Reply to Topic
So if a film is well made, it is objectively good, but it's subjective whether or not the film is well-made? Sounds to me like film is *gasp* subjective.
Christopher Nolan's Interstellar
Maybe a better way to say all this would be that a film can exhibit a lot of technical skill without having a good story and/or moving you.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
This is an alluding argument that denotes film quality is subjective. The fact that there is an argument means that everyone doesn't agree. You can polish a turd with cutting edge technology, still ends up being a turd.
There's so many elements to film that are entirely objective.
I don't see the distinction between a well made film and a good one. If a film is trying to do something and it works, then it's a well made, good film. Just because Gunslinger can't get passed the idea that a man loves a non-human in Her doesn't make it a bad film; it means he didn't like it (though, in defense of Her, there are plenty of people right now who have emotional connections to inanimate objects).
Yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.
Quality is objective, taste is not. Prove that wrong.
Quality is objective, taste is not. Prove that wrong.
But [Transformers 3] is not a good film. It's bright and shiny and visually amazing in parts but it has exactly zero characters, zero coherent story, and no charm. It's not a good film and it's not liked.
--------------------------------------
I've always said that films can be analyzed objectively to a certain degree (even passionately when defending personal favorites of mine), but it's not as simple and "black and white" as bouncingbrick is trying to let it come across.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm agreeing so far.
Works for who? How can you possibly determine if something works or not objectively? I think you're already stepping on subjective territory there.
Works for who? How can you possibly determine if something works or not objectively? I think you're already stepping on subjective territory there.
It's an intentionally cheesy film that it over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek, schlock fest. It's very nature is something that will only appeal to a niche audience. But, for that audience, it understands exactly what it needs to do to succeed and it does it.
Guardians of the Galaxy.
It's a big movie with broad appeal scattered with humor. It knows it's audience and it works.
IMO, this isn't subjective.
Quality is not entirely objective. Sure, there are many aspects to a movie that you can argue about rationally and objectively, but films also have other qualities that are more personal and harder to use as a rational argument.
The Great Beauty spoke volumes to me. I absolutely adored it and it hit me on an emotional level and it's become one of my all time favorite films. It's also beautifully shot, it features great performances, it's well paced, it's a well made film on a technical level. You could nit-pick things like shot composition and make it a more subjective thing, but you'd be hard pressed to say anything about it is poorly made (under-lit scenes, bad audio, things like that).
That said, my wife couldn't watch 10 minutes of it.
Does her reaction make it a "bad" film?
You're stepping on subjective territory again and passing it off as objective arguments. First of all, the film does have characters (maybe not as fleshed out as you'd like them to be, but that's already subjective), a coherent story is not an infallible requirement for an objectively good film (look at The Big Sleep (1946) for instance) and the "charm" of a film is also completely subjective.
I've always said that films can be analyzed objectively to a certain degree (even passionately when defending personal favorites of mine), but it's not as simple and "black and white" as bouncingbrick is trying to let it come across.
I've always said that films can be analyzed objectively to a certain degree (even passionately when defending personal favorites of mine), but it's not as simple and "black and white" as bouncingbrick is trying to let it come across.
I'll admit I'm guilty of that myself; I'm sure I've said Twilight is a bad film, though I understand why it would appeal to a certain type of audience.
__________________
I should have posted this last night but I fell asleep...
There's a perfect example of what I'm talking about going on in the main forums right now. mlaturno started a thread titled "Marvel studios flicks are soulless cash cows." Now, obviously every movie except the most passionate of passion projects can be called cash cows because no one makes a film with the intent of it failing financially, but the films aren't soulless.
Guardians of the Galaxy gives Rocket Raccoon (and all the characters, for that matter) several sympathetic and emotional character beats that inform his character and win over the audience. I find it impossible to watch the scene where he plants a Groot stick and say the film is "soulless." I can understand if someone doesn't find those moments as resonant as I do, but you can't say those moments don't exist just to further an assertion that isn't true. Sure, Guardians of the Galaxy is a crowd-pleasing popcorn film, but it's not a soulless husk of a film.
