Why Do We Still Go See Movies?

But the purpose of movies (excluding documentaries, instructional videos and the like) is to entertain, so how much I enjoy a movie directly corresponds to how good I think it is. What other criteria matters?

Yeah, I don't really derive a lot of joy from being one of the herd. Please ignore my avatar. Inception was a very interesting movie that I enjoyed. I frankly don't get excited about a "phenomenon."

Heretic. Get a proper popcorn popper, some quality corn, and your own fixin's. Theater popcorn is a joke compared to doing it yourself.

It doesn't. Transformers: Dark of the Moon, that is all.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

You're completely discounting the entire (rather large) group of people who do think Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a good movie. But I guess they're ALL wrong, huh? How DARE they enjoy a film some people can't stand? Screw opinions!

We're not going to get on one of those "sheeple" tangents, are we? Communal entertainment doesn't necessarily need to be a hive mind-type experience, nor is it intended to be. Besides, there's a different experience involved in going out to see something than there is in staying at home by yourself. You might as well say something along the lines of "Why should I go see a performance of The Phantom Of The Opera when I could just get the DVD/Blu-ray of a performance of it?" You can do that, but it won't be the same as if you actually went to see it.

Not to mention, waiting until a movie comes out on DVD? Good luck avoiding spoilers from the thousands upon thousands of people who DID go to see it in theaters.

See my last post (the last page's page-bottomer) for my take on this. I worked damn hard on it, and it's being ignored. Just like the Albert Brooks movie Mother is ignored by most movie websites.

edited 23rd Feb '12 5:26:02 PM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Actually, I saw that, and it's a good point. However, you're talking about poorly-made movies being guilty pleasures in that post. In my mind, and it's just an opinion, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is anything but poorly made. It set out to be a massive action movie with huge and amazing special effects, and it did just that, and in my mind it did it much better than a lot of other movies I've seen with the same agenda. People can disagree with me and say they didn't like it, and that's fine.

What Tyyrlym was saying, however, was that Transformers: Dark of the Moon is, in a completely unarguably-fact way, a bad movie. Doesn't matter if people like it, it's an objectively bad movie. And he didn't say it as an opinion, because he was using it as an example of a bad movie making money. This completely disregards all the people who think it's a good movie, though, and the whole reason why it made over a billion dollar worldwide. If it made that much money, clearly a LOT of people liked it. Is it a bad movie to them? No.

There are plenty of movies out there that I dislike and yet a lot of other people like (the biggest one probably being Toy Story 3) and I don't say they're bad, I just say I personally don't care for them too much. If you loved Toy Story 3, it completed your childhood, or you sobbed in hysteria at the end, honestly, good for you. But I don't force my opinions onto the people who like it and treat them as right.

Okay, you do have a point: Dark of the Moon is not poorly made because it accomplished what it set out to do. Of course, that presumes that Michael Bay only set out to make an action-packed movie with great special effects and Fanservice without any care for story or characterization (of the real stars), but I think that's probably safe to assume anyway. And no, Dark of the Moon is not necessarily a bad movie, but it wasn't really that good either.

However, that a movie was made with only mediocre aspirations does not automatically excuse it from being a bad movie or automatically make it a good movie. That sounds much too similar to It's Not Supposed to Win Oscars, which is not a very good defense. And I have already made the point that box office performance does not necessarily have anything to do with whether a movie was good or bad.

On the other hand, I suppose it depends on how you define "good". If you include things like special effects and Rule of Cool action scenes as part of a movie's quality, and a particular movie has those things, then I suppose you could call it a good movie. You just might have trouble making conversation with people who define a good movie as having a good script and good acting, though. Granted, reviewers/critics generally judge/review different movie genres differently, but to judge the quality of a movie based on ANY elements (script, acting, SFX, action, Fanservice) it does well and considering all of those elements equal to each other would completely revolutionize movie reviewing and criticism.

edited 23rd Feb '12 7:43:46 PM by shiro_okami

What makes a script or a performance good is completely subjective, though.

And when I say a movie is good, I mean that it is good to watch, that seeing it was a good experience. Just like if I say some food is good, I mean that it tastes good when I eat it, regardless of the culinary skill that went into making it.

Depends if that's where you want to take it. I made a simple statement. I don't derive any enjoyment from "phenomenon". If anything my assholish tendencies tend to automatically reject anything that's the huge thing at the moment. My reaction to the vast majority of hype is a resounding, "meh."

Yes, sitting in a dark room with a lot of people not talking, interacting, or even looking at each other versus sitting in a dark room with a half dozen people not talking, interacting, or even looking at each other. I can see how the experience is vastly different.

I watch movies at home with pretty much the same people I'd go with to the theater to watch them with. The rest of the audience at a theater are a hundred people I don't know, don't talk to, and if I ever saw them again I wouldn't realize it. Their contribution to my movie going experience is, "Will that bastard two rows back PLEASE stop chomping on his ice?"

Yeah, no. There is a significant difference between going to a stage production and enjoying the nuance of a fresh performance every time versus a movie where it is EXACTLY the same every time.

It's actually amazingly easy. Let me demonstrate. I didn't watch the Walking Dead until right before Season 2 started. The sum total of what I knew of season 1? "There's zombies in it, and I think the lead character is a cop." I love Mass Effect, I participate a lot in the ME 2 thread and did in the ME 3 thread. The moment that actual spoilers started to be discovered about ME 3 I stopped reading the thread. The sum total that I know about ME 3's plot. "I'm pretty sure we've got to shoot some Cerberus dudes, geth, and probably some Reapers." Inception? Watched it on DVD, "I think it's about dreams and a train. Someone folds a city in half or something. It looks cool." Spoilers can be avoided, I do it all the damn time.

Except when they do, then you lose your shit.

We've been over your total inability to distinguish statements of fact vs. statements of opinion before. They still stand. Stop pretending you're a mind reader.

No, if it made that much money clearly a lot of people saw it. That's what a huge box office return equates to. A lot of people saw it. Not to mention that it's box office return was inflated by the premium charged for seeing it in 3D. I know a lot of people who saw it, myself included, who thought it was a steaming pile. Our money still got counted towards that box office total however.

HA! This from the guy who claimed that anyone who disliked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had nostalgia goggles on? Slowclap.gif

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

Well, regarding your replies to my points, I guess what we can conclude here is that going to the movies is not for everyone and I shan't say what else I want to or else I might get thumped.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

I already explained how you clearly were NOT stating that as an opinion. You used it as an example of a bad movie making money. If it was an opinion, you wouldn't do that, because you'd realize that to some it's a good movie, and thus it cannot be an example of a bad movie making money. You've done this before. You've stated these things as if they were facts, and then when this is brought up to you, you say you said it as an opinion, when it clearly was stated as if it was otherwise.

As for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, you can dislike it, that's fine. I never said people couldn't. I just said that people who disliked it BECAUSE it had certain issues that they let by in the originals, such as Indy's death-defying stunts and cheesy lines, had nostalgia goggles on, as those problems they point out were as prevalent as ever in the originals. People can dislike the movie as a whole all they want, I don't care. Really. And same with you. You can hate Transformers: Dark of the Moon all you freakin' want. Just stop proclaiming it's a bad movie as if it's an unarguable fact.

edited 24th Feb '12 11:56:37 AM by Extreme64

To be fair, in order to illustrate my love for the cinema itself... I would have to drop at best a small handful of Laura Mulvey references.

And no one wants that.

P.S. If you do want that, here's my room number.

Technically speaking, one could take the view that "quality" for a movie is "how well it makes money", just like any other product. Thus, Transformers *is* a good movie. . . because it makes money.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

See,, that's more "success" than "quality."

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Why do I see movies? Escapism. Every so often I want to go pay a visit to a world that isn't my own where life is one huge adventure, nothing is impossible and those who deserve happy endings (almost) always get them. For a little while, at least, everything seems right and good.

Looking for some stories?

But what better measure of something's quality, than its success? After all, the purpose of a movie is, for the viewer, entertainment, and for the studio, profit. If a movie achieves the former enough to also achieve the latter, than it has achieved its purpose. . . and isn't the degree it achieves its purpose, the degree it is successful?

This is an axiomatic argument, btw. I am deliberately taking the position that a movie's value is in its usefulness. Its not an unsupportable position, however. Even if your goal as an artist is to inform or inspire or enlighten the viewer, rather than entertain, you don't actually do that unless people *watch* the movie. If you don't anticipate huge numbers of people wanting to do that, a successful movie maker can account for this at the budget phase.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

I should have specified in that I was merely referring to box office success. You can use that to measure how much profit was made, but that doesn't measure how much the audience enjoyed it too. A movie can be very profitable and still be largely hated. Even then, enjoyability dies not necessarily equal quality, but we've gone down that road in this thread many times already.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

And that's my point, essentially: when you say stuff like "enjoyability does not equal quality", its an unprovable statement. It posits that enjoyability is something other than quality.

Hence why any such debate needs to start with "Define 'quality'". The problem is, the most objective definition of 'quality' possible? Is the one most people hate: "How much money does it make?"

