I simply cannot enjoy a movie like Transformers or Battleship. "Exploshuns!" just isn't interesting to me, nor are giant robots for giant robots' sake. On the other hand, I can deal with a relatively mindless action movie, if it's a hand-to-hand combat movie. Kung-fu movies, Wuxia, brutal hand to hand like the Bourne Identity movies (Though mostly the first one, they went downhill after that) or say, Eastern Promises (Though that wasn't a mindless action movie by any means, just pointing out the brutally violent fight scenes in it as an example of scenes that would draw me to a movie even if it were relatively mindless), etc.

I managed to enjoy Columbiana--which got absolutely destroyed by the critics--just because I found the fights enjoyable. And really, the way the protagonist finishes off the BBEG's* Dragon was worth the price of admission in and of itself). I liked the action in Unknown enough that I would have watched it even if it wasn't fairly decent, plot wise.

On the other hand... Even with physical action movies like those, if the action isn't well choreographed, is too far-fetched (Not counting movies where there is some magic physics portrayed as normal, or the movie is clearly set in a fantasy world, creating internal consistency--See Wanted, Bunraku, The Matrix, etc.) then it loses the slack it might otherwise be cut in the plot department. Cowboys And Aliens, Priest, Red Riding Hood, and Season Of The Witch are movies off the top of my head in which the action simply wasn't interesting enough to save them from plots that range from mediocre to fucking wretched.

And there are times where the plot, acting, dialogue, etc are simply so bad that no amount of brilliantly choreographed and awesome kung-fu can save it in my estimation. A good example here is Abduction, which has shitty action and a horrible plot and abysmal acting. God, why did I watch that? But even if the action had been utterly amazing and jaw dropping, the plot was just utter shit, and couldn't have been saved.

Basically, there are minimum standards of plot, dialogue, and acting that a movie must meet for me, regardless of any other factors. And even if it's a "popcorn movie", it needs to be fucking amazing in the action sequences to keep me in a happy mood. And that action needs to be human level action, not giant robots or battleships or spaceships or any of that bullshit.

If a movie can be brilliantly acted, directed, have a strong plot and dialogue, and cool action (See The Road To Perdition), then it's going to be one of my favorite movies. But a lot of my favorites have little or no action at all (Magnolia, American Beauty, Where The Wild Things Are, Hugo, Billy Elliot, etc), and other favorites involve violence but not in a way where the violence is at all enjoyable or comfortable to watch, like Pan's Labyrinth.

I like very, very few comedies. In particular, I agree with the protagonist of God Bless America in that I detest the "goofball comedy" genre, which is inexecrable in its entirety. "Hurr hurr, he's stupid!" is not a valid basis for an entire movie! Nor is it particularly funny the first time you make the joke in your movie, let alone the 40th. The comedies I do like tend to be situational, in that while there may be one-liners involved, there are few "jokes" per se. The humor is derived from the scenario in which the characters find themselves, though the characters play it relatively straight. Good examples of this are few and far between, but TV shows like Weeds and Breaking Bad work (Though admittedly weeds does have a few "idiot" characters that the writers can use as comic crutches), and the movie Tucker And Dale Vs. Evil is a nearly perfect example (Also one of the funniest movies I've ever seen). The aforementioned God Bless America also slides into this category.

Anyway, in general, those are my standards for evaluating films, and they don't really vary based on what I expect from the movie in question.

[*BBEG = Big Bad Evil Guy]

[Misiok]

@Octo - that's simple. I wouldn't want to shell out on movies that I know nothing of, because todays' movies are *mostly* crap from the hollywood craptory, hence why I only go to see what interests me, and there's not much of that. Usually I almost always knew if I wanted to see something way before the trailers start hitting the TV here. Not saying I'm not missing on good movies because of this, as apparently that horror movie (whose name I forgot, heh) with Sigourney Weaver that play on some of the classic horror movie tropes.

[mololu]

Failed expectations are why I don't watch many movies these days. When I do watch something, it's either because dad bought the DVD and it's lying around (stumbled across Days of Glory this way - a piece of history I'd never have known about) or because someone, usually female, drags me off to the movies (which are intolerably overpriced but can be relaxing and thought-provoking - sometimes). More often than not I expect utter bullshit from the films I watch because, frankly, that's what it usually turns out to be.

