Anyone else feel the same, I think what I hate most is hearing people argue about whether its the greatest movie ever made or if it glorifies the mafia. I say neither, its just a bad attempt at a movie that we think is good because it was edgy when it came out, we all saw it as kids with the expectation that this would be a good movie so the expectation influenced us to like it.
Its horrible quality. You can't sympathize with any of the characters because the characters all seem to be caricatures of themselves. The only two characters that seem remotely realistic are the old godfather and the man asking him for favor in the opening scene, other than that the movie concentrates on young godfather and his ditsy later whiny wife. I hated young godfather, as far as I was concerned he was just a spoiled brat, his dad never wanted to go into the mafia, then his dad gets shot his wife gets blown up and he goes through a crappy transformation to a hardened criminal. I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are. Unlike others who hate this because they think it excuses the characters in the film I hate it because it doesn't make any sense.
I also hate the way its sanitized please note this is different that glorified or someone making a justification for crime. This is mainly why people think it sugarcoats the mafia but the reasons is more because the writers believed that they were pushing the envelope enough by making a movie about criminals and didn't want to disturb the audience. They love to show people getting shot or blown-up up in the distance, or talking about crimes committed while sitting around a mansion but never take a trip to the places where they actually make their money, like to a strip joint that looks like a barn where you could probably get a std from breathing in the air, or a neighborhood full of homeless drug addicts, no you just get a view from the mansion headquarters.
These factors i'm mentioning may seem unrelated but really they are, they stem from a nihilistic worldview, a world view where their are just bastards and suckers, where the only morality debate is between a teacher who says "killing is bad", and a criminal who says "but other people kill besides me so i'm not bad. Its same outlook where that led Francis Coppola to direct Apocalypse Now, a much better movie but one that still showcased his rather dim view on human nature. That's the problem with the God Father series, it doesn't encourage organized crime, it encourages people to say "f@ck it its just the way the world is.
So, we were looking to start a discussion? Do want people to make counter-points and see if there are other ways of looking at the film you have may have missed? Or did you just make this thread to randomly state an opinion with no other aims at all?
Anyone else feel the same, I think what I hate most is hearing people argue about whether Finecast is the greatest product ever made or if people would have better results just doing their own 3D printing. I say neither, its just a bad attempt at a thread that we might think is a strawmen when we read it, we all saw it as nerds with the expectation that this would be a great deal on kitchen cabinets so the expectation influenced us to like it.
Its horrible quality. You can't sympathize with any of the posts on DakkaDakka because the points all seem to be nothing but IP lawyering. The only two points that seem remotely realistic are the "we need more kickstarters" and the "we need to put all the kickstarters and put them in their own forum" in the nuts and bolt section, other than that the thread concentrates on "I have an opinion, but other people have other opinion". I hate most people's opinions, as far as I was concerned they just make weird post, his dad never wanted to watch the liberal media talk about things, then his dad gets Obamacare and his wife gets a Razorgor and he goes through a crappy transformation to become an Off-Topic poster. I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are so it's really the victim's fault that all this happened. . Unlike others who hate this thread because they think it blames the victim I don't have the need to do worry about that because that sort of sexism doesn't affect me.
I also hate the way its sanitized please note this is different that glorified or someone making a justification for online opinions. This is mainly why people think it sugarcoats the Off-Topic but the reasons is more because posters believe that he were pushing the envelope enough by making a thread about our spiritual liege. They love to show people getting baned or trolled in the distance, or talking about crimes committed in the off-topic while sitting around the ivory tower but never take a trip to the places where the important stuff actually happens, like to eBay where there are nothing but terrible auctions, or a neighborhood full of self-appointed Zimmerman's patrolling the streets with their guns no you just get a view from the ivory tower with our broken computers.
These factors i'm mentioning may seem unrelated but really they are, they stem from a nihilistic worldview, a world view where their are just Bronies and Nazis, where the only morality debate is between a MOD who says "trolling is bad", and a criminal who says "but other people troll besides me so i'm not bad. Its same outlook where that led whembly to create the Benghazi thread a much better thread but one that still showcased the aweful things Republicans have said in the past. That's the problem with the Games Workshop Price Hikes, it doesn't encourage player loyalty, it encourages people to say "GW sucks
Anyone else feel the same, I think what I hate most is hearing people argue about whether Finecast is the greatest product ever made or if people would have better results just doing their own 3D printing. I say neither, its just a bad attempt at a thread that we might think is a strawmen when we read it, we all saw it as nerds with the expectation that this would be a great deal on kitchen cabinets so the expectation influenced us to like it.
Its horrible quality. You can't sympathize with any of the posts on DakkaDakka because the points all seem to be nothing but IP lawyering. The only two points that seem remotely realistic are the "we need more kickstarters" and the "we need to put all the kickstarters and put them in their own forum" in the nuts and bolt section, other than that the thread concentrates on "I have an opinion, but other people have other opinion". I hate most people's opinions, as far as I was concerned they just make weird post, his dad never wanted to watch the liberal media talk about things, then his dad gets Obamacare and his wife gets a Razorgor and he goes through a crappy transformation to become an Off-Topic poster. I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are so it's really the victim's fault that all this happened. . Unlike others who hate this thread because they think it blames the victim I don't have the need to do worry about that because that sort of sexism doesn't affect me.
