This is topic OSC and bad movies in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004398

---

Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
 
I always find it highly amusing how Scott repeatedly wastes money and time to go see lousy movies. I could have told you from ads and trailers that Miami Vice was going to be dark and violent, Ex-Super Girlfriend was going to be silly and unfocused and Ant Bully was going to be cheap and stupid.

But on the other hand there are hundreds of us who get to be amused at his weekly rantings on how crappy Hollywood fims are these days, and yet he keeps sending the message to the Hollywood execs to keep it up by continuing to fork out the $9 tickets.

I can't wait until he reviews Ender's Game.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
On the other hand, he seems to get a lot of pleasure out of watching some movies that I don't think I could sit through.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I'm not sure if he gets paid for his columns or not. If he does, well, he has to have something to review, right? So it's an investment. Especially since he presumably gets paid more than nine dollars, if he's paid at all. And since the movies would be research, he could get a tax deduction!
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
"Uncle Orson Reviews Everything: Enduring bad films so you don't have to."

--j_k
 

---

Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
 
Love his books, but have found I only agree with his movie recommendations about 50% of the time.

I don’t know about his book reviews. I haven’t read many of the ones he has reviewed.
 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
James Tiberius Kirk - that was hysterical.

Oddly enough - I've not read one single movie review of his. On second thought, that's not really that odd since I don't usually read reviews... ; )
 

---

Posted by TommySama (Member # 9669) on :
 
You just can't take everything the brilliant author of Ender's Game as what you might think. He will often times have moral issues with a movie, or think it is cheap or rude. But if you like rude or cheap movies, then his disdain will be your pleasure!

C'mon, Guys. You talk to him on this forum all the time, try thinking about where his thoughts will branch from yours.
 

---

Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
 
My thoughts branch from his on movie reviews.

I love his novels I even agree with him politicaly.

But thoes movies reviews only agree with ME 20% of the time.

 

---

Posted by TommySama (Member # 9669) on :
 
Word.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I know I've tried writing about how craptastic the DaVinci Code is, but the small fact that I haven't seen it seems to impact my credibility.
 

---

Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
 
I agree with his reviews more like 90% of the time...come on, Mr. Card, see some good movies! They're out there...in the animated world, Cars was excellent--and it had all the plausibility that Ant Bully lacked. Well, it's not quite clear why cars would be male or female (remember Robots?), but the internal consistency is there (little VW bugs with wings instead of flies, for example.)

Or...I walked out of My Super-Ex Girlfriend right after the most painful looking sex scene ever to be shown in a supposed comedy, and into Clerks II. What apparently happened was that the advertisers decided to trick us by presenting the movie full of dumb gags (Super-Ex) as a romantic comedy while portraying the excellent romantic comedy (Clerks II) as a series of stupid gags.
 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
Okay. I loved Cars. I loved when Tow Mater said (something like) 'I knew I was right'. Speed replied (something like) 'About what'. Mater replied (something like) 'That you were my best friend'.

Honestly - my eyes got wet.

I'm getting used to this apology and not seeming to be improving - but sorry for the side-track.
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 
Ah. For me, Cars was a bit too far on the predictable side (and I'm very stupid at predicting things, I always miss the foreshadowings and I've never solved a mystery before the detective has--cryptex answers and anagrams in the Da Vinci Codes don't count--so the plot had to be pretty stock for me to know exactly what was going to happen next) to be all that enjoyable.

But I cheered all through his review of Ella Enchanted.
 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
** you said 'stock' ** ; )

ps - but what about the tractors? did you not laugh??
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 
Yes, I laughed. I liked the animation, and individual little tiny funny parts, but the story...the story was like every other "stuck-up hotshot comes down to earth" Disney movie I've ever watched. Maybe that's the problem: I've watched the movies on the Disney Channel too often.
 

---

Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
 
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/f&sf/89-09.html

quote:

---

I believe, very strongly, that a reviewer has nothing intelligent to say about a book he despises. This is not out of a sense of good manners or exaggerated gentility. It's because I believe a reviewer should only review a book he understands, and if you find nothing of value in a book, you clearly do not understand it. Every book has a value to somebody, or the author could not have written it.

A review that completely trashes a book says nothing about the book, but it can say several things about the reviewer. In increasing order of repulsiveness, they are:

1. The reviewer is not in the natural audience of the book in question.

2. The reviewer is narcissistic enough to assume that books he doesn't like are objectively bad.

3. The reviewer is willing to accept money and applause for heaping abuse on a person whose worst crime was to offer an imperfect tale to an audience that is quite free to ignore it anyway.

4. The reviewer vents his personal spite against an author by attacking his books, an act roughly comparable to spitting on the children of your enemies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JLM:
[QB] I always find it highly amusing how Scott repeatedly wastes money and time to go see lousy movies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I know I've tried writing about how craptastic the DaVinci Code is, but the small fact that I haven't seen it seems to impact my credibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libbie:
My friends and I do this ALL THE TIME. We also scour the internet for new and ever more horrible movies so we can track them down and rent or buy them. Bad movies are often more entertaining in their own way than good movies. (We're also big MST3K fans - I wonder if Mr. Card is, too?)

---

Have you seen Night Train to Venice, by any chance? There is a standing reward being offered by one of our forum members here for anyone who can watch it and provide a coherent summary of the plot.

I tracked down a copy of it, but it's VHS and I haven't felt inspired to actually hook up my old VCR so that I can watch it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
A book is generally the product of an artist working somewhat alone, while movies are much more the product of a group of people. Books are not that great of a financial risk. The publisher evaluates the (basically) finished product before investing in it. With films, millions has to be spent in order to bring about the final product, and it often has to be released whether it was any good or not. One example that comes to mind is "Wild Wild West."

I don't think Card is inherently antithetical toward the movie process. When the team effort works, it is can have beauty and impact that goes beyond what a book can give (do I overreach here?) But when it goes bad, the only saving virtue is that it is over quickly. Though any book that you read isn't working for you doesn't have to be finished, either.

I don't think Card has ever bothered panning a book. I don't think he would finish reading it, but I could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by Kenif (Member # 9629) on :
 
What surprises me more, is that despite seeing so many movies he's not turned into a movie-snob.

I watch loads of movies, but I've become a huge movie-snob. I'll turn my nose at so many movies, I don't have much to see (oh, that probably explains why being a movie-snob isn't a great idea )
 

---

Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libbie:


Bad movies rock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JLM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libbie:


Bad movies rock.

---

Bad movies rock when they are supposed to be bad. Snakes on a Plane would fall into this catagory.

Bad movies truely suck when they adversise themselves as being something they are not. I think "Wild Wild West" is a perfect example. Advertised as a rip, roaring thrill ride. In reality, a very poor copy of a Terry Gilliam film (and even a lot of Terry Gilliam's films have sucked too.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Libbie:

quote:

---

Have you seen Night Train to Venice, by any chance? There is a standing reward being offered by one of our forum members here for anyone who can watch it and provide a coherent summary of the plot.

I tracked down a copy of it, but it's VHS and I haven't felt inspired to actually hook up my old VCR so that I can watch it.

---

Not yet - but that's going straight to the top of my list.

---

I'll be curious to hear your response when you do. Maybe this will motivate me to hook up my VCR and finally subject myself to it.
 

---

Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I think "Water World" deserves special consideration. A lot of movies are so bad, they are good. "Water World" was so bad, it was awesome.

---

quote:

---

I'll be curious to hear your response when you do. Maybe this will motivate me to hook up my VCR and finally subject myself to it. [/QB]

---