As a Generation X cliche'- meaning I spent the early 90's smoking pot, listening to indie bands, watching "Evil Dead 2"* on VHS, and going to film school- I think I understand this a bit. What used to be a pseudo-secret society with it's own customs, social quirks, and icons has been mainstreamed by the internet. Media awareness is at it's height now and much of the mystery is gone behind the making of films with Del Toro's exit from "The Hobbit" not just showing up in Movie Mags like it did back in the day, but all over Huffington F&ckin' Post, TMZ, CNN, etc. What these new audience have in media sophistication they actually lack in deep film background as well as the craft of filmmaking itself. The advent of CGI raised the bar to such an extent that much of the wide-eyed wonder, goofy on-purpose amateurism, and damn near all of the heart has gone out of 21st Century mainstream filmmaking and out of it's audience. The type of films "geeks" like from horror to comic books, to GG style action gorefest are now the mainstream films while the "Ordinary People"/"Out of Africa" prestige pictures of our youth are no independent projects praised for their daring… so it goes.

*I'm such a dork that friends of mine from North Carolina School of the Arts and I drove to Asheville a couple of times to get loaded and visit ED2 locations.

Just was having this conversation with a friend of mine. His theory is that these people were born and raised after the Reagan administration; they are not used to excessive violence and gore and weirdness in their films. Remember when Total Recall and Robocop were films that the FAMILY went to the theater to see? Remember when Charles Band films played at the theater next to Hollywood films? They don't.

I agree, on the whole. I love weird, challenging movies and I long for a day when I can go from discussing Brain Damage to Fat Girl and have somenoe follow along…but that ain't happening. Still, there is nothing subversive or edgy about Observe and Report. That film is simply stupid and vile. The idea of a dude who is so self deluded that he date rapes a girl and thinks he has fallen in love is funny. But that's not what that scene is. Seth Rogen honestly believes that his character isn't a rapist. According to his own unambiguous words Brandi's semicoherent rambling constitutes consent. I would make a crack about a certain European filmmaker here…but since I agree with Devin's larger point I don't want to derail this topic before it can begin.

I think that the internet has been a real double-edged sword for film geeks- when I was a kid, it was word-of-mouth and mom & pop video stores that turned me onto the weird shit- the box cover art of Straight To Hell, or Eyes of Fire or Death Race 2000 were what grabbed me. Maybe now that everything is quickly/easily researchable… we're skipping over the junkie rush of discovery (and oh how addictive that can be) and people are now tweeting about movies as they watch them- and reading reviews and recaps and the smartass remarks of their peers and total strangers before they have even given a movie a chance to unfold. I don't think movies like Bad Taste or Meet The Feebles or Evil Dead would have gotten much love if there was internet and mass-awareness. It was the thrill of discovery, of "I heard there is this movie, and the dude's hand tries to kill him, and it's funny, and he saws it off!" "NO WAY!?" that made those movies resonate so much with us. Spit and polish was icing on the cake for genre fans, and we had damned little icing and a lot of plain cake. Some films are best stumbled over, or discovered in a vacuum, or head about and eventually found… even now, I'm less likely to seek out a movie to see for myself than I am to decide ahead of time whether or not it is for me- and that is fucking sad. Too much information. I should unplug the internet and go full luddite.

1) I especially like the cookie-cutter part. This particular cookie cutter does happen to appeal. 2) This whole discussion makes me wonder how Big Trouble in Little China would fare these days.

While I sympathize with this sentiment, I suspect at the end of the day it comes down to aging geeks (i.e., Devin, myself) grousing about "kids these days…"

Your counter-argument is correct–the smart filmgoers are out there, but they are (and always have been, and always will be) outnumbered by those who prefer safer mainstream fare.

Agreed. Its so strange to see all this complaining about the lack of realism in Splice and its few bedfellows when we hear all about how we are not supposed to care about the total disregard of psychological realism in movies like Avatar. Hey, some crazy shit happened in Splice, and maybe at the end even some kinda dumb stuff (I dunno, I still enjoyed it), but at least I got the feeling that Natali was trying to imagine what his reaction genuinely would be if he found himself in such a totally bizarre situation, while keeping it entertaining. With the usual blockbusters that get defended to no end I don't even see that EFFORT being made: its more like there is this traditional iconology of Hollywood tropes that simply must be eluded to justify some psychological state, despite the fact that they have been refracted and refined so many times since the films where they originated to seem utterly artificial. But no one cares because its a recognizable formula, Apparently, a lack of realism is only a problem when it is an original lack of realism.

Probably not what you were wanting to hear Devin, but your logic is exactly what I use when I defend my love for the SW prequels or the Matrix sequels. Both were wracked with shady dialogue and non-conventional storytelling structure, but were full of interesting subversive ideas.

Stupid people have more kids than smart people.
Stupid people are more likely to take the time to write emails and posts in hopes that complete strangers will pay attention to them.
Thoughtful, mature, intelligent people (or cinephiles) do not typically post on message boards, make comments, or send emails to strangers.
/discussion

I believe the problem derives from the internet giving voice to so many people. The doors to the sub-cultures of society of been flung wide open for a large group of people who never knew they existed. Where in the pre-net days movie geeks had to seek each other out, the casual movie fan can now enter the movie sub-culture and rant away. Of course, there are more mainstream movie-goers than true geeks, so their voices tend to dominate any conversation because they wind up the majority. Of course, studios see this and automatically think that they are tapping into some sub-culture that is not really what it was 20 years ago. Thus, they'll continue to churn out safe, predictable movies that seem like they are movie by numbers, because that's what the audience on CHUD is talking about.

The internet has basically raised kids of this generation to be smug, unlikable, know-it-alls.

"I blame the internet, and the return of swing music." No, but really, it's the internet. It is just so much easier for a nonsense opinion to reach you. Back in the day my friends and I would see a movie and just get to talk about it amongst ourselves and we were actual people talking so it mean the discourse was so much more fluid and natural. Likewise, the national discourse came from ebert, local critic jay carr, and even kael was still kicking around. We'd read the great filmmaking magazines and film crit books which augmented our thinking and this stuff wasn't exactly a bitter list of ways a movie was different from a TV show. It taught me how to think better. It was exciting and wonderful, but admittedly insular. I'm positive that there were people out there seeing EVIL DEAD 2 and going "what the hell is this and why am I supposed to like it?" but it was really really easy to ignore these people because I wasn't friends with them. Now, thanks to the internet, they can inundate me with emails about how stupid my reviews are on my blog (the blog is nothing more than an excuse to practice writing). But really any jerk can get right to me at any time. And it's actually really hard to ignore, because they're really vocal and present. No matter how stupid the comment, it sticks with me because the attacks are often weirdly personal and now I know this person is out there (and probably having babies). But then again, I can think of all times I'm personally motivated to write and usually it's a matter of disagreement rather than a matter of support. It's our nature, but the internet just allows it to be prevalent and well-heard. And maybe this is all just generational. I'm sure just as many film geeks of the 70s found the 80s punk rock/evil dead 2 sensibility to be off-putting and contrarian. Maybe the "what" isn't any different, it's just the "how."

The geeks didn't win. The studios just found a way to make a dollar from us. Bottom line is that the studio system is a money making business. It's not a charity (I know everone realizes this). Once the studios saw that "our" crowd had money to spend, they began to exploit what it was that we are into. And studios do things on a mainstream level. Mainstreaming geek culture brings in a whole new crowd of people into "our" scene. And the fact of the world is that everyone has an opinion. Now, a larger set of opinions are being shared. In addition, peoples tastes vary. I will go on record as stating that in my OPINION, 99.4% of people in the world have horrible taste, little intelligence, and big mouths. With the advent of the internet, sadly I get stuck hearing (reading) Douchy McDouches opinion. The only thing that I feel will make it better, is that everday, the tools to making movies are becoming readily available to any person willing to spend time making them. We will see great things coming out of peoples garages just like every other sector in life where creative people feel they have been locked out of the "sytem" and go it alone. Just today, Apple (I'm not a fanboy) announced iMovie will be on the iPhone 4. How soon before the first decent full length feature is shot on a couple phones? I am very hopefull that the next generation of Carpenters, Cronenbergs, and Raimis will come around with great films and outside the current "system". Just my two cents.

