Is it the actors or the bad dialogue?

I don't think it is baiting to talk about the fact that subjectivity rests in the eyes of the beholder. One man's junk is another man's lawn ornament.

 

Of course film criticism is valid. However it is subjective and should be done in that context. Asking a question like ?Is it the actors or the bad dialogue?? is not a subjective form of film criticism. It presumes agreement, and can only be debated by degree.

Well the thing with PT criticism is that a significant amount of people feel there is something wrong with the pics . The acting and the dialogue have often come up for criticism, but often the 'bad' acting has been defended wih the argument that it's the dialogue that makes it seem bad. and so on .
I don't think the thread presumes agreement, obviously people can argue that both the acting and dialogue are good .



So, when I offer my critique of the film I don't simply run around posing questions such as "Is it Tom Hanks stupid characterization, or Robin Wright's overacting?" If I were to do that, yes, I would be implying that anyone who thought differently was simply unable to grasp the reality of what I deem an abomination of a film.

Well I love that movie and it wouldn't bother me if you posed such questions .

I also keep it in the confines of my opinion

Well the author did say it was his/her opinion .

However, coming out of the gate with the blanket assumption that we all agree the acting is bad is somewhat insulting.

wellll ... everyone uses the phrase everyone . <see I just did it . It just means that it's something that has commonly been said, and I think it's true that the acting has been something that has been criticised the most , by everyone!

If others have no problem with those components, then it can't be a problem with the film, but with how some people react to the film.

So then all films are good? cos every film is liked by someone somewhere . So any film you don't like - it's not a problem with the film the problem is with your reaction to it. yeah?
You've just negated all your own criticisms of any film .

Film criticism isn't a science , you can't say if someone saw good acting in a movie then everone who thought it was bad must be wrong cos someone can see it therefore it exists . It doesn't work like that, it's subjective. Then there's the issue of 'common complaints' , if a lot of people are saying the same sort of thing this can't be ignored, it's something worth discussing .
And then - it's fun to debate .

g

 

Exactly, gez. The last time this came up, I asked if that logic applied to all movies or just conveniently to Star Wars. Like I had mentioned then, if it applies to all movies, then Gigli is a great film.

 

Well to the people who think any given movie is great, it is great.

Gigli didn't make a whole lot at the box office, indicating overall consumer interest wasn't that great.

The Star Wars films are the only ones I know of that were huge successes that people keep wondering where it "went wrong".

Sure to some people they weren't that good, but all any film maker can hope for is that their film is embraced by -enough- people that it does well.

In that regard, the Star Wars films were all huge hits.

So to ask what went wrong with them doesn't seem to be a legitimate question. It would be more fitting to wonder why they may not have worked for you personally.

 

Errr, box office performance means nothing except people saw it. It has doesn't mean audiences thought the movie was good, or if they liked it. This day and age, money is easily spent on whatever looks good at the time; that's how William Hung sells albums, does that make him a great singer? Does that mean people who buy his albums think he's a great singer? No, it just means they bought his album for X amount of reasons. It could be that they heard how bad of a singer he was and bought the album as a lark (that happens more than you think, my friend did that); it could be any number of reasons, so sorry, your attempt to use box office means nothing.

According to your rationalizations, Gigli made a low performance because people refused to see how good it really was.

Then again, a wide spread opinion of it not being as good has more validity; since box office receipts show more people saw it, there's more people able to comment on it than those who have simply heard about it by way of word of mouth. So it's very much legitimate, even moreso, according to your own standards of box office relevance.

 

Sure, if you pretend box office doesn't designate whether or not a movie was successful, then it doesn't mean anything. But when you own up to the fact that these films did phenomonally at the box office, you have to conceed that it made more than it's fair share of money, ergo it was a success. If anything, the box office supports the idea that it was widely thought to have been good.

The only thing that supports the idea that these movie were a let down are the fact that some people have made it their point to continually put these movies down. It's certainly not indicative of the majority, because if it were, then the films would not have made nearly as much as they have.

A movie like Godzilla for example made 379 million. It was a movie that was hyped up the wazoo that everyone wanted to see for themselves. It had a great opening weekend, then when people realized it pretty much sucked, word of mouth killed it fairly quickly.

TPM made 924 million. You could possibly attribute half of that to the "have to see it for yourself" factor, but the rest of that came in the way of repeat business. People kept going back to see it over and over, and it stayed in theaters all summer long. It did so well that it was re-released at Christmas, with most of the proceeds being donated to charity.

