How do I tell whether a movie is good or not?

That's certainly related to the discussion, but I think the main point of contention is whether or not such a thing as good taste/bad taste exists. There are a couple of side-discussions going on, though, so I may be mistaken.

I don't think we can extrapolate that far out. I think being inspired to do something good is simply good, and any freak occurence which results, but could not be foreseen, doesn't change that. I could give to charity and it could somehow turn a situation for the worse, but unless these things are even vaguely predictable I don't think it changes the morality of the inital act.

In the context of this discussion, I'm using the word "inspiration" as shorthand for anything which causes us to feel uplifted, I suppose. Obviously someone who is inspired to do something negative by a film depicting negative things is a bit different, and obviously any film can technically inspire someone. I just don't think they usually do. If a film inspires a number of people, odds are it's probably thought of pretty highly, anyway.

Of course, it's just a bit unwieldly to write all that every time I want to reference the concept.

I think, if that were to happen, the inspiration would be more internal, with the film merely sparking something which is already there. I'm sure this is always the case to some degree, but when a film isn't even aiming to inspire and does anyway, I think it's probably got more to do with the viewer than the film.

Tough call. I really don't know. I guess I think that inspiring people is harder than entertaining them, so it seems like a lesser failure when it isn't accomplished.

That said, certain types of films can be especially bad when they don't work as intended. An action film which doesn't work may still be marginally interesting, but an historical drama which doesn't work can be a remarkable bore. Wish I could answer this question adequately, but I guess it depends. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the question.

You insist that my taste in movies says something about me, yet you can't define what it says. To me that means it doesn't say a damn thing.


Again, we need to agree to disagree. You have your stance. I have mine. Neither of us is going to budge. This is going nowhere.



You can base a movie on real events and put as much factual information as you want, but it's still not the actual event and is therefore fake.


Unless I watch EVERY FILM EVER MADE, there will always be films being excluded. I'm just lessening the odds of watching something I don't like.

__________________

No, it says that you haven't told me much about your tastes. I didn't say I could psychologically deconstruct someone by looking at their top ten. And while I do have some reactions to some of the things you've said you like, some of them are critical, and I can't imagine the discussion will be helped by me insulting your taste.

Now, do you have an answer to what I said? If who we are doesn't effect the art we enjoy, then why do we have different opinions about it?

Do you have any response to this, as well?

Or this?
Or this?
Sorry if this seems pushy, but the quotes above are pretty much the crux of my argument.
Well, no kidding. I didn't dispute that it was fake. I just fail to see why enjoying watching real violence is disgusting, and enjoying a graphic recreation of a real event is somehow just fine. Aren't you still getting a kick out of a depiction of a real person's suffering? Holocaust films don't show us footage of the actual Holocaust...does that mean they're not just as serious? What would you think of someone who laughed at, say, Schindler's List? Is that in poor taste?

And eliminating the possibility of watching something new that you might like, too. As I said, that's the tradeoff, but you're definitely closing yourself off to new things.

My response is this: I don't want to discuss this anymore.

We disagree. We will continue to disagree. We could fill 1,000 pages of discussion on the topic and never get anywhere with it. And quite frankly, I find your refusal to answer my question far more insulting than anything a real answer is likely to contain; so don't think you're sparing my feelings by withholding your thoughts.

I did answer your question, actually: I said that I know next to nothing about your taste. I said this twice. You, on the other hand, ignored my questions several times, and what answers I did get often didn't actually address the point being made (and I explained why).

I know we disagree, and I know we'll continue to disagree. I don't expect to convince you, and I don't think a discussion has to convince someone to be worthwhile, either. I do think, however, that when pressed for these answers it becomes clear that the ideas being presented simply aren't consistent. But whether or not you choose to answer them is obviously up to you.

No you didn't answer it. I gave you an example. You could have made a statement based on that and instead you said simply that you wouldn't. So I'll ask a different question, one based on someone with whom you have the most intimate knowledge: What does your enjoyment of inspiring films say about you?

