Over the years that I’ve been blogging about movies there has always been one key truth that forms the basis of any intelligent conversation regarding film. This truth is so foundational that no truly meaningful dialog about film can really occur unless booth parties firmly understand and acknowledge it. Without this truth as a foundation, any debate, discussion or dissertation quickly becomes nothing more than a useless collage of squawking from two indignant birds who are neither listening to nor even attempting to comprehend one another.

That simple yet critical truth is this: ALL FILM IS SUBJECTIVE. To me, that truth is not only critical, but also the most beautiful thing about film.

I’ve written about this a few times over the years, so without going into it too much let me just sum it up like this:

Film is art, and like any piece of art hanging in a gallery you can have 10 people standing around it and looking at it deeply and yet see 10 different things. All of them looking at the exact same piece of art, and yet having 10 differing experiences with it. No one of them can say to another that their experience was somehow “wrong” or “inferior” to their experience.

And when it comes down to it, art is something we experience. We allow it to engage us as we ourselves engage with it. It impacts us almost tangibly.

We must also understand that we do not choose our experience. Our experience with art is something that, in a way, happens to us. Our experience washes over us in the moment and what it brings out of us is not something of our choosing, but rather something we discover.

Take for example a joke. Someone tells you a joke. You do not choose to laugh or not to laugh (unless you decide to fake it one way or the other), but rather you have a natural response to it. You have a unique experience to that joke that is yours, that is something you did not necessarily choose or could have really predicted. The joke was told and your experience manifested. Another person could have heard the same joke at the exact same moment and had a completely different experience with it or reaction to it. Are either experience truly “right” or truly “wrong”?

Don’t misunderstand me… there are clearly objective facts about film to debate and discuss. Who directed the 1981 film “Body Heat”? What movie in 2005 had the longest running time? Which film won the Oscar for “Best Supporting Actress” in 1965? How much did “Avatar” make at the international box office? The answers to these questions all have verifiable, measurable and quantifiable facts. But the true visceral and experiential questions that we film fans most often discuss and debate (Did you like this movie? Was movie A or movie B better? Which was the best movie last year?) are all 100% unverifiable, unmeasurable and unquantifiable. in other words, film is subjective.

Which brings us to the point of this blog entry.

While reading through one of my social media tools the other day, I stumbled upon an odd ongoing conversation between two people I know regarding film. Without going into much detail, person “A” was basically suggesting that person “B” didn’t have good taste in movies and therefore his opinion of any film didn’t mean anything. When person “B” asked person “A” why they were suggesting such a thing, person “A” pointed to the fact that person “B” liked a particular movie that he didn’t. In person “A”‘s reality, that gave him the authority to pronounce that person “B” knew nothing about film.

Needless to say, person “A” is a pompous arrogant ass who doesn’t even understand the most fundamanetal and basic truth about film.

My good friend Kris Tapley and I had an interesting conversation the other day on the topic of film opinion. The question being bantered about was if anyone’s opinion about a film is any more “true” or legitimate than another person’s opinion (keeping in mind my position that all film is subjective).

Something you need to understand about Kris… in all the world of online film punditry, Kris Tapley is the single most qualified individual I know in the business today. He is recognized as one of the foremost specialists in Awards Season coverage having once covered the big season for Variety, he is still sought after by major publications (which he turns down), and even though his website (InContention.Com) is hardly one of the most recognizable amongst the average online film fan, it is one of the most respected Awards outlets in Hollywood with studios lining up to buy ad space on his site to promote their Oscar contenders and hopefuls. His masters degree in journalism from USC doesn’t hurt either. I only mention all this to point out that it is safe to say Kris “knows what he’s talking about” when it comes to the world of film.

Kris expressed to me that there is a difference between an informed opinion and a regular opinion. His position (if I understood him properly) was that those who know film, who have studied it, who understand the history of it, the trends of it, the techniques of it and the art of it have opinions that are simply more legitimate than those that do not. He made the rightful point that there are some film bloggers out there who really don’t know all that much about movies.

