Writing and Film Making are not subjective at certain tiers

[Formerly Black Trash]

And the thought of, well I like this, that's just my opinion man, is why mid shyt is overrated now and it pulls everything else down with on some curve shyt

In sports, you can break shyt down by points, but in music, film, or books going by financial metrics does not work

When Martin Scorcese said what he said, I understood it, and i agreed
A lot of ppl took it personally, like it was their own work(which is also kind of sick, but that's another topic)

I loved Shadow Madness, a JRPG made by a first time Western developer for PS1, but it had terrible graphics and combat.

It's OK to like things, and realize their faults at the same time.

This isn't just about Disney and it's acquired franchises, but I believe it applies.
I think the quality of movies has gone down significant because new people are being handed the reins to old franchises.
That's a lot of pressure. You can either stick to the script, and try to put a fresh coat of paint on something old, or do something radical with it.

But with the amount of money on the line, they probably aren't given the choice, and have to go with the latter rather than the former.

 

[New Jeruz Jewelz]

The huge issue is the amount of media available for consumers. Good or bad, until the mid 90’s and the wide spread availability of cable television, there were less media options which also led to a centralized repository of talent from writers to directors on a handful of networks or production companies. We use to dream about having the choice of 400+ channels but it’s too much. A show and channel for everything has more benefits for smaller disconnected groups rather than the herd mentality of larger interconnected audiences.

Trying to capture the original feeling or reception of anything great is frowned upon in most artistic arenas, take painting or literature. You’d never be considered talented by simply recreating someone else’s ideas. Nostalgia is a empty pleasure in art. There’s nothing new under the sun so I think movies or shows need to focus on the delivery or experience more than trying to make another Luke Skywalker or James Bond.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

The huge issue is the amount of media available for consumers. Good or bad, until the mid 90’s and the wide spread availability of cable television, there were less media options which also led to a centralized repository of talent from writers to directors on a handful of networks or production companies. We use to dream about having the choice of 400+ channels but it’s too much. A show and channel for everything has more benefits for smaller disconnected groups rather than the herd mentality of larger interconnected audiences.

Trying to capture the original feeling or reception of anything great is frowned upon in most artistic arenas, take painting or literature. You’d never be considered talented by simply recreating someone else’s ideas. Nostalgia is a empty pleasure in art. There’s nothing new under the sun so I thing movies or shows need to focus on the delivery or experience more than trying to make another Luke Skywalker or James Bond.

Faccccccts

 

[Ghost Utmost]

An evolution has occured

Once maybe people didn't know what "worked". At some point in the past there was no movie formula. Then 1000 movies later, a formula emerges

You can argue WHY this element "works" but the fact of it appealing to a wide audience is objective.

Much like biological evolution, whatever works lives on and is reproduced.. largely without having to ever be "understood".

Ants don't know WHY they make ant hills. Countless tries at life just produces a little bio machine that makes ant hills.

So too with story structure. If you use what works, you will make a movie that most people will be engaged by. If you leave out something important, people will feel let down.

For instance, the first act. Where the person is living their life before the adventure begins. If you skip that, now I don't care if this dude lives or dies. And in the end I will say "the graphics were dope but there were no stakes."

So in that way there is a measurable "good" and "bad" for movie composition

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

An evolution has occured

Once maybe people didn't know what "worked". At some in the past point there was no movie formula. Then 1000 movies later, a formula emerges

You can argue WHY this element "works" but the fact of it appealing to a wide audience is objective.

Much like biological evolution, whatever works lives on and is reproduced.. largely without having to ever be "understood".

Ants don't know WHY they make ant hills. Countless tries at life just produces a little bio machine that makes ant hills.

So too with story structure. If you use what works, you will make a movie that most people will be engaged by. If you leave out something important, people will feel let down.

For instance, the first act. Where the person is living their life before the adventure begins. If you skip that, now I don't care if this dude lives or dies. And in the end I will say "the graphics were dope but there were no stakes."

So in that way there is a measurable "good" and "bad" for movie composition

That's not what I'm talking about

What most ppl are engaged by doesn't equal quality

 

[Ghost Utmost]

That's not what I'm talking about

What most ppl are engaged by doesn't equal quality

But whatever you consider quality is specific

All the movies you think are quality have particular characteristics which you are looking for

You and all the critics who claim to know quality when they see it

 

[Killigraphy]

The Hero's Journey - Not subjective, the only formula that has worked for centuries So I agree OP, at certain tiers/levels, great writing and or the formula as to which its great, is not subjective.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

But whatever you consider quality is specific

All the movies you think are quality have particular characteristics which you are looking for

You and all the critics who claim to know quality when they see it

What I'm saying is that just because a movie does really well does not mean it's quality
By your standards, everything that sold a lot could be called quality, correct?

No one is calling any of the Transformers movie a masterpiece in cinema
Im not saying they're bad(I think they are), but they're not at the really good level
No matter how many tickets they sell and no matter how many people like it, they won't be at that level

Until they get better writing

 

[Ghost Utmost]

What I'm saying is that just because a movie does really well does not mean it's quality
By your standards, everything that sold a lot could be called quality, correct?

No one is calling any of the Transformers movie a masterpiece in cinema
Im not saying they're bad(I think they are), but they're not at the really good level
No matter how many tickets they sell and no matter how many people like it, they won't be at that level

Until they get better writing

And what makes them bad?

Lack of characters you care about. If any humans got stepped on by a Transformer you wouldn't care. When they bushed Shia no one cared

Poor writing. Any script doctor can punch the story up real fast.

Why is Tyler Perry's work ass? Similar issue

When I say "works" I mean works as an experience that most people can feel

If I tell someone Godfather is a great movie, they have to sit and watch it and catch the feeling in the moment. They wouldnt know if it was a box office success or not. Or. Telling them it sold well will not make for enjoyment of the movie.