Why Good Will Hunting is a bad movie

So there is this movie that I watched…approximately three times, since the reruns are very frequent and there are a lot of ongoing hype regarding this movie. The first time I saw it I hated it. The second time was today, during an ERP experiment that I participated. At the end of that experiment (thankfully I didn’t finish watching the entire movie) I was shaking with anger. I really can’t understand how anyone could like this movie. There are people who connect with the character because they also had mental problems in the past and had to go through constant therapy. But otherwise, the movie is really for simple-minded people who want to live life in blissful and smug ignorance about how the world really is, especially regarding geniuses.

Why I hate it the first time.

Coming from China, where the society emphasizes much on effort and hard-working. The movie seems to say that someone who doesn’t need to work hard at a subject, who just does it like some sort of side-hobby, can solve complex mathematical proofs like kids playing board games. While it’s true that there are geniuses who did not have formal training in the subject (and by formal they just mean no consistent schooling) and can understand the subject better than most people, there is not a genius who just does things on the side like a hobby and still beats people who devote their lives unto the subject. Even Ramanujan, who was mentioned in this movie, worked his ass off in mathematics, he didn’t just go day job, night partying, and then back and boom, complex problems solved. These people devote their lives in the subject, doesn’t matter if they had consistent schooling or not. THAT’s what made the difference. So this movie, like many American movies, focuses very much on talent and not on effort. Which makes it not believable and very much demeans geniuses and lesser people alike.

Why I hate it the second time.

But I know I know, that’s not the main point of this movie. So the second time I ignored that and focused on other aspects. And I found more things that I hated. The second time revealed to me that Good Will Hunting is truly a movie written by amateurs. And it was: Matt Damon and Ben Affleck WERE amateurs straight out of college, and they wrote an amateur script. I would forgive them if they try to call it a family movie for simpler-minded children. But no, they shamelessly sold it as an adult movie. So I’m just going to list all the problems with this movie.

1. Cliches cliches cliches: smart person…hmmm… how can I put some flaw into him? make him an asshole? Nah too easy…oh I know! I’m gonna say that he was abused and then orphaned!!! Or alternatively: I want to talk about this boy who was abused as a child… but that’s too boring…Oh I KNOW! I’m going to make him a genius!! that’s going to appeal to the audience! Who doesn’t like geniuses? Honestly, why not make him into a vampire who sparkles in the sunlight like diamonds while you are at it? You know teenage girls are gonna suck that shit up. BIG TIME.

2. Shallow view of art, science, mathematics and literature: I was fuming when Robin Williams got through to Matt Damon by telling him that all the knowledge in his head doesn’t mean anything until he “experienced them in life.” You’ve gotta be kidding me right? I’m reminded at all the philosopher idiots who tell me that science cannot tell me what a rock is, that is something that can only be experienced. Science can only tell you what rocks are made of, how big it is, how heavy it is etc… but science cannot tell you what a rock IS. Only people who cannot understand science, or do not understand the scientific ways of thinking will claim such idiotic things (more on this subject see my post “I hate debating ignorant philosophers on science”). Geniuses are called geniuses for a reason–they can see things that the average people cannot, and more importantly, they see things DEEPER than most people. They find better solutions to problems. The best example is Darwin (and Wallace but mostly Darwin) who came up with the theory of evolution through natural selection. The simple-minded people who use feelings to see nature see only how pretty nature is, and how well designed, ergo, there must be a designer. Darwin is the one who saw something much deeper and complex–that what is designed is not design at all, but an accumulation from step-wise trait changes in population selection. It’s like that atheist joke: a Christian, Muslim, Jew, and an atheist were condemned to death and were sent to the guillotine, when the ax came down it stopped before hitting each of the Christian, the Muslim, and the Jew’s necks. All three of them claimed that it is a miracle given by God. Only the atheist realized that the mechanics of the guillotine is faulty and proposed a solution to fix it. This is the difference from the shallow: go with what you feel and the deeper: “what it is all about and how do we go about explaining it as an universal truth.” Good Will Hunting did the opposite: it tries to say that going with your emotions is the better alternative than so-called “book knowledge.” It’s this kind of nonsense that makes people in this country so arrogant as to say: “what has science EVER done for the world?”

3. Poorly written characters in general.

I’ve already mentioned how cliched the movie is. But just for the main character… I don’t know how many people know this, but even though many geniuses have mental problems, their mental problems are often because they feel alone in being misunderstood. They feel alone that no one can see what they see, understand what they understand. So this movie doesn’t even do justice in portraying geniuses with their problems, and had to add something that normal people can encounter–abuses! Will doesn’t have any problems with people not understanding what he understands (in fact he’s ever so smug about it), and he expresses his anger in violence. In real life, most geniuses do the opposite. They often retract into depression. Many of them are suicidal, or their physical health deteriorates due to drugs or drinking (think Mozart, Beethoven, Alan Turing, Edgar Allen Poe etc). This movie seems to try to suggest that the next time you see a genius having problems, it must be something external, never mind the internal stuff. Don’t try to understand things that they understand but you don’t, go with the other “EMOTIONAL” things. That’s what’s gonna help them. Can you say condescending? It’s really no different from when Christians tell me that I criticize Christianity harshly because I must be an angry person, or sinful, or had an unhappy childhood etc etc. It’s when people who refuse to address any of your arguments and then side tracks. And you wonder why many geniuses are assholes?

Overall, Good Will Hunting is an overrated, amateur movie. It’s a movie for critics who know next to nothing about math, science or art who want to feel good about watching a genius–something they can never be–having mundane problems. It’s a movie that tries to bring geniuses down to the level of ordinary people, so the ordinary people can feel good about themselves with the fact that they are not geniuses. Reality doesn’t work like that people. Geniuses may not have a perfect life, but they light a beacon for us ordinary folks to come out of the darkness of our simple-mindedness, THAT’S what makes them special. But Good Will Hunting wants you to believe that their beacon is nothing but flashlight, and the darkness is where it is the safest.

 

48 responses to “Why Good Will Hunting is a bad movie”

  1. I agree that this movie is highly overrated. The emotional part is what makes it attractive.

  2. Nailed it on the head on why I hated this movie sir!

    1. I’m a “she” 😊😜

    2. It’s a movie, are movies supposed to be highly intelligent? Do highly intelligent mathematicians create films? You feel physically and mentally attacked by a stupid film created by stupid people, that shows your true intelligence.

      Let’s watch barney and pick apart everything that doesn’t exist in reality, we can physically shake and foam at the mouth in anger.

    3. It’s a movie, are movies supposed to be highly intelligent? Do highly intelligent mathematicians create films? You feel physically and mentally attacked by a stupid film created by stupid people, that shows your true intelligence.

      Let’s watch barney and pick apart everything that doesn’t exist in reality, we can physically shake and foam at the mouth in anger.

      1. “are movies supposed to be highly intelligent?”

        Well high quality movies are, yes. And this movie won the best original screenplay no less. Manchester by the Sea for example is incredibly highly intelligent. And there are certainly other movies regarding mathematicians that are much better than Good Will Hunting, The Imitation Game for example.

  3. Nailed it on the head of why I hated this movie sir!

    Beautiful Mind was waaayyy better movie about a mathematician.