What my friend was saying makes sense, and to some degree I agree with him… but only to a point.

You see, I personally enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of those who, like Kris, know what they’re talking about. Those who know film are better equipped to intelligently EXPRESS their thoughts and opinions, to GIVE CONTEXT to what they considered to be virtuous or detrimental aspects of a film and to EDUCATE the reader on the history, techniques, themes and styles that may have gone into what made the movie what it was. On this point I completely agree.

However, the question we were discussing was not who is best suited at expressing their opinion, but rather can one person’s opinion be more valid than the next person’s? I still say emphatically “no”.

Regardless of background, historical understanding or even education, film is still an art and as an art is subjective. We all stand before art as equals and as unique equals we experience (there’s that word again) it uniquely. No amount of film school anyone may have on their resume can discredit, invalidate or diminish your unique experience and opinion of a film. They may be better at expressing and communicating their experience, but no more and no less.

If this were the world of politics, I would whole heartedly agree with the notion that the more informed opinion is the more valid opinion. Health care, foreign policy, national debt, civil rights, education reform and tax cuts all NEED a nation of voters and opinion makers who are educated in the issues at hand. But this is not politics or world affairs… this is art.

Roger Ebert is a film critic with whom I think it’s safe to say I disagree with more than 60% of the time. However, I love to read his reviews. I may not end up agreeing with his overall opinion of a film, but I admire and enjoy his style, the way he breaks down a film and how he supports his positions. As a film fan, I learn from reading him… and I probably learn more when I disagree with him.

My aforementioned friend Kris is someone I respect a great deal… but half the time I think he’s completely out to lunch with some of his film opinions (I’m sure he feels the same way about me). But while I may be completely bewildered by his lack of love for the original “Star Wars”, I gain new perspective from his opposing point of view. Maybe he’s nuts for not acknowledging “Star Wars” as the greatest film of all time… but I respect that his experience (and thus opinion) with “Star Wars” was different than mine. No more, no less. In the end, I have a lot more fun talking with him about films we disagree on than the films we agree on.

Whenever I debate someone online or offline about the quality of a film (let’s say they liked a film I hated), if by the end we’re still at an impasse (which is 99% of film debates) I try to just end it by saying “well, I’m honestly glad you were able to enjoy it and got something for your money’s worth”.

When we discuss and debate film with this understanding, the discussion becomes not just useful, but exponentially more enjoyable as well. Without this understanding it’s just two people with already formed opinions trying to gets more words in than the other person and nothing constructive is accomplished.

So in the end, what am I really ranting about with this post? I guess I’d just like to see less people defaulting to the ignorant and frankly pompous position of the weak minded who just fire off the inaccurate response of “You don’t have any taste” or “you’re opinion isn’t valid” or other brain dead variations of the like at people who don’t share their personal opinions of a film. Engage, debate, argue… but we need to do so FIRST understanding that fundamental truth I’ve repeated 50x: FILM IS SUBJECTIVE.

No… just no. Tom Welling should not be “Superman”. It’s a horrendously awful idea that no one should even entertain. I’ve been making this arguement for years now, and not that they’re getting ready to move forward with a NEW Superman movie under director Zack Snyder (Director of “300″, “Watchmen” and “The Legend of the Guardians”) it seems the debate is creeping up again.

In my new video blog installment, I make my case about why, even as a Smallville fan myslef, I think having Welling as Superman would be a disastrous idea.

What do you think?

The box office results have come in from the weekend and fans of good movies everywhere are lamenting the failure of “Scott Pilgrim”. The film took in a mere $10.5 million opening weekend and came in 5th place at the box office.

No one should have been naive enough to expect “Scott Pilgrim” to break any records or pull in a $50 million dollar opening weekend. After all Michael Cera is hardly a proven leading man and it was obviously a film targeted at a certain audience.

