Search results

Well, since I used this very example previously, except it was regarding whether Kane was "Great", instead of a "Classic", I would still say the answer is yes. Just as I can recognize the elements that make CK "great", I also recognize the elements that make it a "Classic", including it's...

Well, since I used this very example previously, except it was regarding whether Kane was "Great", instead of a "Classic", I would still say the answer is yes. Just as I can recognize the elements that make CK "great", I also recognize the elements that make it a "Classic", including it's...

Again, I agree with this for the most part. However, even though we might use subjective factors in analyzing elements such as cinematography, editing, etc., I think a degree of objectivity could be used as well, as long as specific factors are included for what makes each element of a film...

Again, I agree with this for the most part. However, even though we might use subjective factors in analyzing elements such as cinematography, editing, etc., I think a degree of objectivity could be used as well, as long as specific factors are included for what makes each element of a film...

Well, I guess you are saying that in analyzing each factor, such as cinematography, editing, directing, score, etc., we are applying subjective measurements, correct? Even so, if a film does all these things "great", but doesn't do one great (screenplay) can't we still be objective by...

Well, I guess you are saying that in analyzing each factor, such as cinematography, editing, directing, score, etc., we are applying subjective measurements, correct? Even so, if a film does all these things "great", but doesn't do one great (screenplay) can't we still be objective by...

So, you are saying that a film can have GREAT directing (like LoA for example) GREAT editing (like LoA) GREAT acting (like LoA) GREAT cinematography (like LoA) a GREAT score (like LoA) but it wouldn't be considered GREAT because YOU never want to see it again. Don't you think you are placing...

So, you are saying that a film can have GREAT directing (like LoA for example) GREAT editing (like LoA) GREAT acting (like LoA) GREAT cinematography (like LoA) a GREAT score (like LoA) but it wouldn't be considered GREAT because YOU never want to see it again. Don't you think you are placing...

Ah, the old "I'll have to explain later, I've got to rush now for a Father's Day thing" excuse, eh? :wink: Have fun george.

Ah, the old "I'll have to explain later, I've got to rush now for a Father's Day thing" excuse, eh? :wink: Have fun george.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Why is it that you admit Lawrence is a "classic"? Are you saying you admit this only because an "elite" group of critics say so? Doesn't this same group of "elite" critics also consider Lawrence of Arabia to be a "great" movie? So, why...

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Why is it that you admit Lawrence is a "classic"? Are you saying you admit this only because an "elite" group of critics say so? Doesn't this same group of "elite" critics also consider Lawrence of Arabia to be a "great" movie? So, why...

Well, a dictionary definition of the term classic is: "1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance. 2. A work recognized as definitive in its field." So, a movie that fits the above definition is a...

Well, a dictionary definition of the term classic is: "1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance. 2. A work recognized as definitive in its field." So, a movie that fits the above definition is a...