Good VS Entertaining
Some of you may have recalled a thread I posted when I first joined this, it was basically me venting my fusteration toward Film Buffs and Fan Boys. Anyways, I've changed my mind. Any fan is a good fan.
With that said, I've been thinking about why it is I can get so fusterated with Fan Boys. I think I've got it, and here it is. There's a difference between movies, yeah yeah yeah, not just genres and style. To me it comes down to a movies desired effect. A movie, regardless of genre, can fall into one of two categories; Good or Entertaining. A movie can be both though. So what's my point, right? When a person calls a movie good, they're usually talking about a movie being very entertaining. I'll say Ernest Scared Stupid is entertaining. So, when I come across a thread or post that claims this movie to be good, I get angry like a wilderbeast. The difference between a movie being Good and Entertaining is simple. A movie that is good is a movie that nails every technical aspect of fimlmaking. I'm talking about everything. Kubrick, Welles, Kurosawa, all of those GODS made Good movies, although some of them may not have been the most entertaining. Barry Lyndon was some boring stuff, but the composition of his characters is off the heazy, along with pretty much every other element of screen grammar. Kurosawa was the master of good movies in my opinion though. So, what makes a movie entertaining? Bascially anything that has the main purpose of entertaining, without as much emphases on whether it is studied for years to come. Independence Day, yeah it was cheesy, but it was entertaining. Quinton Terentino (Spelling?) makes entertaining movies, although every once in a while he makes a movie that is both. Kill Bill is entertaining, not Good. See what I'm saying? If I'm completely off in this attempt to categorize, let me know. If you agree, let me know. If you'd like to give me some more negative points for reputation, please do. |
So a film buff -- according to you -- is one whose opinion is that The Deer Hunter and 2001 are boring movies, one who is able to ascertain the store to buy a lamp which is on a desk in a crappy movie, one who chooses not to support their local arthouse theatres because they dont have "totally-radical-gnarly sound."
Im fairly certain I am getting suckered into a troll situation but oh well. Just found it amazingly funny that you call yourself a film buff who gets very upset with fanboys. |
Huh?
Originally Posted by Tolstoy
So a film buff -- according to you -- is one whose opinion is that The Deer Hunter and 2001 are boring movies, one who is able to ascertain the store to buy a lamp which is on a desk in a crappy movie, one who chooses not to support their local arthouse theatres because they dont have "totally-radical-gnarly sound."
Im fairly certain I am getting suckered into a troll situation but oh well. Just found it amazingly funny that you call yourself a film buff who gets very upset with fanboys. |
Originally Posted by PimpDaShizzle
Space Odyessey and Deer Hunter were Good, not Entertaining.
|
Well then Bri' Showgirls should fit your ticket in all areas ;)!
|
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
and big hooters everywhere. Gimee those and I’m a happy man…especially regarding the hooter thing.
|
Okay, I see what you mean. Big breasts can't carry a film...but what if there are all sorts of sweet asses thrown in the mix too? And maybe some nylon clad legs, artichoke hearts (for the sick guys), and some guy murdering Barney the Dinosaur for a dime bag of meth...yeah...that would be awesome!!!
|
PPV porn? That's what the internet's for!
|
No doubt...if it wasn't for the net and the newsgroups, I'd have no outlet at all. There are hardly any movies/mags specializing in my types of fantasies.
Poor me. :( Oh wait...I have the net! Yeaahhhh!!!! :king: |
Originally Posted by r3port3r66
PPV porn? That's what the internet's for!
It is nice to once in a while watch some boobies on a big screen tv though and Ive already had to buy 3 Interview with the Vampire dvds because they mysteriously get worn out at certain parts :) Also, everyonce in a while I get sick of just watching a 2 minute video and I find it very tiresome trying to sit through a one hour movie on a computer. Same reason my dvd collection sits at over 400 right now, and the only movie I have on my comp is Up In Smoke. And the storylines in Porn rock, at least sometimes, and you also get the buildup where you are wondering -- hmmmmm, is she going to get dual stuffed here or is the pizza man going to let the milk man have his fun. Stuff you just dont get with Hardcore-2-girls-orgy00=bigtits-gangbang.avi |
True. But it's free! "A couple of friends" huh? You're freaky! Let's have details!
|
Originally Posted by PimpDaShizzle
The difference between a movie being Good and Entertaining is simple. A movie that is good is a movie that nails every technical aspect of fimlmaking. I'm talking about everything. Kubrick, Welles, Kurosawa, all of those GODS made Good movies, although some of them may not have been the most entertaining. Barry Lyndon was some boring stuff, but the composition of his characters is off the heazy, along with pretty much every other element of screen grammar. Kurosawa was the master of good movies in my opinion though.
There are also good movies that are also entertaining (The Shawshank Redemption or Citizen Kane for example) and there are movies that are neither. But, in the end, it comes down to personal preference as to whether a film is entertaining or not, and so the battle rages on. |
Kubricks films were good and entertaining...... And I don't see how you can say they had no soul... Maybe you're not paying attention when you should be, or it could be you don't understand it.
|
Or maybe it could be because they had no soul.
|
Whatever you say. It's all opinion.
|
yadda yadda yadda
There was this one critic that said something around the lines of "...a sterile fascination with technique..." in reply to one of Kubrick's films. It defined one of my feelings toward Kubrick's films, but there's the technique which almost relies on the sterile atmosphere. It places the viewer in an almost dream like area in which no other film has done before. Making it seem almost alien, but at the same time almost like watching your neighbor showering naked with the window open. How they would shower otherwise, I'm not sure.
|
Originally Posted by PimpDaShizzle
Some of you may have recalled a thread I posted when I first joined this, it was basically me venting my fusteration toward Film Buffs and Fan Boys. Anyways, I've changed my mind. Any fan is a good fan.
With that said, I've been thinking about why it is I can get so fusterated with Fan Boys. I think I've got it, and here it is. There's a difference between movies, yeah yeah yeah, not just genres and style. To me it comes down to a movies desired effect. A movie, regardless of genre, can fall into one of two categories; Good or Entertaining. A movie can be both though. So what's my point, right? When a person calls a movie good, they're usually talking about a movie being very entertaining. I'll say Ernest Scared Stupid is entertaining. So, when I come across a thread or post that claims this movie to be good, I get angry like a wilderbeast. The difference between a movie being Good and Entertaining is simple. A movie that is good is a movie that nails every technical aspect of fimlmaking. I'm talking about everything. Kubrick, Welles, Kurosawa, all of those GODS made Good movies, although some of them may not have been the most entertaining. Barry Lyndon was some boring stuff, but the composition of his characters is off the heazy, along with pretty much every other element of screen grammar. Kurosawa was the master of good movies in my opinion though. So, what makes a movie entertaining? Bascially anything that has the main purpose of entertaining, without as much emphases on whether it is studied for years to come. Independence Day, yeah it was cheesy, but it was entertaining. Quinton Terentino (Spelling?) makes entertaining movies, although every once in a while he makes a movie that is both. Kill Bill is entertaining, not Good. See what I'm saying? If I'm completely off in this attempt to categorize, let me know. If you agree, let me know. If you'd like to give me some more negative points for reputation, please do. I may be incorrect, but it is the supposition of this weak frame that viewing film is, by its very nature, a subjective experience. What's entertaining to one person may not be entertaining to another person, and it isn't inconceivable that someone would outright detest a movie that you or I hold to be "good.” Quality isn't something that can be measured consensually with film, as everyone sees things in a slightly (or maybe even drastically) different way. Whether a movie is good, or whether it's entertaining (or for that matter, both) is up to the party watching it. My personal philosophy concerning film is, simply put, that if I love a film because it entertains me, it is good, without regards to any other aspect of the film. Example: Van Helsing. This almost surreally incompetent film is, thus far, one of my very favorite movies this year. The reason being that it's the funniest movie I've ever seen. Was it designed as a comedy? An argument can be made, but I'll go with no. Can the film be seen as bad? Yes. It generally is. Can it be seen as merely entertaining? Of course. I see it as good. Great even. A masterpiece of humor. I see this not because of any technical aspect of them film, but because it affected me personally in a VERY positive way. Now, don't misunderstand me...If it is your desire to view films as solely entertaining or good or both, that's perfectly acceptable and correct. It must be realized, though, that this categorization of film isn't correct for everyone. Everyone views film differently, so we shouldn't expect their personal perceptions of film (or a film's quality) to match our own. Those are just the thoughts of an old Rippe though. Beale out. |
:eek:
Is it... Is it really you? |
Originally Posted by Garrett
:eek:
Is it... Is it really you? |
Originally Posted by Beale the Rippe
Yes 'tis old friend. Thought I'd just drop in and leave a few comments. :D
By the way, I think you hit the nail on the head with the above post. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:15 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums