Zachary Levi is causing a stir once again with his comments about Hollywood. The Shazam! star was at a fan event where he called out the film industry for the “garbage” content they out…
I would argue your second statement in A) assumes that a movie can objectively be rated good or bad. Plus it also seems to claim to know exactly what people want to see from a movie. Never s fan when someone seems to say, “I know better than you do what you like.”
I’ll agree a trailer doesn’t always do a good job. But to claim a person can’t tell if what they watched is good is hardly a statement a same person would make. Possibly a narcissist would say it. Or someone else full of themselves.
There is obviously technique that can be graded, but that doesn’t make a movie.
I agree, movies are art and art is (mostly) subjective. Not everyone likes going to the Fast and Furious movies for example but the audience that’s there for it tends to love it. Same with things like Star Wars or Top Gun. All you can objectively say is whether the movie was technically shot well and for that you need knowledge of making movies.
Movies are made for different reasons. Some are made for the ‘art’, but some are made simply for entertainment. Shitty B-movies are a whole genere about being so ‘bad’ they’re fun, and that’s they’re purpose. Fast and Furious movies aren’t being made for the art.
Movies can absolutely be objectively rated good or bad, all the component pieces can be good or bad, writing, acting, directing, pacing, hell, even lighting, editing and special effects.
The problem is your average movie goer can’t tell the difference. Sure, if something is ESPECIALLY bad like the visual effects in the Flash, they’ll pick up on that.
Quite more often something can be entirely awful and the reaction is “Well, I had fun…” That doesn’t make it “good”.
You can have a good movie with poor elements and a poor movie with great elements. I’d even argue you can have a good movie with bad acting. Plus, it’s all about the intent of the movie, as with any piece of art. Cocaine Bear had an intent. It fulfilled that intent. Claiming that art can objectively be rated is naive.
I don’t know what you expect to accomplish with this. If you want to make an argument by example, be prepared to make it exhaustive, otherwise it’s simply anecdotal. Anecdotes does not an argument make.
My point is that this is a very subjective realm. You can know all you want about technique and still make a bad movie. And someone who knows nothing can still make a good movie. The odds don’t work in their favor, sure, but it’s possible. Technique just helps, but it’s neither a requirement nor a guarantee. And part of determining whether a film is done well is knowing the film’s purpose and theme. Cult classics exist for a reason. They aren’t “bad.” They’re just not popular with folks who didn’t get it. You will always be colored by your biases. You can not like a film but that doesn’t mean it was unnecessary. You aren’t an authority as much as you want to pretend to the throne.
I feel like you just like hearing yourself talk because you clearly ignored almost everything I said. If you’re going to act like a brick wall, there’s no point in discussion until you even come close to remotely acknowledging any of my points let alone refuting them. I get you took a film class. It doesn’t make you an auteur.
I would argue your second statement in A) assumes that a movie can objectively be rated good or bad. Plus it also seems to claim to know exactly what people want to see from a movie. Never s fan when someone seems to say, “I know better than you do what you like.”
I’ll agree a trailer doesn’t always do a good job. But to claim a person can’t tell if what they watched is good is hardly a statement a same person would make. Possibly a narcissist would say it. Or someone else full of themselves.
There is obviously technique that can be graded, but that doesn’t make a movie.
I agree, movies are art and art is (mostly) subjective. Not everyone likes going to the Fast and Furious movies for example but the audience that’s there for it tends to love it. Same with things like Star Wars or Top Gun. All you can objectively say is whether the movie was technically shot well and for that you need knowledge of making movies.
Movies are made for different reasons. Some are made for the ‘art’, but some are made simply for entertainment. Shitty B-movies are a whole genere about being so ‘bad’ they’re fun, and that’s they’re purpose. Fast and Furious movies aren’t being made for the art.
Movies can absolutely be objectively rated good or bad, all the component pieces can be good or bad, writing, acting, directing, pacing, hell, even lighting, editing and special effects.
The problem is your average movie goer can’t tell the difference. Sure, if something is ESPECIALLY bad like the visual effects in the Flash, they’ll pick up on that.
Quite more often something can be entirely awful and the reaction is “Well, I had fun…” That doesn’t make it “good”.
You can have a good movie with poor elements and a poor movie with great elements. I’d even argue you can have a good movie with bad acting. Plus, it’s all about the intent of the movie, as with any piece of art. Cocaine Bear had an intent. It fulfilled that intent. Claiming that art can objectively be rated is naive.
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a terrible movie.
Ed Wood is amazing.
I’m sure you can tell the difference.
I don’t know what you expect to accomplish with this. If you want to make an argument by example, be prepared to make it exhaustive, otherwise it’s simply anecdotal. Anecdotes does not an argument make.
My point is that this is a very subjective realm. You can know all you want about technique and still make a bad movie. And someone who knows nothing can still make a good movie. The odds don’t work in their favor, sure, but it’s possible. Technique just helps, but it’s neither a requirement nor a guarantee. And part of determining whether a film is done well is knowing the film’s purpose and theme. Cult classics exist for a reason. They aren’t “bad.” They’re just not popular with folks who didn’t get it. You will always be colored by your biases. You can not like a film but that doesn’t mean it was unnecessary. You aren’t an authority as much as you want to pretend to the throne.
It’s not at all subjective and, again, if you doubt that, sit down and watch Plan 9 and Ed Wood back to back.
One is generally accepted to be the worst film ever made, the other won two Academy Awards.
If you legit can’t tell why which film falls into which category, you’re precisely the problem I outlined in A)
I feel like you just like hearing yourself talk because you clearly ignored almost everything I said. If you’re going to act like a brick wall, there’s no point in discussion until you even come close to remotely acknowledging any of my points let alone refuting them. I get you took a film class. It doesn’t make you an auteur.
it’s entirely subjective after you clear some very basic benchmarks.