You haven't seen Get Out OR It Follows and you assume the themes in it are hamfisted? Despite the former literally winning an Oscar for writing?

If it wasn't already clear. I hadn't watched those movies I've mentioned, mostly because I almost always spoil myself to reviews to avoid watching movies that I'll likely not enjoy.

So how do you know the movie is hamfisted if you haven't seen it?

@Fabricant451 Oscars aren't exactly something I hold in high-esteem. Suicide Squad won an Oscar...

@Dynamo Frokane Because someone that says they don't care for it, immediately hammer on a racial point, or points out that "it's about someone." Kind of reveals the film's hand/purpose don't it? ;D

But, no not really. If we avoid the semantics, putting the word "hamfisted" on the side, it's because I've seen enough about it without needing to see it. Or do I have to watch the Amazing Spiderman 2 myself, because you never know until ya see it? Or can one smell "a message" being the sole "strength/crux" of your movie from a mile away and when it's confirmed with outside media, be smart enough to avoid it.

Again, even if I agreed with whatever message it tried beating me subtly over the head. Like just read some of the IMDB reviews...

People who rated it a 10 or highly. (highest rated ones too, for the record)

"This film physiologically well expressed Caucasian's minds in the US society in post Obama era."

"There are no "monsters" here. The real villains are entitlement, egotism, and objectification, and god they are scary!"

"Get Out" doesn't replace the scares with humour – Peele is too smart to do that. Instead, he balances the fear with laughs and then laces everything with social comment..."

"Then of course there's the brilliant ways that race and the black experience make it into the film."

*Don't make me look for more things*

Ignoring that most IMDB reviews aren't written well. You're allowed to love that *everything is laced with social commentary*. Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would. But again, at best, it's preaching to the choir.

I don't really care for comedy in my horror. Even if I like a few Key & Peele skits, I don't really want it in a horror movie. (Same reason I didn't like all the disjointed comedy moments shoved into Halloween, for that matter.) It didn't look interesting from it's trailers, and nothing I read about it changed my mind...

*If a message or theme is remotely subtle, every single positive IMDB score will likely -not- mention exactly what it was about and what it stood for. With no differences in interpretation, because it was never meant to be taken any other way by the audience*

@Fabricant451 Oscars aren't exactly something I hold in high-esteem. Suicide Squad won an Oscar...

But it was an Oscar for make-up, may as well have been a participation reward.

@Fabricant451 Oscars aren't exactly something I hold in high-esteem. Suicide Squad won an Oscar...

Yes it did. For makeup. Which is far lower on the prestige totem pole than writing.

Because someone that says they don't care for it, immediately hammer on a racial point, or points out that "it's about someone." Kind of reveals the film's hand/purpose don't it? ;D

Yes, because film analysis boils down to "If a movie has themes I don't agree with it's a hamfisted movie."

But, no not really. If we avoid the semantics, putting the word "hamfisted" on the side, it's because I've seen enough about it without needing to see it. Or do I have to watch the Amazing Spiderman 2 myself, because you never know until ya see it? Or can one smell "a message" being the sole "strength/crux" of your movie from a mile away and when it's confirmed with outside media, be smart enough to avoid it.

I'm not sure what Amazing Spider-Man 2 has to do with anything, but assuming you're trying to make the connection between quality and reception then why even watch movies at all if you solely see something based on an arbitrary number value attached to a review? You might like Amazing Spider-Man 2. You can't realistically judge the quality of a product without seeing or using it yourself. You can make an informed decision on if you want to see something or purchase something based on footage, but it's disingenuous to say a movie does something badly if you haven't seen it and have no actual point of reference other than second or third hand anecdotes. Get Out is not a movie that has one 'sole strength' in its themes. Hell, the fact that different people come away with different interpretations of the ideas and themes presented should be counted as a strength. But Get Out has a lot going for it apart from the racial commentary.

Again, even if I agreed with whatever message it tried beating me subtly over the head.

So you don't agree that systemic racism is a thing and that people that champion for colored people are often just as racist as the more overt racists?

Like just read some of the IMDB reviews...

A bastion of quality and thought there.

Ignoring that most IMDB reviews aren't written well. You're allowed to love that *everything is laced with social commentary*. Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would. But again, at best, it's preaching to the choir.

How do you know the point of it if you haven't seen it? You just blindly agree with IMDB people and their interpretations?

I don't really care for comedy in my horror. Even if I like a few Key & Peele skits, I don't really want it in a horror movie. (Same reason I didn't like all the disjointed comedy moments shoved into Halloween, for that matter.) It didn't look interesting from it's trailers, and nothing I read about it changed my mind...

Do you not like comedy in action movies? In thrillers? In drama? Comedy has been a part of horror since damn near the start of the horror boom of the late 70s. Comedy is a tool in any film or medium and serves as a way in horror movies to diffuse tension or lull the audience into security before pulling the rug out. Not speaking about you specifically here but I hate it when people assume comedy somehow ruins the tone of a movie, comedy is an emotion - movies prey on negative and positive emotions. There are moments of levity in most movies, even grim ones, because otherwise you have an overbearingly bleak experience.

*If a message or theme is remotely subtle, every single positive IMDB score will likely -not- mention exactly what it was about and what it stood for. With no differences in interpretation, because it was never meant to be taken any other way by the audience*

Stop using IMDB as your point of reference, then. If the common denominator person just comes away from that movie going "IT'S ABOUT RACISM, I GET IT!" then they didn't actually understand the greater point being made or the symbolism or themes. Because it's a satire and a subtle one at that.

@Lord Wraith I just used that for a blunt point. But I'm certainly not the only one that doesn't like the Oscars, but that's often because the audience and critics see movies for different reasons. That's why there's always been Oscar bait movies that no one actually likes, or fondly remembers that end up getting showered with rewards.

Also, more recently there's people who don't even see the goddamn movie before voting for it. Like how there's people that admitted they voted for 12 Years Of Feel Guilty, without actually seeing it first. But just because they think it's socially important.

@SleepingSilence If general audiences were in charge of the Oscars, Michael Bay would have the most statues in the business. The Oscars broadcast is antiquated for sure but generally when a movie gets Oscar recognition it's an endorsement of its quality. It's like when a movie trailer references Cannes or Sundance. Oscar bait is a term that means considerably less these days and it says nothing about the quality of any given award caliber movie.

