Well, sure, I define "potential." I also define good acting and good effects and any other number of things used to judge a film. That can't be avoided.
I'm not going to argue that people don't judge movies for silly or emotional reasons. They absolutely do, all the time, and it can be pretty annoying to someone who tries to take a more analytical approach. But technically speaking, I think it's reasonable to judge a film a bit more harshly because it had a great idea, and didn't live up to it.
I also wonder if the debate really is about comparing one film to another. Wasn't Vicky just talking about being disappointed in a single movie? I could be wrong, but I think you introduced the idea of comparison. I don't know if this even matters, but I think you guys might be talking about slightly different things.
From the thread " how do you compare movies.
Reasonable expectation plays a role for me.
its a weighted system.
For example:
I expect more from Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe than what Robin Hood was.
The debate was between myself and Dexter. MissVicky then enters the debate with "just looked to see what you were talking about" you can actually see this at the start of this thread. If she checked the origins of the disagreement and missed the core point of the discussion, thats her problem, this debate is about comparing movies to other movies and thats exactly why I'm correct. At-least that people are being 'unfair'.
A movies is rated from 00:00:00 to 01:30:00 (for example) in my opinion. Failed expectations and unfulfilled potential can leave a bitter taste in the mouth of any movie goer, especially if you feel strongly about the art, but does not affect the quality of the feature. That is the content captured on the 35mm film stock.
Like I keep saying, commercialisation is 90% of the reason we become hopeful. When I saw the trailer for avp 7 years ago now, I though it looked awesome. The movie sucked, because the feature sucked, my disappointment was just something I had to deal with personally as I exited the cinema.
My original argument remains, and you can see this if you go back to the original thread 'how do you compare movies' and then go to the Ridley scott thread for my response (because bizarrely that where Dexter decided to confront me about why I gave him negative rep for his claim, which led to me explaining).
Originally Posted by TNBT
I would never involve commercialisation with my overall enjoyment of a feature, especially since some films don't have hollywood backing their cause or any sort of commercialisation atoll. Its just not a good variable to consider in my opinion as its not compatible with all films, its like when I raised my eyebrow at the guy that said action and stunts. If your going to compare different movies, presumably you need to establish global variables to do so.
It's worth noting how respectful this debate was until someone flew off the handle about -1 rep.