But you didn't ask me for a random guess/statement, you asked me to give an actual substantive answer, which I can't do. Besides, my point isn't contingent on that (nor are any of the others). The claim is not that any piece of information can tell you something about the person it comes from. Our ability to determine exactly what each choice means will vary from person to person, and from situation to situation. But it's clearly a factor; the mere fact that we have different tastes to begin with demonstrates this.

I think it says that, deep down, I'm an idealist. I also think it says that I like understanding what inspires others, and that I look for meaning in most films, and often end up looking for ways in which that meaning might illustrate something about my own life.

For the record, I've ignored some of your questions because either I feel I've already answered them to the best of my ability in previous statements or I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what exactly it is you're asking.

But I still want an answer to my question, just to satisfy my curiousity. What do you think my taste in movies says about me? Further, in your opinion, do I have good or bad taste in movies? And what makes it good or bad?

Since you feel you know so little about me, here is a list of some of my favorite movies (limited to those in my collection) for you to base this on:


Army Of Darkness (1992, R)
Being John Malkovich (1999, R)
The Big Lebowski (1998, R)
The Breakfast Club (1985, R)
Brotherhood of the Wolf (Le Pacte Des Loups) (2001, R)
Bubba Ho-Tep (2003, R)
Clay Pigeons (1998, R)
The Dark Knight (2008, PG-13)
Death to Smoochy (2002, R)
The Departed (2006, R)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004, R)
Fight Club (1999, R)
Finding Nemo (2003, G)
Flushed Away (2006, PG)
Gladiator (2000, R)
Meet the Robinsons (2007, G)
Milk (2008, R)
Over the Hedge (2006, PG)
Philadelphia (1993, PG-13)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of the Black Pearl (2003, PG-13)
Pulp Fiction (1994, R)
Quills (2000, R)
Ratatouille (2007, G)
Saved! (2004, PG-13)
Schindler's List (1993, R)
Shrek (2001, PG)
Shrek 2 (2004, PG)
3:10 To Yuma (2007, R)
Airheads (1994, PG-13)
Amos & Andrew (1993, PG-13)
Analyze This (1999, R)
Apocalypto (2006, R)
The Aviator (2004, PG-13)
A Beautiful Mind (2001, PG-13)
Beetlejuice (1988, PG)
Benny & Joon (1993, PG)
Black Snake Moan (2006, R)
Blood Diamond (2006, R)
Bolt (2008, PG)
The Boondock Saints (1999, Unrated)
Brother Bear (2003, G)
Cars (2006, G)
Casualties of War (1989, R)
Catch Me If You Can (2003, PG-13)
The Cell (2000, R)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005, PG)
Charlotte's Web (1973, G)
Chicago (2002, PG-13)
Chicken Run (2000, G)
Cold Mountain (2003, R)
Conspiracy Theory (1997, R)
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (2008, PG-13)
Dances With Wolves (1990, PG-13)
Dark City (1998, R)
Devil's Advocate (1997, R)
Doubt (2008, PG-13)
Edward Scissorhands (1990, PG-13)
The Emporer's New Groove (2000, G)
Face/Off (1997, R)
Falling Down (1993, R)
Far and Away (1992, PG-13)
The Fifth Element (1997, PG-13)
Forrest Gump (1994, PG-13)
Fracture (2007, R)
Frailty (2002, R)
Ghost (1990, PG-13)
Ghost World (2001, R)
Glory (1989, R)
Gods and Monsters (1998, R)
The Goonies (1985, PG-13)
The Green Mile (1999, R)
Happy Feet (2006, PG)
Heathers (1989, R)
How to Lose a Guy In 10 Days (2003, PG-13)
I Am Sam (2001, PG-13)
Identity (2003, R)
The Illusionist (2006, PG-13)
In & Out (1998, PG-13)
The Incredibles (2005, PG)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989, PG-13)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984, PG)
Interview With The Vampire (1994, R)
Inventing the Abbotts (1997, R)
Kalifornia (1993, Unrated)
Kinsey (2005, R)
L.A. Confidential (1997, R)
The Last Samurai (2003, R)
A League Of Their Own (1992, PG)
The Libertine (2006, R)
The Life Of David Gale (2003, R)
Lilo and Stitch (2002, PG)
Love Actually (2003, R)
Madagascar (2005, PG)
The Man in the Iron Mask (1998, PG-13)
Memento (2001, R)
A Mighty Wind (2003, PG-13)
Mr. Brooks (2007, R)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005, PG-13)
Monsters, Inc. (2001, G)
Murder In The First (1995, R)
National Lampoon's Vacation (1983, R)
The Negotiator (1998, R)
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993, PG)
Now and Then (1995, PG-13)
The Number 23 (2007, Unrated)
Of Mice and Men (1992, PG-13)
Old School (2003, Unrated)
The Others (2001, PG-13)
A Perfect World (1993, PG-13)
Point Break (1991, R)
The Prestige (2006, PG-13)
The Quick and the Dead (1995, R)
Rain Man (1988, R)
The Reader (2008, R)
The Reckoning (2003, R)
The Ref (1994, R)
Return to Paradise (1998, R)
Revolutionary Road (2008, R)
Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves (Extended Edition) (1991, Not Rated)
The Sandlot (1993, PG)
School Ties (1992, PG-13)
Serial Mom (1994, R)
Seven (1995, R)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994, R)
Shrek The Third (2007, PG)
Signs (2002, PG-13)
Sinbad: Legend Of the Seven Seas (2003, PG)
Sleepy Hollow (1999, R)
Sommersby (1993, PG-13)
Surf's Up (2007, PG)
Taking Lives (2004, R)
A Time To Kill (1996, R)
Titanic (1997, PG-13)
Tombstone (1993, R)
Toys (1992, PG-13)
Tropic Thunder (2008, Unrated)
Troy (2004, R)
True Romance (1993, Unrated)
Tuck Everlasting (2002, PG)
The 24th Day (2004, R)
Two Weeks Notice (2002, PG-13)
U Turn (1997, R)
Untamed Heart (1993, PG-13)
Walk the Line (2005, PG-13)
WALL·E (2008, G)
Wedding Crashers (2005, Unrated)
What About Bob? (1991, PG)
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993, PG-13)
While You Were Sleeping (1995, PG)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988, PG)
With Honors (1994, PG)
Zodiac (2007, R)

