|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 2:12:24 GMT
Exactly. Really, both probably usually amount to, "Films I like and I want to say that I like even though I have the sort of friends who'll give me shit for liking certain things." I have enjoyed movies that are awful because of how awful they are, but I don't like them. I simply find them hilarious in their awfulness. I am not talking about critical or public opinion or what someone else will think of me, I am talking about me wtching a movie and thinking it is so awful it is entertaining. Those are movies I consider "so bad they are good." They aren't actually good. Okay, but insofar as you are enjoying them or finding them hilarious, it would make no sense to say that they're bad. You like whatever aspects you're being entertained by. Otherwise it would suggest that you don't understand how these words conventionally work in English. |
|
|
|
Post by Flynn on Aug 1, 2017 3:41:03 GMT
I have enjoyed movies that are awful because of how awful they are, but I don't like them. I simply find them hilarious in their awfulness. I am not talking about critical or public opinion or what someone else will think of me, I am talking about me wtching a movie and thinking it is so awful it is entertaining. Those are movies I consider "so bad they are good." They aren't actually good. Okay, but insofar as you are enjoying them or finding them hilarious, it would make no sense to say that they're bad. You like whatever aspects you're being entertained by. Otherwise it would suggest that you don't understand how these words conventionally work in English. I think you are having trouble understanding the fluid concept of the word "bad." This discussion of "so bad it's good" reminded me of an old THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode where the hosts discuss the concept of a fiasco, which is a related phenomenon. It's a hilarious episode. Here's the link if you are curious: www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/61/fiascoTo say that a film is "so bad it's good" means that the characteristics one normally considers to be detriments to quality filmmaking (e.g., bad acting, poor dialogue, music that's wrong for the scene, jarring cinematography, clunky or obvious special effects, odd discontinuity, etc.) have stopped being a detriment and have rebounded to become the attraction themselves. It doesn't mean that the film can't be appreciated on its own merits, simply that there is a sect of people who like it for its flaws, or that the flaws make the film more enjoyable to watch than if they weren't there in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Flynn on Aug 1, 2017 3:51:07 GMT
That is because you are taking the term too literally.
Nobody actually feels guilty or ashamed of liking any movie (I hope), the term is usually applied to movies a person knows are bad but likes anyways.
You've done a nice job of explaining what a guilty pleasure is. I agree with almost everything you've said. The only thing I think I would take issue with is your comment to leeslim. I think the scenario he or she described could fit into a definition of guilty pleasure if we broaden the definition slightly to include films one would be reticent to admit enjoying (to a particular group of people). I don't think a movie has to be bad to be a guilty pleasure. If someone who has a reputation for being a thug would feel nervous about admitting that he liked CITIZEN KANE because it would make him look too intellectual, then I still think it could be a guilty pleasure. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 3:55:22 GMT
Okay, but insofar as you are enjoying them or finding them hilarious, it would make no sense to say that they're bad. You like whatever aspects you're being entertained by. Otherwise it would suggest that you don't understand how these words conventionally work in English. I think you are having trouble understanding the fluid concept of the word "bad." This discussion of "so bad it's good" reminded me of an old THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode where the hosts discuss the concept of a fiasco, which is a related phenomenon. It's a hilarious episode. Here's the link if you are curious: www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/61/fiascoTo say that a film is "so bad it's good" means that the characteristics one normally considers to be detriments to quality filmmaking (e.g., bad acting, poor dialogue, music that's wrong for the scene, jarring cinematography, clunky or obvious special effects, odd discontinuity, etc.) have stopped being a detriment and have rebounded to become the attraction themselves. It doesn't mean that the film can't be appreciated on its own merits, simply that there is a sect of people who like it for its flaws, or that the flaws make the film more enjoyable to watch than if they weren't there in the first place. The problem with that is that if you're getting enjoyment from the acting in a particular work, say, then it doesn't make sense to say that you feel the acting is bad in that situation. It might be different than the acting that you normally like, but that just suggests that you don't yet have a full picture of the acting that you like. In at least certain contexts, it would be the case that you like acting like y rather than x. Maybe it's that in some contexts you like acting that you believe is very oddly off the mark of what you believe the filmmakers' intentions were. In that situation, we'd need to clarify whether it's actually the odd acting that you're enjoying, in which case we'd need to expand your understanding of the range of acting that you enjoy, or whether it's simply that you enjoy the idea of someone being so off base re their intentions, in which case we might end to clarify that you're not actually enjoying the acting, you're enjoying something else (the notion of being so incompetently off base re intentions relative to the results of that), or some combination of both. But whatever it is that you're actually enjoying, it wouldn't make sense to say that those aspects are bad in your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 1, 2017 3:58:55 GMT
I can see how some people came up with that term though. like if a movie is considered bad (or might be sorta that "so bad, it's good" sorta thing) and you like it.
but at the same time... if i like a movie it's can't really be truly "bad" as truly bad movies are movies i actually dislike and won't re-watch etc.
like i imagine Showgirls (1995) would be a movie that some would label with that 'guilty pleasure' thing as it's amongst my Top 197 movies but only has a 4.6/10 average rating which is quite low. in fact, it's the only movie below a 5.x/10 average that i consider a favorite.
so at the end of the day... i pretty much agree with the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagenesse on Aug 1, 2017 5:28:29 GMT
Why be embarresed about things you like, i mean If it makes you happy, then you shouldn't be ashamed of it. Feel free to tell me how wrong i am. I'm with you on this one. I've never gotten the "guilty" part of it either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 11:34:16 GMT
The problem with that is that if you're getting enjoyment from the acting in a particular work, say, then it doesn't make sense to say that you feel the acting is bad in that situation. It might be different than the acting that you normally like, but that just suggests that you don't yet have a full picture of the acting that you like. In at least certain contexts, it would be the case that you like acting like y rather than x. Maybe it's that in some contexts you like acting that you believe is very oddly off the mark of what you believe the filmmakers' intentions were. In that situation, we'd need to clarify whether it's actually the odd acting that you're enjoying, in which case we'd need to expand your understanding of the range of acting that you enjoy, or whether it's simply that you enjoy the idea of someone being so off base re their intentions, in which case we might end to clarify that you're not actually enjoying the acting, you're enjoying something else (the notion of being so incompetently off base re intentions relative to the results of that), or some combination of both. But whatever it is that you're actually enjoying, it wouldn't make sense to say that those aspects are bad in your opinion. Watch The Room and you'll understand how bad acting can be considered enjoyable at the same time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 11:52:31 GMT
Why be embarresed about things you like, i mean If it makes you happy, then you shouldn't be ashamed of it. Feel free to tell me how wrong i am. I don't really get the term either. There might be movies/shows I wouldn't necessarily admit to enjoying, but I don't feel guilty at all about enjoying things that aren't considered good. Because most of the time I obviously disagree with those critics and do see the merits. Just because some blockbuster action movie isn't Oscar material, doesn't make it bad. Movies I do agree are bad, I usually don't enjoy. But in cases that I do, I enjoy them precisely because they're bad or cheesy. Think of The Room or JC Van Damme movies like Timecop or Sudden Death or those Lifetime movies or even a soap. I don't feel guilty about that, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 12:15:31 GMT
The problem with that is that if you're getting enjoyment from the acting in a particular work, say, then it doesn't make sense to say that you feel the acting is bad in that situation. It might be different than the acting that you normally like, but that just suggests that you don't yet have a full picture of the acting that you like. In at least certain contexts, it would be the case that you like acting like y rather than x. Maybe it's that in some contexts you like acting that you believe is very oddly off the mark of what you believe the filmmakers' intentions were. In that situation, we'd need to clarify whether it's actually the odd acting that you're enjoying, in which case we'd need to expand your understanding of the range of acting that you enjoy, or whether it's simply that you enjoy the idea of someone being so off base re their intentions, in which case we might end to clarify that you're not actually enjoying the acting, you're enjoying something else (the notion of being so incompetently off base re intentions relative to the results of that), or some combination of both. But whatever it is that you're actually enjoying, it wouldn't make sense to say that those aspects are bad in your opinion. Watch The Room and you'll understand how bad acting can be considered enjoyable at the same time. I haven't seen The Room yet, but I've seen lots of movies that people call "so bad they're good." I've watched tons and tons of older, very low-budget, outsider etc. horror, SciFi and so on. For a while I even used the "so bad it's good" phrase myself. But then I realized that it makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 12:16:55 GMT
Why be embarresed about things you like, i mean If it makes you happy, then you shouldn't be ashamed of it. Feel free to tell me how wrong i am. I don't really get the term either. There might be movies/shows I wouldn't necessarily admit to enjoying, but I don't feel guilty at all about enjoying things that aren't considered good. Because most of the time I obviously disagree with those critics and do see the merits. Just because some blockbuster action movie isn't Oscar material, doesn't make it bad. Movies I do agree are bad, I usually don't enjoy. But in cases that I do, I enjoy them precisely because they're bad or cheesy. Think of The Room or JC Van Damme movies like Timecop or Sudden Death or those Lifetime movies or even a soap. I don't feel guilty about that, though. But then you don't necessarily dislike cheesiness, which means that you don't think that's bad. Lots of people love (at least some) cheesiness. I'm one of them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 14:57:18 GMT
I just think it means, you have a standard for something, whether it's a film, a book, anything.
You know this particular 'thing' you like isn't very good by those standards, and everyone else pretty much agrees, yet you like it in spite of things you would otherwise not like it.
It happens sometimes, you don't know why, but something connects with you, even if you are aware of why it's not good by most standards.
The difference is, you like something, and you don't understand why others don't like it. That is when you shouldn't be ashamed of what you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 15:00:37 GMT
I just think it means, you have a standard for something, whether it's a film, a book, anything. You know this particular 'thing' you like isn't very good by those standards, and everyone else pretty much agrees, yet you like it in spite of things you would otherwise not like it. It happens sometimes, you don't know why, but something connects with you, even if you are aware of why it's not good by most standards. The difference is, you like something, and you don't understand why others don't like it. That is when you shouldn't be ashamed of what you like. But that just means that your standards don't very well reflect what you actually like. They need to be revised, given more nuance, qualified better. That's actually very important to do if you do any creative work. You want to understand as well as you can, in as much detail as you can, just what appeals to you or not and why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:09:09 GMT
Watch The Room and you'll understand how bad acting can be considered enjoyable at the same time. No i don`t understand how anybody can enjoy that movie, |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:10:20 GMT
I just think it means, you have a standard for something, whether it's a film, a book, anything. You know this particular 'thing' you like isn't very good by those standards, and everyone else pretty much agrees, yet you like it in spite of things you would otherwise not like it. It happens sometimes, you don't know why, but something connects with you, even if you are aware of why it's not good by most standards. The difference is, you like something, and you don't understand why others don't like it. That is when you shouldn't be ashamed of what you like. But that just means that your standards don't very well reflect what you actually like. They need to be revised, given more nuance, qualified better. That's actually very important to do if you do any creative work. You want to understand as well as you can, in as much detail as you can, just what appeals to you or not and why. That's not necessarily true. Sometime you like things because they remind you of childhood memories, or nostalgia. You sometimes associate an image, the look of a person, the sound of a song, the 'feel' of the mood etc... and you have a conditioned response to that particular film. I know I LOVE "Home Alone 3" and it's a guilty pleasure of mine. By NO MEANS does it fit my standards of what I think a GOOD film is. It's because the mom reminds me of my mom when I was a kid. I know that now. I didn't understand why I liked it so much before. Also, there are a few scenes that remind me of my childhood growing up, and the way the boy talks (accent). Looking back on it now, I know it's about as good as a Disney Channel Original Film, but I also understand why I loved it so much, it's association with specific details from my past, a conditioned response. I hear the kid talk, I see the mom, etc.. and it warms my heart. Nostalgia. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 15:17:32 GMT
But that just means that your standards don't very well reflect what you actually like. They need to be revised, given more nuance, qualified better. That's actually very important to do if you do any creative work. You want to understand as well as you can, in as much detail as you can, just what appeals to you or not and why. That's not necessarily true. Sometime you like things because they remind you of childhood memories, or nostalgia. You sometimes associate an image, the look of a person, the sound of a song, the 'feel' of the mood etc... and you have a conditioned response to that particular film. I know I LOVE "Home Alone 3" and it's a guilty pleasure of mine. By NO MEANS does it fit my standards of what I think a GOOD film is. It's because the mom reminds me of my mom when I was a kid. I know that now. I didn't understand why I liked it so much before. Also, there are a few scenes that remind me of my childhood growing up, and the way the boy talks (accent). Looking back on it now, I know it's about as good as a Disney Channel Original Film, but I also understand why I loved it so much, it's association with specific details from my past, a conditioned response. I hear the kid talk, I see the mom, etc.. and it warms my heart. Nostalgia. But then you'd simply not be very exact in your speech if you're saying that you like Home Alone 3. What you like is being reminded of your mom and specific things about your childhood. The movie is catalyzing that, but it's not the movie you're liking, it's the memories. We need to be specific about what we actually like and dislike. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:38:23 GMT
But then you don't necessarily dislike cheesiness, which means that you don't think that's bad. Lots of people love (at least some) cheesiness. I'm one of them. No, I don't think cheesiness is necessarily bad. But some movies or tv shows are too over the top in their cheesiness and it makes you cringe (like soaps) and they're still entertaining to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:40:34 GMT
I haven't seen The Room yet, but I've seen lots of movies that people call "so bad they're good." I've watched tons and tons of older, very low-budget, outsider etc. horror, SciFi and so on. For a while I even used the "so bad it's good" phrase myself. But then I realized that it makes no sense. Bad acting, bad dialogue and a bad story can be very entertaining. In that sense it's "good". |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 15:41:53 GMT
I haven't seen The Room yet, but I've seen lots of movies that people call "so bad they're good." I've watched tons and tons of older, very low-budget, outsider etc. horror, SciFi and so on. For a while I even used the "so bad it's good" phrase myself. But then I realized that it makes no sense. Bad acting, bad dialogue and a bad story can be very entertaining. In that sense it's "good". Give me an example of acting that you both think is bad and that you find entertaining. (I mean a specific example, where you say what you think is bad and what you think is entertaining about it.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:45:15 GMT
Watch The Room and you'll understand how bad acting can be considered enjoyable at the same time. No i don`t understand how anybody can enjoy that movie, You really don't understand how the badness of that movie can be enjoyable to someone? Either way, The Room is a perfect example of bad acting that many find enjoyable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:51:53 GMT
Bad acting, bad dialogue and a bad story can be very entertaining. In that sense it's "good". Give me an example of acting that you both think is bad and that you find entertaining. (I mean a specific example, where you say what you think is bad and what you think is entertaining about it.) Tommy Wiseau's acting in The Room. |
|