To look at this another way, I don't like Citizen Kane all that much, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a successful, well made film. Just because a few of you guys don't like some of the prequels doesn't change the fact that they have their audience as well. Again, you could talk about why these movies didn't work for you personally, but for Lucas, and the people who love these films such as myself, they did work, and were not a disappointment.

For us, there is nothing to blame, it just worked.

So the question from my point of view is why didn't you like the film? Was it that you didn't like the acting or the dialogue?

 

Oh, I know they were amazingly successful; as to why is another thread entirely. But just because it's made a lot of money has nothing to do with its quality or how people think of it beyond the short-term experience. Box office shows people watched them, subsequent opinion shows the rose tint quickly wore off of many glasses since. If what you're saying is true, then TPM and AOTC would have a consistently positive reflection in the culture and everywhere else, but it doesn't. Money made over a few weekends means nothing in the long run; it's just a statistic of the time. What you're saying is living in denial of everything since the film's opening. "It did great its first month, people still love it today six years after the fact."

So, is Gigli a good movie? You went off on a tangent about box office that really had nothing to do with the film itself, but audience reaction. Is there such a thing as a bad movie? I'm not asking about audience opinion; is it possible for a film to be badly made, and if so, what makes it a bad movie?

It was a case of the acting AND the dialogue not being very good, which goes back to my very first answer in this thread, it being the guy who says "cut."

 

Like I said, you could probably attribute half of what TPM made to the "have to see it myself" factor, the rest of it shows repeat business, and incredible staying power.

The box office indicates it worked for more than it's fair share of people. That's what makes is a sucessful film.

Whether or not it is good is subjective to whoever is watching the film. To Lucas, and the people who love these films it was great.

Just as Gigli may have been great to some people.

But in the case of Gigli, it wasn't a success, because it never made it's money back. In that case, you could argue that something went wrong, because it wasn't a success.

In the case of a -wildy- successful film like TPM, you would have to admit that even if it didn't go right with you, it did go right with quite a few people. So the question is not, why didn't anyone like the movie, was it the acting or the dialogue? It's why did some people not like it while others did?

 

Agreed G. May I call you G? And although I've enjoyed the PT to the tune of 43 total theatrical viewings of the films, I don't think those who criticise the acting are simply "wrong." I just don't agree with it on a personal level. It simply doesn't appear that way to me when I watch the films. I suppose I'm able to eschew the critic's eye when I watch. For whatever reason, the Star Wars films are really the only films that allow me to turn to do that, which is part and parcel with why I love them so much.

Personally I don't really subscribe to that defense, so I can't really justify it. My "defense" is only that the films are enjoyable to me, the performances included.

Yes they can (and do). Still, I think something along the lines of "Critiquing the acting and dialouge" would have made the point.

Yes they did. The initial posting was totally appropriate and I had no problem with it whatsoever. Just the title...I'm a little sensitive I guess. Maybe it's time to grow that ponytail.

I guess the Bad acting label will just have to be us PT fans' cross to bear.




Let's end this on something upbeat that we can ALL agree on...

[image=http://www.kamuiweb.com/v4/Ep4/BO/piste5.JPG]

Beautiful isn't it?

PS: I've decided against the ponytail

 

*ahem*

I already get your argument about success of a movie and audiences, but you still haven't answered my question: What makes a bad movie? Earlier on in the thread, you said that the acting in these films was good, so you can say what's good and what's bad, not just a vague and elusive pseudo-argument of general audience reaction that amounts to the usual "focus determines reality." You made an assertion that these movies had good acting, so naturally, there is such a thing as good and bad to you, now tell us, what makes a bad movie?

Or are all movies good?

 

On a personal level, if you like a movie, it's good.

From a societal standpoint, if a movie is liked by -enough- people, then it is considered a good movie by society at large.

In the case of the Star Wars films, they are liked by a landslide of people. More than most movie made could boast.

Here the question assumes something went wrong with the prequels.

For -enough- of us, they went right. For a lot of us, the acting and dialouge is just fine.

So the question can't be what went wrong with these films, because they were incredibly successful. The question then becomes, why didn't some of you guys like these movies like the rest of us did. The answer is that some of you didn't like one or the other or both.

If you guys had liked that, then chances are you wouldn't have a problem with them.

 

wcleere:

Let's end this on something upbeat that we can ALL agree on...

what is that picture? it only comes up small on my computer, is that French?

So the question can't be what went wrong with these films, because they were incredibly successful.

Yes it can . Look I know lots of people here and in RL who think that there is stuff wrong with these films, and as long as we're allowed we're going to discuss it .