    1. Ehhh don’t agree. That one is pretty overrated too. I’m a psychologist so it heavily fictionized schizophrenia as well as ooomphed up how great the wife was. The imitation game is one that finally did a descent job regarding a mathematician.

  4. Aside from the issues of having grown up in the foster system, I see no other purpose for “Good Will Hunting”.

    I mean the idea was that Williams/Skarsgard were suppose to save him from what?… a blue collar profession, where unlike many white collar types, he’s able to spend his adult years with his lifelong friends, originally from those terrible foster care days? In contrast, many white collar workers have few friends or mere acquaintances in the office. What an extended family community that is!

    Remember those mock interviews, offering him an exorbitant $70K/yr for his analytical skills. Does anyone not know that contractors, electricians, plumbers, esp unionized in Boston, earn $30-$50+/hour with benefits and overtime pay. Seriously, that’s easy more than $70K/yr.

    If these were hedge funds plunking down $500K or something of that sort, then ok, this could have been a story about ‘sudden’ wealth and what that all means but c’mon, a normal salary is a joke.

    And finally, if he stayed the academic route, BFD, he’s just another a-hole, now looking for tenure like Skarsgard with his inferiority complex of not being the next Issac Newton. All and all, I didn’t buy GWH’s premise and its execution. All and all, it’s good to know that kids in the foster system suffer but that’s not enough of a premise for this story.

  5. One more salient point against “Good Will Hunting”.

    Minnie Driver’s character was made out to be a near perfect, selfless Harvard co-ed. In general, Ivy League women form long term (read: not one night stands/flings) relationships with either educated and/or well off businessmen.

    The idea that Driver wouldn’t care at all for Damon’s background and/or lack of career ambition, would be a deal killer for the vast majority of Ivy educated women. I mean Priscilla Chan, yes, Mark Zuckerberg’s wife from Harvard, was originally concerned that Mark wasn’t motivated and some lazy guy until he’d proved himself to be a capable entrepreneur.

    Thus, in the real world, their relationship would have been a fit of passion for one semester in Cambridge MA, prior to her acceptance to Stanford Med.

  6. I agree with you about the approach to mental illness. The idea that there must be an obvious external problem is relatively annoying. It would have been better to explore the affect his intelligence/genius on the way he processes things. Although, I have to question your view that mental illness in geniuses must be from their isolation and that they are always unable to relate to those around them. Yes, they see more than the average person. Does that necessarily mean that they are unable to relate to or empathise with the average person? Is term genius solely defined as those who have a deeper understanding and therefore cannot empathise with other people?

    Also, I have a question about your idea that you can understand something without experiencing it. Did you mean that because he has the facts, he understands something? Are you sure you want to go down the path of “I understand something because I read about it”? I don’t mean to be rude but that is what you sound like you’re saying.

    I completely agree with your view that genius does come from working. Even if someone has a natural aptitude for something, they still have to engage in the activity extensively to learn and become a genius. Spending some of your time reading doesn’t quite cut it to get you to that level of ability.

    1. “I have to question your view that mental illness in geniuses must be from their isolation and that they are always unable to relate to those around them. ”

      Where have I suggested that mental illness in geniuses MUST be from their isolation. Pretty sure I used “often” and that doesn’t even imply “most” as I’ve specified “many” Where did you get “must” and “necessarily” from reading what I wrote?

      ” your idea that you can understand something without experiencing it.”

      Depending on what you mean by “experiencing” but in the context of what the Robin Williams character implies, of course. That’s what most astronomers are: they do not directly experience something that for most part of human history they cannot experience, but they have understood it. Ancient Greeks have understood that the earth is round without directly seeing or experience the roundness of the earth. Mathematicians can understand very difficult concepts without directly experiencing the concept itself. And you can of course understand why earth is round by reading these people’s science.

      If you however mean ANY kind of experience with our senses, then of course not. We need our senses to collect data or to read a book.

      Your question is once again framed weirdly like your other objection. It really sounds like you have a mind of compartmentalized thinking (if somebody suggested its this, it MUST necessarily be this and cannot even slightly be that). First you used “CAN” (which, of course you CAN) then you said: “Are you sure you want to go down the path of “I understand something BECAUSE I read about it”? If I have to explain to you why those two statements are not the same, then I don’t mean to be rude but I don’t think it’s possible for us to have a fruitful philosophical debate regarding this.

      “I completely agree with your view that genius does come from working.”

      Not only, be careful.

  7. I have to admit that I do like this movie… but you make some really good points and I should reconsider my view. Thank you for this article!

  8. I think what you’re overlooking here is that Will’s intellect isn’t really the main idea of this film. Yeah, he’s wicked smart, but the point is that his intelligence isn’t getting him anywhere: he’s a janitor. He’s mopping floors, and no one knows/cares that he’s smarter than all the kids at the college he’s working for. And then someone notices, and cares. But his intelligence still isn’t fixing his life. He got arrested, and quoting high-level texts didn’t save him. He’s still in the same position he started in until he fixes what was really holding him back. The point isn’t that he’s a genius that has normal issues. The point is that him being a genius doesn’t matter if he can’t deal with these external conflicts. And he does have internal conflicts too, hence the half of the film involving the therapist. The overall theme of the film isn’t intelligence; it’s about moving on from the past in order to make the most of the future.

    And hey, I’ve been known to hyper focus on the small details of films. It drives my friends crazy, which is partially why I stopped doing it for the most part. But if you’re too busy criticizing the technicalities, you’re going to miss an amazing film about life and love and experience. It’s a good movie. Just take the time to at least try enjoying it.

    1. Several problems with your analysis:

      1. There was no indication that will had any issues with being a janitor, he CHOSE to be a janitor and it was very obvious from the film that he was proud of his choice, because he looks down upon the people who went to Harvard being lesser intelligence than him, he wanted to make a point that going to these schools don’t mean anything—they don’t mean you would be smarter than all the rest, which was one of the core theme of the movie. So that isn’t an external conflict, the conflict for will throughout the film has been internal—that all of his “dickheadedness” was to hide the abuse he has experienced that he wanted to cover up.
      2. This is made obvious by the fact that the hero of the movie is the therapist, not the mathematician who discovered his level of genius (he was portrayed as a dick too, and later admitted that the therapist was smarter than all of them—another ridiculousness of the film). The mathematician also clearly shown that he didn’t care about will, only his intellect, the therapist was the one who cared. It was obvious from the film that most likely there were many others like the mathematician in will’s life who has taken notice of his genius, and he rejected them all, proudly.
      3. To add to the above, a person who has external conflicts wouldn’t go work in a prestigious university and then actively monitor chances to display his intellect. Will works in Harvard as a janitor and then goes to solve these problems. A person with real external conflicts wouldn’t do such a thing—he’d be too disoriented to work, which will clearly didn’t have issues doing.

      So sorry, your analysis isn’t convincing at all.

      1. get a life kid. Enjoy a movie for once

      2. I did, read my comments

    2. “An amazing film about life love and experience”

      Problem is I don’t find it amazing at all, I find it to be an amateur movie. My focus also isn’t just “technicalities.” Technicalities would be the mathematicians who discuss the problems that are not actually that hard or how will managed to become a janitor in Harvard, the only “technicality” I went over was genius vs working, and it’s an important one. The rest of what I talked about are criticisms regarding the core of the film and how the story has been laid out, remember it won “best original screenplay” possibly one of the most undeserving ever. The level of storytelling is just slightly better than twilight and I’m very serious about this. And twilight is also about life love and experience if you want to look at it that way. If this film is your threshold for “an amazing film about life love and experience” I would have to say it sounds like you are missing out on some real experiences in life and love in films! 😉

      1. Which movies would you recommend these days that are worth watching and discussing?

      2. To dajolens:

        The one on top of my head from the last decade or so is: Manchester by the sea, absolutely gorgeous and brilliant movie (the story, the character, the dialog, the cinematography, the music, all perfection or near-perfection) and possibly the last of its kind for a while. Movies are getting more and more political now. PC culture is ruining everything.

      3. I’ve just seen “Manchester by the sea” today. That really is an excellent movie, thank you for the recommendation. I’m more optimistic about the future of movies, but you’re right: this quality in story-telling is rare.

      4. Wow! You’ve made my day! Glad you enjoyed the movie and agree with me too! 😊

        Cheers!!

  9. I saw it when it came out. Didn’t like it. Main character unpleasant. Hollywood portrayal of smarts, as usual, stupid. Psychiatrist cliched. Even the portrayal of “Southie” was overdone and silly.

    Recently tried re-watching it. Still a silly movie. Although wasn’t bothered by main character as much. I thought Swede did a decent job with his cliched role. Also Casey Affleck was appealing and genuine.

    I guess it is a chick flick. Couldn’t imagine men liking it. Femmes sometimes go for some silliness.

  10. Here’s a good film about a mathematician: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1btavd

  11. You are absolutely correct. Good job! I read screenplays for a living and this movie was so poorly written it just made me angry at the whole industry. This movie should never have been produced, more less win awards. I pass on similar scripts every single day. All written by film students still learning the basics. I guess when your Matt Damon and you manage to get Robin Williams connected to your project, it doesn’t matter how bad your script is.

    1. Wow thank you! So good to hear a professional agreeing with me!!

      Cheers!

  12. Andrew Williams Avatar
    Andrew Williams

    Holy shit, imagine missing the entire point of the movie

    1. Not an argument but Feel free to enlighten us

  13. I watched it as a kid and thought it was cool however, this was at a time before the internet so we were really starved for entertainment. A bit like how people liked Charlie Chaplin films and watching them now they’re interesting but not really funny. After watching it years later as an adult I really didn’t like it because it’s basically characters delivering highly practiced monologues uninterrupted like it’s a one person show. People don’t talk or act like that in real life. Robin Williams turns his dialogue into a stand up routine and it really breaks the fourth wall. I think the point about going to see things in real life is about getting a wilder world experience is valid because, like it or not, people are highly emotional. The Atheist condemned to death would have seen the mechanism not working, realized it wasn’t divine intervention, but (presuming this person didn’t have a death wish) wouldn’t have recommended a fix. A thinking being usually wants to live.

    1. “ The Atheist condemned to death would have seen the mechanism not working, realized it wasn’t divine intervention, but (presuming this person didn’t have a death wish) wouldn’t have recommended a fix. A thinking being usually wants to live.”

      That was the joke… and apparently it went over your head. Whoosh.

  14. I did get the joke. I’m making a commentary that even an atheist or scientist, that might consider themselves completely rational cannot separate themselves from emotional responses such as wanting to live, academic professional jealously or the need to been seen as highly respected or competent in their field (which also features in the film). You can read about everything in life but seeing and feeling things in real life is indeed different from simply observing it. There are some good themes in Good Will Hunting but I don’t think it’s a great film or well written.

    1. It heavily depends on how rational you are in fact. People’s rationality are in many ways driven by their emotional responses, it’s a theory called cognitive affective theory. However if you are truly 100% rational, then seeing and observing and using rationality would indeed become your reality. I personally know people who are pretty much near 100% rational, in which case their emotional responses even stems from rationality.

      So it depends, there is no sweeping argument that feelings are just 100% separate from rationality.

  15. Supreet Kumar Avatar
    Supreet Kumar

    Here is my opinion:
    Bas aspects:
    – Not realiatic enough
    – Nobody borns with scientific concepts in their mind that they can start using which seems to be shown in the movie
    – Exaggerated smartness of the boy

    Good aspects:
    – A will to change for the good
    – Power of UNUSED Potential despite having the potential
    – Power of good teachers guidance of a potential candidate

    Also, you said, geniuses dont have normal people problems, like abuse. right?
    Look at elon musk. He had an abusive father. Still he became what he is now.
    Still like your review
    You make good points 🙂

  16. Though yes, this is an overrated movie, I disagree on your “science cannot tell you what a rock is” point. This is what philosophers would call “the thing in itself”. Science cannot answer metaphysical questions. Even after you’ve described and enumerated all particles, fields and laws, there will still be something left to explain.

    1. That “something” would be quite meaningless. It’d be like ruminating “how many angels fit on the head of a pin” or “do unicorns drink blood?” No science can’t answer these questions but neither are they ever going to be useful.

  17. I suppose that you could interpret the movie to illustrate talent over effort, but personally how I interpreted it was that he is a voracious reader and has spent his life consuming information to reach his current state. The process of consuming information, and too applying it isn’t an effortless endeavor. And contrarily to how you used it, bringing up Ramanujan could also be interpreted as reinforcing that idea. Basically how talent, with both effort and interest in things combined can bring about amazing things. I also didn’t really interpret it as it was just this side job no big deal to him. The movie, albeit brief.. shows a scene of him after seeing the first problem on the board, spending time alone focusing one night on the problem attempting to solve it before then going back to the school. So how I interpreted was not that he was simply talented, but that he found the process of solving problems to be intriguing and a fun challenge. Something he.. put effort into.

    I guess cliches are a valid complaint, characters generally fall into some sort of archetype though so I don’t really view it as a huge negative to lean into them. If you’re a big movie buff I can see how those would become grating over time though as this main character does fall into some common combinations. I felt despite that it was very well done personally.

    I also didn’t interpret the scene where “all the knowledge in his head doesn’t mean anything until he “experienced them in life.”” the same way as you. I don’t believe the intention of that scene was at all related to demeaning the sciences or the value of information. Instead it was to appeal to the characters experience of life.. as an orphan who hasn’t experienced having a family or an education.. basically the stereotypical things people with normal upbringings do.. it would make sense he would have that as a soft spot. To feel like his life experience is inadequate and missing something, if all that’s in his head are books. It’s kind of a jab at him, to tell the character the therapist doesn’t really think all that highly of his criticisms due to where they are coming from. It also harkens back to the earlier scene with the bully at the bar, where Will had a similar criticism of them with not being able to think for themselves. I don’t view that as a true criticism of the sciences, so much as it is a criticism of an individual that lacks personal self development.

    For your third point I feel like this could also be spun as a positive for the movie.. rather than falling perfectly into the same stereotypical cliches of genius problems it does do a unique thing in giving the street urchin type the mantle of the struggling genius. It’s a nice twist that makes the character interesting. It’s funny to see him hang out with his kind of dumb friends, and then simultaneously be defending himself in a legal situation due to the trouble he gets in for hanging out with a bunch of fools. He doesn’t fit in with the stereotypical genius. I don’t know why you extrapolate that change to need to apply to genius archetypes as a whole. Different characters have different problems. This criticism feels almost contradictory to me of your first criticism.