Well, if you want clarification on any questions I've asked, I'd be glad to provide it. I've certainly explained why some of the answers you've given don't address the question, and I think I've done so in pretty straightforward terms. But I will gladly condense and/or rephrase them, if you'd like.

Regarding that list of movies: sure, I'll try, but there are a couple of tricky things about this I'd like to point out. One is that I only know that you own these films, and not which ones you don't much care about, especially like, watch all the time, etc. My collection of movies contains a few discs that I don't like at all, for example, and a number of others I like a bit, but wish I hadn't bought.

The second problem is that a big part of taste has to do with what someone doesn't like, and I can't gauge that sort of thing all that much from this. The films you don't own are always going to be massive compared to those you do, so I can't read a lot into what isn't here, even if it can have as much to do with taste as what is.

Anyway...

With those caveats, one thing that jumps out at me is that you seem to have an affinity for children's films (I do, too, actually). There are a number of reasons this could be; you might have children, for example, or nices/nephews who come by often. If not, I'd say anyone who enjoys those sorts of films in their own right is probably someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously. Could possibly be part of a larger interest in animation as an art form, I suppose.

I'd also say that you have a slightly offbeat sense of humor based on some of the eclectic, darker comedies there (looks like most of the straight comedies are R-rated comedies). The fact that you own MILK suggests a pretty left-of-center political ideology, given that it's obviously a strong message movie.

The movies are almost all fairly recent, which leads me to wonder if you've been watching movies very long. It would lead me to guess that you're probably pretty young, too. I can't prove to you that I guessed this before seeing the age in your profile, but I hope you'll take my word.

Re: taste. Of the movies you have, I think you have good taste. I definitely like the majority of films you own, and own a fair number myself. I'd be perfectly happy watching most of them.

