Why "Quality" Is Overrated

This is an essay I wrote just for the hell of it a few months ago about film and objective quality, although it talks about other mediums as well. I feel that others see my posts as trolling sometimes, and I can honestly understand why. I'm not very good at showing my opinions and making clear arguments on forums. So I figured I'd post this, and I'll try and shut up afterwards.

As I said, I wrote this a few months ago, and I showed it to my academic adviser, who is a firm believer of objective quality in entertainment. She disagreed with a few parts, but she said she saw my point, and even said it was pretty damn well written. I wanted to see what you guys thought. Be brutally honest if you'd like.

On June 24th, 2009, a little film called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was released in cinemas all across the world. The film valued complex visuals over complex plot, created many explosions rather than genre-changing characters, and did not attempt to be anything more than an entertaining thrill-ride. Because of this, film critics, most of which value what they have christened “high art” over summer blockbusters, did not wait long to declare it “agonizing,” or “unbearable,” or even “worst film of the decade.” The director, Michael Bay, was called a hack of obscene proportions, and the movie went on to win the Razzie Award, the more negative mirror to the Oscars, for Worst Film of the Year. It also grossed over four hundred million domestically and over eight hundred million worldwide, proving that despite the critics’ attempts to keep people from seeing this movie, more than a few people must have enjoyed it. But to film buffs and critics of the cinema, the record-breaking grosses of the film didn’t matter. If any movie magazine or website even mentions this movie, it is generally in a negative way. If you bring up the movie to a self-proclaimed “film nerd,” you generally will want to run away, because he’ll attack you for daring to like such a horrific film.

Michael Bay’s apparent magnum opus for negativity is not alone. Nor is it only film that such an occurrence happens. The Harry Potter books, worldwide bestsellers and beloved by many a book fan, are generally thought by literary critics to have “shallow prose” and a “poor writing style,” even if they’ll admit J.K. Rowling to be a great storyteller. The entire bibliography of Dan Brown, especially The Da Vinci Code, is generally loathed by literary critics for being “poorly-written,” even though the book sold well over forty million copies and received a blockbuster film adaptation also loathed by critics. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is merely the best modern-day example of a critical dud becoming a box office smash.

To justify the huge financial successes of critically-despised works, critics and “high artists” have come up with a saying that we have all heard many times: “Quantity does not equal quality.” In other words, just because a movie grosses a lot, or a book sells a lot, does not mean it is any good. They have even come up with a term for those who actually like the pieces of entertainment they don’t like: the “lowest common denominator.” What this says is that if you like something that happened to be a financial success but a critical disappointment, you are like a sheep being led by the shepherd of crowds.

These phrases have done their job. Now in order to be taken seriously by literary critics or the Academy Awards, you have to create a piece of work that only they consider good. Whether or not the masses like it is irrelevant to them: what is purely, objectively, and factually “good” depends solely on the critics. The logic behind this is not entirely inefficient. A critic becomes a critic because he knows best about the work he judges, otherwise who would listen to him? Who would take him seriously?

However, there is one key component in this equation that makes the whole argument of “true art” and “objective quality” a logical fallacy: there is no such thing as objective quality. A work of entertainment is not a scientific theory: its value cannot be proven or disproven. To some a movie or a book can be well-made, and to others the same movie or book can be a total disaster. And yet the components of the work are the same for both parties. This is called “opinion.”

There are many ways to prove this. Let’s go back to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for a moment. Many critics wrote off the enormous success of the movie as “only being due to the countless explosions and flashy special effects.” And many film buffs agree. However, if the alleged “lowest common denominator” were truly only motivated by explosions and computer-generated imagery, wouldn’t every film with those components be as big of a hit as Transformers? There are countless attempts at recreating the success of those films, not all of them successful. In 2011, for instance, a film called Cowboys and Aliens was released. The trailers made clear what the movie had to offer: explosions, fancy computer-generated imagery, attractive women, and spectacle as its main focus. This is much like the advertising for the Transformers movies, and naturally, many expected it to be a big hit. It wasn’t. Cowboys and Aliens ended up just barely passing $100 million domestically on a $163 million budget, and not much more worldwide, officially labeling the film as a box office bomb. Another example would be 2010’s Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. While it did pass its massive $200 million budget worldwide, it didn’t even get to half of it domestically, and did not make enough money overall to secure a profit. It also happened to have lots of CGI, action, and attractive women in its advertising. Why didn’t it become a big hit like Transformers? If the critics’ logic is that the only reason the “lowest common denominator” goes to movies is to see explosions, action, and CGI, then why weren’t Cowboys and Aliens or Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time massive blockbusters? Clearly, mainstream audiences care for more than just action and spectacle.

