MTV Movie Awards

[bedub1]

New Moon swept the show. It scored a 4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. It is widely regarded as a terrible movie. This just goes to show that MTV and it's viewers are idiots.

[darvlay]

New Moon swept the show. It scored a 4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. It is widely regarded as a terrible movie. This just goes to show that MTV and it's viewers are idiots.

Actually, it just goes to show that MTV's target market are younger audiences who enjoy these types of movies.

I find it humourous though that you based your sweeping conclusion solely on an IMDB rating. That, to me, says a lot about you.

[lgoasklucyl]

New Moon swept the show. It scored a 4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. It is widely regarded as a terrible movie. This just goes to show that MTV and it's viewers are idiots.

Actually, it just goes to show that MTV's target market are younger audiences who enjoy these types of movies.

I find it humourous though that you based your sweeping conclusion solely on an IMDB rating. That, to me, says a lot about you.

The sweeping conclusion was not based on IMDB, that was merely something he referenced. Critically the movie did godawful. I even know avid fans of the series that said it was a terrible movie.

Rotten Tomatoes: 27%
IMDB: 4.6/10 (63,058 votes)
Roger Ebert: 1 Star
Bloody Disgusting Official Score: 1/5; User: 2/5 (Figured we could throw a well respected horror website in there for good measure)

The links could go on and on. The movie may have been what it needed to be for (some of) its audience, but it is widely regarding as a cinematic heap of shit.

[darvlay]

New Moon swept the show. It scored a 4.6 out of 10 on IMDB. It is widely regarded as a terrible movie. This just goes to show that MTV and it's viewers are idiots.

Actually, it just goes to show that MTV's target market are younger audiences who enjoy these types of movies.

I find it humourous though that you based your sweeping conclusion solely on an IMDB rating. That, to me, says a lot about you.

The sweeping conclusion was not based on IMDB, that was merely something he referenced. Critically the movie did godawful. I even know avid fans of the series that said it was a terrible movie.

Rotten Tomatoes: 27%
IMDB: 4.6/10 (63,058 votes)
Roger Ebert: 1 Star
Bloody Disgusting Official Score: 1/5; User: 2/5 (Figured we could throw a well respected horror website in there for good measure)

The links could go on and on. The movie may have been what it needed to be for (some of) its audience, but it is widely regarding as a cinematic heap of shit.

Ok, I'll grant you that. So what?

It's a piece of shit that young people enjoy. Does that make MTV idiots? I would say that if they made their movie awards about critical acclaim and artistry and completely eschewed their demographics that they would then be idiots.

The MTV movie awards are about calvalcade, good fun and giving their audience what they want. Who cares if the critics didn't like the movie. Kids did. You gonna tell kids they're idiots for simply enjoying something? They're kids, for f*ck sakes.

You think people (young or old) actually watch the MTV awards to find out what the "best movie" is, whatever that's supposed to mean? No. They watch it for the spectacle. And that's exactly what MTV gives them.

[lgoasklucyl]

Ok, I'll grant you that. So what?

It's a piece of shit that young people enjoy. Does that make MTV idiots? I would say that if they made their movie awards about critical acclaim and artistry and completely eschewed their demographics that they would then be idiots.

The MTV movie awards are about calvalcade, good fun and giving their audience what they want. Who cares if the critics didn't like the movie. Kids did. You gonna tell kids they're idiots for simply enjoying something? They're kids, for f*ck sakes.

You think people (young or old) actually watch the MTV awards to find out what the "best movie" is, whatever that's supposed to mean? No. They watch it for the spectacle. And that's exactly what MTV gives them.

I don't disagree that both Twilight and MTV know their audiences. However, your comment against bedub was a bit harsh, as the movie is commonly understand to have failed in every way, set aside pleasing its target audience. That being said, even a good deal of 'Twilight' fans (of the novels) did not enjoy the movie. I never said kids were idiots, I merely proved that 'New Moon' was as terrible as IMDB's 4.6 made it out to be.

And it's not just critics. Peruse the other RT or BD reviews, scan the forums- general audiences did not enjoy the movie either. And regardless of MTVs audience, a little variety in their choices wouldn't kill them. Yeah, support this 'big teen movie' a great deal, but there's no need to take it to the extent that they do.

[darvlay]

as the movie is commonly understand to have failed in every way, set aside pleasing its target audience.

I fail to see how it can be called a failure if it pleased its target audience. To me, that is the opposite of failure.

That being said, even a good deal of 'Twilight' fans (of the novels) did not enjoy the movie.

A "good deal of fans" means absolutely nothing to me. I'm a left-brain guy. I need numbers. I need data. Empty qualifications don't cut it for me. Rotten Tomatoes, Roger Ebert are not what I would call "fans of Twilight" nor a number of posters on the rotten tomatoes forums. I understand that not all fans would like the movie. Would it be even possible for an entire legion of fans to be unanimous in their thoughts and opinions on the movie? Perhaps, but very unlikely.

I never said kids were idiots, I merely proved that 'New Moon' was as terrible as IMDB's 4.6 made it out to be. And it's not just critics. Peruse the other RT or BD reviews, scan the forums- general audiences did not enjoy the movie either.

Here's where I completely disagree with you. I am a firm believer that the enjoyment of art/film/music/etc. is entirely subjective. Just because YOU, or some critics, think it's terrible based on reviews you found on the internet does not make it so. Not even close. You are only speaking for yourself and the people whose opinions you decide to accept as accurate. To each their own, right? Everyone enjoys different things. When you say that a piece of art is terrible, you can only be speaking for yourself and what you enjoy personally, not for anyone else. You haven't proved anything other than most critics agree the film is not enjoyable by their standards. That speaks nothing to the legions of people who DID enjoy the film, did not find it terrible and did not post their opinion on the internet - which is probably somewhere in the tens of millions of people. I don't need to scan any forum to see that some people didn't enjoy the movie. I already know that as a matter of basic probability.

But maybe this is another argument entirely for another thread...

And regardless of MTVs audience, a little variety in their choices wouldn't kill them. Yeah, support this 'big teen movie' a great deal, but there's no need to take it to the extent that they do.

I don't follow you on this one...

[darvlay]

Let's agree on the following:

a) If most of us in this forum, seeing as the majority of us are, I assume, not avid followers of the Twilight Saga, watched New Moon, we would think it's a complete piece of shit.

b) The movie was enjoyed by fans of the book series but not all.

c) Critics widely panned the movie as shit.

d) One man's garbage is another man's treasure and vice versa.

e) The MTV movie awards are not based on critical validation or artistic accomplishment.

f) The MTV movie awards are about spectacle and providing entertainment to their target audience.

g) A person who openly lampoons down syndrome in his avatar probably shouldn't complain about "harsh" statements.

[darvlay]

And, to follow up, I maintain that I disagree with the following:

a) Because MTV gave awards to a film that was generally critically panned, they and their viewers are idiots.

b) When critics generally agree that a movie is not enjoyable this "proves" that it is "terrible".

[DirtyDishSoap]

I'm young and I decree that it fuckin sucks.

MTV is for fags and wiggers/trailer trash of whom aspire to be somethin that they are not. Had they simply stuck with their tractor and plowin their sister then there'd be less problems with white people and gangs. Clearly MTV is one of many societies problems. Just look at the Superbowl XX!^#@^$#72 with Jackson and her tit tazzler. It was a nation wide disaster! Many a child were traumitized by said experience. I for one was deeply offended for seeing a boobie.

So therefor as a youngin I say that the movie sucks and MTV and it's small array of people that watch it for whatever reason are equally stupid.

Case dismissed.

[pimpdave]

So, most of the people voting for the top award were teenage girls then, is what this tells me.

In other news, who cares? The movie made tons of money and made tons of teenage girls happy. I don't see the problem here.

[DirtyDishSoap]

It didn't get me laid, that's why.

[Snorri1234]

And, to follow up, I maintain that I disagree with the following:

a) Because MTV gave awards to a film that was generally critically panned, they and their viewers are idiots.

b) When critics generally agree that a movie is not enjoyable this "proves" that it is "terrible".

Who cares about the critics? If new moon is anything like the previous one it is fucking utter shit.


I think the problem here is that you're working under the assumption that the Twilight saga is not objectively shit. It is. It is so very much. It's purple prose and wankery for 14 year old girls.


I understand that you believe art is subjective, and to a large degree I agree with that. However, that doesn't mean there are no objective standards you can at least judge merit of art to a degree. An artist who smears his own poo on a canvas and one who works 6 months to create a thoroughly detailed painting are not the same. It's like saying that McDonalds and a dinner made by Gordon Ramsey are equally as good. Taste is subjective, but I think that love and talent and attention give artistic merit to things. I don't grudge people for liking shit, but at the same time I do not pretend that what they like is just as good as true masterpieces.

[Snorri1234]

Thinking more about it, I think a distinction should be made between enjoyment of a certain artwork and it's objective merit as a piece of work. Arts are lines of work much like everything else. They are trades (and for most of history they were regarded as such without question) and like with any trade you can be good or bad at it.

I mean, I'd rather watch Under Siege than Lord of the Rings or <insert critically acclaimed movie here>. But I do realise that Under Siege is not a masterpiece of acting. Seagal is not actually a good actor, he's entertaining but he's not a good actor. Looking at acting as a trade means you look at how the actor can convincingly play roles. Much like you would look at the plumber to see if he's doing a good job. The enjoyment of the art is not tied to how good it is as an objective piece of that art. All arts have skills tied to them, and you can see how skilled the makers are.

[jonesthecurl]

For an examination of the question : what is quality? read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. It's one of the questions the author takes a swing at.

[Maugena]

1. Generally, kids are idiots, yes.
2. MTV does what makes them money.
3. Kids, being generally ignorant, watch MTV.
4. MTV became what the kids wanted.

This is why MTV is terrible.
Don't watch it, unless you like losing brain cells.

If you could find me a person that got into MTV whose reasons for getting into did not include... a.) their kids are watching it, b.) someone they know has kids that watch it and has to care for said kids or, c.) they watched it when they were kids, then I won't completely talk shit about MTV.
But until you can provide said person, my opinion of MTV can only get worse.

Generally I'd agree with both sides of this argument, with the exception that kids are ignorant.
It's a fact of life.
You don't come into this world knowing everything.
That's what going to school and getting an education is all about.
You are a moron until you learn.
Enough said.

I'd even go so far as to say that 66%+ of the people that enjoyed the movie had a predisposition before they saw it.
If you're ignorant and predisposed, you'll enjoy it simply because it's Twilight.

My apologies for coming off as an asshole, but I'm sticking with it regardless.

[saxitoxin]

1. Generally, kids are idiots, yes.
2. MTV does what makes them money.
3. Kids, being generally ignorant, watch MTV.
4. MTV became what the kids wanted.

This is why MTV is terrible.
Don't watch it, unless you like losing brain cells.

If you could find me a person that got into MTV whose reasons for getting into did not include... a.) their kids are watching it, b.) someone they know has kids that watch it and has to care for said kids or, c.) they watched it when they were kids, then I won't completely talk shit about MTV.
But until you can provide said person, my opinion of MTV can only get worse.

Generally I'd agree with both sides of this argument, with the exception that kids are ignorant.
It's a fact of life.
You don't come into this world knowing everything.
That's what going to school and getting an education is all about.
You are a moron until you learn.
Enough said.

I'd even go so far as to say that 66%+ of the people that enjoyed the movie had a predisposition before they saw it.
If you're ignorant and predisposed, you'll enjoy it simply because it's Twilight.

My apologies for coming off as an asshole, but I'm sticking with it regardless.

ARRRGGGH! Saxi agrees with ya', Maugena! These kids with their long hair and their rock 'n roll music!

In Saxi's day we watched puppet shows in the village square and you better believe we liked it. We had movies but they weren't always talkies. And we most certainly didn't have all the easy access to pornography or ranch dressing. There wasn't even any such thing as ranch dressing where I was from until the early '80's. When we said we were going to Old Navy that meant we'd gotten conscription papers and had been assigned to the coastal artillery battery at Dranske.

[jonesthecurl]

Saxi: what is this "Ranch dressing" of which you speak? It sounds exciting.

[edwinissweet]

85 million copies sold world wide. I like the books, i like the movies, so what.

Kids now days arent worse than those growing up 20,30,40 years ago. They just have more tools to show the world what they are doing

[saxitoxin]

Saxi: what is this "Ranch dressing" of which you speak? It sounds exciting.

It's the reproductive fluid secreted by bovines during acts of carnal knowledge. It may be exciting, depending on your general outlook on life and love.