Good VS Entertaining

Beale is back!!!!! You should come around more often man.

__________________

Garret - Thanks for the rep. It was well put, completely relevant, and most of all creative.

Beale the Rippe - You're absolutely correct. Everyone's take on a movie is going to be different and, everyone also watches movies with a differnt frame of mind (subjective, objective, etc).

All I'm saying, or suggesting, is that when people make a final judgement after watching a movie, the director's intent should be considered. Was the director just making a movie for everyone? Or, was the director going for something new, who's content (being the story) wasn't as important, but rather focused on the technical aspect of the movie.

With that being a key difference, in my opinion, I think it's very important when making a critical remark about the a movie. And like you pointed out, someone's judgment as to whether or not it was "Good" (being a technical marvel) or "Entertaining" (being eye candy) is going to be different, but it is a good indicator as to where a film was trying to go. In the end, it's just a way to better explain your opinion of a movie.

sar·casm "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would divide movies into 'good' and 'entertaining' - same difference.

Do you mean 'good' as a film that critics tell you to like - and you don't?

Thus you create a little catagory in your head of movies that you can drop into conversation, discuss their merits (which you've read) and escape with reputation intact, without actually liking them.

Pseud's corner in otherwords.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying (it's past midnight and I've had a long day) but for me, and I imagine many, good = entertaining and bad = snoresville.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I suck at explaining things in forums that would best be explained through discussion.

A good movie is something like a classic. Something that will be refferenced for it's technical merit. Examples of movies I would consider good, but not entertaining (in my opinion); 2001: A Space Odyssey, Deer Hunter, Casablanca, Battleship Potemkin, etc, etc.

A entertaining movie is something that is entertaining, a guilty pleasure, something that wasn't concerned with the movie as an art form. I would use movies like; Demolition Man, Desperado, Matrix 2 & 3, Dead Alive, etc, etc as examples.

Those movies listed are very different, in my opinion. But, a movie can be both good and entertaining, just as a movie can be entertaining but not good, and vise-versa. Movies that are both good and entertaining; JKF, Mystic River, The Shining, Seven Samauri, Empire of the Sun, etc, etc.

With all that said. A movie that's able to use film in a creative supportive way (good) while still being something the average movie goer can enjoy (entertaining) would be a all around good movie.

About critics tellign me what to like: I'm well aware of what makes a good movie. And I'm well aware of why certain critics hail certain movies. I could careless of what a critic thinks. Many think Barry Lyndon is entertaining. While, in my opinion, the majority of his shots were set up well as far as composition, but his choice of what lens to use was poor. You could see the barrel distortion in the surrouding buildings and guns in more than a few shots. Barry Lyndon was good (for the most part), not entertaining.

The average movie goer?

I take it by that you mean 'Tom Cruise fans'

I'll try and simplify - some people like Toyotas because they don't break down, some people like Alfa Romeos because they have a percieved notion of 'soul'. You can have soulful Toyotas and reliable Alfas - but not very often...... Am I close?

I like Kubrick thus his films (in the main) entertain me - an exception being Barry Lyndon, and no matter how much technical work and creativity Kubrick put into it I'll never see it as good.

Because it didn't entertain me

Either way, it's just opinion

Maybe by 'good' you mean 'worthy'?

A movie isn't good if it doesn't entertain me... and that's how I feel about things.

I know what it is. Why it's so clear to me and messed up to others. When someone calls a movie "good," they mean all around. I was using the word good in the wrong way.

So, I would like to change my opening statement. A movie could be judged by saying either, Good (all around kick ass) or Bad (all around suck ass).

Besides the all around judgment, a remark regarding whether the movie fulfilled the director's intent. Something along the lines of Good Job (you really used film as a medium to express yourself / I've never seen that in a film before / really supportive style / etc) or You Suck (why in the hell did you do that during that / that was pointless / needs some work / etc).

I'll use these as an example. I would break em' down like this.

Predator
All Around: Good
Technical: You Suck

Barry Lyndon
All Around: Bad
Technical: Good Job

The Shining
All Around: Good
Technical: Good Job

Dare Devil
All Around: Bad
Technical: You Suck

Does that make sense? I think the Good Job / You Suck needs better names. And those remarks toward those movies are only my opinion.

What you're saying is that you appreciate the craft and intention that went into some movies but they just don't 'do it' for you......

You and the rest of the world then.

But if it didn't 'do it' for you then how can it have been a good job?

I guess it's personal, the way I look at a film. I can appreciate a film that's boring as hell if it's doing something new, I'll even say it was good. I can also appreciate a film that's pure entertainment, that isn't anything new and may even be cliche. My point is, is that the difference is crucial, in my opinion.
Filmmaking is an art, and just as art can be exploited for advertisement pruposes, film can be exploited to earn money for production companies. A peice of art not understood by the public has the potential to be labeled as crap, while art critics and the educated crowd understands its purpose. A movie done for a reason (the technical nonsense I speak of) needs to be pointed out and recognized for being what it is and shouldn't be judged by the same standards entertaining films are held to. They're completely different.

MADD Magazine
Technique: Crap
Entertainment: Good

[just as]

Starship Troopers
Technique: Crap
Entertainment: Good

Both of these things didn't plan to make serious contributions to their medium, but used the medium to entertain.

The artists of MAD Magazine are really talented actually, it's a high-quality magazine.

I know, it was just an example. They've got a style all their own that's been immitated by many. You could replace MADD MAgazine with something like Britney Spears. You see what I'm trying to say though, right?

I don't think many movies are made purely from a technical standpoint, the same can be said about other art forms - film is a populist art form thesedays while, say, sculpture isn't. Sculpture has therefore a greater potential to be misunderstood/ignored by the mythical 'public' of which you speak.

People don't need signposts telling them what is admirable, they either 'get it' or they don't.

.....and move on.

You're confusing fact with opinion - You thought a film was trying something new and you found it entertaining/not entertaining.

As I said before, you and the rest of the world, mate.

My opinions are my own. Just like a painting, films can be hated or loved depending on who's doing the judging. Can you agree that there is a huge difference between something that aims to ENTERTAIN and something that aims to be INGENIUS?

If you can agree to that, wouldn't it makes sense to acknowledge the difference and place them in different categories?

I wouldn't expect a Hemingway short and a episode of the Rug Rats to be held to the same standard. I appreciate art which knowingly tries to please while not trying to be innovative and groundbreaking. Although, if a film does choose to take the "new" route and their content isn't very exciting but their form is good, I can respect that and wouldn't label it as bad.

Well, I've been telling you for the last 4 posts.........

okay.

I think I know what your getting at with this topic.

A film like Scarface, is a good example of this.

21,752 votes on IMDb give this a rating of 7.8 out of 10.

I believe they are confusing entertaining and good.

Hell I watch it too.

I think it's hilarious, it's a great 'guy' movie.

Over forty people are killed, they say phuck over 200 times, chainsaws, cocaine, grenade launchers, over-the-top acting.

What else could you ask for?

But there's no way I'm taking this film seriously.


P.S. PimpDaShizzle, I see your pissing a lot of people off on this forum.

Please don't go anywhere, we need a forum bad guy.

Keep up the bad work.

See people? It's not that hard to understand.

I'll tell you what is though, these people that disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Just spread the word - the next time someone is talkin' movies and claims both Scarface and Citizen Kane to be good, slap em' in their grill and reffer to this thread.

your definately right....well all except for the slap in the grill, it's a bit hard through the computer but I'll give it a go. Um yeah I think for you to take a movie seriously you have to like what the director is trying to do; if the director wants you to cry at a certain time, but you hate when directors do that, then this may invariably make you dismiss this part of the movie as stupid. It's all about how you want to feel; excited, scared, relaxed, sad, optimistic or even angry. If a movie makes you feel how you want to feel, then you can't help but love it.

__________________
Concert Tab!! MOFO poetry Been Dreaming Lately?