On Liking Things

So, I was recommended this video titled “Most movie “HATE” is justified.” and naturally, I clicked. The general overview of the video is a pretty baggage-loaded contradiction to the phrase “Let people like things”, when referring to movies and popular culture.

A lot of this stems from the video author’s reaction to a TED podcast claiming the hate for the Star Wars character of Jar Jar Binks was unwarranted and all the doing of a concentrated effort on the part of a fringe group of internet trolls. The author of the video attests that there was more to the story than the podcast was letting on in that The Phantom Menace was not unnecessarily hated by a small group of internet trolls alone. The author calls upon the wider pop cultural reaction to The Phantom Menace and the prequels in general as subpar and, eventually, claims that the massive output of hate towards The Phantom Menace was justified. 

Okay, so before I go any further, let’s talk about this piece of the argument as is. 

The Phantom Menace is a historically hated movie. Yes. As the author claims, the podcast he listened to pointed to internet trolls as the main drivers for the hate for The Phantom Menace and therefore, the internet’s climate of hate today in general. The video author rejects this framing as the public response to The Phantom Menace was famously negative. On this part, the author is right. The public backlash to The Phantom Menace is documented as sour by established Star Wars fans at the time, this I can confirm as a Star Wars fan myself who I would consider in-the-know with the real world lore of the film series.

Where the author of the video strays from this path is in a translation from his account that the internet hate for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999 is indicative of the culture of internet hate that we are accustomed to today. The author alludes to online hate in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s as linked to our culture of internet hating today and openly pines for the days of internet culture where one could express their hate without being shamed or contradicted with what many of his commenters deem “toxic positivity”.

I’m going to zoom out from the Phantom Menace discussion for a second and focus in on the general argument of the video. 

Ask More From Your Media

I will say that outright, the author’s point of view is not one that I fundamentally disagree with. The author spends part of the video discussing how viewers of films are consumers of products and cultural producers should be complained to and not be surprised when their products are rejected by a mass audience. This is not how I would phrase the sentiment, but this is a point of view I can agree with. 

You should as a media consumer, always ask more from your media. In a cultural landscape that is increasingly hostile toward the consumer in terms of ticket and subscription prices, media producers want you to feel disempowered and complacent in your media consumption. As a dominant cultural force, corporations do not want you to reject what they produce because, ultimately, consumers have the power in that relationship. Corporations can only do what they have money to do and consumers are the source of money. So there you go. At its essence, what the author should say is that you should simply always expect and ask more of your media producers. One thing he does not say is that this is valuable because we should all be more informed media consumers, rather, the video goes down the path of “hating is good”, with not much abridging of the phrase.

The author of this video is clearly working through a lot of feelings about our media landscape and how it can be frustrating to share the same discussion spaces as people who hold opinions you disagree with. If you scroll through the comments of this video, you’ll see commenters agree with the author’s sentiments with phrases such as “Let people like things? I like to hate things” and similar.

What’s striking to me about this overall discussion and subsequent comments is that there really is no room for any second guessing of an opinion. I watched through this video twice and read through many comments and there’s really no sense of “Yeah, but maybe I’m looking at this in only one way”, or, “Perhaps it’s a spectrum of grey rather than black and white”. There’s very little grace among the author or commenters that they could be wrong. I believe that’s because these guys are clearly thinking very highly of themselves.

Internet as a Medium for Pop Culture Hate

In this entire video and across all the comments I’ve seen, there was never any mention of being a hater, with that phrasing specifically. The author of the video and his enthusiastic commenters never entertain the notion that they could be just sore haters. They clearly see themselves as informed critics who see through the Hollywood bullshit and dare to claim the contrary to a wide popular opinion. I’ll tell you right now, there is a difference.

