Spottedfeather

Good and bad movies are not just a matter of opinion. There can be movies that you really hate but are very well made/acted. Then there can be movies that you love but that are extremely horrible, badly acted, and have bad effects. Just because you like it doesn't make it a good movie. And just because you hate it doesn't make it a bad one. Even if you really hate a movie, you can look at it and see that it's good. Just as you can like a movie, but can see that it's bad. Twilight is a really badly written book which was turned into an even more badly written and acted movie. It's a bad movie. That's fact. I really hate the Spiderman movies, but I can acknowledge that they are well made. Well, except for the CGI web-swinging and fighting scenes.

riotinmyskull

art is subjective.

hdtv00

....ah whatever.

Jay G.

You're making a distinction between one's enjoyment of a movie, and a more critical analysis of how it was made. This is an important distinction to make, and especially important when one is trying to understand/explain why they did or did not like something.

However, the problem is that any critical analysis of the film or parts of the film is still subjective, or an opinion. For example, someone may agree with you on disliking Spiderman 3, but disagree with you and think the fighting scenes were well done. Who's right?

Let me put it another way: name one objective measurement for the quality of a film.

The Lizard King

I hear that in some circles, it's called, "Bwu Way."

TLK

Josh Z

The critics. Absolutely the critics. Did you see that shitpile?

tylergfoster

No, of course not, but that's not what I was saying.

Jay G.

But that is what slop101 was saying, who you were ostensibly agreeing with, which is why I asked for clarification.

slop101

No, not really.

tylergfoster

No. He was saying the same thing I was, except he was setting the "likely-to-be-crap" line at 50% instead of 40%, and he puts much more stock in it.

Jay G.

Except he didn't say "likely-to-be-crap", he said "is-crap". Again, the quote:

No "likely to be" in there, or anywhere else in his posts. Remember that this was in response to Matthew Chmiel recommending the film and specifically asking slop101 if he had actually seen the movie he was calling crap. slop101's response is basically "I don't have to see it, because the rottentomatoes score tells me it is crap." He then proceeded to equate anyone who liked Step Up 3 with heroin users.

I was disagreeing with this assertion that rottentomatoes can be used as an absolute indicator of quality.

Now, if that wasn't slop101's intention, he can post again to clarify his statements so we can better understand his position.

slop101

If you're gonna quote me, why not quote my follow-up posts?

I apologize if my hyperbole is giving you cancer.

Jay G.

Because the line I quoted is the one I have issue with, and you follow up doesn't really address it. Especially since after that "tongue-in-cheek" post, you posted this:
So you're at best inconsistent.

So you admit your statement was hyperbole? You don't think that a score under 50% on rottentomatoes.com means a film is a shitpile? Have you actually seen Step Up 3 yourself?

slop101

No, but I'm pretty sure it sucks.

jarofclay73

I'm trying to avoid re-buying everything on DVD. There are select movies I really want on Blu-Ray that would really enhance the viewing experience. There are plenty movies that I have the would suffice on DVD. Then, any NEW movie that I want to buy I'll buy it on Blu-Ray.

So, you just have to figure out which ones you REALLY want to upgrade to Blu.

TheMovieman

Yeah, right with you. I haven't bought a new release DVD (unless it's the only format available) since going to Blu-ray a few years back.

auto

< insert an internet is serious business pic >

PopcornTreeCt

OP, I would check out movies you really love on Blu-ray before anything else.