So...WHAT are movies supposed to be?

The Budget for Tarnation was just over 200 dollars.


And it's not like that wasn't even seen. It made over a million dollars


Also, John Waters made films long before digital. Film cost lots of money. With digital technology movie making can be insanely cheap to the comparisons of John Waters' budgets.

Better question would be - is there an audience for such a movie? And if anybody gets to see it of their own free will, then that's a success.

And without those 200 dollar films he wouldn't have done any of the other things. It's a perfect example of what I'm trying to get across.

Off the top of my head, the cheapest budget for a film I can think of that actually used film, was Last House on Dead End Street. $3000.

Flaming Creatures: $300

It definitely got him started, kinda like Spielberg and his camera, but it was also just a first step on the way to something bigger. I can't imagine anybody today, in a theater, actually watching Multiple Maniacs unless it was a targeted festival event for groupies and historians.

Multiple Maniacs has got a Criterion Release. If that doesn't legitimize a low budget film, I don't know what does.


Also, what's with the qualifiying of audience members. Groupies and historians are also people who want to see movies as well. The asses they put in seats also count. Also, it's John Waters. He's a huge draw. His films are a part of the American film vernacular. He's a cultural institution. And this includes his early films

It feels like basically every one of your replies has either tried to redirect the conversation away from that, or outright suggested it would be a useless/bad parameter for discussion. I don't know if that means you've literally argued we "can't bang on about such notions," but I'd say that's functionally the case. "I didn't say you couldn't talk about that really bad and pointless thing you want to talk about, I just like to tell people it's bad and pointless whenever they try to" feels a little disingenuous.

Whoa, hold up, you just made like three leaps of logic in one half-sentence here:

1. There's lots of daylight between "doesn't make enough to become a franchise" (or whatever) and "holds the audience in contempt."
2. Financial success does not map perfectly (or even mostly?) on to respect for the audience. Tons of people think they're making crowd-pleasers that fail to please crowds, and people sometimes make weird, idiosyncratic movies that happen to catch on.
3. You're using "the audience" as a synonym for "a sufficiently-sized audience to justify large investments in other similar movies."

Basically, these arguments seem to require that every film either be a crowd-pleasing blockbuster or up-its-own-butt-arthouse-nonsense. As if there weren't a massive number of mid-budget films that may or may not please people (but plausibly might!), or may please a moderate number of people. Or please a smaller number of people, but on a deeper level.

That's another part of the problem here: by talking only about money, you flatten enjoyment levels. You assume, without having argued correspondingly, that "will pay $10 to see" is not only the most important boundary, but the only one we should care about. It's Tomatometer logic: a 5.1 is the same as a perfect 10, because they're both past that minimum threshold. This movie that changed my life and helped me reconnect with my grandfather is the same as this movie some 15-year-old said was "kinda cool I guess" and then never thought about again.

Whether or not something is a failure depends on what it's trying to achieve. If someone makes something weird and idiosyncratic that has a major impact on some modest number of similarly weird and idiosyncratic people, then it isn't a failure. Surely you've experienced this? Surely you've found some film, that was not especially well-known, that you vibed with in some way that most people wouldn't. Such films can, in fact, have millions of fans. But somehow, in your artistic calculus, this doesn't exist or doesn't count for anything. "Oh, 300,000 people had a profound emotional experience from your film? Worthless. Talk to me when you make something 50,000,000 find moderately amusing."

It's pretty meaningless to throw around words like "failure" when they all need the parenthetical of "(according to the standard I have chosen for them for the purposes of this argument, which may or may not mirror their goals or desires at all)."

This is a sufficiently broad parameter for me. Only problem is all the stuff I know you're smuggling into "people." For example, apparently the plural noun "people" requires it encompass, like, 10 million people? And anything less than that is just for the director?

I'd like to propose an exercise. When you disagree with this post, I'd like you to imagine a film that cost, like, $40 million, and has a significant-but-not-mainstream fan base. Imagine hundreds of thousands or millions of people who really like it, but it doesn't lend itself to any sequels or cinematic universes or anything. Maybe initial box office is kind of bad, but it gains a following over the years. It's just a good little film that a bunch of people really loved.

To be a substantive disagreement, I think your response needs to apply to that hypothetical, and not just the hypothetical of some gallery installation that's nothing but a loop of eggs hatching and clouds moving for precisely 23.46 hours each day.

Well said. The Northman and The Green Knight are recent examples of these types of film.

Didn't both Blade Runners initially make big losses in their first month? People seem to appreciate those.

The title of this thread would've been more defined if it said:
So...WHAT are movies supposed to be to you?
as opposed to a one size fits all:
So...WHAT are movies supposed to be?
That title is more of a hot button inviting arguing. See I don't get why people argue about personal taste & personal views. Isn't it better just to discuss and learn why people feel they way they do. I know I find that more rewarding.

Conversing with you is sometimes like playing ping pong by mail correspondence. You will have to forgive me if replies here are not consistent with the line-by-line, post-by-post that led here. It's been a minute.
You can hardly convict a man for over your feeling.
And I would say that I have functionally argued for what I have literally said.

You sound a bit like a cop who thinks he's found his crook, but can't quite figure out the crime. We're into feelings and functions and so on.

Allow me to make myself clear.

Consideration 1. A "movie" a complicated accomplishment that is the result of mixed-motives and serves multiple functions. It is not just one thing. I have argued how this is the case in terms of the financial (profit) and the artistic (collaborative) interests/aspects of filmmaking. Consequently, the evaluation of what "movies are supposed to be" involves multiple standards.

Consideration 2. The idea of operating from purely aesthetic standards has been hollowed out by a thoroughgoing aesthetic relativism (a creed which has been mentioned and endorsed by other posters in this thread) which has been with us for about as long as the flickering image has. We have scant resources for evaluations under this creed. Our resources are thin, at best, and justifications we have seen offered in this thread have been, predictably, thin. Consider your own comment that,


This statement accords with our modern creed that art need not answer to any standard outside of itself (art for art's sake!), but if there is no external standard of what a film is "supposed to do," then there is no answer to the question. A movie should do what a person (or persons) is trying to do, however, a person (or persons) might try to achieve anything they please(!!!). Your off-hand comment does not just cash-out for relativistic standards of some wider community, but rather plunges us headlong into subjectivism. If a film was tying to achieve massive financial losses, critical hatred, and apathy from the paying public, then we must hold that the film that held this standard for itself is a success! If we are to discuss what a movie is supposed to be then we need an external criterion of correctness. Other posters in this thread have recognized this and have vaguely gestured at background standards that cannot be directly summoned for inspection. We have been told that filmic standards resist simple "generalization." However, this means that they're not really at the ready for application. We cannot objectively say what movies are supposed to be, because we cannot directly refer to the standards which they are supposed to meet. They're a sort of ghost in the machine, something which which is allegedly there in the background, but which we cannot pin down to inhabiting any space. So, we have subjectivism and divine mysteries--our resources here are thin.

The two considerations I raise suggest that a top-down approach to the question will not work well. We no longer believe in the starry heavens in which we would need to be perched in order to look down and make such judgments. The constellations which offer basis of judgment are now thought to be fictions. They are features, or so it is said, which we have imposed on the night sky, not elements within it. Plato has been directed to clear out his desk of ideal forms and take them in a cardboard box out of the building.

I have proposed working from the ground up. Start in the sublunary realm where mere mortals are trying to make a buck by making people smile and see where that leads. What constraints do we find? What patterns emerge? At the very least, starting with our feet planted firmly on the ground provides us with parameters, bookends to keep us from sliding too far into idiosyncratic discussions of standards which (according to the paradigm of our age) are not even really "there." Adding in other considerations makes our discussion more rational, because we may appeal to more objective criteria. We can build our way up.

Start simply. Start cautiously.

Can we bootstrap our way back into the heavens? Maybe? Maybe not. Even if we cannot, however, we can find objective criteria to answer part of the question (e.g., profitability and pleasure). The base level of prudential considerations is, at least, a level.

But we may climb higher.

In terms of local (i.e., not global, immutable, timeless) standards, we can work from mutual commitments within communities and have rational discussions relative to intersubjective standards. We will have to hash out what counts as a community and what the standards are (e.g., must the standards be explicit and exceptionless?), but this can be done.

And we might climb higher still.

Human universals, grounded in our "form of life" remove Plato's forms from the heavens and locate them inside of us. Movies are made for humans, so what do humans want? Are there any patterns we can find which suggest patterns/standards? Prick us do we not bleed? Tickle us do we not laugh. And thus, we might climb upward to sit on a mountain peak which, although not quite in the starry heavens, stands over the contingencies of the valleys and plains.

I am trying to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle. You are objecting that this doesn't feel right, but therapy can sometimes "feel" wrong.

