worst decade for movies?

I don't disagree that there are people who don't care; there are those who are perfectly content watching someone's cell phone camera recording of a movie.

I'm saying that quality is not hostage to those people.

For my own sake, I don't know anything, nor do I care in the slightest, about cuisine. You can set a fantastic gourmet meal in front of me, and 99 times out of 100, I'd be happier with a bowl of Beefaroni. But the quality of that gourmet meal is no less because I have a ridiculously mundane palate.
 
Batutta said:
I think once you get past a basic level of technical competence, then yes, it's all subjective. The problem is that different people have different levels of what they consider to be technical competence. This is why I talk differently about movies with people who aren't in the business. All they care about is mainly one thing, how entertained they were. They are oblivious to the craft, so long as it isn't grossly incompetent. Somebody like myself might see shoddy craftsmanship in the writing of a film that others don't, which will lessen my experience, or be bothered by a certain stylistic choice in the directing or cinematography.
Click to expand...

People STILL buy and drink White Zinfandel -- even though they like it does NOT mean they are drinking good wine.

However, by only letting people drink and by extension 'enjoy' good wine who are 'in the business' is elitist at worst, selfish at best.

The key, of course... is moderation in tone. A know-it-all will be less listened to than someone who consistently offers fine wine at their table whilst keeping a chilled bottle of WZ in the fridge too.

Remember that amazing (probably one of the best you'll ever see) film school lesson Dennis Hopper gave on composition of a scene... a birthday party... with a still camera.... on TV.... IN A COMMERCIAL!!

A beautiful lesson where we all felt a little smarter for watching.

"I only talk this way to people in the industry" -- sorry for you.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Max --

The argument you are pushing is just flat wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing against an objective standard by which to judge 'good' art. If my position is flat wrong, then I expect you will demonstrate that it's wrong by presenting an objective standard by which to judge 'good' art. Have at it.

CaptainMench said:
You are confusing function with art.
Click to expand...

Hardly. So far, you're the first person to even mention 'function.'

CaptainMench said:
YES, art is objectively non objective. Once you get past that... all you are left with is like vs dislike.
Click to expand...

Oh. So we agree. I guess. Okay.

CaptainMench said:
My son can make a chair... does that make it on the same level artistically as a Niels Diffrient?? Functionally - yes.
Click to expand...

Whether or not his work is on the same level artistically is a value judgment. Meaning that there is not an objective standard. Whether or not his work is functionally equivalent can actually be quantified and tested.

CaptainMench said:
As a set designer, I'd hope you wouldn't let my son come and dress your sets for you.
Click to expand...

Depends upon how he dresses a set. Send me a portfolio of his work and I'll tell you if I would consider him employable.
 
Batutta said:
It's like that old saying I guess, "Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder.":beer:
Click to expand...

Well, the existence of a universal beauty doesn't mean everyone's naturally attuned to it.

And certain forms of beauty are indeed measurable. Music is a great example. Whatever form it takes, certain combinations of frequencies and rhythms sound good, and others don't, and you can mathematically figure out which will be which. You can't, for example, make a good chord out of a note, a half-step higher, and half-step above that. Sure, occasionally, something like that can be put to good use, but it's usually specifically because it's so atypical and so obviously an exception that it works, and it's usually going to follow a theory of some kind when it does.
 
And yet someone raised with an ear for, say, traditional South Indian music will appreciate as aesthetically pleasing and beautiful music which to a western listener is basically structureless noise.

Music doesn't even hold up across cultural boundaries as a form of 'measurable beauty.'
 
1980's -
Ghostbusters
Back to the Future
Empire Strikes Back
Raiders of the Lost Ark
E.T.
Full Metal Jacket
The Great Muppet Caper
The Breakfast Club
Naked Gun
The Shining
Rain Man

+1



Did the 1980s have its set of bad movies? Yes. Every decade does.
However, I feel that the 1990s and the 2000s have been the worst for movies. While it has had some truly amazing and breathtaking stuff, there's also seem to been a decline in storyline, character development, connection to the characters, compensation of special effects and explosions for the previously mentioned.

