dashrendar44 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. That's interpretation but that doesn't change the initial quality of Hoffman, Anne Bancroft and Nichols craft put in the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 That's interpretation but that doesn't change the initial quality of Hoffman, Anne Bancroft and Nichols craft put in the movie.What "initial quality"? It's all interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) What "initial quality"? It's all interpretation. "Initial quality" like you can dislike The Gioconda all you want but you can't say it is a badly painted portrait like a child-like sketching with no sense of color and no craft displayed at using his mediums to achieve his purpose. That "initial quality". Everything you put on the canvas and the ensuing result fulfill a purpose even if the purpose is "no purpose", that's a purpose. You display qualities in achieving so. Achieving a red carmine to convey blood can be measured in terms of dosing the colors/the brightness/the hue etc, if you end up with pink fuchsia when you clearly tried to depict realistic blood in your piece, you're bad and you failed. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) It depends if the movie is directed by Michael Bay or not. There s Bayhem and the rest. The Bayhem scale I use to determine if a movie is good or not. Edited August 16, 2014 by The Futurist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I don't think that's a basic rule of filmmaking unless we're narrowing the discussion to narrative dramatic fiction. I'm not talking experimental so yeah I'm talking narrative fiction which are 99,9% of the movies discussed on here. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 it is a floating line, of what in the movie was or wasn't disappointing. Very Subjective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 "Initial quality" like you can dislike The Gioconda all you want but you can't say it is a badly painted portrait like a child-like sketching with no sense of color and no craft displayed at using his mediums to achieve his purpose. That "initial quality". Everything you put on the canvas and the ensuing result fulfill a purpose even if the purpose is "no purpose", that's a purpose. You display qualities in achieving so. Achieving a red carmine to convey blood can be measured in terms of dosing the colors/the brightness/the hue etc, if you end up with pink fuchsia when you clearly tried to depict realistic blood in your piece, you're bad and you failed.I get what you're saying in terms of technique, but again, authorial intent isn't everything either. The makers of SHARKNADO intended to make a lousy movie. They absolutely achieved their aims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I get what you're saying in terms of technique, but again, authorial intent isn't everything either. The makers of SHARKNADO intended to make a lousy movie. They absolutely achieved their aims. Ha ha, but what does make it lousy then? Because the filmmakers consciously know that they don't meet certain requirements in what is considered a "good movie". So we're coming to a point when a filmmaker makes a lousy movie on purpose that someone will consider genuinely good even if that was not the filmmaker's purpose. So that filmmaker failed somehow. But if you consider that lousy movie good, is it because it is good at being lousy or simply you did find it really good despite the filmmaker's intent? Likewise, how can a movie made lousy on purpose can be bad? Also called the Robert Rodriguez conundrum. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Ha ha, but what does make it lousy then? Because the filmmakers consciously know that they don't meet certain requirements in what is considered a "good movie". So we're coming to a point when a filmmaker makes a lousy movie on purpose that someone will consider genuinely good even if that was not the filmmaker's purpose. So that filmmaker failed somehow. But if you consider that lousy movie good, is it because it is good at being lousy or simply you did find it really good despite the filmmaker's intent? BWAAAHMMM. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 This may be hard for me, considering I love nearly every movie I see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 This may be hard for me, considering I love nearly every movie I see.No shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) BWAAAHMMM. Doesn't change the fact that the movie combined elements in a way that makes it lousy initially so yes there are inherently bad movies whether intended or not. Sharknado's makers go out of their way to make it lousy so people can relish into its ("forced") badness like some cool and hip attitude. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 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 But if you consider that lousy movie good, is it because it is good at being lousy or simply you did find it really good despite the filmmaker's intent? Sharknado filmmakers set out to make a movie that has terrible production values and they carefully crafted their movie so that it would appear lousy. Now bear with me here because I'm about to not blow your mind with this crazy theory: the tornado represent giant penises and since they're constantly aroused, the sharks that are released are actually products of that. Basically, Sharknado is about masturbation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Apparently Armageddon is a bad movie so I hear. I think it's a good movie, along with most people on this planet who have seen it. Who's right, the small minority of critics who who take their films very seriously who will slam a film for petty flaws because they need something to write about? Or the paying customers who were entertained enough to make it the biggest movie of the year? This is when I ask myself, what is the sole purpose of movie? Oh that's right, to entertain it's audience, after all if a film can't do that then they will find it hard to become profitable which would result in the end of cinema. So yeah, I think it's up to us to decide whether a film is good. I love were the millers, consistently funny throughout but is considered a 'bad' movie by critics probably due to not meeting their checklist but after all its a comedy that made people laugh through out. I'd say it did it's job, so should be considered a good movie. Edited August 16, 2014 by jessie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 As much nudity as possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 17, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted August 17, 2014 This is when I ask myself, what is the sole purpose of movie? Oh that's right, to entertain it's audience after all if a film can't do that then they will find it hard to become profitable which would result in the end of cinema. Since you're not distinguishing between film and movies (I'd argue movies exist solely to entertain while film exists to create art and many productions exist somewhere in the middle), I have to disagree. A purpose of a movie MAY be to entertain but if that's the whole purpose of a movie then it's going to be a shallow experience. The Dark Knight was a thrill ride, sure, but it also had something to say about surveillance and tactics aimed at fighting "wars on terror/crime". It also explored the very idea of what a hero is. Boyhood is entertaining but it was about capturing a very special time in a man's life. The Lego Movie is a fun movie throughout but what makes it special is the ending that redefines the stakes and the very conflict. An example of a really good fun movie that had nothing to say was Airplane so I'm not saying this is an indication of quality. Some films also don't care if they entertain you or not: art house films and a lot of productions where the purpose is to create something different. Some of these films can also be good. There's nothing wrong with having movies existing only for the entertainment factor-but the ones that are remembered have a purpose beyond that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 This may be hard for me, considering I love nearly every movie I see.Hey, that just means you get to enjoy a lot of experiences that some of us can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Simple answer: If the film has a lot of puns built on "freeze," "ice," "chill," and "cool," it's probably not a good movie 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted August 17, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted August 17, 2014 Simple answer: If the film has a lot of puns built on "freeze," "ice," "chill," and "cool," it's probably not a good movie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Jedi Master 007 Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Great Question. I was thinking about this just now because I just got home from seeing The Giver.And as I posted in the RTM thread, the film has a lot of flaws. And yet, there are moments in it that are so powerful, that I can't help but like it. Which does raise the question: what makes a good film? Is it a film where everything works? Where most of it works? Or a film where certain parts work really well, while most of it is bad (like The Giver)?You could keep going down this road of questions. I think, at the end of the day, it's different for every film. What makes The Dark Knight a "good" film is not the same thing that makes Citizen Kane a "good" film. They both have different ambitions, they both cater to different audiences, they both have different expectations placed on them. There's no real answer to why both are good, just an answer to why one is good and the other is also good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