I also hate the way its sanitized please note this is different that glorified or someone making a justification for online opinions. This is mainly why people think it sugarcoats the Off-Topic but the reasons is more because posters believe that he were pushing the envelope enough by making a thread about our spiritual liege. They love to show people getting baned or trolled in the distance, or talking about crimes committed in the off-topic while sitting around the ivory tower but never take a trip to the places where the important stuff actually happens, like to eBay where there are nothing but terrible auctions, or a neighborhood full of self-appointed Zimmerman's patrolling the streets with their guns no you just get a view from the ivory tower with our broken computers.
These factors i'm mentioning may seem unrelated but really they are, they stem from a nihilistic worldview, a world view where their are just Bronies and Nazis, where the only morality debate is between a MOD who says "trolling is bad", and a criminal who says "but other people troll besides me so i'm not bad. Its same outlook where that led whembly to create the Benghazi thread a much better thread but one that still showcased the aweful things Republicans have said in the past. That's the problem with the Games Workshop Price Hikes, it doesn't encourage player loyalty, it encourages people to say "GW sucks
I've probably watched that and Casino about 50 times each.
I read about a gag where some friends were watching Goodfellas, and when the one who had never seen it before left to go to the restroom they swapped it out for Casino and waited to see how long it took for him to notice.
feeder wrote: Scarface>Goodfellas>Sopranos>Godfather>Casino/Carlito's Way/DonnieBrasco/the rest of the wiseguys movies.
Honestly man, outside a very small amount of scenes, I found Scarface (the Pacino one) horribly boring.
Personally, Godfather 1/2 are some of the best mafia movies out there. Followed by Goodfellas and probably Donnie Brasco for me. Then perhaps The Departed (it's boston mob, not italian mafia, but still)
Anyone else feel the same, I think what I hate most is hearing people argue about whether Finecast is the greatest product ever made or if people would have better results just doing their own 3D printing. I say neither, its just a bad attempt at a thread that we might think is a strawmen when we read it, we all saw it as nerds with the expectation that this would be a great deal on kitchen cabinets so the expectation influenced us to like it.
Its horrible quality. You can't sympathize with any of the posts on DakkaDakka because the points all seem to be nothing but IP lawyering. The only two points that seem remotely realistic are the "we need more kickstarters" and the "we need to put all the kickstarters and put them in their own forum" in the nuts and bolt section, other than that the thread concentrates on "I have an opinion, but other people have other opinion". I hate most people's opinions, as far as I was concerned they just make weird post, his dad never wanted to watch the liberal media talk about things, then his dad gets Obamacare and his wife gets a Razorgor and he goes through a crappy transformation to become an Off-Topic poster. I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are so it's really the victim's fault that all this happened. . Unlike others who hate this thread because they think it blames the victim I don't have the need to do worry about that because that sort of sexism doesn't affect me.
I also hate the way its sanitized please note this is different that glorified or someone making a justification for online opinions. This is mainly why people think it sugarcoats the Off-Topic but the reasons is more because posters believe that he were pushing the envelope enough by making a thread about our spiritual liege. They love to show people getting baned or trolled in the distance, or talking about crimes committed in the off-topic while sitting around the ivory tower but never take a trip to the places where the important stuff actually happens, like to eBay where there are nothing but terrible auctions, or a neighborhood full of self-appointed Zimmerman's patrolling the streets with their guns no you just get a view from the ivory tower with our broken computers.
These factors i'm mentioning may seem unrelated but really they are, they stem from a nihilistic worldview, a world view where their are just Bronies and Nazis, where the only morality debate is between a MOD who says "trolling is bad", and a criminal who says "but other people troll besides me so i'm not bad. Its same outlook where that led whembly to create the Benghazi thread a much better thread but one that still showcased the aweful things Republicans have said in the past. That's the problem with the Games Workshop Price Hikes, it doesn't encourage player loyalty, it encourages people to say "GW sucks
[/Dakka Bingo]
You just described the internet.
On a side note I think the best Mafia movie is Goodfellas.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are. Unlike others who hate this because they think it excuses the characters in the film I hate it because it doesn't make any sense.
I think you've only seen the surface of Michael's character. He was an war hero, and became a mafia Don, but who he was changed not at all. He was always smart, ruthless and utterly loyal to his family. His place in the family changed, but personally he changed very little. The really powerful thing to understand, both through this film and it's sequels, is that his transformation was inevitable, that legitimacy was a dream (either Vito's dream that Michael would move away from the family and become a senator or Michael's dream that he could move the family business in to a legitimate one) - the sins of the father would be passed down, generation to generation.
the sins of the father would be passed down, generation to generation.
Maybe that's why I hate the movie, the whole sins of the father stuff, maybe that's why Christianity and religion has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you inheret the sins of your father, or worse his father his fathers father then screwed beyond belief.
It's kind of true though. The entire generation that fought WWII was mostly born after WWI ended, but WWII being a direct result of a poor outcome of WWI, they all paid the price for the failings of those who came before them.
Of course, sins of the father as a principle tends to be cast as mostly negative but the principle itself can also be positive. Most African Americans today did little to fight for their civil rights, rather their fathers and grandfathers fought that battle for them so that today they don't have to fight it (at least not as hard).
The world we live in is shaped by those who came before us.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: Maybe that's why I hate the movie, the whole sins of the father stuff, maybe that's why Christianity and religion has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you inheret the sins of your father, or worse his father his fathers father then screwed beyond belief.
Sure, the sins of the father is something that works powerfully in literature but is not actually that much of a thing in real life. That's kind of how drama works, though, we like to see choices made by characters coming back to affect them later in their lives, or even in the lives of their children, when in reality we do all kinds of bad stuff and then just move on and think nothing of it, it doesn't impact us let alone our kids.
It's like how Romeo and Juliet is a powerful tragedy... but if you heard of kids trying a scheme like that in real life you'd had no sympathy for those stupid idiots.
I both hate and love the film. First is its length and what sometimes feels like padding unless you know what is going to happen. I naturally have a hard time distinguishing Characters, so it was difficult for me to fiqure out who was who.
But I love it, the story is amazing. The director did not sanitize it. HE used the concept of loyalty to an established orginization can corrupt a man. Hell that was one of the main driving point in a paper I wrote comparing it to Apocalypse now. Micheal goes from someone who aphors the family business, but loyalty to his family forces him to become like them. If you pay attention, it isnt sanitized.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Goodfella's and the godfather are great look into the whole Cosa Nostra "lifestyle".
That's probably what made the Godfather so notable in the first place.
I read the book before I saw the movie (it was recommended for a Poly Sci course, as an intro to 'traditional' cultures) and I was surprised at how crass and pulpy it was. There was a lot of interesting material in the book, but it was mixed into an airport thriller story with pedestrian prose and by-the-numbers characterization. There were whole chapters about Sonny's girlfriend's vajayjay or Hollywood kid-diddlers. But apparantly it just needed one hell of an editor, because that's basically what the movie is. The movie is less than half of the novel, not even all of the good parts (some of which went into part 2), with a focus on what works--the background and the archetypes for the characters. The director added a lot of dramatic weight. At the time, it was ground breaking for its content, acting and directing. The movie still holds up quite well in my opinion, but having seen a lot of the films that came after it and built on its success, I find The Godfather doesn't feel particularly powerful, like it must have back in the day.
I hated Apocalypse Now. I've watched it at least six times, including Coppola's extended version, and his Commentary. It lacks any sort of structure or real plot. It's just little bits of action and "cool" tucked into a half-baked psychedelic film that really has no deep meaning at all. Even Coppola himself doesn't know how it all ended up working. The fact that people like it regardless shows how stupid they are, or how well he managed to edit it to make it actually coherent.
The Godfather was good, although I haven't seen it in about ten years. I'd probably hate it if I watched it again.
Anyone else feel the same, I think what I hate most is hearing people argue about whether Finecast is the greatest product ever made or if people would have better results just doing their own 3D printing. I say neither, its just a bad attempt at a thread that we might think is a strawmen when we read it, we all saw it as nerds with the expectation that this would be a great deal on kitchen cabinets so the expectation influenced us to like it.
Its horrible quality. You can't sympathize with any of the posts on DakkaDakka because the points all seem to be nothing but IP lawyering. The only two points that seem remotely realistic are the "we need more kickstarters" and the "we need to put all the kickstarters and put them in their own forum" in the nuts and bolt section, other than that the thread concentrates on "I have an opinion, but other people have other opinion". I hate most people's opinions, as far as I was concerned they just make weird post, his dad never wanted to watch the liberal media talk about things, then his dad gets Obamacare and his wife gets a Razorgor and he goes through a crappy transformation to become an Off-Topic poster. I know people who have gone through far worse in their lives without really changing who they are so it's really the victim's fault that all this happened. . Unlike others who hate this thread because they think it blames the victim I don't have the need to do worry about that because that sort of sexism doesn't affect me.
I also hate the way its sanitized please note this is different that glorified or someone making a justification for online opinions. This is mainly why people think it sugarcoats the Off-Topic but the reasons is more because posters believe that he were pushing the envelope enough by making a thread about our spiritual liege. They love to show people getting baned or trolled in the distance, or talking about crimes committed in the off-topic while sitting around the ivory tower but never take a trip to the places where the important stuff actually happens, like to eBay where there are nothing but terrible auctions, or a neighborhood full of self-appointed Zimmerman's patrolling the streets with their guns no you just get a view from the ivory tower with our broken computers.
These factors i'm mentioning may seem unrelated but really they are, they stem from a nihilistic worldview, a world view where their are just Bronies and Nazis, where the only morality debate is between a MOD who says "trolling is bad", and a criminal who says "but other people troll besides me so i'm not bad. Its same outlook where that led whembly to create the Benghazi thread a much better thread but one that still showcased the aweful things Republicans have said in the past. That's the problem with the Games Workshop Price Hikes, it doesn't encourage player loyalty, it encourages people to say "GW sucks
Technically it's a brilliant film and one I enjoy watching, but it's not a favorite one of mine. I think great films and favorite films are rarley the same thing.
