What is your definition of greatness?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Yes and I neglected to mention it doesn't hurt to have a talking duck, if the goal is a middling entertainment spectacle.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zetiago View Post
      Yes and I neglected to mention it doesn't hurt to have a talking duck, if the goal is a middling entertainment spectacle.
      I love that idea! I'm going to pitch that to my rep today. Robert The Talking Duck!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by zetiago View Post

        There is zero correlation between budget and quality. I think there is actually a point where quality, in the critical and academic sense of the word, inversely correlates with budget. I don't know what that exact number is, but it's pretty plain to see. At the level of a POTC the product stops being a movie and is instead a mass entertainment widget, one that needs to have certain characteristics. It needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator, not challenge the audience in any way with actual introspection or thinking, it needs to be something that happens to the audience instead of something they participate in, it needs to be inoffensive in every way, be semi-predictable in plot but not too predictable, have something like a minimum of thirty minutes dedicated to action sequences, and of course have at least a few moments of comedic levity.
        Writing a script that is academic and has introspection is one of the easiest feats to pull off. Every writer has something to say in that sense, and it's very easy to comment on things subtextually that are happening in the world. It's much more difficult to write something that can entertain hundreds of millions of people, and hold their attention.

        And what you're talking about in that sense, is simply the writing. The writing is one part of a movie. You can't tell me the music for an introspective indy type movie can compete against the likes of Zimmer's masterpieces. Is music not considered when addressing best picture? What about the action sequences you mention? How difficult is it to shoot a scene of the sun setting over mountains, compared to choreographing massive fight sequences with swords that involve hundreds of actors like in Pirates? How difficult is it to find some rags from Salvation Army for an aspiring homeless character to wear, versus the intense makeup and costume design that goes into creating suits and wardrobes from alternate universes and other time periods? Should those talents not be considered when addressing Best Picture? When addressing the overall quality of a film?

        You can't compare Nomadland to the Dark Knight and it isn't anywhere near it if you want to talk about quality of film.

        That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Vango View Post

          Writing a script that is academic and has introspection is one of the easiest feats to pull off. Every writer has something to say in that sense, and it's very easy to comment on things subtextually that are happening in the world. It's much more difficult to write something that can entertain hundreds of millions of people, and hold their attention.

          And what you're talking about in that sense, is simply the writing. The writing is one part of a movie. You can't tell me the music for an introspective indy type movie can compete against the likes of Zimmer's masterpieces. Is music not considered when addressing best picture? What about the action sequences you mention? How difficult is it to shoot a scene of the sun setting over mountains, compared to choreographing massive fight sequences with swords that involve hundreds of actors like in Pirates? How difficult is it to find some rags from Salvation Army for an aspiring homeless character to wear, versus the intense makeup and costume design that goes into creating suits and wardrobes from alternate universes and other time periods? Should those talents not be considered when addressing Best Picture? When addressing the overall quality of a film?

          You can't compare Nomadland to the Dark Knight and it isn't anywhere near it if you want to talk about quality of film.

          That's not an opinion. It's a fact.
          A lot to unpack here. You can't really think that writing a successful indie film is 'easy.' It's not even worth discussing because the assertion is ridiculous.

          I'm talking mostly about writing because this is a writing forum and what I'm saying has nothing to do with awards. I think the Oscars are overrated and at least half that get nominated every year are middling at best. So that we can agree on. The rest of your argument seems to hinge on more expensive is better, which to me defies reason. Trent Reznor has been doing a lot of great work scoring lower budget movies, so has Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead. They worked on cheaper movies and did great work. Shooting a fight sequence or an elaborate scene in front of a green screen may be technically harder, but that doesn't make it better than a well placed shot of a sunset, or to borrow from Nomadland, the scene where the main character looks out at the mountains from the backyard of her former house. There is depth in a shot like that. These are all things that critics and academics are regularly assessing for all movies. I've been classes where we've spent an hour discussing the merits of diegetic and extra-diegetic sound in a scene, or the use of liminal space in a shot. All of those things matter and many people pay attention to them.