@Fabricant451 That comment really didn't deserve the split analysis. It was also replying (partially sarcastically) to a defense of what boils down to "Don't knock it, till you try it."

1. See above statement. But if you think it's hard to pull out reasons that Oscars aren't taken seriously by many more people than me. It won't feel like it to me. But it's hard to really nail an opinion down...

2. If you read it all first, before responding to it, you would have seen the very next sentence of "No, not really."

3. I respectfully disagree. I'm admittedly picky with my movies, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. But I don't need to see every bad movie or movies that I know weren't made for me to watch, to know not to bother with them. Again it's not even like I just watch a trailer and make my mind up, I almost read other material and see the general reviews and what they talk about. Most times I do see a movie anyway, it rarely turns out favorably.

Well I'd agree with the statement "The fact that different people come away with different interpretations of the ideas and themes presented should be counted as a strength." But literally every review nails the same points down. And it's not just imdb reviews, hence why I begged not to make me find more. Websites, Rotten Tomatoes, take your pick. The racial messages/stereotype commentary wasn't missed by a soul. But I'm willing to accept there's probably other things to like for people. I'm sure those who like comedy in horror, enjoyed all the Key & Peele style humor. Maybe if they make a comedy, I'd be more inclined.

4. Again, you wouldn't have said something that makes you look like you didn't read what I wrote. If you read it all at once. Because this question is already been answered. "Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would."

5. See previous point. If you're going to criticize the site, and not just reviews as a whole. Find me one site that doesn't mention the racial message anywhere in the review. (and if you can manage that, I'll see how "well written" it is.)

6. I read other material. I watch reviews. I have friends who watch movies too and have similar tastes. I'm watching you and somebody else lecture me how you can't believe I don't like the subtle movie that you both know is about 'benevolent racism' when everything said about it thus far proves my point further.

7. Not always, but it isn't comparable. But then again, it comes down to taste. Comedy and Horror are opposing tones. I'm not saying it can never work. But that's why I take more things into consideration.

8. See previous statements that have already repeated, "I don't actually just use IMDB, to decide what movies to not blow 12 bucks a pop on in theaters." But your own words give it away...

"So you don't agree that systemic racism is a thing and that people that champion for colored people are often just as racist as the more overt racists?"

Getting off into the weeds, Systemic racism can't be portrayed or actually be 'subtle' because its an entire system. The idea the thing that controls everything and everyone is somehow a subtle idea is preposterous. I digress. I'm willing to assume Key & Peele made their message/satire as slick as they possibly could.

I'm not the kind of guy to complain/boycott about the content (or perceived content) of a movie. You should be free to make whatever kind of movie you want. You using Oscars to defend movies that you like. Isn't really that much different from using review aggregate scores to make my decision on watching it. If you seriously watch literally all movies, play all games and listen to every album on the planet without looking at any outside content to influence your purchasing power/time spent. Godspeed. I simply won't be able to help myself.

Edit for other comment: I actually was going use him for a point though I passed for another easy target, but since you brought him up. Do you need to watch all the transformers movies and ninja turtles? You never know their quality and all the potential themes if you don't watch 'em. Don't forget to watch the director's cut, where it added an extra hour of explosions and racial stereotypes.

That comment really didn't deserve the split analysis. It was also replying (partially sarcastically) to a defense of what boils down to "Don't knock it, till you try it."

You mean how you're knocking movies you haven't tried?

1. See above statement. But if you think it's hard to pull out reasons that Oscars aren't taken seriously by many more people than me. It won't feel like it to me. But it's hard to really nail an opinion down...

And the Oscars are taken seriously by many more people than the vocal minority who see two movies a year and ask why the movie with the purple space man isn't up for best picture. Regardless of their presentation, the Oscars are damn near the most prestigious award for the film industry, particularly the American one.

2. If you read it all first, before responding to it, you would have seen the very next sentence of "No, not really."

I did read it. It doesn't discount what I said.

3. I respectfully disagree. I'm admittedly picky with my movies, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. But I don't need to see every bad movie or movies that I know weren't made for me to watch, to know not to bother with them. Again it's not even like I just watch a trailer and make my mind up, I almost read other material and see the general reviews and what they talk about. Most times I do see a movie anyway, it rarely turns out favorably.

You disagree that it's possible for someone to see a movie that is critically panned, see it anyway, and come away liking it? Have you heard about this movie called Venom? No one is saying you need to see 'every bad movie' but if you want to have an actual take or opinion on a movie such as, say, Get Out, it helps to have actually seen the movie. It's like going "Man, Citizen Kane is a bad movie." And when someone asks what you didn't like about it the response is "Oh, I didn't see it, but the hundreds of people saying it's the greatest movie ever are wrong."

It's fine to not see movies or to not be interested in them, but it really doesn't do credibility any favors if your biases towards something are so strong that you form an opinion without actually seeing a movie in the first place.

Well I'd agree with the statement "The fact that different people come away with different interpretations of the ideas and themes presented should be counted as a strength." But literally every review nails the same points down.

It's almost like movies can have more than one central core and theme and that just because there is commentary on systemic racism doesn't mean that's all the movie has to offer. You'd know this if you saw the movie instead of just assuming it's all about racism and nothing else.

And it's not just imdb reviews, hence why I begged not to make me find more. Websites, Rotten Tomatoes, take your pick. The racial messages/stereotype commentary wasn't missed by a soul.

I can point out a number of people who missed the overall point when they start asking questions like "Why black people and not other races".

I'm sure those who like comedy in horror, enjoyed all the Key& Peele style humor. Maybe if they make a comedy, I'd be more inclined.

There isn't any Key and Peele style humor in Get Out. And they did make a comedy.

4. Again, you wouldn't have said something that makes you look like you didn't read what I wrote. If you read it all at once. Because this question is already been answered. "Even if I agreed with the point of it, and assuming what I've read about it, I would."

I did read it all at once. You said that after the thing I quoted and I literally quoted that section later anyway. The way you phrase things comes off as very wishywashy and the language of "Even if I agreed..." has the connotation of you not agreeing.

5. See previous point. If you're going to criticize the site, and not just reviews as a whole. Find me one site that doesn't mention the racial message anywhere in the review. (and if you can manage that, I'll see how "well written" it is.)

