"A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target."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 (a common alternative seems to be "Just turn your brain off and enjoy it"). Depending on the case, this defense can be 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 and even (or especially) if the criticism is not without merit. The first problem with this defense is that it is on the surface quite paradoxical; a bad movie does not cease to be bad just 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 these films 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, Parody 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. Knowing the differences between Fact Opinion Argument will also help.
open/close all folders
- 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.
Films — Live-Action
- Kevin Smith:
- Said that Jersey Girl wasn't for critics.
- 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 Johanson on the film adaptation of Marmaduke:
Johanson: 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 this mindset.
- When someone wrote in to Roger Ebert that he should've given The Mummy Returns a pass because it was just summer fluff, he responded that there's still a difference between good summer fluff and bad summer fluff, using the first film (which he adored) as an example of the former, and Returns an example of the latter.
- 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.
- The Room was immediately panned as one of the worst movies of all time when initially released. After it became extremely popular as a So Bad, It's Good film, writer/director/producer/star Tommy Wiseau started saying that he always intended it to be a black comedy, which doesn't exactly work as the funniest scenes in the film are clearly intended to be serious, including Tommy's ""You are tearing me apart, Lisa!", a character casually dropping that she has breast cancer, only to be ignored, one actor being switched out for another, and even the sex scenes.
- 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.
- A very common defense of Sucker Punch.
- 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." Which, in cases where the target demographic actually hated it this comes across as quite insulting.
- The Michael Bay Transformers movies get this a lot, with complaints about their humor, characters, plot, and so on met with, "Look we're just here to see giant robots beat each other up, what do you expect?". Granted, "We're just here to see giant robots beat each other up!" is also a major complaint against the humor, characters and plot. The production crew have in fact outright admitted that their goal is not to rival other movies that may be released around the same time as the Transformers flicks, but to provide an alternative for fun free-time activities such as theme-park rides.
- Every film that Adam Sandler has ever made save for Punch-Drunk Love, Reign Over Me and Funny People.
- When promoting Return to The Blue Lagoon, Milla Jovovich told reporters that the film was meant for teenagers, not critics.
- 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".
- A Swedish movie reviewer rated the fourth The Fast and the Furious movie four out of five. While he didn't think the movie's plot was anything to write home about, he felt that this was unimportant since the plot's not why people go to see this kind of movie anyway.
- Print ads for David Spade's Joe Dirt touted "0 Golden Globe Nominations!"
- Many Christian filmmakers tend to use the notion that critics don't get the heart of their faith- based movies, especially taking into account that their target audiences responded much more favorably to them. A noted exception to this rule was Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, where his attempt to ask audiences to endorse it in response to a critical backlash only resulted in the audience backlashing as well.
- In the documentary Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy makes an argument of this nature about the quality of acting in pornography. While he acknowledges that the acting in his movies probably isn't on the level of Lawrence Olivier, he points out that Lawrence Olivier was never actually having sex with any of his co-stars while he was trying to act.
- Lost Highway advertised Siskel and Ebert's "two thumbs down" review as "Two more great reasons to see" it. This is in spite of the fact that Lost Highway is an divisive avant garde film by David Lynch rather than cheap schlock by a hack filmmaker aiming for a quick buck.
- 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. Now its spin-off, Sam & Cat is receiving the exact same criticism — and ironically enough being compared as a pale imitation of iCarly.
- 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 S.H.I.E.L.D., said the show's disappointed viewership shouldn't be expecting so much, because it's a TV show being compared to movies. It doesn't have the same budget and it works in a different medium.
- The Muppets fansite Tough Pigs received criticism for its negative review of Jim Henson's Mother Goose Stories, with the point being that the Tough Pigs crew were adults looking at a show aimed at young children. They replied that no-one ever used that defense for Sesame Street or Fraggle Rock, because they didn't have to; those shows were good.
- 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 Playstation 3 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, criticized the plot as a case of They Just Didn't Care since it doesn't have anywhere near the quality of context and narrative of it's predecessor that served to contrast and semi-justify the batshit insanity, making it that much more fun and rewarding. The Third was an incoherent mess in comparison. Saints Row IV, thankfully, returned to reasonably good writing.
