Whoa there. Not surprisingly? I’m a big Kevin Smith and Tarantino fan, and the clips of Juno I’ve seen make me want to puke. Juno was rated PG-13 - how comparable could the dialogue be?
I meant that Juno like most movies Smith and Tarantino make are heavy on dialog and banter. Not that they are similar in type of dialog.
I see.
Well, obviously I’m a bit disappointed more people don’t agree with me. Perhaps this is because some of the people who might be likely to agree also don’t really venture in the Pit much. Oh, well.
Folks, you do all understand part of the point of a Pitting is to get something off one’s chest, right? And that doing so might include some amount of hyperbole? I hope we’re all on board with this.
I’m not going to stop posting in Cafe Society.
But, really: why not consider posting a few more substantive remarks beyond the typical knee-jerk one liner when you criticize something, at least once in a while? Or, maybe even hold off if it’s really not going to move the discussion forward. In mean, seriously, what is gained with yet another one-line “overrated”-type dismissal of Citizen Kane?
Nah, don’t take it too hard or spend too much time trying to make sense out of it. People here just like to disagree with pittings unless it’s one of the board’s masturbatory pet “let’s all show how much we agree” topics. Any pitting of board behavior is going to go bad because people are A) afraid they’ve exhibited that behavior and don’t want to own up to it, so they defend it, and B) most posters on this board seem seriously unable to admit any flaw, wrongdoing, error, or shortcoming*.
Edit: *Excect when you point that out, and then - for the moment - they’ll be stepping on each other to admit flaws, wrongdoings, errors, and shortcomings. You just gotta accept that we post on a board full of contrarian motherfuckers :D.
You’re right, of course. How could I be so blind?
Draw back the curtains and let the light shine through! Knorf is here to save all of the SDMB from their (to use your word) “troglodyte” antics!
I’m sure we are all very glad to have your heavenly opinion descend from on high to criticize the overly critical. Without your input, content in the Cafe is sure to deteriorate to the level of the Pit itself.
To be honest, I don’t even read the Cafe very often. It just bothers me that your OP and subsequent remarks are so over-the-top full of themselves that your criticism seems laughably ironic.
You say on one hand that there’s no accounting for taste, but clearly opine that you don’t really consider taste to be the issue. Rather, they are simply attacking “genuine” works of art to stand out or be different. I think you’re still operating under the assumption that the “works of art” you are indirectly defending are universally considered adequate to qualify for that title. Clearly, some people disagree.
And “troglodyte”? Really?
Pat yourself on the back for erudition much?
PS: This is the pit. Did you really expect serious replies to this thread?
On this board (with a large number of geeks) the word troglodyte is not that unusual. Every D&D player knows it well and most crossword puzzlers know it well. I don’t think it is safe to assume he showing off. I use the word fairly often. I used it to describe myself about not carrying a cellphone and not texting. I use it in place of Luddite which I find hard to remember at times and that many people have no clue what I mean. (Not posters on this board, I am talking about in everyday life.)
Truth.
What is offensive is when someone writes something to the effect, “How in the world can Will Ferrell still be making movies and people going to them?? Nobody with half a brain could find him entertaining.”
(I like Will Ferrell in many things and think he stinks in other things, for the record)
And it does happen, where although a person isn’t specifically called out, their opinion on something is shown to be some sort of character flaw.
No I don’t.
I know this is slightly off topic, but which do you consider to have more of a connotation of insult?
Troglodyte (when not used self-effacingly) seems like a clear insult to me. However, Luddite doesn’t seem like such a terrible thing to call someone.
And really, is Luddite an equivalent term when we’re talking about art? I thought Luddism was about technology.
I didn’t see this post when I replied to you last.
Of course, you’re right. There’s plenty of hyperbole to go around. I’m not really mad at you either! But be sure to take your above advice just as well as you can give it. You’re taking these counter-criticisms way too seriously! 
I agree, ‘trogolodyte’ and ‘Luddite’ are far from similar terms.
I think the insult is actually about the same but I like technology and probably use to look down a bit on those that don’t to be honest. In the example I gave Troglodyte was a good stand-in for Luddite as I was talking about technology. I use to use Luddite as a major insult so as usual, YMMV. I have largely stopped using the word altogether.
Well, I was hoping for a couple more.
You don’t like the word “troglodyte”? I’ve always thought it was a great word.
I do, of course. I just, you know, hoped for something a wee bit better. No big deal.
I’m willing to concede that’s possible. I don’t spend a huge amount of time in Cafe Society, especially since the shift of baseball and other sports discussions to the Games forum.
But i just did a look through the most recent few pages of CS, and there didn’t seem to me to be an overwhelming glut of the type of threads, or the type of posts, that are raising your ire. Someone else in this thread made a similar observation earlier. I just don’t see the deluge of Troglodytes that you do.
I have one other observation to make about people who are less than enthusiastic about classic works of art. It seems to me, if those people sometimes seem dismissive or contemptuous, that sometimes their attitude is, in itself, a response to the way that the guardians of the canon tend to be dismissive and contemptuous of people who are at all critical of it.
I’ve seen debates over classic films like Citizen Kane where the movie’s defenders not only discuss why they think the film is so brilliant, but are dumbfounded that anyone would even question its greatness, and use arguments like, “Well, if you didn’t like it, you probably just didn’t understand it,” or “You clearly have no idea of how significant this was in the context of the history of film-making.”
