It’s been a red flag for a while now. Unless someone can explain what they mean by bad writing using actual script analysis then it’s just a dogwhistle.
Annoying part about the “bad writing” critique, is that it’s 100% subjective. You can’t really disagree with it because there’s no real tangible way to rate good writing compared to bad. And that’s why it’s perfect for the grift.
That isn't what bad writing is, let alone an example of it. Bad writing is when a contained story is contradictory(wonderwoman 2), when the progression is poorly paced (eragon), when poorly exploring stereotypes or cliches(white chicks), or intentionally obtuse(the room). There are other ways, but trying to say it's just people being unhappy with the story is pretty disingenuous.
That's how critiquing by saying 'bad writing' should look.
The problem is the people who flock to "bad writing" do it for things like She-Hulk. "Jen isn't more tortured than Bruce, this is terrible writing!".
Jen doesn't make this claim. What she said was shes carried immense anger inside her for years as a trivialized young, attractive female lawyer. She doesn't have experience being the hulk but she does have experience holding back her rage. This isn't bad writing, it's fully explained and logical...assuming you can emphasize that other people might have difficult lives.
And the show shows her lose that control eventually, proving she doesn't have as much control as she thought, as well. Which is a logical arc.
A lot of people do use 'bad writing' to mean 'they didn't write it how I want', but you're also right that you can actually cite bad writing and give examples.
Exactly, they want the story to be what they want (usually power fantasies), but when the story's creator doesn't deliver what they want, they dismiss it as "bad writing", even if the story makes tons of sense.
Bro I think you got this confused. The person you replied to isn’t saying that’s what bad writing is, they’re saying that’s what the anti-woke crowd *thinks* bad writing is.
Sorry to tell you this bro, but you’re “fundamentally disagreeing” with an imaginary statement that no one made. No one is saying that bad writing is when the story doesn’t go the way the haters wanted it to go seriously, it’s an obvious mockery of people who use “It’S bAd WrItInG!” to cover up their obvious racism/sexism/all around bigotry.
You’re literally trying to convince someone that a mocking statement *that they don’t even believe* is untrue.
Did you read the comment? The person I commented to literally said, "Bad writing is when the story doesn't go the way you want." To which I said that's not what bad writing is. You then commented that people who aren't woke say that's what bad writing is, to which I responded, I'm kinda anti woke, and that's not what I see it as. So, on 2 counts, you're incorrect. Maybe learn to read before trying to correct people?
There are some things that are pretty close to objectively bad: see The Room for example.
But they are almost vanishingly rare and almost never found in stuff that is professionally produced.
The movie I like to bring up in regards to that is Glass. Say what you will about Shyamalan, but it was clear to me that leaving his audience deeply unsatisfied was always his intention with the ending. Does that make it bad, if it was the plan all along?
I mean since we're arguing over subjectivity... Then yes. It was subjectively bad.
To me a lot of movies have "bad writing" because they tend to do stuff just so the movie can happen. If I'm watching a movie and it's like "why don't they just do x" then that's bad writing, whether subjective or not.
I don't think that's fair. Breaking Bad is a well written show that relies on Walter making bad decisions. Why wouldn't he accept help from Elliot? We later find out because of his ego, but the entire show relies on him not getting help, not talking to his wife, and making one bad decision after the other in pursuit of the success he felt he deserved instead of Elliot
That's fair. If someone is making a decision based on character traits that is completely acceptable. Sometimes you have to fudge things a bit to get a plot to work and sure that's fine if it's servicing a greater narrative.
It's also an entry point to pull people down the rabbit hole. Someone says "bad writing" in the hopes someone who didn't like a thing (for whatever reason) says "ME TOO!" They listen to the "bad writing" complainer more... only to discover "you see, the writing was bad because Disney does the woke" (or whatever bullshit).
This is a common tactic going back to Gamergate.
Before Gamergate, you have to remember a lot of the anti-woke crowd started off in more "woke" spaces. Big one that comes to mind is the late 00s ""critiques" of Disney Princesses that had one(ish) example that got extrapolated to every single one up to and including Tiana.
