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.
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.