Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, first off let me explain how I feel a need to start a thread like this on a Table Top Wargame Forum

It seems that right now, the wargames industry and comic book industry is making use of cinematic medium to draw in extra interest, you've only got to look at the droves of Marvel derived movies, and Mutant Chronicles to name few. Again theres the other direction of movies being turned into wargames, like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc etc......all of these movies tend to rely on the viewer having some kind of previous "knowledge" of the setting, either through books, video games, comics or wargames to bridge the gap and help the Director avoid lengthy explanations at the start of the Movie.....ok Star Wars and Dune didn't do this, but you get my point...right?

Looking at the mixed responses for Avatar (see the Avatar thread!) and the less than excited expectations people have for the upcoming Ultramarines film, not to mention responses for others like Mutant Chronicles. It got me wondering, what actually makes a GOOD movie? If mind boggling special effects don't win you over, what more can the Director do? I mean, and obvious improvement is "story line".....but thats massively subjective, one mans riveting story is likely to be another mans "paint drying experience"......bearing in mind also, that the Director has around 1.5 - 3hrs max, to tell his tale and get his point across......thats not a long time, especially in the visual world.

If I compare a good book to a good movie, the book wins every time, the writer has access to tools that will never make it to the big screen. So bearing this in mind, are we "the critics" being way to hard on the movies we watch these days? are we asking too much from a limited medium? is the medium as limited as I think, or are we simply not using it correctly? Surely Hollywood has sent the "standard" by which all the big block-busters are made, but is this enough?

I'd be interested in your thoughts!

Not too sure really on the wider points but IMO, there can be examples of good books made into good films, it just needs a good screenplay, decent cast and a sympathetic director (think Shawshank Redemption). However, there are just as many examples of good books being made into bad films (I personally think Michael Crichton suffered from never really having decent adaptations of his stories)

Oh yes, I remember "Eaters of the Dead" well......wasn't that a great movie Antonio was....an interesting choice in that one!

I think it is largely due to both time constraints and visual depiction. Take 'Da Vinci Code' as an example. Now I am of the opinion that it was a cracking read. Granted, Dan Brown's prose is rather clunky at times but it was a well thought out and contrived story but was turned into a pig's ear of a film, largely due to the fact that large chunks of the book are narrative which simply does not translate well into film. Michael Crichton suffered from this too; Jurassic Park had a whole heap of really believable and well written scientific explanation cut out of it, mainly because Speilberg wanted to dumb the plot down to get kids and familys in to see the film. I felt that it killed the adaptation personally.

I guess it all boils down to personal opinion though, both in terms of books and film. I have met someone who point blank refused to accept that book adaptations could even *possibly* be better than films, despite my incredulity. I lean to the other viewpoint; I much prefer books to film but I am much more literary than visual. Horses for courses I suppose.

1) No Uwe Boll.

2) More Aria Giovanni

While a director may only have 1.5-3.0 hours to tell a story, he also has 12+ months of filming and post production to ensure that those 1.5-3.0 hours actually tell a story worth being told.

To me, what makes a good movie consists of the following:

1. Compelling story. There is a reason why movies like Casablanca, Clockwork Orange, Alien, A Christmas Story, Shawshank Redemption, etc. are part of our national lexicon, and will be for decades to come. None of those movies had (by today's standards) spectacular special effects, but all of them were gripping movies to watch because you just had to know how the story ended.

2. Interesting characters. You have to have some emotional connection to the characters, and they have to act in a believable manner. All the characters in Shawshank Redemption are compelling. Who doesn't get a little bit of the creeps thinking of Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs?

3. Strong acting. This is something that is a synergy between the actor and the director, as the director knows the story he wants to tell and has to coach that out of the actor's range of acting ability. Sometimes, great acting can save an otherwise mediocre story. The John Cusack movies from the 1980's (Better Off Dead, One Crazy Summer, etc.) were kind of kitchy as far as story lines went, but Cusack was such an engaging and believable actor for the part he portrayed that the movies are still fun to watch.

4. Memorable dialogue. The dialogue is often what we remember the most about a movie. Who can forget: "You'll shoot your eye out," "Inconceivable!," "I want my two dollars!," and countless other quotes.

5. Memorable moments. Look at movies like The Hangover. Who will ever forget the tiger in the bathroom or the naked Chinese guy jumping out of the car's trunk?

