Good VS Entertaining

Tools    





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.
__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska



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.
Um, I'm glad you've been keeping track of my progress, but you're servely mistaken. I'm not a Film Buff, and I'm not a Fan Boy. I don't like seeing movies in a theater because of the ridiculous amount of money they charge you. I will see it if it has a good sound design, mainly because I can't afford to have my room THX certified. I've never called myself a Film Buff either. And yes, in my opinion, Space Odyssey: 2001 is very boring, I've never actually sat through the whole thing and I've rented it atleast 5 times. Same with Deer Hunter, I think it's boring. If you understood what I was saying in my first post to this thread, maybe I worded' it wrong, you'd see that I'm trying to make a distinction between a movie being Good and a movie being Entertaining. Space Odyessey and Deer Hunter were Good, not Entertaining. Something with a troll might just be Entertaining.



Originally Posted by PimpDaShizzle
Space Odyessey and Deer Hunter were Good, not Entertaining.
That's certainly open for interpretation. 2001: A Space Odyssey is very entertaining to me, but I’m watching it in a way that is akin to watching a painter paint. As for other movies like I, Robot, I find them incredibly dull…maybe because I’ve turned into a movie snob, but I don’t think so. A lot of flash means zilch to me anymore. I want great acting, compelling stories (regardless if it consists of nothing but dialogue), and big hooters everywhere. Gimee those and I’m a happy man…especially regarding the hooter thing.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



My life isn't written very well.
Well then Bri' Showgirls should fit your ticket in all areas !
__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?



Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
and big hooters everywhere. Gimee those and I’m a happy man…especially regarding the hooter thing.
It was with that frame of mind that I recently decided to rent Brabusters on PPV. The info on the movie was compelling but I quickly realized that big hooters everywhere is not enough on its own. It cut into each new scene half way through, when the actresses, who all looked like pornstars from the 70s making comebacks after a few too many cruises, were already busted out of their bras. For the finale (we only made it this far for the assumption that they would pay more than $5 for one of their actresses) it consisted of a 200 pound indian woman rubbing her hooters with whipcream. Still the most traumatic hour and a half of my life, and my first and last foray into the PPV porn market.



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!!!



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!!!!



Originally Posted by r3port3r66
PPV porn? That's what the internet's for!
Well, of course that is what the internet is for. But its kind of hard to invite a couple friends over for a.... woops, Delete delete!!!!!!!

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



My life isn't written very well.
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.
I pretty much agree with that. I've had this argument many times with people and I have to say that I too usually use Kubrick as the best example. That guy made technecally wonderful films... That had no soul at all. Pretty pictures that have no heart, almost a painting by numbers of moviemaking. (OK, so that may be a little harsh but I agree with the sentiment)


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.



Wanna Date? Got Any Money?
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.
__________________
"Kiri Kiri Kiri"



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.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
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.
And what, my good sir, is the dividing line by which all movies are based? At what point does a film become technically perfect, and what point does a film entertain? Do films affect every viewer in the same way?

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.
__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale





Is it... Is it really you?



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
Originally Posted by Garrett


Is it... Is it really you?
Yes 'tis old friend. Thought I'd just drop in and leave a few comments.



Originally Posted by Beale the Rippe
Yes 'tis old friend. Thought I'd just drop in and leave a few comments.
Ah, I see. Stay a while.

By the way, I think you hit the nail on the head with the above post.