What is the difference between good movies and bad movies? Animation and plot is important, as well as details. But what do you think makes a good or bad movie in your opinion?
Also, just a note, the discussion doesn't have to relate to the question itself, it can also simply be just be about what movies you think are bad or good and why.
|
||||
Good Movies vs. Bad Movies
|
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesActing.
You could have the most amazing movie ever, but if you get bad actors, you might as well not make the movie. Or y'know, bad concepts *cough cough emojis cough cough* |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesI might know One difference between good movies & bad movies. If a video game or anime based movie follows the source material from the video game series or anime that movie is based off of very carefully, You'll get a great film.
BUT, if you just decided to not use enough source material for the movie*, then it'll be Bull Shit bad! *Examples of movies that ignored source material: Super Mario Bros. the Movie, Dragon Ball Revolution, The Last Airbender, Street Fighter: The Movie, Mortal Kombat Movie 2 and beyond, Fairy Odd Parents: Grow up Timmy Turner (Definitely the worst out of the examples), etc. |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesAlthough source material can be a factor in how good a movie is, I don't think that it's a major thing to base good vs. bad movies on. Sure, most bad movies based off something like a game are usually bad due to lacking the original concept, it doesn't have to determine it all the time. |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesThere isn't an answer, this is subjective. One person might think a movie is amazing, another might consider it garbage. Star Wars Last Jedi was a perfect example of that, some people loved it some people hated it.
|
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesBudget, simple as that
(for 90% of the case) |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesI watch roughly about 300+ movies a year, and while I do enjoy a lot of them, there are the occasional films that are unforgivably bad. A lot of 'formulated' films (Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Elf, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, as examples) tend to become stale when you've seen these formats repeated so many times - and unless you grew up with these films, you'll think they're bad. With that being said though, I did like Princes of Thieves a lot. I watched the new Jack Reacher film tonight and it was very predictable and full of cliches - it was just a downright terrible film. It had nothing remotely significant about it other than a few funny lines.
The horror genre is really bad for this, as there are very few horrors I would consider great and fresh. Jumpscares are such a stupid concept because the tension throughout builds and builds until -jumpscare- and then it's climaxed, then I find the film boring. Films like The Babadook and The Witch consistently built on tension with virtually no jumpscares at all, and they were both terrifying upon their first watch. Films like Occulus did have jumpscares but I feel like they were executed well and weren't so frequent, and actually had a decent story to it. David Lynch's Mullholland Drive, Spoiler: show This might sound like a cliche, but I really do believe that Stanley Kubrick was the best film director who ever lived. The sheer brilliance of his works, including the time, effort and dedication put into them is astounding. If you are a serious film fan (or even just a casual viewer!) you NEED to view his filmography. Other directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Andrei Tarkovsky, Francis Ford Coppola, Wes Anderson (to name a few) are all hailed as great directors for a reason. Look into their history, understand why their films are so brilliant, even the technical aspects - it'll let you appreciate the film more. When you are used to watching these beautifully produced films, you start to realise when a film is formulated and quite, well, shite. CGI, as far as I'm concerned, it something filmmakers will regret. A lot of it does not age well, where as practical effects most of the time do. 2001: A Space Odyssey has aged so well that it looks like it could have been filmed today. And films like Jason and the Argonauts, which use stop-motion are real eye candy. However, the definition of a good or bad film is entirely down to the viewer and their experiences. You'll notice that many polls will state that Citizen Kane is "the greatest movie ever made.", and while I do appreciate it for its significance on cinema, I personally found it to be a very alright film. I wasn't massive on the first Lord of The Rings movie either, and a lot of Hitchcock does nothing for me. Opinions also tend to change, I recently re-watched Raging Bull and it's still good, but just not as good as I remember. In my opinion, a bad movie is something that fails to capture you, bad acting, poor visuals, a total lack of originality and worst of all, cliches. A good movie is one that you fall in love with, has an emotional impact with you, had stunning visuals and manages to grasps your attention right up until the last frame. |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesOh, I forgot ONE bad movie that's not based off a game nor anime, but a book that follow very little source material:
Shredderman Rules! |
||
Re: Good Movies vs. Bad MoviesSometimes though it provides retribution for the source material when the movie is better than it, often with books, such as Die Hard, Princess Bride, Stardust, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, etc. |
||
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
