"It's just a movie." It's one of the most annoying sentences in the world to me. Can someone explain the logic of it?
It's an example of lazy, unintelligent thinking. It's simply the genetic fallacy:
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
However, it's a really, really poor application of the genetic fallacy. All films have some kind of script. So, saying "It's just a movie" is a
misnomer. A film was an outline before it became a script. Then the script was written often with multiple rewrites by multiple writers. A film is
ultimately handed over to creative people such as directors and producers to create the finished product.
The fact is, films are art. Film is a very complicated art form that requires tons of creative decisions and input sometimes by hundreds of people.
Before a typical film becomes "Just a movie" it first is "Just a book" because a typical film script of 120+ pages is actually a book and film scripts
are often published as books. With all of the rewrites most scripts get with input of sometimes hundreds of creative people, the typical film script
of a completed film is probably a lot more polished than your average published book.
Why am I comparing books to films? Because I've never heard anyone claim "It's just a book" when discussing the merits of theories presented in a
book. I wonder why? Could that be because so many people base their entire lives on books such as the Bible and the Quran?
We can't be saying "It's just a book" in that case, can we?
Well, take a beloved religious film such as "The Passion of the Christ"... Is that "Just a movie"? A lot of Christians would say it's much more than a
movie. Why? Because they consider it be an accurate portrayal of their favorite book. Why is that considered a valid argument by many in the "It's
just a movie" crowd?
If a film is based on a book is it still "Just a movie"? Clearly not. However, I've never read or heard the sentence "It's just a movie based on a
book." Why is that? If you're going to be consistent with your use of the genetic fallacy you have to stick to attacking the source of the material.
And the film itself is almost never the true source (it can be but that's relatively rare).
Why would one form of art (such as books) be assumed to automatically contain more truth or validity than another form of art (such as films)? Does
that make sense to anyone?
In conclusion, the statement "It's just a movie" isn't just a logically fallacious statement. It's a lie. A movie always begins with another source
whether it's a book or a script (which is a type of book) or some other similar material.
I have no idea why people want to lie and distort reality by claiming "It's just a movie." What they gain by doing that is beyond me.
14-10-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)