So no, the film was never going to be a HUGE box office hit. However, having said that, the sheer quality of the film (it’s amazing), those involved in the production and sheer amount of marketing the film had meant the movie could have and SHOULD have done a lot better.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest culprit for the box office failure of the film was the botched marketing. It was so bas that even though I’m a massive Edgar Wright fan, I wasn’t at all excited about seeing it.

The commercials for the film gave us no idea about the real style of the movie, it showed none of the funniest moments (you don’t want a trailer to give away too much of the good stuff) of the movie, and gave the impression that it was some sort of artsy (I hate using that word) indie experimental project.

The vast majority of people who would write to me or comment on various posts I’d do about “Pilgrim” around the web were indifferent to disinterested in the film mainly because none of them thought it “looked” good.

And they’re right… the film didn’t look any good… at all. Even bad movies can be made to look good in trailers… and the fact that “Scott Pilgrim” is so damn good means there is simply no excuse for the marketing not to have looked a LOT better.

Look, even with the right marketing this movies wasn’t going to be a blockbuster, but it certainly would have performed much better than it did.

Trust me folks… if you haven’t seen “Pilgrim” yet, get off your ass and go see it. It’s amazing.

Ok, so my last post got a lot more attention than I thought it would. To sum up my last post:

1 – Alex Billington essentially blackmailed Universal into inviting him to a special “secret” screening of Scott Pilgrim at Comic Con by threatening to announce the screening to his readers unless they capitulated. This was beyond wrong and not only makes himself look stupid, it makes the whole online film community look stupid too.

2 – A collection of well meaning and well intentioned web guys wrote a letter condemning the act, unfortunately the letter, in my opinion, was a poor idea and not well thought out. The result has been backlash against the writers of the letter and the online film community itself as much as Billington.

A few of my friends who wrote the letter in question have asked what I would have done differently. That’s a fair question to ask. If you’re going to say something wasn’t done quite right, you should be ready to offer up what the alternative is/should have been.

So for what it’s worth, here’s how I think the web community should have handled the Alex Billington/blackmail situation.

If the guys had approached me and asked my opinion on the matter back at Comic Con (and it was probably smart that they didn’t… I’m not very bright), here’s what I would have told them:

A) It has to be understood that this letter will probably get out to the public. There are too many higher profile online personalities involved for it not to be. The starting assumption should be that this letter will get out somehow.

B) To avoid the appearance of “self importance” (none of the guys involved are like this… but you have to be aware of appearance) any action must involve more than just 20. It should be an organized effort bringing in at least 50-60 individuals and websites representing large, medium and small sites from across the web.

C) The letter should be an OPEN LETTER to show full transparency, resolve and unity. Address it to the studios, but make it available to everyone to read.

D) Any such letter should not involve Devin Faraci or others who have openly disparaged and fought with Alex publicly. No matter how right their intentions are, it risks the appearance of questionable motives and makes the effort lose credibility. Another writer from CHUD (or whatever site) should sign in his/her place.

E) Draft a letter that contains the following points:
– We the undersigned…

– We recognize that professionalism and conduct are important for a relatively young medium such as ours.

– We recognize that as a young medium we have all sometimes contributed to the existing reputation and perception of our “industry”.

– We are all committed to growing and improving our “industry”.

– We firmly voice together that we do not condone the actions of Alex Billington at Comic Con. His actions in no way should be seen as a reflection of the attitude or practices of the wider online film community.

– Alex Billington’s actions and motives are his own and we cannot comment on them, however this sort of incident is one we most seriously and somberly wish to disassociate ourselves and our industry from.

– etc. etc. etc.

F) Spend the next week reaching out to and getting feedback from 50-60 websites who agree to the open letter.

G) Co-Ordinate an exact day and time that all the involved sites publish that open letter to the studios on their sites.

Personally I think if this was done, the effect would have been much more powerful, the backlash would have been much smaller (there still would have been some) and the point would have been much more effectively made.

But maybe I’m wrong… that’s been known to happen from time to time.

I always say that “The most beautiful thing about film is the pure subjectivity of it”. That ultimately means that while we can argue and debate and discuss our points of view on a movie, when it comes down to it there really is no absolute right or wrong. Film is art, and as art every person who sees it will experience it and have it effect them in a slightly different way. 10 people can stand around a work of art and yet see 10 different things. It’s the most amazing thing about the movies and makes our debates about them just that much more fun.

With that being said, I can accept that some people find “Meet the Spartans” funny even though I didn’t (and I think they’re crazy). I can accept that some people thought the story of “Avatar” was really good even when I didn’t, and we can debate the merits thereof.

But one of the things I don’t accept is when someone tries to use the INTENT of the filmmakers as an argument for a movie’s quality. That somehow, what a director was “going for” can be seen as a replacement for actual results.

I don’t care if a director was trying to show the struggle of single mothers living in a male dominated society making it almost impossible to move ahead while caring for their families at the same time. Yes, that’s a noble subject matter to tackle. Yes, that’s a great starting point… but it doesn’t negate the fact that the movie was slow, had bad dialog, terrible characters and no emotional triggers. No matter what the director was TRYING TO SAY with his/her movie, they still didn’t say it well, and it’s a bad movie.

This always frustrates me when people I’m talking with try to portray a films weakness as if it were a strength. Like “Meet the Spartans”. The film was just pure stupidity in its most undiluted form. Yet some people have argued with me that since “stupidity” is what the director was going for, it should be seen as a success. WHAT?!?!?!

Here’s an Olympic analogy I like to use:

Picture this scene. It’s the Olympic games in China and we’re at the diving competition. A German diver stands majestically at the base of the diving board as cameras flash around him in a dance of light like an indoors arora borealis. The crowd starts to quite down and the flashes die off. The arena is now calm and quite and the German diver extends up onto his toes, bounces, and then quickly strides up the diving board… gives one giant bounce… flies up into the air…. and then when in the air he inexplicably starts flailing around like an injured bird with his arms and legs kicking everywhere and eventually comes crashing down onto the water in a smaking belly flop. The majestic diver looked more like an 8 year old fat kid making his very first jump off a board than a world class olympic diver and the results were horrible. The judges show their scores that average out to be about 0.5 out of 10. The German finishes in last place.

The German diver and his coach angrily run up to the judges podium and protest! “Why did you give me such a low score?” the German demands. “Because your dive was terrible with no form, no grace, no technique and it all resulted in a terrible belly flop. That’s why.” respond the judges. “But…” the German shoots back at them, “That’s exactly what I was TRYING to do. That’s what I was going for!”

So the question is… since a horrible, graceless, ugly and awful dive is exactly what the diver was going for… should the judges re-evaluate their scores and give him a 10? Or should the judges stick with their score because regardless of intent, a bad dive is a bad dive and should be scored as such?

To me, the answer to that question is obvious. If a dive was ugly and awful to watch with little to no merit to it, then regardless of intent, it was still an ugly, awful to watch dive with little to no merit. Period.

Even today some people defend the film “Step Up 3D”. Because I believe all film is subjective I can completely accept if someone found the story solid even when I did not. I can accept someone finding the characters interesting even when I did not. I can accept someone thinking the movie is “good” while I think it’s a steaming pile of shit. That’s all totally fair…. but the funny thing is that most of the people who defend this movie aren’t actually claiming it’s any good. They’re just saying the dancing is great.

The Motocross in “Supercross” was great too… does that mean it was a good movie? No.

Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you have a movie with some of the worst acting in history, a terrible script, no pace, and we’re pretty sure the camera was out of focus half the time. BUT… the movie was about a young girl trying to make it in New York in the fashion industry, and the clothes in the film were some of the best designed clothes you’ve ever seen! Is it ok to give the movie a passing grade just because the director was trying to make a movie about fashion and the fashion in the film was great? NO!!!!! The movie still sucked no matter how good the clothes in it were.

Again, I have no problem with someone disagreeing over the quality of a movie. I just hate it when “but that’s what they were going for” is used an excuse.

/RANT.