Perhaps my generation is jaded, but no matter what decade it is a poorly delivered line is a poorly delivered line, not a classic quote.

Irony does not a classic make.

Born 1978. Fully understand what you're saying here. I'm a Star Wars fan, but, in a way, the best time to be so was the late 80s and early 90s – when Star Wars was dead. The best time to be a movie-geek was when you truly felt a minority. The internet has put an end to that for the most part. It's diluted the mix. There are certain films that in the past you would have thought would have untied us all with whatever quirk it displayed. Now your surrounded by those who will just as much shoot down a lower-budget film with an 'edge' as your shitty CG-filled action blockbuster. There's only on ething to do. DESTROY the internet! Bury all DVDs and Blu-Rays. Dig out your VHS and bring back Video Shops (not stores). Have John Carpenter reteam with Kurt Russell on an annual basis! I for one very much enjoyed Observe and Report, look forward to Splice. Buuuut I will say this, Evil Dead 2 is a BIT too silly, and the original film is the superior one.

I think you're just blowing this stuff out of proportion. While O&R and Splice are both uniquely inventive films that push some boundaries they are also kind of flawed. They both kind of lucked into getting the full studio push. I think they both have their own merits. But they are also fairly flawed as basic narratives. Also, I think you just get hate-mail on whatever you're outspoken about. Mainly because you tend to come across as a dick a lot of the time. As an aside: Splice certainly shouldn't have gotten a wide release in June. It would have worked much better in the Fall…like September or October.

I think we're in the middle of a separation of film geeks. I think the same thing happened in the early 80s as well – when video became a way for these odder movies to find their audience over time. There were people who compared everything to the greats of the late 70s and those who accepted these cheaper films for what they were – fun.

What we have now is a generation of film geeks who grew up seeing films like Evil Dead and not understanding that these films aren't cheesy due to age, but because they were made to be cheesy in many respects. They weren't part of the time that gave us heroes like Ash or Jack Burton – overconfident heroes who jump into the danger without thought. Younger film geeks, who grew up in the 90s, have a different type of hero – the unwilling hero who gets involved only because they have no choice. The hero who complains ala Harry Potter.

Film in the 80s was more experimental than the 90s, as the 70s was more experimental than the 80s. As film becomes more and more forced into structures the less interesting it will become.

It's interesting that you brought up Raimi after Dhelix's quote since while I was reading it my mind drifted to the dance scene in Spider-Man 3. Most people, and especially geeks, tend to hate that scene. They no pleasure in an unconventional director taking an unexpected detour from the formula of the modern superhero blockbuster. I liked it. It was fun, completely out of left field, and one of the only scenes in that film that Raimi felt truly engaged. But most fans weren't having it. They don't want anything other than what they expect to find, or already know to exist – which is why most trailers give away the plot now, since people want to know what they are getting before they buy it (which is the same guiding principle behind fast food). They don't seem to search out the offbeat or unexpected and actually seem to resent it when they come upon it. I don't necessarily think the nature of the, for lack of a better word, 'true' movie geek has changed, only the amount of people interested in certain genres. It's easy to grow the fanbase of a genre of film (or films) but it's much harder to expand the fan's minds.

Frankly, I think these elements have been around for a lot longer (on both sides of the coin, the older school film geeks like you Devin and the commenters you mention), it's just now possible to see both groups. After all, how many conversations about odd genre film did you get into with people who had a large distaste for great odd genre films before the internet?

It's about the challenge. There's something about these kinds of films that challenge you to think outside the box. The box being what is glossy, mainstream and safe.

Without getting too crazy with it, this trend can be tied to the rampant anti-intellectualism that also exists among this new generation of "movie geeks." Instead of championing movies that challenge its audience, they like to simply sit back and let spectacle wash over them. It's the same idea. Intelligent is challenging. Strange is challenging.

And we live in a generation of people who don't want to be challenged. Not when all of life's answers are laid out in front of them on the internet.

It's the same reason why quality writing isn't appreciated on the blogosphere. People can't be troubled to read, because reading might challenge them to think.

Maybe the reality is something neither of you have touched upon. Lots of those geeks that are willing to shill out 10+ bucks on throwaway entertainment (awesome, creepy, challenging, offensive, hilarious entertainment but throwaway nonetheless) just can't afford that shit every weekend.

I went and saw Macgruber and wished I had waited, it is funny and campy but not worth the time it took to make that 10+ bucks. Now this weekend I couldn't afford to go to Splice, even though it looks much better and much more awesome than Macgruber.
Now, this is just me. I am a self-professed movie geek that gets laughed at and derided at work because of the ridiculous amount of time I devote to watching movies. I still have to budget because I want to support those movies in the genres I love, just don't have the scratch to do so every weekend. And just imagine how I feel if there is a sweet double feature.
Even without 3-D and concessions, movies are fucking expensive and prices are only going higher. I try to catch matinees or low-priced midnight showings just to be able to watch something I hope to love.

But most of the time I am relegated to the cheap seats to watch a bad transfer with bad sound or since I have netflix watching instant.

I have a pretty good job and would love to be able to watch every single feature released that I had interest in. However, reality takes precedence and I envy you guys that actually make a living writing about what I love so much in the best possible way.

Oh, by the way, I am the guy whose Mom sends me movies from Brazil that are never released here.

Meus dois centavos de real…

Bear with me, and this is kind of a stretch, but one of the things that got me into film was music videos. At their best, even the challenging ones were no longer than a few minutes long, but they showed you things that you had never seen before. I used to watch MTV, particularly 120 minutes, on a constant loop, and it helped expand my horizons and seek out the same kind of fun,weird and trippy experiences in film. Now, there is no MTV. At least not the one that we all used to know pre-N'SYNC/Backstreet Boys/Britney Spears. MTV, which used to be tailored to a more young adult aduience is now pretty much programming for infants and retards. Sure you can look up every video imagineable on YouTube, but the problem lies in filtering that content into a manageable viewing experience. I'd rather have a slew of unique videos curated for me by an educated musical staff in a 2 hour time frame, so that I don't have to wade through hours of bad links, fake videos and whatnot to find the gold. Granted there was always a lot of shit on MTV, but I think the shift towards catering to 14 year old girls for 10 years has seriously damaged any uniqueness in our society had(teenage guys actually think their feathered 80's hair looks good). I would argue that G4 is the new MTV, but outside of myself, I don't know anyone who watches it, plus they don't really highlight filmmakers work the way MTV did with videos. All the risk takers are gone from the mainstream(just look what Clear Channel did to radio) and they are buried too deeply in the internet to combat the soul sucking vampire that is reality tv and whatever crap they show on almost every channel that exists now. I could go on, but I have to work… ha!

I think those that have grown up with the internet are used to taking the opinion of the vocal minority. How that has affected their view of films is distressing, almost as much as to how alert they are to any sort of marketing and how much that marketing can hurt a film's buzz just for daring to be marketed at all.

I couldn't agree more, Devin. Also, I agree with you whole-heartedly, John (#18). Everyone complained about that dance scene, but that's the only scene in Spider-Man 3 that had any life in it at all. It was Raimi at play, and it was wonderful to see!

I think modern-day fanboys are too dismissive and smug to understand a movie like Splice. Hell, I'm sure that there's people who don't 'get' Scott Pilgrim.

I have to admit that, being born in 1985, I feel surrounded by the people Devin is talking about and I don't like it. I feel like I'm right on the cusp of all of this. Yes, I was of the first generation to have the internet taught in school, but I just happened never to bother with the forums until I got a little older. Someone here mentioned the thrill of discovery, and I gotta say I really miss that. I miss spending a year having to hunt down a VHS copy of Piranha in Tucson, Arizona. After that, there was no way it was going to be disappointing. The thrill of the chase, the camaraderie when you finally meet someone in high school who knows what the hell you're talking about – not having that might make it a little easier to not appreciate all these great films.

