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

It literally has nothing to do with expectations. I am talking about standards of greatness. You're telling me to lower my standards, but you're using the word "expectations." Especially since we're talking about Star Wars which were in my top 10 for over a decade and I have watched them over 25 times each. How could I not expect everything I already saw 25 times? I still notice more flaws each time, and the more better movies I watch the higher my standards get raised. The more masterpieces I watch the more I learn about film and the more I notice in other films. Also reading critics and listening to great film makers and actors talk about their work gives me more insight.

I find it funny though how off the mark you are about my whole film analysis and comparisons. Like when you said, "This is exemplified by your stating that Star Wars does not qualify as a great film for not treating the concept of warfare as seriously as Come and See does." Was it a straw man, or just a missunderstanding? Star Wars doesn't qualify as a great movie because it's content is shallow, and it's technical aspects, except for special effects, are not masterwork. Come and See was an example of a movie that dealt with it's subject matter (war) extremely well and was technically impressive too. You didn't read my post very carefully did you?

Yes, when they go over their battle plan.

Poor Zotis. You can tell he doesnt wanna debate from the title of the thread, but as Al Pacino said "They keep pulling me back in!!"

You seem to be disagreeing with Iro by confirming just what he said.

Why must a movie be conceptually deep and technically impressive to be great? I believe there's a strong amount of objectivity when it comes to judging movies, but as others have said, the intent of the movie is important too.

Star Wars has no interest in compelling audiences to lament over the brutality of war, but revel in it. This is what I meant earlier when I said "personality", even the tone with which the material is presented is important.

Come and See has no interest in introducing viewers to new worlds, creatures, or concepts, but Star Wars does. It offers depth in the scope of wanderlust and power fantasy. These are entirely different measures by which a movie can and arguably should be judged. You could OBJECTIVELY say that Come and See offers thicker drama with more intellectually-stimulating elements, but on the other hand Star Wars trades on it's drama to offer other elements as well.

To that end it's really a matter of subjective preference because both movies are very different genres.

I suggest considering Star Wars as the sum of it's parts, rather than just a competing movie incidentally involving war.

__________________
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

*AHEM*

*ejects disc*

It seems Lando was offered general, Han might've been offered, but if so he turned it down. I can't find anything on Luke becoming a general for the rebels.

Han is called General in Empire. Don't think Luke ever is though.

__________________
Letterboxd

That's Return of the Jedi and he specifically rejects it.

What scene in Empire?

What does someone being a general (or not) have to do with Star Wars being great or not? Don't answer that - I've read the thread. Call me silly.

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

Silly.

When you said that I thought of two films in particular that I would consider to be beyond Star Wars in terms of spectacle, The Fifth Element, with its formidable costumes and overall design work; and Dune for similar reasons.

To be brutally honest, for me Star Wars is all about the lightsaber fights. You can't get more cinematic than a lightsaber and it's been described as a "cinematic weapon", mainly because it couldn't exist in the real world.

We see the results of violence in Star Wars but it tends to be hidden to some extent. For instance Mace Windu is only able to decapitate Jango Fett because the character wears a helmet. The target audience is very different so I think we can give it a break in being too gratuitous, though personally I was surprised at how violent and disturbing The Force Awakens was able to get.

Luke does wake up to some extent though. I think it's perhaps less obvious though as in Jedi he develops that kind of serenity that Alec Guinness displayed as Obi-Wan.

It seems to me that longevity makes a movie great. Something like Alien will, I'm sure, still be appreciated centuries on from now. They just stand up to repeat viewing because virtually everything works.

As I always say... Does the movie succeed in what it sets out to do? Does it achieve greatness within the frame of the film?

Then it's great. I don't think you can draw up such an outline, where things has to be realistic or whatever. If the movie isn't going for it then why critize it for it?

-Interesting expression of multiple intertwined ideas and states of being

-Beautiful soundtrack played in sync with visuals and in representation and accentuation of created world's mood (example "Mulholland Drive")

-Continuity and flow of a movie as a whole. If movie seeks to be realistic, it requires removal of information as to avoid over stacking plot threads for a viewer to keep in mind cohesively. In other words- an addition of mystery elements. Mystery movies themselves are best to avoid categorical realities or dimensions in case these might disrupt dreamlike flow. Overall, jumping between realities or dimensions rarely work as a positive. For example "Thor: The Dark World" wasn't good, "Sucker Punch" was nice, but more fusion between reality and fantasy would have improved it, "Inside Out" compensated with other aspects