You're asking me to find a review that doesn't exist because racial issues are core to the movie and to make a review without mentioning it would be like reviewing A Star Is Born without mentioning the musical numbers. But that doesn't mean that the movie is all message and no substance or subtext or that there's more going on than just 'racism bad'.

6. I read other material. I watch reviews. I have friends who watch movies too and have similar tastes. I'm watching you and somebody else lecture me how you can't believe I don't like the subtle movie that you both know is about 'benevolent racism' when everything said about it thus far proves my point further.

No, you're watching two people call you out for being incorrect about a movie while trying to act like you know everything it has to offer because you read reviews and talk to people. I talk to people too. I know people that didn't like Get Out for reasons not even relating to the racial bits but at least they've seen the fucking thing. You came into this stating that the movie is hamfisted and then you haven't even seen it. You're counting on second and third hand information and coming to a conclusion that because race is a core theme that the movie must just hammer the point home. It doesn't.

7. Not always, but it isn't comparable. But then again, it comes down to taste. Comedy and Horror are opposing tones. I'm not saying it can never work. But that's why I take more things into consideration.

Comedy and Tragedy are opposing tones. Horror and comedy are damn near peanut butter and chocolate. Even classics of the genre have comedy. Evil Dead 2, Re-Animator, Dead Alive, Return of the Living Dead, Tremors, Gremlins, Scream, Arachnophobia. It's why movies like Cabin in the Woods exist. It's why horror-comedy is a genre.

8. See previous statements that have already repeated, "I don't actually just use IMDB, to decide what movies to not blow 12 bucks a pop on in theaters." But your own words give it away...

Then maybe don't try to make the bafflingly stupid point that "If IMDB users who rate the movie highly can see that the movie is about race, then the movie must be hamfisted and not subtle ergo I'm right in my assumption."

Getting off into the weeds, Systemic racism can't be portrayed or actually be 'subtle' because its an entire system. The idea the thing that controls everything and everyone is somehow a subtle idea is preposterous. I digress. I'm willing to assume Key & Peele made their message/satire as slick as they possibly could.

Do you know what satire is. Do you look at an Onion headline and go "Pssh, that's ridiculous, no one would believe that!"? A movie about systemic racism can be portrayed in a subtle manner. Get Out isn't fucking Crash where white characters hold their purses a little closer anytime a black person walks by and it isn't fucking Volcano where a dumb kid looks at black and white people covered in ash and looks in the camera and says "WE'RE ALL JUST PEOPLE!" At no point in Get Out does the theme detract from the movie, and the fact that some people walk away from it just going "It's about racism and racism is bad, I'm woke!" didn't actually 'get' it because the point was more subtle than that.

A character going "I would've voted for Obama a third time" is far, far, far more subtle than you give it credit for, and that's just a glaring and obvious example.

Also stop saying Key and Peele, it was just Jordan Peele, not both of them.

I'm not the kind of guy to complain/boycott about the content (or perceived content) of a movie. You should be free to make whatever kind of movie you want. You using Oscars to defend movies that you like. Isn't really that much different from using review aggregate scores to make my decision on watching it. If you seriously watch literally all movies, play all games and listen to every album on the planet without looking at any outside content to influence your purchasing power/time spent. Godspeed. I simply won't be able to help myself.

I wasn't using the Oscars as a defense, I was using the Oscars as an objective source to back up the claim of quality writing. But if you hate the Oscars here are some other sources Get Out was nominated or won for in the category of screenplay:

-Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards
-African-American Film Critics Association
-Alliance of Women Film Journalists
-Austin Film Critics Association
-Black Reel Awards
-British Academy Film Awards
-Chicago Film Critics Association
-Critics' Choice Movie Awards
-Detroit Film Critics Society
-Dorian Awards
-Dublin Film Critics' Circle
-Empire Awards

And that's not even all of them. The Oscars are just the most prestigious of the lot, but if so many different outlets and sources of professional critics can agree that the movie is written well then...maybe, just maybe, there's something to this whole idea of Get Out being subtle in its themes. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks...

I do look at reviews from sources I trust and I make an informed decision on if I want to see a movie or buy a game or something. What I don't do is make a claim that a movie I haven't seen is hamfisted because I read a review saying so.

You totally did it again on purpose didn't you?

1. ...Yes? The purpose of my entire assortment of paragraphs is debunking that idea, because it's a pure fallacy of logic. Like it's literally a fallacy argument.

2. You can think that. I don't.

3. 'Discounts' is the wrong word. 'Pointless' is more accurate. You sincerely responding to my (admitted in the very next line to be a) sarcastic comment. Won't get anyone anywhere...

4. *Now you're getting me to do a double take, because I swore I already mentioned my negative opinion of Venom on here, but now I realize it might have just been the discord* Yes, I've heard of Venom...and I didn't really like the movie. XD

And no, it's really not. Reviews on why the movie was liked, are just as important as ones that didn't. I mean even this entire conversation, the only thing you've mentioned about the movie is the racial point. Certainly not hard selling me to give it a chance. Not that you need to. But you essentially said, "It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but you have to watch everything presented to you before you can approved said disinterest."

And I know for a fact, nobody does that with consistency. So I don't even believe, that you sincerely believe that. Because if you did believe that audiences and critics could both be wrong all the time and its a wild west where you may never know. You would never have used the Oscars to validate certain movies, because that also relies on outside opinion.

5. Literally every single movie has themes. As many as audience members would love to interpret. The last time I was lambasted by multiple people that I never saw the movie so I could never understand the sheer depths of its astounding quality was that shitty Ghost In The Shell movie. And I was proven right and wasted a considerable amount of time on something I knew was going to blow chunks. I'm pretty sure how I've said I've been proven wrong on movies before, but in those cases it wasn't so concretely backed up with outside opinion and was more of a vague hunch. And I try to be at least a little better than that now. But I will not see every movie, especially in theaters, if I don't think I'm going to enjoy it. You don't have that much time in your life.

6. I'm watching a "My opinion is better than your opinion." shine on through without much self-awareness. I'd be wrong in your eyes if I saw the movie or not. So let's be clear that doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. See previous answers. If all you want is a semantics argument over my word choice, and completely skip over the whole "I don't want "a message" in my horror movie..." Then we've reached a foregone conclusion. (Also, your own explanation of the movie is the same as every other person I've seen explain the movie.)

7. I'm not saying they don't happen all the time. But it's not my brand of horror movie, usually. Cabin In The Woods worked because really it was a comedy/satire of the genre before being anything else. I'm not knocking a horror movie for "not being scary." Since again, most of what's being discussed is subjective anyway. The best way to shill for a movie (or anything that) you like, for people that don't want to/haven't seen it for various reasons. Is not attacking them, or trying to attribute some motivation.

Your best defense and chance of trying to get someone to watch a movie that has reservations is not going "This movie has so much more nuance than you think, and you're probably one of the racists they strictly cover throughout the entire movie." Just spitballing there.

8. Yes, it is stupid to use outsider resources to justify your own point of view. It was merely a single example. I didn't intend to post several thesis papers on the movie when that was never my point in the first place...

(Yes, only those dumb IMDB comments and the hundreds who liked/agreed with the comment think the movie is heavily about race. That's why out of the several things I've mentioned about the movie and the other person mentioned about the movie was solely about race. When that was never apart of your original point and we ourselves brought it up first.)

Look, I don't even disagree with look beyond critical or audience reactions. If you want to watch something, because it looks good to you. Do it, you don't have to let others influence you. But if you don't want to, I think it's equally valid to save yourself the trouble. But again, you both started this argument that I didn't even intend to make.

9. We really are just arguing semantics with that last one aren't we? (Nothing else said wasn't something I didn't touch upon already in some shape or form.)

10. Basically don't use pedestrian reviews and opinions to make up your mind. Use Hollywood. Appeal to authority. But they also can be wrong, see Venom. Got it.

I'm sorry, but that's bull. Everyone makes surface judgement about every aspect of life, let alone the unimportant stuff, if you even have your own taste and critical perception. You've both hammered on the race satire, but please note that I didn't mention that anywhere in my original comment. And note I even suggested that I disregarded their individual quality. I never said something is bad, when I didn't watch it. If I'm not allowed to have impressions of trends in horror movies. Then forgive me for having no pedestal to stand on.

This conversation has done wonders showing me that there's more than meets the eye.

You totally did it again on purpose didn't you?

Only thing being done on purpose here is you making it all the more annoying to have a discussion with your silly ordered list.

1. ...Yes? The purpose of my entire assortment of paragraphs is debunking that idea, because it's a pure fallacy of logic. Like it's literally a fallacy argument.

What's the fallacy here? You're over here making claims about movies you haven't seen and then acting like you're making sound reasoning and logic because you've read a couple reviews. "Don't knock it until you try it" is the exact opposite of what you're doing. You're literally knocking it without trying it because you think trying it will just further play into your own biases.

2. You can think that. I don't.

You don't think I read what you wrote? I mean if you wanna be wrong I guess. Oh wait, this is about the Oscars. If you don't think the Oscars are the most prestigious awards for the modern American film industry then have fun being actually wrong I guess?

3. 'Discounts' is the wrong word. 'Pointless' is more accurate. You sincerely responding to my (admitted in the very next line to be a) sarcastic comment. Won't get anyone anywhere...

Oh wait nevermind this is the tl;dr comment. I don't quote respond to be a dick, I do it so the people I'm speaking with know specifically which points I'm addressing. You know. To avoid confusion and such. I sincerely respond to comments because A: Sarcasm doesn't come through super well in the internet (or else people aren't very good at it) and B: Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt and assume everyone is willing to have the same conversation.

4. *Now you're getting me to do a double take, because I swore I already mentioned my negative opinion of Venom on here, but now I realize it might have just been the discord* Yes, I've heard of Venom...and I didn't really like the movie. XD

Not the point I was making. Now who doesn't read am I right? (That was sarcasm by the way. Or was it?)

And no, it's really not. Reviews on why the movie was liked, are just as important as ones that didn't. I mean even this entire conversation, the only thing you've mentioned about the movie is the racial point. Certainly not hard selling me to give it a chance. Not that you need to. But you essentially said, "It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but you have to watch everything presented to you before you can approved said disinterest."

I'm not trying to hardsell you on the movie. Judging by your posts in this topic I wouldn't sell you on a movie even if I worked in a video store, not because I don't want to but because you're so picky you'd probably hate something because there was one minute of comedy in a two and a half hour character drama about homicide. It's okay to be disinterested or dislike media, but to have an opinion on that media without experiencing it makes your opinion weaker. I haven't seen Venom. I have no desire to see Venom and didn't have any desire to do so even BEFORE the reviews came out. Even people I talk to who have generally positive experiences with the movie aren't making me want to see it, but I'm not making the claim that Venom is a garbage fire of a movie. It could be, for all I know, but my opinion of the movie is just "I haven't seen it, it doesn't interest me" and not "It sounds better than these other blockbuster movies that shoehorn in some hamfisted girl power point with its message".

What you're doing is making the claim that Get Out (and other movies in the same overall genre as 'horror') is hamfisted an chastising it for 'having a message' without seeing the movie at all. It makes you look silly because people who have seen it know it's flatout untrue. You can say that the subject matter doesn't interest you. You can say that it's not your kind of movie. You can't make a claim about the content and intent and success of said content/intent of the movie without seeing it. Because how do you know?

And I know for a fact, nobody does that with consistency. So I don't even believe, that you sincerely believe that. Because if you did believe that audiences and critics could both be wrong all the time and its a wild west where you may never know. You would never have used the Oscars to validate certain movies, because that also relies on outside opinion.

Audiences and critics aren't 'wrong'. Critics aren't 'wrong' for liking, say, The Last Jedi and neither are audiences 'wrong' who didn't like it. Film criticism is, in the short term, a way to summarize and critique aspects of a film that worked or didn't for the individual reviewer. The average movie goer is not going to look at different sources and critic scores, they're going to see a number on Rotten Tomates or see a commercial with a bunch of out of context quotes and go from there. This is why you constantly have people who say stuff like "I dunno what the critics were smoking, I liked that movie!"

There's nothing wrong with using the Oscars to mention a movie's quality. You brought up Suicide Squad as some kind of indictment on the Oscars just because Suicide Squad had legitimately good makeup - Killer Croc wasn't CG for a reason. But if someone hears "Best Picture Winner" or "Was nominated for Best Picture/Golden Globe" it makes an immediate impression to them. "Oh, this movie won/is up for an Oscar? It's probably really good!" So yes, the Oscars are as valid as any other means of forming an opinion on whether or not to see a movie.

