Fallout Studios Forums

Been wondering this ever since I saw The Spirit, a movie which did everything wrong and yet still ended up being completely and totally great to watch. What is it that makes a movie 'good' to watch or 'bad' to watch?

Michael Bay seems to have a fair idea: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KRS90V8BQGo

To make a good movie you have to make the audience feel like they are really there and not watching a movie at all.
But this can be broken by bad editing or bad camera placement, so its a hard job. Even with giving the audience a feeling that they are actually there,
if your storyline is pants then you movie is guaranteed to be overly disliked.
Or some directors like to break all the rules and create something which is abstract, this can also make a good movie as its different.

what makes a good movie is deepened upon the audience lol
and the shit the DR said helps to XD

What makes a good movie?

One with an actual storyline.

IMO a good movie must either have a very good plot with decent scenes, average plot with some good scenes or a storyline that has no sense but bloody awesome scenes. You cant have both awesome (people tried people failed)

btw shouldnt this be in Entertaiment instead of PC?
Edited by TehKiller, 04 February 2009 - 15:53.

I think there's a degree of philosophy and psychology to it - it's more an examination of what people feel makes a good movie, rather than what makes people like a movie. Oh, and for an example of both awesomes - The Godfather and The Shawshank Redpemtion - arguably the two best movies of all time - and there is frankly nothing in either of them I could improve, and certainly nothing that I could remove. I do have more thoughts on this, but they'll be posted when I'm thinking a bit more coherently.

There is NO definition of a good film. Film is art and all art is subjective and can't be categorised in such a way a "good".

Generally speaking I'd say there are two possibilities. Either a movie scores well in one or more of the following categories to such a degree that it merits watching:
-acting
-storyline
-(un)predictability
-immersion
-awe
-humour
-tension/suspense
-visual effects
(-emotion level) <- yeh this doesn't apply for me but it does for some .
In which case the movie can be classed into one of the standard genres (action, horror, comedy, drama etc.),

OR
an unidentifiable quality in which case it generally can't be classed.

Not being made by Uwe Boll =]

haha, but in all seriousness, I agree with Chryos
Edited by TWPC920, 05 February 2009 - 06:08.

Wizard, on 5 Feb 2009, 1:27, said:

yer there is some freaky paintings and things people call art but for example if i take some dog turd and stick it in a fruit bowl with random crap i chucked in and call it art because its the products of human creativity its actually art and i could sell it and make millions lol and thats how people with no talent become artists and make millions XD
any one can be a famous artist you just seen some one to buy your crap so why don't you become an artist's people of fallout studios?

Major Fuckup, on 5 Feb 2009, 13:42, said:

You sure about that?
Edited by Nidmeister, 05 February 2009 - 21:51.

There's a fine line between genius and madness.

Nidmeister, on 6 Feb 2009, 6:50, said:

im pretty sure i have seen some stuff a kid could paint thats been sold and the person who painted it is now called an artist XD

yeah contemperary art is a really love hat thint and in many instances questionable

Note:

Movie= entertainment and profit purposes only (i.e. High School Musical, Twilight)
Film= motion pictures that convey a message, usually either social, political, economical, or all (i.e. indie films, Platoon, Artifical Intelligence)

See the difference?

RaiDK, on 6 Feb 2009, 5:51, said:

...Which most of us tread upon.

Film and movie is the same, except the former is BrE and the latter AmE.

As Wizard said, there is no real definition of what makes a good movie or film, it's all depends on the individual. But then it is said that an art serves no other purpose other than itself...

Major Fuckup, on 6 Feb 2009, 1:57, said:

Well then the Kid has talent. Art is a form of expression, and in children especially, feelings and emotions are expressed through such art. As the human gets older their brain begins to mature meaning that their ideas become a little more complicated, but their art can become even more simple. With art bieng expression, there is no such thing as good or bad art, and if the artist raises a point about something they they feel critical or strongly about in such a way that impresses others then I would say it is regarded as talent.
As many people have proved many times over, you don't have to draw to be an artist.

A good movie to me is that the movie has lots of plots and twists, has a lesson for every part of it, concentrates on comedy, action, and some romance. You can always tell if its a good movie by the audience impact on it. And plus NO RANDOM MOVIES like for example: A guy is sleeping inside a famous hotel in the US and ends up waking in the North pole.

Papaya Master Rai, on 6 Feb 2009, 19:28, said:

sounds like a good moive plot *steven spielberg steals it*

Napoleon Dynamite was incredibly random yet incredibly enjoyable.

That statement is at least partly incorrect.

Alias, on 6 Feb 2009, 21:01, said:

Underlined part is incorrect, IMO.

ND was jst genius, it would go under, as Chryos said, "unidentifiable" reason for being good

This thread is swaying off topic, by all means create a Napoleon Dynamite Thread if you want to talk about it but please keep to "What makes a 'good' movie?" and Not let it turn into "Whats movies are good?".

I think that Movies like other forms of media feed off the spawn of "Pop culture" or "Whats in".
For example if we had won or lost a war you can expect lots of movies based apon it or its ideals and they are generally Popular at the time and in some eyes this could be called a "Good" Movie. However is this movie only good at the time it was made or can it carry the reputation far after the majority appeal has warn off. This is why many movies which were considered "Good" a decade ago may seem rubbish to people who experience them now.

Alias, on 6 Feb 2009, 20:01, said:

that movie was to slow and really no story line