Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 16, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted August 16, 2014 To address your examples: Sure, there's always exceptions but I never claimed it was an absolute rule. People working for just a paycheck might stumble upon greatness and passion projects can stumble. In general, the rule holds true but if you want an absolute definition of a good and a bad film well nobody can answer that because we don't live in a world where absolutes (when it comes to humans at least) will ever hold. Seriously, it's like you've never seen Star Trek: The Next Generation (a show where absolute ideals clashed with reality). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) 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. Sorry but a movie full of continuity errors from start to finish without even acknowledging them can't be considered a "good" movie by any means even if you're enjoying yourself watching it because it doesn't respect a basic rule of filmmaking/editing (and by extension the audience) to construct a coherent visual space/time universe for us to understand and enjoy. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Sorry but a movie full of continuity errors from start to finish without even ackowledging them can't be considered a "good" movie by any means even if you're enjoying yourself watching it because it doesn't respect a basic rule of filmmaking/editing and the audience to construct a coherent visual space/time universe for us to understand and enjoy.Sharknado, The Room, Plan 9 etc. which a lot of people consider, if not good, then entertaining. There is no objective rule stating that a movie sucks if there are plot holes or editing errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Sharknado, The Room, Plan 9 etc. which a lot of people consider, if not good, then entertaining. There is no objective rule stating that a movie sucks if there are plot holes or editing errors. There are badly made movies. If you like bad movies, that's your problem. That doesn't make them any better. A movie made of continuity errors start to finish is a bad movie because it's unwatchable. People changing place for no reason in the frame in a blink of an eye for no purpose. A dialogue scene that starts at daytime and turns into nighttime in a split second during a sentence for no reason...How can you understand a whole movie shot and edited like that? You know something is wrong instinctively as your brain feels some kind of perpetual unsettling feeling due to filmmakers incompetence that is not desired by the filmmaker. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 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 Sharknado, The Room, Plan 9 etc. which a lot of people consider, if not good, then entertaining. There is no objective rule stating that a movie sucks if there are plot holes or editing errors. None of those examples are considered "good" movies. Even by the fans. I think a movie can be good despite continuity errors-look at The Dark Knight Rises (which has an egregious example) or even The Dark Knight itself. Of course, continuity errors would be killer to those who emphasize plot over everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 There are badly made movies. If you like bad movies, that's your problem. That doesn't make them any better.Again, what makes you say they are bad movies, someone who likes them will say they were good. You see the issue with subjective absolutes? 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 Again, what makes you say they are bad movies, someone who likes them will say they were good. You see the issue with subjective absolutes? Yeah but people who "like" those movies don't call them good. They realize they're enjoying poor products and in fact a huge portion of their enjoyment stems by how poor the product is. "So bad, it's good" isn't saying those movies are good-but that they hold enjoyment value nonetheless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Again, what makes you say they are bad movies, someone who likes them will say they were good. You see the issue with subjective absolutes? See my edited post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Sorry but a movie full of continuity errors from start to finish without even acknowledging them can't be considered a "good" movie by any means even if you're enjoying yourself watching it because it doesn't respect a basic rule of filmmaking/editing (and by extension the audience) to construct a coherent visual space/time universe for us to understand and enjoy.Continuity errors, in and of themselves, are meaningless. They're simply a byproduct of the process of filmmaking, and (while obviously everyone makes an effort to minimize them) are far lower a consideration than most other aspects of putting a scene (or moment) together. Looking at things simply from an "acclaimed" standpoint: someone who loves and believes in Greengrass' aesthetic of reality constructed from many fragmented moments might be annoyed, bothered, or dismiss Cuaron's lengthy takes, and vice versa. Someone who strongly believes in the subtlety of neorealist cinematography will be bothered by beautiful, expansively lit studio cinematography, thinking it's garish and gaudy. And, of course, vice versa: someone who loves a traditionally gorgeous image, artfully composed with classic three-point lighting is going to think the neorealist aesthetic is drab and boring. In all these cases, no one is "right" or "wrong" -- there are simply different technical aesthetics to prefer. Just pick some of the all-time classics that might be called "the greatest movie ever made" and you'll find people -- even smart, intelligent, artistically-invested people -- deriding them for any number of reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 There are badly made movies. If you like bad movies, that's your problem. That doesn't make them any better. A movie made of continuity errors start to finish is a bad movie because it's unwatchable. People changing place for no reason in the frame in a blink of an eye. A dialogue scene that starts at daytime and turns into nighttime in a split second during a sentence...How can you understand a whole movie shot and edited like that? You know something is wrong instinctively as your brain feels some kind of perpetual unsettling feeling due to filmmakers incompetence that is not desired by the filmmaker. But that's just picking on a movie. In the first TF for example, the first car chase begins in the middle of the day and a second later it's night. That doesn't make the movie any less good. Who the hell is thinking 'well, he was 2 meters behind 3 seconds ago' while watching an entertaining movie? Or the fact that in the Avengers they keep talking to each other during the final fight despite the fact that they have no earpieces. People don't go to movies to see the mistakes, they go to disconnect. As long as they entertain me they can have as many plot holes as they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) But that's just picking on a movie. In the first TF for example, the first car chase begins in the middle of the day and a second later it's night. That doesn't make the movie any less good. Who the hell is thinking 'well, he was 2 meters behind 3 seconds ago' while watching an entertaining movie? Or the fact that in the Avengers they keep talking to each other during the final fight despite the fact that they have no earpieces. People don't go to movies to see the mistakes, they go to disconnect. As long as they entertain me they can have as many plot holes as they want. If a movie was full of continuity errors, you couldn't even make out or comprehend the plot. Be self-assured of that. Minor continuity errors can make it through as the brain can still process and reconstruct short shifts (that's how editing works as a trick) but if you shot a whole movie edited with continuity errors after continuity errors, you will lose your audience because tight editing helps to the understanding of the plot and how it takes place in a time/space settings. If you disregard that, you have a stinker on your hand. It's like writing a book with words put in disorder full of grammar errors and typos. Don't expect people to grasp your attempts at clever metaphors... Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I think it IS possible to acknowledge a movie you don't like as being good, without being pretentious. I do not care for (or in some cases, actively DISlike) such cinematic classics as The Graduate, The Last Picture Show, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, or any of Woody Allen's 70s classics (Bananas, Annie Hall, Manhattan, etc.), but I am not going to be so juvenile as to say they're "bad movies." They're all not only "well-made", they have passion and substance and artistic merit. I get what each of them is going for, and I believe they all succeed at what their doing. They're all examples of great cinema, but I just don't LIKE them. Edited August 16, 2014 by TServo2049 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 If a movie was full of continuity errors, you couldn't even make out or comprehend the plot. Be self-assured of that. Minor continuity errors can make it through as the brain can still process and reconstruct short shifts (that's how editing works as a trick) but if you shot a whole movie edited with continuity errors after continuity errors, you will lose your audience because tight editing helps to the understanding of the plot and how it takes place in a time/space settings. If you disregard that, you have a stinker on your hand. It's like writing a book with words put in disorder full of grammar errors and typos. Don't expect people to grasp your attempts at clever metaphors... But 99% of the movies don't have so many continuity errors that you can't understand the plot. There are mostly technicalities and I don't mind them. The things I was saying about TF for example I noticed only after 7-8 viewings. I can ignore everything, as long as the movies respects my patterns of what I want to see in a movie belonging to that genre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Continuity errors, in and of themselves, are meaningless. They're simply a byproduct of the process of filmmaking, and (while obviously everyone makes an effort to minimize them) are far lower a consideration than most other aspects of putting a scene (or moment) together.Looking at things simply from an "acclaimed" standpoint: someone who loves and believes in Greengrass' aesthetic of reality constructed from many fragmented moments might be annoyed, bothered, or dismiss Cuaron's lengthy takes, and vice versa. Someone who strongly believes in the subtlety of neorealist cinematography will be bothered by beautiful, expansively lit studio cinematography, thinking it's garish and gaudy. And, of course, vice versa: someone who loves a traditionally gorgeous image, artfully composed with classic three-point lighting is going to think the neorealist aesthetic is drab and boring. In all these cases, no one is "right" or "wrong" -- there are simply different technical aesthetics to prefer.Just pick some of the all-time classics that might be called "the greatest movie ever made" and you'll find people -- even smart, intelligent, artistically-invested people -- deriding them for any number of reasons. It's all about purpose and the effects/aesthetics conveying that purpose. Take Greengrass exemple and his fragmented approach and documentary style using shakycam to convey "realistic fights in real time settings" worked wonder in Bourne trilogy. So why Jonathan Liebesman is panned when he does the same thing in Battle LA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) But 99% of the movies don't have so many continuity errors that you can't understand the plot. There are mostly technicalities and I don't mind them. The things I was saying about TF for example I noticed only after 7-8 viewings. I can ignore everything, as long as the movies respects my patterns of what I want to see in a movie belonging to that genre. Oh yes they exist but you don't know or hear about them because they're absolute duds. But they're out there if you look out for them. Z-movies, obscure exploitation flicks, Asylum rip-offs and the likes. They're considered bad movies for a good reason. Try watching Crocodile Fury and tell me honestly it's a good movie afterwards. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 As a side note, age can make a great difference to what you think is great (and I'm not just talking about the obvious leap between childhood and adulthood). Ebert, when he first reviewed THE GRADUATE, absolutely raved about it, called it a masterpiece, a film for his generation, and so forth. A great time later (20 years, perhaps? I don't recall) he revisited it and was far more lukewarm. In fact, he now rejected the protagonists and felt the most interesting character was Mrs. Robinson. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 When I think of music, there are artists that I don't personally like but I'm able to appreciate what they do and recognize they are good at it, it just doesn't appeal to me.Just because I personally dislike the emigre genre of metal doesn't mean I can't recognize many of those metal musicians are great musicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Oh yes they exist but you don't know or hear about them because they're absolute duds. But they're out there if you look out for them. Z-movies, obscure exploitation flicks, Asylum rip-offs and the likes. They're considered bad movies for a good reason. Try watching Crocodile Fury and tell me honestly it's a good movie afterwards. I was talking movies in general but I'll take your word for it. That title sound vile. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 It's all about purpose and the effects/aesthetics conveying that purpose. Take Greengrass exemple and his fragmented approach and documentary style using shakycam to convey "realistic fights in real time settings" worked wonder in Bourne trilogy. So why Jonathan Liebesman is panned when he does the same thing in Battle LA?Sure, but at the same time, two directors can use diametrically opposite approaches while trying to achieve the exact same thing. While many people may have felt BATTLE LA didn't do anything noteworthy with its shakycam (honestly, I don't remember enough of the movie much, but I don't recall being bothered by that specific technique; I just didn't particularly care for the movie as a whole), if someone really liked BATTLE LA, they probably weren't bothered by its shakycam and -- in their eyes -- it was a cool film.We might be able to agree on some essence of objective truth in terms of specific techniques, but applied to the greater movie as a whole, any objective aspects are going to be lost in the subjective clutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Sorry but a movie full of continuity errors from start to finish without even acknowledging them can't be considered a "good" movie by any means even if you're enjoying yourself watching it because it doesn't respect a basic rule of filmmaking/editing (and by extension the audience) to construct a coherent visual space/time universe for us to understand and enjoy.I don't think that's a basic rule of filmmaking unless we're narrowing the discussion to narrative dramatic fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