IMO, the soul and heart of that film is on display throughout and that is not subjective. Whether or not those scenes worked on someone's cold, black heart is entirely subjective.
There's a perfect example of what I'm talking about going on in the main forums right now. mlaturno started a thread titled "Marvel studios flicks are soulless cash cows." Now, obviously every movie except the most passionate of passion projects can be called cash cows because no one makes a film with the intent of it failing financially, but the films aren't soulless.
Guardians of the Galaxy gives Rocket Raccoon (and all the characters, for that matter) several sympathetic and emotional character beats that inform his character and win over the audience. I find it impossible to watch the scene where he plants a Groot stick and say the film is "soulless." I can understand if someone doesn't find those moments as resonant as I do, but you can't say those moments don't exist just to further an assertion that isn't true. Sure, Guardians of the Galaxy is a crowd-pleasing popcorn film, but it's not a soulless husk of a film.
IMO, the soul and heart of that film is on display throughout and that is not subjective. Whether or not those scenes worked on someone's cold, black heart is entirely subjective.
It seems Tarantino loved it, he even compared it to the works of Malick and Tarkovsky.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014...P=share_btn_tw
Quite a compliment.
In early October, Nolan held a special screening of Interstellar for his fellow directors, at the Imax cinema at Universal City. Tarantino was there, as was Paul Thomas Anderson. Nolan was at the door, greeting them as they arrived. “Hey, I heard it’s a time travel movie,” Tarantino said. “Well, you know, it’s not really a time-travel movie, even though everyone is using that as a thing,” Nolan replied. “You just have to see it. You’ll see what I mean.”
Taking his seat, Tarantino had absolutely no idea about what was about to unfold on the screen. “There’s some other real cool directors there,” he told me later. “We’re waiting for the movie to start and it hit me. I realised that it hadn’t been since The Matrix that I was actually that interested in seeing a movie even though I didn’t know what I was going to see.”
After the movie was over, the directors descended on Nolan like a pack of gulls, peppering him with questions for 45 minutes. Anderson thought the movie was “beautiful” and wanted to know about the whys and wherefores of shooting on Imax 70mm. Tarantino, too, was impressed. “It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” he told me. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”
Taking his seat, Tarantino had absolutely no idea about what was about to unfold on the screen. “There’s some other real cool directors there,” he told me later. “We’re waiting for the movie to start and it hit me. I realised that it hadn’t been since The Matrix that I was actually that interested in seeing a movie even though I didn’t know what I was going to see.”
After the movie was over, the directors descended on Nolan like a pack of gulls, peppering him with questions for 45 minutes. Anderson thought the movie was “beautiful” and wanted to know about the whys and wherefores of shooting on Imax 70mm. Tarantino, too, was impressed. “It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” he told me. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”
Quite a compliment.
X
Favorite Movies
Yeah read that piece too. Found the bit about how he approached Zimmer for the music interesting - especially as it nestled neatly in the other themes they were exploring (directorial coldness, family's importance, the canny-auteur)
I'm particularly intrigued to see whether he's brought the emotional kick to his flourishing blockbuster mastery. It is one area that has felt a bit thin in previous outings to me, or lost in the technical cleverness perhaps. Seems like an difficult backdrop to achieve that in, but this whole '7 years pass for every hour you spend' / inevitable passing of time theme seems promising in that regard.
On the paper was a short story, no more than a precis, about a father who leaves his child to do an important job. It contained two lines of dialogue – “I’ll come back” “When?” – and quoted something Zimmer had said a year before, during a long conversation with Nolan and his wife at the Wolesley restaurant in London. It was snowing, central London had ground to a halt, and the three of them were more or less stranded. “There was no movie to be made, there was no movie to discuss, we were talking about our children,” said Zimmer, who has a 15-year-old son. “I said, ‘once your children are born, you can never look at yourself through your eyes any more, you always look at yourself through their eyes.”
...
I played to him, not looking at him, I just stared straight ahead at my copy of the screen and then I turned around and he’s sitting there. I can tell he was moved by it. He said, ‘I suppose I’d better make the movie, now.’ I asked him, ‘Well, yes, but what is the movie?’ And he started describing this huge, epic tale of space and science and humanity, on this epic scale. I’m going, ‘Chris, hang on, I’ve just written this highly personal thing, you know?’ He goes, ‘Yes, but I now know where the heart of the movie is’. Everything about this movie was personal.
