Overrated ways of determining what is a good movie - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Brian · 08-11-2004, 08:14 PM

This afternoon I have come up with 5 overrated ways of determining whether or not a movie is good.

5. Hype and promos. Over the years there have been movies that have been given a lot of hype. Sometimes you'll see ads and promos for a hyped-up movie on television often. There are two significant examples of this: Titanic (1997) and the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003). I remember seeing so many ads for these films and advertising these movies as if they were the best movies ever made. But are they as good as they make it out to be? Some people think after seeing Titanic and the LOTR trilogy that they are great movies. Others share an opposite sentiment: the movies were overhyped, overrated, and were not as good as they were advertised.

4. Awards and nominations. Ever think that because a movie won or was nominated for a lot of Academy Awards, it was good? Was "Shakespeare in Love" more deserving of the Best Picture award than "Saving Private Ryan?" Were "Ben-Hur", "Titanic", and "LOTR: The Return of the King" great movies since they were nominated for and/or won so many awards? If a movie has won a few Academy Awards, it may sound good, but it is up to the viewer to see if that's the case. An example of this is "Forrest Gump." A while back, SO's dlemond mentioned that he thought Forrest Gump is one of the most overrated movies of all time. It won Best Picture but that doesn't mean that everybody would agree that it is good. Other SO members feel the same way about "LOTR: TROTK." The film won every award it was nominated for but they feel it was too overhyped and overrated. I'm not saying it's bad. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and all; more about that below. With movies, one person's favorite is another person's despised.

3. Box office. There are those who often assume that because a movie did well at the box office it must be a good movie. That logic couldn't be any more wrong. Example 1 is "The Hulk." It did very well at the box office in its first week of release (it was #1). However, over the next few weeks, the film experienced a sudden drop in ticket sales after most people who had seen it thought it wasn't really that good. Why did it do #1 then? Because when a movie like "The Hulk" has been promoted and hyped like it was, a lot of people want to see it. In addition, there were a lot of fans of The Incredible Hulk and they had waited a year or two for the release. Because there was so much interest, a lot of people bought tickets to see it. While there are some instances where a person will see the same movie in theaters more than once, I think most everyone else typically go see a film once. A second example is "LOTR: TROTK." It was hyped ad nauseum. As a result of it and the success of the previous two LOTR film, it grossed a lot of money. Were these movies good? Only the viewer can decide for himself. Some movies that do well in the box office are not always liked by everybody.

2. The people involved in the making of the film. Even the best directors, producers, screenwriters, actors, and actresses can have their flops. Director Paul Verhoeven is famous for directing Robocop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct. However, in 1995, he directed what has been thought of as one of the worst films ever made. That movie was Showgirls. This movie was anything but good according to most people who have seen it. It was no Basic Instinct or anything Verhoeven had previously done. A second example is director Michael Cimino. His 1978 film, "The Deer Hunter" won the Best Picture Oscar and apparently it got over his head so much that he spent 44 million dollars producing and directing "Heaven's Gate" in 1980. The movie flopped horribly, taking in only 1 and a half million dollars. This bankrupted United Artists and forced their sale to MGM. Since then, Cimino has found it almost impossible to find work afterwards.

And the number one overrated way of determining whether a movie is good is...

1. Movie critics. Yes, you read it right. It may seem like it, smell like it, and appear to be factual, but movie reviews are purely and solely a matter of opinion. There are movies that I have seen that Leonard Maltin gave a BOMB rating that I disagree with. One of those movies is "Valley of the Dolls." I thought it was 2 1/2 stars out of 4. Saying whether a movie is good is not fact. Different critics and people have different opinions and they may or may not match those of the moviegoer.

Bottom line: If you want to see whether a movie is good, there is only one good way to know. That is to see it for yourself.

ThirteenInchEscape · 08-11-2004, 10:32 PM

Ebert and Roeper are pretty intelligent, the people at Hot Ticket are terrible though. I think that it is good to LISTEN to what the reviewers say, instead of the actual rating they give it, sometimes a reviewer will dislike a movie for the same reason you would like it.

I also think that who is involved is important, but it isnt everything, it is good to read the description of movies.

the best way t odetermine if a movie is good is by the rating on IMDB.

Though, some movies (LOTR and Star Wars), are still by far overrated on IMDB

snl fan · 08-11-2004, 10:41 PM

this was very interesting you shuld type up this post and try to sell it to a magazine or newspaper it was very well thought out with alot of good points

LucyCompanyPhan · 08-12-2004, 12:24 AM

I think everyone knows that but it doesn't matter anyway.

