|
Post by abraxas on Apr 23, 2010 12:23:54 GMT -5
Might have, but I don't know who Julia Styles is So you like boring movies with no substance just a bunch of special effects with bland characters and no emotional investment, just basic nondescript people. The only problem with that is they tend to be very bad actors, well you must like most of the horror movies that have been made in the past few years. I don't think you can separate a good story from believable characters, anyone can just stand in a shot a look good, why you want to watch something like that, its beyond me........ So you would rather pay good money to watch sub par performances.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 26, 2010 9:53:45 GMT -5
But, you just said that one of the factors that you consider is a great story. I don't really see how it is possible for a story to be great if it doesn't involve more in depth characterization than you describe above. See, you do consider characterization at least a little bit No, I don't. To me, 'story' and 'plot' are interchangeable and I use them both to express the same thought. A great story is simply one that I can follow close enough without really getting too in-depth or confusing for me to zone out of focus on it. For example, stuff like 'Friday the 13th' (killer stalks teens at a remote campsite) or 'The Howling' (writer finds werewolves living in rural retreat) which are simple, easy-to-follow and don't require tons of turns, twists or whatever else you want to use in order to completely tell it's story. That kind of stuff appeals due to its simplicity, and by simple story, that is what I'm referring to. Now, while I don't mind more complicated efforts, I still require a simple story to shine though, which is what's true of most Italian/European efforts. 'City of the Living Dead' is a prime example, in which it takes a little bit more effort to tell it's story completely but the general gust of it is still quite simple (couple race to stave off an impending zombie Armageddon in small town). Since that part is easy enough to follow and understand, it scores a lot of points despite the fact that there's a lot more going on. Might have, but I don't know who Julia Styles is So you like boring movies with no substance just a bunch of special effects with bland characters and no emotional investment, just basic nondescript people. The only problem with that is they tend to be very bad actors, well you must like most of the horror movies that have been made in the past few years. I don't think you can separate a good story from believable characters, anyone can just stand in a shot a look good, why you want to watch something like that, its beyond me........ So you would rather pay good money to watch sub par performances. To each of your comments: Boring, to me, is more of a pacing issue than anything else. Slowly-paced is boring, not anything else. I mostly do watch a lot of special-effects based movies, but I think higher of efforts with more involvement in them. They're good, but I do think others with more to them otherwise are better. I can't judge acting. It all looks the same to me. I grew up watching films in which you were conditioned not to expect good acting (going from dubbed Japanese monster movies to animated Disney films to Schwarzenegger/Stallone-esque Action Movies then finally to horror) pretty much made it impossible for me to really get acclimated to acting, and I always had more pressing interests in films anyway than acting, so since I've gotten this far in life without having to deal with that issue, I really don't have a problem with it. And yes, I do enjoy a lot of the efforts from the recent past, though I've found that my favorites tend to be far later back in time. From 1970-1985 are where you'll find at least 70% of my favorite films from.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 26, 2010 10:14:45 GMT -5
Well even Stallone and Arnold are better actors then the ones that fall into the category you mention.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 27, 2010 9:39:17 GMT -5
But what's a bigger selling point in such films: they're acting prowess, or how much shit they blow up, and how big it blows up?
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 27, 2010 13:38:00 GMT -5
To me, it depends on what the focus of the film is. If its a movie where action and special effects are the focus, then I can enjoy it for that, and not be too bothered by performances that don't exactly blow me away, or draw me to the character. I mean I love slasher films, and with a few exceptions, they have never exactly been known for great acting or character development.
But there are films where the characters and their motivations are crucial to moving a story forward, where you pretty much have to be emotionally invested in the characters and the decisions they make to be fully pulled into the story. Or where dialogue and delivery is the focus of the film. In those cases, the skills of the actors involved are very important.
I think though, having actors that might not be capable of award winning performances is not really a concern in a lot of films where the focus is not on developing characters. But having actors that are likable, or have some kind screen presence still helps a hell of a lot.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 28, 2010 9:46:31 GMT -5
My requirements for films are really simple:
For action movies- The number of things blown up. or The quality/quantity of the fist-fights.
Since you can't judge something like "Once Upon a Time in China" by the same standards you would "Die Hard." Different mind-sets, different standards need to be applicative to each.
As for horror- The situation needs to be scary where it to happen in real life.
And then simply apply the different rules from each genre to the film. Judging a Slasher film against the same guidelines as you would a Werewolf film is ludicrous, as well as comparing a Zombie film up against the standards of a Haunted House film, which I have seen happen merely because they were released in the same year. In no way, shape or form does acting come into it, at least on my end.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 28, 2010 12:15:25 GMT -5
As for horror- The situation needs to be scary where it to happen in real life. See, I don't really think this flies. Most PG-13 Disney horror would be scary as hell if the stuff in the movie was really happening to me. That does not mean I find them to be good horror films, though
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 28, 2010 12:22:47 GMT -5
See, I don't really think this flies. Most PG-13 Disney horror would be scary as hell if the stuff in the movie was really happening to me. That does not mean I find them to be good horror films, though I know right? I remember chatting with someone else at another horror board one time about how I never really found Jason all that scary, and his argument was pretty much "if he was coming at you, you would". Well......YEAH.....
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 28, 2010 14:33:02 GMT -5
Unless its John Carpenter's The Fog or the Blind Dead series
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 29, 2010 9:49:24 GMT -5
As for horror- The situation needs to be scary where it to happen in real life. See, I don't really think this flies. Most PG-13 Disney horror would be scary as hell if the stuff in the movie was really happening to me. That does not mean I find them to be good horror films, though Granted, but if you were to narrow the film down to it's barest, most simplistic story ideals, then what's the tone of the film? If you were to find that a hulking, menacing killer was after you in an isolated location, had already killed several of your friends without mercy or remorse and was targeting you, that to me qualifies as a horror film. If you were to find yourself trapped in a strange location where an bloodthirsty creature was loose intent on killing anything and anyone in it's path, that to me qualifies as a horror film. If you were to be forced to admit that the house you and your family live in are possessed by something otherworldly due to a series of freak accidents by common everyday objects not doing what they were built to do, that to me qualifies as a horror film. Pretty much every horror film out there goes along with a similar guideline to one of those listed above, with minor differences accounting for the apparent subgenres we all recognize. From the first one we recognize the slashers, serial killer and the off-shoots of those films. The second is our creature features, vampires, zombies, werewolves, mummies and whatever else comes along. The last one is our haunted house, ghost, or any other plain supernatural occurrences that might pop up from time-to-time. There's a lot of variation within each of them, yet the one common point is that all of them can be traced back and broken down into those simply stories, and as long as you can do that, you've got yourself a horror film because, as I said earlier, being stuck in those situations in real life generates a horror environment.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 29, 2010 10:57:28 GMT -5
So your basically saying that interesting character don't make movies good, that isn't true, look at how many Friday ripoffs came out, and yet the Jason character was the only one that remained, because he was the most dynamic and interesting.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 29, 2010 11:17:24 GMT -5
Yes, as long as you can break down the film to one of these rudimentary plot themes you have a horror film. But that does not mean that you have a GOOD horror film. It is those very nuances and small distinctions between the films that you discount which differentiate the good films from the bad ones (at least in my estimation of it). And one of the most important of those nuances and subtle distinctions is characterization and acting
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 29, 2010 11:48:34 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what the argument here is anymore..... I think we can all break down a film to the basics and judge whether or not its a horror film (though there are some films that are a mishmash of genres, a lot of the Asian horror I watch is like that).....but like HNT said, it doesn't make it a GOOD horror film. I personally think a film can be fun, or even effective, without holding up to high standards, but it doesn't make it a quality film. But I do think that the point GL is trying to make is that since he personally doesn't pick up on the nuances of character and acting, it makes it far less important to him than it does to those of us that do. And so other things about the movie are more important to him as a viewer. Its about what make a film good to him, not to those of us who are more interested in characterization.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 29, 2010 14:55:08 GMT -5
His loss
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 30, 2010 9:45:09 GMT -5
Yes, as long as you can break down the film to one of these rudimentary plot themes you have a horror film. But that does not mean that you have a GOOD horror film. It is those very nuances and small distinctions between the films that you discount which differentiate the good films from the bad ones (at least in my estimation of it). And one of the most important of those nuances and subtle distinctions is characterization and acting I don't really give an honest crap about Good, I care about Entertaining. I've seen some much stuff that would be ranked as pure, utter shit from most technical areas it's mind-boggling, yet I've found most of them entertaining enough for me to say that I didn't regret the experience. I've found that it's a lost artform to be able to watch a film simply to be entertained by it, and as Jen consistently (and accurately I might add) points out, 99.9% are flawed, that's still a lot of films to be able to go through that you're bound to find stuff which, for reasons you can't explain, just work for you. Yes, some of that crap I've seen has been utterly terrible, and there's some films I've seen which are high on the technical side which do fall into that category as well, so I find it's balanced out. And frankly, Jen, I couldn't put what my feelings are any better. A blessing for that accurate description.
|
|