...
I played to him, not looking at him, I just stared straight ahead at my copy of the screen and then I turned around and he’s sitting there. I can tell he was moved by it. He said, ‘I suppose I’d better make the movie, now.’ I asked him, ‘Well, yes, but what is the movie?’ And he started describing this huge, epic tale of space and science and humanity, on this epic scale. I’m going, ‘Chris, hang on, I’ve just written this highly personal thing, you know?’ He goes, ‘Yes, but I now know where the heart of the movie is’. Everything about this movie was personal.
X
User Lists
I just watched it in the theater. I already know that many of you won't like the film's ending, but it's pretty much defendable on every level, I think. I've had a long discussion about it with a friend of mine afterwards and even though the ending seems a very giant leap into the absurd, it's actually quite an intelligent move and a bold statement at the same time.
I'm personally not completely sold yet, but it's a grand piece of work that I'll definitely delve into a little further. Nolan is undeniably smart, but sometimes he needs to let the audience think or imagine a little bit more by themselves.
Be sure to check it out in the theater. It's a spectacular film to behold. I'll probably write a review about it tomorrow in my thread. I'm really looking forward to hearing some other members' thoughts on it and to debate about the ending.
I'm personally not completely sold yet, but it's a grand piece of work that I'll definitely delve into a little further. Nolan is undeniably smart, but sometimes he needs to let the audience think or imagine a little bit more by themselves.
Be sure to check it out in the theater. It's a spectacular film to behold. I'll probably write a review about it tomorrow in my thread. I'm really looking forward to hearing some other members' thoughts on it and to debate about the ending.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Damn, you make me want to watch it even more. Definitely gonna try and go to the cinema for this one.
X
Favorite Movies
Damn, you make me want to watch it even more. Definitely gonna try and go to the cinema for this one.
I'm personally still ambiguous about it, but it makes more sense the longer I think about it.
The visuals alone are already worth the ticket price, though, so you should see it in the theater either way.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Haha sounds good, yeah but the fact that the ending you say is controversial and will divide opinion makes it more interesting. I had always wondered how the film would end, trailers don't really reveal too much.
X
Favorite Movies
So true! Like Dracula Untold and Ouija have low scores and they are totally rad while The Lego Movie, Her, The Great Beauty, Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, and The Godfather are all total trash.
:wil lem:
X
Favorite Movies
I don't see the distinction between a well made film and a good one. If a film is trying to do something and it works, then it's a well made, good film. Just because Gunslinger can't get passed the idea that a man loves a non-human in Her doesn't make it a bad film; it means he didn't like it (though, in defense of Her, there are plenty of people right now who have emotional connections to inanimate objects).
I'd like to know what is your idea of a "good" film that no one likes.
I'd like to know what is your idea of a "good" film that no one likes.
X
Favorite Movies
Several years back I had heard a rumor of Alfonso Cuaron making a science fiction film about an astronaut stuck in space and trying to get back home. The film ended up being Gravity, but the film I first imagined when hearing about it looked in my head more like Interstellar.
This is, IMO, Nolan's best film by a long stretch and that's coming from someone who's a pretty decent fan of his work. It's definitely his most emotional film.
As a fan of science fiction writing I thought this was one of the best film representations of the elements I love in sci-fi writing. I loved it.
This is, IMO, Nolan's best film by a long stretch and that's coming from someone who's a pretty decent fan of his work. It's definitely his most emotional film.
WARNING: "Interstellar" spoilers below
The moment when Matt Damon's character wakes up and immediately started crying was phenomenal. The fact that they let the shot linger for a moment made for a great scene. Also, Matt Damon is in this?!
As a fan of science fiction writing I thought this was one of the best film representations of the elements I love in sci-fi writing. I loved it.
Last edited by Yoda; 11-07-14 at 01:58 AM.
I said "good" movie.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.
5-time MoFo Award winner.
X
Favorite Movies
X