5. Literally every single movie has themes. As many as audience members would love to interpret. The last time I was lambasted by multiple people that I never saw the movie so I could never understand the sheer depths of its astounding quality was that shitty Ghost In The Shell movie. And I was proven right and wasted a considerable amount of time on something I knew was going to blow chunks. I'm pretty sure how I've said I've been proven wrong on movies before, but in those cases it wasn't so concretely backed up with outside opinion and was more of a vague hunch. And I try to be at least a little better than that now. But I will not see every movie, especially in theaters, if I don't think I'm going to enjoy it. You don't have that much time in your life.

Every movie has themes but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a movie at surface level - hell most people do and it's why loud movies tend to do super well in regards to mass consumption and market appeal. Not every movie is made with subtext or analysis in mind. Get Out is but it can also be enjoyed just as a pure reality horror movie where the villain isn't a slasher but is no less terrifying a concept precisely because it's so grounded in reality. It holds a mirror up in the way the best horror movies do. If you go into a movie or literally anything with the negativity bias most times you're going to come away like "I KNEW IT! I WAS RIGHT, IT SUCKED!" and that's no way to go through life or media.

6. I'm watching a "My opinion is better than your opinion." shine on through without much self-awareness. I'd be wrong in your eyes if I saw the movie or not. So let's be clear that doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. See previous answers. If all you want is a semantics argument over my word choice, and completely skip over the whole "I don't want "a message" in my horror movie..." Then we've reached a foregone conclusion. (Also, your own explanation of the movie is the same as every other person I've seen explain the movie.)

First off, if you saw the movie we wouldn't be having this discussion. This started because Dynamo asked the question on how you knew it was hamfisted if you hadn't seen it while my question was more disbelieving in nature and your answer was to list out of context snippets from IMDb and then make the bizarre claim that the movie (which you haven't seen, of course) has Key and Peele style humor despite none of the snippets you posted saying that. The fact that you kept mentioning Key and Peele as if this was a joint effort instead of just one doesn't exactly help the case. This isn't a matter of "my opinion is better than your opinion" it's a matter of "I've seen the movie, you're wrong, stop trying to sound like you know how well the movie is structured because you literally cannot make that assertion because you haven't seen it." If you don't want a 'message' in your horror movie then don't watch horror movies, fucking Dawn of the Dead is satire about consumerism and slasher films damn well might as well have abstinence seminars attached to them. If you think Get Out is a preachy film, you're wrong. If you think it's got a message, no more so than any other film in its ilk. And I haven't even explained the movie beyond the point that I'm starting to believe is true that you're the type of person the film is satirisng.

7. I'm not saying they don't happen all the time. But it's not my brand of horror movie, usually. Cabin In The Woods worked because really it was a comedy/satire of the genre before being anything else. I'm not knocking a horror movie for "not being scary." Since again, most of what's being discussed is subjective anyway. The best way to shill for a movie (or anything that) you like, for people that don't want to/haven't seen it for various reasons. Is not attacking them, or trying to attribute some motivation.

Your best defense and chance of trying to get someone to watch a movie that has reservations is not going "This movie has so much more nuance than you think, and you're probably one of the racists they strictly cover throughout the entire movie." Just spitballing there.

Why would I want to shill for a movie to someone who admits that they're super picky and wouldn't like it anyway because it has a message it hamfistedly shoves down your throat. You're not going to watch it no matter what I say about it and literally all I've said about it is surface level shit about it being a well written horror movie steeped in social commentary - which any idiot has probably said in the goddamn byline of a review.

8. Yes, it is stupid to use outsider resources to justify your own point of view. It was merely a single example. I didn't intend to post several thesis papers on the movie when that was never my point in the first place...

What was the point, exactly? That because the movie deals with race it must have a message and be hamfisted about it?

(Yes, only those dumb IMDB comments and the hundreds who liked/agreed with the comment think the movie is heavily about race. That's why out of the several things I've mentioned about the movie and the other person mentioned about the movie was solely about race. When that was never apart of your original point and we ourselves brought it up first.)

The original point was how stupid it was of you to make the claim that the movie was hamfisted when you hadn't even seen it.

9. We really are just arguing semantics with that last one aren't we? (Nothing else said wasn't something I didn't touch upon already in some shape or form.)

The semantics of satire? The semantics of one movie not being hamfisted while mentioning movies that ARE and are worse because of it?

10. Basically don't use pedestrian reviews and opinions to make up your mind. Use Hollywood. Appeal to authority. But they also can be wrong, see Venom. Got it.

I don't use pedestrian reviews to make up my mind, no. When a movie comes out that I'm unsure on - because usually I know if I'm interested based on the trailer or director or cast but I'm not claiming to be the average film audience member - I won't go to IMDb or like Jeremy Jahns or Chris Stuckmann or RedLetterMedia, I'll go through the small handful of critics whose reviews and/or writing I enjoy to see what their take is and then for fun I'll read some negative takes. There's no right or wrong in criticism unless the critic makes a statement that can be disputed. Just because a critic disliked, say, Black Panther doesn't make them wrong because everyone else loved it; what would make that critic wrong would be if they said "Black Panther shows that isolationism and blind nationalism are unequivocally good!"

My point with Venom, that I don't know how you missed, was that Venom is a widely critically panned movie, but it's a movie that audiences seemed to enjoy. Neither of them are wrong for doing so. My point was that just because a movie is 'bad' doesn't mean you or anyone can't come away from it thinking it's good.

I'm sorry, but that's bull. Everyone makes surface judgement about every aspect of life, let alone the unimportant stuff, if you even have your own taste and critical perception. You've both hammered on the race satire, but please note that I didn't mention that anywhere in my original comment.

No, you said it was hamfisted and preachy. It wasn't. We called you out on this.

And note I even suggested that I disregarded their individual quality. I never said something is bad, when I didn't watch it. If I'm not allowed to have impressions of trends in horror movies. Then forgive me for having no pedestal to stand on.

