Complaining about People Not Liking the Show comes in many different flavors. Most of the time, criticisms for reviews can be overwhelmingly vicious, with statements ranging from death threats to accusations that the reviewer is just being stuck up. However, some defensive notations can be a bit ...farfetched. Somewhere along the line, you will be accused of not getting it. You see, whatever you criticized was supposed to suck.
"The context of why the movie was made justifies what you consider to be poor quality and bad execution of the work. As such, you didn't understand what was going on to appreciate the work enough to realize that. If you were expecting something glorious and spectacular, you came to the wrong movie."
This is one of the more recent lines that fans have started using to deter negative criticisms of their favorite works. In most cases, these defenses are justified if the reviewer/critic lacks familiarity with the work. In general, it's true that critics can be far too harsh with various movies and films (especially comedies or parodies) when writing their reviews, citing that they are incredibly lacking in all categories of substance. However, fans can get carried away with this regard as it is mostly used to defend their favorite works in general to any and all forms of criticism, even if a reviewer/critic happens to like said work.
The first problem with this defense is that it is on the surface quite paradoxical; a bad movie does not somehow magically cease to be bad merely because it was apparently supposed to be bad. Quite the opposite, in fact. Another is that regardless of the intentions of its producers, ultimately the final product has to be judged on its own end merits; the producers of a film might not be trying to make True Art and may only be trying to 'just' make an entertaining movie, but that doesn't mean they can't fail at being entertaining. Furthermore, there's a suggestion here that producers of creative works that aren't intended to be True Art should only be held to the lowest possible standards. The problem here is that quality and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive, and just because something isn't supposed to be High Art doesn't mean you've got a license to be lazy or sloppy with it. Of course, there's the obvious question of why you would want to deliberately make something terrible to begin with.
This is not to say that there's anything wrong with purely escapist entertainment or that all works should aspire towards the loftiest heights of 'worthy' True Art; just that making escapist entertainment isn't itself an automatic 'Get Out Of Criticism Free' card for producers and fans of said entertainment. Fans who take this view can be deliberately invoking any or all of the Animation, Sci-Fi, and Comedy Ghetto tropes. This might seem contradictory of the usual purpose of these tropes (i.e. trying to get what they like out of said Ghettos), but the point is that different genres should be held to different standards.
While not exactly aimed at this phenomenon, 'Ebert's Law' as coined by noted film critic Roger Ebert — "It's not what a movie's about, but how it's about it" —has some relevance here. The idea is that he can rate a supposedly 'no-brainer' action movie higher than a supposedly 'worthy' Oscar Bait drama not because the action movie is artistically more complex or inherently superior to the drama (although it could be), but because the action movie is better at being an action movie, and thus is a more satisfying cinematic experience, than the drama is at being a drama. By this logic, the inverse is also true; just because an action movie isn't necessarily aiming to provide its audience with the same things as a drama does not exempt it from criticism entirely. What it does do is exempt it from criticism on the grounds of not being enough like a drama.
When creators invoke this trope, it often betrays a belief that Viewers Are Morons.
Compare with Springtime for Hitler, Moff’s Law, Deliberate Flaw Retcon and Critic Proof. Contrast Intended Audience Reaction, in which the creator of a work is deliberately doing something audiences normally don't like, for what they think is a good reason. Hopefully they're right.
open/close all folders
Anime And Manga
Common for ecchi and fanservice shows where the plot exists to give The Protagonist an excuse to trip and grope girls or accidentally see their panties, forming an odd inversion of It's Not Porn, It's Art ("It's not art, it's (sorta) porn!")
A common defence of poorly-written yaoi and yuri. Fans will say that it isn't intended to accurately represent a homosexual relationship or provide moving drama, it's just there for the fanboys and fangirls to enjoy.
Bob Budiansky uses this to dismiss fan criticism that his stories on The Transformers were more juvenile than those of his successor, noting that he was targeting his stories for prepubescent boys.
Tycho: I'd bet you'd love to criticize that, wouldn't you, you Critics! But you can't.
