Subjective Vs. Objective, can film be "bad"?

When you add Hollywood commerce to the art of film, people simply like what they like and buy what they buy.

Well, I'll tell ya, Piddzilla -- after speaking about The Blair Witch Project yesterday, I was so excited about it that I had to watch it again last night. It was a different experience for me this time because, well, I truly don't believe much in the supernatural now so I didn't watch the movie with any certain understanding that strange things happen in the world. When you believe in the unreal, anything's possible and you can be let down by Blair Witch's lack of special effects and magic.

However, what Blair Witch has that other movies don't is sort of an ancient, universal horror that deals with nature and mankind, going insane, pagan horror, seeing the world through the eyes of people who are not intelligent, who don't live in the real world - who believe in fairy tales and childish things like witches. I also think it's rather misogynistic -- but that doesn't mean it's a bad story. I think Blair Witch is saying that women are bad, stupid and can't be trusted and only men can lead us. My reasons for this are because it deals with a nasty witch - a woman - that a whole town fears and because the lead character (Heather) is bossy and domineering and directs everything - tells the guys what to do - and she ends up becoming the main person blamed for all of them being in that terrifying situation. It seems very much like a story about a fear of women. Neurotic women that come up with stupid ideas ("Let's all go into the woods and make a documentary about the legend of a witch and hope that we find her!! Oops! The map's gone. We're lost! We're dying! It's all my fault! I'm sorry, mom!") The men - Mike and Josh - are smarter and just wanna get the hell out of there, but all Heather wants to do is keep filming. On top of that, there's some supernatural witch following them and making them paranoid and scared and eventually, I guess, dead. It is a deeper, more complex story than just some ordinary ghost story. It also looks like a reflection on grungy 1990's wasted youth culture -- death waits for those who are young and lost in the world. I couldn't believe how much of a time capsule The Blair Witch Project now looks. I remember when it was so cool, but now it looks dated and like a period piece.

The first half of the movie is funny and lighthearted -- in fact, it stays this way often, but it does turn serious eventually -- but it never really gets deadly serious, even though they are in a deadly serious situation. Even when they're running around the house at the end, there's still a sense of fun. This is so much more enjoyable than horror films that either get ridiculously comedic or ridiculously scary. Super panic mode in horror films is unreal. Too many screams are cheesy. Blair Witch doesn't do that. The only things I find cheesy and wrong with Blair Witch are a lot of the noises that the crew must be making, such as when they're in their tents and they hear things, like a baby or kids and laughing, but at least the sounds are muffled and hard to really understand. It's never really obvious that you're hearing what you're supposed to be hearing. You sort of get the sense that the guys are slowly going crazy -- because of the witch? Or because of Heather?

At the end of the movie, you aren't sure what's going on. On a negative side, it becomes a little obvious that this is just for show, that it's fake. But they smartly end the movie without going too far, leaving the rest of the movie up to your imagination. I felt a shiver.

What if you have a good story or an adaptation of a best selling novel, and a movie is made which completely fails to live up to the standard of the novel?

Would that not be considered a bad movie.

The Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter movies for example.

Which Potter movies? Are you about to open a can of worms you don't want to touch?

I think films based on an existing property should be based on their merit as a film. Since most of the viewers most likely haven't read the novels, the films should stand alone, IMO.

In other words, your proposed problem shouldn't even exist.

__________________

Actually, there is no reason for critics or awards to exist. Especially critics.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

To tell you the truth, depending on your view of the "grand scheme" of things, there's no good reason for anything to exist.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I thought you didn't like Godard?

It's not so much that I don't like him. It's just that I'd rather pretend he didn't exist, although paradoxically, I keep watching more and more of "his" films.

Well that just makes you more interesting.

I think the main question there is if art(especially books and movies) can be rated objectively.That is a very hard question but I think it can.I mean all those critics have to learn their job so there are some points how to rate a movie and what is considered good and bad.Also we have some classic books and movies,which many people dislike but it is still considered the best.
As for me,I can look at a movie both ways.I don't like sci-fi and, for example, Artificial Intelligence was boring for me.But I try to think what would a sci-fi lover think about it and I see that it's not that bad.Also,if I really like a mediocre movie I give it a higher grade.I can't help it I liked it.I loved Dead Poet's Society but it is very sentimental and I do see that.But I still like it and on IMDB I gave it a 9.Objectively it would be worth about 5.
So I would agree that it is very hard to find a bad movie.I always like to find something good even about the worst movies.Now I can remember only one film which I thought was bad - Never Back Down.The plot is banal,acting mediocre,fight scenes not realistic as these actors don't know much about fighting,overall it's just a plain idiotic romance movie for the young and naive girls.Many people like this film but I think that either because of beautiful actors or just because they want this film to be true.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I'm not satisfied with my earlier responses in this thread, where I ended up sounding (to me) dogmatically "pro" subjectivity and "anti" objectivity. Maybe I should just shut up now because I'm not sure It's possible for me to say something I'll be "satisfied" with, or even if that's a worthwhile objective. I'm very suspicious of this dichotomy. On the one hand, if I say "subjective", it becomes incoherent if taken too literally. That seems pretty self-evident - it's absurd to try and determine if you're being subjective subjectively. How could you even call what you're doing "determining?" On the other hand, if I say "objective", where are your standards coming from. "patterns"? "aesthetic Laws"? If patterns, don't they have to be pretty fuzzy? If laws, how do you determine which laws are the right ones? An appeal to a further set of laws? Another absurdity.

Then I say, okay lines... you're being pedantic and literal-minded, they probably just take "objective" to mean "trying to really observe it, before judging it with preconceptions." But then what are you judging it with?

Haven't seen this thread till now, thanks to Gabrielle947 for bumping it.

To be subjective on the matter, which is what the thread has asked for:

The worst film in my review thread was when I gave 0% to Superman 4: The Quest For Peace in review #26.
There were a couple of good bits, Reeve and Hackman were professional in their roles but overall, the film was terrible.

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is another in review #41. I gave it 1% based solely on Cate Blanchet's performance. The rest was abysmal.

I gave 2012 in review #3 only 15%. 5% for the CGI and 10% for Woody Harrelson. Again, the rest was boring and unwatchable.


Can a film be 'bad'?

Sure with every film there will be good points, certain acting that shines through, original ideas that have never been seen before, all those little things.

But on an overall basis, it can still be a bad film.

__________________

Opinion can be widely excepted. What is considered to be creative or cool, is in the eye of the beholder!

Each individual will pick their own "what is bad".

It is tough to say, cause a movie like the remake Clash of the Titans had its aspects that were real great, but there was a lot of bad. So some movies will only have some bad, not completely bad. I believe it isn't as black and white, as a yea or nay.

But I do think that some movies are just plain bad overall, but that is their quality. I love horror movies, and some of them are really bad, and most people would think they are crap...but I love them. When I say crap, I mean most people would never bother.

__________________
I thought what I'd do is I'd pretend I was one of those deafmutes......or should I?