This isn't about good movie, bad movie, it's about you saying something patently false and defending it. Your tone, and don't claim this was sarcasm, was quite snide since you made a direct comparison to A Quiet Place and its 'twist' not being 'clever and "give a message" like X, Y, and Z and horror movies attempting to insert some hamfisted point in it". To which the response was "Get Out wasn't hamfisted" and you doubled your money, doubled your fun with how you don't like being preached to in a horror movie. It was only after this, and the reassertion on my end that it's not preachy unless you're who the movie is satirizing, that you said you hadn't seen it and now we're here wondering how you can make the claim that Get Out is "hamfisted" and "preachy" if you haven't seen it.

Horror movies having 'messages' is nothing new and Get Out isn't even new in that regard, but that doesn't make it any less poignant or relevant.

This conversation has done wonders showing me that there's more than meets the eye.

My dude just admit that you made a silly claim.

Only thing being done on purpose here is you making it all the more annoying to have a discussion with your silly ordered list.

>Weighing the possibilities and the pro's and con's of this single sentence.

1. The statement is really lacking any forethought. And despite every other point being made previous in a single (non split up/divided) format. Somehow it's the replier's fault for wanting to respond in a cleaner and more concise manner. By foregoing including the entire reply, split up into unnecessary/uneven chunks that makes the list possible in the first place as a counter balance to the clusterfrick.

2. The "I'm rubber, your glue/no u infinity" defense is being used. Typical, for some discernible reason. Aside from it's just much easier to copy/paste than be creative or concise.

3. You genuinely think and want my reply to include me taking all your reply and inserting it into my commentary unnecessarily. Despite the fact there's multiple point we both are repeating ourselves, and you are just outright missing context that you wouldn't if you didn't reply that way.

>Regardless, it's responding to a joke again. So clearly not much on the to-do list. Do you bother even reading (let alone responding) to the rest?

1. Do literally anything else. (That requires you having something to do that you'll be interested in sticking with while you feel like achy and moody from lack of sleep)

2. Don't lie to yourself. You have nothing better to do.

>I also graciously await a TL:DR statement, or you repeating this in some way, shape or form.

This is what you do to me.

But fine. You want me to do what you're doing...I'm sure this will be *so* much clearer.

---

What's the fallacy here?

See your own phrase highlighted in purple.

You're over here making claims about movies you haven't seen

It's called having first impressions and basic pattern recognition. One in which has yet to actually be challenged.

and then acting like you're making sound reasoning and logic because you've read a couple reviews.

Untrue.

"Don't knock it until you try it"

Man, I see what you mean this splitting up business is much cleaner than replying all at once.

is the exact opposite of what you're doing.

Because I don't want to commit that fallacy.

You're literally knocking it without trying it because you think

I probably wouldn't even have written this sentence, if I didn't split off this thought.

trying it will just further play into your own biases.

Frankly, having this conversation is playing into my own biases...

---

Yeah. No, even I'm tired of replicating that. So back to just a single overall response. To refrain from repeating myself ad-infinitum. Okay, so out of everything said. Here's maybe a few things I can respond to. (and hopefully end.)

This entire conversation has been a blatant contradiction. You've stated that in terms of audience and critic opinion, that nobody can really be wrong. Basically the idea and general two sides of subjectivity and objectivity. On one side that there is objective truth and that people can very much be wrong. And the other, that everyone has their own subjective truth and that saying somebody is wrong (is also wrong objectively.) Gee, wonder which side makes more sense.

But in this case, you've just argued both. Because everyone else can have their opinion. You just tacitly admitted to never watching Venom but you've made a statement on the movie and used it as a general example to simply have a discussion. (and I can only guess you've had the sense -not- to watch all Micheal Bay movies.) But you understand the general pattern of his movies enough to make a critical judgement of those movies. And both of those things, are fair and obvious to me.

But nothing I've done is different to what you are currently doing. I'm simply already aware of this.

I stated I generally prefer my horror movies to be without messages, listed ones off the top of my head, and said regardless of their quality, I'd would prefer to not have them crammed into a story. I simply gave an opinion. To be fair, Dynamo's first comment brought up the racial point. So that's what started it, and our conversation happens to have spawned from that. But then again, your first response is "If you think the story felt preachy/like a lecture to you" then *insert attributed motive here* (Whether playful or serious, it doesn't really matter here.)

So if you find my original statement off the cuff. Fine, it is. But you had just made your own loaded statement in response. When you later clarify and contradict that friends you have did dislike the movie without having this problem. To summarize. My original comment was not what it was twisted into. In your own convenient terms, I'm not "wrong" for having these first impressions. And after the repeated (and equally snarky) explanations about the racial message and nothing else, it doesn't help the movie's case that the movie wasn't designed to have those kind of conversations about it.

And because I don't want this conversation to spiral down, I'm merely being playful in the beginning. And don't actually intend to antagonize. I get the intention. I know the idea of someone having an surface opinion can make people defensive, but it wasn't my intention. My claim is no less provable, and far less personal than either of your reactionary responses. I'm certainly well aware that my preconceived stubbornness can lead me to missing out, and I already make attempts to be better in spite of how often is goes the way I expect. But I do you hope (and I'd like to think I'm not alone that looking at your statements) would only highlight and emphasized how the message overwhelms the noteworthiness rest of film. Because nothing else was even described, and was used as a "weapon" to attach a label on someone with simple reservations.

And I see the slight irony of discussing doing things in a concise manner and taking forever to get to the point, even if it was partially on purpose. I'm sorry. I'm moody and bored and it makes me sounds overly serious.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

>Weighing the possibilities and the pro's and con's of this single sentence.

1. The statement is really lacking any forethought. And despite every other point being made previous in a single (non split up/divided) format. Somehow it's the replier's fault for wanting to respond in a cleaner and more concise manner. By foregoing including the entire reply, split up into unnecessary/uneven chunks that makes the list possible in the first place as a counter balance to the clusterfrick.

2. The "I'm rubber, your glue/no u infinity" defense is being used. Typical, for some discernible reason. Aside from it's just much easier to copy/paste than be creative or concise.

3. You genuinely think and want my reply to include me taking all your reply and inserting it into my commentary unnecessarily. Despite the fact there's multiple point we both are repeating ourselves, and you are just outright missing context that you wouldn't if you didn't reply that way.

>Regardless, it's responding to a joke again. So clearly not much on the to-do list. Do you bother even reading (let alone responding) to the rest?

1. Do literally anything else. (That requires you having something to do that you'll be interested in sticking with while you feel like achy and moody from lack of sleep)

2. Don't lie to yourself. You have nothing better to do.

>I also graciously await a TL:DR statement, or you repeating this in some way, shape or form.

This is what you do to me.

But fine. You want me to do what you're doing...I'm sure this will be *so* much clearer.

---

I mean if you're gonna be this bitchy about it then fuck, sorry for thinking there's a better way to discuss things on a forum with a quote feature than just numbering things.

Man, I see what you mean this splitting up business is much cleaner than replying all at once.

Yes. It is. When you actually do it with the intent of doing it rather than literally breaking it up by the individual sentence in one paragraph like you're doing in some bizarre attempt to prove some point. You can't even mock my style properly, dude.

Frankly, having this conversation is playing into my own biases...

Then stop prolonging it and just admit you made an incorrect and bad call instead of trying to win some nonexistent war of logic or whatever.

This entire conversation has been a blatant contradiction. You've stated that in terms of audience and critic opinion, that nobody can really be wrong. Basically the idea and general two sides of subjectivity and objectivity. On one side that there is objective truth and that people can very much be wrong. And the other, that everyone has their own subjective truth and that saying somebody is wrong (is also wrong objectively.) Gee, wonder which side makes more sense.

Criticism is subjective by its very nature. A critic can be wrong about the technical aspects of a film as much as an audience member can but a critic who dislikes something that's well loved isn't wrong for doing so. This isn't some hard concept to grasp, this is like pre film theory. You made an objectively false statement, not a subjective one.

But in this case, you've just argued both. Because everyone else can have their opinion. You just tacitly admitted to never watching Venom but you've made a statement on the movie and used it as a general example to simply have a discussion. (and I can only guess you've had the sense -not- to watch all Micheal Bay movies.) But you understand the general pattern of his movies enough to make a critical judgement of those movies. And both of those things, are fair and obvious to me.

I used Venom as an example to point out the subjectivity of film opinions. It's not hard, I literally said this. I've watched all the Michael Bay movies, even his good ones, but that doesn't matter. Michael Bay is not an objectively bad director. He makes subjectively bad movies. I know people that love the Transformers movies. They aren't wrong for doing so. I think they are all pretty shit. This wasn't even about critics, you're the one that used user reviews as some kind of defense for your bunk statement.

But nothing I've done is different to what you are currently doing. I'm simply already aware of this.

The difference, and the crux of this entire stupid thing, is you making a ridiculous comment and trying to justify it instead of running it back and admitting that maybe you misspoke.

I stated I generally prefer my horror movies to be without messages, listed ones off the top of my head, and said regardless of their quality, I'd would prefer to not have them crammed into a story. I simply gave an opinion. To be fair, Dynamo's first comment brought up the racial point. So that's what started it, and our conversation happens to have spawned from that. But then again, your first response is "If you think the story felt preachy/like a lecture to you" then *insert attributed motive here* (Whether playful or serious, it doesn't really matter here.)

You said that after the initial response. Your initial statement was:

'I've been meaning to watch The Quiet Place, since I've seen more good things about that. (and it also doesn't sound like the twist is trying to be clever and "give a message" like, The Babadook, Get Out, It Follows and the recent trend of horror movies attempting to insert some hamfisted point in it.) *Not speaking of their individual quality.*'

My first response was that Get Out is the opposite of hamfisted.

Our issue was never with the statement of quality or if you liked the movie or not but that Get Out wasn't hamfisted. You followed it up with the "no messages in my horror movies" statement (which is itself a weird thing to note considering horror movies and all) to which I followed up with the tongue in cheek but none the less accurate assessment of the type of person who would watch Get Out and be like "Pssh, I don't need to be lectured to I came for a movie!" as being in the same vein as the person who watches Get Out and doesn't understand why the white people don't do the thingymabob to other races - including white people.

So if you find my original statement off the cuff. Fine, it is. But you had just made your own loaded statement in response. When you later clarify and contradict that friends you have did dislike the movie without having this problem. To summarize. My original comment was not what it was twisted into. In your own convenient terms, I'm not "wrong" for having these first impressions. And after the repeated (and equally snarky) explanations about the racial message and nothing else, it doesn't help the movie's case that the movie wasn't designed to have those kind of conversations about it.

The difference in our statements is that mine comes from the camp of having seen the movie multiple times and engaged in analysis of its themes while yours comes from the camp of not seeing it and assuming you know all there is on offer. One is an informed position. The other is Cliffs Notes. My friends who disliked the movie still can and did appreciate the film for its merits such as acting and symbolism while also thinking it didn't hit every mark it set out to or find issue in its 'unconventional horror' genre trappings. The movie offers more than just satire and subtlety on systemic racism. That's just a central core.

And because I don't want this conversation to spiral down, I'm merely being playful in the beginning. And don't actually intend to antagonize. I get the intention. I know the idea of someone having an surface opinion can make people defensive, but it wasn't my intention. My claim is no less provable, and far less personal than either of your reactionary responses.

Okay. Prove that Get Out is hamfisted and preachy. I'll wait. It wasn't that you made a surface opinion, it's that you didn't even bring a shovel.

I'm certainly well aware that my preconceived stubbornness can lead me to missing out, and I already make attempts to be better in spite of how often is goes the way I expect. But I do you hope (and I'd like to think I'm not alone that looking at your statements) would only highlight and emphasized how the message overwhelms the noteworthiness rest of film. Because nothing else was even described, and was used as a "weapon" to attach a label on someone with simple reservations.

Again I have to wonder why anyone would attempt to sell you on a movie you've clearly already gotten some kind of idea on. Get Out is not just about liberal leaning white people and systemic racism, but yes it's a major element of it. And nothing in it is hamfisted or preachy. It is incredibly sharp and insightful, subtle, satirical, and effective as a horror movie because of the reality of its more insidious characters.

If you'd watched the movie you'd know this.

And I'd have no issue with you thinking it was bad or whatever.

I did say sorry for snarking back, to your own snark.

Okay. Prove that Get Out is hamfisted and preachy. I'll wait. It wasn't that you made a surface opinion, it's that you didn't even bring a shovel.

No. Because I never professed that as a fact, or told you that you were wrong or had ulterior motivations. You prove that I can't think that it comes off that way...