Its either disingenuous or genuine but so vague that it's useless as criticism. If they actually had a problem with the writing or had anything of value to say then they would be specific.
For me it's usually more a red flag if they never elaborate *why* the writing is bad, especially if they just stick to "It's unfunny/cringe" People are allowed to dislike things, that's fine, but I expect them to at least be able to explain their reasoning.
That part.
You don’t have to be a chef to tell if you don’t like the food, but you should be if you are going to criticize the food and the person who made it.
My red flag is people "objectively" judging art.
You can pretty much just throw in the trash any opinion that claims objectivity regarding artistic quality.
Its funny that the same people that hate Prey love the og Pred movie. Even tho if you watch Prey it has alot of the feelings and elements from the og movie.
The main complaint I see about Prey is that Naru is "too weak" to fight a Predator. They conveniently forget that all those jacked up dudes from the first movie were also too weak to fight the Predator one on one, any time they tried, they got sliced up like pancetta. Even Dutch doesn't succeed through physical strength, he wins by outwitting it, just like Naru does.
Yep. The Pred throws him around like a rag doll when they fight one on one. If they really want to die on the "realism" hill, they should admit that he'd have died of a broken neck or internal injuries. But we all know they won't do that and we all know why.
But really, when did the "David vs. Goliath" narrative format start being derided? It's a classic, physically or socially inferior protagonist defeats the "superior" villain by a mix of skill, intelligence, and cunning.
You could level the critique of that format at an array of beloved, critically lauded stories, but somehow it is only employed against a select few.
Bad writing certainly exists, but I feel like most movies that end up actually getting made get past that.
Like, the writing in The Room is laughably bad (but then, everything about it is).
I think a lot of people who complain about “bad writing” just latch on to that because it feels like a more valid criticism than “too many women and non-white people”, which is what they often really think.
It definitely is. Especially when they're complaining about things in franchises that never had amazing writing to begin with. If the original entry in a franchise had a bunch of plot holes, silly moments, and nonsensical things then why are people expecting the following entries to be perfectly well written?
Also, things don't have to have amazing writers to be enjoyable. Hell, sometimes things that are "bad writing" are enjoyable and things that are "good writing" are miserable boring drags.
BvS and Rebel moon have so many holes I wouldnt call em writing. Prey made me feel visceral fear of the Yautja for the first time since the og predator
Also if youre goin to say bad writing be specified when i say bvs has bad writing its moreso the characters are stunted and wierd movie looks pretty but that was not batman. Rebel moon ill need to rewatch i have no recollection of that movie if im bein honest
Rebel Moon as far as I remember is about a woman who was like the adopted daughter of an emperor of an evil space empire. She was also an elite soldier for that empire. She escaped that life and lives a simple farmers life when the movie begins. Then the military comes down to her new rural homeworld and kills a bunch of people for selling crops to rebels. The injustices the evil empire inflicts on her new home leads her to decide enough is enough, and to kill some people and find some allies and potentially lead a revolution or rebellion or war in a sequel.
I am skeptical this conversation ever happened. If someone thinks it's unbelievable enough for a woman to kill a single capable alien that it ruins an entire movie, I have a hard time believing they think rebel moon is a cinematic masterpiece.
It is a phrase that was always mostly subjective, but any objective meaning it once had has been beaten out of it by grifters posing as film critics on social media.
Like, if someone can articulate why they think Naru's character in Prey is badly written, I'd at least hear them out even if I ultimately disagree with their take. But they can't, or won't, because ultimately their problem with Naru is that she's a woman, and in their twisted worldview, women only exist to objects, good only to rescue and be eye candy. They can cite Ripley and Leia all they want; they only care about those characters because of the nostalgia factor, and if Alien came out today they'd deride it as woke garbage.
And to paraphrase HelloGreedo, imagine how these idiots would react if a woman in this, the Year of Our Lord 2024, grabbed a blaster from a male character and shouted "Get in the garbage chute, flyboy!"
Yep, along with "immersion." These days I try to be more specific instead of just saying something is "badly written" because it feels like so many people use that as a cover for ideological bugbears.
Gilroy on "bad writing"
characters in a bad script and their IQ go up and down based on the interest of the writer for that scene. The writer needs this to happen then they get really smart or stupid....