Captain Fantastic wrote: I hated Apocalypse Now. The fact that people like it regardless shows how stupid they are, or how well he managed to edit it to make it actually coherent.
The story is somewhat coherent, but to say that people are stupid for liking it is an insult, as I personally love the movie and would not consider myself to be stupid by any stretch of the imagination. As ultimately, he is quite true to the source material (Heart of Darkness) with a few elements changed for the theme of the movie. Ultimately, I think it became more of a statement about Vietnam and the haze of a conflict that it was that perhaps inspires Apocalypse Now! to not make sense to us, as I wasn't there, and the guys I know who were can't really talk very clearly about any of it (unlike many of the WW2 vets I've been able to talk to).
I like the god father films, but hate the fact that in the UK, they spawned a whole range of fish and chip shops that are called the Cod-Father! Yes, the shop signs have a fish in mafia style clothing!
Soladrin wrote: I've tried watching, it took me a full 15 minutes to fall asleep.
This. I've tried watching it twice, and I fell asleep within 15-20 minutes both times. I won't say that I hated it...it just didn't have the appropriate hook for my interest.
Soladrin wrote: I've tried watching, it took me a full 15 minutes to fall asleep.
This. I've tried watching it twice, and I fell asleep within 15-20 minutes both times. I won't say that I hated it...it just didn't have the appropriate hook for my interest.
Easy E wrote:Never seen it. Not enough Gladiators in it.
Soladrin wrote: I've tried watching, it took me a full 15 minutes to fall asleep.
This. I've tried watching it twice, and I fell asleep within 15-20 minutes both times. I won't say that I hated it...it just didn't have the appropriate hook for my interest.
Easy E wrote:Never seen it. Not enough Gladiators in it.
Captain Fantastic wrote: I hated Apocalypse Now. I've watched it at least six times, including Coppola's extended version, and his Commentary. It lacks any sort of structure or real plot. It's just little bits of action and "cool" tucked into a half-baked psychedelic film that really has no deep meaning at all. Even Coppola himself doesn't know how it all ended up working. The fact that people like it regardless shows how stupid they are, or how well he managed to edit it to make it actually coherent.
The Godfather was good, although I haven't seen it in about ten years. I'd probably hate it if I watched it again.
That is the point. There is no plot, just an end goal and things in between. It is meant to be a haze. The Main Char changes overtime because f his loyalty to the mission and the military, turning him into a monster.
I don't really like any crime films where the protagonists are criminals, I just find it hard to relate to them or cheer for their decisions unless they are in an exceptionally unjust society.
Also, it's hilarious to say that something is "objectively a good movie."
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, it's hilarious to say that something is "objectively a good movie."
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's a murky subject but it's to differentiate people who simply don't like something because it doesn't fit their taste from the grander scheme of the medium. One can form an onjective comparison between works in a medium by taking them and looking at how they do things. Cinimatography, writing, acting, make up, set design, etc. If one were to take 20 films from a genre and rank them by such factors you can come up with films that are 'better' than others but that you for personal reasons might not have enjoyed.
I often compare this to my enjoyment of the Game Too Human. Liked it a lot. played a lot of hours on it. Subjectively, I loved it, but it was a terrible game (damn you unskippable death cut scene why are you so long!).
Likewise its hard to ignore the Godfather as a film. You'll often see people talking about its influence on the medium and the genre of crime movies. The film had too big an impact to be ignored as a bad film, but there are many people who don't like it because they find it boring.
Captain Fantastic wrote: I hated Apocalypse Now. I've watched it at least six times, including Coppola's extended version, and his Commentary. It lacks any sort of structure or real plot. It's just little bits of action and "cool" tucked into a half-baked psychedelic film that really has no deep meaning at all. Even Coppola himself doesn't know how it all ended up working. The fact that people like it regardless shows how stupid they are, or how well he managed to edit it to make it actually coherent.
The Godfather was good, although I haven't seen it in about ten years. I'd probably hate it if I watched it again.
I disagree. Apocalypse Now has a very clear structure in which the "hero" goes on a mission, encountering various weird Vietnam War occurrences (a lot of the incidents portrayed are derived from/inspired by "Despatches", "If I Die In A Combat Zone", and "Nam", all of which are autobiographical/documentary) until he reaches the horrible end derived from the Conrad novella The Heart of Darkness which depicts how a civilised man can descend into madness and barbarity when cut off from civilisation.
It is pretty well rooted in high quality literature, so how you can say it was just sort of bodged up I don't know.
Da Boss wrote: Also, it's hilarious to say that something is "objectively a good movie."
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Godfather is objectively a good film, in the same way that Bob Dylans "Hurricane" is objectively a good song. It's totally 100% okay to not like it, but to call it bad is just simply incorrect.
Da Boss wrote: Also, it's hilarious to say that something is "objectively a good movie."
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Godfather is objectively a good film, in the same way that Bob Dylans "Hurricane" is objectively a good song. It's totally 100% okay to not like it, but to call it bad is just simply incorrect.