Let’s throw back to the Phantom Menace example for a second. When I was first watching this video, I immediately thought the author’s comparison between the ‘90s internet hate and today’s internet hate was completely invalid. The hate exhibited on the internet in the ‘90s, a time long before any centralized platforms or the format of social media entirely, is not indicative or any kind of precursor to the climate of hate that exists on the internet today. The ‘90s and early ‘00s internet was not the realm of the mass public populous occupying spaces like YouTube and Facebook. It was the realm of personal blogs and fansites. In addition, this fansite culture was not the widespread and adopted norm that we would associate with today’s internet at all. These were the spaces of technology enthusiasts who went in on having personal computing technology early and would operate in ways that required a non insignificant degree of technological literacy for the time. If you’re saying that fan hate on the internet in the ‘90s is comparable to fan hate on the internet today, you’re misinformed.

Part of my initial argument I formulated against this video came from this comparison. While watching, I couldn’t help but notice this equivalency. The online hate for Jar Jar Binks the author of the video refers to is more indicative of today’s modern internet hate than the hate it originated from. To make an equivalency between pre-platform internet and today is to miss years and years of internet history.

This came to me as I attributed the widespread hate for Jar Jar Binks came from a more recent culture of internet hate than what I think the author is understanding. While watching this video for the first time, I said to myself, “The Jar Jar Binks hate we are familiar with today is the result of the practice of making everything a meme, which is a way more recent thing than what he’s pointing to.” The author of the video claims that the hate for Jar Jar Binks didn’t come from a wave of memes that people jumped on because it was fun. To this point, I only partially agree. Yes, Jar Jar Binks was unpopular upon release. Though, the reason all that is relevant today is because of the second wave of haters that were born out of the platform internet age.

For example, the author of the video seems to claim that the reason the hate for Jar Jar Binks is so relevant today is because of the original wave of internet users from the ‘90s. The author also points to institutions like The Simpsons and South Park as detractors to The Phantom Menace. Though, if you’re claiming that shows like The Simpsons’ relevance to cultural criticism today is the same as it was in the ‘90s, again, you’re misinformed.

But let’s take this at face value. The author points to the original backlash toward The Phantom Menace as relevant to today’s internet cultures of hate. I will attest again that the modern examples of internet hate are more a product of late 2000s and 2010s internet hate culture than ‘90s. I say this because if you’re pointing at the original hate internet posters from the ‘90s as the main drivers of internet hate into the 2010s, you’re talking about someone technologically literate and connected enough to be posting about Star Wars in the year 1999, so essentially, past a teenage age. If you’re past teenage age in 1999, You were born at least in 1980. So, by the 2010s, you’re past thirty and likely looking toward saving for your child’s college funds rather than shitposting with children on the internet about Star Wars. But hey, who knows.

Idealism of 2000s Media Criticism Video Content

A part of this pining for the past of internet criticism entirely comes apart for me is when the author specifically cites the greatness of people expressing their opinions online in the 2000s and 2010s. Before the author got into this point, I said “The internet culture that spurred on this culture of hate is more akin to Nostalgia Critic and AVGN rather than Siskel and Ebert.” The next minute, the author brings up a video of the Channel Awesome crew (Nostalgia Critic, Linkara, Spoony, Angry Joe) and celebrates their accomplishments as critics for calling out bullshit and saying what was on their minds.

This is where the point of the author and his commenters thinking very highly of themselves truly came to the surface for me. The author and his commenters see themselves not as haters but as informed media consumers cutting through the bullshit, and the fact that the author brings up the Nostalgia Critic as a source for informed media criticism immediately discredits this part of his argument for me.

There’s a large subset of Nostalgia Critic and Channel Awesome viewers from the late 2000s and early 2010s who are now openly critical of them and this time of media criticism on the internet (Ralph the Movie Maker, Lady Emily). There is also a subset of Channel Awesome viewers from this time who apparently now do not see this format as not a failure of criticism, but not an aspiration. The author of the video and his commenters apparently appear to land in the latter group.

“Why Don’t They Just Make Good Things?”

