I never liked the term Guilty Pleasure. To me it means you like something that the media or geek groupthink says you should not, and that you must excuse and explain yourself to others for no good reason. Art is subjective and their is no right or wrong opinion regarding art. I agree with the article and do not find the 1-3 guilty pleasures at all, I find them to be good films.
I remember on That Guys With The Glasses forum, I once posted that TPM is over-hyped as being bad (ie anti-hyped). One fellow tried to correct me, stating how he likes TPM despite the “fact” it’s total garbage and deserves the insults. I then corrected him by saying it is only his opinion that TPM is garbage and is not a fact, that I find it to be a good film.
Yeah, I have a real love-hate relationship with TGWTG, Nostalgia Critic in particular. He’s fair with his criticism on almost everything else, and yet he jumps on the Lucas hatewagon.
I think that if you are going for something specific and fail, then it does count as objectively bad. Otherwise, it’s totally subjective. There’s no such thing as a bad style. A bad message, a failed attempt, sure. But a bad style? Never.
Your decription of this guy perfectly fits this translation and is quite common:
“I openly liked them before. Then I was brainwashed by RLM progaganda video. Now I’m still in love with them secretly but declare them ‘bad’ on internet forums.”
Really, people are so easily manipulable.
How objective or subjective is art? Good question (and I do not think we should discuss this here. Still, my 2 cents ):
I think art is neither completely objective (“There is a set of undisputed axioms for art, and according to the rules derived from these axioms, Ep. 0 is a good film.”) nor completely subjective (“You think it is bad, I think it is good… We cannot discuss why because it’s completely subjective.”) It’s not clear cut; one example is also that we may talk of “best film of the year” (if we want to be as objective as possible – we think the movie had best acting, best script/story/…) and “my favorite film of the year” (rather subjective – “I liked the story… maybe not the best, but it mirrored a situation I had to endure in my life…”)
We should not forget why we’re here: not only because we think the PT are a set of good films, but mainly because we like them.
To finish this off-topic intermezzo: I want to paraphrase a blogger who told me what he considers a good movie review:
1. An honest article. Do not write a bad review just to gain clicks etc.
2. Explain why you think the movie is good/bad/fails at what it wants to achieve etc. (Or at least try to.) Maybe your reader will share your opinion, maybe not, but at least he/she knows why you think what you think.
I have stopped going to that site between the decline in quality and how poorly moderated their forum is. TGWTG is an example of the online geek groupthink culture. A bunch of pseudo intellectuals getting in pissing matches with each other and group attacking anyone who doesn’t follow the geek gospel. It’s pretty much just a hangout for jerks anymore like most geek sites.
Just as Prince guessed, the poster is a RLM fan and thinks he is right, argured that art is objective, and stalks me over there. Thinks Lucas has no more right of control over Star Wars than EU writers. He also thinks Lucas is a good “idea man” but needs help to make good films and always talks down to everyone. Just alot of nonsense doubletalk to me.
Good point. The “Lucas needs help” argument is one of geec culture’s favourites. What’s funny about it is that the most extreme “Lucas needs help” posters are those who claim Gloria Katz and Wilard Huyck “saved” ANH’s script.
Now let’s guess what Lucasfilm production Katz and Huyck wrote?
Yes, Howard the Duck.
(fits Adam’s article )
Here is the haters’ twisted logic, when hit in the face with inconvenient facts that get in the way of their Lucas-bashing:
“ESB is the best of the SW movies because Lucas was only the Executive Producer and therefore had nothing to do with the script or direction. ANH’s script is only good because Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz worked on it.”
But wait, there’s more:
“‘Howard the Duck’ is bad because Lucas was heavily involved with it…he’s only credited as the Executive Producer, but he HAD to have something to do with the writing and direction, he always does on movies he’s the Executive Producer for.”
You can’t argue with those demented cretins. They always have a “reacharound” when someone dares puncture their balloons, never mind if it’s hypocritical or self-contradictory.
That’s it, maychild. They are always twisting things as they want.
Another example: They bring up Katz’ and Hyck’ (minor?) contribution to ANH’s script yet ignore Lucas’ two draft (and story) contribution to TESB’s script at the same time.
Why? I don’t get why these people need to demonize Lucas.
Why can’t they just accept that the man made some movies they liked and some movies they disliked?
I just don’t understand it.
But I guess it all comes down to their imagination or illusion of measuable “quality” in films.
They are in desperate search for “reasons”.
“Why can’t they just accept that the man made some movies they liked and some movies they disliked?”
Excellent question. Now, I do not have problems to discuss what GL’s best quality as a filmmaker is (every filmmaker has his strengths and weaknesses). However, the usual Lucas bashing (all that’s good in SW just has to come from someone else…) is rather annoying and – as you say – illogical.