That said, I do think a surprising number of important classic films are "missing" (for lack of a better word). I notice that very few of the films which generally find their way to the top of most film institute lists are in this collection. I couldn't find a single black-and-white film, save for Schindler's List, which was intentionally so. Couldn't find any silent films, either.

I can't really call the absence of these things an indicator of "bad taste" unless you told me you didn't like most of them, but there are a surprising number of genuinely great films absent. I assume you simply haven't seen most of them, so I would say your taste is more "narrow" than "bad." I'd only call it bad if you saw a lot of these classic films and didn't like them, I suppose.

I hope this answers your question.

I did actually say that the list above are all favorites; it is not a complete list of my collection. There are several movies in my collection that I don't like, many more more that I think are only mediocre and some that I haven't seen.

If you're interested in seeing a complete list of my collection - and of my thoughts on each of them - you can visit the website I created for it: http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walt...MainIndex.html

If I listed all of the movies that I don't like, it'd take me forever. However, I can say that I don't generally like Musicals, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Horror or War movies.


I am very much a fan of children's animation and do very much appreciate it as an artform (though I am not a fan of anime or other types of animation). I don't have any children or any nieces or nephews (much to the disappointment of my mother who has suddenly decided that she wants grandchildren - NOW - and neither my brother nor my myself are keen to oblige). I don't think I take myself too seriously, but I'm sure others disagree.

I think I have a pretty off-beat sense of humor. It's also been described as "biting" and it tends to get me in trouble with thin-skinned people.

Some of my views, particularly in regards to gay rights, are left of center but I don't consider myself liberal as I do have some views that lean very much to the right. I do tend to watch a lot of gay films (and have several in my collection), but a lot of that is because, as part of research for the novel I'm writing, I'm interested in seeing how other people have treated the subject.

I have only been really watching movies (as opposed to just occasionally going to the theater) for ten years or so. I suppose that would make me both immature and ignorant by your standards?

I don't think I've ever actually watched a silent film, I've only seen snippets of them as used in other films. The only other black and white films in my collection (In Cold Blood and Dead Man) are also intentionally so. I have seen some other films (most recently Kiss Of Death and My Darling Clementine - both of which I enjoyed, though on different levels) but, for the most part, either I didn't like them enough to want to own them, or it's been too long since I've seen them for me to really make a judgement on their quality now.

Overall, I'll give you that a person's taste in film says something about them, but I don't think it reliably says much if anything about a person's character. I know many people who enjoy violent films and yet are very kind. I know many others who enjoy really raunchy films, and yet are not overtly sexual. I've also met many people who enjoy classic films and uplifting films, yet are incredibly hateful individuals.

Why not, out of curiousity?

Interesting. I have something similar going on; actually; I have a lot of bizarre foreign horror films in my Netflix queue, but only because I want to write something about it. If anyone saw it, they'd probably think I had an affinity for them, I guess.

No, not really. I just think the younger someone is, and the less time they've been watching lots of movies, the less likely they are to have broad taste and enjoy older films. I think really great films have a near-universal appeal, so anyone who watches films for a long time is bound to give things a try once or twice, which makes it more likely they'll be pleasantly surprised, which makes it more likely they'll seek out other things they'd previously avoided.

I guess one could call it "ignorant" if a person were completely convinced they wouldn't like lots of movies they haven't seen without much reason, but I'm not extrapolating your comments to mean that. Just observing a general trend. Ditto for the word "immature" -- not watching old films wouldn't make a person immature, but would it make their experience immature? I dunno, I guess it could. Though the word would apply to me, too. I'm only 24 and there's a lot I haven't seen, either. Though I'm trying to remedy that.

Yeah, I suspected once or twice over the course of this discussion that, on this particular point, we might not actually have disagreed a lot. It occurs to me that saying these films say something can be true, but it can still be very hard to decipher what that something is. I think we agree that it says something, but that that doesn't necessarily imply that we can reliably know what that something is. I'm sure that varies.

Anyway, I think your example about raunchy films is interesting. Could it be that people who are not overtly sexual really are, but are merely private about it, and this tendency comes out in their choice of art? Or that they compensate for being discreet in one way by being overt in their choice of entertainment? I wonder if these kinds of things happen.

To use a weird example that is not meant to be inflammatory towards anyone you might know, it seems every time we find out that someone like say, Pee-Wee Herman, has gotten himself in some sexual trouble, there's always some kind of unusual collection of erotic art in their home (Herman had such a collection). It might look kind of innocent, but when you work backwards after he's gotten himself in the tabloids for various things, you wonder if maybe it was a hint.

This is all just speculation, of course. Life is certainly far too complicated to draw really reliable conclusions based on so little information, but it's interesting to think about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Vicky
I've even watched a rape porn or two.

Dude...


lmao

funny stuff Spikez

I believe it. They could be showing you who they really are, or who they wish they could be.

I can tell. You've seen many more films since the last time I looked at your lists. That was back when they first went up, I suppose. I remember, because I was surprised at how many Hitchcock films you hadn't seen yet.

__________________

Originally Posted by Yoda

Why not, out of curiousity?

I don't like musicals because it annoys me when characters break out in spontaneous, choreographed song and dance. People just don't do that. There are a few musicals that I enjoy - like Chicago - and I have tried to be open to some others, but it just doesn't work for me.

With the exception of the American Civil War (and perhaps some ancient wars), war doesn't really interest me, so I typically don't like movies about it. There are some exceptions however, like Casualties Of War.

As for Science Fiction and Fantasy, I have issues with suspension of disbelief (except in animation, where - for some unexplainable reason - anything goes as far as I'm concerned). That's not to say that I dislike all Sci-Fi/Fantasy, but I prefer films that are based more in reality.

As for Horror films, my problem with them is that either they don’t scare me and I just get bored, or they do scare me and I’m very jumpy. It’s embarrassing.

Anyway, I think your example about raunchy films is interesting. Could it be that people who are not overtly sexual really are, but are merely private about it, and this tendency comes out in their choice of art? Or that they compensate for being discreet in one way by being overt in their choice of entertainment? I wonder if these kinds of things happen.

I don’t think you can be overtly sexual and private about it at the same time. I mean, people can be as freaky as they want to be in practice, but if they’re not openly talking about it with people other than their partners and are not dressing suggestively then by my definition they are not overtly sexual. Having a collection of suggestive art and liking raunchy films isn't really overt, unless you're discussing it or showing it to people that you don't know very well. But certainly people who are private about their sexuality can be and often are highly libidinous.

I took what he said to mean that they share it in other ways. Instead of talking about it, their taste in art, movies, clothes, etc . . . does the talking for them. At times, it speak volumes.

I get that he means they express their sexuality in other ways, but to me simply having that sort of taste in art and enertainment is not an overt expression of sexuality.

How do you become a chemist? You learn chemistry. Same goes for movies. I'm not saying you should become an actor or director or anything. But knowing a little about screenplay writing, camera work, acting etc. It helps to determine how well a certain movie performs or at least stacks up against similar movies.

I personally though.. I just stick too opinions with a hint of logic ^^
For example.. I'm not very fond of drama's, but if I can sit through the whole of Casablanca, it had too be a good movie, because im watching a genre i dislike with a passion and it still manages to keep me interested.

Chemistry is science, not art. I don't see how your analogy works.


What do you have against drama?

Creating is an art. Merely observing is something else.



It's boring

Hugh Grant meets woman. Woman have bad relationship with previous male.
Hugh Grant connects with woman's child. Woman is impressed by parenting, decides to stay.

Happily ever after!

I can watch dramas, I just wouldn't do it "willingly". If it's on the tely with only Dallas and Hogan knows best is on apart from it, I'll watch.
I have a few dramas on dvd. But really just because they are considered masterpieces. Maybe when im older I'll be into that stuff haha.

THAT IS YOUR CONCEPT OF DRAMA????????????????

I certainly hope you're joking.

That statement alone is enough to make me consider rethinking my whole stance on whether or not there is such thing as ignorance and bad taste in regards to film.

Yoda, you win.