The author from this discussion of the greatness of 2010s pop media criticism coincides with a discussion of corporations leveraging their power in media spaces like the internet, particularly focusing on the era of Star Wars post-Disney acquisition. This hearkens back to the author’s discussion about people who champion “letting people like things” as shills for what he describes as “corporate slop”, when referring to, not any property in particular, but likely Disney’s Star Wars and Marvel film series.

Surrounding this discussion, the author keys into his frustrations with corporations providing, what he describes, a lackluster product and people defending corporations and, even by extension, blaming consumers for the poor product. Now, this section of his argument is clearly very emotionally loaded and the author is working through many frustrations with how he likely has been treated in relation to others not sharing his views on “corporate slop”. Regardless, I do agree with his general sentiment that the consumer should absolutely not be blamed for the reception of a poor product. Corporations have massive power in this space and in the dispersion of media products and with great power comes great responsibility, to borrow a phrase.

There’s not a simple reason as to why corporations just don’t make “good” things, again, this is likely referring to Disney, though the author doesn’t say explicitly, though he shares clips of Disney properties. The author embodies Disney in an extended metaphor where his Disney is surprised and adversarial at the reception to their Star Wars or Marvel property, and thus blames the consumer. The author is further angered by the hypothetical consumers defending Disney’s property as saying that hating things is a moral failing. That itself is quite a loaded statement, so we’ll put a pin in that.

I would attribute corporations’ powers in creating poorly received products as an indicator of capital power rather than hubris. This does somewhat funnel down into peoples’ idea of “Why don’t big corporations make good things? Why do they make bad things with all that money?” And yes, that is a complicated, tangled question as it is. This also funnels into the author’s belief in artists as taken advantage of by big corporations, as exhibited by his citation of Disney buying Star Wars from George Lucas, and seemingly praising Lucas as a visionary and Disney as a buyer of culture rather than a producer. Which in itself is a confusing piece of an argument with the author’s talk of how the hate for Jar Jar Binks was justified, seeing as Jar Jar was exclusively a creation of George Lucas, but we’ll leave that where it is.

The reason I would point to why corporations don’t just make “good” things is that corporations don’t need to today. Conglomeration and monopolization have expedited corporate growth. In the post-pandemic age of streaming and subscription, media companies have more money than you think. However much money you think they have, they have more than that. Among these companies, Disney. Disney has so much money that there’s no risk in creating their products anymore. So when it comes to making something that “flops”, that’s barely any dent in their profits. People might want to point to the worsening public image of Disney through their Star Wars and Marvel franchises as indicative of their failing as a company, but I can’t help but contradict that.

Disney doesn’t need to please everyone to make money or even stay afloat. Disney isn’t just Star Wars and Marvel. Take a look at the things they own through acquisition and you’ll see why they’re still around and more profitable than ever. Disney doesn’t make bad movies because they have no idea what they’re doing. Disney makes bad movies because they don’t need to scrutinize their own work. That isn’t because of hubris, that’s because getting a movie out the door with as little extra money spent is the real priority. They really do have that much money and don’t want to spend more than they think is necessary. And honestly, it’s been that way since the ‘80s with Michael Eisner and the Disney Renaissance.

The Hater Industry

Let’s bring this back around to the author’s very loaded sentiment that people believe that hating things is a moral failing. I would attribute this to, likely, some personal experience of his where he said he hated a movie and someone doubted his judgement or character because of it. This seemed to cut pretty deeply for him, as he stresses it quite a bit, but I won’t.

Where my mind goes with this sentiment of “hating things is a moral failing” is the culture of hating movies as a grift online, and consequently, the inverse, liking movies as a grift. I don’t think the overall industry of hating things online should be overlooked in this discussion. Which unfortunately, I believe the author failed in. The author does mention that there is a culture of hating movies as a monetary grift and industry online, though I believe he fails in stressing the prevalence and influence of the industry.