I despised the dance scene because it felt overdone. There's a difference between clever, unexpected stuff and embarrassing nonsense that makes Peter Parker look like a black-haired moron.

I think the thought, "there's just more mainstream filmgoers on sites like AICN and Chud due to all the popular novel and comic book adaptations that have been coming out since the early 00s" is pretty much right-on. The word geek has become a badge of honor since, as you put it, "the geek's won." Many modern movie geeks who dub themselves geeks are not geeky obsessive geeks, they're kids who dig Hollywood genre movies and take a detached, ironic approach to geekery. Perhaps they're at the beginning of their education and will continue to grow and blossom into what us crotchety folks (and I say this as 29-year-old) may consider a "legit geek" or maybe they may never grow and experiment and venture into the archives for early Raimi and Jackson and Cronenberg and Carpenter and Argento and Fulci and the more obscure guys. The internet has created the concept of mostly fearless commentary thanks to the ability to anonymously critique anything. Knee-jerk reactions and the satisfaction of ruffling some critic's or creative's or celebrity's feathers is just a few key strokes away. The modern movie geek may consider himself a movie geek because he trolls sites and launches attacks, but he's not. He's hateful and is not an example of the geeks who are and always will be out there. The real geeks (or film lovers) aren't commenting on every article and picking fights with critics who recommend challenging or unique flicks, they're watching movies. They're reading recommendations and checking the movies out and recommending them to their other film-loving pals. The real modern movie geek is the same as the old movie geek. He's there watching movies, reading obsessively, going to conventions, and buying crazy shit off ebay. He has new tools at his disposal and he's using them to do what all of us before him and what all of us after have and will do; dig, discover, love and recommend. Things may seem lost but I think things are and will always be the same.

I don't know that the people being talked about here are "geeks" so much as regular filmgoers who stumble into the geek conversation. The amateur who stumbled into the specialty shop. At the same time, Observe and Report came out a year ago, and it wasn't a very good movie. I liked a lot about it. I think new geeks will, too. But there hasn't been a lot of time to forge a relationship with these films. It took ten years for me to hear anyone quote to me Night of the Comet.

geeks have always been fickle, in my opinion, and to try and nail them down to one, single, universal reaction is near impossible. even the highest grossing nerd film of all time (hell, two of the top 3 highest grossing films of all time were nerd films) is a contentious one. you yourself are just as much to blame, for all the hateful things you've said about various movies in the past, emboldening your audience into feeling like they can say whatever they want about a film without repercussion. of course there's always been a repercussion: the failure of the film. now you can see how powerful a negative critical force can be, as SPLICE tanks in the BO.

i think the problem is having trouble letting go of ONE film. SPLICE is cool, i enjoyed it, but i shouldn't also feel like some people might not after i see it. that's the film's fault, not mine. and even you, devin, wrote an impassioned letter to film fans telling them to see the film, without the guarantee that they'll "like it." what kind of sales tactic is that? your critical honesty doesn't help promote the film.

this is the new problem we face in hollywood. marketing has always been and always will be a LIE. the quality of a film is never revealed until the public has seen it. how can this change, while everyone still keeps on doing what they've been doing? how can relationships between studios and audiences evolve so that the paper-thin marketing becomes more transparent? should it? are we too smart an audience?

I agree with this up to a point. I actively seek out darker, more offbeat movies. I haven't seen "Splice" yet, though, and I fear that it'll be out of the theaters before I get a chance to go. I still think it'll become a bit of a cult classic, though, regardless of the chorus of naysayers on the Web. If I've learned anything from the web, in fact, it's that it provides more places for assholes to get together and bitch. You open up a community to more communication, the assholes will always drown out the people socializing in good faith. That's just a human failing. Also, Devin, please stop propping up "Observe and Report" as some definitive example of audiences today not knowing what the fuck is good. Plenty of people I know, hardcore genre geeks or not, straight up hated that movie. I was actually quite excited about seeing it myself, but I still ended up disliking it. It's a latter-day "The Cable Guy," another movie largely rejected by its supposed target audience that still has its fierce proponents. It just tries too hard to be dark and edgy. It doesn't even compare with the cult hits of Raimi, Cronenberg and Carpenter from the 80s.

I'm in New York, and I've been to Midnight screenings of movies like The Thing and The Fly here full of hipster douchbags that are around my age (mid twenties) all laughing incessantly at things like outdated computers. The sad fact is my generation and younger is predominantly fucking idiots.

To be frank, I never considered myself a movie geek but I love film and art. I don't try to be an elitist, but get labeled as such for not liking certain things. I don't like Evil Dead or gore films or campy horror films because they don't interest me, not because they're silly or cringe inducing or anything like that. I get nothing from them.

Here's what I think- I don't think it's important to be a movie geek or label yourself as one. But I do think it's important to be open to completely new structures in film- completely new visions of the world because that's what art is about. It doesn't matter if the film is good or bad- we should be willing to see a filmmaker's distinct vision of life- the truth, in short- no matter how disgusting, shameful, anger inducing, whatever. Most importantly, we need patience. We should allow a movie to be slow. Look at Kurosawa's films or Antonioni films or Bergman films. Large chunks of these films seem flat out boring on first watch, but later the films hit you like a ton of bricks.

Too many filmgoers want things quick, direct. They want any and all mysteries in a film explained in detail. I meet more and more people who simply want to "get" a film instead of feeling it, like a song or poem. It's like they just want to read a detailed synopsis. And god forbid they see something new!

I remember seeing a video of Cassavetes a few years before he died where he was talking about how people naturally just want the same old movies, and when they see something new, they get scared and angry and reject it, but it sticks with them for years and gets under their skin. At least the smart ones anyway. That's what we need. We need more films that make us- including me and you- angry. I want to see things I was disgusted by originally, things I'm embarassed about, things I disagree with. I want films to challenge me and show me the truth- no matter how hard it is to watch. I want films- in America particularly- try to be art again. Really try. Don't care about the money, the awards. That's not why you become a filmmaker or artist, and that's what makes it so hard. But it's also what makes it so worthwhile, especially for the audience.

Devin, I gotta say… a part of it, not ALL of it, but a part of it, is that a lot of these movies you're championing just aren't very good.

You're out there giving perfect scores to deeply flawed movies (like Watchmen, like Kick Ass). You're comparing Splice to Evil Dead 2. Do you honestly believe that's a valid comparison? You think twenty years from now people will be holding Splice screenings and wearing Splice t shirts and quoting Splice lines?

Maybe there just aren't a lot of good genre movies being made right now, and the kids who grew up on Raimi and Peter Jackson and Carpenter and Cronenberg (like me) have moved on. The best movies I've seen in recent years, the ones that have really stuck with me, have been for the most part "mainstream" movies (I'm thinking Zodiac, Rachel Getting Married) or smaller movies that don't reside necessarily in the Genre camp (Port of Call and Serious Man, from last year).

Either way. This has been way too sensible of a response. Devin, you give good scores to terrible movies. That's all I really wanted to say.

