What is your definition of greatness?

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #16
    --
    Last edited by Bono; 05-04-2021, 08:25 PM. Reason: wasting my own time and yours

    Comment


    • #17
      Moonlight was better than Nomadland, but I also thought it had weaknesses from a writing perspective.

      First Act was the best part of movie. Went downhill from there. The barely mentioned sudden disappearance of Juan, the most compelling character in the movie, in the second act felt kind of weird. Third act felt rushed compared to the other two acts despite the pacing also grinding to a halt with a ten minute diner scene at the end.

      The movie felt structurally imbalanced.

      To me, the fact that the movie was about being gay in the Black community did not make it more memorable than several of the other movies that were nominated that year. Other movies were just better pieces of cinema.

      Main reason I remember Moonlight is because, to this day, me and my girlfriend will randomly shout at each other, "WHO IS YOU, CHIRON!? WHO YOU IS!?"

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm pretty sure Charlie Kaufman is a great writer, but I find myself admiring his work more than enjoying it (or re-watching it).

        2 of the best films of 2006 (or the decade, really) were Children Of Men and Apocalypto. Neither was nominated for Best Picture. So maybe the Oscars are out of touch, or maybe greatness only reveals itself over time.

        For me greatness is writing something so definitive, like Network or Silence Of The Lambs or Groundhog Day, that that particular type of film never needs to be made again.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Bono View Post
          I like Howard the Duck, did you tell you that before zetiago? 10 times? I think I said it at most like 5 times in this thread. Do you know me from real life?

          I got what you wrote. You were a dick about it now twice. Once to Vango and once to me. I get it you like "real" movies and I like movies people actually watch. This is just like people at my film school. That's why I said all that. I shared my take on your take -- which just so happens to be wrong.

          At least if we had a fight before I'd get it. But this came out of left field.
          I don't think I was being rude to Vango. I was merely reacting to something he said. Doing the whole message board quote and respond thing. Something I see a lot here.

          What I did find weird is your non sequitur about Howard the Deck followed by a lengthy post I took as being a response to what I wrote, but talks about a bunch of things I never mention. You also imply that anyone who appreciates the art of cinema is somehow pretending or lying to themselves. There are people who watch and re-watch art-house fare, I know because I do. I acknowledge I'm in the minority, but as I already made clear that wasn't my point to begin with.

          It seems others have returned to actually addressing the topic at hand so I guess that's that.

          For the record I like Howard the Duck as well. A parallel universe where duck people live is a kind of weird genius.

          Comment


          • #20
            I was a dick in this thread... sorry.
            Last edited by Bono; 05-04-2021, 08:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post

              2 of the best films of 2006 (or the decade, really) were Children Of Men and Apocalypto.
              Hell yes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Here's a timely article.

                All this talk is a waste of time. Paddington 2 is the best movie of all time. The jury has spoken.

                So to answer the original question - greatness is writing the next Paddington 2.

                Comment


                • #23
                  dumb post
                  Last edited by Bono; 05-04-2021, 08:26 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by zetiago View Post
                    Here's a timely article.

                    All this talk is a waste of time. Paddington 2 is the best movie of all time. The jury has spoken.

                    So to answer the original question - greatness is writing the next Paddington 2.
                    Exactly. Writers are already putting their own twists on "Paddington". Have you not heard of the spec sale for "Cocaine Bear"?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                      I'm pretty sure Charlie Kaufman is a great writer, but I find myself admiring his work more than enjoying it (or re-watching it).
                      Likewise, this Andrea Arnold movie, Fish Tank, felt so real and "un-written" that it felt like you were watching a documentary of this girl's crappy life. It won a bunch of awards. Its director is undeniably great. Was this entertaining? I wouldn't say that. Because entertainment has enjoyment as a factor. Do I ever want to watch it again? No. Can I remember every frame of it without trying? Yes.

                      So, is the definition of great mean you're doing things no one else can do? Or does it mean an audience was entertained?