But if it sounds bad to me it's still a bad song.
sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive More
It was only a matter of time before the dictionary definitions turned up to provide a source of thinly-veiled jabs at people's intellect.
'Subjective' and 'objective' are terms that I'm sure the vast majority of people are familiar with the definitions of; there's no need to start quoting entire chunks of dictionaries.
Kilkrazy wrote: They are close together according to most people
The Godfather on IMDB
Ratings: 9.2/10 from 793,313 users Metascore: 100/100
Reviews: 1,726 user | 184 critic | 14 from Metacritic.com
Taxi Driver on IMDB
Ratings: 8.4/10 from 339,089 users Metascore: 93/100
Reviews: 765 user | 192 critic | 8 from Metacritic.com
subjective tastes are subjective.
far fewer people have seen taxi driver as well, and most people really dont get films that deep.
most people liked titanic/avatar (which are horrible horrible movies... in my opinion of course, no one can argue that they are successful/profitable/popular, but that doesnt make them good)
I also consider the source, as god father was based on a book, the film really cant take all the credit for it being a good "story" as the story wasnt even made up by the film makers.
taxi driver, was an original story made for film, so story wise, more original, not just a remake of someone else's work like the god father was.
but, as always, everyone gets their own opinion on what is good or bad, none of us are right, none of us are wrong, if you enjoy something I dont or vise versa, more power to you
One mistake people make about The Godfather is thinking that it "glorifies" the Mafia. It does not. What it does, is it humanizes the Mafia. There aren't faceless thugs hidden in the shadows plotting crimes. They're family men who eat dinner at the table with their wives and children and go to church every Sunday. They're war heroes who have every intention of not getting into the family business, but when that family becomes physically threatened, they start taking those steps into darkness. It's partly a film about what would you do to protect your family. There is no glory in watching Michael's fall throughout the films, just pity and horror.
Just because one is unaware the objective elements to film making do not mean they don't exist. There are aspects beyond purely artistic when crafting a movie, but unless one is in the field or in academia they wouldn't need to know them, and most often don't. For example, how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)? Do you know when it is being employed correctly? When someone is breaking the rule? What breaking it can achieve and why?
Ahtman wrote: Just because one is unaware the objective elements to film making do not mean they don't exist. There are aspects beyond purely artistic when crafting a movie, but unless one is in the field or in academia they wouldn't need to know them, and most often don't. For example, how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)? Do you know when it is being employed correctly? When someone is breaking the rule? What breaking it can achieve and why?
Riiiiight because having to explain it to people definitely proves it to be the best movie ever made
Kilkrazy wrote: They are close together according to most people
The Godfather on IMDB
Ratings: 9.2/10 from 793,313 users Metascore: 100/100
Reviews: 1,726 user | 184 critic | 14 from Metacritic.com
Taxi Driver on IMDB
Ratings: 8.4/10 from 339,089 users Metascore: 93/100
Reviews: 765 user | 192 critic | 8 from Metacritic.com
subjective tastes are subjective.
far fewer people have seen taxi driver as well, and most people really dont get films that deep.
most people liked titanic/avatar (which are horrible horrible movies... in my opinion of course, no one can argue that they are successful/profitable/popular, but that doesnt make them good)
...
...
Titanic gets substantially lower ratings than Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver. All three films have a very large number of ratings aggregated on the site.
Titanic at IMDB
Ratings: 7.7/10 from 544,802 users Metascore: 74/100
Reviews: 2,441 user | 307 critic | 34 from Metacritic.com
I don't see what difference it makes if a film was made from a book or a screenplay. In both cases you translate from a text medium to a completely different fluid audio-visual medium. What makes the book one inevitably worse?
Ahtman wrote: Just because one is unaware the objective elements to film making do not mean they don't exist. There are aspects beyond purely artistic when crafting a movie, but unless one is in the field or in academia they wouldn't need to know them, and most often don't. For example, how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)? Do you know when it is being employed correctly? When someone is breaking the rule? What breaking it can achieve and why?
Riiiiight because having to explain it to people definitely proves it to be the best movie ever made
Aren't explanations what defines "good" and "bad" quality? Do you just go around randomly saying something's "good" or "bad" with no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Ahtman wrote: Just because one is unaware the objective elements to film making do not mean they don't exist. There are aspects beyond purely artistic when crafting a movie, but unless one is in the field or in academia they wouldn't need to know them, and most often don't. For example, how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)? Do you know when it is being employed correctly? When someone is breaking the rule? What breaking it can achieve and why?
Riiiiight because having to explain it to people definitely proves it to be the best movie ever made
In no way shape or form did I argue that The Godfather was the best movie ever made, or any movie for that matter. What I argued was that there are objective elements to film making, and that like most technical elements of any given thing laymen don't know what they are. I have a general understanding of how a 737 flies, but an aerospace engineer knows a lot more, and also has a lot more language to describe the many elements most of us aren't aware and don't need to be since we aren't building aircraft. Making a movie isn't really that much different in that the professionals have a different perspective and understanding of it, just as an aerospace engineer has a different understanding of aircraft.