There are so many movies that come out today that just seem lazy. Like someone had a glimmer of a thought process and decided to make a movie out of it. The art seems to be lacking in movies... then every once in awhile, a true gem comes around. Like Slumdog Millionare.. or Children of Men.
 
Sad Max said:
And yet someone raised with an ear for, say, traditional South Indian music will appreciate as aesthetically pleasing and beautiful music which to a western listener is basically structureless noise.

Music doesn't even hold up across cultural boundaries as a form of 'measurable beauty.'
Click to expand...

Sure it does. It's just a very different arrangement. There are note combinations which work and don't work in any culture. Indian musicians tune their instruments, too.
 
ElectricMayhem said:
1980's -
Ghostbusters
Back to the Future
Empire Strikes Back
Raiders of the Lost Ark
E.T.
Full Metal Jacket
The Great Muppet Caper
The Breakfast Club
Naked Gun
The Shining
Rain Man

+1



Did the 1980s have its set of bad movies? Yes. Every decade does.
However, I feel that the 1990s and the 2000s have been the worst for movies. While it has had some truly amazing and breathtaking stuff, there's also seem to been a decline in storyline, character development, connection to the characters, compensation of special effects and explosions for the previously mentioned.

There are so many movies that come out today that just seem lazy. Like someone had a glimmer of a thought process and decided to make a movie out of it. The art seems to be lacking in movies... then every once in awhile, a true gem comes around. Like Slumdog Millionare.. or Children of Men.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out that your screen name's awesome.

palmuppets2animal8.jpg
 
David Jimerson said:
Sure it does. It's just a very different arrangement. There are note combinations which work and don't work in any culture. Indian musicians tune their instruments, too.
Click to expand...

So the fact that, say, an Indian listener accustomed to a traditional Indian scale will hear something beautiful, while a listener attuned to Western musical scales and structure won't, does nothing to impress upon you the absence of an objective standard of what sounds beautiful?
 
Sad Max said:
So the fact that, say, an Indian listener accustomed to a traditional Indian scale will hear something beautiful, while a listener attuned to Western musical scales and structure won't, does nothing to impress upon you the absence of an objective standard of what sounds beautiful?
Click to expand...

I don't accept that it's the case. How about examples of both?
 
Did this turn into another "what is art?" thread? It's never going to end.

All we can do is fight for the movies we think are brilliant as if it's a fact. That's how I do it. Who the hell has completely rational film discussions? You HAVE to have your reasons, yes. You have to have a retort, a solid reason and response to criticisms as to why someone else thinks a film doesn't work.

The Happening is a bad movie. Now, that's nearly a fact. ANYBODY can argue differently, but how well? I've only met ONE single person who likes the film DEAD SERIOUSLY and not as a joke. Yes, he's an adult. Can he give me deep, thoughtful reasons as to why he likes the film? No, just "it was awesome!". Therefore, he's wrong. He's admitting he's wrong. He's admitting there is no way to defend The Happening in a serious manner because it's a piece of junk. and that's fine. There are films I enjoy that I know aren't worth anything. I know Crank is ****ing stupid, but it's meant to be that way. Do I think it's a masterpiece? Of course not. You have to have some sense of relativity ir a scale or something.

Requiem for a Dream? Do not like it. I don't mind the director- I liked Pi and The Wrestler. But see, I've met people who can stick up for the film. And while I think they're incorrect, the fact that people have lucid arguments for it means it isn't just plain trash like The Happening. That's my thoughts anyway.


That being said, I'll stick up for the 1980s even more, even though it's kind of pointless at this point:

-Sans Soleil (1981)

-Fanny and Alexander (1982)

-Ghost Busters (OK, not a masterpiece, but we wouldn't have Bill Murray in every other role today, I think)

-The King of Comedy (1983- often overlooked gem from Scorcese)

-Stranger than Paradise (1984)

-Paris, Texas (yeah, it deserves to mentioned TWICE)

-Love Streams (1984)

-Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

-Down By Law (1986)

-Wings of Desire (1987)

-The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

-Mystery Train (1989)


Point is, you aren't going to be able to label something as big as an entire decade as being bad for films. A year? definately. But there's way too much time in a decade for great directors to NOT make some great, landmark films. Of course, that's speaking for the past...we'll see....
 
Sad Max said:
So the fact that, say, an Indian listener accustomed to a traditional Indian scale will hear something beautiful, while a listener attuned to Western musical scales and structure won't, does nothing to impress upon you the absence of an objective standard of what sounds beautiful?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Of course perceptions of beauty are cultural. Doesn't mean art and the craft of creating it was removed from one or the other.

We didn't see any bollywood films on any lists in this thread. They must all be bad, right?

Now, if your culture is ballpark franks and ketsup I'll wager you are AMAZING at finding the best hotdog in town. You can pick the best cook to cook you the BEST dog and you'll have the BEST that you can imagine (you here is anyone). I'll bet if I take that person to a 4 star restaurant and give them the finest pate placed on the finest piece of toast arranged JUST right on the finest china so the experience of eating isn't just with your mouth, but your eyes, your nose and your hands... well, they just might not like it. NOT because it isn't finer crafted food (which it is)... but their 'culture' doesn't have room for what they just experienced.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Irrelevant. Of course perceptions of beauty are cultural. Doesn't mean art and the craft of creating it was removed from one or the other.

We didn't see any bollywood films on any lists in this thread. They must all be bad, right?

Now, if your culture is ballpark franks and ketsup I'll wager you are AMAZING at finding the best hotdog in town. You can pick the best cook to cook you the BEST dog and you'll have the BEST that you can imagine (you here is anyone). I'll bet if I take that person to a 4 star restaurant and give them the finest pate placed on the finest piece of toast arranged JUST right on the finest china so the experience of eating isn't just with your mouth, but your eyes, your nose and your hands... well, they just might not like it. NOT because it isn't finer crafted food (which it is)... but their 'culture' doesn't have room for what they just experienced.

CaptM
Click to expand...

In the USA if you let a fertilized egg rot, it's garbage. In the Phillippines, if you let a fertilized egg rot, you get balut, something of a traditional delicacy.

No crafting involved: one person's rotten egg is another person's delicacy. Got an objective standard to account for that?
 
CaptainMench said:
We didn't see any bollywood films on any lists in this thread. They must all be bad, right?
Click to expand...

The fact that you're asking this question tells me that you completely miss my point.

(A) No, it doesn't mean that, and

(B) Since this whole time I have been arguing against any objective standard of 'good' and 'bad' beyond quantifiable technical matters, I wonder if you have actually been reading the posts to which you are responding.
 
CaptainMench said:
"I only talk this way to people in the industry" -- sorry for you.

CaptM
Click to expand...

I just don't see the point in discussing films past a certain level of detail with somebody who doesn't care about the finer points of filmmaking. I'm not saying I don't value their opinion. I just know they aren't going to want to get into specifics on why they did or didn't like something. Your average person is just trying to be entertained for a couple hours, nothing more. I'm not going to sit there and bore them with all the technical and aesthetic problems I had with a movie. That's what YOU guys are for!...And by people not in the business, I just meant people who aren't at all interested in filmmaking. I didn't mean it in a literal, snobbish clique kind of way.
 
Last edited:
Sad Max said:
You mean testimonials?
Click to expand...

No. I mean, give an example of Indian music which a) doesn't follow the same general harmonic rules of western music theory and b) sounds ugly to western ears. Just link to something.

Indian scales would be fine -- but that in itself belies your point -- all music is based on scales, which are mathematical constructs.

Individual tastes may well differ, but you don't have to go as far away as south India to find that. Just put Taylor Swift on and I'll leave the room. But that won't prove anything; the music still follows the theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top