What Makes a Movie Great? (reflection, not debate)

Fanboy says what?

Also, your profile says you haven't been active in 2 YEARS. Should I take your quiet literal non-presence as badassery too?

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Rewinding a little bit, Zotis, about the Obi vs Vader fight, a combination of the sfx and angle of the rotoscoping, I've always had a vaguely amusing impression that Obi-Wan's lightsaber was about to go out.

What

Oh, ****

Can hurt what? We're talking about true greatness here. How can movies with dozens of absurdities be considered up there with the great flawless masterpieces?

They're called Minochs (or however it's spelled). I was just poking fun at them by calling them wombats. Obviously they're not wombats as those are real animals. They can't survive in space because living things can't survive in space period.


There are actual accounts of real people surviving being in the belly of a whale though. It's just that the creature needs some way of digesting whatever food it does eat. And there's no food on the asteroid in space.

Not dislike, just disqualification from greatness.

They're my reasons, and you have yours.

The ONLY reason Jango Fett was even in Attack of the Clones at all is because of how popular Boba Fett was.

That is actually a really good way of putting it.

Ad hominem

In more recent years, I've defined a cinema by what it is or what it intends rather than my own classifications of what it should be and being wholly disappointed at the end of my cinematic experience. I tend toward the cinema of innovations, arthouse, underground, experimental, and avant-garde. Whether or not their objectives are achieved at the end of the film, it is a refreshment to see at the end of the experience that someone dared the adventure. But this is a simple viewpoint however, no more right or wrong than say the vantage point by someone's "cinematically inexperienced" vantage point who may just like a good show with some popcorn and soda. In fact, I'd venture to say that vantage point has equal measure. I recently watched Captain America: Civil War and was initially disappointed with my experience, however, changing my perspective a bit, suspending all belief and just enjoying the ride had me coming out of the theater thinking, "These are all the points where the film missed the mark, but it was an action film, and I enjoyed the action, so taking the action for what it is and what it was, I suppose it's not all bad." In other words, I'm less radical with my opinions. I'd rather love cinema and take it for the good and the bad, then declaring a cinematic philosophy and sink potential experiences that go against it.

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

Okay, we got a good thing going here let's not get too testy.

The movie's overall quality.

OKAY, we're playin' two different ballgames here. I maintain that practically every movie has it's flaws. Even my favorites, which I consider great, are flawed. Objective greatness, let alone perfection, is difficult to pin down due to the majority of (if not all) movies being composed of at least partially subjective elements, which I seem to recall you conceding to.

If you refuse to call something "great" because it can't be called "flawless", then I suspect you're either going to find few if any movies to appreciate, or worse, find yourself rabidly defending something as "flawless" despite definite avenues of criticism.

Personally. I'm extremely reserved in throwing the "masterpiece" word around. Even more so "flawless" or "perfect".

This is that whole "where you draw the line at disbelief" thing. If you can accept lightsabers why can't you accept space creatures? I've never heard anyone complain about the xenomorphs from Alien surviving space, probably because they're unknown. It's that distinction between impossible and improbable too. You're holding the creatures in Star Wars to Earth rules and yet, for all you know, they live off carbon dioxide like trees.

It was ready to eat a ship and we know of animals that can survive long periods on stored resources. Again, the setting means we can't know so it's an admissable creative liberty. If it still bugs you that's fine, I'm not saying you're wrong.

Well DUH, of course that's why, but no one's ever sold me on the Legacy Argument. Just because he was done once means he can't be done better. That logic is never applied consistently.

Ad absurdum, I believe you've made this mistake before; I've not sacrificed an actual argument for a personal attack on someone's character or credibility, I'm reapplying the logic presented to disagreeable circumstances.

It would also be Ad Absurdum to say that "Sloths must be exceptionally badass because they rarely do anything either".

It would be Ad Hominem to say "Well you like Carrie so how would you know?".


It was also partially intended as a joke for what it's worth.

"The two main areas of importance that I see so far in my understanding of cinema are technical mastery and meaningful content."

I think you hit the nail on the head. One can not or should not exist without the other and if it does, then you end up with a below par movie. I think a prime example is the Transformers series, it looks absolutely brilliant but is dead on arrival. The Independence Day sequel is another one.

Compare that too Saving Private Ryan, T2, Empire Strikes Back and many of Nolan's triumphs and the difference is not only seen but also felt. The same can be said for less obvious "blockbusters". There is no denying The Godfather Part 1/2 for example is both a technical masterpiece and also one of soul, heart and story telling i.e. meaningful content.

__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle"

You give examples of how "technical mastery" cannot be justified without "meaningful content", but you don't give examples of "meaningful content" without "technical mastery".

You can have a movie that's well written, well acted, and has something deep and throught-provoking to say and still call it a great movie without achieving "technical mastery". Most movies don't depend on much more than a competent cameraman and editor anyway.

git gud

You know, phrasing claims as proverbs does make them sound more memetic, but they're no less disagreeable.

You might as well say "a book is never really good unless the words are in the pen of an artist". All it really does is raise the question of what qualifies as figurative "poetry" and at some point disregards an overwhelming chunk of cinema that fails to meet that arbitrarily defined goal.

Meaningful content can actually raise a movie above par, it may not be great without technical proficiency or flair but it can still be serviceable. However, technical mastery without any soul is a much larger problem, as you end up with something that looks good but ends up making you feel empty and as if you have wasted your money.

Need it really be about either? I believe good writing and acting, while not being technical elements, can skyrocket a movie without actually serving any deeper meaning beyond the story it presents.

I mean, we got movies like Taxi Driver and The Godfather and Casablanca held up as absolute film classics and they're not especially deep or meaningful.

What about comedies? Is it impossible to have a "great comedy" unless it presses some sociological perspective or unearths some lost pathos of the human condition? And we're not talking about technical "proficiency" we're talking about technical "mastery". Not EVERY MOVIE has, needs, or should even have it's technical mastery badge on display. Some movies are minimalist and work better that way.

Yikes, bad analogy. How can something be figurative poetry?

By not being... literal... poetry. ( O_O)

Do you know what poetry is?

*laughs* Do you know it has more than one meaning?

To me, what makes a movie great is a movie that has everything, ranging from soft and gentle to violent and rough. A movie that's really great often goes from light to dark and back to somewhat lighter again, if one gets the drift. West Side Story, to me, is a great example of such a film.

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

And I compare her
To a fallen leaf