- 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 III but now tends to be Guild Wars 2). The oft-repeated Word of God is that TL2 is simply meant to be an all-round improvement over TL1 and a testbed for some MMO concepts that interest the developers.
- Fans of Duke Nukem Forever often use this defense against the game's many critics. Enough that several critics wrote special editorials addressing it.
- Goat Simulator is a prominent example that's deliberately So Bad, It's Good, which some critics were fine with.
- Defenders of Enchanted Arms justly referenced this trope when it got attacked by critics complaining that it had a linear storyline, and strategic combat, both of which are perfectly standard for a jRPG. So their complaints boiled down to that it was a jRPG that played like a jRPG, instead of playing like a western RPG. Penny Arcade, of course, was on scene.
- PAYDAY 2 had gained a lot of criticism for producing DLC that makes the game look and feel more like Team Fortress 2 or Saints Row in regards to over the top weapons (flamethrowers, rocket launchers, katanas, etc.) and silly heists (stealing goats, forcing grown men in Christmas elf costumes to make coke, etc.), saying that the game has become too silly and not serious like the first game was built upon. Fans defending the game say that PAYDAY 2 is not meant to be taken seriously since it's a video game and not a movie.
- Zero Punctuation: In his review of Batman: Arkham Asylum, Yahtzee, while generally favorable to the game, criticized 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.
- The Spoony Experiment:
- The Spoony One acknowledges this in his Twilight 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.
- The Nostalgia Critic:
- The Critic passes the low quality of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show and The Legend of Zelda cartoon off on the fact that they were intended for children; however he does comment that just because something is for kids doesn't really give its makers an excuse to be lazy with it.
- 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) and that the children resolve the conflict themselves.
- In his review of A Troll in Central Park, he claims 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.
- Mike and Jay sarcastically invoked this trope when reviewing Movie 43 for Half in the Bag.
- 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.
- The Cinema Snob addressed this in his review of The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure, citing that "a small child will probably like it, in that they'd like anything with bright colors; but that doesn't mean that's all you have to show them!" He then goes on to add "as education, it teaches nothing, as a comedy, it's lowbrow, and as a potential franchise; it's cyncial and manufactured as hell!"
It's the kind of movie a parent would show their child when they have zero respect for them; but it's the kind of movie an internet series would feature because we have no respect for ourselves.
- Caddicarus addresses this in his review of Dalmatians 3, where at one point, he notes that some might call his review unfair, due to it being for kids, to which he immediately objects, since, while kids are easy to entertain, they are not stupid.
- Parodied in Epic Rap Battles of History when Michael Bay crashes a battle between Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino, and Stanley Kubrick in his signature style:
- 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". At the same time, much criticism comes from people inherently against the use of Overly Long Gags used as Padding.
- South Park:
- In-Universe 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 whole different can of worms.
- Later, we have The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs, which directly addresses this, using the offensive book as a stand-in for South Park itself, saying that it uses Vulgar Humor just because it's funny, and that there aren't any hidden morals or messages in it.
- The typical argument used by Ultimate Spider-Man's creators, especially, Man of Action Studios, to defend the show against the many complains about its lack of quality, is that it's intended to be a kid's show. Usually, this kind of argument only results in the fans being even more pissed off. As Brian Michael Bendis pointed out, the show does quite well with younger demographics, who are Disney's target audience to begin with. The adult fans complaining on the message boards aren't the ones Disney and the toy companies are after, which is sadly one of the reasons The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes! (which did well with adults but not as well with kids) was not renewed.
- Teen Titans Go! by many adults, especially the fans of the original Teen Titans. The creators have even said multiple times that even they think the show is dumb, but it's OK because "it is for kids". Cartoon Network's constantly stating that this is now "your new favorite show" doesn't help.
- Another In-Universe example comes from Season 2 of Bojack Horseman, where Abe, the newly-assigned director for Secretariat, opts to only ever do one take because "Hey, we're not making Casablanca." Unfortunately, he meant it as a Literal Metaphor, in that they literally weren't making Casablanca, and thus takes offense when Bojack expresses this sentiment and insults Abe's work in doing so.