Great comments. Excellent topic.
To echo some others here, I think (and experience regularly as I am surrounded by people in their mid-teens to mid twenties all day) that there seems to be a much greater resistance to being challenged intellectually by art than there was when I was younger.
My brother and his rock star friends who all are in their early- to mid- twenties eschew ANYTHING unless they discover it on their own. Therefore, nearly any movie with an ad campaign is immediately not cool. The only films they watch are ones their girlfriends force them to watch or things that are so willfully obscure as to be painful to watch, all for the sake of being 'cool'.
The wouldn't go see 'Splice' because it looked too 'Hollywood' Huh?
'Splice' was a lot of fun, and funny as hell, and so wrong. I think though that horror fans didn't go check it out.
However, my creationist Christian cousin went to go see it and was appalled by it. WHAT THE HELL DID SHE THINK IT WAS ABOUT?
I feel ziggy5yrs pain, as I have to host parties at my house on occasion for these kids who are in their mid-twenties, and the overwhelming majority have horrible taste in film, music and art in general. I don't think that's a subjective statement. These supposed 'cool kids' have said that movies like "Resident Evil" and now "Zohan" are classics. But hell, they think making fun of Miley Cyrus is edgy.
Basically, I think things are still the same but beta is the new alpha and now beta-males and the like are becoming very much like the asshole jocks I was surrounded by in the mid 90's….they just were goofy sunglasses, skinny pants and keffiyeh's.
Sigh. I am getting old.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that there is a mentality of "this is how a movie SHOULD be" nowadays. Now, I watch bunches of movies. And many of them are utter shit. But every once in a while you get a real gem, and its all worth it, and you learn about film making and what you like/dislike along the way. The problem is that people have instant access to too much information and are too lazy to branch out and expand some comfort zones. That, and it now seems to be much more popular to hate movies than like them. This makes no sense to me. After all we are movie FANS… right? Its just distressing to me that I have a hard time talking to movie "fans" online because there is no active discussion, only rampant flaming. And to make things worse, I live in Raleigh, NC which is not exactly movie lovers heaven. Trying to find people who actually enjoy watching and discussing movies is hard enough, let alone someone who would sit through El Topo. I enjoy coming to this site to learn about movies I may have never heard of and maybe learn a little something along the way. I read the reviews after seeing movies to get another persons point of view. But I don't even try to engage in conversation over the internet because it almost always boils down to a huge nerdraging hate fest. There are people who still like movies, I think we either get drown out in the ruckus or give up fighting the impossible fight.

I was born in '85 and gradually developed a taste for challenging, edgy and downright weird movies. I had a little of that instilled in me from a young age (JAWS, TREMORS, GREMLINS) and was always interested in "movie magic," but most of my interest came from watching more movies, consequently realizing there was something to be gained from watching stuff I sometimes found stomach-turning (besides a stronger stomach). Most people don't watch a lot of movies and don't give a shit about the medium or the interesting things you can do with it. They care about seeing shiny things move and hearing loud noises for a couple hours. The movie may have a "good story" or "good acting" of the vaguely-defined sort that we're all taught to appreciate as children, but for the most part, the moviegoing public wants to see very detailed CG models smash into other very detailed CG models. This includes "geeks," who just aren't really that geeky anymore. Geek is chic. It's in vogue to like superheroes and video games. I think this really is a situation where more mainstream people are getting into geeky things. They have the same mainstream ideas as the rest of the public on what makes a movie "good," most of which don't apply very well to judging film as capital-A Art.

I didn't hate "Observe and Report" because it wasn't "mainstream enough". I hated "Observe and Report" because it was a movie about a psychopathic bully that beat a kid over the head with a skateboard and shot an unarmed shoplifter at point-blank range. It was a movie about a stupid, unlikable jerk and on top of that, it wasn't funny. As far as "Splice" goes, I have little desire to see it as I've seen a million and one movies about scientists playing God whose experiments turn on them. I'm sure I'll see it eventually, but I'm in no hurry to do so. I don't care how weird or off-beat it is, it's a tired, worn out premise. What this argument really boils down to is that Devin likes really shitty movies and doesn't get it when other people don't like them because he's arrogant and, really, to me that's what defines the modern-day film geek: arrogance. "I love this movie and anyone that doesn't love it is a moron!" is the mantra of the modern day film geek. You see it on message boards from horror flicks to Woody Allen movies. People think that their opinion is RIGHT and anyone that doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Just because someone doesn't love a movie that Devin likes doesn't mean they're some mainstream crowd-following studio crap-loving dolt and just because someone doesn't like some snobby, pretentious arthouse Woody Allen-ish film doesn't mean that they're a braindead idiot that only loves watching shit blow up. People have different tastes. And for the record, I love "Evil Dead 2" and "Dead Alive" but, goddamn, I hated "Observe and Report".

One of the better Advocates in a while. I'm not sure of how old Chud's general readership is, but at 20 I'll count my self on the younger side. I won't say most but I will say many born after the mid to late 80's do seem to expect something a little more standard. I have no idea of why this but I have seen a great deal of it in my "movie geek" peers. I took a film class last year in which I was the only one who liked Citizen fucking Cane. The rest of the class found the characters too unlikeable. I took a differant film class in which Where the Wild Things Are and Mr. Fox were called stupid while Avatar was gushed about. They laughed at nearly every clip of an American genre film shown. These were film students. I could go on and on. I haven't seen Splice but plan to and expect to like it and I thought the world of Observe and Report but can see why others don't. I also dug the shit out of GI Joe, though it's no where near an 8.5 in my book . I enjoy Evil Dead 2 but it's my least favorite of the trilogy. Army of Darkness was the movie that made me love movies. I saw it when I was very young and it lead me to seeking out and researching smaller film. I been addicted since the late 90's. That was how I became the film fan that I am. The reaon that so many "movie geeks" are the way they are is thanks largely to the growth of the internet and the hyper-fashionability of the term ''geek''. A geek is something you want to be. Many ''movie geeks'' are people who like movies slightly more than the average person and use the internet for research in an attempt to cement the "geek" label. Because they figure it's what a geek would do, theyact cynical and mouthy. Sorry for the bloated post.

I see where you're coming from Devin, but I agree with Bootsnatch. This is coming from a site that gave Watchmen 10 out of 10 and didn't even review A Serious Man, which was BY FAR the most subversive, challenging, and original film of the last few years. I sympathize with your frustration that stranger fare isn't tolerated by many genre fanboys, but at the end of the day, who cares? The majority of people who write on message boards are maladjusted assholes. It's your job to sift through all of that bile, and I don't envy that responsibility. Still, I think you're confusing the fact that many angry assholes call you out on the fact that you have questionable taste in films (epitomized by your choice to use Observe and Report, a witless travesty masked as edginess, as your main example of movie fans ceasing to take "chances") with some pretentious lament on the death of the "classy" fanboy. The only truth I've gathered from your article is that most people that post on the internet are assholes (a truth we all must come to terms with) and that you're rightfully pissed off because your job entails reading through those horrific comments, which must be an awful thing to do. But to attribute this to a shift in movie fandom over the last decade is really overstating things. For all the hordes of 13 year olds (in body or mind) that send you death threats because you didn't like Avatar, there are still many movie fans that use forums to express their enthusiasm for movies that would've gone unnoticed if not for internet buzz. I would've never even heard of a masterpiece like Let The Right One In if not for internet movie sites and forums (including Chud). I guess my advice is to ignore the bile from strangers on the internet and concentrate on the enthusiasm that films still generate within yourself and your group of friends. You're a very impassioned movie lover, which is great, and I'm sure you (like myself and many others who go to these sites) still engage in fantastic movie conversations with the sane and equally impassioned peers in your life. THAT is what separates you from the trolls on the net. THAT is the spirit of movie-love that unfortunately does not exist on most of the internet, but that's because the internet is a poor substitute for ACTUAL conversations among real live people. I don't mean to disrespect you, and though I disagree with as much of your film criticism (like on the suffocatingly dull Watchmen) as that which I applaud (like your pitch-perfect assessment of Where The Wild Things Are) , I recognize from your reviews a true passion for movies that you shouldn't expect in return from internet trolls. And you just need to have faith that this passion is just as alive in movie fans across the world, most of whom just wouldn't take the time to argue it on the internet..

I think that as long as you can explain your love or hate for a movie on more than just a knee-jerk reaction or popular sway, your integrity as a film fan is solid. People should care about narrative, the photography, and the script. They should discuss director intent and make an effort to critically engage a film in addition to being moved or entertained. But I get nervous anytime certain films are made the litmus test for what's "dark, edgy, odd, and downright bizarre." I didn't like "Observe and Report" for the same reasons as #38, but that shouldn't mean that I'm closed-minded or dull. Same with Splice. I'm just not that interested. Given what's popular now, the Austen/Dickens style of period piece is totally anti-mainstream b/c they're subtle, void of fx, and rooted in character and dialogue. But I'm not going to dump on someone who will pass on "Pride & Prejudice" in the same way I don't want to be dumped on b/c I passed on Splice. I always think of Lawrence of Arabia. Don't love it b/c you think it's one of those films you are supposed to love as a film geek or whatever. Love it for the story and David Lean's direction and 70mm of amazing visual beauty. Don't hate it or miss it b/c you don't watch "old" movies. Hate it b/c you found Peter O'Toole inaccessible as Lawrence, b/c the pacing was problematic, b/c the politics are questionable, or whatever. Let people love/hate/or skip anything they want, as long as they have a real reason for doing so.