I think it’s “bad writing,” for a critic or person criticizing a story to call an aspect of it they don’t like, bad writing,” without specifically stating/explaining how/why it’s “bad writing.”
If they can back up the comment with actual substantial discourse then great, 99 times out of 100 the next thing they say has nothing to do with writing, at best it's an equally valid complaint about direction or some other technical aspect of the production, but more typically its about a woman or poc being cast or a woke topic being featured.
Neither of which have anything to do with poor writing. You can by definition have overtly woke elements and write them well, just like you can have overtly racist elements and have them written well. The morality of the subject and the quality of the writing are distinct elements of a production.
And example from my perspective is Birth of a Nation, its undeniably deeply racist propaganda, its morally bad, but it's a solid example if crafting a compelling narrative, the elements of which have been used consistently in thousands of films and shows over the last 100+ years.
If any of these chuds had the literacy to look at a "woke" film and accurately critique the writing and other elements, then let their criticism of the woke narrative of the film stand on its own merit.... I might just be able to scrape together a smidgen of respect for them.
Speaking as a critic, I actually avoid using that term as much as possible because it’s a pretty superfluous thing to add. It’s pretty much just throwing in a personal jab at the writer for no reason. Skip to the part where you explain why it’s bad, just stating it’s bad adds nothing.
There's a quote from Neil Gaiman about how when people say they hate something they are right but when you ask them to explain why they hate it they are wrong.
Ironically, this is how I feel when talking to people who hate Snyder's DC movies. And I liked Prey too.
I mean it can all be red flaggish. "PAcing issues bad writing bad choreography" all sound like thing a "critic" might say.
But a real critique (which is what a critic is supposed to do. Not just criticize) would give examples to go along with their assertions.
I’ve noticed the exact same thing, “bad writing” is spammed in place of “I didn’t like it” and this seems completely tied up with the CinemaSins-ification of media discourse. People trying to couch their negative emotional reaction to something in objective terms when it’s completely unnecessary; you’re allowed to just dislike something regardless of its quality
as a writer, when i notice poor writing i want so badly to say everything i noticed. to me when someone says bad writing and they dont have anything specific to say or specific lines that makes me suspicious
I think this scenario is made up. What person is criticizing a movie because a woman being able to kill a single alien is unbelievable, but thinks a story about a woman *checks notes* fighting against an entire alien interstellar empire is somehow more believable and a masterwork.
I use bad writing as a critique all the time…but it’s for actual writing that made me stop and say “what the actual fuck?”
Like in Spider-Man: No Way Home, when Peter manages to create 5 multiversal cures for villains out of a box that Tony Stark made to fabricate new suits…I was pretty offended. In Avatar 2, when that Spider kid rescues the villain that had just murdered his adopted brother…that was bad writing.
But a lot of the things that people call bad writing aren’t necessarily bad writing. Like I don’t think that The Last Jedi is poorly written. I actually think it’s pretty well written and it answers all the lingering questions from the previous movie, although Leia flying at the beginning was pretty weird and the movie probably would’ve been better without that. For the most part, people don’t know what actually good writing is because they’re averse to doing something like…reading a book, so their basis for what a good piece of writing is…is heavily skewed
You should have seen the IMDb forums for Battlestar Galactica around season 4. Any question anyone had was knee-jerk responded to with "Bad writing."
Why is the ship called "Galactica"? - bad writing
Why did Adama destroy the model ship? - Bad writing
Why are vipers white and red? - bad writing.
Etc
Drove me nuts.
Don't let chuds incorporate such basic concepts, it'll make you sound and act like a paranoid looney. I get it, genuinely, but it's something ya kinda just gotta ignore or be willing to challenge.
This kind of bums me out because it's also been used to defend shows that are legitimately bad.
For instance, the new season of true detective. I was super excited to see a women led season, especially one that focused on Inuit struggles and culture.
Instead, I got a sloppy, overly supernatural script with clumsy call backs to the first season, convenient occurances used to justify the pacing, and an absolutely ridiculous resolution. My wife and I were very disappointed, having been fans of both TD and Jodie Foster, especially because there was actually a fair amount of potential for a lot of the plot threads.
