I found some more good rebuttals to common arguments of crappy movies.
I've "toned down" some of the comments.
5. "Why do you review things you hate? If you don't like it, ignore it."
Why do I review crap? Simple: for pleasure. For the sheer joy of it. Every piece of crap you like is an immense world of delight waiting to be explored. Crap is a driving force, crap is inspirational: nothing urges me to set things right more than seeing them done wrong. I'm especially pleased when the crap is so bad it makes me angry — for anger is a pleasant sensation. To feel your bile rise and your blood boil, to feel a rush of fury — why, it's the pleasure of being alive, of feeling some actual emotion instead of the constant dull fuzz of the easily contented.
Why should I deny myself such pleasures? You preach abstinence, but that's because you're a Puritan. When you look at criticism, you see only whines and complaints; you fail to see the joy. Energy is eternal delight (as they say where I come from), and to damn something with energy is a more joyous and thrilling act than to ignore it, or say "it's nice", or fob it off with other half-hearted compliments.
6. "Art is subjective. If I like it, it's good. It's all a matter of opinion."
Yes, and your opinion isn't worth crap. In spite of the morass of subjectivity you'd drag us into, there are such things as artistic standards — common standards, shared among certain groups of people, people who know what they're talking about, people who express themselves better than others. Better according to whom? According to me. (It's all subjective, remember?) Objective standards might not exist in the realm of art, but these inter-subjective standards fulfil their role quite adequately. And they still allow plenty of room for argument and opinion.
In any case, your comment is made in bad faith. You've come in the level-headed guise of one advocating reason and common sense, but in truth your only aim is to justify your own juvenile opinions. "If I like it, it's good" is an excuse never to confront the flaws in the things you like, never to question your opinions, for fear you've built your fanboy life on piss-weak foundations.
7. "Some people like it, some don't. PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THERE ARE GOOD THINGS AND BAD THINGS ABOUT EVERYTHING. END OF STORY. I wish everyone would shut up!"
Yes, no one should ever express an opinion about anything, much less contrary opinions, you stupid arse. You've stepped into the middle of a argument like some grandstanding politico, trying save the day, putting the argument to rest with some shouted platitudes. You probably think you are quite the shotgun diplomat, but your act convinces no one. For under your performance, as plain as day, is a grieving, wounded fanboy, whining about the nasty people saying nasty things about what he likes. You never pipe up like this when you see wall-to-wall gush, which is all you want to see.
10. "You need to balance your opinion. Mention the good points as well as the bad."
Wrong. Something clearly messed up during your aesthetic development, and you've emerged with a country schoolmarm's ideal of beauty and proportion. Not to worry, I'll explain again slowly. There is no artistic imperative to balance one's criticism. The only motivation for "balance" is the opposite of art: politeness, courtesy towards the artist and his fans. Such courtesy is an offence against self-expression, calling on the critic to compromise himself so as to appease the proprieties and sensibilities of a few fanboys, who are all idiots anyway. The "balanced" critic is inevitably writing in chains, restricted to a formula: his reviews reek of insincerity and hackery, showing the severe strains of digging for faint praise.
This one a thousand times:
12. "You take things too seriously... lighten up. It's just entertainment...."
Your main problem, I suspect, is not that I take things too seriously — after all, you have no idea how much or little time I spend on this — but that I take them seriously at all. What you find offensive is that I consider the crap you like to be a subject of some importance and interest, that I apply certain critical standards to it, that I look at it in a context slightly wider than your lifetime's collection of navel lint....
In which case, you're damned right I take things seriously, you slack-jawed waste of space. Let me tell you a secret: the only people who ever did anything good, did it seriously. In particular, the only people who were ever entertaining took their entertainment seriously. The best comedians are always dead serious about comedy, studying it in depth, constantly exploring comic ideas, tirelessly working to improve their art — in fact, only serious people are ever funny. The real humourless bores are the slackers, the laid-back, the shallow, the trivial: people who spend their lives on their arses, sucking candy, swallowing the shit that's fed to them.
Serious people take an active interest and joy in the world; they participate in it, they strive to improve it, through their actions, through their art, through their presence. When serious people do things, they try to do them well; they don't settle for mediocrity in themselves, or in others. Unserious people — people like you — are the opposite: they settle for ignorance, they're content with crap, they're happy to be second-rate, and get second-rate treatment in return. Serious people make a serious contribution to the world, while you and other slackers contribute nothing but an ever-rising pile of human effluent.
You know, I might even enjoy Dragonball as a cheesy mystical Kung Fu flick. It doesn't change the fact that it's approach to the characters is wrong, and the arguments defending it are retarded.