kowhite Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) But isn't something well-made inherently good? Who gets to define well made? You? The MPAA? Rottentomatoes? Telemachos? imdb? Yeah, exactly. Dammit...I kept going... Edited August 16, 2014 by kowhite 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 I just think there's a big difference between, "I like it," and, "I think it's good/well-made".Because I have liked movies I thought were badly made and disliked movies I thought were well-made. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 But isn't something well-made inherently good? And Shakespeare is still not objectively good, because there's no such thing. Because everyone else thinks so...is not an argument for objectivity. Nonetheless, I think I've contributed enough to this derail. It's well-made. Good is a whole nother matter Try here: http://forums.boxoffice.com/index.php?/topic/15980-what-makes-a-movie-good-or-bad/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 For me, there is a simple test. How many times did I look at my watch wondering "How much longer till the movie ends?" and if I was ever completely disconnected from whatever was happening on screen. Of course, these only apply to the theatrical experience, for home viewing the parameters will differ greatly since I can watch a movie on my own schedule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Wiseau Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I always believed in a formula 33% production values 33% characters+story 33% music and to be entertaining is the most important ingredient Edited August 16, 2014 by Johnny Wiseau 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 For me first and foremost did the story connect with me. Then I go to things like the acting, cinematography, effects and down the line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I just think there's a big difference between, "I like it," and, "I think it's good/well-made".Because I have liked movies I thought were badly made and disliked movies I thought were well-made. I "like" a movie if it can entertain me and I can develop an emotional attachment to the characters/story and think about it long after I leave the theater A "good" movie is one that can either push the boundaries of special effects, and/or tell a story in a unique way, is well directed, well acted, and the score is important as well 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 These days, basically every single movie that's made has excellent technical aspects -- these are also the things that are "easiest" to declare "good" or "bad" (even if often "good" merely means "pretty" or "pleasing to me"). Where it also gets extremely nebulous are concepts like pacing, writing, directing. People often have the wrong understanding of what each entails, but even if they understood them perfectly, you still run into subjective opinions. The exact reasons why someone may might a film are the exact reasons another may dislike it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I just think there's a big difference between, "I like it," and, "I think it's good/well-made".Because I have liked movies I thought were badly made and disliked movies I thought were well-made. Yeah even if I didn't really like Skyfall as a movie, I can't say that the cinematography was downright awful or bad. That would totally be a bullshit statement showing that I know bollocks about the art of cinematography. There are actually elements in artistry that can be measured and remarkable aside the sum of those elements that is left to your appreciation. In music, when a guitarist is playing sloppy or play wrong notes/scrapped noise in the wrong scale, you can't say he's playing "good" even if you like sloppy players.(Maybe he's playing sloppy and badly for an artistic purpose, see "Punk", that doesn't change the fact that he's sloppy) So cut the crap demagogy "I like it so it's great, that's all, my opinions über alles, fuck them all!". Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Yeah even if I didn't really like Skyfall as a movie, I can't say that the cinematography was downright awful or bad. That would totally be a bullshit statement showing that I know bollocks about the art of cinematography. There are actually elements in artistry that can be measured and remarkable aside the sum of those elements that is left to your appreciation. In music, when a guitarist is playing sloppy or play wrong notes/scrapped noise in the wrong scale, you can't say he's playing "good" even if you like sloppy players.(Maybe he's playing sloppy and badly for an artistic purpose, see "Punk", that doesn't change the fact that he's sloppy) So cut the crap demagogy "I like it so it's great, that's all, my opinions über alles, fuck them all!". Again though, that isn't what is being debated. There is a difference between "good" and "well made". Does a well shot movie mean a good movie to you like Skyfall was? Even if every single element of a movie is top shelf and brilliant since they can be measured, that still doesn't mean all those elements will coalesce together to make a movie "good". In the end "I like it , so it is great" is the best judge for an individuals movie tastes. If a person likes a movie, it was good for them, there is no universal rule that defines that "X movie was good" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Yeah even if I didn't really like Skyfall as a movie, I can't say that the cinematography was downright awful or bad. That would totally be a bullshit statement showing that I know bollocks about the art of cinematography. There are actually elements in artistry that can be measured and remarkable aside the sum of those elements that is left to your appreciation. In music, when a guitarist is playing sloppy or play wrong notes/scrapped noise in the wrong scale, you can't say he's playing "good" even if you like sloppy players.