I think the problem (if there is a "problem"; fuck most movie geeks) is that you have an entire generation of moviegoers who "know" everything about movies, but know shit about film. Honestly, the thing is that ever since the 80s we've been inundated with more and more info about what goes into making movies, so much so that every asshole thinks they could be a studio exec or an independent. At the same time, these same guys rarely, if ever, watch movies for the sheer thrill of it and connection with the material. Plus, and this is why I say fuck most of 'em, a lot of so-called movie geeks pretty much mine their interests from one source, whether it's genre pictures, art pictures, whatever. Honestly, I don't call myself a geek; I'm a fucking nerd. I will watch ANYTHING to find a quality flick. I grew up seeking out everything from the sickest z-grade shit to the classiest Hollywood musicals of yesteryear and everything you can imagine in between. Because I fucking love movies, which is a rare thing amongst most movie geeks.

This is the most civil discussion on CHUD I've seen in years.

If you're going simply by the responses you get on this website, then it's clear why it seems like modern movie geeks are all assholes.

There are other forums for discussion that aren't just constant flame wars or complaints about the Captcha.

But as for the true tropic here – part of that has to do with how DIY is changing. With the chasm narrowing between what Ridley Scott can afford and the type of camera equipment that my friend next door can (and how they both look), you're going to get fewer campy-looking movies.

The geeks are out there. Maybe they just aren't visiting CHUD anymore.

I think what we are seeing now is the next generation of movie geek rising up through the ranks. While it is not a strict analogy, I think when we look back on the last decade we will see that it was a continuation of a fault line which was created between these two generations in 1999.

The first generation of modern geek are those from the 1977 age – they grew up in the era of Wars, the Star Trek movies, Carpenter, Rami, etc. At that point in time, there were only so many geek properties out there. So your genre fan had to go digging. Sometimes this meant into the exploitation field, and sometimes it meant finding those smaller movies, which didn’t set the world alight, but were well made, and are now held up as classics.

This generation ruled the roost until 1999. That is when the second wave of geek culture, which is very much connected to the rise of the internet, hit town. They have been pitching their tent ever since. These are the folks who have grown up being told The Thing is a classic of cinema. It wasn’t “discovered” on a random trip to the cinema.

What happens? Well they need to find their own classic films. But they also want the comfort of replicating the experience which the previous generation of geeks had for “their” films. The general safety net is therefore to latch onto properties which they are already aware of, which means pre-existing material.

It reminds me of meeting a girl at a bar and she had “Live Long and Prosper” tattooed on her hand. I asked if she was a big fan of Khan. I got a blank stare back. She had loved the Abram’s film, but didn’t have time for those older flicks.

This is not to say all these films are bad, far from it. But I do think this is why the modern geek is less likely to actively seek out those smaller, more unusual films. Websites also have a role to play in this. Quite a few have sprung up in recent years, claiming to speak for geeks, but just focus on the big flicks. Sure they will throw an odd article to a Moon, or a Splice, but generally they talk about the franchises and big properties, the readers concentrate on that, and then demand more of the same. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

That said, I haven’t lost my sense of discovery, and even this year, which has been dire genre wise on the blockbuster front, has some really interesting stuff coming from some of the smaller corners of the film world. Gareth Edwards Monsters for instance, is exactly the type of film which geeks should be latching onto. Not just because of the story, but what was able to be accomplished on a small budget. These smaller budget, but still high quality films are the future for the true geeks of this world.

You nailed it Devin. The real fans are out there, they are just drowned out by all the useless twats.

Geek culture has gone mainstream: Zombies movies everywhere, Marvel and DC titles being turned into blockbusters, the weird, the unusual being packaged, marketed and turned into franchises. When I was a kid, reading comics, the idea of an Xmen movie, with live actors and being seen by thousands of movie goers would have seemed beyond implausible, but here we are.

Devin hit it on the head: The Geeks won. And it isn't what we hoped it would be.

Post-Literacy. Or more likely Post-Post-Literacy seeing the success of 3rd level removed shit like Burton's Alice, Twilight's Vampire Lore, Shrek's Pop Riffs, the Revisionism of the Reboot(/Prequel) and Avatar's Super-Reductionism. The cultural "source" and context isn't just disrespected, it's made utterly irrelevant to the audience.

Devin, you mentioned during the "Donald Glover/Spiderman" debate that it showed "the racism in the hearts of many fanboys rear its head. It's ugly, and it often shows up, along with homophobia and sexism." You then proposed the idea that fanboys "don't take well to change, and whose main concern in an adaptation isn't quality or talent but fidelity…" These two strains — the latent racism and fear of the "other" and the slavish devotion to "canon" — have been there from the very beginning of geekdom, particularly on the AICN boards. In the beginning (the original STAR TREK and STAR WARS films, specifically), geek "nations" formed many times AFTER a movie or television series released. They loved a cultural object that offered a world to explore, but that object was closed, ended.
This changed with the TREK sequels and spin-off series in some ways, but the rules did not really change until Singer's X-MEN. Now instead of telling new stories (as the TREK sequels and spin-off series had and as EMPIRE and JEDI had, where you push forward and explore), films were telling stories we knew with characters we knew AND (unlike during the original BATMAN run) we had the internet to connect us and feed us every small bit of information before release. They were re-telling so instead of discovery of the new these movies were inherently slaves to what had come before.
This holds true for all comic book movies, the new TREK, and especially the Prequel Trilogy. Instead of being excited to see something new, the Prequels taught us to fear anything different because the different and new was not only scary but incredibly shitty. Episodes I – III and MATRIX: RELOADED and REVOLUTIONS both denigrated the quality of the originals that we loved so much. The Prequels cheapen the original trilogy as much as any DVD tweaks just as any reboot cheapens what came before. And each tweak and reboot only further entrenches the part of geeks utterly beholden to "canon."
The spirit of the law has been lost to the letter. It's more important that something look right instead of feel right right now because all of these movies are essentially meaningless, they're time-fillers until the next reboot when all we want is the feeling we had first reading the comic.
All that said, where is the next Cronenberg? Or Lynch? Or even Burton? Where are the fresh new films that test the limits, that have original thoughts and feelings in a sci-fi/horror setting?

Look at all of the real phenomenons of recent cinema : Napoleon Dynamite, Juno, Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, District 9 (among others, of course). These were films that were unknown quantities, small films with big aspirations that snuck up and surprised the masses.

We clearly know too much these days. Personally, I think all of the trumpeting about films like Kick-Ass or Watchmen hurt their box office chances. When people hear too much about something, they go in with preconceptions or their expectations raised to the point that they can only come away deflated.

Probably having 2.56 million movie websites is a bad idea. One can suddenly appreciate Abrams trying to restore a sense of mystery to the game.

the safety the internet provides in non-social discussions brings out the inner hate in most people.. sarcasm dies on the internet, leaving most negative comments looking even more rude and arrogant.. analysts take this data made up of sarcasm and nerd rage and tell studios to dumb down and safety pin all aspects of their movie.. shoving their heads so far up their ass to pull the likes of Justin Beiber out..

I think that what's happened is that these films are exposed for what they are: not very good. In the 80's, you had a small niche of people who championed these types of movies mainly out of a need to be part of something that not everyone would or could be. Now that fandom has been given a voice through the internet, many of these poorly made movies are being chastised for what they are. Just because you're small budget and made my amateur's doesn't automatically give you a free pass for being ass. Audiences expect more and they aren't afraid to call a dud when they see one, circumstances be damned. (I also think there's a backlash that's occurred due to places like CHUD championing something simply because it's an underdog, even when it's admittedly not in good taste. People hate it when a film is celebrated purely because of how "bad" it is and are annoyed when you try to force a movie into being a cult classic before it's even been released.)