          Finally, having made a few shorts where I was the writer, director, sometimes cinematographer, sound guy, editor, sound editor, and everything in between I can tell you without reservation that there is nothing easy about making a low budget movie. But don't take my word for it. "Living in Oblivion" is a pretty good meta-movie that shows how hard it is to make a low budget movie.

          Comment


          • #35
            This is so weird as I love mainstream movies and like to write them, but I got into screenwriter because of indie movies and I like to watch/write them too. I think a lover of film loves all movies and genres, even if they have favorites and less favorites. That's okay.

            What is even weirder is Vango won the Nicholl with a script that is totally a movie Zetiago seemingly would like. I just wondered if Z knew that about Vango. We are all more than our posts.

            Comment


            • #36
              Also maybe it's because I've talked to Vango via PM, but all I see is a writer that has a passion and a love of storytelling. And like me he'll say sweeping statements that others jump on. But I'm the same way. I love it myself. I don't agree with everything anyone says -- not even myself -- but I love the way Vango says it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by zetiago View Post

                A lot to unpack here. You can't really think that writing a successful indie film is 'easy.' It's not even worth discussing because the assertion is ridiculous.

                I'm talking mostly about writing because this is a writing forum and what I'm saying has nothing to do with awards. I think the Oscars are overrated and at least half that get nominated every year are middling at best. So that we can agree on. The rest of your argument seems to hinge on more expensive is better, which to me defies reason. Trent Reznor has been doing a lot of great work scoring lower budget movies, so has Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead. They worked on cheaper movies and did great work. Shooting a fight sequence or an elaborate scene in front of a green screen may be technically harder, but that doesn't make it better than a well placed shot of a sunset, or to borrow from Nomadland, the scene where the main character looks out at the mountains from the backyard of her former house. There is depth in a shot like that. These are all things that critics and academics are regularly assessing for all movies. I've been classes where we've spent an hour discussing the merits of diegetic and extra-diegetic sound in a scene, or the use of liminal space in a shot. All of those things matter and many people pay attention to them.

                Finally, having made a few shorts where I was the writer, director, sometimes cinematographer, sound guy, editor, sound editor, and everything in between I can tell you without reservation that there is nothing easy about making a low budget movie. But don't take my word for it. "Living in Oblivion" is a pretty good meta-movie that shows how hard it is to make a low budget movie.
                As difficult as you believe it is to make a low budget movie, or write one, it is infinitely more difficult to make the Dark Knight, literally a once in a lifetime film. And I agree, it doesn't just have to do with which is more expensive. There are plenty of expensive movies have been terrible, because masters of their craft aren't at work. You can't compare the artists involved in a low budget indy movie to the likes of Nolan (one of the best writer-directors of this generation), Bale (one of the best actors of this generation), Ledger (one of the best performances in cinema history), Hans Zimmer (the very best composer of this era), Wally Pfister (one of the most underrated cinematographers of this generation), and others, all artists at the very top of the food chain, all in their absolute primes. Can you name one indy movie that can replicate that?

                The answer is no.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Bono thanks, I love a lot of indy movies too but I just have to speak facts here as to just how difficult it is to make a large-budget movie that turns out great. It's rare, so when it happens, you have to reward those films.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Vango View Post

                    As difficult as you believe it is to make a low budget movie, or write one, it is infinitely more difficult to make the Dark Knight, literally a once in a lifetime film. And I agree, it doesn't just have to do with which is more expensive. There are plenty of expensive movies have been terrible, because masters of their craft aren't at work. You can't compare the artists involved in a low budget indy movie to the likes of Nolan (one of the best writer-directors of this generation), Bale (one of the best actors of this generation), Ledger (one of the best performances in cinema history), Hans Zimmer (the very best composer of this era), Wally Pfister (one of the most underrated cinematographers of this generation), and others, all artists at the very top of the food chain, all in their absolute primes. Can you name one indy movie that can replicate that?