    Overall, I feel this write up wanted to find holes to poke in the movie. The explanations for those holes feel forced, or kind of short sighted. Despite that I appreciate the alternative perspective, it was interesting.

    1. I have addressed all of these points in my comments with other people that you can read. In addition, if you actually want to find a much better fictional representation of what a precocious genius’s mind is like, I suggest you pick up Liu CiXin’s Three Body Problem Trilogy. It takes a real genius to understand how geniuses actually function and how their minds work in face of life’s hardship and despair. GWH is a very bad example written by amateurs and full of banal cliches.

      1. I skimmed through but didn’t find any direct replies to these criticisms of your write up. Perhaps I missed it, or do not all the comments show? Would you copy and paste them for me in reply? I’m interested to hear your justifications for you interpretations.
        Either way, I do appreciate the suggestion. I looked it up, are you referring to the actual book series, or one of it’s adaptations? If you mean the book well.. I probably won’t get around to it as I have a lot of other reading I want to do already. If you think the adaptations though do it a good service, or perhaps have another film you think is a better portrayal I’d happily give it a watch and return to you with my feelings on it.

      2. The Chinese Tencent’s adaptations of the first book is quite faithful. Called three body https://youtu.be/3-UO8jbrIoM?si=EUSDTeMCz5MlBMTN

        Not perfect but it’s a start. The Netflix one is an absolute abomination. Which justifications specifically? Most of what you wrote is: this is my interpretation. You’re not exactly disproving anything of what I wrote so what am I supposed to address? Point me to one that I haven’t already addressed and I’ll address it.

      3. Thanks for the link, I will give this a watch eventually and try to get back to you on what I thought of it. It’s Sci-Fi yea? Will be a interesting thing to try to compare.

        As for justifications I figured perhaps you had a response to my alternative perspective. Some kind of justification for why your interpretation is more valid than my own? If you don’t then that’s cool, we both just experience it differently but I assumed you might be interested in debating the validity of how I interpreted it. Perhaps I am missing something?

        I guess how I would word it for you would be:

        Despite the alternative perspective I offered, do you still feel that the movie genuinely depicts someone that puts no effort into things? I think it’s fair to say they don’t focus on it, as you yourself admit that’s not the point of the movie.. but I don’t think the intention is to make it seem like everything is so natural to him that he didn’t go through work to be capable of his abilities. I don’t think that’s how an audience member would necessarily interpret the movie either.

        Do you think media that utilizes stereotypes are objectively lesser? I don’t personally, but I’d be interested to hear why you think that. There are definitely stereotypes that are off-putting to me, but some of them feel satisfying as well. My perspective is that just because stereotypes are used, it doesn’t make it a bad piece of media. If it’s done well, like say some mindless fun like John Wick then I think it’s valid. I think that’s why power fantasy Gary Sue type movies appeal so greatly to the masses. You could argue it’s bad writing, but if it’s enjoyable I think it’s serving its purpose and isn’t bad as a result. Just like music that isn’t perfectly produced but strikes an emotion as a result, or music that is so perfectly produced it’s beautiful ear candy, but arguably lacks a soul like pop music. They both are good for their own reasons. In this case I think it’s a great movie to feel a little bit of what it would be like to be a genius that was stuck in a world of normalcy never given the opportunities in life to realize their potential. Being discovered, but due to your upbringing feeling like an outsider to a world that you could excel in. No matter how good you could maybe be in that world, how much you yourself even relish all the information and understanding that world gave you.. that you’ll never really be able to feel like you belong there. It’s an interesting twist on the tale of genius to me. The genius who rejects belonging to academia and would prefer to be to his self and his own thoughts and beliefs is actually a common trope, as geniuses are misunderstood as you say.. they are used to not fitting in with even their perhaps intelligent peers. But in this case it’s coming from another direction than normal.

        Do you think this movie genuinely depicts the rejection of the value of academia? I feel it’s a bit odd to think that given the main character has piles of books strewn around his room and spends all his free time reading academic information because it interests him. I don’t interpret the movie as at all a rejection of academia, but rather the rejection of the stereotypes within it. So, more appealing to someone who is a polymath. Someone of academia, but not organized academia. You mentioned religion, the equivalent of religion would be someone who rejects organized religion but believes in some sort of spiritual like ideas. A common tendency of many historically smart people no? I like those kinds of people and I don’t think they’re depicted as often as normal stereotypical genius types.

      4. Thanks for the clarification. To address them:

        “do you still feel that the movie genuinely depicts someone that puts no effort into things?”

        This is a misinterpretation to what I’ve written. There is no such thing as “no effort in to things.” However, the effort that was depicted in the film does not fall anywhere CLOSE to reality. The difference of effort between a genius and “way ahead of the curve” (as these students are Harvard students, so definitely not common minds) mathematicians is not so small as the film depicts, nowhere near in fact. If you want to know about the amount of effort, I recommend the book (from one of my college professors: Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist by Dean Keith Simonton https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Science-Chance-Genius-Zeitgeist/dp/052154369X

        “but I don’t think the intention is to make it seem like everything is so natural to him that he didn’t go through work to be capable of his abilities”

        The film definitely was trying to say that he didn’t need to go through the amount of work that other people (even people way ahead of the curve) needed to go through. In fact Will Hunting explained this to his girlfriend (also a Harvard student) that things that don’t make sense to other people just made sense to him. So yes, it’s pretty close to “everything is just so natural to him”

        “Do you think media that utilizes stereotypes are objectively lesser?”
        If the movie is a serious movie (which GWH clearly is), and the stereotypes depicted are not even close to reality and/or convincing, then yes. It would be objectively lesser. There are stereotypes that are actually real stereotypes as they occur in high enough frequency for us to relate. In terms of GWH, I personally know many geniuses in my life, I actively track geniuses and listen to their talks and how they work, it’s a completely fascinating field to me as I am a psychologist, I can tell you that I’ve not met or encountered a record, of a single genius that is like GWH. Geniuses’ minds operate differently than normal people, which is what makes them geniuses, not regular people who just solve problems quickly. This is ESPECIALLY the case for mathematicians. Their mind’s entire perceptions of the world operates differently. Some media depictions are more accurate than others in this respect.

        “In this case I think it’s a great movie to feel a little bit of what it would be like to be a genius that was stuck in a world of normalcy never given the opportunities in life to realize their potential.”

        I simply disagree. Again, if you ever get a chance you really should read Liu CiXin’s full triology of the three body problem. He has described many different types of geniuses and how their minds work, ESPECIALLY in lieu of “normal” people whose minds are lesser than theirs.

        “but if it’s enjoyable I think it’s serving its purpose and isn’t bad as a result…It’s an interesting twist on the tale of genius to me.”
        Sure, can say the exact same thing about the Twilight Series, those movies were box office hits after all. You can also say it’s an interest twist on the vampire lore and that by itself gives it value. And you can also say the exact same thing to virtually any depictions.

        “Do you think this movie genuinely depicts the rejection of the value of academia?”

        Also a misunderstanding of what I wrote. The movie doesn’t understand how science works or how the scientific mind works, not that it rejects academia. It’s completely stupid to somehow draw a line between “book knowledge” and other types of knowledge. Now obviously, if it’s a poorly written bland book you might say hey: my actual research experience or lived experience or whatnot is better than what is written in this book. But there is absolutely no fundamental difference between how scientists and intellectuals extrapolate knowledge from books (and other types of medium, such as videos or audio recordings) and from their own personal lived experiences. Some books, such as once again, Liu CiXin’s three body problems trilogy, are written so profoundly that they literally would trump any real life experiences that you’d have. Because they put you through a state of mind that flies beyond your own little world and makes you reconsider and reexamine everything that you know, this is what happened to great scientific geniuses, such as Darwin that I brought up. The movie is trying to say that this apparently doesn’t really happen. And it suggests that lived experiences are more profound than so-called book knowledge. This is just completely stupid.

        Hope they answer your questions.

        PS, if you decide to watch the Tencent version, I should warn you that the first 3-4 episodes were not well made, so don’t judge the whole series just based on the first 4 episodes.

        cheers

      5. “This is a misinterpretation to what I’ve written. There is no such thing as “no effort in to things.” However, the effort that was depicted in the film does not fall anywhere CLOSE to reality.”

        I don’t think it was a misinterpretation, I wanted clarification on what exactly you evaluate effort to be in comparison to the movie. So to you, you draw a distinction in that there is a bit of a magical level of a difference between himself and others which is unrealistic not just that he doesn’t put effort into things. I’d say some key moments that you could interpret as what I would call “magical” by using your definition of difference would be things like the other students and faculties amazement with his abilities, as well as him correcting another individual that was arguing the validity of his own theory. I can see why you would draw a line there as to why it’s bad. But I can imagine scenarios where it makes sense if we give leeway to the script for certain things to be assumed about the context of the scenarios, rather than directly portrayed. But in this case I respect that distinction somewhat, and will give it to you that it could be better if it gave some heavier scenes deliberating his process. It just not being the focus of the film makes it hard because we have a lot of character development scenes for his life situation rather than the fact that he’s a genius. I would have really enjoyed scenes like those. But the emotional messaging is what’s more important to the movie. So I don’t really personally look down on that decision. It’s more a movie about a genius struggling in a unique personal life scenario, than a genius grappling with overcoming academic goals because the point of the character is to reject that world eventually.

        “Will Hunting explained this to his girlfriend (also a Harvard student) that things that don’t make sense to other people just made sense to him.”

        I feel like that is a really perfect genius stereotype though, no? He feels like he doesn’t fit in, he has difficulty relating to others, he just sees things deeper and can’t communicate with most others the same way. Sure it could be interpreted a bit egotistical in a way, but if you give a genius type the benefit of the doubt, you can interpret it as they’re just sharing their feelings about the rest of the people in the world. I assume how you interpret the context of that scene is that it applies heavily to Harvard students and faculty but I don’t think it’s needed to be directly suggestive of that. I am sure even many of the Harvard students could relate, especially if they overlap in neurodivergent traits. Not all highly intelligent people do though, some fit in with “normal people” just fine and don’t have issues with relating to others like a particularly eccentric genius could. And as a result I dunno if that interaction really means “everything is just so natural to him”. I didn’t interpret it that way at all.

        “Geniuses’ minds operate differently than normal people, which is what makes them geniuses, not regular people who just solve problems quickly. This is ESPECIALLY the case for mathematicians. Their mind’s entire perceptions of the world operates differently. Some media depictions are more accurate than others in this respect.”

        Gerald the teacher figure is an example of what you could consider a “Genius” by IQ score presumably, as many people in the highest positions of academia do. Based on his behavior? He’s less the eccentric type. Just the way he flirts with women screams neurotypical behavior, contrast the main character he misses the social que to go talk to the girl in the bar and doesn’t engage further until the girl approaches him directly. He has these violent behaviors, sure common among street thugs but also very common among ADHD or Autism no? Spectrum behaviors are kind of relatable to eccentric geniuses. He has behavior that you could explain that way. I think it’s all in how you interpret the film. I can see this difference you’re talking about in him as a character personally, and I make a lot of assumptions about what goes on inbetween scenes based off context. I don’t just assume that because they don’t highlight it that it’s a magical happening because there is a lot of subtext to the character in imagery. But I respect that you think it’s a bad film for the lack of that. I personally still find enjoyment in the layers of fantasy presented, even if I definitely would have enjoyed more of them showing the process between scenes. It’s interesting you’re a stickler for that.

        “then yes. It would be objectively lesser.” & “Sure, can say the exact same thing about the Twilight Series, those movies were box office hits after all. And you can also say the exact same thing to virtually any depictions.”

        I enjoyed the first Twilight movie myself. I didn’t really like the others, as they felt like they were relying too much on extra villain type plot lines than leaning into their romantic themes. The villain plots were boring, the original idea was actually kinda good though. Real fun one, love the idea of a vampire than is in love with his food. I like the idea of maybe they would have focused more on the romantic drama elements that were unfolding during the first half of the first movie. Instead the interpersonal relationship is always the side story and as it went on it felt lesser and lesser. I enjoy many drama movies. I enjoy them as engaging films not really as think pieces always. Kind of like the difference between me enjoying a detailed story rich video game, versus a mindless hack and slash. I value them based off emotional quality in my experience of them. Do you enjoy movies like that at all? I know you have the distinction of “serious” vs “not serious” movies established from your first paragraph but I think there are plenty of movies that are bad because they are hard to find enjoyment in mainly because they don’t fully realize the fantasy they are laying out. I think this one does realize it, and it realizes it in a serious movie context.. so it’s done well to me in that way. It just seems to me what you would prefer is one where the fantasy journey is more intellectually focused than the characters interpersonal life struggles. Which is fair, it’s definitely not this movie if that’s what you’re after. That doesn’t make the movie not serious, but again definitely valid interpretation. Your original explanation on this felt off but your extrapolations better justify your perception to me and make sense even if we have different taste. I wonder do you know why the interpersonal elements of the story aren’t engaging to you at all? Is it just because of the lack of extended intellectual discovery scenes that ruins it all for you?

        “Also a misunderstanding of what I wrote. The movie doesn’t understand how science works or how the scientific mind works, not that it rejects academia.”

        Not really, In my first message I had pointed out how the scene you points to as proof of them saying academic knowledge is bad or worthless compared to real experience or something to that effect is actually not really about that at all it seems to me. I translate that to this idea that the movie overall rejects academic knowledge, as that seems to be the premise you were establishing in your original writing. So I tried to defend against that premise as well and decided to question you on it in particular separate from just the scene.

        “It’s completely stupid to somehow draw a line between “book knowledge” and other types of knowledge.”
        “And it suggests that lived experiences are more profound than so-called book knowledge”

        Hmm.. Well see yea that there seems to be what I was talking about. You say it rejects how the mind works with these other criticisms I’ve replied to now, but then also say this thing about how it demeans book knowledge. I don’t really think it does, and I tried to outline an argument for that, as well as give credit to the character for the parts of knowledge that he glorifies as a character. You see I’m not making a distinction from book knowledge and other types of knowledge. He is a character of book knowledge, and extreme voracity in consumption of a multitude of areas of knowledge. But he is not a character of academia, as in traditional schooling. He rejects it, and it’s stereotypes. Just like you could reject organized religion, but still appreciate religious activities or thought patterns. That’s the unique thing about his character. That doesn’t demean the sciences, he glorifies scientific knowledge as a character. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were from individuals that started their journey without traditional academics. Or for some geniuses they never were really involved at all like leonardo da vinci.

