Uh...Definition Please

[Menard]

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?

[Andrew]

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.

[Menard]

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.

[Joe]

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?

[raj]

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.

[Menard]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Joe]

speaking of Nazi zombies is "shock waves" worth picking up for 3 bucks used on dvd?

[Menard]

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.

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.

[Menard]

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.

[Joe]

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

COUGHthehitcherCOUGH

[Derf]

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.

[Ash]

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. 

[raj]

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.

[Joe]

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.

[Menard]

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.