So that’s one fallacy behind the “high artists” and critics’ logic. Another fallacy is the hypocrisy of their claims. Many a critic or high artist labels box office or book sales as meaningless to quality, and that the two never go hand in hand. Yet let’s look at another 2010 movie, Inception. The critics happened to love this one, and so did audiences, propelling it to massive success both domestically and worldwide. When it succeeded admirably, and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, which came out the same year, and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, another big-budget bomb that came out the same weekend, failed miserably, many critics and “true art” buffs labeled the reason why: the “objective” quality of Inception. Indeed, some critics said that more films like Inception would save the dropping box office sales of the film industry. Book examples are everywhere as well. Just look at the classics that have survived across the ages, such as Shakespeare’s work, or Charles Dickens’, or Mark Twains’, and so on. Why do people still talk about them and buy them after all these years, literary critics say? Because of their “objective” quality. So let’s review: these critics and lovers of “true art,” the ones who claim that box office and book sales mean nothing when it comes to quality, say that the reason the films and books they enjoy happen to become successes is due to their quality. You know, the thing they said has nothing to do with sales at all.

Why do critics do this? Well, honestly, the answer is because they’re human beings like we all are. They’re attempting to justify why the movies and books they like become big hits every now and then, and attempting to justify why the movies and books they don’t like become big hits as well. The problem is they’re being contradictory in their reasoning. But that’s what this whole stereotype they have about the alleged “lowest common denominator” is about: justification. If a work that critics declare is “objectively” bad becomes a huge smash, then they’d rather tell themselves that mainstream audiences are idiots rather than admit that perhaps there’s no such as thing as objective quality at all. Being a critic means that they apparently know the most about their field they critique, so naturally, most critics have a big head. It’s understandable certainly, as when you’re a critic, your whole job is having the power to convince complete strangers whether or not to see or buy a work. The problem arises when critics believe they’re right no matter what, and continue to use their fallacy-filled claims to support their reasons why.

This is why “quality” is overrated: it gives people a big head. If we lived in a world where all people actually believed that a work’s quality is entirely subjective and dependent on the viewer, then we wouldn’t be called “wrong” for liking a work that critics don’t. We wouldn’t be called “wrong” for hating a work that critics like. We wouldn’t do this, because people would know that there was no such as a work being objectively good and bad.

Now, I’m not saying that critics are completely useless. I’m merely suggesting an alteration on the way they critique. Let’s look at my favorite kind of critics, the ones that are by far the most helpful to me as well as many other people: the ones who review video games. Video game critics know that everything is subjective. Some people may prefer a first-person shooter over a casual puzzle game for instance, and others prefer it the other way around. So how do they review games? By explaining why or not it’s a good game for the people who enjoy that kind of game. There’s no bias between game genres for game critics. There’s no bias between gory action games or happy child-friendly ones. What matters to the critic is explaining why you should or should not get this game if you like this genre. If film and book critics were the same way, there’d be a lot less of this “objective quality” garbage. The reason why film critics think that summer blockbusters, romantic comedies, or other film genres are objectively bad is because they personally don’t like them. The reason why literary critics think that fantasy novels, tween romances, or other literary genres are objectively bad is because they personally don’t like them. If they were like video game critics, then they’d be a lot less pompous and more open to explaining why you’d like this book or movie if you like others of the same genre. Basically, what the whole original point of a critic is in the first place.

Fortunately, mainstream audiences generally don’t care what critics think and make their own decisions. After Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen came out and critics labeled it as the alleged “worst film ever,” many of them thought the third one would either bomb or not do nearly as well as the second, because they figured people hated the second one like they did and would avoid the third. They were wrong. Transformers: Dark of the Moon completely blew audiences’ expectations and went on to become the fourth-highest grossing movie of all time worldwide. But hey, mainstream audiences are idiots, right? Until they all flock to a movie that critics like too. Then they’re okay.

edited 17th Feb '12 5:31:35 AM by Extreme64

Damn. That basically summed up my entire viewpoint on entertainment. Have an .

THANK YOU

Prince of Persia failed more for the fact that it was a video game adaptation. In the past, only one video game movie had grossed over $100 million (Lara Croft Tomb Raider). Disney spending $200 million on one and trying to scream that they were going to avert Video Game Movies Suck was a stupid idea.

Also, any chance of the film working failed when the trailer showed Jake Gyllenhaal bungee jumping in ancient times.

Wow I mean just wow. That was perfect. A Crowning essay of

edited 16th Feb '12 11:11:23 PM by JRPictures

(applause)

Unfortunately even game reviewers are far from immune from this.

I don't agree, completely at least, but I'm with your academic advisor on this one. You make some very good points.

Support.

One of the reasons that I think videogame reviewers/critics are better at it is the obvious difference in genres and the rules there of. They may have a rigid set of criteria for what they consider good, but at least they use different criteria for different genres. And they're generally up front about this too.

edited 17th Feb '12 5:02:04 AM by Deboss

Except when they don't. *coughAlphaProtocolcough*

That's developers thinking that gameplay genre blending is the same as plot genre blending.

In any case you have made a very convincing argument on why critics can be hypocrites sometimes. As to why movies like Film/Transformers make so much money, I think that there are several more factors that critics miss. For instance, movie-goers may not always care about quality and just want some escapism. There is also the concept of seeing a movie for the "spectacle" — really good special effects (James Cameron is a master at exploiting this). Then there is always the fact that some movies are just marketed better than others. Not to mention that Transformermers was an adaptation of a popular cartoon, so it already had a dedicated fanbase before it hit the screen.

