Hacker News Reader

Comment by young_hopper | Hacker News Reader

I'd tend to agree.

Most movies these days are self-indulgent, following a simple pattern that has made money for the industry before. Imo, these tend to be uninspired and not worth watching.

The fact that a pet does or does not perish within a film should not be a prerequisite for enjoyment

View on HN

This is probably the worst take I’ve seen. Some people don’t want to watch pets die in a film they watch for their personal recreation. That should be a prerequisite for them if they choose and have facilities to make it so. It should not be the case that people could know that they’ll be upset by watching pets die, and want to know, and that knowledge is denied to them on principle.

I’d even go so far as to say that’s so absurd anyone defending it is doing so to provoke.

I wasn't arguing with the utility of the site. I was agreeing with the commenter's sentiment that films these days often coddle their viewers in a way I find uninspiring.

Not being provocative at all.

I think we have an opportunity to agree then. Maybe if people are able to opt out of media they’d find seriously upsetting, we can enjoy whatever people feel more free to make without so much caution.

This sounds like there are rational and obligatory prerequisites that should make movie enyoable for every viewer, and if viewer still doesn't like the movie, then he is wrong. And not like enyoment from art is depending on personal taste, situation and state of mind.

Also, there is cinema outside blockbusters, but popcorn doesn't go well with whatever independent cinema is going to haunt the viewer.

I feel like most movies were the same in the past, we just don't remember them. Sturgeon's Law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com