Classy.
Unlike most 18 year olds, you write excellently.

Roger Ebert always tries to find the type of audience for a film when he reviews it. This can largely be applied to the genre that film belongs to (when it can be categorized in one) and the base requirements of said genre.

Films can be either entertainment, thought-provoking, informative or all of the above. It’s knowing what a film is aiming for and how much it succeeds at it. Certainly it would be great if all films were all of the above and that is what filmmakers should be aiming for, however, there are certain types of films that I feel do not need or even should encompass all these aspects. I think this is where some people are maybe expecting too much or too little.

I find it common for some people to make invalid criticisms of a movie simply because it didn’t fulfill their expectations when it is clear that the movie never meant to and was aiming for something else. This is an extreme example but just to clarify my point. “I hate Lord of the Rings because that shit can’t happen in real life.” There is a suspension of disbelief that is required or expected and the only way to know this is for the film to establish its own internal set of rules or logic to create a sense of believability and natural flow/progression.

Another point is what is one’s definition of entertainment? Is seeing a film about genocide or war or serial killing necessarily entertaining? It could be a great thought provoking informative film but entertaining? Maybe not so much unless it somehow manages to be a satire but there are times when entertainment and thought provoking/informative simply don’t mix.

To me entertainment mainly comes in the form of action and/or comedy and a good story that is thought provoking. It doesn’t necessarily have to be informative of or wet within the circumstances of any current events, history etc. but that can certainly enhance a film but also limit its accessibility. I can understand that for some movie fans a good, though provoking story isn’t necessary for entertainment purposes.

I don’t think Transformers was a good movie with a good story. Could it have been? Of course, all movies can be and should aim to be but what was this film aiming for really? Mainly it was aiming for entertainment in the form of lots of robot fight action. Did we get that?…not much. There weren’t many action scenes and they were poorly filmed with lots of quick cuts and fast moving shots that made some of the action impossible to follow. The transformations went by so quickly I couldn’t appreciate them. The final battle and defeat of Megatron was super lame and anticlimatic. Thus I found this movie to be lacking in its base requirement to entertain. My opinion on the movie was based on no preconceptions of Michael Bay or Transformers cartoon having never watched it as a kid. I only knew who Optimus Prime was and that’s it. If there’s one thing that’s lacking is that I don’t have any means to determine whether the film captured the spirit of the cartoon or not. Whatever the spirit the film had, I did not feel it.

Spider-man 3 on the other hand had more tangible expectations for me following the excellent Spider-man 2 and the comics. Was it a disappointment in the character/story department, yes but was it entertaining? Also a yes. It had some great action scenes even if Venom was not handled so well. Spidey vs Sandman, Spidey vs Goblin and then Spidey/Goblin vs Sandman/Venom were highly entertaining. The plot was contrived to get to those scenes but there was enough entertainment to make it worthwhile. Yes when comparing it to previous films it was a colossal disappointment but judging it on its own merits compared to Transformers, it was more entertaining. My opinion is based on having read many Spidey comics. A lot of things bugged me about the movie but in the end I got at least one thing I wanted which was some good old Spidey action.

I loved Idiocracy and I think that’s exactly where we’re going. I HATE it how some people look at movies just as “entertainment”. That they go to see a movie just to be “entertained”. This is probably the most powerful medium, with which you could achieve amazing results in impacting people, and all you use it for is nice fireworks and cheap entertainment? Reminds me of another stupid preconceived idea, that animation is just for kids. It took the Japanese to show what this kind of art is capable of, what amazing results you could achieve with it. It’s the same with movies.

I wish you were in the majority in your age group instead of your friends. The quality of ALL films would skyrocket if teenagers didn’t go and see everything, no matter how crappy.

Vic

I will never understand why the studios spend all that dough to make a movie when they must know it can’t be any good. The premise is flawed, the actors aren’t any good, or what have you. Must be a tax shelter thing.

I will also never understand why a studio would spend the dough to make a movie like Watchmen if they are going to make the Watchmen as Interpreted by Zach whats-is-name, instead of just making the Watchmen. Ridiculous. Why by the rights to the Watchmen if you are going to change the story?

I do think we have pretty much the same ratio of good to bad as we always did. I could pick out loads of films from the past decade that were exceptionally good and entertaining. Yes, there’s crap like the films you’ve mentioned, but there’s still loads of awesome ones.

Come on… Serenity? Pirates of the Caribbean (First one)?

Today is easy to make entertainment movies.
recipe is 2 or 3 cutie faces for the heros,1 ugly for the badie,1 director (cinema experience not required)and some good money for the CGI.
Very easy combo to make.
In the past this kind of production always ended on the hands of the the little studios(cannon,golan globus),so less money to produce less shit to hit the market.