        I definitely agree with you that books are a very profound experience, not unlike real world experiences to me. They change my mind in almost magical ways, having me think of the state of the world or even the nature of my mind and experience in general. Nevertheless.. doing is definitely a different experience than consumption of medias. It brings about unique perspectives you wouldn’t anticipate necessarily. So it’s not that one is better than the other.. it’s just different. And too.. I would argue you need to be very intelligent to gain high value from books! Not everyone thinks creatively like an intelligent mind. They can’t extrapolate as much accessory data thought from texts, or even understand it in the first place. I think this is just a natural difference between hyper intelligent people and normal people. It affects not just the consumption of books, but yes also their experience of life. It is fair to say a genius character like Will is so hyper intelligent as to stumble upon new perspectives not considered by others in a reasonable way, or to find a faster way to reach a conclusion than others in a reasonable way. It just isn’t really shown, which if that’s your primary criticism I accept it as fair. I just mostly reject the other larger premises of criticism in your original writing on the movie I suppose. And thanks for the updated link! I’ll be sure to check it out. 👍

      6. “I feel like that is a really perfect genius stereotype though, no? He feels like he doesn’t fit in, he has difficulty relating to others, he just sees things deeper and can’t communicate with most others the same way. ”

        Not really, many films about ordinary people have this theme, there is nothing insightful about it or whether it needs to take a genius to relay this. It’s just again, amateur understanding of what a genius is.

        “I don’t just assume that because they don’t highlight it that it’s a magical happening because there is a lot of subtext to the character in imagery.”

        A middle school student can write such script if everything just has to be imaginarily filled in. It’s like saying: this person gets D grades in math, well I am not going to assume he’s bad at math, it could be something else! Sure it could be, but there is no evidence for what you are “not assuming.”

        “I wonder do you know why the interpersonal elements of the story aren’t engaging to you at all? Is it just because of the lack of extended intellectual discovery scenes that ruins it all for you?”

        You can enjoy a brainless chick flick for certain, that doesn’t make the movie good. I also enjoyed the Twilight series for what they are, but I’m not going just flat out reject criticisms stack at it or not acknowledging that they are badly written, amateur scripts and novels. Because there are good and bad movies, otherwise if we cannot say one movie is better or worse than the other, then there would be no standards, then there’d be no discipline and no improvements on filmmaking and storytelling. Not everything is just down to “taste.” And please don’t insult me, I know very well, better than most people I would say, about what beautiful storytelling regarding interpersonal elements, which of course would be a key element in virtually any great literary works. There are simply better and worse storytelling, and GWH is an amateurly bad one. One of the movie that I recommend to another person, Manchester by the Sea, does interpersonal elements about 100X better.

        “I translate that to this idea that the movie overall rejects academic knowledge, as that seems to be the premise you were establishing in your original writing.”

        Which once again, is a misinterpretation to what I’ve written. In fact, I even sub-headed it as: “Shallow view of art, science, mathematics and literature.” There is not a single time did I say that the movie overall rejects academic knowledge. I talked extensively about the fact that the script doesn’t understand how a scientific mind works. That’s completely different from “the movie rejects academic knowledge.” You can fully embrace the concept of academic knowledge and still have no real clue what it actually entails.

        “he glorifies scientific knowledge as a character. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were from individuals that started their journey without traditional academics. Or for some geniuses they never were really involved at all like leonardo da vinci.”

        You are still not understanding what I’m saying. I am talking about how the mind processes knowledge and that the medium of which knowledge processes does not matter in a genius mind. If a genius has books available that will describe something profound, they will see that, if a genius doesn’t have those books, then they can still find profound things in other ways. The point is there is no distinction between the two whatsoever. It’s all about what you are exposed to. A person being exposed to Da Vinci’s drawing can find that exceptionally profound, perhaps more profound than anything he/she has ever experienced in his/her life. That’s the exact same thing with books, or video, or audio, or what have you. The movie most certainly draws this distinction but there simply isn’t any. In fact, books (as well as other mediums) can in the right brain fill in all the emotional and psychological state that that person may have never experienced in his/her life, very vividly. It all depends on the quality of the medium, it does not depend on the medium itself. So “book knowledge” can be bad if those books are of low quality, the movie on the other hand says that nothing you can read can give you the same experience as these emotional experiences that the Robin Williams character laid out, I’m telling that that is simply not true and this type of script comes from people who don’t understand how the mind of a genius works. In Liu CiXin’s Dark Forest (second book of the 3 body problem trilogy), his main character Luo Ji, has a genius-level mind that simply suggestions, having been in touch with literary works, about coming up with his own stories, can make him vividly experience all the emotional scale that the Robin Williams talks about. Although you can argue that the senses used would be different, the kind of experience that the Robin Williams character talks about? no there is no difference.

        “I just mostly reject the other larger premises of criticism in your original writing on the movie I suppose.”
        Again, you extrapolated alot about the movie that simply has no real evidence from the movie itself. You even acknowledged multiple times that what you extrapolated aren’t shown in the movie in any way. Similarly, one can do the same thing with any piece of work, whether it’s good or bad. The twilight movies that you criticize, someone else can make the exact same arguments about them. Do you see? You are putting values into a movie you enjoyed when it’s not actually there. You just like it because, from what I can see, you feel personally related to the characters. But you haven’t provided any actual counter arguments or evidence for why my criticisms are not valid, you simply are trying to say: “well… but but but it COULD be this…it’s just not shown….”

        Well, I happen to know that in science and mathematics, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

        Cheers.

      7. “Not really, many films about ordinary people have this theme, there is nothing insightful about it or whether it needs to take a genius to relay this. It’s just again, amateur understanding of what a genius is.”

        Oh I wasn’t saying it was like special or something, I was more validating it as a character trait. So are you rejecting the idea that that’s not how hyper intelligent people can feel? Like It was an alternative interpretation of that scene, it wasn’t meant to sound like oh im so awesome and better and fast at everything to me. I understand you interpreting it that way though.

        “A middle school student can write such script if everything just has to be imaginarily filled in.”
        “You can enjoy a brainless chick flick for certain, that doesn’t make the movie good. There are good and bad movies, otherwise if we cannot say one movie is better or worse than the other, then there would be no standards, then there’d be no discipline and no improvements on filmmaking and storytelling.”
        “And please don’t insult me, I know very well, better than most people I would say, about what beautiful storytelling regarding interpersonal elements, which of course would be a key element in virtually any great literary works.”

        Well for one I didn’t mean to insult you friend! I was genuinely inquiring about your taste in films. It’s okay to not like certain stuff. I think this movie does a good job of tugging on the heart strings from a interpersonal level. Sure it’s not comparable to the best ever of films but, it certainly isn’t bad. On like a lettered tier list I’d give it maybe a high B. Its above average, but not the best of the best S tier, or even like amazing amazing A tier. It’s carried by great actors, and an intriguing heartfelt idea. Like I said, I think your distinction of it not having scenes to validate the realism of other scenes which could be interpreted as more magically occurring keeps it from being an amazing A tier movie. It’s not actually something I thought about much, given that I interpreted it as not about academic achievement, as I’d expect most audience to. But when considering that idea I could see how much cooler the movie could have been if they did that! Like I really enjoyed the social network because they took a lot of time to explain the process of it coming to be. If they could balance some of that in with the interpersonal scenes it would really elevate your immersion into the intelligence portion of the character. I don’t think the movie deserves a severe bashing overall though, so it’s interesting to read your passionate intense judgement and hear why you feel that way. I’m surprised it’s that important to you. I’m a musician personally and I can enjoy movies despite them not fulfilling the musician portion of their character fantasy well when that’s not the true goal of what the movie is intending to make you feel.

        “There is not a single time did I say that the movie overall rejects academic knowledge.”
        “Shallow view of art, science, mathematics and literature.”

        I was trying to simplify a concept to talk about with you is all I meant. I wasn’t saying that is what you meant, but what information I took from it to talk about with you to get your feedback on. This is like a back and fourth thing I am not presuming to know what’s in your head perfectly and I expect you to clarify. Essentially all I am defending is the idea that the movie doesn’t detract from the knowledge portion of academia, I think it actually glorifies that and just the interpersonal elements it criticizes. This is important as you think that the movie has an intention or subplot that implies academic knowledge & the sciences are not as good, lesser, or are bad in comparison to real life experiences. I disagree with that idea, and suggest that it actually glorifies it with some of it’s elements. It mainly criticizes academia as an organization, on interpersonal merit. Which that’s a separate thing you could criticize it about.

        A shallow view is a fine criticism based on other things you’ve now shared, but that’s not really what you were detailing or even just further argued in your last reply at the end. I don’t really mind the “shallow view” you criticize it for given I don’t think of it as a movie about a genius overcoming intellectual problems as a life goal. But it’s a fair perspective!

        “I am talking about how the mind processes knowledge and that the medium of which knowledge processes does not matter in a genius mind. If a genius has books available that will describe something profound, they will see that, if a genius doesn’t have those books, then they can still find profound things in other ways. The point is there is no distinction between the two whatsoever. It’s all about what you are exposed to. “
        “Although you can argue that the senses used would be different, the kind of experience that the Robin Williams character talks about? no there is no difference.”

        Hmmm.. interesting argument here. It’s kind of philosophical in a way. If I can have profound experiences from many things, does that make the profound experience from them distinguished? Or are they simply all the same, no matter their origin? I feel like it’s tough as profound experiences certainly have immense overlap in outcome of perspective but I struggle to agree with the supposition that one doesn’t have an inherent difference. I think they are actually different experiences, and naturally just due to that you will have unique perspectives you otherwise couldn’t have without being exposed to them. But simultaneously I don’t apply a value metric over one or the other, just that they are equal despite also being different. The end result on your behavior is likely identical, the question is what experience is necessary for your particular makeup? Does a book exist that would “fix” him? Give him the experience he needed to get there? Questionable. I think perspective matters, and sometimes can give you shortcuts to impossibly complex philosophical concepts.

        “Again, you extrapolated alot about the movie that simply has no real evidence from the movie itself. You even acknowledged multiple times that what you extrapolated aren’t shown in the movie in any way. Similarly, one can do the same thing with any piece of work, whether it’s good or bad.”
        “why my criticisms are not valid, you simply are trying to say: “well… but but but it COULD be this…it’s just not shown….”

        Hmm, well no I actually attempted to give alternative interpretations of actual events in the scenes that you gave your interpretation of. You yourself I view as injecting your own interpreted meaning of some scenes that I was responding to. I don’t view my interpretations of actual events as lesser than yours presently yet.

        But also yes I did hand wave the portion about intellectual deliberation not being involved which I tried to both validate your view but also explain why to me it’s not really a big deal. Not enough for me to feel like it’s a bad movie. The first twilight also I don’t view as a bad movie, but could we agree that good will hunting is certainly better? I feel it shows far more emotional depth and interesting character interactions than the sparkly abs vampire boyfriend interactions. I’d say the first Twilight is like a Low C to High D on a tier list. It’s not trash to me, but it’s also not like.. above average or something in terms of artistic scrutiny. Which that just suggests different tastes between us eh? Nothing wrong with that. I am glad you explained further as your current explanations feel more fleshed out and understandable as something I can fairly disagree with than something that feels kind of haphazardly justified.

      8. “So are you rejecting the idea that that’s not how hyper intelligent people can feel?”

        Yes they can also have yellow hair.

        “I think your distinction of it not having scenes to validate the realism of other scenes which could be interpreted as more magically occurring keeps it from being an amazing A tier movie.”

        No I don’t interpret it “magically.” It’s obvious to me that it’s simply the lack of skills on the writer’s part. It’s an amateur script, like I’ve said. And what made it amateur is a fundamental lack of understanding of how geniuses function, and how they view and process the world.

        “I’m surprised it’s that important to you. I’m a musician personally and I can enjoy movies despite them not fulfilling the musician portion of their character fantasy well when that’s not the true goal of what the movie is intending to make you feel.”

        You are going on a tangent about how you feel and enjoy certain things. Criticisms are discussed in an objective lens, at least as much as possible. Once again, I can enjoy very very VERY bad movies if I’m in the right mood. That doesn’t mean therefore I’m going to excuse the movie and say that it’s a good one, or rejecting criticisms based upon that.

        “I feel like it’s tough as profound experiences certainly have immense overlap in outcome of perspective but I struggle to agree with the supposition that one doesn’t have an inherent difference.”

        Not the kind of difference that the Robin Williams character talks about, explicitly. If you have a genius mind, which usually constitute the ability to have vividness., you can most certainly receive from a (good) book what the Sistine chapel smells like, what it’s like to hold a dying friend in your arms, what it’s like to love, even if you don’t directly experience these things. I see that all the time with brilliant minds that I encounter in personal lives. In fact, you can go even further in experiencing them in books than in real life. A book can give much more profound feelings about them than you ever experiencing in your own life. And you can go even further to receiving true wisdom that you definitely won’t receive in your own personal experience. Because that’s how a genius mind functions. It’s not how a regular mind functions because a regular mind doesn’t have that deep understanding like a genius mind would.

        “You yourself I view as injecting your own interpreted meaning of some scenes that I was responding to.”

        My interpretation has evidence, your interpretation is mostly based upon the lack of evidence.

        “but that’s not really what you were detailing or even just further argued in your last reply at the end.”

        Since I already had to correct you twice about what you have misinterpreted from my words, I would recommend that you refrain from discussing what I’m *not detailing, without being explicit.

        “the first twilight also I don’t view as a bad movie, but could we agree that good will hunting is certainly better?”

        hmm, interesting, why is it better? 😉 Everything that you extrapolated from GWH you can do the exact same thing with Twilight.

        ” Does a book exist that would “fix” him?”

        If no book can, then neither his own experience either. Unless of course, he’s not actually a genius and can’t actually understand what’s written in the most impactful books in the world. Which would be the case since once again, Will is conjured up by non geniuses who don’t actually understand geniuses or have studied what they are actually like.

