Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 09:09:35 AM



Title: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 09:09:35 AM
I know this was bantered around a bit when the subject of a good movies forum was announced. What defines a good movie? Some a***ole (I specifically mean Isaac) will come along and proclaim Zardoz to be a beautiful movie; while the rest of us have to wait for the guys in white coats to come and drag him back to the asylum.

A general movies discussion forum, even though it was called bad movies, was open to any movie you wanted to discuss. How are we now going to define, and by who's taste, what is a good or bad movie?


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Andrew on January 23, 2007, 09:18:40 AM
I don't think that we need to stress over it.  If someone feels that "Zardoz" fits here, then so be it.  Let the original poster decide.

Now, quite importantly, the feud between you and Isaac needs to end.  You don't need to become buddies, but I cannot see how calling anybody foul names over their liking or not liking a movie is useful.  If you two were friends and needling each other I would get it, but that has never been the case.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 09:29:10 AM
Now, quite importantly, the feud between you and Isaac needs to end.  You don't need to become buddies, but I cannot see how calling anybody foul names over their liking or not liking a movie is useful.  If you two were friends and needling each other I would get it, but that has never been the case.

I don't give a damn whether he, or anybody else, likes or dislikes a movie. Most of us on this board have had disagreements about movies and just have fun with it. I make a needling comment about people who like a film needing to be in an institution, and this son-of-a-b***h comes on here with a chip on his shoulder and does everything to prove a statement I made in jest. He openly lied and I don't give a damn about him. It's not needling; I don't like that a***ole and it has nothing to do with his taste in movies.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Joe on January 23, 2007, 09:37:30 AM
well, everyone has their own opinion, i mean some are gonna say a certain movie is bad and some are going to say a certain movie is good. but case in fact i like bad movies but i dont like bad movies, i.e. bad acting. over the top absolutley ludicrous acting is funny to me, but when the acting is just bad because the person shows less emotion than a wet sponge and frankly just does it poorly with no funny reedeming qualities it sucks. then again i think some movies are bad even if the acting is good. idk, there are good movies and there are bad movies and there are good bad movies and bad good movies, get what im sayin?


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: raj on January 23, 2007, 09:47:45 AM
My stab at "good" movie vs. "bad" movie:
Production values count high, IMO.  Thus, basically Hollywood movies are "good" because lots of high level talent has gone into them -- sometimes this results in things such as "Gigli".  I haven't seen Gigli, so I can't compare it to, say, Plan 9, so I'll use the horrible Prospero's Book.

Plan 9 I think we all consider a "bad" movie, because Ed Wood was a "bad" (schlocky?) director, the FX are laughable, the dialog at times is ridiculous.  Yet I think it's a better movie than Prospero's Book, which, despite having a top flight actor in John Gielgud, a screenplay based on Shakespeare, and far better sets, and a director who's done much better work than Ed, is a mess.  It's confusing, convoluted and boring, with no charm to it.  Plan 9 is simple and straight forward and has a lot of sincerity to it.

So Prospero's Book goes into the "good movies" bin because of high production values even though it is worthy of a skull, while Plan 9 goes into the "bad movies" bin due to low production values, despite getting many slimes.



Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 09:49:49 AM
there are good movies and there are bad movies and there are good bad movies and bad good movies, get what im sayin?

I don't know if you even got what you were saying, Joe. :tongueout:

That was pretty much the purpose of the single movie board. One person would love a movie, while another absolutely hated it. Scott and Dean loved Gigli and the rest of us have been seeking therapy for them ever since. :teddyr:

Couldn't you just imagine how many nazi zombie movies Scott could post in the good movies forum. :tongueout:

Of course, it was that diversity of opinion which was so much fun on this board; we just simply had fun with our disagreements about movies.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Joe on January 23, 2007, 09:57:32 AM
speaking of Nazi zombies is "shock waves" worth picking up for 3 bucks used on dvd?


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 09:59:34 AM
So Prospero's Book goes into the "good movies" bin because of high production values even though it is worthy of a skull, while Plan 9 goes into the "bad movies" bin due to low production values, despite getting many slimes.

I'm astonished; my jaw is dropping to the floor; but that's because I'm looking at pictures of Sophia Rossi. :tongueout:

They're good movies based solely on production values? Does that mean we include Heaven's Gate and Waterworld?

Probably by averages, a movie with high production values, talent, etc., is going to be a good movie. There have been low budget movies, though, which are certainly well above their means, and even better than many million dollar movies.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 10:01:10 AM
speaking of Nazi zombies is "shock waves" worth picking up for 3 bucks used on dvd?