I personally see it as an issue with not giving movies enough time to develop plot, characters and story. It's a bit of the same problem we're seeing with books (and games): stories are just becoming generic and re-used for our tastes. The ease of access to movies and storytelling is also a problem. With all the information around, it's seldom you'll find someone who doesn't know all the cliches already. That's leaving us with a demand which producers and other storytellers can't meet when under constraits of budget and whatever other monetary concerns dull the creativity. There's also the issue with 'appealing to the masses' which seems so prevailant, though I'm still not certain who that generic person is supposed to be.

Anyways, every so often I stumble across a gem and wonder why I never heard about it before. I'd guess those are the under-hyped things... or maybe I just don't follow the 'new stuff' enough. I'm probably missing a lot of good things. The question I'm faced, I guess, is how much one good movie is worth in way of prior disappointments. So far, I prefer to err on the safe side and save my cash for other disappointing industies.

[Malachi]

I must say I never understood people giving the so called "popcorn flicks" slack just because "that's what they expected". When I'm going to spend around 2 hours of my time on something, it has to be at least decent quality.

It's perfectly possible to make an action movie, or a light hearted comedy with a good script and decent acting, I'm pretty sure of that, I've seen many such movies. So why would I settle for anything less?

On the other hand, I sometimes end up liking movies that are broadly shunned, like Alien 3, that I recently brought up in the Prometheus thread. I also think that sometimes irrational bias might kick in and influence my perception of a movie. For example, I generally don't like teenage comic book based movies very much, but I really think X-men 1 and especially 2 was OK, probably just because it was my favorite comic in my childhood. At the same time, I didn't think much of any of the Avenegers flicks. Transformers are simply horrible.

[OhJohnNo]

I always try to lower my expectations before a movie - or any other media I'm looking forward to. I just start treating it as an ordinary thing I just happen to be watching/reading/listening to and forget all the hype. Usually works and I enjoy the thing. I believe this was after a bad experience with one of the Harry Potter movies.

[Malachi]

To continue, I also rarely set my expectations high when going to see a movie - I think I'm more demanding than my friends in that area, and when I go to see one, it's usually because I get drawn by someone else. There are exceptions of course.

One such exception, and I think the worst case of getting overhyped for me, was Sucker Punch. After seeing Watchmen before, as well as some trailers, I was expecting a classy, refined action movie. My expectations for the plot were a little above average, my expectations for the action and visuals were rather high. It ended up all upside down. I was literally yawning through the action sequences, terribly bored and waiting through them for the surprisingly interesting plot to advance.

How someone managed to make so technically advanced and pretty action scenes so terribly BORING is beyond me. Especially that it was the same director who made Watchmen, where the action was great and exciting.

[edit:] Hmm... It just occured to me, I think I tend to treat movies in general as their directors' own creations, and this is how I mostly build my expectations of them. I think it's curious how people usually focus on the actors when doing that - sure, I can think of actors that pretty much mostly only play in good movies (Jack Nicholson? Johnny Depp?), but way more tend to have both very good and very bad ones in their career (I'm looking at you, Bruce Willis). So, as far as going to movies "blind", pretty sure I'd instantly go and see anything new by David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick (if he was alive, that is), or, to have someone younger, Christopher Nolan.

[Fixer]

@Fixer - was it good being underhyped for Fight Club? Are you glad you saw it like that? Or do think being a bit more excited would've helped?

If a movie is underhyped I usually enjoy the movie for what it is. I suppose an overhyped movie I'll enjoy as much as the movie provide entertainment but have that nagging dissapointed feeling.

Speaking of which, Transformers 2 is the only movie I've ever actually see that I set low expectations for which it failed to meet.
When all the running through the desert started I was honestly wanting the bad guys to win, for the sun to explode and to kill everyone on Earth. I suppose it's an impressive feat if a movie can make you want to desire the on screen genocide of your entire race in return for skipping past the last 15 minutes of it.

[Malachi]

Feh, I ALWAYS wanted Decepticons to win.

[Mantaray]

no-one remembers Neil Patrick Harris for his role in starship troopers. but since 'how i met your mother' suddenly loads of people have found it and gone DANG! thats a good film! why did we never hear about it?
personally. that's the way i like it. starship troopers was under-hyped, therefore you can be forgiven for enjoying the bug-shooting action without the stigma of requiring good acting.
[edit: this does not excuse the horrendous script of SST 2 and arguably 3, it tried to be too serious and ended up terrible]

[Paladin]

Oh, I came up with some examples of movies with really good, believable martial arts action where the plot/acting was so bad it didn't matter: Every Steven Seagal movie ever. Except possibly the first Under Siege. Maybe.