I never expected a quick rant written during my coffee break at work to be a discussion topic here but I'll take it, not for the ego boost it's given me, but for the interesting comments I've enjoyed reading from everyone else in here. I also go by the nickname Quarantine on AICN so the fact that you, Devin, also through a jab at Robert McKee– Well, I have to admit, I laughed out loud. We're like twin brothers from different mothers on this topic.

There's been a lot of ground covered here and here are some of my thoughts on the comments you've all added:

Great point to those who've suggested that the studio system has essentially sold out geek culture. It's something I've been wondering about as well but I feel like that's a huge part of all this. I feel like this started with the success of the Matrix actually. That film really shouldn't have been the massive blockbuster it was. It was a merger of the Neuromancer, Dark City, Alice and Wonderland, and Wire Fu that somehow caught on bigger than any of those things (save AIW) did on their own. Wire Fu had been around for ages but the Matrix popularized it and the original script was smart and structured enough that people like parents were even willing to go along for the ride. Expectations rose to Star Wars like proportions and the Wachowskis delivered to challenging followups with the kinds of flaws normally found in the kinds of wire fu/kung fu/cyberpunk/anime stuff that was the original inspiration. The mainstream was letdown hugely and oh… did they vent about it. As a genre fan and a fan of movies like "The Bride with White Hair" my expectations weren't as high for the sequels as others and I left still happy that they existed. Months rolled on and all I heard were people pissed off about how shitty they were and how they ruined everything that was once fun about the original. Message boards were inundated with talk that the Wachowskis raped their childhoods and each and every flaw in the story/script was picked apart the way vultures pick apart their prey. It probably started before then (The Star Wars prequels come to mind) but that was the first instance where I really disliked the idea of mass criticism and pile on nitpicking. The fact is: The critics/haters have points. The other fact is: I didn't see a lot of those things myself. But once they were picked out and the criticisms kept adding up it was hard for me to view the films the same way. Originally, I was happy. I liked the Architect scene; it felt iconic. It reminded me of something out of Alice in Wonderland. I was able to view an epic battle between Mr. Smith and Neo that was well choreographed and very Superman-esque. I got to see a "real world" battle involving mechs and rogue squid robots. I got to see Neo visit the machine world and try to reach a compromise with the machines. There were paradigm shifts between Neo and Mr. Smith. The programs were leaving. It was flawed, sure, but there was still a lot to like and I kept thinking to myself as it played out… if this was a subtitled japanese cult movie… how cool would it be? How harsh would the criticisms really be then? The Matrix brought the mainstream into geek culture and they've been sitting in the theatre bitching and complaining about everything imaginative and unsafe ever since.

All right, enough about The Matrix. Sorry about the derailment there but I suppose talking about that film was worthwhile because it also brings me to the next thing I want get off my chest: Tone. The Matrix featured an extremely, dry, seriousness tone almost entirely free of charm and while I'm not going to suggest that they ushered this in… seriousness and realism have suddenly become a mandatory aspect of film making for anybody not making a satire or full on farce ever since. Even satires and farces can't be subtle any longer or risk alienating audiences. Instead, the film makers have to make it painfully obvious that "it's okay to laugh here. It's deliberate. We're being zany on purpose, see!" I'm not sure there's even room for somebody as smart as Todd Solondz at the moment and that brings me to a side rant. Intelligent, awkward, satire has been sold out too. I'm not going to bash Napoleon Dynamite but let's be honest it was a mainstream, dumbed, exagerated version of the kind of losers found in Todd Solondz movies, Jim Jarmusch movies, and more recently Wes Anderson movies. And the problem with dumbing things down and making them more obvious and accessible is that it's hard to go back. Awkward humor has basically jumped the shark now to the point where Skittles, Five Alive and Budweiser are using it to sell products.

Back to the main point: it seems to go one of two ways these days. Audiences either want to feel like everything they're seeing is entirely believable and simulation-like (Traffic, The Hurt Locker, etc) or they need to feel assured that it's completely fictional and exagerated so there's no subtlety any longer. The worlds that protagonists frequent start to feel the same. The photography starts to look the same. The dialogue starts to sound the same. There's less flavor right now. People aren't willing to accept unusual settings, or unusual dialogue. Hell, Tarantino himself barely got away with some of the sillier stuff he tried in Inglorious Basterds with the masses but he was Tarantino and he flavored the rest of the film with so much coolness that doubters went along for the ride anyway. A friend of mine recently went to a Midnight Madness Screening of "Blue Velvet" and told me that the kids were treating it like it was "The Room" (which has been a popular midnight madness showing in my city) and laughing every time Frank appeared on screen or any time Dorothy was naked. They found every aspect of the film hilarious actually which I'm almost certain wasn't Lynch's intention.

Gritty realism or exaggerated to the point of being obvious enough for everybody to get: those are basically the two choices filmmakers have at the moment or risk being ostracized.

Pure escapism isn't dead but it's getting dangerously close to life support.

It's a sad state for movies these days.
Everything seems to revolve around explosions and superheroes. Don't get me wrong I love both. The geeks today don't really seem to have the same sensibility of older geeks. A lot of geeks I talk to, some of them younger, actually liked stuff like Transformers 2, and Van Helsing, or God Forbid…Twilight.
It's sad, because when I talk to them, they acknowledge that these are shit films, but at the same time they seem to only support them because they were "fans" first, and are willing to forgive all the terrible things in the movies, just because they get the privilege to see their favorite properties on screen. It's sad to see this because I think it has made a lot of film makers lazy as well, which I hate to see especially for directors I at one point respected( Looking at you Tim Burton)
Movies are no longer about telling stories or giving a great idea.

There about explosions, vapid bullshit and selling you junk you don't need(product placement is the devils work). Unfortunately the average viewer eats that shit up like it was biscuits and gravy, and wouldn't know actual quality if it came up and bit em on the ass.

I'm going to agree with the posters that have called you out on your questionable movie taste, Devin. You've made some really questionable calls the last year or so. Also, you've been just as guilty as the internet gutter nerds with some of your hyperbole. Though I can understand where you're coming from with your championing of Splice and Kick-Ass (mainstream films just don't even go remotely close to where those movies went), I think its clear that we need to champion edgy films that are actually good and have something to say, rather than films that are just edgy to get a reaction. I like seeing fucked up sexual shit on film just as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer to watch Matresse, Blue Velvet, Anti-Christ (credit to Devin for championing that film btw), etc. These films feel like they have something to say beyond their initial shock.

From the time that Marvel first announced issue #1 of Kick Ass, it seemed like dumb violence porn. Garth Ennis' The Boys deals with many of its same themes, but it is at least somewhat intelligible. Additionally, Millar's new project with Marvel, Kick-Ass' thematic cousin, seems like more of the same. It's tagline is "Makes Kick Ass Seem Like Shit!" That's some Idiocracy-esque marketing right there. I digress.

As for the state of the movie geek, all I can say is that a geek's enthusiasm does often get the best of him or her. I remember watching the Evil Dead trilogy with a few friends in grad school. I think I would've found it mildly amusing if they didn't quote every single line that came out of Bruce Campbell's mouth while we were all watching. Geeks of any type have so much zeal to convert the masses that they end up either turning them off, or not letting them to digest the material on their own.

A lot of young people wouldn;t have liked Evil Dead either. Or have heard of it. But now they have heard of the equivalents and sometimes even waatch them due to the hype, and you hear about their opinion on the internet. I don't think things have changed THAT much. In general, who but hard-core horror fans and super geeks have wanted to watch Basket Case?

GREAT POST! I know you're probably cherrypicking these comments,but it's so nice to read civilized conversation on the net. As an old man of 39, i remember those classic days of going into my local bookstore every month to get my fav magazines,Fangoria and
starlog. that was THE source for geek movie news for a kid from rural indiana.Don't get me wrong,i love the internet.I just miss having to work a little harder,and wait a little longer for my geek fix.

I agree with the sentiment Devin, it's just strange this argument is coming from you, someone who was the biggest LOST whiner of them all. Just look at your short immature reactionary piece to the LOST finale vs. MMorse's beautifully written breakdown, and you tell me who's the real geek and who's the whiny wanna-be geek.

It sounds like Chud and AICN need to EDUCATE the flock better. School them or filmmaking could be doomed to become American Idolized.

I'm going with the commenter who stated this current bunch of kids are just a bunch of smartasses. They simply lack the ability to see beyond their own ideals and that leads to their inability in grasping films such as the prequels and the Matrix sequels. Seriously, the commenter who stated that those films fit Devin's description up there very well, sums it up pretty damn well. It's all subjective I guess but if you have to deal with people who dislike Splice or Kick Ass. I have to deal with people who dislike the prequels and the Matrix sequels. It's a part of being a fan of film.

Maybe its because most reviewers now actually review genre stuff … and hate it. The vibe I have gotten from this page over the last couple of years is one of elitism and accusations of people that don't toe-the-line to the writers' particular visions of what cinema should be.
Dark? Edgy? Sure, that's great for some … but it doesn't necessarily make a good movie all of the time. However, this site seems to automaticallly crap on anything that may be mainstream … with the hypocrisy of advertising the movies for months in advance, posting hype of all kinds, and then absolutely destroying the movie when it is released. Read the reviews of most "good" and "bad" movies on this site … they are very similar, except for the scores at the end. As for the case of the "geeks" vs. the "cinephiles" … that is an interesting argument as well and extremely hypocritical. Star Wars, regardless of how badly it is bashed today, was not the domain of the "geeks" … it was EVERYBODY's domain (hence the Box-Office performance) … so it doesn't fit into geek cinema at all. Sam Raimi didn't get wealthy off of Evil Dead (no matter how highly revered it is) … he got rich off of SpiderMan (also not "geek" cinema, SpiderMan has been huge for DECADES in all arms of our culture). Star Crash, Death Race 2000, The Uninvited (George C. Scott version) … now that is geek culture in my humble opinion, whereas this is a mainstream site that wants to be held in as high regards as other film "critics." I guess the point I am trying to make is that this site in particular seems to HATE mainstream, and that is where the bone of contention always seems to crop up. The Human Centipede? Kick-Ass? Both were EVERYWHERE and on every site … that makes them at least mainstream attempts, regardless of what their success is or will be. No, the problem seems to be this website's perception of what makes good cinema vs. what the evil public seems to prefer. As for myself, I like the fact that there are "explodomatic" blockbusters so that genre stuff can actually be made.

Why is it always that if individuals that do not enjoy a movie you pushed are immediately blasted as unintelligent or the reason movies are shit. Is it fair for me to call you an idiot because you prefer grape jelly over strawberry? Sometimes a certain movie just doesn't hit a chord with some people. You continously mention "Observe Report," as if the collective internet came home from the theatres and blasted you with hate. For myself I truly disliked it, I could not find anything funny in the entire runtime; but all I said at the end of the night was, "that was pretty terrible. Oh well, let's get food." I might not agree with some reviews but I think it is silly to say "If you are a true movie fan you must like X, and hate Y." Also, the reader you quote says "dios wouldn't dare show us because 7 out 10 average, everyday citizens wouldn't approve of those images." I can open up a web browser and find the very same images in about 3 clicks at some popular sites on the internet. Nothing shocks me anymore, Human Centipide left me going "that's it?" I thought I was going to be vomitting into the waste basket but it left me completely wanting. This isn't to say I have not agreed with many of your reviews but like another user said "poorly acted and delivered does not make a film iconic."

Good article. In the case of Robert McKee though, I don't think he is a big part of the problem. I've been to the much bally-hooed three day seminar and he is an incredible speaker. He isn't really pushing formulas or a rigid structure AT ALL. For example, he will take two wildly different movies (say, Five Easy Pieces and Pulp Fiction) and show you what they have in common and surprisingly, there is a lot when it comes down to the most base story elements and mechanics. McKee is more about being aware of "classical structure" as opposed to beholden to it. And without McKee, there would be no Adaptation. which is surely in the top five of the last decade.

This is just the fact of Internet fandom EVERYWHERE. These same complaints have been levied on board gaming, video gaming, TV, movie, and every other type of website.

There is this perverse need to hate everything, unless it hits this comfortable groove of not being so obscure as to piss someone off for not knowing about it, but not so well known it just isn't 'cool' to like it.

Then you've got fans who dig something and love it and rave about it one minute (Iron Man 1, anyone?) but when it hits popular paydirt, they shit all over it as though they never loved it.

All of this Advocate is weird to me anyway, Devin, because you are often guilty of the same type of behavior. Except, this time, people directed that same behavior at something you liked, so it pissed you off.

But yeah, welcome to the Internet. If you're just now complaining about this, where have you been the past ten years or so?

I don't think you can ignore the fact that film-makers are now our age. They grew up with many of the same influences and that is reflected in their writing/directing. I've read the line "making the movie for us" on many sites and while that's all well and good "us" is a very specific time and place. The debate between Drew from HitFix and Eric from AICN on Twitter this morning is a good example: Drew really dislikes Goonies, Eric defended it, the debate turned into one on whether nostalgia induces blinders and whether crying that a film receives a level of adulation due to nostalgia is simply grousing about those damn kids. Scott Pilgrim could be Movie Zero for this, Edgar Wright is a brilliant director but the cues and effects that have so far been displayed in the trailers for the movie are aimed at people who grew up playing 8-bit video games, watch a LOT of movies and listen to non-mainstream music. That's not going to appeal to everyone that falls under the definition of "geek." To put it another way, my brother commented to me a couple of years ago that the music in commercials was getting better — he was referring to a HP commercial that had The Cure's Pictures of You playing on it. It had nothing to do with an uptick in quality, but everything to do with getting older and the people making the ads now being the same age as he was with similar tastes and cultural references. When people are playing in the same cultural and emotional sandbox that you play in the conection will be strong for some but lost on others, the internet then amplifies all parties and the vitriol usually wins out.

I find the real problem lately has been a love of hate. Folks love to hate on movies, and get a lot of attention when they do. It's part of the "0 or 10" mentality that's pervading criticism right now. Everything is either the "Best Movie Ever" or "Worst Movie Ever". There's no middle ground. And you get a lot more notice for shitting on popular works than supporting them. What's disappointing about "Splice"'s performance is relative to much worse genre films. If people don't support challenging films, the purse strings will close for them, and we'll never see a great mid-budget genre film again. Also, it's hard to sound intelligent on these comments without the ability to use paragraphs. Everybody looks like the Unabomber.

Excellent article Devin. And I am still mad at the response that Drag Me to Hell got. A genre movie that was also fun, and completely re-watchable, but it get's dinged from the clueless "oh their are so many scenes that are unintentional funny" camp.

Wow Devin nice article, I totally agree with all ur main points. Coming from a teenager myself I have to say that I don't fit onto the modern day movies. I feel like I'm stuck in wrong generation. I love love the old 80s early90s cult horror movies that push the envelope. Such as evil dead and my personal favorite Brain dead! The only problem being a teenager with tastes such as urs is that I find my friends not wanting to watch movies with me cause there stuck in the modern day bullshit. O well screw em cause I was born in the 80s at heart

