What Makes A Film Great?

Started by modage, January 13, 2004, 05:10:02 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Alethia

#30
January 14, 2004, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: Cerpin_Schulzemore cowbell

Fellas, I got a feva'......and the only prescription....is more cowbell!

cron

#31
January 15, 2004, 03:12:16 AM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: BrainSushiThis man behind the camera
what the fuck is this? i try to start one serious thread, and you cant even read the first fucking page before posting something like this?  whatever.

who says he's joking?
context, context, context.

modage

#32
January 20, 2004, 09:35:04 PM
SECOND QUESTION: does a film have to be known to be great?  like if a great film is made, but no one sees it, is it still great?  (tree falls in forest).  like, does part of what makes a film great have to do with it being the first to do something, or its influence over other films/filmmakers?  so is it possible one of the greatest films ever made is one that no one has seen because it was made in some kids garage?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

cron

#33
January 21, 2004, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: themodernage02SECOND QUESTION: does a film have to be known to be great?  like if a great film is made, but no one sees it, is it still great?  (tree falls in forest).  like, does part of what makes a film great have to do with it being the first to do something, or its influence over other films/filmmakers?  so is it possible one of the greatest films ever made is one that no one has seen because it was made in some kids garage?

Cult film

A cult film is a movie that attracts a small but devoted group of obsessive fans or one that has remained popular over successive years amongst a small group of followers. Often the film failed to achieve mainstream success on its original release, but this is not always the case. Sometimes the audience response to a cult film is somewhat different to what was intended by the film-makers, although usually a film that becomes "cult" started-out with unusual elements or subject matter.

A film reaches cult status due to an audience's relationship to the film. This makes the designation of cult status to a film difficult, however continued success amongst a subset of moviegoers many years after the film's original release is a key defining factor.

Many cult films are from such genres as horror, science fiction and world cinema. The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which combines the elements of science fiction, horror—not to mention transvestitism, incest and homosexuality—and, amazingly, is a musical, is considered by many the first true and seminal cult film.

The construction of meaning within the cult film text, and the nature and epistemology of cult film (and also its audiences), however, are now studied academically.

An instance of how cults differ between societies include the elevation of the British comedy film actor Norman Wisdom into a cult icon in Albania during the years of Communism under Enver Hoxha, at a time when his family-friendly style almost certainly ensured that 'cult' would be the last term on earth to be applied to him in the West. Curiously he and his films are now acquiring nostalgic cult status in Britain.

Selected List of Cult Films

2001 - A Space Odyssey
Abba - The Movie
The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension
Apocalypse Now
Army of Darkness
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes
Bad Taste
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
Blade Runner
The Blues Brothers
Boxing Helena
Braindead
Brazil
The Breakfast Club
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Dark Star
Dazed And Confused
Dr. Strangelove or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Drowning by Numbers
Donnie Darko
Eraserhead
Evil Dead
The Graduate
Grand Illusion
The Gods Must Be Crazy
Harold and Maude
Heathers
Henry--Portrait of a Serial Killer
If...
Incubus
The Italian Job
It's a Wonderful Life
James Bond series
Koyaanisqatsi
Little Shop of Horrors
The Man Who Fell To Earth
Mars Attacks
The Matrix
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
Meet The Feebles
Paris, Texas
Pink Floyd's The Wall
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
The Princess Bride
The Producers
Pulp Fiction
Raising Arizona
Reefer Madness aka Tell Your Children
Repo Man
Rocky Horror Picture Show
Silent Running
St. Elmo's Fire
Santa Sangre
Star Wars series
This Is Spinal Tap
Tommy (the Who rock opera)
TRON
The Wicker Man
Withnail and I
The Wizard of Speed and Time
Yellow Submarine
context, context, context.

Link

#34
January 21, 2004, 08:27:49 AM
Usually, when I like a film, I think it's pretty great.  So I would have to say for a film to be great, I have to like it.

cron

#35
January 21, 2004, 09:02:44 AM
Quote from: LinkUsually, when I like a film, I think it's pretty great.  So I would have to say for a film to be great, I have to like it.

are you quoting Oscar Wylde?  or someone?
context, context, context.

Fernando

#36
January 21, 2004, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: chuckhimselfo
Quote from: themodernage02SECOND QUESTION: does a film have to be known to be great?  like if a great film is made, but no one sees it, is it still great?  (tree falls in forest).  like, does part of what makes a film great have to do with it being the first to do something, or its influence over other films/filmmakers?  so is it possible one of the greatest films ever made is one that no one has seen because it was made in some kids garage?

Cult film

A cult film is a movie that attracts a small but devoted group of obsessive fans or one that has remained popular over successive years amongst a small group of followers.

I guess what modernage was reffering (correct me if i'm wrong) is a film without any status, that is, nor is an obscure film, nor a cult film, etc...it's just some piece of film that no one has seen and is ready to be discovered.

To answer your question I think it could be great, like the hidden gem in some isolated place, is that what you meant?

Now, what about when some guy who shot his film on video and then made his feature based on his amateur film (Boogie Nights), maybe his amateur film wasn't a masterpiece or anything like that, but from that idea he made one great film, does that aply to your question?

Pubrick

#37
January 21, 2004, 09:58:45 AM
Quote from: chuckhimselfoare you quoting Oscar Wylde?
no, Leopold and Loeb.
under the paving stones.

modage

#38
January 21, 2004, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: FernandoI guess what modernage was reffering (correct me if i'm wrong) is a film without any status, that is, nor is an obscure film, nor a cult film, etc...it's just some piece of film that no one has seen and is ready to be discovered.  To answer your question I think it could be great, like the hidden gem in some isolated place, is that what you meant?
right.  now, okay so then if a film's greatness stands seperately from its impact on other films, (or atleast somewhat seperately), than is it possible that a newer film with less impact on 'film history' is better than an older one that broke rules and influenced tons of films/filmmakers?  because to assume that a film can be great because of what it IS, and not what it DOES (impact/influence), then that would lead you to believe that a film that doesnt have a place in film history could still be better than an older film that does?  or am i wrong?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

cron

#39
January 21, 2004, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: FernandoI guess what modernage was reffering (correct me if i'm wrong) is a film without any status, that is, nor is an obscure film, nor a cult film, etc...it's just some piece of film that no one has seen and is ready to be discovered.  To answer your question I think it could be great, like the hidden gem in some isolated place, is that what you meant?
right.  now, okay so then if a film's greatness stands seperately from its impact on other films, (or atleast somewhat seperately), than is it possible that a newer film with less impact on 'film history' is better than an older one that broke rules and influenced tons of films/filmmakers?  because to assume that a film can be great because of what it IS, and not what it DOES (impact/influence), then that would lead you to believe that a film that doesnt have a place in film history could still be better than an older film that does?  or am i wrong?


this reminds me of a two quotes, none of them properly related to cinema.
one is  by a musician whose name i can't recall,  "being a good musician implies being a good businessman" and the other comes from the creator of a NES  videogame called McKids.  it's not actually a quote, but he said something about  how  by just making a good game your not necesarily making a succesful one.  for all i know, you can be the greatest guitar player in the world but if no one listens to you, you have failed.    
it may look vain,  but leaving all creative terms aside, i'm of the idea that if you really want to make a succesful film (and by saying succesful  i'm talking about getting to people, not of making money. people tend to confuse that) , not only does it has to have good monetary backbone,  it has to come in the right time and the right place.
context, context, context.

Pubrick

#40
January 21, 2004, 12:15:52 PM
it's quite simple..

MARKETING makes a film successful.

TALENT makes a film great.

if u can't tell the difference, then stick with the first.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#41
January 21, 2004, 12:19:39 PM
sadly, without the marketing, no one will see a great film...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cron

#42
January 21, 2004, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: Pit's quite simple..

MARKETING makes a film successful.

TALENT makes a film great.

if u can't tell the difference, then stick with the first.


i think that's a very american way to divide things.
context, context, context.

Pubrick

#43
January 21, 2004, 12:24:50 PM
that's funny cos i'm not american.

Quote from: sntsadly, without the marketing, no one will see a great film...
u mean the asshole public won't.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#44
January 21, 2004, 12:32:36 PM
No, I just mean that if you or your producer doesn't know how to sell the film, it's possible that no one will see it. There's a certain degree of politic that goes into getting into festivals even, much less having people show up to your screening. And that's not even talking about getting any kind of distribution...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions