Captain America: Civil War (May 6, 2016)

[jye4ever]

Some things are subjective...but there is a right or wrong way of doing things, even when it comes to filmmaking. There's a reason people go to film school and take acting classes. Is Arnold's acting as good as Brando, Pacino, Deniro, and Daniel Day Lewis? Is that really subjective? Are the technical mistakes in Commando like bad editing subjective? No...not really.

Like I said, there can be certain factors that make you like a film more than others, but that doesn't mean you can't accept that certain movies are better....which is "subjective" to a certain extent.

Anyway, both the favorite and the "best" lists are my opinion obviously, so by definition is all subjective, but I can be somewhat objective in recognizing what makes a film a favorite and still recognizing what makes certain films "better." Like Superman: The Movie, on a personal level I think it's bit dull and a bit too long, but I understand that it gets a lot of things right, and I can also recognize the influence on the comic book movie genre because it was the first big budget super hero film of its kind, and that makes it an important film that should be in my top 5.

Your 2nd and 3rd category confuse me, please consolidate.

 

[ZaCHw117]

Nolan is like Ridley Scott, Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock all rolled into one. For me he's the most innovative Hollywood filmmaker right now. And can't wait to see Dunkirk.

Film is subjective, but something can be a favorite for other reasons than it being well made. Commando is a piece of ****, with tons of technical mistakes, bad acting, bad music, bad editing, but I'm still entertained. Just because it's a favorite film because I'm an Arnold fan and because I like mindless action, it doesn't make it as good as Godfellas or Silence of the Lambs, which are great films that I also like.

Batman 89 is a movie I grew up with, it looks cool, and I like the characters, but do I think it's better as a film than Civil War or TDK? Hell no, not even close...their not even in the same galaxy of quality, imo. But nostalgia and being a Batman and Joker fan plays a role in me liking it, more than other films.

Exactly.

Your 2nd and 3rd category confuse me, please consolidate.

Jye think of top 5 "favorites" and replace it with top 5 "rewatchable" it'll be the same list.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Your 2nd and 3rd category confuse me, please consolidate.

I can actually give you my reasoning for picking the films in the best category and picking the films in the favorites category if you are interested in knowing why I picked them?

Or I can use collecting figures as an example. When I got the DX01 Hot Toys figure back in 2009, it was unlike any figure I'd seen up to that point. The box, the accessories, the presentation, everything was just great. Since that figure came out, I've bought other DX figures, other HT MMS figures, and some come with more accessories, better sculpting or have higher quality than the first DX01, but as good as they are, they don't recapture the same feeling I got from opening that DX01 box, and that's one of the reasons the DX01 is one of my favorite figures and one I probably won't sell. It's not the "best" anymore, but it's one of my favorites

 

[jye4ever]

Exactly.



Jye think of top 5 "favorites" and replace it with top 5 "rewatchable" it'll be the same list.

I can actually give you my reasoning for picking the films in the best category and picking the films in the favorites category if you are interested in knowing why I picked them?

Or I can use collecting figures as an example. When I got the DX01 Hot Toys figure back in 2009, it was unlike any figure I'd seen up to that point. The box, the accessories, the presentation, everything was just great. Since that figure came out, I've bought other DX figures, other HT MMS figures, and some come with more accessories, better sculpting or have higher quality than the first DX01, but as good as they are, they don't recapture the same feeling I got from opening that DX01 box, and that's what makes the DX01 one of my favorite figures and one I probably won't sell.

Please add a guilty pleasure category.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

View attachment 290824
Please add a guilty pleasure category.

Aww...sad kitty

A guilty pleasure comic book category? Or just movies in general? Because that's really tough and it probably comes down to a bunch of Arnold and Stallone films.

 

[jye4ever]

That answer is good enough.

 

[Khev]

Some things are subjective...but there is a right or wrong way of doing things, even when it comes to filmmaking.

Actually no there isn't, there is only a way of doing that things that might appeal to the masses and a way of doing things that might appeal to a more specific group of viewers.

There's a reason people go to film school and take acting classes.

Yep, two reasons:

1. To get a degree and an entry level job pulling cables on a studio picture.
2. To learn techniques that have been enjoyed by a large number of subjective people.

And that's it. If there was an "objectively good" way to make a movie there'd only need to be one book, one class, and everyone would do it and anyone who didn't follow that template would be universally rejected. But that isn't the case. Filmmaking "rules" are broken all the time, often with widely applauded results.

Is Arnold's acting as good as Brando, Pacino, Deniro, and Daniel Day Lewis? Is that really subjective?

It is subjective yes. If acting wasn't subjective then you wouldn't have five "Best Actor" nominees every year with split decisions and every nominee getting a portion of the votes. Instead it'd be unanimous. Every time. All you have are *like minded* individuals subjectively agreeing. Like you and I and probably most people that I can think of who would say "yes, Daniel Day Lewis is a better actor than Arnold."

Are the technical mistakes in Commando like bad editing subjective? No...not really.

The only objective things would be like whether the audio sync was off or there were boom mics in frame, the running time, names of the cast, etc. Things that absolutely could not be disputed or argued in any way shape or form. What you call "bad editing" could simply be an intentional choice of a a director or editor and then it's up to you to decide if you like it or not. A famous artist once said "your personal style is just the mistakes you make consistently."

Like I said, there can be certain factors that make you like a film more than others, but that doesn't mean you can't accept that certain movies are better....which is "subjective" to a certain extent.

Correct. Which movies are "better" or "best" are absolutely subjective. It's why people vote every year for all the various award shows and why the "Top 100 Films" and so on lists are always changing. It's not like a 100 meter dash where someone can just rank the best to worst runners with respective times. With films everybody gets to weigh in and for every movie that you think is definitively awesome just pull up a list of reviews on any number of sites or discussion forums and you'll see people trashing it. Or take a movie as awful as Speed 2 which the highly respected Roger Ebert gave a thumbs up review to. Nothing is definitive. All comes down to what you like and how many people *subjectively* agree with you.

 

[jye4ever]

Nothing subjective here.

 

[Khev]

Clown Prince disagrees since she looks nothing like this:

 

[jye4ever]

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Actually no there isn't, there is only a way of doing that things that might appeal to the masses and a way of doing things that might appeal to a more specific group of viewers.

Yep, two reasons:

1. To get a degree and an entry level job pulling cables on a studio picture.
2. To learn techniques that have been enjoyed by a large number of subjective people.

And that's it. If there was an "objectively good" way to make a movie there'd only need to be one book, one class, and everyone would do it and anyone who didn't follow that template would be universally rejected. But that isn't the case. Filmmaking "rules" are broken all the time, often with widely applauded results.

I think you mean filmmaking principles, not rules. And yes, principles can be broken and played with, but I don't think it's just a matter of techniques that the majority of people enjoy. If a film has jump cuts or continuity mistakes, those are filmmaking flaws and it's not subjective.


See if you can spot any mistakes in that short scene. Small thing, but it's not subjective.

It is subjective yes. If acting wasn't subjective then you wouldn't have five "Best Actor" nominees every year with split decisions and every nominee getting a portion of the votes. Instead it'd be unanimous. Every time. All you have are *like minded* individuals subjectively agreeing. Like you and I and probably most people that I can think of who would say "yes, Daniel Day Lewis is a better actor than Arnold.".

Well, when you get to a certain level, it's subjective because all the actors are great, like when you are talking about Oscar worthy performances. However, an actor's job is to be as natural and as honest as possible. If an actor isn't natural or delivers the lines in an unnatural manner or like they're reading the script, that's bad acting. Watch the film The Room, and tell me the acting is not bad.

This is not subjective

 

[jye4ever]

Did that really require 4K resolution.

Too see the cheese nice and clear I guess.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Clown Prince disagrees since she looks nothing like this:

AARRRGGGHHH!!! MY EYES! MY EYES!

​

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Did that really require 4K resolution.

Too see the cheese nice and clear I guess.

AARRRGGGHHH!!! MY EYES! MY EYES!

​

She's so hawt!! Those... pecs

 

[Khev]

I think you mean filmmaking principles, not rules.

Well principles and rules are synonyms so I can't mean one without the other.

And yes, principles can be broken and played with, but I don't think it's just a matter of techniques that the majority of people enjoy. If a film has jump cuts or continuity mistakes, those are filmmaking flaws and it's not subjective.

Yes I addressed quantifiable "flaws" when I mentioned audio sync issues, boom mics, and such. But the existence of those "flaws" only detract from any viewer's score if they notice them and more importantly care about them. Because even when they are pointed out someone's score typically wouldn't change because of it. "The Godfather is a perfect 10!" "Yeah but did you notice the reflection of the cameraman in that one scene?" "Uh, no, but let me check. Oh yeah I see it now, hmm I guess that makes Godfather an 8." See people don't tend to do that and even if they did it's simply because their subjective criteria is more strict than someone else's in that regard.

You could criticize all of Sergio Leone's westerns as being filled with audio flubs from beginning to end on account of the Italian to English dubbing but I and countless others don't see them that way and still rate them above all other films in the genre. So again, pointing out whatever you see as filmmaking errors, shortcomings, what have you in no way means that those are definitive measuring sticks for anyone else.

Look at the original King Kong. Obviously the colors are **** because they're just shades of grey, the cast generally overacts and the monkey and dinos don't look remotely realistic. And you know what? It's *still* regarded as greater than 90% of all films that came after it. Because people *like* the black and white, they like the style of acting (which no current schools would recommend anyone emulate) and they think the puppets have an endearing charm. So much so that to them that film trumps the better acting, cinematography, visuals, etc., of the remakes. You just can't say definitively what works and what doesn't. You can only say what you like and why.

This is not subjective

It sure is subjective. The Room is beloved by thousands. And even has a higher RT score than BvS and SS with one out of three "Top Critics" singing its praises. Go figure.

Now I'm not going to go all "duck season/rabbit season" on the topic but when I see someone trying to pontificate that there are whatever absolutes governing art quality then I just have to wonder how secure they are in their own opinions. Because if something is objective then you have the possibility of being "right" and I know a lot of people have trouble accepting the fact that someone who has a different opinion is just as right as they are. Not saying that that's necessarily you but...

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Well principles and rules are synonyms so I can't mean one without the other.

Rules are imposed. Principles are self made and self imposed.

It sure is subjective. The Room is beloved by thousands. And even has a higher RT score than BvS and SS with one out of three "Top Critics" singing its praises. Go figure.

Now I'm not going to go all "duck season/rabbit season" on the topic but when I see someone trying to pontificate that there are whatever absolutes governing art quality then I just have to wonder how secure they are in their own opinions. Because if something is objective then you have the possibility of being "right" and I know a lot of people have trouble accepting the fact that someone who has a different opinion is just as right as they are. Not saying that that's necessarily you but...food for thought.

First of all, I was talking about the acting in that film, not the quality of the film or the RT score. Second of all, the film is beloved because it's unintentionally funny and because of how bad it is. The film is a serious drama...that was the filmmaker's intent, and in that regard he failed and so did the film.

 

[Khev]

"Intent" has nothing to do with it. No one says "well Spielberg's intent was to show the shark a lot more in JAWS but he couldn't because it kept breaking down so I'm going rate the film according to what he wanted to do instead of the end result." The end result is the end result and you either like it or you don't.

Some of cinema's most celebrated moments are the results of happy accidents. The Room is one giant happy accident from beginning to end.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

"Intent" has nothing to do with it. No one says "well Spielberg's intent was to show the shark a lot more in JAWS but he couldn't because it kept breaking down so I'm going rate the film according to what he wanted to do instead of the end result."

His intent as a filmmaker was to make a great film though, and he found a way despite the setbacks. Tommy Wiseau's intent was to make a drama about a couple, not a comedy.

 

[Khev]

They both tried to make the best films they could, and again, *it doesn't matter what they tried to make,* only what they *did* make. Being lucky is sometimes better than being good (Spielberg was obviously both, Wiseau was only the former.) No one cares about any filmmaker's intentions when they're watching a movie, only whether or not they're being entertained.

I'm not even sure what you're debating at this point. Obviously there's no way you can possibly prove that any film is objectively better than any other so I don't know why you're even trying to say you can. You can say one film made more money or won more awards but "better?" There's no universal control group of criteria with which to definitively determine that.

You and I can say that JAWS blows the **** out of The Room but that one Top Critic who gave a thumbs up to The Room can decide that he doesn't like JAWS. Then who is right? No one. It all comes down to personal preference and that's all it will ever be.

 

[jye4ever]

Like Spielberg I was able to overcome all our obstacles while making Cannibal Campout.