Gabe: It's not for you.
He took it even further after the release (and critical drubbing) of Cop Out, saying that films in general aren't for critics, but for fans. Mark Kermode responded by saying he would quite happily accept that films aren't made for critics and not get free screenings, if film-makers would respond by not using any favorable quote he made about a film as advertising material
Maryann: This is one of those movies that we're not supposed to complain about because it's "for kids," as if kids aren't smart enough to recognize shit. Or as if we wouldn't mind serving our kids shit. I wouldn't want my kids, if I had any, anywhere near this, unless I actually wanted to inculcate in them scream-inducing 1950s gender stereotypes. Which I wouldn't.
Roger Ebert often made a point of condemning a Viewers Are Morons line of thinking with regards to children's movies — i.e. just because a movie is intended for children/families doesn't mean it can get away with lower production values, script quality, etc. than "adult" fare, and that believing kids don't care about quality insults their intelligence. Reviews that bring up this topic include Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Beauty and the Beast, both of which he felt defied the "kids don't care" mindset beautifully, and The Jungle Book 2, which he saw as a product of said mindset.
Shawn Levy, director of Real Steel, used this argument in defense of his movies. He claimed he didn't really care about what critics and snobby award shows thought of his movies, and was glad that audiences had a great time watching his work.
Movie Bob expressed his disapproval of the notion that just because a movie "isn't trying", that makes it immune to criticism. He gave the example of The Expendables, saying that its problem wasn't that it was a big dumb action movie, but that it was a bad big dumb action movie.
Seltzer and Friedberg defenders often use this excuse. "I know they're stupid lame jokes, they're supposed to be stupid lame jokes." Ignoring that there can be a right and a wrong way to do even lame humor and that if the audience can't tell you're doing it on purpose, it can still be judged as having failed.
Rotten Tomatoes's "critics' consensus" system does this sometimes. Chances are, if a movie turns out bad (but not below 10% bad), but is catered toward a specific demographic (children, fans of the source material, etc.), the consensus will be written along the lines of, "This movie is bad, but at least its target demographic will enjoy it." For example, the consensus for Thunderbirds is, "Live-action cartoon for kids."
Extreme example: When Freddy Got Fingered was nominated for five "awards" at the 2001 Golden Raspberry Awards, Tom Green actually showed up to accept them (the first performer to do so in the show's history, but the second recipient to do so, following director Paul Verhoeven for Showgirls in 1995) saying when he did, "When we set out to make this film we wanted to win a Razzie, so this is a dream come true for me".
Live Action TV
Glee fans can fall back on this when encountering any criticism of the show's unlikely plot points or character interaction. "It's supposed to be unrealistic and silly. It's a parody of musicals!" TIME reviewer James Poniewozik explicitly rejected this in one review, not because he dislikes the show, but because he thought so highly of the first season that he expects greatness from the rest of it: if a show is trying for genuinely emotional moments or Aesops and fail to deliver them effectively, a Parody Retcon is an insult to both the viewers and the creators.
iCarly had an in universe Author Tract that was Leaning on the Fourth Wall to say that the webshow (and by extension, the actual real life show), was just a 'stupid pointless comedy' and looking for deeper moments or any kind of continuity or emotional moments was pointless and against the intention of the authors. An interesting example as it wasn't directed at outside critics, but at fandom and its desire to turn the show into a Shipping drama.
An interesting variation happened as True Blood encountered accusations of Seasonal Rot in its third and fourth seasons. When critics who liked the show's first two seasons complained of Aborted Arcs etc. they were told that not only were they wrong to apply such standards to Supernatural Soap Opera, but that the show had always been like this - retroactively undermining critical praise for True Blood's early run.
In an interview with Comic Book Resources, Jed Whedon, producer of Agents of SHIELD, said the show's disappointed viewership shouldn't be expecting so much, even though the show had been hyped extensively and deters criticism over the slow pace and rather lackluster characters, not unsimilar to the response of Ultimate Spider-Man (both headed by Jeph Loeb).
Several reviewers have criticized Jon Stewart of The Daily Show fame for his reliance on a double standard: he can satirize political and religious figures, but when they attack his arguments, he counters that his show is supposed to be a joke.
Many of the criticisms heaped on No More Heroes, notably the rather empty overworld, bad driving physics, and generally low-scale environment assets, were deflected by the fanbase by saying that the creator meant to lampoon games like Grand Theft Auto by deliberately making a clunky overworld. It's not certain how true this explanation actually is, since in the Playstation3 port part of the overworld is actually blocked off because absolutely nothing happens in that particular section.
Inverted: This is a complaint about Saints Row The Third: While it's only meant to be a mindless, over the top affair of action and violence, many, especially fans of Saints Row 2, criticised the plot as a case of They Just Didn't Care since it doesn't seem to have been written all too well.
Runic has often had to trot out a similar response to players demanding that Torchlight II have X successful feature or that it be released on time to crush Y competing game in sales (X is usually a Diablo 2 or MMORPG feature and Y was commonly Diablo IIIbut now tends to be Guild Wars 2). The oft-repeated Word of God is that TL 2 is simply meant to be an all-round improvement over TL 1 and a testbed for some MMO concepts that interest the developers.
The Spoony One acknowledges this in his New Moon Vlog, saying that he has to judge it on whether it does what it sets out to do well. He says that, insofar as it seeks to show the audience shirtless Native Americans, it sort of does, but it fails at everything else it attempts to do. And with that, couldn't they just find it on the net?
He revisits this idea in his review of DOA Dead Or Alive, following twenty minutes of mockery with an admission that it's actually a pretty good adaptation. After all, the DoA games are best known for being about sexy women in martial arts fights, and the movie is mostly about sexy women in martial arts fights. It's a dumb movie, but it knows exactly what its audience wants and delivers on its premise (and after the other fighting game movies he did that month, one can see how important that is).
He also touches upon this point in his Saints Row IV and The World's End vlog, stating his dislike of this trope's use as an excuse in the case of the two subjects of the vlog.
Also, in his review of Independence Day, he says that people tell him that it's a "Popcorn movie", but he insists on criticizing the movie anyway.
Despite his seething hatred for The Care Bears Movie, he still recommended it for children from the age of one to... one. In the commentary for that review, he and his brother admitted that five-year-olds and younger generally would like it (as they did at that age), and that it at least had the merit that it didn't resort to violence in defeating the villain (which in his opinion would've broken its own Aesop).
In his review of A Troll in Central Park, he claimed that one of the reasons he makes the videos is to try and convince studios that they shouldn't just resort to padding and pandering when making kids movies, when great and memorable films could be made instead.
The Nostalgia Chick went on a similar rant at the end of her "Worst Disney Sequels" review, saying that it was negligent parenting to not care how idiotic your child's entertainment is.
SF Debris brings up this trope in his review of the Doctor Who episode "Fear Her". He parodies this, by stating that those who will be offended that he tears this episode a new one are not the intended audience (which was similar to Matthew Graham shrugging off the criticism of the episode itself), points out the flaws of this attempted deflection of criticism, and points out that his own children didn't like the episode, finding it boring.
Used to counter complaints about Family Guy, as it's a show that "doesn't have to try and have morals or life lessons to be learned. It's supposed to be funny above all else."
This argument is not altogether unfamiliar in comedy but it doesn't work too well with, for instance, episodes that are message heavy at the expense of humor like "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven"
In-Universe on South Park with Chinpokomon, a Show Within a Show that the boys like. After watching an episode Randy notes that it's not horribly violent or vulgar, but Sharon objects that it's incredibly stupid, which could do just as much damage to a child's psyche. It's also brainwashing them to bomb Pearl Harbor, but that's a different problem.
Zero Punctuation: In his review of Batman: Arkham Asylum, Yahtzee, while generally favourable to the game, criticised the writing. He acknowledged that one could argue that you shouldn't expect much from a game based on a comic book, but then immediately countered that with the argument that just because it's a comic book, it doesn't mean that it has to have bad writing.