[Kirjava]

Under Siege was something I had absolutely zero expectations for, and it less than met those expectations that were not there. "The definition of semi-automatic is that when you pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out." I'm not sure whether everyone involved in that film should be awarded a medal or imprisoned.

[Argonaut]

I never go to see a movie at the cinema unless I've got a load of money I don't mind blowing on a pile of shit. Just in case whatever I'm going to see is an actual pile of shit. Exception to the rule is something for the children, which is invariably a pile of shit too and costs me more in popcorn and other random sugary-child-amphetamine-sweets. Ok, Old man rant over.

The problem with modern film-making for me is that on the whole, the formulaic pattern of many films in all kinds of genres is becoming so pointlessly dull it isn't even funny. Even the recent Avengers film (which was ok BTW) involved.... GUeSS What!?! o.0 A city being smashed up. Big woop. I was so jaded that it didn't even change my pulse rate one bit above flatline.

Now you might think I am against movies, I'm not - but the hype is so obscene for many films it is almost impossible for them to live up to expectations without being disappointing. A fairly recent film I thought was a good laugh and didn't have any pretentious shyte in it - It was exactly what I expected - was The Expendables. No expectations whatsoever, lots of fun. Shit got blown up. Hurrah.

[Paladin]

Under Siege was something I had absolutely zero expectations for, and it less than met those expectations that were not there. "The definition of semi-automatic is that when you pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out." I'm not sure whether everyone involved in that film should be awarded a medal or imprisoned.

To be fair, that line probably needed to be there since the majority of people in urban areas at least honestly don't know that. I always have to consider who I'm talking to in Real Life(tm), because more than half the people in my county would hear "semi-automatic" and think it means a gun that sprays bullets while you hold down the trigger

It's part of why it's been so easy for the legislature to get voter approval for outrageous firearms restrictions here in California... The majority of the populace just has no fucking idea what guns are or how they work. Most of them have honestly never seen one outside TV.

[Harmanoff]

I never go to see a movie at the cinema unless I've got a load of money I don't mind blowing on a pile of shit.

Not once in my life have i felt comfortable with blowing money on a pile of shit. Wether i was ass-broke or swimming in money(relatively speaking that is) i can never shake the fact that i want value for the money i spend. This is part of the explanation to why i cannot comprehend the enjoyment of watching braindead crap. And common arguements like 'just turn your brain off' have zero attraction because i like my brain ON.

(I'm not attacking argonaut btw, i just find that quote an interesting example of the discord i usually feel when talking movies, on these boards in particular)

Underhype is an interesting concept, one that is part of my overall strategy in life actually. Whenever i go on a trip, to a party, play a concert or such, i tend to think 'well, this is gonna suck bad' and more often than not i find myself pleasantly surprised that it, whatever it was, did not suck. At least not as much as i expected it too. It's not something i've decided to do, i've always been like that for some reason but i don't mind. I keep it to myself and don't ruin other peoples expecations, otherwise it would be a problem.

[Octopus Rex]

@Misiok: Aye, fair enough, that's a pretty practical answer.

@Argo: Wow, that's some pretty cranky 'tude you got going right there! Having said that, I agree for the most part (i.e. they're formulaic and dull, expensive and often pretty pants). They [that kind of movie] can still be a relatively pleasant way to spend a couple hours - just not all the time! The sheer repetitiveness of the formula ruins even the simple joy of stuff getting blown up for me if I see too many in close succession, so I have to see that kind of thing very sparingly now.

The hype is indeed utterly obscene, and I'm tempted to lay the blame heavily at the door of the publishers. However, I think fans really enjoy getting whipped up into a frenzy about these things (just see some of our discussion threads) so it's a two-way street - if the appetite wasn't there for hype or we weren't so easily led by it, then probably we wouldn't see it so much.

It's perfectly possible to make an action movie, or a light hearted comedy with a good script and decent acting, I'm pretty sure of that, I've seen many such movies. So why would I settle for anything less?

Exactly my feelings. We can indeed have robots hitting robots, but why must it seemingly be at the expense of the other stuff? Surely writing a decent script is the cheap part of these $100,000,000s productions? Still, this thread isn't a rant thread about that kind of stuff so I don't want to wander too far off topic.

[OhJohnNo]

See, if I start expecting something to actually suck, then it often actually does for me. My expectations shape how I enjoy something more than I'd like.

