Since when does quality filmmaking not include popcorn movies? (1 Viewer)

[Matthew_Millheiser]

Methinks we are all debating on different levels here... Has anyone come into this conversation and asserted that "popcorn movies" shouldn't be well made, well scripted, and well acted? Such an aspersion is something that we all would agree upon!

No one is also saying that film shouldn't be debated thoroughly and intelligently beyond the realm of "it sucked" or "it kicked ass!", either. And I've never dropped a cake, so don't throw that argument at me.

 

[SteveGon]

...guess that's why I've only seen 6 films in the theater so far this year...

That beats me: saw X2 (enjoyed it very much), The Matrix Reloaded (a bit too ponderous), and Hulk (flaws outweighed good points).

 

[RobertR]

well scripted, and well acted?

Well, I do get the impression that such niceties are considered irrelevant....

 

[Mike Broadman]

Example: My girlfriend's favorite musical is The Sound of Music. I personally believe that Robert Wise did a much superior job with West Side Story, as it has a stronger storyline, better songs, more imaginative cinematography, and the collaborative efforts of Jerome Robbins, Stephen Sondheim, Leonard Bernstein, and Ernest Lehman elevate WSS to near sainthood, whereas TSOM is tripe in comparison. She grew up watching TSOM several times yearly, singing the songs in chorus and religiously memorizing the dialog. Comparitively, she doesn't know as much about film and film history as I do, and doesn't particularly care for WSS. Even as I argue every point with her, she simply pronounces that she likes TSOM better.

This is a great example. I don't think anyone would say your girlfriend is "wrong" for preferring TSOM. More importantly on her side, she can explain why she likes it, and much has to do with reasons outside the realm of cinema- specifically, the role the film played in her life.

Another related example- I don't like West Side Story, but I do acknowledge that it was well-directed, wonderfully choreographed, and very well-made. I just don't like it because I don't like musicals at all.

But if I said, "West Side Story sucks," wouldn't that be an ignorant and- dare I say- "wrong" opinion?

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

But if I said, "West Side Story sucks," wouldn't that be an ignorant and- dare I say- "wrong" opinion?

Nope.

As long as you've seen the movie, that is.

I'd ask you to elaborate, of course, and argue the hell out of it , but in essence if you think it "sucks", that's your opinion and I respect it.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Opinion is just that: one's personal feelings, emotional responses, gut-level reactions, etc..

In my view, what you describe is something like a first impression, not a well-thought out opinion that folks here seem to be looking for (certainly I am). If you choose to stop thinking about movies at stage 1, initial gut reaction, that's fine, but you should be aware that many of us think about them a bit more, maybe even see them again, and hone our opinions some. This should be obvious I suppose, but I'd say it's clear that it isn't. People often spend time matching a first impression against someone else's considered opinion (guilty as charged! Doh:b ) and in doing so, spinning their wheels. I think it helps to think about it in this way and be aware of what we are comparing.

Another point that really seems hard for a lot of people to grasp is that there is nothing elitist about having a considered opinion, there is no implied filter that says one only renders considered opinions about a certain class of films. I for one maintain that "guilty pleasures" are nothing more than films with flaws that nevertheless contain elements we enjoy. What's so hard to understand about that? Having an opinion does not mean matching say Starship Troopers (a guilty pleasure of mine) up against some absolute standards and declaring it either brilliant or lousy. IMHO, most movies contain good elements and bad elements, and it's just a matter of having fun dissecting them before you can formulate a decent, coherent opinion that is not only fun to discuss with other film geeks but also can be genuinely helpful to folks who haven't seen the movie, allowing them to gage whether it's worth the Twelve bucks we pay out here in LA for movies these days.

PS. Brad Porter - good comments!

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

In my view, what you describe is something like a first impression, not a well-thought out opinion that folks here seem to be looking for (certainly I am).

Actually, that's nothing like what I'm describing. I think my points are pretty clear regarding well-formed opinion vs. simple reaction. Rather than repeating my position for the umpteenth time, boring the hell out of anyone still lingering around this thread, I will gladly ask if you like pie.

You like pie?

 

[JohnRice]

Not that anyone wants to know, but I see the main problem with "opinion" being that it seems very few people are willing to change them. I see a lot of people saying "My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's" and hanging onto those opinions as if changing them will be the end of their life. It seems an awful lot of people establish an opinion about something as quickly as possible and then expend an amazing amount of energy defending that opinion, but never think about it again.

