For the distinguished taste
Note: The above image was on the first page of the GIS for “awful movie.” I liked it.
It’s probably no secret that, when it comes to TV and movies, I’ll watch pretty much anything. Moreover, I’ll usually find something to like about everything I watch, because I’m easily entertained.
It would seem, with me watching and liking some part of pretty much everything, that I have no filter that differentiates between quality and taste. It’s not that — I recognize the difference. I can see when a movie is of good quality, but I just didn’t care for it — any of the film versions of Jane Austen movies (or really, the books) fit into that category for me.
Then there’s stuff that’s of a universally shitty quality — a lot of SyFy movies, for example — that I’ll enjoy in spite of (or in some cases because of) the horrible production value, the ridiculously bad acting, and the subpar writing. Sadly, I’ll take Sharktopus over Little Women 99.9% of the time.
It’s not the same for me with books, though. Oh, sure, I can acknowledge when a book is well-written but not to my taste, but I can’t seem to pull any enjoyment out of shitty, badly written novels. The most fun I get out of a poorly written book is making fun of the cover design (bad novels and bad covers are usually a package deal). It’s not that I’m snobbish about genres or types of stories I’ll read (or, let’s face it, write). I think it has more to do with investing more than 90 minutes into something that’s not well-executed.
What about you, folks? Can you be entertained by a poorly written novel? And just how bad does a film has to be before it becomes a waste of time?