[Octopus Rex]

I know what you mean OJO, but I think the heart of that problem is usually wanting it to be shit, rather than expecting it to be shit.

Sure we normally cross our arms and say "well, this is going to be f****** shit" which is out prediction, our expectation, but often it's that we like being right and don't want to have to climb and say "well, no that wasn't crap after all", so underneath the expectation we want it to suck. I've definitely spoiled films that way, and also found myself enjoying a film against my initial judgement - obviously I can be a snob at times, and it could be some rom-com that I don't want to like because "I don't like rom-coms", if you know what I mean?

[Malachi]

The problem with the "underhype" strategy is that, in my experience, our perception of events is directly influenced by our expectations, in such a way, that if we experience the same stuff with either an optimistic or pessimistic approach, the latter will result in an overall worse experience.

----------

[edit:] Huh, dual ninjaing with roughly the same observation. Serves me right for abandoning the post in the middle because I actually had to do something at work.

[Paladin]

Depends on the person, I think, Malachi. I don't find that to be true for me at all.

[LoCo]

I guess from this thread I'm someone who always gets annoyed at the overhype and it seems I am entirely to blame.

Only...

I don't see the point in anyone making a movie that isn't good. I'd really rather they didn't make it at all. Even if it's a movie I'll never watch, I still believe that there should be a minimum threshold for quality. Hollywood has the money and talent to be pumping out good quality movies all the time.

I also believe more weight should be given to the script writer rather than the director. If a movie is good, people praise the director. If the movie is bad they bash the writer... That just doesn't make any kind of sense. (Obviously there are one or two exceptions and you also get directors who also write the script)

If a movie doesn't reach a certain level of quality it is bad. It's that simple to me.

Now, I get caught up in hype, sure. But when the movie is over, if it was overhyped and my expectations were not met, then I can at least say that the movie was still good, just not as good as it was made out to be. But if the movie did not reach that minimum standard of quality, then it was bad whether it was overhyped or not.

Transformers was just plain bad. They had the money and time to make a good movie. But they didn't. There was bad characters, bad acting, bad script and bad directing.

Prometheus wasn't as bad as Transformers, but it didn't reach the standard of quality to make it good. It had a boring script, bad characters, bad directing, good actors but not good acting (Likely a script or directing issue there).

Even if the visuals are great, one point in a movie's favor does not make the movie good.

Take Aliens 4 for example. It's the Aliens movie that everyone tries to forget. The script for that was good. The actors where good. But the acting was bad, and the directing was bad. The visuals were above the minimum standard, but neither the good actors nor the good script could pull that movie up. There wasn't much hype for it, but it was still bad.

So do I have too high expectations for movies that get hyped? Sure. But below that there is still the minimum standard that many (or most) movies just don't hit. You can't lay that at the feet of overhyped.

[Malachi]

Script for Alien 4 was good? No. Just no. It was very, very bad. Worst part of the movie, I'd say.

[Coey]

Pan's Labyrinth, a film about a little girl who becomes a fairy princess is probably the best film I've seen to come out in the last ten years. I didn't go in with any major expectations from it but it was awesome. I was also pleasantly surprised by Haywire, which I think is better than the new Bonds, Bournes and ME4 for espionage action, both also had interesting female lead characters.

Those are the only two films where my expectations were exceeded, either by not knowing much about the film or the film being panned. Other films like No Country For Old Men, The Dark Knight, There Will Be Blood etc were pretty spot on as far as met expectations go.

The only big disappointment was Tinker, Tailor which was a godawful boring brown turd of a film which everyone else loved. The acting was good but the plot just thudded along leaving out all the nuance and careful deduction of the book and the TV series. And it was all so brown, the 70s couldn't actually be that brown could they, I know times were hard but they didn't have to cut back on colour.

[Paladin]

LoCo: It's typically easy to figure out who's to blame with a bad movie, but the average moviegoer doesn't have much in the way of knowledge of the film making process, or critical thinking skills in general to be honest (Fucking public schools...).

But it's fairly easy... If the dialogue is just stupid regardless of delivery--i.e., no matter how you try to imagine the line being said, it's still retarded--then it's the scriptwriter's fault, full stop.

If the dialogue is good (irrespective of delivery), but the story it's all wrapped up in is stupid, it may be the scriptwriter's fault. Or it could be the producer's fault, or the novelist if it's based on a novel... The writer of the screenplay doesn't always get to design the plot itself. This determination can be a bit thorny, though in the case of an adaptation you just have to go consume the original work to make the determination. Otherwise, a bit of guesswork and/or research can be involved in determining whether the scriptwriter was likely to have been the originator of the plot.

If the dialogue is good, but the delivery is bad, then it's either the fault of one or more actors, or the director. Typically you can make this determination based on whether one actor or all the actors involved had poor delivery, and of course comparing and contrasting to the rest of those actors' bodies of work. If one actor is delivering lines badly, or just a couple in a large ensemble cast, then you can figure the actor is just poor, or just doesn't really get the particular piece he's in, or has a poor grasp of his character. That too can be a director's fault, but you can sort of guess based on the general quality of the actor's work... If you have one actor who's generally decent, but failing miserably here, and other actors are doing well, one could easily assume it's the actor's fault, though if the other actors are generally brilliant, it's possible that they're just good enough to overcome bad direction, and the one actor who's failing is good, but not that good. In which case it's a bad director. But that'd be an edge case.

If all the actors are doing horribly, then the director isn't very good. Even if you're looking at a cast of newcomers who just inherently suck, a great director could get them to at least do a passable job. If he's not managing that, then he's not great. If the actors are generally decent or better in other work, then you know for sure that the director is terrible, as he's bringing their work down from their normal levels.

Basically you just have to apply a little logic, but I agree that most people don't...


@Coey: Burn, heretic!

[roflmao]

Expectations determine how much I'll enjoy a film.

So a life hack is to have low expectations all the time. It works.

[Argonaut]

We all waste money on things other people find frivolous - in my case it's cinema, but then I have to usually take and pay for four other people (even if some of them are small.) it's usually £30 plus for us to go to the cinema as a family and that's not counting sweets and drinks. I balk at the price, but then again, I'd never even flinch about spending £30 in a pub or on W40k toy soldiers, and when I'm flush I don't mind paying for the cinema for the experience of a family evening out. The enjoyment for me is the experience of going out as a family and doing something together, and the sheer excitement of a 6 year old boy hopping up and down in his chair as Hulk thumps Thor is worth paying to see.

I think everything is overhyped on television anyhow - you just have to watch a trailer for a new series or something as repugnant as TOWIE to see that overhype is the norm.

[edit] The same goes for games. I prefer games like ELITE, DRAGONS BREATH, CAESAR 3 and other games that took fifteen minutes of reading the manual to figure out what the hell to do. Having some sergeant-major character bellowing at me to "Run over here!", "Shoot that guy", "We are leaving soldier" whatever doesn't make me happy. SKYRIM was worth the wait and the hype. It is that good.

[QuixotesGhost]

Take Aliens 4 for example. It's the Aliens movie that everyone tries to forget. The script for that was good. The actors where good. But the acting was bad, and the directing was bad. The visuals were above the minimum standard, but neither the good actors nor the good script could pull that movie up. There wasn't much hype for it, but it was still bad.

"Aliens: Resurrection" actually has a really strange pedigree. It was directed by a French director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who had just directed a French Sci-Fi Film called "City of Lost Children", which was sort of this carnivalesque Olvier Twist tale with Cyborgs. He ended up using a lot of the same actors for Aliens: Resurrection, Ron Perlman, for instance. After doing his brief stint in the U.S., directing the fourth aliens installment, he returned to France and directed a film in 2001 that became huge hit and an instant critical darling. Can you guess what it is?

Spoiler

That's right. Amelie and Aliens:Ressurection were both directed by the same guy.

I'd say it's less of a case of the director being bad and more of a case of the world that Aliens is set in not meshing well with the director's sensibilities. And the American Studio system going, "Hey! You direct Sci-Fi! Direct the next Aliens installment for us." He's not a bad director, he just wasn't a good fit for an Aliens project.

Script for Alien 4 was good? No. Just no. It was very, very bad. Worst part of the movie, I'd say.

And I looked around a little more on imdb at it. Primary writing credit on the Alien: Resurrection script goes to none other than Joss Whedon. Lots of very talented people on that movie, writer, director, actors - but the whole thing failed so miserably.

[Malachi]

Jeunet definitely isn't a bad director, quite the opposite. I agree that Alien doesn't exactly fit his style, but I don't find the actual directing part of Aliens: Ressurrection specifically bad. It's just that, the way I see it, the director is directly responsible for the whole movie, it's his work primarily, and his responsibility. Having a lot of respect for Jeunet (both Delicatessen and City of Lost Children count among my favorite movies ever), I would have expected him to just deny working witch such an atrocious script.

----------

[edit:] I think the worst part about the movie wasn't really the script in that how it was written, but the whole idea of bringing Ripley back, and I think the producer is most probably to blame here.

[LoCo]

And yet the object of your crush seemed to, instead, jump right in with the "atrocious script".

Perhaps, since your guy is so great a director, he didn't think the script was that bad.

What, exactly, did you find wrong with the script?

Have you read it? Because according to Joss Whedon the film was plagued by a very many things, and a bad script was not one of them.

Your favourite director, on the other hand, decided to make some changes to the script anyway. Here is his version.

Now... you admit that the whole Alien thing doesn't fit him right. But when he starts playing around with what looks to me like a fairly decent script, directing the actors to change how the script writer said they should do things, in order for the script to make sense, then I'm not sure how you can continue to call the script "atrocious" but keep your crush on that high pedestal.

Look, none of Jeunet's movies go the way of Aliens or sci-fi horror to begin with. Saying that it was the director's fault isn't me saying the guy sucks ass and shouldn't ever direct again in his life. It's me saying that he did things wrong. Nobody is perfect.

But don't blame others just because your hero is being called out. Accept him for a man, a human man, and accept that sometimes he is going to screw up. Then stop blaming others for his screw-ups.

PS: The original ending that your director threw out... That sounds like it would have made the whole film worth it even if they did everything just as they did and only kept that kick ass ending. But sadly I'll never get to see that happen now.

PPS: Just look at the two endings for each script if you can't be bothered reading all of them. Tell me which sounds like something in the Aliens universe and which one sounds like a pathetic mewling mess.

[QuixotesGhost]

Alight, I'm going to try to tie this Aliens:Ressurection tangent back into the main topic.

Can a film deliver poorly on it's high-expectations and still be better than something that easily surpasses the low-expectations you had for it?

Definitely. I much more respect films that swing for the fences and miss than films that succeed at low expectations. Many of my favorite films are brilliant in certain aspects, but deeply flawed in others. Take Terry Gilliam's Brazil , some really great moments in it, brilliant setting, but marred by weak plotting and almost crippled by miscasting.

Now, I ended up reading the original Whedon script, since I guess I have far too much free time on my hands, and I have to agree, it's a pretty compelling action script, but that's all it is. I respect Janet's motivation for wanting to futz with it and doing something weird with it, even if it ended up blowing up in his face. It basically comes down them wanting to make two different types of movies, Whedon, "biitey-scarey aliens in space" , Janet, something that played and expanded upon the pycho-sexeual themes of the original. And then we got this movie where these two movies each of them were trying to make were sort of sutured together in this monstrous abortion.

Also, I find the conventions that Whedon uses for his script really funny.

and BOOM!!!!, the hall BURSTS OPEN, everything explodes into space, the wind rushes out as

BOOM!!!, the whole garden sector rips open, sucked out,

Enough exclamation points there, buddy? He writes like he's a kid bashing his Tonka trucks together! That's so funny.

[Malachi]

@LoCo: You apparently missed the part when I said I keep the director wholly responsible for a movie. Accusing me of blaming others for Jeunet's faults is quite... imaginative.

In other words: WTF.

----------

Clarification: point taken about the script being (more) atrocious because of Jeunet's meddling, I just don't like people putting words in my mouth.

[LoCo]

That kind of goes against my point Malachi.

Sure, in this case it was the director's fault (The way I see it). But if he didn't screw up, you would be giving him all the praise. "Wholly responsible" means he gets all the credit if the film was good. So when does the writer get credit? When do the actors get credit?

While you say that the director is wholly responsible, you still try to clarify that the script was atrocious. Just that it was more so because of the director. Here is not a failing of the script - which is 'passable' at worst, but certainly nothing akin to 'atrocious' - and it seems the director is at fault. Yet you insist on mitigating that fault by saying he was working with a bad script, IE: Blaming the writer too. That's rather different than the director being "wholly responsible".

Does the writer get a mention too when the film is good? No. Instead, all credit goes to the director. Yet when the film is bad... The director is "wholly responsible"! Except that everyone else is responsible too because it's not all his fault!

A poor workman blames his tools, but it's all his own skill when something goes right.

EDIT: Allow me to follow QuixotesGhost's example and tie this in with the OP.

When you hear about the movie, do you hear about the director? Or the writer? This is pre-screening. Lets broaden the horizon for a second. When you hear about a new TV series even. Terra Nova. Anyone will just answer "Steven Spielberg". Super 8? "Steven Spielberg".

This is despite the fact that he was just producing, not directing, these things. But he has a reputation as a director, so they slap his name on, front and center, and the public will praise him if it's good, but mitigate the fault if it is bad because "oh, he didn't actually direct it!". Terra Nova fell flat. Not Steven Spielberg's fault! He didn't direct any of it! Super 8? Oooh shit! This is good stuff, throw his name at the crowd!

It's Hollywood branding. Plain and simple. A few good directors show up, and suddenly it's all about the directors and how they make the movie. Everyone else is on the side lines. Even the big name actors. That is... until the movie/show tanks. Then this actor, that actress, or even the script is to blame. That actor wasn't doing his best performance. The script sucked. All that hype about the movie/show is covered in blaming everyone except the director. And if the director is ever blamed... well, he wasn't the only one!

How much less hype would there be to cover up after a film tanks if it doesn't get branded as "this director's baby" but rather just "Script by --insert name--, directed by --insert name--, staring --insert names--.

Then you know what to expect. You know who to give credit to if it does well: All involved. You also know who to blame if it sucks because you can easily compare to other works by the same person. "Yeah, the movie was okay, Joss Whedon didn't really do well on the script though, not when you look at the other stuff he has done. The acting and directing wasn't bad though. It's clearly his fault." or "Meh, it just never got the pacing right and he turned a sci-fi action horror into a drama about humanizing aliens and a predatory monster with mother issues. Jean-Pierre Jeunet just doesn't do these kinds of movies right, his previous work is not in the same vein." or "I don't know, I've seen Sigourney Weaver before and she is good, it's just that in this movie she failed badly. It's like she just didn't get the character. The movie suffered for it because the director knows how to do these movies and the script wasn't bad." or what ever other criticism is valid. At least this way the credit can go where it should "so and so did a really good job" and the fault can easily be placed where it should be.

Then, the next movie that comes along you can quickly see if you will enjoy it by looking at the relevant information.

Instead we get blasted by this director's name, or that director's name, and we go in expecting to see a great film with no foreknowledge of anything because Hollywood pushes the idea that if a director is good the movie will be - unless everything is working against him! - so stick his name on it, whether he actually directs or not is unimportant as long as he is associated with it.

Not only that, but they give the directors the power to change the script. There are a number of writers out there who have actually removed their names from the movie credits because the 'all powerful' director has come in and started slashing it up (Note how Whedon is supplanted on the credit list below two guys who just did character tweeks. Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn't made a film in a while (ever really) where he hasn't put his own spin on the script. This is all fine and dandy when he makes his dramas and (black) comedies. But he doesn't know how to write sci-fi, never mind sci-fi horror with a pinch of action. Nothing in his history suggests he could be able to. Nothing in his history suggests he is that flexible. That's by no means a bad thing. He does what he does well. But Hollywood saw a great director and snatched him up and splashed his name around... all on the basis of the faulty logic that a great director is a great director of anything.

And the public buys into that logic. And then bad films are made and the public is left wondering if it's due to the hype, the script or the actors because god forbid the director is at fault. Maybe the director was a little at fault, but it's mostly the script! Or the actors! Or the film was over-hyped! Yes!

For the last ten years I've been following writers around. Mostly as a reaction to the director hype, but I'm at fault here too because if the tables were turned I'd likely be defending the writer. What should be happening is that we should be looking at all those involved in the movie, looking at their history and judging for ourselves.

Yet... when was the last time you saw "From the writer who gave you the --insert movie name here-- script" in a trailer? All I see these days is "From the director of --insert movie name here--".

All that's not to mention when a horrible director does come along, someone who (for instance) relies on 'splosions and CGI to cover up for ineptitude, and then critics get panned because "it wasn't supposed to be a good movie! It's all about giant robots hitting each other!".

That right there is a WTF.

[QuixotesGhost]

"From the writer who gave you the --insert movie name here-- script" in a trailer?