                    The answer is no.
                    When you state an opinion it does not become a fact because you've said so. Apparently I have opinions and you have empirical knowledge on subjective matters.

                    In this whole series of back and forth you've been citing POTC as a high-budget example of a "huge cinematic achievement." I think POTC is basically crap, and all of the alleged masters and geniuses who worked on it were basically doomed to create a middling entertainment widget because that's all it was every going to be. In that sense it delivered on its promise. But we're not talking about commerce. This has always been a debate about quality. Now you're talking about Dark Knight, which to me, is an exception to the general point of diminishing quality rule I previously referenced. The reason why it's a good big budget movie is because there is a depth of character that doesn't normally exist in that kind of movie. It's basically an auteurist character-driven story in the body of a superhero action movie. Is it the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't think so, and that's fine. Overall it's definitely a good movie.

                    All of this stuff about masters at the top of their craft is where you really lose me. You're suggesting that there are a fixed amount of "masters" and only when those stars align can a good movie be made. And movies that carry lower budgets can't possibly have the necessary mix of talent to make a quality movie. It's kind of an odd argument. Divorced from reality really. Maybe it's part of this obsession with greatness. Like in your mind there is a movie dream team out there. Like filmmaking is a sport and only all-stars are good. I don't know.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by zetiago View Post

                      When you state an opinion it does not become a fact because you've said so.
                      I stopped reading after this sentence. It's just a big turn off as you are acting like you aren't doing the same thing Vango is. Or anyone on this board.

                      Zetiago -- did you start writing that adventure idea you won with? Because none of us are going to be great or good or okay or crap if we don't get in the game ourselves!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by zetiago View Post

                        When you state an opinion it does not become a fact because you've said so.

                        ....

                        I think POTC is basically crap

                        The movie has an 8.0/10 on IMDb, 86% audience approval on Rotten Tomatoes, and an 8.8 user rating on Metacritic.

                        Audiences appreciate it more than critics, but it's tough to argue that it's objectively bad when so many people love it.





                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This is every argument I had at film school. I had in real life. I see on this board. Or on twitter.

                          Creative Person1 -- I think Movie X is great.

                          Creative Person 2 -- You are wrong. It's crap. But Movie Y is great.

                          Creative Person 1 -- I didn't like that movie

                          Creative person 2 -- How can you say that? I mean everyone loves Movie Y. It's genius. Just because you didn't like it with your dumb brain doesn't mean it's not a masterpiece.

                          Creative Person 1-- But that's how I feel about Movie X and you told me I was wrong.

                          Creative Person 2-- That's because I keep changing the rules to fit my argument and I don't even realize I'm doing it.

                          Creative Person 1 -- So if you like it, it's great. If I like a movie and you don't, I'm wrong and stupid. Right?

                          Creative Person 2 -- Now you get it!

                          This Mini Play is to say, we will never all like the same movies, but we should all LOVE every movie for being made at all. That's how I feel. I love film. So you don't have to enjoy every movie or want to see every movie, but I don't think people that want to be in the movie business should crap on others work. Sure do it with your friends, but I always think it's poor taste when I see writers or director or actors crapping on creative work. I think it stinks.

                          I like to do my best to say movies I do like! And stand up for even the ones that were not for me as a movie you hate, someone in the world, that is their favorite movie. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bono View Post
                            This is every argument I had at film school. I had in real life. I see on this board. Or on twitter.

                            Creative Person1 -- I think Movie X is great.

                            Creative Person 2 -- You are wrong. It's crap. But Movie Y is great.

                            Creative Person 1 -- I didn't like that movie

                            Creative person 2 -- How can you say that? I mean everyone loves Movie Y. It's genius. Just because you didn't like it with your dumb brain doesn't mean it's not a masterpiece.

