Movies Are audiences today more critical?

[Battlegrinder]

As the title says, do you think audiences today are more critical and inclined to hunt for plot holes and flaws in films, or are the nitpicky voices just so much louder thanks to the internet?

For example, take Star Trek II. This movie requires that you accept, among other things:

1. Planets will just spontaneously explode for no reason sometimes.
2. It's totally plausible that a starfleet ship would enter a system they've already charted and completely fail to notice that a planet in it was missing/exploded, or any evidence of said explosion.
3. Khan and his 20 odds dudes can successfully overpower the 200 odd people on a starship without anyone managing to stop them, cripple the ship to prevent capture, kill any significant number of them, or even make a single distress call.

If you made the same movie today, could you get that past a modern audience and not have them question it or complain about it being unrealistic?

 

[prinCZess]

If you made the same movie today, could you get that past a modern audience and not have them question it or complain about it being unrealistic?

I think yes, provided by 'the same movie' you mean a similar original setting type of thing--there would be and is significantly more attachment and intractability with established settings and the 'rules' they operate under (see Star Wars and the 'Holdo Maneuver'...Or, as something of a (possible) contrast, the new-age Star Trek's alternate-universe stuff which I never really heard as a complaint about it). Though I'm not sure if that can be blamed on modern audiences being more interested in realism or plausible explanations...or modern audiences just expecting new works to conform with prior ones established 'realism'--even if it's unrealistic.

The power of one-line handwave explanations still seems like it's powerful in modern sci-fi settings, and from what I vaguely recall of STII, and Star Trek in general, there's plenty of those to be found (Khan and his men being badasses as the one that sticks out in my mind as the explanation for how they overpowered the crew). Plot holes or errors that are found can probably be spread to folks a lot quicker, though, so I suppose I'd fall on the side that says the 'nitpicky voices' are just louder thanks to the internet.

But, on the other hand, I could see the argument in that same vein that the rise of nitpicky voices and critics on the internet, perhaps especially youtube critics and the like, has perhaps spurred people to be more cynical and skeptical in watching movies? So more questioning of bombastic or over-the-top stuff that isn't as plausible or isn't accounted for...So...Uhh...I will firmly stand my ground here on this sandy position that keeps shifting underneath me as I think about it!

 

[Captain X]

Probably a bit of both. Audiences are generally a bit more knowledgeable now that they were in the past, thanks at least in part to the internet, which also gives them a handy place to share their opinion. Of course, the people who are actually critical tend to be in the minority in any case, because the vast majority of the people who go to see movies are just looking to be entertained, and the visual spectacle seems to be enough for a lot of them. How else do you explain why Micheal Bay movies, or most modern blockbusters, for that matter, make so much money while also usually getting critically panned?

 

[Laskar]

As the title says, do you think audiences today are more critical and inclined to hunt for plot holes and flaws in films, or are the nitpicky voices just so much louder thanks to the internet?

For example, take Star Trek II. This movie requires that you accept, among other things:

1. Planets will just spontaneously explode for no reason sometimes.
2. It's totally plausible that a starfleet ship would enter a system they've already charted and completely fail to notice that a planet in it was missing/exploded, or any evidence of said explosion.
3. Khan and his 20 odds dudes can successfully overpower the 200 odd people on a starship without anyone managing to stop them, cripple the ship to prevent capture, kill any significant number of them, or even make a single distress call.

If you made the same movie today, could you get that past a modern audience and not have them question it or complain about it being unrealistic?

I thought about this a lot, back when I was reflecting on the Halo fanbase and my interaction within it. Why was it that I and several others only saw the flaws with the latter Halo games, while others didn't care about those flaws? Why did those flaws and discontinuities bug me so much, when I shrugged off similar stuff from the earlier canon?

For some concrete examples, I think that the Spartan IVs act like superheroes rather than supersoldiers, and Osiris's entry in Halo 5 is pure fucking cringe. On the other hand, similar stuff popped up in the Nylund novels. A Spartan once dual-wielded rocket launchers and sprinted along an exposed ridge as a distraction, and then a wing of Banshees were taken out with improvised landmines.

I didn't mind the over-the-top actions scenes back then, and I still don't, but I absolutely loathe the new stuff. So what's the difference?

Well, there's some qualitative differences between the two, but a big external difference is that I absolutely enjoyed the Bungie-era books and games, and I was skeptical of the 343i-era canon going in.

Skepticism is antithetical to suspension of disbelief, and suspension of disbelief is what makes stories work. Because I was already skeptical of the direction 343i had taken the franchise, I didn't immerse myself in the story, so I could see a lot of flaws that nobody else could see. There were even some parts of Halo 4 that I wanted to like, but I was so frustrated that I couldn't bring myself to do so.

I think that skepticism is a big reason why the flaws and the plotholes are so apparent. It's not that we're better-educated or that the people who spot plot holes spread them online, it's that the culture wars and inconsistent handling of a franchise have already primed people to be skeptical going into the theater.

The power of one-line handwave explanations still seems like it's powerful in modern sci-fi settings, and from what I vaguely recall of STII, and Star Trek in general, there's plenty of those to be found (Khan and his men being badasses as the one that sticks out in my mind as the explanation for how they overpowered the crew). Plot holes or errors that are found can probably be spread to folks a lot quicker, though, so I suppose I'd fall on the side that says the 'nitpicky voices' are just louder thanks to the internet.

Enthusiasm plays into it too. Back when Wrath of Khan played in theaters, Star Trek fans were happy to see Star Trek on the silver screen. And best of all, it wasn't a bore like the first movie! WoK didn't have many more plotholes than the average Star Trek episode, so the fans just enjoyed themselves.

Fast forward to the modern day, and the fandom is more jaded. They were worn down by a bunch of mediocre Star Trek adaptations, and then JJ Abrams made the mistake of rebooting the franchise and starting with Kirk. Rebooting a franchise is a risky move, because the strength of a franchise is that people get invested in the story and want to see what happens next. By rebooting it, you're telling the fans that the investment wasn't worth it, and by going back to the beginning of the franchise, you're just inviting comparison to what came first.

In other words, people noticed the plot holes back then and didn't care. Khan and his men are superhuman badasses? Good enough for me, pass the popcorn.
Nowadays, people notice the plot holes and latch onto them as an explanation for why they don't like the new movies.

Short post. I swore I'd write a short post.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

As the title says, do you think audiences today are more critical and inclined to hunt for plot holes and flaws in films, or are the nitpicky voices just so much louder thanks to the internet?

For example, take Star Trek II. This movie requires that you accept, among other things:

1. Planets will just spontaneously explode for no reason sometimes.
2. It's totally plausible that a starfleet ship would enter a system they've already charted and completely fail to notice that a planet in it was missing/exploded, or any evidence of said explosion.
3. Khan and his 20 odds dudes can successfully overpower the 200 odd people on a starship without anyone managing to stop them, cripple the ship to prevent capture, kill any significant number of them, or even make a single distress call.

If you made the same movie today, could you get that past a modern audience and not have them question it or complain about it being unrealistic?

I am currently rewatching Star Trek II, and I don't see that as a big plot hole.

On point 1, we don't know how thorough a survey ENTERPRISE did of the Ceti Alpha system. If all they did was a quick scan, they probably would not have noticed how unstable Ceti Alpha VI was. We also only have Khan's explanation for what happened. He may have said 'exploded' to mean 'torn apart by the gravitational instability of planetary orbit,' or 'hit by a giant comet,' both of which were initial theories explaining our own asteroid belt. I don't see ENTERPRISE doing a detailed survey of a system they're using as a giant prison. Similarly, I don't see it as too implausible that Kirk and Co. forgot to log it - or, if it was logged, it was classified given the other trouble with Augments.

On point 2, RELIANT is stuck on probably the worst kind of mission for a starship: long, boring, and to that point fruitless. As @MikeKozlowski put it, she's on Gonzo station. Fatigue, boredom and pointless effort wear people down and screw up your thought processes - especially in the yoyo of elation at finding a test site and depression that follows finding life. By the time they put into Ceti Alpha, RELIANT's crew wants done with this mission. Basically, they get sloppy. Had it happen to me a lot in long, drawn out projects.

It mirrors well with the KOBIYASHI MARU scenario: RELIANT saw what she wanted to see, and was taken.

On Point 3, that happens a lot in Star Trek, and Khan has two key aces - the CO and XO as thrawls. It's essentially barratry; Terrell and Chekov hand over their ship, just like they lulled Kirk on Regula. A few of Khan's men in engineering (as he did with ENTERPRISE), and it's over before it began. Especially if, as the novelization indicates, Khan subverted RELIANT's black gang with Ceti eels.

As for modern audiences, I don't think they are more picky. Instead, I think they are bombarded with choice. As a result, we're a lot less willing to stick something out in the hopes it gets good. Especially in a streaming world, where whatever we want is at our fingertips whenever we want it.

It has to grab us and suck us in quickly, or we go on to something else. Our phone, our games, our books, etc.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I am currently rewatching Star Trek II, and I don't see that as a big plot hole.

I'm not saying what happens in STII is completely impossible and it's bizarre the audience bought it then and continues to buy it now. I'm saying it seems like the audience was never promoted to ask those questions or come up with those rationalizations you offered.

As for modern audiences, I don't think they are more picky. Instead, I think they are bombarded with choice. As a result, we're a lot less willing to stick something out in the hopes it gets good. Especially in a streaming world, where whatever we want is at our fingertips whenever we want it.

That doesn't seem to jive with a lot of semi-recent events. I choose to go to the SW sequal movies, and I still didn't like them and nitpicked them to death after watching.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

I'm not saying what happens in STII is completely impossible and it's bizarre the audience bought it then and continues to buy it now. I'm saying it seems like the audience was never promoted to ask those questions or come up with those rationalizations you offered.

On rewatch, Paul Winfield and Walter Koenig sell the boredom and exhaustion with the mission, though. It starts with Chekov's tone in the log entry, the excitement at the idea of transplanting, his fuzziness in BOTANY BAY, and the way he and Terrell panic instead of immediately beaming up. In short, it's sold very well.

That doesn't seem to jive with a lot of semi-recent events. I choose to go to the SW sequal movies, and I still didn't like them and nitpicked them to death after watching.

Cinema is different because it's a sunk cost. You paid your ticket cost, and can't really just theater hop. But if you're streaming, you pay nothing for this show, and lose nothing if you surf.

 

[Marduk]

As the title says, do you think audiences today are more critical and inclined to hunt for plot holes and flaws in films, or are the nitpicky voices just so much louder thanks to the internet?

I'd bring up another likely cause.
More competition in the market and critical experience in the audience.
Back few decades ago, it was a major event that a proper sci fi movie, or even more so, series, got made at all, and if it wasn't completely shoddy everyone would be happy it existed at all.
Now there is a bunch of them running. People have watched a lot of them too. They talk about it more, their fandoms do a lot of nitpicky analyses and observations of them, people start noticing things that an untrained eye wouldn't.
Due to the increased quantity (it's most visible in the videogame area) people's willingness to just skip even hyped and mainstream media that they don't feel are good enough has increased noticeably.
So you could say that a rise of public standards due to market saturation causing competition for people's "entertainment timeslot" is in process here.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I wouldn’t say audiences are themselves more generally critical, but critics have a larger platform.

In the past, some reviewer for the NYT or Weekly Standard might give some scathing review to a popular movie like Star Wars or The Terminator or whatever. They’d have a limited audience and most people wouldn’t hear of it.

Now anyone and everyone can nitpick and criticize on YouTube. So people are exposed a lot more to criticism. And this may make people more inclined to nitpicking and so on.