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

EXACTLY!

quality

1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.
2. character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing: the quality of a sound.
3. character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality.
4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.
5. a personality or character trait: kindness is one of her many good qualities.

First rule of internet discussions/arguments: be polite and courteous.

Second rule of internet discussions/arguments: dictionary.com is your friend.

edited 25th Feb '12 6:50:23 PM by shiro_okami

Cinema has multiple spheres of interest, just like any other art.

Technology has never been the one driving force in film history, and neither have box office figures. We read it as it is for a reason, not because some newspapaper snobs tells us to do so. You're embarassing film fans and quite possibly the creators through doing so. It's about innovation, and on a timidly personal level, passion. We all live on culture, western culture in this case to encompass this forum. Accept culture, and don't just spit on the idea of some opera-going fart when lowering your eyes at a fan of The Fireman's Ball.

As I've said time and time again, you have different realms of cinema. It's seriously reaching the level of depression and not bothering.

edited 25th Feb '12 6:56:04 PM by TheSollerodFascist

For me, the reasons that I go to the theater to see a film is because it is fun for me. Its a good way to spend a couple of hours, (although I usually check to see if there is anything I want to see in theaters). Plus with some action films, the theater experience is the best way to see them and watching it later on blue ray/dvd just isn't the same. Plus when I go with friends to a movie, I can talk with them about the movie afterwards, when it is fresh in our heads and my friends and I tend to have a critical mind about these things, so it makes for interesting conversation. For me, the movies is the best way to spend a couple of hours for the price that gets you out of the house.

Well, I think something to consider is the idea that you can make a retread that actually breaks new ground. It sounds like a contradiction but The Dark Knight is very much a popcorn movie, and yet it totally took the Super Hero genre places it hadn't gone before.

You could also say the same about The Matrix and cyberpunk movies.

I just want to point out that the OP's criticism applies to literally every major medium we talk about on this site:

Most of the most popular television is beaten to death reality crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. Most of the most popular music is shallow crap, with a danceable beat, if you're lucky. Most of the most popular books are turgid teen romances or poorly written military thrillers. But it's not like these mediums aren't all producing great art. Just because Midnight in Paris and the Artist weren't the highest grossing film last year does not mean they weren't worth watching.

In addition, the O Ps dissecting of the biggest movies of the year at the end of April is simply easy pickings - most of the blockbusters are reserved for the summer, artsy movies with awards potential in the fall, and a last blockbuster or two at the end of the year in time for the holidays. January to April is traditionally a film wasteland.

But if we look at movies that came out just last year, there are plenty of movies with mainstream appeal and success that were also critical and artistic successes: Super 8, the Muppets, Hugo, Rango, Mission Impossible, Planet of the Apes, X-Men, Bridesmaids, etc.

Basically the OP's post is kind of terrible.

Yes. And 2012 is a particularly bad year to try to make that point, because there are a lot of movies that show great potential for combining high quality and a high level of popularity: The Hunger Games and The Avengers have already done so, we've got Prometheus, Brave, and The Dark Knight Rises this summer, and The Hobbit in the fall, just to note the top highlights. It's a great year for high-quality blockbusters (2011 was rather weak in that regard, though I did love X-Men: First Class).

Granted, all of those except Prometheus (and possibly Brave? I'm not sure if there's a source material for it) are adaptations of already-popular works rather than original works. Making a blockbuster based on an original premise is something I wish more studios were willing to risk - it's something that really set Inception apart. But we did have Chronicle earlier this year, which shows it's possible to make a good, original, low-budget movie with a geeky premise and have it be popular.

edited 8th May '12 8:33:50 AM by WarriorEowyn

Also upcoming and worthy of note: Cuaron's Gravity, Tarantino's Django Unchained, Cohen's the Dictator, Lee's Life of Pi, Spielberg's Lincoln (not Aberham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which is also 2012), Looper with Joseph Gordon Levitt, PT Anderson's the Master, Woody Allen's Nero Fiddled (when does Woody Allen not have a movie coming out?), Only God Forgives - from the guy that brought you Drive, and others.

If none of these has you remotely excited, then you're simply not paying attention to the medium.

Posting from an iPhone. I think my auto-correct was hungry.

edited 8th May '12 9:00:16 AM by Cthulboohoo

Nitpick: Life Of Pi does not contain an "e". Although I await a heartwrenching Pixar movie about the lives of fruit-filled pastries.

Thanks for the reminder about Cuaron's movie, I've been a fan ever since seeing Pan's Labyrinth.

edited 8th May '12 9:00:23 AM by WarriorEowyn