(Maybe he's playing sloppy and badly for an artistic purpose, see "Punk", that doesn't change the fact that he's sloppy) So cut the crap demagogy "I like it so it's great, that's all, my opinions über alles, fuck them all!".But when you get right down to it, most people can't assign any objective reason to a technical aspect of filmmaking other than "it was pretty/cool". Which is fine, no layperson should be expected to know all that shit. But to use your example, they don't know he's playing sloppy, they just like the tune, so to them, the sloppiness is invisible. Basically every studio film has a high level of competence in every technical category... but twinge every discipline has its own various aesthetics, what one professional may dislike another may think it's great. So again we run into the whole problem of subjectivity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) But when you get right down to it, most people can't assign any objective reason to a technical aspect of filmmaking other than "it was pretty/cool". Which is fine, no layperson should be expected to know all that shit. But to use your example, they don't know he's playing sloppy, they just like the tune, so to them, the sloppiness is invisible.Basically every studio film has a high level of competence in every technical category... but twinge every discipline has its own various aesthetics, what one professional may dislike another may think it's great. So again we run into the whole problem of subjectivity. And there are rules to composition (the famous golden number) , framing, playing in tune, scheming colors and so on. It's just a matter of being curious, educated and informed. I'm not into dodecaphonic music but how can I say this music sucks just because I don't like it on a pure surface level even if I don't even understand its metrics. Saying I like it or not is the level zero for me if you're unable to explain or justify it. Why do you like it or not? What elements do make it good/bad? Why is it bad/good in your eyes? Compared to what? What's your framing references in art history to say it's bad/good? What's the historical context of the piece of work you criticize that make you say it's bad/good? I said Turkish Star Wars is a masterpiece and a better movie than Star Wars. So I'm allowed to say that and there's nothing wrong about that opinion since it's my opinion? That's absolute horseshit. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 And there are rules to composition, framing, playing in tune, scheming colors and so on. It's just a matter of being curious, educated and informed. I'm not into dodecaphonic music but how can I say this music sucks just because I don't like it on a pure surface level even if I don't even understand its metrics. Saying I like it or not is the level zero for me if you're unable to explain or justify it. I said Turkish Star Wars is a masterpiece and a better movie than Star Wars. So I'm allowed to say that and there's nothing wrong about that opinion since it's my opinion? That's absolute horseshit. Of course you are allowed to say it and there's nothing wrong about that opinion - as long as you state that it is your opinion and not as an absolute fact. That is what is being lost in this debate, opinions are based on an individual, if someone likes Turkish Star Wars better, they are entitled to that opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I said Turkish Star Wars is a masterpiece and a better movie than Star Wars. So I'm allowed to say that and there's nothing wrong about that opinion since it's my opinion? That's absolute horseshit.If that's truly your opinion (I know you're using it as an example), then absolutely it's right, in terms of being your opinion. You'll just have a hard time convincing anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 If that's truly your opinion (I know you're using it as an example), then absolutely it's right, in terms of being your opinion. You'll just have a hard time convincing anyone else. Why? There's no bad/good movies if we follow the "subjectivity is everything" mantra going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 16, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted August 16, 2014 What's the difference between a good movie and a bad movie? The answer is simple: talented creatives who care. The movies that I think are the best are where talented people clearly cared about what they were working on. For instance, I think a lot of care went into crafting Guardians of the Galaxy but the talented people behind Transformers 4 were just doing it for the money. The fourth Transformers movie might technically be competent but there's no inspiration, no life, no heart to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Why? There's no bad/good movies if we follow the "subjectivity is everything" mantra going on here.People just continually try to force their subjective opinion on others while claiming it's objective, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 No film is truly good, it's all subjective. There is no way to measure it objectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) What's the difference between a good movie and a bad movie?The answer is simple: talented creatives who care.The movies that I think are the best are where talented people clearly cared about what they were working on. For instance, I think a lot of care went into crafting Guardians of the Galaxy but the talented people behind Transformers 4 were just doing it for the money. The fourth Transformers movie might technically be competent but there's no inspiration, no life, no heart to it.I completely disagree with this.BATTLEFIELD: EARTH was a passion project for Travolta. He cared deeply about it. CASABLANCA was a paycheck -- and nothing more -- to most, if not all, of the creative people involved with it. Edited August 16, 2014 by Telemachos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 16, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted August 16, 2014 I completely disagree with this. That's nice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