But go to anyone who enjoyed it, and it say any of that. You're automatically called a misogynist, and critics hail it as the best season.
I see it as a backlash. There's a certain subset of youtube content that has increasingly warned us of the rise of really terrible writing particularly in Hollywood. They've been doing it for years. And if you take it on the whole, it's difficult to argue with the trend even if you don't agree with every single point.
Inevitably, that means there's some combination of a co-option, band-wagon, and subversion that turns "bad writing" into something that means nothing.
In my experience, when you listen to someone who really understands the concept, they understand that "objectively bad writing" doesn't mean a movie is unenjoyable, and vice-versa. And people who *don't* understand objectively bad writing lean consistently into the notion that "There's no truth. Fascism is reality. Opinion and ability to impose your will are all that matter." It's an ugly way to put it, but that's the alternative. Either we can rationally discuss what makes for a good character and a coherent plot, or drowning someone out of the conversation is just as valid as refuting their points.
“Bad writing” just means the usual “the protagonist was black or a woman” type bullshit. On a related note “it didn’t follow its own internal logic” just means “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about”.
It’s been a red flag for a while now. Unless someone can explain what they mean by bad writing using actual script analysis then it’s just a dogwhistle.
It's morbin time!
Annoying part about the “bad writing” critique, is that it’s 100% subjective. You can’t really disagree with it because there’s no real tangible way to rate good writing compared to bad. And that’s why it’s perfect for the grift.
Plus, "bad writing" is just basically when the story don't go exactly to where they expect it to be.
AKA Subverting expectations . Typically lauded as a "good writing" technique lol
That isn't what bad writing is, let alone an example of it. Bad writing is when a contained story is contradictory(wonderwoman 2), when the progression is poorly paced (eragon), when poorly exploring stereotypes or cliches(white chicks), or intentionally obtuse(the room). There are other ways, but trying to say it's just people being unhappy with the story is pretty disingenuous.
That's how critiquing by saying 'bad writing' should look. The problem is the people who flock to "bad writing" do it for things like She-Hulk. "Jen isn't more tortured than Bruce, this is terrible writing!". Jen doesn't make this claim. What she said was shes carried immense anger inside her for years as a trivialized young, attractive female lawyer. She doesn't have experience being the hulk but she does have experience holding back her rage. This isn't bad writing, it's fully explained and logical...assuming you can emphasize that other people might have difficult lives. And the show shows her lose that control eventually, proving she doesn't have as much control as she thought, as well. Which is a logical arc.
That any of that needs explained makes me feel like some people are badly written.
A lot of people do use 'bad writing' to mean 'they didn't write it how I want', but you're also right that you can actually cite bad writing and give examples.
Exactly, they want the story to be what they want (usually power fantasies), but when the story's creator doesn't deliver what they want, they dismiss it as "bad writing", even if the story makes tons of sense.
Bro I think you got this confused. The person you replied to isn’t saying that’s what bad writing is, they’re saying that’s what the anti-woke crowd *thinks* bad writing is.
And as someone who is fairly anti woke, I fundamentally disagree on what you're saying bad writing is.
Sorry to tell you this bro, but you’re “fundamentally disagreeing” with an imaginary statement that no one made. No one is saying that bad writing is when the story doesn’t go the way the haters wanted it to go seriously, it’s an obvious mockery of people who use “It’S bAd WrItInG!” to cover up their obvious racism/sexism/all around bigotry. You’re literally trying to convince someone that a mocking statement *that they don’t even believe* is untrue.
Did you read the comment? The person I commented to literally said, "Bad writing is when the story doesn't go the way you want." To which I said that's not what bad writing is. You then commented that people who aren't woke say that's what bad writing is, to which I responded, I'm kinda anti woke, and that's not what I see it as. So, on 2 counts, you're incorrect. Maybe learn to read before trying to correct people?
There are some things that are pretty close to objectively bad: see The Room for example. But they are almost vanishingly rare and almost never found in stuff that is professionally produced.