        “I disagree with that idea, and suggest that it actually glorifies it with some of it’s elements.”

        Like….what exactly?

        Did the movie ever talks about how beautiful mathematical functions are? No
        Did the movie ever talks about using the scientific method to investigate the human mind? Absolutely not, it suggests the opposite: that you simply can’t.
        Did the movie put mathematicians even in any kind of good lights? Not really. In the movie mathematicians are mostly portrayed as arrogant assholes.
        Did the movie even discuss the intense passion of mathematicians with regards to their fields? Nope, it simply says that the gift for mathematics is useful to society, which doesn’t say anything about anything.

        A non negative does not mean a positive.

      9. Well, I disagree with your premise that genius characters must adhere to whatever you imagine they need to be to be valid geniuses. I know you have your qualifiers for why that’s a fact but I wasn’t convinced by your explanations on their necessities. It’s not so binary to me. I think it was good enough for the purpose of the story. And I believe I am discussing criticisms objectively, I am addressing them while also then separately sharing my feelings on them. I just don’t think you view some of yours as feelings, even though I do. I validated the ones I agreed with and tried to give at least partial validity to your emotional interpretations. I have invalidated others that I view as kind of.. I guess not contextually relevant to me in the judgement of the film now that I understand your views. It’s okay that you judge it for those things. I tried to even though I disagreed give them space to be valid too from your perspective.

        I think your main valid criticism relies on the lack of exposition for how he solved problems, which is definitely understandable. Then you have this secondary criticism that’s kind of a philosophical take on the value of real human experiences which is unexpected and a very interesting perspective. I don’t think I agree with it personally. I don’t disagree that reading can bring about profound experience but it seems you aren’t really interested in that.. it is different just by the nature of the perspective self experience gives. It’s not better or worse, just different and.. perhaps necessary depending on the person in question. I guess you disagree? If you were a psychologist I’d think you would definitely agree that patients have unique psychological needs. I don’t think a book could fix every patient unfortunately, even if they were a genius, I think that’s why the human element in therapy is so essential. Being a genius doesn’t remove that you are human. But of course sure.. many patients could be healed from a therapy chat bot as well because they required true analytical answers, they lacked facts or understanding of the real world, not emotional ones. I doubt a genius though would need a chat bot to answer logical questions.. I think it’s more authentic someone so adept at knowledge would be inadequately emotionally developed.

        I feel after reading this reply that further communication on this topic is kinda futile as.. oddly it seems you don’t really get where I’m coming from. I would like to systematically address what you’re saying but I find myself not wanting to as I can tell some of this conversation is looping and isn’t coming to this resolved place of mutual understanding that I desire and tried for.

        Like I’m actually actively making a case for a different perspective to where the goal of the film isn’t what you wanted from it, and that it succeeds in that goal. I guess I’d like it if it ended positively where you acknowledged what I saw and could acknowledge that someone could experience it that way, and you can experience it your way where you can’t enjoy the film for your valid personal reasons. I can see why if you’re emotionally attached to a certain portrayal of the genius archetype as well as the sciences that to you it feels all wrong. To me it seems the movie kind of goes against your strict ideals. Which is interesting to me, I’d figure your ideals deep down wouldn’t conflict with the understanding of the movies intention to paint the picture of a troubled genius who doesn’t fit into the neither academic world or the normal world around him. Instead of seeing that you box it into this thing where it needs to be a certain way or it is not only worthless, but entirely invalid and false too haha

        I think your reasonings are emotional reasons, as you have a strong attachment to your own ideas of what a genius character should be, and what a story with a genius in it needs to look like to be valid or of value. I’m also the type to disagree with common literary interpretations, or even disagree with the writer themselves on what they think something means! I remember arguing with someone about that being okay or not before haha.

        Oh and I wasn’t mentioning the possibility to assume there was a process to reach his solutions for things as some fact that the movie went that way. None of my suggestions were intended to come off as fact, but rather suggestions of possible alternative interpretations to maybe help you see the point of the movie. Like.. the value that it does have despite not fulfilling your desires. Basically just trying to give you a bridge to maybe look past your cynical perspective of some things. I didn’t even personally think of some of my suggestions, but I did personally think that it wasn’t just magical, despite lacking the exposition. It felt to my like lots of time skips, where his moments of effort were happening in private and we only get to see him interacting with others mostly. There are only brief scenes of him working on problems, or reading. I could see audiences not just assuming it was magic as well because of that. At most I would think they would assume it was easier for him than others.. because he’s a genius after all.

        I now better understand why you were so displeased with it. I find it interesting how charged it is for you. To me I mean, the movie is a good movie but it’s definitely not something horrible and worthless, I think it’s pretty good but it’s also not really something worth defending as if it’s some perfect movie either. You’re free to disagree with me, it is unfortunate we couldn’t come to mutual understanding. I did try to be fair to your perspective! I will still check out your suggestion and get back to you, I appreciate your willingness to attempt to engage in conversation even if we didn’t find mutual ground.

      10. “Well, I disagree with your premise that genius characters must adhere to whatever you imagine they need to be to be valid geniuses.”

        I don’t “imagine” them. I’ve studied them. Have you?

        Here’s a challenge: Find me a genius that is in anyway a resemblance of Will Hunting.

        Good luck with this.

        “just different and..”

        “different….” is not an argument, nor is it scientific in anyway

        ” If you were a psychologist I’d think you would definitely agree that patients have unique psychological needs.”

        I am a psychologist, and I would never imagine myself telling a supposed genius what the Robin William psychologist told Will Hunting. I can’t think of a single genius in which that’ll help in anyway. In fact it would come across as both me sounding like an idiot, AND condescending. You clearly don’t have any expertise on this subject, so you are not really in a position to “disagree” with me.

        “Instead of seeing that you box it into this thing where it needs to be a certain way or it is not only worthless, but entirely invalid and false too haha”

        You are a musician correct?
        What if someone were to tell you: I’m going to scribble random things on the board and call that music. Hey, why do you read music pieces using notes? That’s boxing this thing in isn’t it? Do you understand how silly that sounds? Once again, there are heavy research into what geniuses are like. I suggest that you read the book I recommended by Dean Keith Simonton who is an expert on the subject.

        ” To me it seems the movie kind of goes against your strict ideals.”

        You are really starting to annoy me with all of this condescending attitude directed at me as a person. Notice that I address your arguments with evidence from the movie and sound reasoning. You on the other hand wrote 80% of your analysis of me as a person. And sorry hon, but it’s wrong. I can enjoy many many many genres. But a movie that is good, I have arguments for why it’s good, same for why it’s bad. Your constant ad hominems, is simply you incapable of admitting that my points about the movie are valid.

        Honey, take a hint. There are people who don’t like the same things you like, and can make sound arguments for why they don’t like it. Stop projecting your strong feelings about the movie unto me. And just go and find whatever it is that you enjoy. You are not succeeding in psychoanalyzing me, because you ain’t an expert whatsoever.

        Cheers.

      11. sorry just realized that the link I sent you didn’t have all episodes, I think this one will work better it looks like it has all episodes, sometimes YouTube doesn’t like these free uploads and it blocks sounds for a few seconds/minutes or something, hopefully that won’t happen when you watch it,

Leave a reply to astriaicow Cancel reply