-Tight plot can carry a movie on it's own (example "Infernal Affairs/ The Departed"), the more loose a plot is, the more it would benefit from creativity in make up, costume and production design, strange visuals or characters and other idiosyncrasies. The common thread of a movie is better be maintained on background level, but it would benefit if it isn't monotonous throughout a movie on overlaying level

-Editing of sound and visuals is not immediately noticeable but it plays tremendous role in how a movie is experienced (example "Mad Max: Fury Road")

-Directions that usually work in films favor are: thriller vibe over plain action, mystery elements over tangled exposure, romantic flavor in non romance movies. All these threads help to avoid monotony

-Pure action or romance movies tend to be bland if other genres aren't incorporated

-Action and violence is usually best sprinkled throughout and preceded by build up in form of exposition of reasons (example "Captain America: Civil War") or rising tension (example "Green Room")

generally the feel you get after you finish the movie.

Yeah, my bad.

For me personally - story or storytelling.
I think good storytelling is present in most acclaimed films - I loved Alien and I'm not a fan of sci-fi, I loved LOTR and I don't really like fantasy, I love The Shining and I'm not a fan of horror genre but all these films share a good story. I think this is why my favorite genres are crime and drama as these tend to focus on the story more than special effect or visuals

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

It is because of the motivation behind it. If it's intentionally unrealistic in a creative way then it can be praised for how creative it is, but if it's unrealistic because the writers and director don't pay attention to realism that isn't intentional or praiseworthy. You might as well say virtually every movie is great. Then greatness becomes meaningless.

Fair enough, but movies are a very personal experience for me, so I tend to have a bias. Nothing wrong with that.

For me, technologies or philosophies/ideas are unrealistic to me as long as they have not been proven. Realism in film is incorporating elements of the present, however the force and myths involving sith lords don't even have potential of being developed.
But do those girls feel strongly about Twilight because of the quality of the film or because it stars hunky vampires and has a romance? Star Wars has a striving that most people will never attempt: an attempt to create an entirely new fictional universe and write compelling stories and characters to go along with it.

__________________
Letterboxd Profile: https://letterboxd.com/GatsbyG/

I actually really respect the tone of this response. So, thank you. I regret I was a bit hasty in my responses today and I should have slept on it because I would have responded very differently.

I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach, but it definitely seems like you need more exposure. I would say watch Tarkovsky, because he is probably the greatest film maker who ever lived, and he changed the way I see where the peak of human achievement is. While Star Wars could be your greatest personal experience with cinema, it's just a big fish in a little pond. There is a whole ocean out there.

I could say the same thing to you about Star Wars that you said about Twilight, and that was actually what I was trying to get across. Do you just enjoy it because of the action, space ships, and lightsabers? Because you said nothing about it's acting, cinematography, script, and you admitted it's highly lacking in plausibility, even though you don't see that as a flaw (and I can't understand why).

Why does the fact the a movie isn't trying to be plausible (and I'm not actually talking about realism according to your definition) not count against it? If a movie is trying to acomplish something unimpressive (by standards set by people like Tarkovsky, not by Hollywood standards) how can it be a mark of greatness if they succeed?

Only if you condemn any suspension of disbelief. The problem with movies is you know they're just movies. You need to suspend your disbelief to believe an actor is someone other than they appear to be already so it's not unreasonable to take some liberties.

A "standard for greatness" IS pretty meaningless because even if we go by MovieMeditation's measure then any movie, SUCCESSFUL IN IT'S INTENT, can be called "great".

That excuses a lot of movies that would otherwise be fairly objectionable like Empire (not Star Wars Empire, Empire Empire).

I'm trying to gain perspective. A standard for greatness is extremely important to me, and I want to learn more about it. There isn't much point in trying to have that conversation with people who are not willing to consider that perspective but insist their own perspective. So instead I guess I'll try to understand their perspective by asking questions. I really do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of a movie accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish as a be-all end-all reason for greatness that completely ignores how well what the movie does is done. If a movie has conventional cinematography and that's what it is trying to have, it could be coming out of a lack of creativity, laziness, the film makers not considering it but merely going with the formula they've learned, or pressure from the industry to make the movie a certain way. Regardless of that motivation there will still be a degree of how well this is done. And I can't see someone doing that conventional cinematography as well as it can be done coming even remotely close to how difficult, unique, and awe inspiring the cinematography that an artistic genius comes up with. You may as well be trying to tell me that your X-Men comic book is greater than the Sistine Chapel. At least, that's the way I see it.

I can't abide these vague defensive attempts at justifying mediocrity from people who insist it's great, but have not exposed themselves to "the greats."