For the record, I saw Cowboys And Aliens, Prince of Persia, and Revenge of the Fallen; all in theaters. I liked the first, I thought the second was So Okay, It's Average, and I didn't like the third, although I thought it was better than the first Transformers

Moods are such an odd thing to predict.

Different people feel differently about things.

Shocking, I know.

See, the problem with this argument that I have, is that it basically throws the entire idea of hardwork, care, and a genuine understandg of storytelling out the window. Why bother putting effort into something when the very idea of "quality" means nothing?

I didn't say quality means nothing, or that quality doesn't exist. It's absolute, objective, unanimous quality that does not exist when it comes to film. You can work to please a certain demographic, and for them you can make quality. But you can't please everyone. And if your not in the work's demographic, or you don't like its genre or whatever, you have no basis to judge it by this "objective quality." That's what this is about. Far too often I've seen critics who judge works in a genre that they clearly have a bias against, and then treat it as if its objectively bad because of that. And far too often I've seen people LISTEN to critics as the true word of what's "good and bad" in entertainment. That's why I wrote this.

Oh, and thanks everyone for the mostly positive responses. I was honestly not expecting that. I was incredibly nervous posting this, and I'm glad to see that even the people who don't agree with me at least see my point.

My problem with the essay is that you seem to have a rather stereotypical view of movie critics, one that doesn't represent reality at all, in my opinion. Movie critics are not people who only watch french arthouse films and scoff at the plebs. That might have been somewhat true several decades ago, but it's selling modern criticism way short, especially movie criticism.

Also, don't conflate movie critics with awards voters. There is some overlap of opinion, but especially the Academy Awards are usually not a good guide to what the most critically acclaimed movies of the year were.

edited 17th Feb '12 12:23:29 PM by 0Emmanuel

Yeah, I wasn't alive several decades ago, and thus I have no clue how the critics were back then. But I can see how they are now. And maybe not ALL critics are like that, but certainly the most prominent ones, such as Roger Ebert, seem to be. And I didn't just make up some of these statistics, like the ones about there needing to be more films like Inception or the stuff about people loving Transformers only due to the explosions or the special effects: I actually read articles by movie critics that said some of those exact words. Admittedly I should have cited them a bit better, however.

No, all of this information is from seeing what movie critics or film buffs have done or said about recent movies. Perhaps some of it is stereotypical, as I do sort of have a grudge against them for turning the film industry into a sort of oligarchy. But seriously, the more I see the things movie critics, the modern ones, say or do, the less respect I have for them. As for the literary critics stuff, I'm an English major at my school, and thus I see views like this all the time. That line about Harry Potter being shallow and poorly-written was directly from one of my professors. I'm dead serious.

^^^ Ah. I see, I just have a tendency to roll my eyes when I see certain arguments against certain mainstream critics. Your argument was fairly well thought out, though one COULD make an argument against it, if they can explain IF there is such a thing as unaminous quality.

You are entitled to believe this, of course. You come across as a troll because you bring this point up in threads that have nothing to do with it in order to invalidate the opinions of people who dislike things you like, and because you state your opinions as undeniable truths with the implication that you are always right because of your unsurpassed knowledge of film.

You don't have any qualms about stating your opinions on quality as objective facts. You don't see a contradiction there?

edited 17th Feb '12 11:47:20 PM by jewelleddragon

You are referring to one post I made, and the only "opinion" I ever stated as fact in that post, or in any post, is the fact that a movie's quality is a matter of opinion. And the threads I have posted my thoughts on this matter have not just been people bashing movies I like. It's their opinion; they are just as entitled to hate them as I am to like them. What I say this to are the times they talk as if it's objective fact that these movies are bad.

EDIT: Nope.

edited 20th Feb '12 12:41:38 PM by Extreme64

I'd say a similar problem is that rather than using preference to judge standards, some critics simply state that an objective standard (such as the absence of specific tropes) constitutes a good film. For example, Deus ex Machina.

I definitely agree with your stance that there should be specialized critics for different genres—it'd at least even out the critical consensus for a lot of things that got unabashedly bashed for merely not being the the right genre for certain critics. I still believe in movies having objective quality/lack thereof, though, but for the most part just within their respective genres.

Hmm. I don't think that every film has objective quality or even most of them. Some do. The rest have subjective quality going on the point of view of the individual viewer.

I'd say that you can objectively measure a film's storytelling, characterisation, dialogue and film making (by which I mean the technical stuff and how well edited it is etc). The subjective quality of film I guess would be whether you enjoy a film because of or in spite of the film's objective qualities.

IMO, Transformers is terrible in regards to all of these things. I don't think anyone can genuinely say Transformers' storytelling, characterisation, dialogue or film qualities are on par with stuff like Citizen Kane or Once Upon a Time in the West but I guess you can still enjoy the film as much as or more than those other films due to your own subjective tastes.

That's just my opinion anyway, feel free to explain how wrong I am.

edited 18th Feb '12 12:48:30 AM by ShadowScythe