The question then becomes, why didn't some of you guys like these movies like the rest of us did

Well that's another topic, and it would probably end up breaking the 'films not posters' rule anyway .


If you guys had liked that, then chances are you wouldn't have a problem with them.

yeah well we didn't and no amount of pscho/social algebra is gonna make it our fault .
These are films, we're talking about them . SW is kinda unique in it's success, and we're all fans, now the PT is not just a bunch of sequels it's the backstory to one of the most iconic film characters ever, so we already had an investment in it, we're gonna be talking about it for a while, we're not gonna suddenly go - 'oh it was my fault I didn't like it I'll shut up now' .
know what I mean?

Now we were talking about the 'stylized' acting and I responded to a couple of your points yesterday do you have anything to say in counterargument ?

g

 

Go-mer-tonic,
Can't you like aspects of a film and not care for others?
Classic example from Return of the Jedi: I loved the Luke/Vader/Emperor parts and hated the Ewoks. The same can be said for the prequels:
I liked the Palpatine/Senate parts, liked the battles (particularly in AotC) and hated Hayden and Natalie's acting and the bad dialog. Get it? Sometimes a film in a single or a double, not always a grand slam homerun. As much as I loved Coruscant, JarJar and George's bad writing makes me cringe. I hope this explains the reactions of people which you seem not to understand.

 

what is that picture? it only comes up small on my computer, is that French?

When I posted it it was a pic of the OT Binary Sunset. Evidently that is some sort of File not found error pic ?? Don't know what language that is. That'll teach me to use google image search. Anyway, my intention was to put up a pic of the beautiful Binary sunset from ANH. Something that we could all enjoy....

[image=http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/laserdisk/sw4/sunset3.jpg]

There we go. From the trusted force.net!!!

 

I would never want you guys to feel you couldn't discuss what went wrong for you guys personally, I am just saying the film was a huge success, so what Lucas did obviously worked for enoguh people to consider him to have been successful.

He was happy with how they turned out, and enough people felt the same way that it was wildly successful.

 

Like I said, box office and "financial success" have no other meaning except for showing performance at the time it ran in theaters. Just because a film did well six years ago, doesn't mean it's loved today; box office doesn't show any form of subjective information. It's not a survey, it doesn't take people's opinions after the movie. If we went by financial success, then little kids everywhere must still love Pokemon. Five years ago, it was an amazing phenomenon; now look at it. Do all those kids love it still? Is it still a wildfire phenom? Since it was so successful, could there be anything wrong with it? To cling on to a five year old record and pretend it's still relevent today is a form of denial.

And you're still avoiding my question: What makes a movie bad? You've done the run around, kept with the whole success mantra, but still haven't answered my question.

 

On a personal level, if you don't like a movie, it's bad to you.

On a societal level, the best you can hope for is enough people like it to make boatloads of cash.

Societally speaking (I am coing a new word ) the star wars movies are considered "good" because enough people thought so to make them spellbinging successes at the box office and then on video. If enough people thought it was bad, it would have tanked at the box office and not sold well on video. If that had happened, then they would have been considered "bad" movies from a societal standpoint.

My point still remains. It's not the acting or the dialogue, it's that some of you guys don't like the acting or the dialogue.

 

I noticed you totally avoided the Pokemon analogy.

Also, you still haven't said what makes a movie bad. It's more than simply liking it, you said there are good performances in the films, so there's "good" and "bad" to you.

 

Loco and Go-Mer you are now done with this thread. You both have a history of turning things into basher/gusher type threads. This has never been acceptable and never will.

 

Funny they all come from the Basher's Sanctuary.

 

You must mave me mistaken with someone else Strilo.

I am not a basher or a gusher.

In fact, in this thread, I was just saying that whether or not these movies are bad is a subjective thing.

I think the problem is allowing threads in which their title alone suggests that these movies are "bad" or "good", because that in and of itself is subjective.

If you don't allow bahser/gusher threads in the first place, you won't have as much of a problem.

Strilo edit: What part of "do not post in here again" do you two NOT understand?

 

How is this a Basher/Gusher thread? It's still relatively on-topic.

Strilo edit: What part of "do not post in here again" do you two NOT understand?

 

Its also relatively off-topic.

 

Dialogue Meanwhile, for the Acting I think its actually very good. If one notices the "little things", it becomes even more fantastic.

 

The only reason I dislike talking about the flaws is that it takes away my enjoyment of the films. I mean, what's so fun about talking about things you hate about a film? It's somewhat a drag to me. So I guess that would be me saying "what bad acting? what bad dialogue? You mean it's bad? crap...I liked it."