133 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

TRANSFORMERS I,II & III aren´t crap because they made money?

 

And a good film often will succeed?

 

Um, sorry, I have to get back to planet Earth now.

[Germanlady]

Yes indeed, I do believe, if a film fails to grab its intended audience (whatever sort that is), its not a good enough film. Period.

[Dustin]

Yes indeed, I do believe, if a film fails to grab its intended audience (whatever sort that is), its not a good enough film. Period.

 

Fair point. Only it entirely neglects works which are so innovative or so much ahead of their time as to partially or completely fail to meet their audience. While you may disregard such works as failures it's exactly this kind of thinking which is accountable for the lack of creativity and the lamentable tendency of playing it safe in Hollywood today. To move forward always means to take risks, especially to miss the mark with audience or critics. Yet I would generally prefer a production that takes such risks to one that mindlessly caters to the lowest common denominator, even if it's doing this in the north-of-$150-million league.

[Germanlady]

 

Is there a new quote system? I mess it up all the time..

 

 

I think, we have enough examples of brave films - just look at the Artist. Its a very weird idea really, to bring out a b/w film with no dialogue out these days and it paid off. People ARE capable of thinking outside of the box, if it is done well enough. Or think The Kings Speech, for example.

My post was not about playing it safe, it was about - do well, whatever that is. If you do a film, that has only a very small target group and you reach that group, you have succeeded. People have responded positively and with interest to your film. This is what its all about in my book. Its not about money, its about, WHAT does this film want to achieve. It doesn't matter, if that is big or smaller as long as it does THAT. If a film is financially successful, then people have found someting in that film, that makes them talk about it, makes them suggesting it to others etc...a sign, that a film has found its audience and is embraced by THAT audience. If Transformers is made for (you fill in that) and hits that mark, its a good film for what it WANTS to be. It never intended to be a masterpiece of film, it intended to be great pop coren entertainment. IMO, films of different genres shouldn't be compared.

If a film is bad - very often or ost of the time, audiences will make their choice and stay away. That goes for "artsy" films AND popcorn films.

[Dustin]

 

 

Is there a new quote system? I mess it up all the time..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try clearing your browser cache, ought to help - I hope...

 

Yes, excelling at a given task - whatever it is - surely is part of the whole process, nothing wrong with that. That said there are also numerous films which didn't at the time meet expectations - for whatever reasons - yet were seen as successes or downright masterpieces in later years. Part of what made this possible was the second utilisation by the home entertainment market, HIGHLANDER being a popular example. It met with mixed reviews initially, had to cope with bad word-of-mouth, and yet it miraculously gathered a huge audience once it hit the video shelves. A similar fate was what OHMSS went through, no initial success but an almost spectacular afterlife in fandom and a gradually improving reassessment with the 'ordinary' media.   

[Germanlady]

Thank for your answer - at least, it was polite.

[tdalton]

 

 

What makes a film GOOD?  How I generally judge films is based on their contents, not what the final figure at the box office was.  Was the acting good?  Was the story good?  Was it directed well?  Score, special effects (when applicable), action, etc., it's how all of those elements are put together that a film's quality should be judged on.  The most important, I'd say, is story.  Does the film tell a good story?  If I become emotionally invested in the story, where I care about the outcome, and I've been entertained by the film, then it's a good movie. 

 

Judging a film solely by its box office also does not take into account the film's marketing.  Bad films have been marketed well enough to make a good haul at the box office.  Take films like January's The Devil Inside, which made roughly 33 million in its opening weekend, despite getting an 'F' grade from CinemaScore, which tracks the reactions of the actual audiences who saw the film.  The film only cost 1 million to make, and it made 33 times that in its opening weekend.  Surely it met the goal set forth by the studio, but given the reaction to it by audiences and critics alike, it can't be considered a good film.  But, based on the reasoning put forth here, it would be considered as such since it did very well at the box office, making back over 50 times how much the film cost.

[Germanlady]

You are right about marketing did bring in 33 mill opening weekend, but if you look at the overall gross, it died a VERY fast death, once people found out, it was crap - so it made money, but with its fast slap in the face - I wouldn't call it a success for the film. It was a success of the marketing team.

 

Lifetime gross

$53,261,944 2,551 $33,732,515 2,285 1/6/2012

[tdalton]

Based on your own definition of success:

 Its not about money, its about, WHAT does this film want to achieve. It doesn't matter, if that is big or smaller as long as it does THAT.

 

, The Devil Inside is a "good" movie.  The film does exactly what it wants to achieve, which is to turn a profit.  It is clearly financially successful, given that it makes a profit of over 50 times its production budget.  The film's goals for the box office are clearly smaller (to simply turn a profit), but it accomplishes that goal, and based on the definition of a successful movie as quoted above, The Devil Inside is a good movie because it accomplishes the goals it sets for itself.

[Germanlady]

If you read my post again, you will see, that I said, its NOT all about the money, but how much of the target audience it catches. This one obviously failed to impress. Don't twist my words.

[tdalton]

There's no twisting of words, the quote was directly taken from a previous post.

This debate is just going to keep going in circles, as nobodys mind is going to be changed. My view is that a movie's quality is subjective and can't be measured in dollars. It's success as a business venture can be measured that way, and perhaps that's the point of this debate, but money cannot determine the artistic merits of a film. It's clear you judge a films quality by different criteria, which is your right to do so, but I just happen to take a different approach.

[Germanlady]

I SAID and MEANT and made clear, that the BO is only showing, how many people go watch a film and if it is successful at the BO, obviously a great number of people enjoyed it. Taking in only 20 mill after the first weekend, that started great is not that proof - which is clear, I would imagine. But we can hammer this topic for more pages and nothing will change our views, we only try to prove, the other is wrong. That's tiring - so ...

[The Shark]

What Germanlady's getting at is SKYFALL's positive word-of-mouth, resulting in repeat viewings and a wider demographic reached than CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[Germanlady]

Overall, it became a general discussion, not just SF and I think, our starting point is already different. But no problem