Charlie Kaufman gets that billing, who was the scriptwriter behind "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and "Synecdoche, NY." But he's pretty much the only one. I agree with the Director getting first billing in film, however, since film, as a medium isn't particularly language or dialougue focused, it's more visually focused, and it's easier to recognize most director's visual styles across movies than it is to recognize writer's particular styles (though there are a few that are easy, like Kaufman, Whedon, Tarantino, and Diablo Cody). So to the average movie-goer, the director involved is going to be more relevant information. Plus the biggest hot-shot directors are going to be able to pick and choose thier scripts instead of being saddled with whatever the studio gives them, so the audience can trust that they've chosen a good script to direct.

Not only that, but they give the directors the power to change the script. There are a number of writers out there who have actually removed their names from the movie credits because the 'all powerful' director has come in and started slashing it up (Note how Whedon is supplanted on the credit list below two guys who just did character tweeks. Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn't made a film in a while (ever really) where he hasn't put his own spin on the script. This is all fine and dandy when he makes his dramas and (black) comedies. But he doesn't know how to write sci-fi, never mind sci-fi horror with a pinch of action. Nothing in his history suggests he could be able to. Nothing in his history suggests he is that flexible. That's by no means a bad thing. He does what he does well. But Hollywood saw a great director and snatched him up and splashed his name around... all on the basis of the faulty logic that a great director is a great director of anything.

Power, I believe, that directors should absolutely have. They're the ones that have to deal with the actors, stage the shots, and put everything together. It's ultimately their project. Not to say they shouldn't work with the scriptwriter if there's sections of the script that are problematic. But if they reach an impasse, instead of slavishly directing something they don't believe in, I think they should have the power to either rewrite the script themselves, or bring in a third-party to script doctor.

Also, keep in mind that many directors have successfully jumped the bridge across genres, Christopher Nolan, for instance, was best known for Memento when he was given Batman Begins. I like Hollywood cross-pollinating directors across genres since I think it gives us intersting new takes on old archetypes. If they went with a director already known for making action movies we might have gotten someone like Shumaker or Bay. It was a risky choice and it paid off in spades.

-----

Also, question relating to the OP. How do you guys react when a writer/director/actor want to reinvent themselves? To do the type of work they've never done before and you'd never expect to see them in. I notice this is actually a common trend in comedians, that they want to do one sort of passion project that is entirely serious. Mark Twain had "Joan of Arc"; Adam Sandler, "Punch-Drunk Love"; Jim Carrey, "The Truman Show".

Also, we briefly touched on the Artistic merit of action movies. I'm curious if anyone has seen the trailer for "The Raid":




Not a single line of dialogue in the trailer, but I definitely want to see it since those are some intense and visceral action sequences. A good action sequence requires skill in cinematography, choreography, visual design, not to mention the athleticism of the actors. I view a good action sequence just as artistically valid as modern dance, or even ballet - independent of other concerns such as script or acting.

Though, btw, movies like Transformers do not have decent action sequences. They're basically special effects movies, and I have a hard time understanding why visual effects on film impress anymore since everyone knows it's just a bunch of CGI. There's no mystery or wonder as to: "OMG, How did they do that?"

[OhJohnNo]

See, movies that just use special effects to generate things like explosions or ordinary cityscapes don't impress me much. What I like is when special effects are used to generate interesting visual styles, like in Tron: Legacy.

[Octopus Rex]

Reinventing themselves? Hmm, interesting. Only got time for a brief answer right now, but expectation certainly plays into that, in so much as you'll usually be aware that this is their "serious" role and so you might think "hey that was pretty decent considering he's normally wise-cracking all the time" or "not as good as when he's funny". Often it's the latter because, yeah, I think seeing in a different mode is weird and you're not used to them like that and you might think "erm, was I supposed to laugh at that?" or something. Still, pretty broad generalisations there, but it's hard to break out of your niche and expectations is one of those hurdles to break.

Regarding The Raid: heard a lot about that and how it harkens back to 'proper' action moves etc. No kind of movie is essentially and inherently flawed and they can all work - even pure SFX movies - it's just that the proliferation of the action movie compounds and highlights its flaws (though arguably not inherent to the genre), flaws they would probably get away with with me if such films only cropped up now and then. So a movie like the Raid is fine, and yes, my expectations for characters might be lower in it as really it's the kung-fu chop I'm going for.

The same goes for films like Lynch's Eraserhead -I didn't really go to watch that for it's character driven plot lines and nail-biting twists . After that I wondered whether I'd just wasted 2 hours of my life, but at the same time was exhausted and really glad I watched it. Totally valid. BUT - if every film was like that? Yeah, I think I'd get bored of that pretty quickly too, as I would get pretty cranky if tons of films were like the Raid.