Editor's Lament: Responses to Angry Readers

Everybody makes mistakes. Not everybody owns up to them and fixes them, even minor ones... but the Cinematical crew have always been stand-up folks, and this situation is no exception. Round 5 do-over? No big deal, cool beans, and thanks for your continuing efforts to make the best movie site better.

Reply

I was shocked at the vitriol regarding the Movies I'll Never See series. I like those pieces and I think they're real and represent what happens with many people. I've seen over 6000 movies and yet some famous whoppers have never made it before my eyes. At this point it's almost like breaking a streak to see some movies.I'm fairly sure I can be a movie fan and avoid ever seeing Titanic.

I like the pieces and I think the reaction to them was way over the top.

Reply

Unlike the majority of commenters, I like the "Movies I'll Never See" posts. It makes sense to me that every moviegoer has a list (big or small) of films they'll never watch, so why not talk about them? Rethinking as to why you wouldn't watch a certain film, may lead to actually wanting to see it to reevaluate your prior judgments.
Again, I'm in the minority here, but if Cinematical will still write this feature, I'll read it.

Reply

I really like the idea and the execution of the "Movies I'll Never See" articles. What people choose not to watch is just as important as what they choose to watch and I think both are fascinating and worthwhile things to try and decode. I'm sure a few people will get upset when their favorite movie shows up on the list, but, really, they are taking themselves too seriously.

Reply

I think for most of us that the column stirs a lot of "you have no idea what you are talking about" feelings as some of the reasons behind why a movie reviewer would not see a movie are just not valid in our minds.
A lot of the articles have based their reasoning on what they have heard about the film from other reviewers, or because they saw one scene and thought it was over dramatic, or in the Transformers case charges of racism and sexism.
I don't particularly have a problem with not seeing a movie because you feel it's racist or sexist, but when that same reviewer writes an article about how she can't wait to see Enter the Dragon so she can stare at Korean pop star Rain for two hours if comes off hypocritical and preachy.
These articles should be more personal. They should have a little bit of the reviewer in them. I would very much enjoy reading the article if the person writing it said something to the effect of "I know I'm a dork, but I'm just to scared to see it" or "The reviews bummed me out so much that I could never bring myself to watch it" or even "I just never got around to it." At least that would be an honest. It would give your readers a little bit of insight into your writers.
You might even make a game out of it. Have the writer do the article and let the site readers decide if that person should now have to see the film based on their reasoning. If the commenters vote they have to see it, it now gives them a feeling of joining in on that person's experience and I'm sure they would come back to see what that person had to say in a follow up.
Just my two pennies.

Reply

I'm also enjoying the "Movies I'll Never See" column... I have a fairly large list of those myself, so it's always interesting to see why other people don't want to see certain things.

And honestly, I wish I actually never had seen The DaVinci Code... dull, dull, dull, dull, dull...

I have been amused by the comments that various writers "HAVE" to see whatever the movie in question is. I mean, if you're happy watching every movie produced by every studio on the planet since the beginning of movies, then more power to you, but some people like to pick and choose what they watch. Also, some people write for movie websites, so why shouldn't they write about why they've chosen to watch something, or not to watch it.

And sometimes a movie just rubs you up the wrong way, maybe the trailer makes you cringe, maybe you don't like "Insert Actor Here", maybe you have an unreasonable loathing of the director... but it's visceral and emotional, and you just don't want to see it.

I mean, if everybody liked everything and went to see every movie that came out then Hollywood would only have to put out three movies a year and they'd be set.

And just remember... if you don't like something, don't read it. Don't click on the "Continue Reading" link, and certainly don't waste your time and effort posting comments. And if you did do that once, don't do it again every time the same column appears. Life is just too short.

And Scott, don't beat yourself up about the whole seeding thing... I still don't understand how it all works ;)

Reply

I liked the "Movies I Will Never See" feature too. I think that kind of post is destined to spark heated debate, because just about every movie is someone's favorite. Plus, I think it was gutsy to pick something that many people really love, rather than something boring and bland (like "Catwoman") that'd be hard for anyone to disagree with.

I don't tend to comment much, but I really enjoy the website and the work you guys all put into it.

Reply

Instead of complaining about the post, maybe people should give reasons to see the movies or why they liked it so much.

Reply

I think it's a great idea for a column. I think maybe the issue was starting off with such a heavy movie. A movie reviewer saying he/she won't ever see Schindler's List was bound to cause some ire. If it had been "Why I'll never see Xanadu" -- it might have been easier for folks to ease into the idea.

Love, love, love Jaded's idea above of allowing users to vote as to whether the Cinematical writer has to then watch the movie. If we vote yes, they should have to watch it and write a review within a week. It changes the tone slightly from "I won't" to "Tell me why I should." So much fun!

Reply

I appreciate the concept of "Movies I'll Never See." It's interesting to examine how filmgoers filter through the vast library of past and present cinema. What influences these decisions? What does it tell us about what that particular filmgoer likes to see? What is this viewer shielding him- or herself from? This feature helps look closer at the authors filmgoing motives.

That said, I just read the Schindler's List entry and I guess I don't find the author's motives to be thoughtful. I would have liked to learn more about Dawn's prejudice against Spielberg, but instead she reduces three highly acclaimed Spielberg films to simple messages without offering any real analysis of these films. Then she criticizes a part in the movie she's never seen in context.

I say take advantage of the ire that Dawn has raised; have her watch Schindler's List, and then write something about how it met or broke her expectations. What's important about this piece is not whether she likes or dislikes Schindler's List - it's that she gets into detail about her problems with Spielberg's work. That's the kind of reasoning I want to be reading in a "Movies I'll Never See" feature.

Reply

I agree that much of the reaction to the Schindler's List post was over the top, but the basic point was correct. Most of the reader's here probably do have movies they will plan on never seeing, but we aren't professional film critics. It is, for lack of a better term, unprofessional for a critic to say that there are movies they will never see.
Also, the impression I was getting from the article was not that it is a movie the author simply hasn't had a chance to watch yet, but rather one they will never see or even actively avoid.
In the case of Schindler's List, I think everyone was genuinely surprised and confused that a writer would actively avoid such an important film. Again, it seemed very unprofessional.

Reply

I have to say that I do NOT enjoy the new feature that allows writers to complain about why they intend to avoid watching certain movies. The existence of cinematic annoyances usually detract many potential movie goers from seeing certain films based upon certain variables such as an attach director or actor, a certain genre or style of film, or the gross attraction factor of a bland blockbuster film that is merely produced by a movie studio in order to pad their bank accounts.

The reason why I do NOT enjoy the feature being publicly displayed on any particular movie related magazine or blog site is for the dilemma that it makes the writer and/or publication appear like they are bragging about their dislike in a particular movie or filmmaker over some petty reason. Offering a negative review about a movie that has been actually watched by the reviewer is an acceptable form of publication, but writing a "hate letter" about a movie or a filmmaker is like building a house upon the sand. It is a baseless article without a solid foundation to be built upon and merely is a vehicle for the person to brag about how well he or she is able to write an article based upon nothing of solid value.

Reply

"The intent of that feature was not to be closed-minded or ignorant regarding unseen films," and yet that's exactly what was done. It's one thing to be someone like me and say, "Well, I don't want to see film X, because of Y." I can do that, because I work in IT. If I were a film critic -- or even just calling myself a film critic -- and I said to my boss, "Well, I don't want to see film X," he would either reply "Too bad. See it anyway. That's your job," or perhaps, "Oh yeah? You're fired."

I can see, perhaps, a series of articles on why you're not interested in a particular genre of films: torture porn, anime, westerns, musicals. Write an article about that; about why the genre has never appealed to you, and why you don't think it ever will. That, at least, is defensible, and could start a fascinating duscussion on the value of one genre over another.

But to say you refuse to see a particular film -- and when your reasons are as puerile and foolish as they were in the Schindler's List article -- then you're just revealing yourself as a hack. For example, Dawn had never seen Lawrence of Arabia because "...it's something like 43 hours long." Obviously she was being facetious, but *the article* was serious, and how can someone who hopes to be taken seriously make such an appallingly ignorant comment?

End this series of articles, before you make your site look even worse.

Reply

Please get rid of both "Fan Rant" and "Movies I'll Never See". They're whiny, they're pointless, and they serve nothing but negativity. We have enough negativity on the internet to not have to come to a site meant for film news and have to read about how everything sucks.

Reply