I've not actually watched that. I'm certain Scott has though. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Joe on January 23, 2007, 10:01:56 AM
Quote
They're good movies based solely on production values? Does that mean we include Heaven's Gate and Waterworld?

COUGHthehitcherCOUGH


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Derf on January 23, 2007, 10:18:41 AM
I'm not sure that production values alone could possibly be the basis for the definition. Generally, "bad" movies here are films that are enjoyable but seriously flawed (either in production values, acting, writing, whatever) and are therefore enjoyed more because of their flaws than because of their intended purpose. No amount of money could make some movies good (Waterworld, Heaven's Gate, etc.), but they are not the "bad" movies we enjoy; they are just terrible movies. To me, "good" movies are ones that I can enjoy as they are intended to be enjoyed, films that give me a fun ride for what they are rather than for what they failed to be. By that definition, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back could be labeled as "good," while Steel Magnolias would just be labeled as terrible.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Ash on January 23, 2007, 10:26:08 AM
C'mon guys!
Do I have to spell it out for you all?

We're all adults here and we all know the real difference between "good" and "bad" movies.

Good movies are those that receive universal acclaim, and if you took a poll, the majority would say that they are good or great.

You guys are splitting hairs.
Don't do that. 


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: raj on January 23, 2007, 10:26:18 AM
They're good movies based solely on production values? Does that mean we include Heaven's Gate and Waterworld?

Probably by averages, a movie with high production values, talent, etc., is going to be a good movie. There have been low budget movies, though, which are certainly well above their means, and even better than many million dollar movies.

Actually Heaven's Gate was fairly well received in Europe, and I enjoyed Waterworld.

I'm trying to figure out why we (or maybe just me) would put Plan 9 in the "bad" movie section (even though I like it) and not Gigli or Prospero's Book or Waterworld.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Joe on January 23, 2007, 10:28:26 AM
Quote
Actually Heaven's Gate was fairly well received in Europe, and I enjoyed Waterworld.

so is david hasselhoff , but its getting back to opinions again.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 10:32:10 AM
I'm trying to figure out why we (or maybe just me) would put Plan 9 in the "bad" movie section (even though I like it) and not Gigli or Prospero's Book or Waterworld.

It's the way 'bad' is intonated. In the 70s, we used to say something was 'baaadd' when we meant that it was good. Plan 9 and Robot Monster are really baaadd, and I'd have them any day over Titanic. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 10:34:17 AM
We're all adults here...


I see no need for namecalling. (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Tongue/mockery-022.gif)


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Scott on January 23, 2007, 11:29:57 AM
Did someone say GIGLI  :thumbup: :smile: ?

Joe, definately pick up SHOCKWAVES for $3 unless your on a strick budget.

Trying to split the catagories a bit. Maybe someone can add to these definitions.

1) Movie Classics (Casablanca)
2) Great Movies (Mad Max)
3) Strange Movies (Eraserhead)
4) Low Budget Films (Plan 9 From Outer Space)
5) Boring Movies (Battlefield Earth)

It's also neat to see one board where all types of films are listed under General Movie Discussion, but I'm kinda getting use to the different catagories now. Just playing with some ideas. Plus we seem to be getting a lot of new members with this new format.

Once you open a catagory it's hard to close it and move things to the appropriate catagory, so Andrew has to take his time deciding on this. The theme of his site is "Bad" movies, so perhaps the "Bad Movie" catagory should be above the "Good Movie" catagory. The good films conversation being more of a side topic.



Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: LilCerberus on January 23, 2007, 11:37:09 AM
I'm scared!


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Andrew on January 23, 2007, 11:40:31 AM
Well, if I screwed up by making the new category I would rather get smacked around for it and told I need to find a solution.  I would rather not cause confusion and such by creating a new category.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Scott on January 23, 2007, 11:49:03 AM
I like the idea of a "good movie" catagory. The key will be when someone actually watches a "good movie" and then post about that movie here. The definition question will vanish and you will have some neat discussion about Westerns, WWII Films, Classics, and such. I think it will work once it gets going.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Ash on January 23, 2007, 11:52:48 AM
Andrew...Ignore these guys.  (except for Scott)
This "Good Movies" section is awesome and I'll be sure to post lots of topics here.

Don't let them sway you. 
This section is just a shock to their systems.

They'll get over it.

