Let's not ride the bandwagon

Originally Posted by knowsbleed
Umm... have you ever thought that the reason that a majority of people don't like something is because that something truly might... uh... suck?

Nope. I think they're entitled to their opinion but I don't have to share it. If I like something, no number of people telling me they don't is going to sway me. By contrast, would you then argue that if a majority of people DO like something it MUST automatically be good? Because I would again disagree.
 
Ugh.

I loved Revenge of the Fallen. But it is NOT a good movie. Period. Many people hate it...but it's justifyed because the movie is ass. It's fun, but it's terrible.

That's my point. There is a REASON why a lot of people dont like something. And it aint bandwagoning. No one said you couldnt enjoy it, but dont tell me i'm just going with a crowed when I honestly dont like something/
 
Nope. I think they're entitled to their opinion but I don't have to share it. If I like something, no number of people telling me they don't is going to sway me. By contrast, would you then argue that if a majority of people DO like something it MUST automatically be good? Because I would again disagree.

I was going to make this point before, well said!

Ugh.

I loved Revenge of the Fallen. But it is NOT a good movie. Period. Many people hate it...but it's justifyed because the movie is ass. It's fun, but it's terrible.

That's my point. There is a REASON why a lot of people dont like something. And it aint bandwagoning. No one said you couldnt enjoy it, but dont tell me i'm just going with a crowed when I honestly dont like something/

To be honest I dont think anyone was saying that, well thats not what I meant anyway.

Not everyone who enjoys or dislikes something is jumping on the bandwagon but what it is there seems to be MANY people that are doing just that.
 
There's always a legit reason people dont like something.

There is a reason why everyone hated Revenge of the Fallen. And I liked that.

There is a reason people hated Gamer. And I liked that.

Dispite me enjoying those flicks, i'd never call them top quailty entertainment. Sometimes things are justifyed.
 
There's always a legit reason people dont like something.

There is a reason why everyone hated Revenge of the Fallen. And I liked that.

There is a reason people hated Gamer. And I liked that.

Dispite me enjoying those flicks, i'd never call them top quailty entertainment. Sometimes things are justifyed.

I disagree, theres people that say they hate Nokia cell phones you ask them why and they cant answer. The real reason is because they're not an iPhone or a Blackberry.

This is common in society when something isnt considered "in" anymore the masses follow
 
I'm only talkin movie's here....thought that's what this thread was about, since everyone is *****ing over the deserving hate for Spider-Man 3 and the last X-films...
 
I can see where this is about to go, so let me just put this out there:

What's defined as "good" is different to different people. No professionally made movie is inherently good or bad. There are only opinions that are either reinforced or argued against by a consensus of opinions.
 
I loved Revenge of the Fallen. But it is NOT a good movie. Period. Many people hate it...but it's justifyed because the movie is ass. It's fun, but it's terrible.

Why do you love a movie that is not good?
 
I can see where this is about to go, so let me just put this out there:

What's defined as "good" is different to different people. No professionally made movie is inherently good or bad. There are only opinions that are either reinforced or argued against by a consensus of opinions.
:up:
 
I can see where this is about to go, so let me just put this out there:

What's defined as "good" is different to different people. No professionally made movie is inherently good or bad. There are only opinions that are either reinforced or argued against by a consensus of opinions.

Brilliant post is brilliant. :up:
 
It will always be subjective. If a good movie makes bank, we're like, "of course it made money, people recognize a good movie when they see it." But if it failed, suddenly "box office doesn't matter, the moviegoing public are morons." I have seen posters on here switch between these two mindsets and not even try to hide it.
 
I must admit, the Norton fanboys really annoy me. Just they way they're constantly barking about "continuity". It's like if your favourite book changed artists would the continuity be shattered? Would the world end?
 
I can see where this is about to go, so let me just put this out there:

What's defined as "good" is different to different people. No professionally made movie is inherently good or bad. There are only opinions that are either reinforced or argued against by a consensus of opinions.

I disagree. I do think there is a fine line between a good film, and a bad film. But I dont see what the problem is with liking bad movies. :huh: I love a ton of horrible flicks. I even like Alien Resurrection. :hehe:
 
I disagree. I do think there is a fine line between a good film, and a bad film. But I dont see what the problem is with liking bad movies. :huh: I love a ton of horrible flicks. I even like Alien Resurrection. :hehe:

If they are "bad" then why do you like them?

I'll answer that for you - because "good" and "bad" are subjective, and if you like them, then in your mind they are "good"
 
I disagree. I do think there is a fine line between a good film, and a bad film. But I dont see what the problem is with liking bad movies. :huh: I love a ton of horrible flicks. I even like Alien Resurrection. :hehe:

How do you determine if a movie is good or bad? I love the movie Clue. How can I determine if it's a good movie or just a bad movie I like?
 
How do you tell if a movie is even good or bad?
 
If I enjoy it, it's good. If I come away from it feeling like I've experienced the height of awesomeness, it's good. If I still feel that way a year or so later, it's good. If I enjoy it despite being aware of its flaws and shortcomings, it's good. Plain and simple. If I derive no enjoyment from it whatsoever or the unlikeable elements outweigh the likeable ones, it's bad. That's how I see it.
 
That's how most people see it, Chris. I'm asking how CelticPredator defines good and bad movies in his magical little world where good and bad are objective terms.
 
I know what he is saying, i think.

Bad acting is bad acting. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: Megan Fox

Bad writing is bad writing. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: MJ and the stupid Deus Ex Machina Butler in SM3.

Bad SFX are bad SFX. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: Wolverine Origins.

If all those things are bad... then the movie is bad. But that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable to some people.
 
But the definitions of bad acting, writing, and special effects also vary from person to person.

I don't think Ben Affleck is bad, but a lot of people do.
I don't think the special effects in Speed Racer were bad, but a lot of people do.
I swear up and down that the writing in Soutland Tales was absolutely terrible, but Richard Kelly's fans will defend his writing to the death.
 
Hmmm fair points.

But then that brings us to the argument of "some opinions are just flat out wrong". Anyone who says that Deus Ex Machina Butler from SM3 wasn't bad writing is just flat out wrong i'm afraid. It was atrocious, cheap writing. Fact.

Honestly i don't wanna get into that sorta argument though :D Especially since i only joined today!
 
Opinions can't be wrong. There are no facts to prove against them. They can only fly in the face of the prevailing consensus.
 
A lot of things are subjective.

For example, I loved Avatar while a lot of people didn't. I like Harry Potter, some people don't. I think Marlon Brando was overrated and affected while some people think he was the greatest actor who ever lived.

But IMO there is such a thing as bad acting, bad writing, bad filmmaking, etc.
 
I know what he is saying, i think.

Bad acting is bad acting. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: Megan Fox

Bad writing is bad writing. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: MJ and the stupid Deus Ex Machina Butler in SM3.

Bad SFX are bad SFX. Doesn't come down to opinion. Example: Wolverine Origins.

If all those things are bad... then the movie is bad. But that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable to some people.

While I won't be giving Megan Fox an Academy Award anytime soon, I wouldn't call her "bad" - her acting isn't "unbelievable" to me, and it doesn't take me out of the movie. As long as she stays in movies like Transformers or something where she doesn't need a lot of depth, I think that she's an appropriate actress for her roles.

One single "deus ex machina" doesn't ruin an entire movie.

Special effects are about the last thing that can ruin a movie. Does that mean that movies from the 80's and 90's that didn't have the technology we do now are all "bad" movies because their special effects suck?

The purpose of a movie is to entertain. Nothing else. If the movie doesn't entertain, then it is not good to those that it entertained. If the movie does entertain, then it is good to those that it entertained. Simple.

Yes, there is a difference between a movie like The Godfather vs. X-Men: The Last Stand. Which movie do I enjoy more? X-Men: The Last Stand. I would say that The Godfather is a better made movie.

It would be like comparing Linkin Park (a band I absolutely love) to a band like The Beatles (a band I absolutely hate), and trying to say that Linkin Park was a more talented band. Obviously, the more talented band is The Beatles, but I think the better music comes from Linkin Park.

Well, obviously The Godfather is a more technically speaking, better made movie, but IMO X-Men: The Last Stand is the better of the 2 movies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,387
Messages
22,095,534
Members
45,890
Latest member
amadeuscho55
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"