Should movies be graded by a set of criteria?

[[wcip]Angel]

I went to see the Transformers-movie, and as expected, the movie delivered an action-packed, sci-fi funk-fest with a script that made my skin crawl. Like all good nerdlingers do, I went online to voice my opinion of this '5 out of 10 stars'-movie. Although I've presented my arguments on why Transformers kicks ass as a technical showpiece but sucks donkey as a movie, I've yet to find another person who agrees with me, making me believe I'm actually wrong about this.

My main argument is this: just because action/sci-fi flicks emphasise special effects and action scenes, that doesn't mean the writers should get away with producing a sub-par script with horrid dialogue, inconstencies and plot holes, unbelievable/unrealistic characters, etc.

When I give Transformers my 5 out of 10 (or, as we here in Norway use the scale of 1-6 on a die , a 3), people don't react well. They don't accept that my critique of the movie is valid. The counter-argument is usually "why do you care about the script and the characters when this is a sci-fi flick, not a drama?" This is a view held by the majority of the people I've spoken with. To that I say that all great sci-fi flicks (Terminator2, Blade Runner, Aliens, Serenity) have elements of great drama in them, even though they are technically considered sci-fi. (Same goes for action movies by the way.)

So, to my question: Am I grading movies 'wrong'? Obviously, in the realm of subjectivity, the notion of 'wrong' holds little to no value. But should I expect less of a sci-fi script than a drama-script just because the former emphasise aliens, guns and explosions and the latter lots of hugging and family picnics? My belief is that crappy dialogue and weak characters will jar the audience's suspension of disbelief no matter whether they're watching a a modern rendition of Sense and Sensibility or Transformers. So far, I've yet to find a person who agrees with this view.

Which hold the Lurkers?

edit: concord error in thread-title. Damn! Can't be fixed without mod-privileges.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Angel' date='Jul 10 2007, 06:03 PM' post='133060']
My main argument is this: just because action/sci-fi flicks emphasise special effects and action scenes, that doesn't mean the writers should get away with producing a sub-par script with horrid dialogue, inconstencies and plot holes, unbelievable/unrealistic characters, etc.

I've been of that opinion for years. And I think the same should hold true of books as of movies. Just because the genre is not mainstream, that does not forgive poor character development, poor or poorly developed plot, poorly presentation (written or acted) , etc.

So, while I cannot address this particular movie, I can at least support your attitude in rating movies.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Angel' date='Jul 10 2007, 08:03 PM' post='133060']Which hold the Lurkers?

I judged it in relation to the genre. In this case, I would compare this movie to the plots of the cartoons. It would be the same with other cartoons made into movies, such as, Superman (none of which impressed me), The Hulk (which I loved), Ultraviolet (pretty good), or the Batman movies (loved 1 and 5, but I hated 2,3, and 4).

For Transformers the movie, the plot was not stellar, but it was not out of character when compared to the plots of Transformers cartoons. I would give the plot a passing grade, not stellar, but passable.

[Hammerskjold]

>So, to my question: Am I grading movies 'wrong'? Obviously, in the realm of subjectivity, the notion of 'wrong' holds little to no value. But should I expect less of a sci-fi script than a drama-script just because the former emphasise aliens, guns and explosions and the latter lots of hugging and family picnics? My belief is that crappy dialogue and weak characters will jar the audience's suspension of disbelief no matter whether they're watching a a modern rendition of Sense and Sensibility or Transformers. So far, I've yet to find a person who agrees with this view.

If you're judging it as a narrative, you're absolutely right imo. Whether it's a book, comic, animation, or sock puppets it's not really a genre to me anymore than a black and white movie is a 'genre'. It's simply another medium to tell a story, at least that's my opinion.

(edited ps: There's 2 major exceptions \ tweaks that I can think of, and that's horror and comedy. Those 2 genre can have a lot more leeway and play of consistency and logic. The current opinion on the 2 seems to be they're low brow, while personally I think they can require a hell of a lot more talent and skill to pull off successfully. I don't want to give the impression that I think 'drama' ala period costumes that are set in castles is the highest form of achievement in all of film history.)

If it's judged as a feature length demo reel for cgi or technical skills , then I hate to say this, but story usually does take a back seat. That also applies to other media, I've read a few books where the author's 'cleverness' seems to overshadow what they're trying to say. That's great if it's meant to demonstrate the author's command and mastery of the language I guess.

At the risk of sounding cliche'd, the best special effect to me is still the ability to move an audience in their hearts, not just their eyeballs. Technical advancements are important, but I think in the end they're just tools to serve a greater purpose, and that purpose for the most part should be story and character. At least that's my very opinionated take on it.

Anyone remember this little short?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxo_Jr.

I always liked this part of the story behind the story, taken from this link. http://www.harrymccracken.com/luxo.htm

quote:

The thing I wanted to do in Luxo Jr. was make the characters and story the most important thing, not the fact that it was done with computer graphics. As you see in the film show at SIGGRAPH, a lot of times it's computer graphics for computer graphics nerds. People get excited about it purely because it was generated with a computer.

I wanted people who had never even seen a computer before to look at it and enjoy it as a film. I did a couple of things: I locked the camera down, didn't move it.

There's so much stuff flying around in computer films.

Oh God, yeah; you get sick. They do it because you can do it. And people tend to have real bright colors, without thinking about the way things look.

After the film show, Jim Blinn, who's one of the pioneers in this field, came running up to me and said, "John, I have to ask you a question." And I thought, "God, I don't know anything about these algorithms; I know he's going to ask me about the shadow algorithms or something like that." And he asked me, "John, was the parent lamp a mother or a father?"

You figured you had succeeded then.

Yes, exactly. Here, one of the real brains in computer graphics was concerned more about whether the parent lamp was a mother or a father.

It's interesting; that question keeps coming up. A lot of people say it's a mother; a lot of people say it's a father. I always envisioned it as a father, but it's based greatly on my mother. To me, if it was a mother lamp, she would never let the baby jump up on that ball But the dad is like, "Go ahead, jump up on it, fall off and break your bulb. You'll learn a lesson."

[Chaerophon]

I sympathize with you.

Last week I watched all three of the earlier Die Hard movies in anticipation of the new film. I had never seen any of them before. The first movie was fantastic. The original John McClane was a gritty, "realistic" comic book hero - a tough, clever guy who got lucky a few times and managed to save the day. There were only one or two scenes that really stretched the bounds of believability, and I happily excused them as part of the movie's "comic book" undertones. John McClane wasn't invincible - he made his own luck and managed to survive. However, I was disappointed to discover that the subsequent films pushed that boundary further and further. By the end of the third movie, John McClane had become a bit slow-witted and the action was pure comic book fantasy.

The fourth movie was about as disappointing to me as it possibly could have been. The plot had the "bones" of a potential epic. John McClane's all alone again and he's got to take matters into his own hands, but this time, the entire continent is his playground. It could have been a fitting end to what had become a somewhat disappointing series of movies. The Mac guy was a great foil to the McClane persona. However, rather than attempt to reproduce the intelligence of the first movie, the grand scale of #4 served as an excuse to turn it into a ridiculous series of nonsensical stunts and action sequences. John McClane was no longer clever or and his survival was no longer a matter of "making his own luck" - he became an immortal killing machine who could launch speeding cars into helicopters.

It's a damn shame, but CGI eye candy appears to have killed the possibility of another "Die Hard" or "The Fugitive". The closest thing I've seen recently was the first Bourne movie; however, the second one left me thoroughly unimpressed.

Anyways, I agree with your complaint: I'm sick and tired of hearing that I should "expect" crappy dialogue and a complete lack of any realism from science fiction and action movies. Good science fiction should serve to bring our own world into a new perspective. That effect is ruined when the fantasy world is completely unbelievable. Mutants, zombies, robots, aliens, magic - they're all fine by me, as long as the dialogue is of a reasonable quality, their presence in the world can be explained, and the action surrounding them doesn't insult my intelligence.

[[wcip]Angel]

To paraphrase Joss Whedon: Give us a little gobbledygook and we'll play along.
When audiences enter a movie theatre or pop in a DVD, we engage in a social contract with the people who made the movie. We're willing to suspend our disbelief, if you'll let us. Meaning, we'll play along and enjoy your piece of fiction, if you treat *it* and *us* with respect. While enjoying a piece of fiction we can ignore the truth long enough to accept that Ripley is in space alone fighting vicious aliens, or that John McClane can jump from exploding rooftops. We'll buy the fact that alien machines can transform into any man-made vehicle and morph back into collossal mechanical giants, firing missiles and machine guns. We'll buy it! Promise! But you have to hold up your end of the deal as well! If you break that social contract and screw it up, we won't be happy.

That was the case with Transformers for me. It wasn't the giant robots, the explosions or even the plot that I found disturbingly unrealistic. I bought all that! The CGI-effects themselves were fantastically splendid and lifelike, and, in an unprecedented way, blended really well into the actual footage. Well done! So what went wrong? For me, it was the characterisation and the dialogue that stuck out as a sore thumb (the cartoonish S8-agent was a particular bad case).

