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

Your proverb doesn't
seem to consider the fact
that poets can suck.

__________________
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

banality, does this metaphor of yours extend to bad poets as well?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Tardigrades (water bears) can survive the rigours of space. They're extremophiles and can withstand temperatures and pressures that would kill most living things instantly.



Cute little bugger, isn't he?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150...imals-on-earth

__________________
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Beautiful IMO.

I don't think that's true, but surely the Tarrasque could survive outer space.

I don't think Tarrasque could survive anywhere except in your imagination!

PFT. Trample's nice, but if I'm spending 10 mana, gotta go Progenitus.

kreativity

That's not a hydra!

This is a hydra!

Oh, you.

Suspension of disbelief always happens in any type of fiction, whether it includes elements of fantasy/science fiction or not because you have to believe that "fiction is real" to enjoy a story, for example, that in a movie, actors acting are actually "living" in the movie.

But I agree that when one does a fictional universe, to have consistent fictional world building is very important to maintain suspense of disbelief which is a problem movies set in a contemporary setting do not have to deal with. This creates an additional layer of problems that a storyteller must solve.

Good writing and acting is meaningful content. The examples you gave are both examples of a combination of technical excellence and content, although Taxi Driver to a lesser extent in my opinion.

Comedies can be great too, I don't see why technicality, content and entertainment have to be separate? I don't think it does. Plus, I never said they are the only qualities needed, just the most important or the most obvious depending on how you view it.

But hey, great movies are subjective and what you like in them is up to you. I'm not here to tell you what to like.

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

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

Whoawhoawhoawhoa, there's nothing meaningful about good acting or writing.

That would mean any actor worth their salt would automatically ascribe this nebulously valuable "meaningfulness" to practically anything they tried at. I think Ralph Fiennes has done some great work, but let's not pretend that everything he's done a good job in automatically qualifies for "greatness". And even then, to what degree does "good acting" qualify? You could have a relatively unimpressive main cast, but excellent supporting actors. Where's the ratio? How much "good acting" is good enough?


Even if we were to accept that these things automatically qualify as "meaningful", then what makes that assessment any more defensible than someone who says action scenes are meaningful? You can have good action mean nothing just like you can have good acting mean nothing, but if we're assuming they mean SOMETHING, then suddenly this argument becomes far less tangible when I can say practically anything related to good filmmaking equates to "meaningful content".

You just made the term "meaningful content" meaningless.

Not if we're asserting purely objective standards for "greatness".

I would include acting in the technical side. But in order for a movie to have excellent acting across the board good directing is essential. A good director pushes their actors to excell and gets decent performances even out of talentless extras.

Good writing I think is a little bit of both techique and content. What they are writing about is content, and how well they write about it is technique. What they are writing about has to have depth and the dialogue must be meaningful, and not just filler to get to the part where people start dying or falling in love.

To the extent of disbelieving that it isn't real isn't something I find myself doing in a movie anymore than when I'm enjoying a good painting. I know I'm watching a movie and I don't try to believe it's actually real. I look at what is happening during a good movie and think, "they're doing that really well," or I look at a bad movie and think, "do they expect me to be impressed with this?"

The best movies I have seen made me think, "I didn't even know it was physically possible to achieve what they just did."

When the Tauntaun died I thought to myself, "Did they even research hypothermia?"

I get the feeling you have trouble getting immersed in movies, Zotis.

Whoa whoa whoa Omni, I'm the one doing the reflection, I decide what falls under the category of poetry and not poetry, you wanna explore those parameters we can do that. But without it, the vocabulary of film would be too limited to put asses in seats.

That's exactly the problem.

What an utterly perplexing claim. No less than poetry is what compels people to see such cultural masterworks as... the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie.

I have plenty of perplexing claims and they're all important so listen up. I'm talking about the vocabulary. Orson Welles said it before and I'll verify his testimony. If the cinema wasn't fashioned by poets it'd still be no more than a mechanical curiosity occasionally on view to clean house. The cameras more than a registering apparatus; it's a means by which we receive messages from the other world. It's the beginning of magic. Hope you killas understand me.