When I first saw Schindler's List, I thought it was a work of art. I continued to think that through several viewings and years. Recently, I watched it again for the first time in several years and suddenly had a completely different opinion of it. Through those years I had developed a sense of all the tactics Spielberg tends to use in his films, and started getting very tired of them. I don't dislike all of his films. I own a few on DVD and a few more on LD. What is probably my favorite of all his films? Always, which is one of the least regarded he has done. Why do I like Always the best? I like the story, and I think the formulas he uses are best suited to it.

When it comes to the value of my opinion, I think my current opinion of Schindler's List is more valid than my old one, because it comes from greater understanding and knowledge. It is still a valuable film due to its subject matter and the fact that Spielberg is probably the only current director who could assemble the resources needed to make it, even though I might think another director could have done a better job given the same resources.

It works the other way as well. The first time I saw The Fifth Element I didn't care that much for it. Since then, I have come to understand it and see it as a brilliantly written and executed film. I understand what it is more now than I did then, and that opinion is worth more than the less understanding one.

 

[Holadem]

Not that anyone wants to know, but I see the main problem with "opinion" being that it seems very few people are willing to change them. I see a lot of people saying "My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's" and hanging onto those opinions as if changing them will be the end of their life. It seems an awful lot of people establish an opinion about something as quickly as possible and then expend an amazing amount of energy defending that opinion, but never think about it again.

John, that was one excellent post.

--
Holadem

 

[John Doran]

Having an opinion does not mean matching say Starship Troopers (a guilty pleasure of mine) up against some absolute standards and declaring it either brilliant or lousy.

exactly.

 

[SteveGon]

...why i can love plan 9 from outer space but not the third man.

Hey now!

 

[Quentin]

That's a pretty funny (in a weird way) example...seeing as how Ebert has since changed HIS opinion, and now sees the brilliance of the film.

 

[SteveGon]

Seriously? I'll have to look into it. I know he's changed his opinion on other films...

 

[Lew Crippen]

That's a pretty funny

What I think is really funny is that the discussion has gone from Armageddon to Blue Velvet, where the popcorn is inhaled.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Example: when I first saw Blue Velvet I thought it was a great piece of cinema - one of the best films I'd ever seen. However, after reading Roger Ebert's negative review I saw the film in a new light. He made some good points concerning different aspects of the film which I hadn't noticed - I can now see ways in which it could have been improved. I still enjoy the film but I no longer consider it a classic.

This is an interesting example, and I think can demonstrate how considered and educated analysis can enhance the movie-watching experience, as I have my own hectic history with Blue Velvet.

The first time I saw it, it was in college, under pressure from a film student friend of mine. It was also my first exposure to Lynch. I hated it. I now consider that old opinion "wrong" because I wasn't ready for that type of movie. Kind of like my West Side Story example- how can you take my opinion on that seriously if you know I hate musicals?

A few years later, my tastes in film changed and I saw it agian, this time loving it. It was Mullholland Drive that opened my eyes to what Lynch was about. I would consider this opinion to be more informed, because I was looking at it in the proper context.

I heard Ebert's review (I think it's on the DVD), and I respect and dwelt on his opinion, but ultimately came to disagree with some of his points (particularly that of Rosellini's deprecation not being "worth it"). I'm not saying he's wrong, just that we got different impressions on some things.

 

[JohnRice]

Thanks, Holadem.


Well, if we're going to talk Blue Velvet, how about this opinion? I also first saw it in College, when it first came out. I thought it was interesting, even though my understanding of it wasn't what it is today. Now, no matter how well made I might think it is, I find it repulsive and can't stand to watch it. I tried a couple months ago and didn't make it. I can't think of another film I feel that way about, but I've never even tried to watch Saló and I'm not sure I want to.

 

[SteveGon]

I heard Ebert's review (I think it's on the DVD), and I respect and dwelt on his opinion, but ultimately came to disagree with some of his points (particularly that of Rosellini's deprecation not being "worth it").

That was one of Ebert's points with which I disagreed. I don't think Rosellini would not have done those scenes had she not felt they were worth it.


I also used to be big into horror movies: Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. That was long ago and now I have trouble sitting through those types of movies. I rented Jason X for the hell of it and saw little of value. No shocks, no tension, and not much fun. I now wonder what I ever saw in these movies...