So, paradoxically, the aspect of the movie which broke that social contract between moviemaker and moviegoer was not the colossal alien gun-toting morphable machines, but rather the portrayel of regular human beings.

The fact that this wasn't picked up in any of the pre-shoot stages of production is frightening. Then again, special effects and big names have overshadowed the script in moviemaking for quite some time now. Thank God this trend will implode someday.

[Hammerskjold]

I think I understand what you're saying, at the same time the people that disagreed with your critique is not imo, exactly wrong.

While I agree with your views that just because it's a sci fi action flick that should not give it a free pass.
It -is- a Michael Bay film. He's practically a genre to himself. And it's obvious even from the 30 minute infomercial 'making of', the real stars and focus of the movie was the cgi robots, the stunts, and the new Camaro.

I've got a few acquaintances in the film biz, one guy is in a sfx studio, others are in the indie scene. The one thing they all agree on is at the end of the day, show business is still a business. The phrase they used was actually a cross between business and gambling.

The higher the budget is, the higher the chances those who are footing the capitol\investment\bet wants it to be a sure thing. A rare few exception do understand there's a creative aspect in it, but the majority at that high level don't get excited when you start talking about script writing, and whatever creative jazz you're pitching at them.

What they want to find out is will the investment in your project pan out for them? Story, character, and talks of that nature only perks up their ears if you can convince them it will have an impact on getting people buying tickets.



>So, paradoxically, the aspect of the movie which broke that social contract between moviemaker and moviegoer was not the colossal alien gun-toting morphable machines, but rather the portrayel of regular human beings.

>The fact that this wasn't picked up in any of the pre-shoot stages of production is frightening. Then again, special effects and big names have overshadowed the script in moviemaking for quite some time now. Thank God this trend will implode someday.

If you're judging it from the point of view of some sort of creative endevour, then you're absolutely right. If you're seeing it from a business point of view, all that matters is what the week(end) box office tally, and the sales of merchandising and DVDs compared to how much the movie costs to make. That's the only 'contract' that really matters in that sense.

And as long as movies like 'RV' can reach box office #1 in the not so distant past, I doubt this trend will implode.



ps. Hell, if I had movie mogul kind of money, I'd invest it in a summer blockbuster movie featuring Robin Williams as a transforming RV who must fight a zombified Hans Gruber on top of a giant meteor that's about to crash the Titanic. I'm betting it will do boffo business just from people buying tickets because of curiousity, and wanting to get out of the summer heat.

[Rhydderch Hael]

...ps. Hell, if I had movie mogul kind of money, I'd invest it in a summer blockbuster movie featuring Robin Williams as a transforming RV who must fight a zombified Hans Gruber on top of a giant meteor that's about to crash the Titanic. I'm betting it will do boffo business just from people buying tickets because of curiousity, and wanting to get out of the summer heat.

As long as you don't steal my pitch for Santa and the Christmas Ninjas (due out in December of 2036, the year Hell freezes over), we've got ourselves an understanding.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

At this point, it should be remembered that everyone has an opinion much the same as they share possession of a particular orifice.

Online opinions are meaningless. "Professional" opinions are meaningless. Whether a book, a television program, a computer game, a work of art, a motion picture, any medium that you could mention... the choice I make to undertake its viewing and interaction and the level of entertainment that I garner from that choice is my decision, alone. It is not subject to another's pissy moods, fanatical delusions of objectivity, mercenary tendencies or overwhelming desire for self-promotion.

"Ratatouille" has a superb moment of candor and brevity when Peter O'Toole voices a monologue on the worth of a critic. I found it one of the most profound moments in what *I* consider a very worthy motion picture.

Now, having said that myself, I should close with the fact that my opinion is my own, remains my own, desires only to be its own, and really doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone else's may be.

*tips helm*;)

[Hammerskjold]

As long as you don't steal my pitch for Santa and the Christmas Ninjas (due out in December of 2036, the year Hell freezes over), we've got ourselves an understanding.

Sir, I like the cut of your jib. May I say I also like your approach of the slow build for buzz marketing. A 2036 release date is positively a multi-generational promo campaign.

I'm aiming for summer, you're aiming for the christmas holidays season. There's a lull in the November thanksgiving movie season that's ripe for market penetration. We should do lunch sometimes, I smell a potential colaboration. For art sake of course. I'm in this for the arts.