For me, special effects are way down the list. They're sort of like the decorations on top of the birthday cake's icing. If the cake and the icing suck, then no amount of decoration will make the cake good.

Shouldn't this be in OT since it has nothing to do with Warhammer or Miniatures in general?

For me, special effects are way down the list. They're sort of like the decorations on top of the birthday cake's icing. If the cake and the icing suck, then no amount of decoration will make the cake good.

*cough*Avatar*cough*

Howlingmoon wrote:No Uwe Boll.

FYP.

I think its impossible considering the cynical audience. Then you take into account all the different bias' people have.

For example I liked Fight Club alot. But I'm sure plenty of people thought it was trash. At the same time I thought 6th sense was boring.

Not really easy to explain or understand. If they made Avatar 20years ago with these current effects maybe someone would be impressed.

For the record I loved Avatar.

Oh, don't get me wrong; the special effects in Avatar were amazing. They were a lot of fun to watch.

Unfortunately, my brain needs stimulation beyond the part that processes impulses along my optic nerves.

I think, sometimes, too many people get caught up in the flash/bang/action stuff, and can't appreciate a good story.

Here's one for you that you've probably never heard of. Check out "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress." No special effects, and the whole movie is sub-titled. Nevertheless, it has a wonderful story line, great cinematography, and an ending that will leave you wanting to know more about the characters and what happened to them outside of the framework of the movie.

Avatar was a great example of awesome film making. There are several ways to go about making a great and successful film and I love James Cameron's approach. He can take a seemingly overdone story and tell it in a very entertaining way much like the older Star Wars, the new Star Trek, District 9, The Matrix, etc. have done. Those movies' basic stories are not new and have largely one dimensional characters but through great execution and immersion you can make a seemingly cheesey movie a great one. Terminator 2 and Aliens are also good examples.

Its not just about focusing on a particular element of a film, its about the whole picture and executing it well.

I have to wonder if they used a garbage story with massive plot holes in Star Trek just to keep our heads from exploding from the overwhelming awesome.

Edited: Did not want to de-rail thread into a discussion about Avatar.

My opinions as to what make a good film are in my first post earlier.

Whoa....please lets not make this about Avatar, theres a thread dedicated to this elsewhere......

Breotan wrote:I have to wonder if they used a garbage story with massive plot holes in Star Trek just to keep our heads from exploding from the overwhelming awesome.

Haha...I can honestly say I didn't like a single one of the Star Trek movies. I gave up on them after 6, I think.

Saldiven wrote:

Breotan wrote:I have to wonder if they used a garbage story with massive plot holes in Star Trek just to keep our heads from exploding from the overwhelming awesome.

Haha...I can honestly say I didn't like a single one of the Star Trek movies. I gave up on them after 6, I think.

But 2 was awesome. KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!

Huh? There's only one Star Trek movie.

There was a boring prequel, and then the actual movie.

That's it, no more.


KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!

How come everyone remembers "KHHHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!" but not the awesome speech by Ricardo that led up to that reaction?

"I've done more than kill you...I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you."

Awesome.

Memorable dialogue.

Oh, especially this one. Aliens has so many good lines in it, damn near 3/4 of the movie is quotable.

And no one, no one will forget "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

My favorite:

"Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"

"No. Have you?"


Say, how about Avatar? Besides the ridiculously hammy acting is there anything all that memorable about the characters?

Sidstyler wrote:How come everyone remembers "KHHHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!" but not the awesome speech by Ricardo that led up to that reaction?

Memorable dialogue.

Oh, especially this one. Aliens has so many good lines in it, damn near 3/4 of the movie is quotable.


Say, how about Avatar? Besides the ridiculously hammy acting is there anything all that memorable about the characters?

Why do we remember "KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN! "? See your last sentence. Shatner is the biggest ham actor in all Sci-Fi.


Quotability, Aliens is good, but it's no Grail nor Life of Brian, much less a Blazing Saddles...

"Were de white wimmen at?"

Definitely 3D viewing, like Avatar (it was awesome).

A good movie is story,depth characters a emotive storyline that can make you punch the air in victory and cry like a baby.

That has visuals that make you take an extra breath as if your heart is failing.

Thats a movie for me and sadly as of late this has been lacking.An example of a movie that has all of the above is one im watching at the moment its not war and its not sci-fi its a simple movie The Polar Express in the last two hours I have gone through all of the above emotions it is good and I will stand and say that it is good no shame here.

I think people are more describing outstanding movies than good ones here.

To be good, it merely takes the right pace. This fluctuates from genre to genre, but it has to build anticipation to keep you watching. An action movie, for example, should keep long dialogues to a minimum, unless it's toward the end of the film, when the Goody and the Baddy finally meet face to face, say their piece and then blow the world to hell. Horrors need to tease you with fleeting glimpses before unleashing the killer/monster and so on. A comedy needs to start off slowish, with a mix of verbal and visual gags, getting dafter and dafter as the plot progresses.

This is possibly where Revenge Of The Fallen falls down (though I still love it myself) in that there is blistering action, followed by not a lot, then more action, not a lot, action, not a lot, finale.

Same with books, games, and even concept albums to some degree.

No point whatsoever blowing your load during the early stage, as nobody likes an early climax.

2 things make a movie great

1. Boobs
2. Boobs

;D

A scene involving a belt-fed heavy machine-gun.

Deadshane1 wrote:2 things make a movie great

1. Boobs
2. Boobs

;D

But Total Recall has 3 Boobs. Is that too many?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Huh? There's only one Star Trek movie.

There was a boring prequel, and then the actual movie.

That's it, no more.


KHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!

For once we are in complete agreement. Star Trek the Motion Picture is worth having in ones collection as a prequel, then the main event, then nothing.

Sidstyler wrote:How come everyone remembers "KHHHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!" but not the awesome speech by Ricardo that led up to that reaction?

"I've done more than kill you...I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you."

The Khan! scream is a classic cinema moment and an internet meme. Actually there were a lot of good quotes from that film, Ricardo Montalban did an excellent job. He deserved awards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. please move the thread to OT.

This is possibly where Revenge Of The Fallen falls down (though I still love it myself) in that there is blistering action, followed by not a lot, then more action, not a lot, action, not a lot, finale.

RotF also fails because all that action is incomprehensible, ruined by the abuse of annoying shaky-cam effects and the fact that the character designs are so insanely complex that you literally have almost no idea what you're watching.

Is it two robots beating the crap out of each other or a big ball of gray metal rolling down a hill? Who knows, who cares.

I'll admit there were a couple of awesome scenes, like say Bumblebee ripping out the spine of Ravager and using it to club another robot (but who was he clubbing? looked like a color-swapped Barricade to me, who was also absent in the entire film despite the fact that he clearly didn't die in the first one, or if he did it happened off-screen), but not worth sitting through the other two and a half hours of crap.

...so yeah, I'd say one of the first steps to making a good (action) movie: no shaky-cam.

Sidstyler wrote:you literally have almost no idea what you're watching.

Is it two robots beating the crap out of each other or a big ball of gray metal rolling down a hill? Who knows, who cares.

Its angry robot sex!

The 3 Cs to make a great movie:

Conspiracy
Corruption
Communists

Its hard, REALLY REALLY HARD to find good movies today. Most of the drivel that comes out is chalk full of story lines that you can transplant to other films, characters that belong in the 1st dimension, and a plot that got shot up by that new fully auto shotgun. Rarely do they come out with anything good. I cant even go to the movie theater. Ive already seen Avatar, Transformers, Iron Man, and every romantic comedy known to man in one shape or another.

Yet movies like Moon get overlooked. This movie is amazing, original and very emotionally entwining. Go see it, then rant about it in front of your friends while they ask if it was like transformers.

I honestly have no idea how people put up with these trivial story lines and horrible acting. Yeah Megan Fox is hot, but keep it to the playboys lady because all your doing is ruining EVERYTHING YOU TOUCH.

Its a goddamn shame to see crap like Avatar in the IMDB Top 250 of all time. Same with the Lord of the Rings movies and Star Trek. What classic piece of good cinema got knocked out?

Now there are a few shining gems out there. There Will Be Blood is an excellent movie. I actually HATED the main character. What kind of movie does that to a person? Where you feel actual hatred towards a character? A damn good one thats it. The Prestige is another great movie that, while looks pretty lame on the outside, turns into one of the most compelling movies I have ever seen.

So there are a few, but finding good movies is just so hard and rare to see. And usually they dont get the recognition they deserve.