Look, the fact is that we often take it personally when someone dismisses a work of art that is dear to us. Hell, in the recent “Most undeserving Oscar winner” thread, when someone put No Country for Old Men on their list, i got all indignant, and for a second i was ready to jump in and ask how anyone could possibly say it was undeserving. But then i realized that other people feel the same visceral sense of indignation when i put Crash and Forrest Gump on my list.
One final word about Cafe Society:
There are probably plenty of people, even people who have disagreed with you in this thread, who would be happy to participate in the sort of discussions you want to have. Why don’t you start a thread or two, and make clear in the OP that you don’t want any one-line dismissals or one-dimensional responses. Tell people that you want a serious and considered and thoughtful discussion.
It’s always been the case here that the OP is allowed to set certain ground rules for his or her own threads, and even when it’s not actively enforced by moderators, it tends to be respected by most of the membership.
No, I don’t really have a problem with the word itself. I just took your OP too seriously and took it to indicate real condescension.
Upon reflection, I think it’s much more likely the hyperbole you were talking about, and it was undoubtedly meant to convey some good humor as well. I really should have picked that up from the thread title, though!
Honestly, to get back on topic, your only recourse is probably to devote even more time to the Cafe. Help make it a better, more intellectually stimulating environment through your own examples and promptings 
These internet communities are so disparate and unattached that it’s just too difficult to initiate a real shift in attitude through talking about it alone.
For the record, I think comments like what Gangster Octopus gave as an example above are ridiculous, too. Are those even allowed in the Cafe? That seems a lot more like Pit material.
Have you ever seen an intelligent, in-depth, well thought out post by someone here describing why they don’t like it? I haven’t. It’s all:
“I thought it was boring”
“It was good, but x, y, and z movies were better” (so? if you’re not trying to say it’s not good, then why bring up those other movies?)
“I liked it, but I don’t see what the big deal is”
“The acting/dialogue/costumes/direction was bad” [without any elaboration]
“It’s good, not great”
“I just didn’t care for it” <—basically the unassailable way of saying “I didn’t get it”
“I already knew what Rosebud was from all the references over the years, so it was spoiled for me”
etc, etc, etc. No one ever gets specific about why they didn’t like it. Plenty of people get specific about why they do like it.
You’re probably right in a lot of instances, but I think you picked a bad example.
Last night I posted some negative criticism in the post about Thomas Kinkade (I know, being negative about Kinkade–big deal, what a bold stand), but I did try to put some substance and thought behind it, so it wasn’t just a one-line bash like most of the rest of the thread. Here’s the thread, my is post #42.
Wow, suggesting I actually I actually do something about this myself rather than merely harangue others about it? That’s just not reasonable. 
Incidentally, my favorite use of the word “troglodyte” was in the forward to the fourth Far Side collection, written by Robin Williams.
In response to mhendo: my perception is that contemptuous, condescending bashing is more common on the SDMB than contemptuous, condescending praise. Also, it’s not that a majority of the the threads in CS are of the troglodytic kind, just that to me it seems that derision and bashing occurs more frequently than substantive discussion.
Oh come now, you obviously have seen this movie and enjoyed it. I haven’t seen it, actually, but I’m sure there must be some aspect of it that could be validly criticized.
And a movie being “boring” to a person is a perfectly valid point. No one said film critique had to be complicated Any number of factors might contribute to a film being boring, of course. Aimless story, slow plot, etc. Saying that they just don’t get it isn’t an honest critique of their position itself.
I, for one, can’t stand Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. It’s quite possibly the most boring book I’ve ever tried to read. The characters and plot simply don’t engage me, so does that mean that I don’t “get it”? Like some critics, I love Hawthorne’s short stories to a considerable degree more than Hawthorne’s supposed magnum opus. On the other hand, D.H. Lawrence apparently thought it was golden.
On a completely honest level, it makes sense for most critiques of very complicated works to be basic at heart. Most people who find a particular work “boring” or who never felt a connection to the characters/story probably find it difficult to pay attention to the many minute details that make it so praiseworthy. I’ll probably never be able to identify more than a couple of specific flaws in a classic like The Scarlet Letter because I run up against the biggest flaw (for me) at the outset. And equally, the average critic of Citizen Kane will not be able to move past their disinterest to get into anything more specific.
But that does not necessarily invalidate “boring” as a critique.
I mean heck, look at Joyce’s Ulysses. One of the fairest critiques you can give of that is to call it overly dense at the least! And that one-word description (often used even by literary critics of Joyce) is at least as intellectually honest as calling something boring.
Sometimes, even while “getting it”, a person will simply not like a work of art.
But yeah, I agree with you on most of those. Maybe they’re just not that into movies? 
I think something else that happens a lot is criticism akin to a Procrustean bed. Some work doesn’t meet someone’s expectations, so that person just reflexively disparages it for not being what he or she hoped or thought it would be, without trying to understand what it actually is.
And sure, there is always the adage, “there’s no disputing taste.”
I guess what I object to the most is the bloated sense of pride some people seem to communicate when they lambaste something. Crocodiles and Boulevard’s criticism of The Scarlet Letter doesn’t across that way to me, at all. So it is possible, no?
But I will offer one further rebuttal: dismissing something as “boring” is a very superficial criticism, however honest. I’m not saying it’s therefore an invalid criticism–I invoke it myself all the time–merely it that doesn’t tell one much. I would argue calling something “boring” without further commentary says more about the critic than the work being criticized. Crocodiles and Boulevards says the plot and characters of The Scarlet Letter aren’t engaging; that already provides a further level of understanding beyond the mere epithet “it’s boring.”