The movie I like to bring up in regards to that is Glass. Say what you will about Shyamalan, but it was clear to me that leaving his audience deeply unsatisfied was always his intention with the ending. Does that make it bad, if it was the plan all along?
I mean since we're arguing over subjectivity... Then yes. It was subjectively bad. To me a lot of movies have "bad writing" because they tend to do stuff just so the movie can happen. If I'm watching a movie and it's like "why don't they just do x" then that's bad writing, whether subjective or not.
I was more saying that's why it's subjective. When you say "bad writing" it depends on what you're even assessing.
I don't think that's fair. Breaking Bad is a well written show that relies on Walter making bad decisions. Why wouldn't he accept help from Elliot? We later find out because of his ego, but the entire show relies on him not getting help, not talking to his wife, and making one bad decision after the other in pursuit of the success he felt he deserved instead of Elliot
That's fair. If someone is making a decision based on character traits that is completely acceptable. Sometimes you have to fudge things a bit to get a plot to work and sure that's fine if it's servicing a greater narrative.
It's also an entry point to pull people down the rabbit hole. Someone says "bad writing" in the hopes someone who didn't like a thing (for whatever reason) says "ME TOO!" They listen to the "bad writing" complainer more... only to discover "you see, the writing was bad because Disney does the woke" (or whatever bullshit). This is a common tactic going back to Gamergate.
Before Gamergate, you have to remember a lot of the anti-woke crowd started off in more "woke" spaces. Big one that comes to mind is the late 00s ""critiques" of Disney Princesses that had one(ish) example that got extrapolated to every single one up to and including Tiana.
Its either disingenuous or genuine but so vague that it's useless as criticism. If they actually had a problem with the writing or had anything of value to say then they would be specific.
For me it's usually more a red flag if they never elaborate *why* the writing is bad, especially if they just stick to "It's unfunny/cringe" People are allowed to dislike things, that's fine, but I expect them to at least be able to explain their reasoning.
Put it this way. It's never writers calling it "bad writing."
That part. You don’t have to be a chef to tell if you don’t like the food, but you should be if you are going to criticize the food and the person who made it.
Point.
My red flag is people "objectively" judging art. You can pretty much just throw in the trash any opinion that claims objectivity regarding artistic quality.
The red flag for me is “objectively bad”.
Bro really said "Rebel Moon" was a cinematic masterpiece 💀
Its funny that the same people that hate Prey love the og Pred movie. Even tho if you watch Prey it has alot of the feelings and elements from the og movie.
The main complaint I see about Prey is that Naru is "too weak" to fight a Predator. They conveniently forget that all those jacked up dudes from the first movie were also too weak to fight the Predator one on one, any time they tried, they got sliced up like pancetta. Even Dutch doesn't succeed through physical strength, he wins by outwitting it, just like Naru does.
Yeah they definitely forget that even Arnold was even losing in a straight up fight with a Pred.
Yep. The Pred throws him around like a rag doll when they fight one on one. If they really want to die on the "realism" hill, they should admit that he'd have died of a broken neck or internal injuries. But we all know they won't do that and we all know why.
But really, when did the "David vs. Goliath" narrative format start being derided? It's a classic, physically or socially inferior protagonist defeats the "superior" villain by a mix of skill, intelligence, and cunning. You could level the critique of that format at an array of beloved, critically lauded stories, but somehow it is only employed against a select few.
When David became a girl, of course.
David beats Goliath, no one bats an eye. Danielle beats Goliath, suddenly the world is on fire and everything is wrong.
Bad writing certainly exists, but I feel like most movies that end up actually getting made get past that. Like, the writing in The Room is laughably bad (but then, everything about it is). I think a lot of people who complain about “bad writing” just latch on to that because it feels like a more valid criticism than “too many women and non-white people”, which is what they often really think.
It doesn’t help that none of them seem to have the foggiest understanding of how writing in Hollywood actually works.
It definitely is. Especially when they're complaining about things in franchises that never had amazing writing to begin with. If the original entry in a franchise had a bunch of plot holes, silly moments, and nonsensical things then why are people expecting the following entries to be perfectly well written? Also, things don't have to have amazing writers to be enjoyable. Hell, sometimes things that are "bad writing" are enjoyable and things that are "good writing" are miserable boring drags.
BvS and Rebel moon have so many holes I wouldnt call em writing. Prey made me feel visceral fear of the Yautja for the first time since the og predator
Also if youre goin to say bad writing be specified when i say bvs has bad writing its moreso the characters are stunted and wierd movie looks pretty but that was not batman. Rebel moon ill need to rewatch i have no recollection of that movie if im bein honest
Rebel Moon as far as I remember is about a woman who was like the adopted daughter of an emperor of an evil space empire. She was also an elite soldier for that empire. She escaped that life and lives a simple farmers life when the movie begins. Then the military comes down to her new rural homeworld and kills a bunch of people for selling crops to rebels. The injustices the evil empire inflicts on her new home leads her to decide enough is enough, and to kill some people and find some allies and potentially lead a revolution or rebellion or war in a sequel. I am skeptical this conversation ever happened. If someone thinks it's unbelievable enough for a woman to kill a single capable alien that it ruins an entire movie, I have a hard time believing they think rebel moon is a cinematic masterpiece.
It is a phrase that was always mostly subjective, but any objective meaning it once had has been beaten out of it by grifters posing as film critics on social media. Like, if someone can articulate why they think Naru's character in Prey is badly written, I'd at least hear them out even if I ultimately disagree with their take. But they can't, or won't, because ultimately their problem with Naru is that she's a woman, and in their twisted worldview, women only exist to objects, good only to rescue and be eye candy. They can cite Ripley and Leia all they want; they only care about those characters because of the nostalgia factor, and if Alien came out today they'd deride it as woke garbage. And to paraphrase HelloGreedo, imagine how these idiots would react if a woman in this, the Year of Our Lord 2024, grabbed a blaster from a male character and shouted "Get in the garbage chute, flyboy!"
It's a blanket term, for sure. 95% of the people saying that don't know shit about writing.
Yep, along with "immersion." These days I try to be more specific instead of just saying something is "badly written" because it feels like so many people use that as a cover for ideological bugbears.
I get that sometimes as well
Gilroy on "bad writing" characters in a bad script and their IQ go up and down based on the interest of the writer for that scene. The writer needs this to happen then they get really smart or stupid....
I think it’s “bad writing,” for a critic or person criticizing a story to call an aspect of it they don’t like, bad writing,” without specifically stating/explaining how/why it’s “bad writing.”
Honestly it depends
If they can back up the comment with actual substantial discourse then great, 99 times out of 100 the next thing they say has nothing to do with writing, at best it's an equally valid complaint about direction or some other technical aspect of the production, but more typically its about a woman or poc being cast or a woke topic being featured. Neither of which have anything to do with poor writing. You can by definition have overtly woke elements and write them well, just like you can have overtly racist elements and have them written well. The morality of the subject and the quality of the writing are distinct elements of a production. And example from my perspective is Birth of a Nation, its undeniably deeply racist propaganda, its morally bad, but it's a solid example if crafting a compelling narrative, the elements of which have been used consistently in thousands of films and shows over the last 100+ years. If any of these chuds had the literacy to look at a "woke" film and accurately critique the writing and other elements, then let their criticism of the woke narrative of the film stand on its own merit.... I might just be able to scrape together a smidgen of respect for them.
I mean, its a Snyder fan, you can usually dismiss whatever they spew.
"A Trekkie's Tale" and it's consequences have been a disaster for media discourse
Speaking as a critic, I actually avoid using that term as much as possible because it’s a pretty superfluous thing to add. It’s pretty much just throwing in a personal jab at the writer for no reason. Skip to the part where you explain why it’s bad, just stating it’s bad adds nothing.
Especially when they don't get more specific than that. I've been hearing that complaint about Doctor Who since 2014.
I see the phrase as a front for some people to spew their hateful vile.
There's a quote from Neil Gaiman about how when people say they hate something they are right but when you ask them to explain why they hate it they are wrong. Ironically, this is how I feel when talking to people who hate Snyder's DC movies. And I liked Prey too.
I mean it can all be red flaggish. "PAcing issues bad writing bad choreography" all sound like thing a "critic" might say. But a real critique (which is what a critic is supposed to do. Not just criticize) would give examples to go along with their assertions.
I’ve noticed the exact same thing, “bad writing” is spammed in place of “I didn’t like it” and this seems completely tied up with the CinemaSins-ification of media discourse. People trying to couch their negative emotional reaction to something in objective terms when it’s completely unnecessary; you’re allowed to just dislike something regardless of its quality
I understand where you're coming from, but a critique is still supposed to be a critique. Prey was somewhat decent, but BvS? Cinematic genius?
as a writer, when i notice poor writing i want so badly to say everything i noticed. to me when someone says bad writing and they dont have anything specific to say or specific lines that makes me suspicious
I think this scenario is made up. What person is criticizing a movie because a woman being able to kill a single alien is unbelievable, but thinks a story about a woman *checks notes* fighting against an entire alien interstellar empire is somehow more believable and a masterwork.
Here's a question. How does a misogynistic person love rebel moon? It stars a woman. Several actually.
I use bad writing as a critique all the time…but it’s for actual writing that made me stop and say “what the actual fuck?” Like in Spider-Man: No Way Home, when Peter manages to create 5 multiversal cures for villains out of a box that Tony Stark made to fabricate new suits…I was pretty offended. In Avatar 2, when that Spider kid rescues the villain that had just murdered his adopted brother…that was bad writing. But a lot of the things that people call bad writing aren’t necessarily bad writing. Like I don’t think that The Last Jedi is poorly written. I actually think it’s pretty well written and it answers all the lingering questions from the previous movie, although Leia flying at the beginning was pretty weird and the movie probably would’ve been better without that. For the most part, people don’t know what actually good writing is because they’re averse to doing something like…reading a book, so their basis for what a good piece of writing is…is heavily skewed
You should have seen the IMDb forums for Battlestar Galactica around season 4. Any question anyone had was knee-jerk responded to with "Bad writing." Why is the ship called "Galactica"? - bad writing Why did Adama destroy the model ship? - Bad writing Why are vipers white and red? - bad writing. Etc Drove me nuts.
Goddamn it now I can’t even say the writings bad without it seeming like a chud dog whistle lol
Not that prey had bad writing it was a competently written movie
Don't let chuds incorporate such basic concepts, it'll make you sound and act like a paranoid looney. I get it, genuinely, but it's something ya kinda just gotta ignore or be willing to challenge.
Obviously a bunch of redneck inbreds with the iq of a malnourished potato would know “good writing” when they see it lol
This kind of bums me out because it's also been used to defend shows that are legitimately bad. For instance, the new season of true detective. I was super excited to see a women led season, especially one that focused on Inuit struggles and culture. Instead, I got a sloppy, overly supernatural script with clumsy call backs to the first season, convenient occurances used to justify the pacing, and an absolutely ridiculous resolution. My wife and I were very disappointed, having been fans of both TD and Jodie Foster, especially because there was actually a fair amount of potential for a lot of the plot threads. But go to anyone who enjoyed it, and it say any of that. You're automatically called a misogynist, and critics hail it as the best season.
"bad writing, objectively bad and political message" the trifecta of the media illiterate chuds.
I see it as a backlash. There's a certain subset of youtube content that has increasingly warned us of the rise of really terrible writing particularly in Hollywood. They've been doing it for years. And if you take it on the whole, it's difficult to argue with the trend even if you don't agree with every single point. Inevitably, that means there's some combination of a co-option, band-wagon, and subversion that turns "bad writing" into something that means nothing. In my experience, when you listen to someone who really understands the concept, they understand that "objectively bad writing" doesn't mean a movie is unenjoyable, and vice-versa. And people who *don't* understand objectively bad writing lean consistently into the notion that "There's no truth. Fascism is reality. Opinion and ability to impose your will are all that matter." It's an ugly way to put it, but that's the alternative. Either we can rationally discuss what makes for a good character and a coherent plot, or drowning someone out of the conversation is just as valid as refuting their points.
“Bad writing” just means the usual “the protagonist was black or a woman” type bullshit. On a related note “it didn’t follow its own internal logic” just means “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about”.