38
What movies are all style and no substance? Discussion (piefed.social)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/movies@piefed.social
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Ghostbusters 1984 had a lot of substance to it.

I mean, Dan Aykroyd was one of the writers, and he actually has a background in paranormal investigation, so even though the entire concept is lampooning paranormal investigators, like, for the time it was groundbreaking, it's still entertaining.

I can't understand why somebody would say there's no substance to the movie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Aykroyd being able to accurately lampoon his own interest isn't substance.

    What's the movie saying about people, life & death, NYC politics even? What's the message or meaning of the movie? That's what substance is. Ghostbusters is great! Classic cinema, no question. But it absolutely has no meaningful statements, or questions about anything. It's pure fun, for it's own sake.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    No it isn't. It's entirely subjective whether a movie has substance.

    You're arguing that other people who found substance in their viewing of a movie are wrong because for you it had no substance for you. What's the point? What drives you to be validated here at the cost of invalidating others?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    My larger point is that people often insist substance is good, style is bad. I disagree with endowing a value judgment on either. A movie with great substance can still be a terrible movie. Movies nothing going for them but style can be fantastic. And most try to balance the two, to wonderful or horrible effect.

    I'm not saying people finding substance in a movie are wrong in their opinion. They're wrong in their definitions. I chose my list specifically to spark discussion about what does it even mean to say a movie has substance. What is style?

    Movies aren't substantive because people like them. For the word "Substance" to be useful, it must mean something else.

    One of the writers knowing the subject on which they're writing isn't substance. What is Aykroid saying about real paranormal investigations? That would be substance.

    You can enjoy Ghostbusters without answering that question. I certainly do. I can't count how many times I've enjoyed watching it. Our enjoyment isn't trivialized or wrong if it's not a substantive movie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •