If something has been put on film that last about 90 minutes does this make it a movie? What qualifies something as a film?
1) Was it entertaining
2) Did you get something out of it. (I guess you could that some of them would qualify as how not to make a film and still be beneficial)
3) Was something done uniquely?
4) Maybe it had a tidbit that was used for a greater work later on.
If 90 minutes makes it a movie then I think i'm qualified as an actress of some kind with some of those home movies i've made...hehe
Yea, that's my point. So when can someone qualify something as a movie? Some stuff is so boring that it isn't entertaining even for someone with broad interest.
it really depends on the subject matter: if i made a 90 minute doco, i wouldn't class it as a movie.
personally i think you can make a movie out of anything really: it doesn't matter whether it is entertaining or not, or even classy at all, you still need to have some sort of subject.
if it is bankable [eg up for film\video release] then its a movie, no matter how crappy it is! if it's something that you and your mates filmed in your backyard, using sauce and cardboard cut-outs, then it's YOUR movie, and no matter what the critics [or your audience *sob*] says!!
were there any specific examples you were thinking of Scott when you made this post?
Not directed by Peter Jackson
Tranquil Featherman wrote:
> Not directed by Peter Jackson
Tranquil,
You do indeed have interesting things to say about things, but this is not one of those times. Forcing bad-mouthing Peter Jackson into every thread you can makes you look like one thing and that is a troll. If you do not like him, that is fine, but don't inject the thought into almost every post.
Anything taped on camera lasting 2 hours and released in theatres can be considered a movie.