                            Creative Person 1-- But that's how I feel about Movie X and you told me I was wrong.

                            Creative Person 2-- That's because I keep changing the rules to fit my argument and I don't even realize I'm doing it.

                            Creative Person 1 -- So if you like it, it's great. If I like a movie and you don't, I'm wrong and stupid. Right?

                            Creative Person 2 -- Now you get it!

                            This Mini Play is to say, we will never all like the same movies, but we should all LOVE every movie for being made at all. That's how I feel. I love film. So you don't have to enjoy every movie or want to see every movie, but I don't think people that want to be in the movie business should crap on others work. Sure do it with your friends, but I always think it's poor taste when I see writers or director or actors crapping on creative work. I think it stinks.

                            I like to do my best to say movies I do like! And stand up for even the ones that were not for me as a movie you hate, someone in the world, that is their favorite movie. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact!
                            I think you and I are experiencing two different discussions. I generally enjoy debating this kind of stuff. In hindsight, the 'crap' comment was a bit much. Other than that this seems like the right forum for the discussion, and you can opt to not participate. Here's what the conversation looks like to me:

                            Vango: My thoughts
                            Me: My thoughts
                            Bono: non sequitur directed at me
                            Bono: non sequitur directed at me

                            Vango: My thougths
                            Me: My thoughts
                            Bono: non sequitur directed at me
                            Bono: non sequitur directed at me

                            And so on...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Well at least I got you to start writing something Z. And it's funny! Good work. Instead of annoying you for the rest of your time on done deal I'll just ignore you and thus make you enjoy your stay with us at done deal. Take care dude.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by zetiago View Post

                                When you state an opinion it does not become a fact because you've said so. Apparently I have opinions and you have empirical knowledge on subjective matters.

                                In this whole series of back and forth you've been citing POTC as a high-budget example of a "huge cinematic achievement." I think POTC is basically crap, and all of the alleged masters and geniuses who worked on it were basically doomed to create a middling entertainment widget because that's all it was every going to be. In that sense it delivered on its promise. But we're not talking about commerce. This has always been a debate about quality. Now you're talking about Dark Knight, which to me, is an exception to the general point of diminishing quality rule I previously referenced. The reason why it's a good big budget movie is because there is a depth of character that doesn't normally exist in that kind of movie. It's basically an auteurist character-driven story in the body of a superhero action movie. Is it the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't think so, and that's fine. Overall it's definitely a good movie.

                                All of this stuff about masters at the top of their craft is where you really lose me. You're suggesting that there are a fixed amount of "masters" and only when those stars align can a good movie be made. And movies that carry lower budgets can't possibly have the necessary mix of talent to make a quality movie. It's kind of an odd argument. Divorced from reality really. Maybe it's part of this obsession with greatness. Like in your mind there is a movie dream team out there. Like filmmaking is a sport and only all-stars are good. I don't know.
                                Filmmaking is definitely like a sport. It's a collection of talent, a team, everyone has to gel, have the same vision, push each other to be great. And when those things align, you usually come up with a great piece of art. There aren't a fixed amount of masters, but you have to prove it. With your body of work. It's no different at all from an athlete. It doesn't even seem you were that impressed with the dark knight, calling it "good" rather than "great."

                                It's odd how you just continue to reference story and character when discussing a movie. Let me tell you something, you can write the best damn script in the world, literally, and if you have some average actors, an average director, and people doing the design and makeup who don't really give a crap, and average music, guess what? Your movie is going to be AVERAGE. I don't care how good your story or characters are.

                                I don't give brownie points to a person if they want to wear 20 hats to make their short film or indy movie. It's not gonna come out good, because one person can't possibly be a master of that many crafts.

                                The music alone in POTC, first one, is better than the entire Nomadland film. I'd rather re-listen to that entire collection than rewatch the Best Picture of the year. Depp's performance in the first Pirates also shows far, far more skill than any actor in that film.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X