Just got around to watching it for the first time tonight. We had so many people tell us we’d love it and need to watch it, so it was high on our list. Great cast, and it won so many awards.
I didn’t hate it, but I was left scratching my head over all the hype. I like odd movies and books, so it’s not that I couldn’t handle the weirdness. It seemed like in the same vein as Scott Pilgrim, and if you told me it wasn’t a bit box office but got a cult following, I’d totally believe that.
My wife felt exactly the same way. Maybe it’s just one of those cases where there was too much hype for us, but I felt kind of let down.
You are strange for not loving the film. It is generally loved so, yeah, not loving it makes you strange.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Some folks don’t love chocolate. Or puppies. Or sunsets. Or whatever seems to be loved by most folks.
Read through this thread - I don’t feel like I’m in a small minority.
A 1% minority encompasses about 80 million people. When people say small minority they refer to the percentage part, not the absolute number (which is indeed quite big)
I’ve been reading it. The folks here are most definitely in the minority.
And that’s fine. I don’t know why it would bother anybody.
Maybe not a small minority but the voting seems to indicate the majority view beyond the comments, not that there’s anything wrong with being in the minority on a film! If anything I’d say it’s good to hear from the minority opinion in films … it can broaden your perspective.
It’s wild to me that you get downvoted so much throughout this thread as the OP with replies that are polite enough and just reiterate your opening opinion about the movie.
I think I’ll go and turn off showing downvotes again, I feel I left the need for that behind at the old place.
Yeah, it’s pretty bizarre in a discussion community about movies to have people downvoting a subjective opinion. People use it as a “disagree” button. Oh well, I honestly don’t care about the points, it just seems weird.
Well yea downvotes are, IMO, objectively shite. Too many confuse them with “do not agree” and an excuse to not contribute to the conversation. Except, instead of contributing they cancel out someone else’s upvote.
The nail in the coffin for me about downvotes is that they’re too vague to be a useful piece of information. An upvote generally means “good”. A downvote can mean anything from “this is vile in need of moderation” to “I disagree” to “I don’t like your tone or general position” to, perhaps here with decentralisation, “I don’t like your instance”. All without any compulsion to contribute or converse. Pretty much guaranteed to foster some base level of toxicity.
There’s apparently a “controversial” sorting coming, which might help. Otherwise I’d be interested in an alternative way of flagging something as “bad” but not enough for moderation. Perhaps a requirement to actually post your reasoning for the “downvote” so that others can then upvote that if they like in a sort of meta commentary layer or something.
Or maybe something like hacker news where only relative long time users and contributors can downvote.