Movies need to be hyped up or people wouldn't see them.You can't help movies that get bad buzz like Catwomen or movies that get good buzz like Spiderman 2. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions but thats the way the business works.

webuster · 08-12-2004, 10:28 AM

The only way I really choose to see a movie is if I read the basic plot somewhere (I'm talking a few lines from Empire or imdb) and if it sounds like something that would interest me- I'll see it. Occasionally advertising will get me though (I,Robot for instance- the 'I did not murder him' clip on tv made me want to see the movie, but in saying that- the film was good).

One reason I've started to hate M Night Shyamalan films is that he seems to come up with the ad campaign and then write a movie around it- the advertising for The Village was the most annoying yet with red lines constantly appears accross the screen. Spiderman 2's "With great power comes great responsibility" got annoying after hearing it 1 million times as well.

But still, for most people-advertising and hype is how they pick movies to watch- and as lnog as that's the case- bad movies will do good if hey have good posters.

On another note- The Valley of the Dolls is being remade- again! And, apparently Janet Jackson wants to be in it (Courtney Love was involved for a while too- which I find kind of ironic).

Nighthawk76 · 08-12-2004, 01:01 PM

I always try to stay away from what film critics have to say. After all, what really makes Roger Ebert or Michael Willmington an expert on movies? When they went to college it was probably to study journalism, you can't recieve a degree as a "film expert". Their reviews are based as much on personal opinion as is the viewers. The critic that bothers me the most is Leonard Maltin, who never seems to like any movie made after 1960, unless its a cartoon. There are movies that mean a great deal to me like Flashdance, Body Double and Femme Fatale which recieved generally poor reviews. There there are films like Vertigo, 2001 and Scarface that are regarded as classics even by critics, but were meet with poor reviews when they came out. Vertigo was as much a classic in 1958 as it is now, the critics just could not see it. Same with 2001 and Scarface.

CliffClavin · 08-12-2004, 01:45 PM

Most of the time when the reviewers say a certain movie is bad I love that movie , sometimes & I mean sometimes (not all of the time) when they say certain movie is very good I pass out in the theater.

Sometimes they make me so mad.

So I judge movies for myself.

does that make since to you ?

08-11-2004, 10:32 PM	#2
ThirteenInchEscape Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 21, 2004 Location: Palouse, Washington Posts: 1,218	Ebert and Roeper are pretty intelligent, the people at Hot Ticket are terrible though. I think that it is good to LISTEN to what the reviewers say, instead of the actual rating they give it, sometimes a reviewer will dislike a movie for the same reason you would like it. I also think that who is involved is important, but it isnt everything, it is good to read the description of movies. the best way t odetermine if a movie is good is by the rating on IMDB. Though, some movies (LOTR and Star Wars), are still by far overrated on IMDB
	__________________ *Member of the "God Lilith is so ing Cool" Fanclub* Freedom of Thought

08-12-2004, 12:24 AM	#4
LucyCompanyPhan Hollywood Senior Member Join Date: Sep 25, 2001 Location: a far away place in sitcomville Posts: 2,254	I think everyone knows that but it doesn't matter anyway. Movies need to be hyped up or people wouldn't see them.You can't help movies that get bad buzz like Catwomen or movies that get good buzz like Spiderman 2. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions but thats the way the business works.
	__________________ "Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness -- give me truth.”

08-12-2004, 01:45 PM	#7
CliffClavin Yada Yada Yada Senior Member Join Date: May 04, 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 1,403	Most of the time when the reviewers say a certain movie is bad I love that movie , sometimes & I mean sometimes (not all of the time) when they say certain movie is very good I pass out in the theater. Sometimes they make me so mad. So I judge movies for myself. does that make since to you ?
	__________________ We owe a lot to Thomas Edison - if it wasn't for him, we'd be watching television by candlelight. - Milton Berle