We must either come up with a defense of objective aesthetic standards and repudiate the modern creed of thoroughgoing relativism OR we must take the approach I have suggested here. Seeing as how I have been "refuted" on the basis of the assumptions of the modern creed, it appears we're not ready for that. I propose that the latter is our best bet, at least until we find our way back into the starry heavens.

As for the rest, I will leave off here for now as you're taking issue with your impression of what I said, rather than what I said.

You seem to have seen the word "feelings" and latched onto it, at the expense of everything else. I can appreciate that perhaps you've run into people who try to persecute you for the vibe they get off you, but I'm not doing that (and won't). There were/are a lot of other direct and salient points/questions after that, though.

I say "feeling" in hopes that you won't make me jump through any hoops to prove something that I think is fairly obvious, because it's my experience that people can deflect and delay for a really long time by doing that. They can "win" disagreements through sheer attrition by demanding even benign claims be extensively cited. At the same time, I won't deny that asking for proof of a claim is a reasonable thing, at least in a vacuum. So here's the deal: you can demand I provide evidence of this, but I want a preemptive commitment to acknowledgement and withdrawal of any relevant arguments if and when I do it. I can't be given homework just to end up back at the neutral starting point, having parried an effortless demand for rigor. Sound fair?

For context, so you know what you're getting into, my claim is simply that you've argued with nearly everyone who's proposed some standard other than profitability, and that shooting down every alternative argument is akin to saying we can't/shouldn't talk about, which makes the whole "go ahead and talk about it if you want!" thing disingenuous. Saying this isn't really stopping people is like saying "oh, you're ALLOWED to eat all the candy you want before dinner, I'm just going to punish you every time you do."

That there is no objective answer to some questions is simply a fact, and one somebody has to be comfortable with if they're going to discuss art. And since you've joined a forum dedicated to one such art, I take it for granted you do want to do that. It would be a silly thing, indeed, to join a forum for art discussion and then spend a lot of time there talking about how pointless it is to do so. Or to insist on idiosyncratic material standards in order to do so.

You've also made a considerable leap in logic by suggesting that, if we do not subscribe to your claim that "it must be profitable," we are necessarily saying that "art need not answer to any standard outside of itself." Lots of people create frameworks to help us discuss art, and I think that's fine. The problem is with confusing that standard for some kind of metaphysical truth, or inevitability, as opposed to the scaffolding we use to build discussions with. The problem is refusing to accept the inherently fuzzy nature of art and instead trying to shove it into a science-shaped box.

Also...where is the evidence that your standard creates discussion? So far all the discussion is about whether it's a good or bad standard. I strongly suspect, in fact, that if everyone in this thread said "yup, you're right, profitability is the right framing," the thread would pretty much immediately peter out. On the other hand, we have tons of thriving discussions all over this forum that somehow manage to be interesting and thoughtful and illuminating without this standard.

At what point do we leave the realm of theory and actually start looking at real-world results? Because they seem pretty definitive to me, a dude who's been running a movie forum for literally 60% of his life.

If this is really the core of your position, I'd think you'd show a little more interest in what those words actually mean. If it's all about "what humans want?" then our definition of those last two words are pretty important, eh? And yet you've (without really acknowledging it) decided "humans" means "humans on the scale of millions" and "want" means "is willing to pay a few dollars to see." It completely eradicates any human interaction that takes place on small-or-moderate-sized-scales (even though that's the overwhelming majority of human interaction, and interaction with art) and it treats human pleasure as if it were a coin that can fall only on the sides of "want" and "do not want." Every 49 is really a 0 and every 51 is really a 100. These are not serious definitions, and they do not come close to encompassing human desire. They don't even try.

I made these exact points (some of them more than once!) in the previous post, by the way.

No I'm not. I'm objecting because of the reasons above, and a few others. I was perfectly clear on this.

I'll borrow your trial framing above and note that we're in the middle of the trial. We're into cross-examination. But for some reason opposing counsel just launched into their opening statement again. Permission to treat as hostile?

What can I say against this? If I contest the charge, I am obstinately denying the obvious and unfairly demanding that prove your accusations. Or I can just accept what you take to be obvious. Heads you win. Tails I lose.

And all of this after quite a few hoops that you've laid out for me to jump through.

"When you disagree with this post..."

"To be a substantive disagreement..."
There are all sorts of dialectical abuses. There are abusive demands for proof. There are also abusive dodges (e.g., shifting presumption to the other side). Since you are purporting to tell me what I am really saying, I think you do have a burden of proof here. I made my meaning clear in my last post, so I think it would be more productive to discuss the position I have clarified rather than the position that you have inferred as a sort of speech-act or overall function of the argument.
Not really, no. You are both referee and player here. As a moderator, you cannot really afford to lose an argument refereeing meaning and function of a post as this spills into your boundary work as a referee (e.g., authority, legitimacy, consistency).

You are increasingly making legalistic demands about what I will agree to do once you "do the work" to refute me, as if the refutation is a foregone conclusion and the only thing that isn't is whether I submit, and as if manning your side of the argument is "homework."

What would be fair, I think, is to allow me to make my meaning clear. Read my last post. My position, function, and purpose are there. If you take issue with that, then we might have an interesting discussion. I have thrown three paths for the fly to escape the fly-bottle in my last post. That's my piece.

As for arguing a traffic ticket in a court where you're the judge, no. Just tell me what the fine is and I'll pay it. I'm not going to go line-by-line with you, only for you to get frustrated when you find a rejoinder to be proof of bad will, strategic maneuvering, denying the obvious, etc. Your mind is already made up.

Skinamarink was made for around $15,000 and in a limited release in less then 1 month has grossed over 2 million. Now, that may not seem like much, but 2 million gross is actually impressive for its shoestring budget and shows that yes….there is an audience for these kind of films.

Im genuinely interested in how much Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey makes this coming week, which is supposedly it’s only week of release in this country (The US). My brother and I are going to see it this Saturday.

Geez Corax don't tell me that you finally got enough attention and now don't want it Maybe try rethinking your initial posting methods, something that's less confrontational might be more rewarding to you.

I merely asserted that whatever else a film should do, it should make money and should entertain. It is this very proposition that some people found offensive, because this is (to some minds) a "base" consideration of art. It is good, however, for discussion do be provocative and confrontational in this sense (e.g., it challenges us to think).



If you find some particular flaw in my "initial method of posting" feel free to share it. However, confronting questions with candidate ideas is the purpose of conversation.

A visual experience that touches a part of us, telling a story or theme in its own way.

I haven't kept up with latest movie news since the 1990s, maybe a little in the early Aughts. I just wait a few years then browse titles to see what I might like to rent/stream. I just hope this latest Winnie has plenty of masked mixed-race transgenders who stand with Ukraine and take a knee for BLM and are octuple-vaxxed to keep us all safe.

not boring

I'm always interested in casual and friendly convo, but not so much in continuous debating. I've had many good post with you so take anything I say as friendly tips.We'll have to disagree, as I've gotten older I find provocative post and confrontation not to my liking. I find it tiring. These days I try to avoid that. I wish this thread's discussion could've been less about 'one upmanship' and more about people just posting their thoughts sans any ego attachments. To be fair I'm talking in generalities, I'm not referring just to you or even just this thread.

Some topics for me are bit like catnip. Talking about the value and purpose of art is kind of like climbing Mt. Everest as far as aesthetic discussion goes. We're in the double-bind of loving art and not wanting to restrain it with brittle and arbitrary standards, but then find ourselves unable to justify our love having just deprived ourselves of critical standards. This is arguably the core problem facing serious critical discussions of art. How do we create a large space for art to roam, but not also slide into subjectivism?



You're right about the ego-attachment thing. It's very hard to have a critical discussion without it devolving into face-saving posturing. At the same time, I find that my mind does change through conversation and my own positions and elaborated and clarified through the process. Intense critical discussion can result in intense critical thought. All of the sudden you realize that you're taking responsibility for a point of view revealing that you're an "X" person, a self-discovery. And I must admit that I also love the cut-and-thrust of argument and that I find that it is helpful in keeping one intellectually nimble. There's still a place for it, at least for me, however, I agree that this isn't the end-all, be-all of conversation.



I think Yoda does a pretty good job of keeping us in line and I find that I am not looking for endless line-by-line disputation (for the sake of disputation) anymore. I dunno, I think that the trick is probably to know with whom you can have a serious critical discussion without things getting out of hand and to perhaps(?) to have a better process of engaging in a persuasion dialogue to prevent it from tilting into eristic. Dan Dennett champions Anatol Rapoport's rules, however, it was a bitter irony to see those rules fail him in his dispute with Sam Harris over his book on free will. Rules will not save us, it seems, so we need more charitable attitudes and goodwill. And perhaps sometimes we need to be advised by our fellow travelers to tap the breaks. Consequently, I suppose I owe you a debt of thanks for advice.