Pet Peeves When Talking About Cinema, Vol. II

[Sven]

Okay, so last July, some may remember that I started a thread that received a bit of attention and caused some contention wherein I outline a few of my pet peeves (and others contributed their own) when talking about movies with others. You can find that thread here:

http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1037

Lately, it seems like spirits around here have been much more mean-spirited and labored than they were even a year ago. More snark, less specificity. Lots of bluster with little substance. Maybe it's just me getting older, newbs getting younger, people growing tired of the Internet (I know I am, but it is very hard to keep myself from using it as a distraction... maybe that's it: maybe I've started thinking of it less as a useful tool and more as a televisionesque time-waster--hmm...). I thought it would be fun/interesting to outline a few more peeves/frustrations, this time many of them will be very specific, as a way of exorcising my growing frustration with flaring internet tempers. I don't know how it logically follows that if I feel it has become too mean around here, contributing obnoxious things will help. Rather bass-ackwards, no?

Still, I'm doing it. Right now. These are not ranked. As always, feel free to contribute.

[Ezee E]

I think the "mean"ness around here could be attributed to five posters or so.

But, that's beyond the list. I look forward to hearing some more.

An annoying trait to me is that people talk about how Hollywood has run out of ideas, but the minute a sequel or reboot is announced, it gets plenty of discussion on the boards, while many others are completely overlooked or ignored.

[Sycophant]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

[Sven]

When Somebody Poorly, Incorrectly, or Stupidly Argues A Position That You Share



I do not like the film Knocked Up. However, I don't dislike it because it is vaguely conservative. There are more people than should be the case (IRL, peeps) who, when the film and my opinion of it have been the subject of conversation, jump to the assumption that the film's moral instruction of Rogen's character is my beef. I have to spend more time than should be the case debunking that, noting that it's not my intention to criticize Apatow's half-assed hurrah for familial values.

Please, if Maltin liked RoboCop because it was "slick, slam-bang action entertainment," do not assume that echoes the extent of my own appreciation. Please.

[Sycophant]

I like Knocked Up, but I toooooootally know where you're coming from there. Amen.

[Sven]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

Oh, please feel free, though, when you're ready. One of the reasons I dislike starting threads is because I fear they would be too Sven-centric.

And yeah, the whole "causing problems" thing was a worry, but I think I'm at the point where if a problem is caused, I can easily bow out of here.

[Mara]

I started something like this the other night, with examples of my peeves. But decided not to post it for fear of just causing problems.

Don't want to post too much in here just yet, for fear of stepping on your toes.

Geez, you don't have to be such a jerk about it. Aggressive much. You must be one of those five mean people.

[Amnesiac]

One of the more prominent 'problems' is the needlessly condescending replies and/or mean spirited remarks erupting out of nowhere, or simply from a difference of opinion. Most of these differences could be discussed comfortably, without name calling or ad hominems, but that doesn't always end up being the case. This place doesn't have to be a utopia of perfect manners and civility but sometimes things get a touch out of hand.

Also, sometimes I feel like there is a bit too much superciliousness around here. Sometimes people present their superciliousness in a facetious fashion and they end up coming off as pretty decent and humorous. Other people seem a little more serious about that attitude. And I have my suspicions about certain people who seem to be going out of their way to never rep anyone. Not that this is terribly important, and some people may just not care about that feature, but I sometimes feel like its a subtle expression of spite. :lol:

My two cents. Hopefully not contentious. I should note that these 'problems' do not cripple this forum and I find it to be the best and friendliest of any forum I've come across. Not that I'm a message-board expert or anything but there happen to be some genuinely nice, intelligent people here who are consistently civil and don't constantly dive into any snobbish priggery.

[Sven]

The last paragraph of the first entry brings me to (obvious one):

Thrill-words/-phrases That Mean Nothing/Quote Whoring



I don't know what else to call them. Things like "slam-bang," "kickass," "explosive," "high octane," and "ride" variations like "thrill ride," "fun ride," "roller coaster ride," etc. They are terrible wastes of space and whenever I see anything like these in a review, I stop reading. Does that make me snooty? Maybe. But it's the kind of snooty that I don't mind being.

Look at this site. Your blood will boil. Note: if you're worried about boiled blood, do not look at this site.

[Qrazy]

High Octane never gets old for me. All the other quote whoring however was born old and should presumably die old rather soon.

[D_Davis]

This thread is wack-a-licious, packing a powerful one-two punch of personal pet peeves.

[Mara]

For awhile, in the mid-nineties, it seemed like the nonsense word that critics used to praise action films was "kinetic." Why not just say, "stuff moves" and get it over with?

[Sven]

This thread is wack-a-licious, packing a powerful one-two punch of personal pet peeves.

I wish more critics would use "wack-a-licious"

[Sven]

For awhile, in the mid-nineties, it seemed like the nonsense word that critics used to praise action films was "kinetic." Why not just say, "stuff moves" and get it over with?

That is a tough one because the word is so overused. But there really are methods of kineticism in cinema out there that are so interesting and worth exploring.

Explosion and motorcycles does not automatically = kinetic, critics.

[Dukefrukem]

Really I feel the opposite? People are nicer to me at least.

[Amnesiac]

I think unconventional (or is it pretentious?) word use irks everyone but a lot of those same irked people like to employ 'fancy words' themselves. It's just kind of annoying to see someone else tap into some really purple prose because one just tends to get irritated with such overt showiness for one reason or another. But it's a contradictory irritation, ultimately, because most likely enjoy fleshing out their own vocabulary and aiming towards a writing style that isn't too banal or pedestrian, and this is a good thing... but selecting words (and when to use them) is a very delicate procedure, and while it's certainly beneficial to broaden one's vocabulary, exercising certain words can sometimes make you look brazenly ostentatious. There are also certain words that work when typed but can't really be uttered in person.

[D_Davis]

I wish more critics would use "wack-a-licious"

The best thing about that word is that is can mean both good and bad.

[Derek]

When Somebody Poorly, Incorrectly, or Stupidly Argues A Position That You Share

I do not like the film Knocked Up. However, I don't dislike it because it is vaguely conservative. There are more people than should be the case (IRL, peeps) who, when the film and my opinion of it have been the subject of conversation, jump to the assumption that the film's moral instruction of Rogen's character is my beef. I have to spend more time than should be the case debunking that, noting that it's not my intention to criticize Apatow's half-assed hurrah for familial values.

Are you suggesting that arguing the film's conservatism and "moral instruction" is a poor, incorrect or stupidly argued position?

[Dukefrukem]

The last paragraph of the first entry brings me to (obvious one):

Thrill-words/-phrases That Mean Nothing/Quote Whoring



I don't know what else to call them. Things like "slam-bang," "kickass," "explosive," "high octane," and "ride" variations like "thrill ride," "fun ride," "roller coaster ride," etc. They are terrible wastes of space and whenever I see anything like these in a review, I stop reading. Does that make me snooty? Maybe. But it's the kind of snooty that I don't mind being.

Look at this site. Your blood will boil. Note: if you're worried about boiled blood, do not look at this site.

and yes it does make you snooty.

[D_Davis]

But it's lame, ultimately, because most likely enjoy fleshing out their own vocabulary and aiming towards a writing style that isn't too dumb, and this is a good thing... but selecting words (and when to use them) is neat, and while it's certainly good to be good, using certain words can sometimes make you look lame. There are also certain words that work when typed but can't really be said in person.

fixed.

[Sven]

Yes, another peeve of mine that will not get a feature is when people complain about pretentious word choice. It's like you're criticizing someone for trying to be specific and unique. Sure it's weird and sometimes a bit too showy, but I hardly think it's productive to pick on that. Focus on the ideas and if the words adequately communicate the ideas, why complain?

[Amnesiac]

fixed.

:lol: Yeah, I was aware of the slight irony of that post. But, like I mentioned, I ultimately promote the broadening of one's vocabulary... it just happens to be a little grating and showy sometimes.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, another peeve of mine that will not get a feature is when people complain about pretentious word choice. It's like you're criticizing someone for trying to be specific and unique. Sure it's weird and sometimes a bit too showy, but I hardly think it's productive to pick on that. Focus on the ideas and if the words adequately communicate the ideas, why complain?

That doesn't fall under this?

[Eleven]

I laughed, I cried, I was supercilious.

[Sven]

Are you suggesting that arguing the film's conservatism and "moral instruction" is a poor, incorrect or stupidly argued position?

Argh. I knew I didn't do that one right. Of course not (and I would hope that at this point you would know that I'm not so dismissive). That's just an example of me being an inadequate writer. If I could somehow rewrite that entry to include "coming from a different ideological perspective."

The gist is that I feel irritated when I feel like somebody has become a proxy voice for my own opinions, but that they're coming at it from either an uninformed or entirely oppositional stance as my own. I guess it's similar to the way leftists must've felt they were perceived by the world during the Bush administration.