We can point to Ben Shapiro, The Critical Drinker, and any number of yellow, bolded-text YouTube thumbnails touting the perpetual failings of Hollywood as a grift. Hollywood is always on the downfall, and honestly, it would have to be, lest we risk the end of the viewers and ad revenue. The author doesn’t interrogate this demographic of YouTube content and its influence, which I feel is a not insignificant element of this discussion. Hating movies on the internet is indeed an industry off which many people make their living. Consequently, people look at creators who produce endless amounts of content hating movies like Ben Shapiro and The Critical Drinker and see that as a moral failing, likely, because of those creators’ politics.

I will curb the discussion at right-wing creators hating Hollywood products here, though, because I feel that is a separate discussion entirely, and the author of the video does not interrogate it himself. Though, there is a prevalent discussion about the emotional and moral connections that the author involves in his video about hating movies. The author clearly has many feelings about how he is viewed as someone who openly hates movies. I think that this is a more complicated conversation about being perceived as a hater which I do not believe I can objectively face. The author will feel how he feels about being treated by others online and I cannot speak to his own experience with his own perception of himself and other people. Since the author does not specify which products are being debated over for their moral failings of not liking, I cannot argue for or against him. Should he make another video specifying which products he is accused of a moral failing over hating, I might be able to speak to it then.

Conclusions

The author started the video with that clip of Elizabeth Olsen in that one indie movie telling Josh Radnor “You think it’s cool to hate things, and it’s not, it’s boring” and contradicts this by embodying that it’s more boring to be uncritical of things. This sentiment is heavily echoed throughout his comment section. Again, this is something that I agree with in essence, but I do not agree with his framing. I do agree that we should be active and critical consumers of media, but I’ll bring it back to say that there is a difference between being critical and being a hater. There is a difference between being an informed critic and being an uninformed hater. I believe there is a massive difference, in fact.

I’ll stop talking about the video here for a second and extend my own beliefs on the subject. I decided for myself recently that I would contradict people in my life who seemed misinformed about movies. In the event I’m faced with someone who dismisses movies, but doesn’t seem terribly informed on movies already, I would encourage them to learn more. Watch more movies, find out for yourself, come to your own conclusions, don’t let random people on the internet tell you how to think about something.

Yes, we should all be more critical media consumers. However, there’s no fast track to becoming an informed media consumer, there is work to do. You cannot hate a movie and call it a day. Movies, and I guess, art at this point in the discussion, are complicated and nuanced. There’s more to an experience than a Rotten Tomatoes review. Now, this does not mean you have to engage with every movie on an in-depth level, you can see a movie, not think much of it and cut it there. That’s totally fine. I think being a critical media consumer is also about being mindful about the greater scheme of what you experience, rather than on a YouTube video-to-YouTube video basis explaining why one movie sucks or another movie doesn’t. There’s a complex ecosystem of considerations and priorities when consuming and critiquing media and they intricately intersect.

Just to wrap things up here, here’s a consideration I wanted to touch on but left out for sake of not going completely off the rails.

The author cites Channel Awesome as an aspiration for media criticism the internet should look to, yet does not cite any modern creators that we can align with. Because of this, I will: Lindsay Ellis, Lady Emily, Lily Alexandre, Folding Ideas, Princess Weakes. The author, I feel, failed to explore the spheres of the internet that are actively doing, what I would consider, good critical work without “hating”. What’s more, these are popular creators in their space. There are many I did not list or might not even know about. I’ll do here what I said I’d do and encourage people to not take another person’s word for it and find out for themselves.

Across this whole video, I couldn’t help but think back to one of my favorite lines from the character Abed on Community when it came to interacting with a contradictory opinion, “I guess I just like liking things.” While this thing turned out to be a pretty in-depth expression of my ideas, I don’t think liking things always comes down to some complex motivation. Most of the time, I’d wager, people like liking things because liking things makes them feel good. There’s always another discussion to have around media and art because it’s inherently a means of human connection, but you can just like things too.