08-11-2004, 08:14 PM	#1
Brian Member Forum Celebrity Join Date: Jun 23, 2001 Posts: 20,451	Overrated ways of determining what is a good movie This afternoon I have come up with 5 overrated ways of determining whether or not a movie is good. 5. Hype and promos. Over the years there have been movies that have been given a lot of hype. Sometimes you'll see ads and promos for a hyped-up movie on television often. There are two significant examples of this: Titanic (1997) and the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003). I remember seeing so many ads for these films and advertising these movies as if they were the best movies ever made. But are they as good as they make it out to be? Some people think after seeing Titanic and the LOTR trilogy that they are great movies. Others share an opposite sentiment: the movies were overhyped, overrated, and were not as good as they were advertised. 4. Awards and nominations. Ever think that because a movie won or was nominated for a lot of Academy Awards, it was good? Was "Shakespeare in Love" more deserving of the Best Picture award than "Saving Private Ryan?" Were "Ben-Hur", "Titanic", and "LOTR: The Return of the King" great movies since they were nominated for and/or won so many awards? If a movie has won a few Academy Awards, it may sound good, but it is up to the viewer to see if that's the case. An example of this is "Forrest Gump." A while back, SO's dlemond mentioned that he thought Forrest Gump is one of the most overrated movies of all time. It won Best Picture but that doesn't mean that everybody would agree that it is good. Other SO members feel the same way about "LOTR: TROTK." The film won every award it was nominated for but they feel it was too overhyped and overrated. I'm not saying it's bad. Everyone has the right to their own opinions and all; more about that below. With movies, one person's favorite is another person's despised. 3. Box office. There are those who often assume that because a movie did well at the box office it must be a good movie. That logic couldn't be any more wrong. Example 1 is "The Hulk." It did very well at the box office in its first week of release (it was #1). However, over the next few weeks, the film experienced a sudden drop in ticket sales after most people who had seen it thought it wasn't really that good. Why did it do #1 then? Because when a movie like "The Hulk" has been promoted and hyped like it was, a lot of people want to see it. In addition, there were a lot of fans of The Incredible Hulk and they had waited a year or two for the release. Because there was so much interest, a lot of people bought tickets to see it. While there are some instances where a person will see the same movie in theaters more than once, I think most everyone else typically go see a film once. A second example is "LOTR: TROTK." It was hyped ad nauseum. As a result of it and the success of the previous two LOTR film, it grossed a lot of money. Were these movies good? Only the viewer can decide for himself. Some movies that do well in the box office are not always liked by everybody. 2. The people involved in the making of the film. Even the best directors, producers, screenwriters, actors, and actresses can have their flops. Director Paul Verhoeven is famous for directing Robocop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct. However, in 1995, he directed what has been thought of as one of the worst films ever made. That movie was Showgirls. This movie was anything but good according to most people who have seen it. It was no Basic Instinct or anything Verhoeven had previously done. A second example is director Michael Cimino. His 1978 film, "The Deer Hunter" won the Best Picture Oscar and apparently it got over his head so much that he spent 44 million dollars producing and directing "Heaven's Gate" in 1980. The movie flopped horribly, taking in only 1 and a half million dollars. This bankrupted United Artists and forced their sale to MGM. Since then, Cimino has found it almost impossible to find work afterwards. And the number one overrated way of determining whether a movie is good is... 1. Movie critics. Yes, you read it right. It may seem like it, smell like it, and appear to be factual, but movie reviews are purely and solely a matter of opinion. There are movies that I have seen that Leonard Maltin gave a BOMB rating that I disagree with. One of those movies is "Valley of the Dolls." I thought it was 2 1/2 stars out of 4. Saying whether a movie is good is not fact. Different critics and people have different opinions and they may or may not match those of the moviegoer. Bottom line: If you want to see whether a movie is good, there is only one good way to know. That is to see it for yourself.

08-11-2004, 10:41 PM	#3
snl fan Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 119	this was very interesting you shuld type up this post and try to sell it to a magazine or newspaper it was very well thought out with alot of good points

08-12-2004, 10:28 AM	#5
webuster Member Senior Member Join Date: Aug 26, 2002 Posts: 2,150	The only way I really choose to see a movie is if I read the basic plot somewhere (I'm talking a few lines from Empire or imdb) and if it sounds like something that would interest me- I'll see it. Occasionally advertising will get me though (I,Robot for instance- the 'I did not murder him' clip on tv made me want to see the movie, but in saying that- the film was good). One reason I've started to hate M Night Shyamalan films is that he seems to come up with the ad campaign and then write a movie around it- the advertising for The Village was the most annoying yet with red lines constantly appears accross the screen. Spiderman 2's "With great power comes great responsibility" got annoying after hearing it 1 million times as well. But still, for most people-advertising and hype is how they pick movies to watch- and as lnog as that's the case- bad movies will do good if hey have good posters. On another note- The Valley of the Dolls is being remade- again! And, apparently Janet Jackson wants to be in it (Courtney Love was involved for a while too- which I find kind of ironic).

08-12-2004, 01:01 PM	#6
Nighthawk76 Rachel Berry Forum Celebrity Join Date: Feb 28, 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 23,254	I always try to stay away from what film critics have to say. After all, what really makes Roger Ebert or Michael Willmington an expert on movies? When they went to college it was probably to study journalism, you can't recieve a degree as a "film expert". Their reviews are based as much on personal opinion as is the viewers. The critic that bothers me the most is Leonard Maltin, who never seems to like any movie made after 1960, unless its a cartoon. There are movies that mean a great deal to me like Flashdance, Body Double and Femme Fatale which recieved generally poor reviews. There there are films like Vertigo, 2001 and Scarface that are regarded as classics even by critics, but were meet with poor reviews when they came out. Vertigo was as much a classic in 1958 as it is now, the critics just could not see it. Same with 2001 and Scarface.