A Nightmare on Elm Street vs. On Strike for Christmas

vincemale

on 1/8/2011

This is a textbook example of that centuries-old philosophical question: Which is worse, a low-budget made-for-TV movie starring a cast of actors about whom you've barely heard anything, generally for very good reason; or a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster that stars much more talented actors, but fails to live up to even the most modest of expectations? Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, posits that ". . . logically, we know that more money needs must be put forth in order for the quality inherent within [a movie production] to be made apparent to [the watcher]; we know it to be bettermade, therefore it is better." If this were the case, then A Nightmare on Elm Street wins hands down, with easily double the money spent in production values, and easily $20 spent on scriptwriting. Centuries later in Germany, Heidegger devotes three books of his Being and Time to respond to this precept, and posts the first counter-argument: ". . . yea, though [the film] be bettermade, surely mine own disgust and contempt at its poor execution must influence my choice. My expectations for [the lower-budget film] were significantly less, therefore my disappointment was significantly less, therefore my overall satisfaction with [the film] is higher than the other, therefore the former is the better." He goes on for quite awhile about the mathematics needed to prove this, but that's the basic gist. With this interpretation, On Strike for Christmas is the better movie, because nobody expects Lifetime original movies to be any good, therefore when it isn't, it doesn't disappoint. It may be, in all areas, a worse movie, but because of its inherent worseness, it paradoxically becomes better. This does pose a quandary for the average moviegoer. As for me, when faced in everyday life with this moral dilemma, I have to go by my rule: Which would I rather watch again? If On Strike for Christmas ever graces my TV screen again, I'll go about my business without giving it a second thought, and probably not even glance at the screen. If, however, the abomination that sullied the reputation of the Wes Craven's original fun horror films (and also stalled Jackie Earle Haley's string of awesome movies at one) ever dares to show itself again, I will change the channel as fast as I possibly can. Sadly, On Strike for Christmas wins, in a battle history will consider one of moviedom's greatest.