I think that's a great point about the "0 or 10" mentality. It's the same thing in music where an album that gets a 7 out 10 doesn't seem worthy of one's time at the moment. We've entered an age where it's either great or it's shit and a lot of people aren't willing to "waste their time" on anything less. And on the whole, that concept or target sounds justified. Time is valuable. Why should we spend it watching or listening to 6s or 7s when there will eventually be an 8 or perhaps a 9 that comes out? The question itself sounds almost impossible to answer without sounding like some sort of pathetic apologist but here's my crack at it anyway: Consensus 8-9s and are only handed out when films or albums meet a necessary checklist that makes them almost impossible to argue against and a lot of times these aspects remind us of past 8s and 9s (Wide vista cinematography, show-y explosive acting performances, exploring an imporant social issue thematically) and that right there is what's so limiting and predictable about the whole process right now. It all but eliminates risk and stylistic differences. No 8 or 9 film can veer too far away from the checklist or it won't be considered a classic, which is a huge part of the reason why genre films often aren't considered classics and are rarely nominated for serious awards unless there's outstanding political pressure from the masses and box office support to justify it. This invisible checlklist of requirements has made things bland over the years and nearly formulaic. We've got it almost down to science now how to generate oscar bait and get good reviews and it's more analytical and business-like than it is artistic. And it's for this very reason that so many films on some of the more popular and well researched top 100 film lists from film scholars feature reassessed works that were previously considered 6s and 7s in their era due to them originally being too risky for the masses/critics of their era to appreciate. The films that are immediately regarded as 8s and 9s are occasionally soulless, calculated, focus group affairs that masquerade as heartfelt works of art through craftsmanship and technical excellence. I know what I'm going to expect most times when i'm watching a 8 or a 9 movie that everybody seems to love. I've probably had at least as many pleasant surprises and moments of inspiration, clarity, and awe watching slightly overlooked fare that was a little too controversial or different to be stamped an 8 or 9. There are a lot of great films out there right now that are currently graded as high 6s or 7s that will eventually be reassessed and it's this whole "It wasn't an 8 or a 9 so it's a 0" mentality that's keeping these films from finding audiences and improving the diversity and quality of the box office.

I love this article. Not because I have always felt this way, but because it has somewhat exposed to me the reasons for my tastes as of late with movies. Being raised in the '00 era of movies, I clearly have different tastes in movies as people raised in the 70's 80's and 90's. Unfortunately Devin, ur correct that the increase in cgi and super-mainstream movies has diminished the production of "campy" yet "classic" film. There is one thing I must argue with you about though. At least with me, all of my favorite movies are classics from the past that I watch in my living room any chance I get. I feel a lot of the hate and cynicism towards movies being released today is rooted in the desire for movies to return back to the level of production and story telling that they were in the past. The young generation of movie buffs do appreciate all the classics and I feel this might be the reason for the hate towards movies like splice and such. I respect all that ur saying, I just feel like a lot of the hate is rooted in the inner-belief that all these haters just want a return to classic and mindblowing movies, allowing them to tell their kids how they saw these movies in theaters, and how great they were, in years to come.

Agree, agree, agree. Since the 00s and all the comic adaptations (amongst others), there has been a huge influx of comic/novel/toyline purists who suddenly fancy themselves film experts. They bring the bullshit rules of comic books (bizarre commitment to continuity to the point of creating alternate dimensions, etc) to film, whereas film really doesn't have to follow those rules, though really nobody does. Films don't HAVE to be consistent, they can jump all over the place and play around with conventions, but this new crop of film geeks are just so close-minded they can't appreciate anything that challenges them. Like it was mentioned before, and there's also the new mentality that if a film doens't knock you on your ass, it's immediately worthless, instead of being sensibly labeled as "good".

I don't know, this commitment to consistency has just got to stop, and comic book purists need to stop hating for the sake of it.

Just to throw my voice into the choir; I'm 22 and loved Splice. I went with a couple of friends and a friend of a friend who brought two girl friends of his. Me and my two friends loved it and stood outside talking about it and riffing on other absurd ideas we've had for at least an hour or two after (not that uncommon though). I'm too lazy to go on since no one cares about us or our stupid conversations, so….. Yeah, we're out there. The one friend introduced himself to the other by saying "Hi, I'm____ and I love Videodrome." We're all out there, the few of us will be seeing Evil Dead at midnight in a couple of weeks at the local Landmark. Two of us saw HAUSU (which attracted a really pretentious and condescending, but sold out, audience that didn't seem to totally 'get' it. Even the the dorky types didn't seem to be laughing as often or at what I thought they would… but I guess we're spoiled by Exhumed Films out here and this was just advertised better than any of those) and we both enjoyed it. Two of them work at a theater that we watch insane Cronenberg or exploitation stuff in sometimes in vacant theaters. So, just saying, we're still out there. We're still buying Observe & Report, World's Greatest Dad, and Let The Right One In and watching them more than we should. We're don't totally subscribe to everything everyone says here, and hate some of the films, but the sensibility is still alive in the under 30 crowd to an extent.

I think the cause of the problem has been touched upon by more than a couple of commenters: the Internet. Not because it's makes us all dumb, but because it allows us the opportunity to be uninterested in learning.

Back in the day, if you wanted to know about a film coming out, you had to read magazines, newspapers, source materials. And in doing so, you would see other things mentioned that would make you curious. My whole interest in Bergman began when my humanities teacher showed us the parody short De Düva. That was in 1988 and so I had to haul my ass to the library to look up Bergman. Then you learn about the actors/actresses he worked with, directors influenced by him…and your knowledge and love of film and willingness to expand your horizons continues. But at the least, you are FORCED to read and be exposed to new information. Which made you willing to try a movie like "Evil Dead II".

With the Internet, you can simply look something up and be done with it. You can be told how to think about something without thinking about it. And while people who are innately curious will continue to be so, those who could go either way are sucked in by the ease of the Internet Age and become your average, uncurious hipster doofus.

And so a film like "Drag Me to Hell" or "World's Greatest Dad" gets the shaft because it doesn't fit the circumscribed knowledge base the current generation (by and large) possesses. It's why "Splice" will bomb and "Alice in Wonderland" will get a sequel.

I'm glad to see this particular topic being discussed by civilized film fans in comments. These are the smart, brave and involved film geeks out there that are harder to hear over the hordes of kids who just wait around for the next cycle of explodomatic summer blockbusters, Devin. Anyway, I think comparing AICN to Chud is wrong, as AICN sort of encourages that annoying fanboy knee-jerk reaction to everything, especially Knowles' reviews, while Devin mostly encourages intelligent film discussion despite the lack of discussion of classic cinema here on Chud. As for the "modern movie geek," we have to face the fact that true film fans who are willing to sit through the most challenging films, are an endangered species. The masses are easy to please, and fanboys only care about the next comic book adaptation, which they'll pay to see regardless of quality, and that makes Hollywood's job really easy. But I think there is another aspect of this topic that isn't being discussed: Sure, Hollywood is churning out crap every summer, but what about foreign cinema? There are still fun, intelligent, challenging and brilliant films being made every year in France, Korea, Japan, Spain etc., and they're in a variety of genres, everything from experimental film to hardcore horror. I think this where cinephiles should head if they want to get their fix of challenging cinema.

This is something I've been noticing for a long time. There is simply no counter-cultural aspect to 'geek' culture nowadays at all. Somewhere along the line, mainstream media noticed that there was money to be made from the geeks and started catering to them, which has led to the geeks basically becoming walking talking advertisements for mainstream corporate media. All the weirdness has been filtered out and anything that is, as you say, 'weird, offbeat, unique and difficult' is either ignored or looked upon with disdain because it isn't slick big budget crap based on a toy/comic/TV series/whatever. In the last decade or so, I've found it pretty difficult to converse with a lot of film geeks. I'm not interested in their comic-based blockbuster, and they're not interested in my weirdo flick. It used to bother me, but I've kinda gotten used to it. They can have Avatar, I've got World on a Wire.

Saw Splice at a preview screening. I wouldn't say it was necessarily a good movie, but it was definitely great insane entertainment of the kind that's seldom allowed to happen anymore. It reminded me of great trash films like Xtro that just don't care about things like good taste or even narrative coherence, and I'm ready to watch it again.

I think you're confusing "classic" with "cult classic," Devin.

Great article Devin. Completely agree.

Not only as a movie watcher but as a book reader, I've been looking abroad for the weird and different, too. Japanese films and novels are darker and sadder than American fair, Bollywood flims are brighter, indie Indian films more serious, European films sexier… In American publishing, the market has made up obsessed with genre in a way foreign publishers and writers aren't, so their literary arts can flow naturally along a spectrum of genre instead of being trapped within prisons of genre.

Evil Dead 2 did get released this generation it's called Drag Me to Hell.