                      Fish Tank (2009) | The Criterion Collection

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by figment View Post
                        So, is the definition of great mean you're doing things no one else can do? Or does it mean an audience was entertained?
                        There's lots of great films that I've enjoyed but don't want to re-watch (Lars Von Trier and Michael Haneke come to mind) and likewise lots of entertaining guilty pleasures that I'd be embarrassed to admit to seeing 20 times, but I think or would hope that the people who can combine the two will always be at the top of the top lists, which are almost always filled with movies that are 30-50 years old, because it's the entertainment value that makes them immortal.



                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by muckraker View Post
                          Vango I just don't understand your obsession with "greatness." Do you derive any pleasure from writing? Do you ever write just because you enjoy it? I have never encountered an attitude like yours in 30 years of writing, more than that if I count stories I developed with friends going back to the 3rd grade. If it's a sport like you have compared it to many times, to each his own, but at the end of the day I hope the art of writing brings you joy.
                          Thanks lol, that's a compliment to me. I'm happy that you've never encountered anyone who thinks like me. Writing is one of my great joys in life, yes.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by zetiago View Post

                            This is like saying "Dogs Playing Poker" is better than a Picasso. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but anyone who takes cinema seriously would find that assertion hilarious.

                            Nomadland and The Master are by no means favorites of mine. However, it's clear why they are well regarded, and the fact that some in this screenwriting community don't recognize it is kind of mystifying to me. The Master is a purely American story of grift personified in a fake prophet. The desire of his flock for any form of salvation, however implausible, is endemic to our society. Nomadland beautifully captures how fragile the American dream can be. It's almost an illusory idyll for many. We get to see it in the people, either by choice or necessity, that are on the literal or proverbial road to some other unknown alternate destination.

                            Moonlight was mentioned in another thread in a similarly derisive manner. I think Moonlight is easily one of the best movies made in the last 10-20 years. I'm fairly certain it will be required viewing at film schools in the future. It will definitely be part of the canon. It's that special. Why? Because it's about the things that are felt but can't be expressed in words. Those gray areas where we all mostly dwell.

                            In all cases the writers have used a master level of restraint. That is what writing is - showing, suggesting, connecting on a human level. It's extremely hard to be nuanced and restrained.
                            I don't think they're not well regarded. I just think when you talk about Best Picture, you're talking about the best movie of the year. Moonlight and Nomadland are both beautiful films, visually. The technique there is masterful.

                            But a best movie should be about more than that, and more than which story is most profound. To make a movie like Pirates of the Carribean is such a massive, intense process. Ditto for most studio movies like that but especially for ones like the first Pirates. The artists involved in that production are all masters. Depp's acting is the finest of his career. Zimmer did the music, the best composer in cinema history without question. The hair and makup and costume department. You can't ride off in your truck with some camera equipment for 2 months and shoot Pirates, and do all the editing on your own like Zhao did, it's not possible.

                            So yeah, I think it's a little insulting to compare a movie like Nomadland to a huge cinematic achievement like Pirates of the Carribean, where thousands and thousands of people, literally, most of which are at the top of their respective crafts, are involved in making that movie happen.

                            This kind of stuff seems to not be appreciated by many film critics and award shows. But it will change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Vango View Post

                              I don't think they're not well regarded. I just think when you talk about Best Picture, you're talking about the best movie of the year. Moonlight and Nomadland are both beautiful films, visually. The technique there is masterful.

                              But a best movie should be about more than that, and more than which story is most profound. To make a movie like Pirates of the Carribean is such a massive, intense process. Ditto for most studio movies like that but especially for ones like the first Pirates. The artists involved in that production are all masters. Depp's acting is the finest of his career. Zimmer did the music, the best composer in cinema history without question. The hair and makup and costume department. You can't ride off in your truck with some camera equipment for 2 months and shoot Pirates, and do all the editing on your own like Zhao did, it's not possible.

                              So yeah, I think it's a little insulting to compare a movie like Nomadland to a huge cinematic achievement like Pirates of the Carribean, where thousands and thousands of people, literally, most of which are at the top of their respective crafts, are involved in making that movie happen.

                              This kind of stuff seems to not be appreciated by many film critics and award shows. But it will change.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You mean it has to be a movie?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X