I'm afraid this is America Ahtman. You aren't allowed to even suggest that some people might know things about stuff that other people don't know. Cause that's elitist and we don't like that round these parts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Citizen Kane is often considered a contender for best film ever.
Citizen Kane is an excellent film, and extremely influential, but I would hesitate to claim it as the best film ever. I'd also struggle to find another contender that I would truly feel comfortable giving such a title though.
Ahtman wrote: Just because one is unaware the objective elements to film making do not mean they don't exist. There are aspects beyond purely artistic when crafting a movie, but unless one is in the field or in academia they wouldn't need to know them, and most often don't. For example, how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)? Do you know when it is being employed correctly? When someone is breaking the rule? What breaking it can achieve and why?
Riiiiight because having to explain it to people definitely proves it to be the best movie ever made
Aren't explanations what defines "good" and "bad" quality? Do you just go around randomly saying something's "good" or "bad" with no idea how you came to that conclusion.
There's a big difference between most people agreeing something is good because of simple reasons..... And the mess that ahtman was going on about. When you say anything like "how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)?" then ya.... Your argument is invalid.
Who cares if they did it or not, does that REALLY make something good or not? I mean really does it? No.... no it doesn't
I don't see what difference it makes if a film was made from a book or a screenplay. In both cases you translate from a text medium to a completely different fluid audio-visual medium. What makes the book one inevitably worse?
I just think it deserves more credit when the story was made by those made the movie,
IE taxi driver gets credit for the "story" and the movie,
where as god father the movie only gets credit for the "movie", as its just changing the medium of the story, rather then making up the story itself.
also, when a story is specifically made for a motion picture, vs simply adapted from a book, it is going to have visual elements that a book adaptation generally wont have, and it generally wont have to deal with changing the narrator's POV so much.
I mean, technically, its all translated from "thought", to film, and im sure you could skip the screen play(text) version of a movie if you were able to keep that all in your head, not that it happens that often.
and I dont mean to say its always worse,
Im just saying its harder to both make up a brand new story, and to make it into a movie, then it is to just take a pre existing story, and make it into a movie
kinda like if you make a converted model, and paint it really well, it deserves a bit more kudos then if someone assembled a model for you and you painted it, even if both paintjobs are equally awesome
Up has one of the most powerful beginnings of any movie. You sit down expecting a funny kids movie and get sucker punched right in the feels as a parent...
d-usa wrote: Up has one of the most powerful beginnings of any movie. You sit down expecting a funny kids movie and get sucker punched right in the feels as a parent...
This is so true. I'm a ruff turf manly man but it gets me every time. Wall-E is the same...such a lonely robot.
There's a big difference between most people agreeing something is good because of simple reasons..... And the mess that ahtman was going on about. When you say anything like "how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)?" then ya.... Your argument is invalid.
Who cares if they did it or not, does that REALLY make something good or not? I mean really does it? No.... no it doesn't
I'm kind of with Ahtman on this one. As a former Photography student, I know that there are "rules" for making good artistic photographs. There are certain elements from a technical standpoint that will automatically make a picture better than if those elements are missing. The same thing is true with movies, the only real difference is that the pictures are "moving" Certain movies stand out for breaking with the conventional "rules", while other film makers are strict adherents to the rules.
The one thing you cannot fix though, is the script/story. You can have the greatest, and most technically sound director at the helm, but if he/she's given a turd sandwich to work with, it won't be as good a movie as if he/she has a brilliant or well written script/screenplay to work with. I think with movies, you really need to have a good marriage between the two to have a truly great movie. This is why, IMO, movies like Godfather, Citizen Kane, 2001, etc. seem to stand out as among the "greatest of all time" movies.
easysauce wrote: god father is watchable certainly, even good , but not something I would call a "game changer" by any stretch.
The Godfather is a game changer because it quite simply changed the game. The types of films Hollywood made, the way it made those movies, the audiences it targeted, the way is advertised its movies, the way it released those movies, all those things changed after the Godfather came out and broke all those box office records. There is a clear line in Hollywood evolution from the Godfather to Star Wars.
I think, to be perfectly blunt, that before people go about questioning the common wisdom of why certain movies are important, they need to know the history of Hollywood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: It's a good movie. Not my favorite, but I enjoy it.
If you don't like it, then you probably like Yo Gabba Gabba!
Is it okay to rank both the Godfather and Yo Gabba Gabba among the greatest works of entertainment created in the Western world?
No, it means it is a song you don't like. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean you get to start ignoring all the objective qualities that the film or song has.
There is objective skill in movie making. Simply put some movies are much better crafted that others - more cleverly scripted, more authentically acted, more inventively and effectively directed. The trick is to understanding that just because a film might be extremely well made it doesn't mean you have to love it.
I saw the Colour Purple on the weekend for the first time in years. I hate that movie, but that doesn't mean it is bad, not by a long shot - the acting is terrific and the direction is from one of Hollywood's best at the top of his game. I just don't like it very much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: I also consider the source, as god father was based on a book, the film really cant take all the credit for it being a good "story" as the story wasnt even made up by the film makers.
taxi driver, was an original story made for film, so story wise, more original, not just a remake of someone else's work like the god father was.
Whether there was any source material is irrelevant. What matters is just what is there on the screen in front of you. Whether it is an original work or an adaptation is irrelevant, all that matters is if it is well made, and whether you like it or not.
And, as has already been noted by other posters, the original book The Godfather is a pretty trashy book. Paring the book down to its key components, emphasising the best points of drama, the film turned the b standard plot of the book into a great movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'm afraid this is America Ahtman. You aren't allowed to even suggest that some people might know things about stuff that other people don't know. Cause that's elitist and we don't like that round these parts.
The fundamental right to not know anything and refuse to let anyone else explain it you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Citizen Kane is often considered a contender for best film ever.
Yep, and it's a classic example of objective quality that for many people is still not a film they personally enjoy.
I mean, you see films that were made around the time of Citizen Kane and its hard not to be blown away by the invention and craft used in making Citizen Kane - here was a film that wasn't just basically recording a stage play, but actually using the positioning of the camera to emotionally affect the audience.
I can see that, but also at the same time I can understand that personally I am quite bored by the movie. Accept the objective qualities, without denying one's own subjective opinion.
I remember when the Oscars got manipulated in to being a question of whether Avatar or The Hurt Locker was the best movie of the year, and it was such obvious marketing bs designed . And it really pissed me off because there was Up, clearly superior to both of those movies, just getting sidelined by a marketing campaign.
Wall-E is also pretty great. But I never shared the love for The Incredibles, but that's mostly because I've never really gotten in to superhero stories of that kind, where the story is knowingly steeped in genre tropes. But it was a really well made movie.
Cars freaked me out. What happened to the people? The cars have doors, and the buildings have doors, so at some point obviously they were put there for people to use. But there are no people to be seen, only the evidence of their lost civilisation. Did the cars murder us all after achieving sentience? Did the nano-bot cloud that made the cars sentient destroy the people? Any answer could not possibly be as terrifying as the cold, impersonal absence of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote: There's a big difference between most people agreeing something is good because of simple reasons..... And the mess that ahtman was going on about. When you say anything like "how many are familiar with the 30 Degree Rule of cinematography (without looking it up)?" then ya.... Your argument is invalid.
No, Ahtman is right and you are wrong. Whether or not people lots of people agree that something is very good doesn't make it so. Enough people said The Hurt Locker was the best screenplay of the year for it to win the Oscar, that it was somehow better written than Inglorious Basterds, but that didn't and can't make it true.
What matters is the objective level of skill and creativity put in to that work. If a film shows inventive, effective new techniques, or uses existing techniques in a masterful way, then it has an objective quality that is quite seperate from whether or not you personally like a movie.
And yeah, often times those objective qualities will be lost on people who aren't familiar with how films are made. So instead they'll just think 'I liked that' or 'I didn't like that', and be unaware how much of their personal opinion was based on effective craft, and how much was based on their personal reaction to the material. But that doesn't mean that crafting isn't there.
Cars freaked me out. What happened to the people? The cars have doors, and the buildings have doors, so at some point obviously they were put there for people to use. But there are no people to be seen, only the evidence of their lost civilisation. Did the cars murder us all after achieving sentience? Did the nano-bot cloud that made the cars sentient destroy the people? Any answer could not possibly be as terrifying as the cold, impersonal absence of people.
Kilkrazy wrote: Citizen Kane is often considered a contender for best film ever.
The funny thing is, I've yet to meet anybody outside a film critic that's ever seen that film...strange
I've seen it twice.
It's a good example of the kind of "classic" black and white film from the golden era of the Hollywood star system that used to get shown on TV a lot in the UK, on BBC 2 on Saturday afternoons when the sport was on BBC 1.
These days they prefer to sell such films on DVD. Actually you can get tons of classics really cheaply on DVD and it compresses well because there is no colour so the visual result is good.
Loved the first and second Godfathers but I'd rather be captured by the Night Lords than watch the third one again.
I know how you feel about not liking a movie everyone else seems to like, I hate Shawshank Redemption.
Anyone not liking the Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai is clearly a communist, and not the cool "WE WILL BURY YOU" Khruschev kind but the snivelling coffee house hipster university professor type.
I honestly think Citizen Kane is an overblown film in terms of its story. The story wasn't that good. Hours of watching some guy self-destruct with a real wtf ending that made me feel like my time has been wasted (maybe the point of the film was something about futlity idk).
Either way, the thing Kane is noteable for isn't its plot but its technical features. First film montage ever isn't it? Lots of camera tricks used for the first time, lighting effects no one had seen before, etc. It's an important film, but I've never felt right calling it a good film. The later feels like something thrown out from nostalgia more than anything.
LordofHats wrote: I honestly think Citizen Kane is an overblown film in terms of its story. The story wasn't that good. Hours of watching some guy self-destruct with a real wtf ending that made me feel like my time has been wasted (maybe the point of the film was something about futlity idk).
Either way, the thing Kane is noteable for isn't its plot but its technical features. First film montage ever isn't it? Lots of camera tricks used for the first time, lighting effects no one had seen before, etc. It's an important film, but I've never felt right calling it a good film. The later feels like something thrown out from nostalgia more than anything.
It's hard for us to understand now but when it was made it was a tart bit of socio/political commentary on the power of the Hearst yellow press empire as well as a bag of camera tricks and so on.
LordofHats wrote: Either way, the thing Kane is noteable for isn't its plot but its technical features. First film montage ever isn't it?
Citizen Kane is definitely not the first use of montage in film. The Soviets used montage editing a long time before Citizen Kane came out, in films like Battleship Potemkin. Citizen Kane does use a lot of other innovative camera, makeup, and lighting techniques though, as you noted.
We were going to watch that in my film class but I think something happened to the copy the professor had and we ended up watching The Exterminting Angel instead.
maltese falcon was wayy better then citizen cane, and was wayy more of a game changer then things like the godfather... which was more of a game changer in how it was marketted then for artistic merit.
The Godfather is a game changer because it quite simply changed the game.
LOL really... thats some logic there, and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but usually declarative/definitive statements like "its been proven, because it is proved" or "I am right, because I am right" are funny.
Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932), The Public Enemy (1931), White Heat (1949), are all far more game changing in the crime/mob genre, with the original scarface giving a very good inside look into the character arc of the criminal.
and they all predate the GFather, but didnt have the fancy pants marketing or "cool kids" group to fluff up support and awards for them
other game chager mob movies that set the tone well before the GF: Public Enemy (1931),
and almost all of those flowed from the real game changer, that the godfather copies, Little Caesar (1930)
"The film's title character was based, in part, after the character of real-life, ruthless gangster Al Capone - a vain and cruelly vicious Italian mobster who experienced a similar rise and fall."
hmmm italian mobsters rise and fall... gee, thats a real game changer the umpteenth time its done...
I highly recommend lots of these old gangster movies... they are surprisingly good given the times.
I like Citizen Kane quite a lot. It's hard to believe that Orson Welles co-wrote, produced, directed, and starred in it at the age of 26. I also like his work on Touch of Evil. Need to get around to actually watching my copy of The Third Man.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I like Citizen Kane quite a lot. It's hard to believe that Orson Welles co-wrote, produced, directed, and starred in it at the age of 26.
I also like his work on Touch of Evil. Need to get around to actually watching my copy of The Third Man.
I like The Third Man waaaay more than Citizen Kane. I highly recommend watching it.
easysauce wrote: LOL really... thats some logic there, and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but usually declarative/definitive statements like "its been proven, because it is proved" or "I am right, because I am right" are funny.
Yeah, you see how you cut the next part of my post, where I actually listed the ways in which the Godfather changed the game, and then said I was just claiming I was right? That's ridiculous.
Anyhow, I'll repeat the point again, so hopefully maybe this time you'll learn something and just move on - the Godfather changed the way films were made, the way they were marketed, and the way they were released. It was the film that makes the real starting point between the old Hollywood method and the move to the modern blockbuster. This a change in the game.
Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932), The Public Enemy (1931), White Heat (1949)... (snip)
Here are some other films that were game changers in totally different ways, therefore the Godfather wasn't... strange argument.
I highly recommend lots of these old gangster movies... they are surprisingly good given the times.
A lot of them are excellent movies and hold up really well today, yeah. Public Enemy is a personal favourite.
I think you've only seen the surface of Michael's character. He was an war hero, and became a mafia Don, but who he was changed not at all. He was always smart, ruthless and utterly loyal to his family. His place in the family changed, but personally he changed very little. The really powerful thing to understand, both through this film and it's sequels, is that his transformation was inevitable, that legitimacy was a dream (either Vito's dream that Michael would move away from the family and become a senator or Michael's dream that he could move the family business in to a legitimate one) - the sins of the father would be passed down, generation to generation.
He changed completely, before he never wanted anything to do with the Mafia, then his dad gets shot because of his involvement in organized crime and suddenly his son decides he wanted to be godfather. Its almost as bad as the character transformation in American History X.
American History X is kind of the reverse of the Godfather. Sure we get a tutorial in how the main character became a neo-Nazi, but the story is really about coming back from that more than it is the descent.
Ironclad Warlord wrote: He changed completely, before he never wanted anything to do with the Mafia, then his dad gets shot because of his involvement in organized crime and suddenly his son decides he wanted to be godfather. Its almost as bad as the character transformation in American History X.
To repeat myself, being in the mafia or a soldier or whatever else is all surface stuff, what Michael really was as a person, intelligent, calculating and loyal to his family, that all remained the same. It just the circumanstances that dictated he use his talents in a different way.
Nor did Michael 'decide' he wanted to be Godfather after his dad was shot. Sonny assumed control, and Michael remained outside the family business.
Michael then volunteered himself to assassinate the family rival and police chief in the restaurant, not out of any ambition to rise up in the mafia, but simply because the family needed to retaliate after what had been done to them. Michael was in hiding when Sonny was killed, and assumed a place by his father's side on his return.
And that's the actual change. Before the mafia war, Vito's plan had always been for Michael to rise to some kind of legitimate power, but now with Sonny murdered, Fredo useless and the family's enemies actively plotting against them, Vito began grooming his son for the role.