The difference, and the crux of this entire stupid thing, is you making a ridiculous comment and trying to justify it instead of running it back and admitting that maybe you misspoke.

It's not maybe, I've pointed out my word choice could have been clearer. But was said off the cuff, without precision because my original comment was never about what the topic was spun into. But it's also a semantic argument. (And the statements you're going after, weren't even responding/addressed to you, but to the other statements made. Which is where most of this stems from.)

The idea that you'd have no problems, if I watched it, I know isn't true. Because you assumed I had watched it when I made the response that I'd rather not feel preached to/or lectured by a movie. Didn't even really say that the movie did this, just I presumed that by the uppity reactions and immediate labeling/turn to that. Where you suggested that if I felt that the movies social commentary (and really by default that's walking on thin ice) would come off as preaching or as a lecture, then I'd have to be exactly who they were talking about.

Which you went into how systematic racism is real and that the white people who commit benevolent racism are even worse of a problem and they need to be made aware of this. Etc etc, does your own explanation of the plot/moral not sound even a smidgen preachy/lecturey to you? Because even if I agree, that certainly sounds that way to me...

It's a case of confusing who was responding to what. But the idea I can't find a message unsubtle, when you do, is not an objective statement. If all you want is clarification, here, "I can't know if It Follows and The Babadook and any other horror movie with some focused on its message/symbolism aren't secret masterpieces of the modern era if I haven't seen them. But the Babadook is a dumb name, on par with the "The Bye Bye Man"."

If you won't step back, and give some ground in the same way I am. (And admit, to yourself you don't actually need to say anything, you made your own inaccurate claim, making a presumption without evidence to back it up.) There quite literally won't be any middle ground.

Not that we need that, since you've already said you're correct. So I guess there's nowhere else to go...

I did say sorry for snarking back, to your own snark.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

No. Because I never professed that as a fact, or told you that you were wrong or had ulterior motivations. You prove that I can't think that it comes off that way...

Because you haven't seen it so how the fuck are you qualified to make any statement about the success of its intent. You have no idea if it comes off that way or not because you haven't seen it. If you had and still thought that maybe then you'd have a leg to stand on there.

The idea that you'd have no problems, if I watched it, I know isn't true. Because you assumed I had watched it when I made the response that I'd rather not feel preached to/or lectured by a movie. Didn't even really say that the movie did this, just I presumed that by the uppity reactions and immediate labeling/turn to that. Where you suggested that if I felt that the movies social commentary (and really by default that's walking on thin ice) would come off as preaching or as a lecture, then I'd have to be exactly who they were talking about.

Let me put your words exactly as you said them.

I've been meaning to watch The Quiet Place, since I've seen more good things about that. (and it also doesn't sound like the twist is trying to be clever and "give a message" like, The Babadook, Get Out [...] Whether you like it or not, I don't want to feel (even in the sense) that I'm getting preached/lectured to in my horror movie.

You are literally implying that Get Out is a movie that preaches to you. The first statement informs the second, especially since we specifically talked about Get Out inbetween the two statements. I'm not putting things in your mouth here, this is you claiming that Get Out is hamfisted and preachy when the opposite is true.

Which you went into how systematic racism is real and that the white people who commit benevolent racism are even worse of a problem and they need to be made aware of this. Etc etc, does your own explanation of the plot/moral not sound even a smidgen preachy/lecturey to you? Because even if I agree, that certainly sounds that way to me...

That wasn't an explanation of the plot/moral, that was me using one of the themes of the movie as a question. The movie doesn't preach or lecture. You're assuming that because the movie revolves around those concepts that it can't handle them in a way that isn't preachy. Sorry you think movies that have real world themes and social commentary can't also be well written I guess.

It's a case of confusing who was responding to what. But the idea I can't find a message unsubtle, when you do, is not an objective statement. If all you want is clarification, here, "I can't know if It Follows and The Babadook and any other horror movie with some focused on its message/symbolism aren't secret masterpieces of the modern era if I haven't seen them. But the Babadook is a dumb name, on par with the "The Bye Bye Man"."

You can certainly find a message unsubtle. If, indeed, you have experienced said message. You haven't but you're acting like you have. Your attempts to dodge the point and drag the other movies you mentioned and haven't seen through the dirt in an effort to save face are cute I guess, but if you made the statement "It Follows hamfisted its message about sex and preached to me" without having seen the movie we'd still be having this conversation.

This isn't about whether or not Get Out is a masterpiece. You're trying to reshape the narrative.

If you won't step back, and give some ground in the same way I am. (And admit, to yourself you don't actually need to say anything, you made your own inaccurate claim, making a presumption without evidence to back it up.) There quite literally won't be any middle ground.

What claim would that be? I don't know why it's so hard for you to just say you were wrong about this.

Because you haven't seen it so how the fuck are you qualified to make any statement about the success of its intent. Your attempts to dodge the point and drag the other movies you mentioned and haven't seen through the dirt in an effort to save face are cute. You're trying to reshape the narrative. I don't know why it's so hard for you to just say you were wrong about this.

At this point, and many others, you're just being intentionally antagonistic. I'm simply not doing the same, and even went out of my way to clarify my intentions. I'm not going to continue down this road.

Let me put your words exactly as you said them.

>Goes to not doing that, ignoring context by trying to combine statements that were previously meant as separate responses.

That's about as literal as "putting words in my mouth" as one can get. Don't exactly come across as a good faith debate.

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

At this point, and many others, you're just being intentionally antagonistic.

About as much as you are being intentionally obtuse. I've been incredibly clear and somehow you still can't see that this whole thing is you refusing to admit that you were in the wrong in your initial assertion. No more, no less.

>Goes to not doing that, ignoring context by trying to combine statements that were previously meant as separate responses.

That's about as literal as "putting words in my mouth" as one can get. Don't exactly come across as a good faith debate.

You are literally implying that Get Out is a movie that preaches to you. The first statement informs the second, especially since we specifically talked about Get Out inbetween the two statements.

But sure, I'm the one who doesn't read things.

I want to make a quick rec to everyone here and reading this thread!

Give HBO's The Wire and/or AMC's Breaking Bad a shot if you haven't already. Fantastic shows. Absolute pinnacles of television dramas.

Keep an eye out for True Detective Season 3

True Detective owns.