And if they don't...well...there's always that Bad Movies section for them to post in.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: raj on January 23, 2007, 12:04:10 PM
I like having a good movie section.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 23, 2007, 12:05:51 PM
Andrew...Ignore these guys.  (except for Scott)


 :buggedout: The Gigli lover? (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Tongue/mockery-022.gif)


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Scott on January 23, 2007, 12:10:28 PM
I like the sub-caption under "Good Movies" that says "Yeah, we watch these too".  :thumbup:. That statement really sums up this forum.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on January 23, 2007, 12:42:03 PM
I will admit I was alittle skeptical about a Good Movies section. Its not that bad so far. Guess I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.  :cheers:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: JaseSF on January 23, 2007, 12:46:22 PM
I really think Good and Bad are open to intepretation. I suspect in fact there does exist people who actually go find so called bad movies good and vice versa. Personally to me, most Oscar winners of the last few years are absolute crud. Also feel that Star Wars is an overglorified B-movie and I think ARMAGEDDON perhaps the worst movie I've ever seen (even worse than JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (1989), THE APOCALYPSE (1997) and THE CREEPING TERROR). I agree with Andrew about leaving it open to the own user's interpretation but even what you consider the best movie ever is someone else's trash.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: trekgeezer on January 23, 2007, 12:47:30 PM
I think we should have a category for "just OK" movies. I see a lot of movies I would trash or give a good  recommendation to, because hey they were "just OK".



Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Scott on January 23, 2007, 03:03:26 PM
Since we get good laughs from our "bad movies" maybe another catagory is needed for regular "comedy films" which is a different kind of flavor. They don't seem to fit under the "Good Movie" nor "Bad Movie" labels.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: CheezeFlixz on January 23, 2007, 03:09:51 PM
I think a GOOD MOVIE is a movie YOU really believe is GOOD! Regardless of what anyone else might think.  If one disagrees then agree to disagree on it. I'm SURE I'm 100% POSITIVE we all have films that we like that someone else thinks is the worst piece of crap ever. Regardless of how much we argue the artistic merits of the film, somebody isn't going to like it and vise versa.

Look at and forum on any movie on IMDB, nearly every one has a best movie ever and a worst movie ever thread.

Well that's my $0.02 now I'm broke.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Poogie on January 23, 2007, 03:55:35 PM
    From the sounds of it, maybe we should have a category for each individual movie....Like the chickens that are individually wrapped..  :bouncegiggle: Sorry...toooo much macha frappucino this morning... :twirl:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Andrew on January 23, 2007, 04:19:50 PM
With you all around here it is more like those little candy peeps than processed oven roaster chickens.


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Poogie on January 23, 2007, 06:48:09 PM
With you all around here it is more like those little candy peeps than processed oven roaster chickens.
    :bouncegiggle:  :bouncegiggle:  :bouncegiggle: I'm sorry, but this is just too funny..peep..peep..peep. I feel sorry for you, you've got your work cut for you... :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Dennis on January 25, 2007, 11:50:06 PM
I think a GOOD MOVIE is a movie YOU really believe is GOOD! Regardless of what anyone else might think.  If one disagrees then agree to disagree on it. I'm SURE I'm 100% POSITIVE we all have films that we like that someone else thinks is the worst piece of crap ever. Regardless of how much we argue the artistic merits of the film, somebody isn't going to like it and vise versa.

Look at and forum on any movie on IMDB, nearly every one has a best movie ever and a worst movie ever thread.

Well that's my $0.02 now I'm broke.

Perfect definition of what a good movie is, one that you like, there will always be some that are popular with a lot of people and some that are not, but what you yourself like should be your choice, not just what's popular.
With that statement in mind I would like to say that I liked The Wedding Planner and also Angel Eyes, I think that as a singer Ms. Lopez is a much better actor.
(Please Menard, go easy on the flaming vagina jokes  :bouncegiggle: )


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Menard on January 26, 2007, 11:27:07 AM
(Please Menard, go easy on the flaming vagina jokes  :bouncegiggle: )

Anybody who has not read that thread is like this  :question: :buggedout: in reading this. :teddyr:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Poogie on January 26, 2007, 12:59:29 PM
(Please Menard, go easy on the flaming vagina jokes  :bouncegiggle: )

Anybody who has not read that thread is like this  :question: :buggedout: in reading this. :teddyr:
  What makes it even better is what you wrote under your avatar.. :buggedout:  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Uh...Definition Please
Post by: Dennis on January 27, 2007, 01:15:04 PM
(Please Menard, go easy on the flaming vagina jokes  :bouncegiggle: )

Anybody who has not read that thread is like this  :question: :buggedout: in reading this. :teddyr:

For the curious among us who have not read it, go to Off Topic Discussion, Zap's Avatar------What is it?
and you will see that we are a group of adults engaged in a serious discussion of the merits of certain movies and the people in them. :smile: :cheers: :smile: