Can watching bad movies make you a worse filmmaker?

Started by SoNowThen, February 13, 2004, 11:17:17 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

MacGuffin

#30
February 14, 2004, 11:13:08 PM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaI really try to avoid bad movies, because they're depressing and hurt my brain.  Why would I waste my time when there really are so many good movies I've yet to see.

How do you know they're bad with having seen them? It's not a waste of time if you learn something from them.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

ono

#31
February 14, 2004, 11:17:59 PM
Good point, but how do you know what bad movies are ones you can watch and actually take something away from?

modage

#32
February 15, 2004, 12:11:58 AM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaAnd all horror flicks I've seen pretty much sucked, except for The Shining.  And Mulholland Drive, if you consider it horror, which I've sort of taken a slight shine to after hating it for so long.
mulholland isnt horror.  horror is great.  i dont understand how so many people here dont 'get it'.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ono

#33
February 15, 2004, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: themodernage02mulholland isnt horror.  horror is great.  i dont understand how so many people here dont 'get it'.
I sure beg to differ.  It isn't conventional horror, but it definitely has those elements, and that feel.

modage

#34
February 15, 2004, 12:17:39 AM
no offense, but because mullholland has some creepy shit, its not a horror film.  and thats not to say a horror film cant be arty or thoughtful or interesting, its just that the genre has certain rules/parameters that a movie either is or isnt to belong to it.  (it seems like the only people who want to put lynchs films in the horror genre are people who dont really know anything about it.  elephant man?  eraserhead?  mulholland drive?  who are you people!?)

i just dont understand how horror is any less of a worthy genre than anything else.  there are horror movies that take advantage of cinematic techniques and push the medium forward.  there are horror movies that have something to say, as much as any other film.  and there are horror movies that succeed on a very basic level of engaging the audience by making them afraid.  sure there are craploads of bad horror movies, just like there are craploads of bad action movies or bad romantic comedies or bad art films.  that doesnt mean that the genre sucks, it just means that the people working in it dont have any idea of what to do with it.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ono

#35
February 15, 2004, 12:21:18 AM
Horror is less worthy a genre because, quite frankly, the genre sucks, and the films that come out of it are just weak.  And I'm not the only one who thinks Mulholland Drive is a horror film.  It's a more psychological one, yes, but the elements are there.  It's no slasher flick, but that horror element can't be discredited.  I have yet to see a good horror flick (besides The Shining, and only because of Kubrick's touch, and I may as well give credit to Psycho, too, because I didn't hate it), and doubt I ever will.

pete

#36
February 15, 2004, 12:22:56 AM
obviously one shouldn't descriminiate and whatever, but a lot of people don't really respect horror as a genre the same way they don't respect "Romantic Comedies": because a majority of their fans will be the first ones to point out how cheesy and predictable the materials are and how they're fully aware of that.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

modage

#37
February 15, 2004, 12:23:18 AM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaHorror is less worthy a genre because, quite frankly, the genre sucks, and the films that come out of it are just weak.  And I'm not the only one who thinks Mulholland Drive is a horror film.  It's a more psychological one, yes, but the elements are there.  It's no slasher flick, but that horror element can't be discredited.  I have yet to see a good horror flick (besides The Shining, and only because of Kubrick's touch), and doubt I ever will.
no, it doesnt.  what is less worthy about it?  weak by what standard?  how do they fail?  grapes of wrath may have a few light moments, but that doesnt mean its a comedy.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

soixante

#38
February 15, 2004, 02:46:03 AM
Horror films have a low batting average, as far as quality goes.  I dislike the genre for the most part, because the characters in horror films are usually cardboard cutouts.    Horror films are usually just constructed to provide cheap jolts.  Nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake that for art.

Why is that my favorite directors, like Altman, Scorsese, and Anderson never go anywhere near the horror genre?  Why is it when I go to the video store, I don't even bother looking in the horror/sci-fi section?
Music is your best entertainment value.

soixante

#39
February 15, 2004, 03:01:22 AM
Another problem I have with the horror genre is its over-reliance on special effects and cheap shocks.  The biggest problem I have is that horror films are rarely horrifying.

True, there are bad art films, but in the past ten years, such art films as Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Gummo, and Buffalo 66 have helped to reshape and redefine cinema.  Which horror films have had a similar impact?  I can't think of any, although Seven comes close.

When I look back on my favorite films of the past ten or twenty years, I don't think any are horror films.
Music is your best entertainment value.

Pubrick

#40
February 15, 2004, 03:06:14 AM
kubrick's best movie, and therefore the best movie of all time, is horror.

end of argument.
under the paving stones.

MacGuffin

#41
February 15, 2004, 03:14:11 AM
Quote from: soixanteHorror films are usually just constructed to provide cheap jolts.  Nothing wrong with that, but let's not mistake that for art.

It is an art form to put an audience in suspense or to shock or scare them. Those emotions are just as important as moving an audience to laugh or cry with the story the filmmaker tells.

Quote from: soixanteWhy is that my favorite directors, like Altman, Scorsese, and Anderson never go anywhere near the horror genre?

You don't consider "Cape Fear" to be a horror film of sorts? Granted it's not horror of the slash and gore kind, but it is suspense, thriller and has a killer villian that preys on a family.

Quote from: soixanteAnother problem I have with the horror genre is its over-reliance on special effects and cheap shocks.

Could say the same about the action genre, and don't forget films like Lord Of The Rings and it's special effect budget.

Quote from: soixanteThe biggest problem I have is that horror films are rarely horrifying.

Doesn't have to be always be "horrifying". The genre is broad enough that mystery, suspense and surprise fall into the catagory.

Quote from: soixanteTrue, there are bad art films, but in the past ten years, such art films as Pulp Fiction, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Gummo, and Buffalo 66 have helped to reshape and redefine cinema. Which horror films have had a similar impact?  I can't think of any, although Seven comes close.

Seven
Silence Of The Lambs
Scream
Blair Witch Project
Sixth Sense
Jurassic Park
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Chest Rockwell

#42
February 15, 2004, 10:03:33 AM
I wouldn't place Mulholland Drive under horror. David Lynch actually said of it as "A romance set in the City of Dreams" or something like that. And some horror movies aren't too bad. I liked The Ring, and let's not forget such classics as Silence of the Lambs, The Exorcist, Scream, etc.

And isn't PDL considered a romantic comedy?

Maybe we could just compromise by calling Mulholland Drive a Lynchian thriller. Or just thriller, really. I've always found a difference between Thrillers (they seem to be the more intelligent, more psycological, and not as 'horrifying' films) and Horror flicks (they seem to be the slasher/Omen flicks, using cheap gore and such to really terrify the audience moreso than thrillers).

Pubrick

#43
February 15, 2004, 10:27:46 AM
David Lynch's best movie, and therefore the second best movie of all time, is horror.*
*Lost Highway

second end of argument.

future ends of argument: Evil Dead 2, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Carnival of Souls, Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, Child's Play (underrated), Nosferatu, Dawn of the Dead, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (kaufman), Suspiria.

the reason for any anti-horror argument: marketing/brainwashing.
under the paving stones.

Redlum

#44
February 15, 2004, 11:27:01 AM
Quote from: PDavid Lynch's best movie, and therefore the second best movie of all time, is horror.*
*Lost Highway

Without a doubt the scariest film I've ever seen. I would certainly classify it as a horror.
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions