Read on Twitter
Personally, I suspect that "plot" became a priority in blockbuster cinematic storytelling for a number of reasons.
Most obviously, the rise of internet criticism, often from within fandom, that was very "curative." It believed that you could "objectively" criticise a film. https://twitter.com/MisterCinecal/status/1291356801401860096
Most obviously, the rise of internet criticism, often from within fandom, that was very "curative." It believed that you could "objectively" criticise a film. https://twitter.com/MisterCinecal/status/1291356801401860096
And because the plot - unlike the acting or the characterisation or the mood or other harder to quantify factors - could be "objectively" quantified, in that what happens is generally what happens in these films, it became the go-to metric.
After all, if you treated movies as just plots, that meant plot holes were "objectively" flaws with movies and "objectively" proof that this movie that you probably just didn't like anyway was "objectively" bad.
Because, if movies are plot-delivery mechanisms, it was faulty.
Because, if movies are plot-delivery mechanisms, it was faulty.
This is why you saw the explosion of things like "Everything Wrong With" or "CinemaSins" coinciding with the embrace of aggregators like "Rotten Tomatoes" or "MetaCritic."
Because those sort of systems could quantifiably provide a metric of how "good" or "bad" a movie was.
Because those sort of systems could quantifiably provide a metric of how "good" or "bad" a movie was.
Let's pause here and note that "objective reviews" were the stated objective of the "GamerGate" crowd, by the way.
And also acknowledge that "objective reviews" are inherently impossible. It just means "reviews that appeal to and validate my subjective biases."
Anyway.
And also acknowledge that "objective reviews" are inherently impossible. It just means "reviews that appeal to and validate my subjective biases."
Anyway.
After all, the "Rotten Tomatoes" score is just an aggregation of a set of subjective opinions from a bunch of movie critics.
But it's a number. And numbers sound scientific and objective. So it could be used as proof that a movie was objectively 78% good.
But it's a number. And numbers sound scientific and objective. So it could be used as proof that a movie was objectively 78% good.
So plot becomes the default mode of movie criticism among a certain type of online critical commentator, because it sounds objective.
"The Dark Knight Rises doesn't explain how Bruce gets back to Gotham" sounds more authoritative than "I was bored by The Dark Knight Rises."
"The Dark Knight Rises doesn't explain how Bruce gets back to Gotham" sounds more authoritative than "I was bored by The Dark Knight Rises."
What's interesting, though, is that you see movie studios consciously pivoting towards this, embracing these fans and their philosophy.
This is the whole rise of spoiler culture, encouraged by companies like Disney, that use spoilers as a marketing tool. https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/disney-weaponized-spoiler-culture-marketing-strategy/
This is the whole rise of spoiler culture, encouraged by companies like Disney, that use spoilers as a marketing tool. https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/disney-weaponized-spoiler-culture-marketing-strategy/
Because if you measure a movie's worth in terms of plot rather than anything else (like artistry), it is easier to package, market and control that quality.
Suddenly you can generate more value by generating more plot, and generate more interest by packaging it.
Suddenly you can generate more value by generating more plot, and generate more interest by packaging it.
Look at how Disney controlled the MCU by creating a culture of spoiler-phobia. #ThanosDemandsYourSilence, #DontSpoilTheEndgame and all that.
If your audience believes plot is quality, and critics can't talk about plot without enraging your audience, you critic-proof your movie.
If your audience believes plot is quality, and critics can't talk about plot without enraging your audience, you critic-proof your movie.
Because of the "spoiler ban", for example, it was very difficult for critics to engage with - for example - the treatment of Black Widow and Hawkeye in "Endgame" before release.
Because to talk about it, you had to discuss the plot, and that was a no-no.
Because to talk about it, you had to discuss the plot, and that was a no-no.
More to the point, reducing the value of blockbuster entertainment to plot minimises potentially polarising elements like characterisation.
Treating blockbusters as "things that happen" preserves the characters as blank slates on to which the audience can project their vision.
Treating blockbusters as "things that happen" preserves the characters as blank slates on to which the audience can project their vision.
The comic book "Civil War" polarised fans, because Tony Stark and Steve Rogers took principled stands on an issue on which they held actual beliefs.
The film is structured so it's a chain of plot that happens, so no character makes a potentially audience-alienating choice.
The film is structured so it's a chain of plot that happens, so no character makes a potentially audience-alienating choice.
The irony is that no single character - except card-carrying "Hulk" villain General Thaddeus Thunderbolt Ross - actually meaningfully believes that *maybe* these private individuals holding the power to destroy the world should be accountable.
It's all a shell(head) game.
It's all a shell(head) game.
But, again, because modern blockbusters are more interested in being things that happen instead of being actively interested in who these things happen to, it all ends up being rather hollow.
But that hollowness isn't a bug. It's a feature. The lack of content is the point.
But that hollowness isn't a bug. It's a feature. The lack of content is the point.
