BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Entertainment movies vs Good movies

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 9:45 am

SolarSystem wrote:
But now you're talking about genres and not categories. Action and historical are genres. Of course you can even have a film which sort of has both, action and history (we watched Oliver Stone's "Alexander" last week, I didn't expect anything but it actually was pretty interesting and had both, action and history), very often genres get blurred and you rarely have a film which belongs to only one genre.

Still, I just think that your way of categorizing films is not for me.

Yeah, you can have different genres in one category. I mentioned genres because your examples of what you view as popocorn movies were both action movies. And to me, popcorn movie doesn't equal "mindless action movie". (Not sure if that was what you meant either).

**Posted by Schmiezi** April 2, 2015 9:47 am

Vhanja wrote:
Harriet wrote:
I guess TIG made some people choke on their popcorn, though?
Could be, although I'm not sure why they would?

Because it is hard to cry while eating popcorn without choking. At least for me.

Last edited by Schmiezi (April 2, 2015 9:47 am)

**Posted by gently69** April 2, 2015 9:50 am

Vhanja, could it be, that you prefer the "Indepentent" stuff? More this genre than a "proper" category?

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 9:50 am

Schmiezi wrote:
Because it is hard to cry while eating popcorn without choking. At least for me.

Ah, yes. That's true.

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 9:51 am

gently69 wrote:
Vhanja, could it be, that you prefer the "Indepentent" stuff? More this genre than a "proper" category?

What does it mean, really, that a movie is independent?

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 2, 2015 9:54 am

Vhanja wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
But now you're talking about genres and not categories. Action and historical are genres. Of course you can even have a film which sort of has both, action and history (we watched Oliver Stone's "Alexander" last week, I didn't expect anything but it actually was pretty interesting and had both, action and history), very often genres get blurred and you rarely have a film which belongs to only one genre.

Still, I just think that your way of categorizing films is not for me.
Yeah, you can have different genres in one category. I mentioned genres because your examples of what you view as popocorn movies were both action movies. And to me, popcorn movie doesn't equal "mindless action movie". (Not sure if that was what you meant either).

Agreed, popcorn movies don't necessarily have to be 'mindless action movies'. (I mentioned "Alexander" to show that you can have a bit more when it comes to popcorn films. "Titanic" could be another example, even if the way in which history is treated here is pretty... interesting.)
But since you mentioned TIG: there is far too much 'mind' in this film to call it a popcorn movie.

**Posted by SusiGo** April 2, 2015 9:54 am

Films that are not financed by big companies. Like TIG, for example. Warner Bros. did not want to do it because of the gay subject, so a smaller company produced it.

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 9:55 am

In what category we believe a movie belongs to will always be subjective. For me TIG a popcorn movie for the reasons I stated a few posts ago. But it's a good and interesting popcorn movie.

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 2, 2015 9:56 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film

And this is not strictly about independent films, but I highly recommend to read it, especially because there are so many wonderful and interesting films listed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hollywood

Last edited by SolarSystem (April 2, 2015 9:58 am)

**Posted by Harriet** April 2, 2015 9:57 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film

Always glad to help ...

**Posted by Harriet** April 2, 2015 9:57 am

LOL, cross

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 9:57 am

SusiGo wrote:
Films that are not financed by big companies. Like TIG, for example. Warner Bros. did not want to do it because of the gay subject, so a smaller company produced it.

I would say that a movie doesn't have to be good just because it's made by a smaller company, but there is a very little chance for a movie being made by a big company to be anything but a popcorn movie. Because big companies want movies to sell, so they go for the least common denominator. Genre movies follow a movie formula.

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 2, 2015 10:05 am

So "Tokyo Story" doesn't belong to any genre...?

**Posted by SusiGo** April 2, 2015 10:05 am

How would you classify for example "Schindler's List"? A film produced by Universal, a big mainstream company? For me this is neither a popcorn nor a genre movie so I think there are exceptions from the money-making rule. It made 96 million dollars in the US which is not very much compared to blockbusters made by big companies.

Last edited by SusiGo (April 2, 2015 10:07 am)

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 2, 2015 10:10 am

SusiGo wrote:
How would you classify for example "Schindler's List"? A film produced by Universal, a big mainstream company? For me this is neither a popcorn nor a genre movie

But it could be called a historical drama.
Every film belongs to a genre (or more than one genre).

Are we even talking about the same things here?

**Posted by SusiGo** April 2, 2015 10:11 am

I was thinking of Vhanja's classification of entertainment movies vs good movies since this is the subject of the thread.

Last edited by SusiGo (April 2, 2015 10:12 am)

**Posted by SolarSystem** April 2, 2015 10:13 am

Ah, sorry, forgive me.

**Posted by Harriet** April 2, 2015 10:15 am

I think Vhanja wants to tell us that Tokyo Story is different from most of the movies she has seen so far.

**Posted by Vhanja** April 2, 2015 10:24 am

I haven't seen Schindler's List, so I can't really say where I would classify that movie.

Interesting question, I don't really think any movie is completely genre-less. But it's one thing to label a movie in descriptive way than to use a set formula because the movie belongs to that genre. For instance, if you've seen a few horror movies, you know that the axe murderer is probably never dead when they first finish him off. If you see a romantic drama, there are sure to be some kind of misunderstanding or problems towards the climax, that will be resolved towards the end. And so on.

Tokyo Story was very different from all the movies I had seen up until that point. But Ozu has made several movies that are very similar in theme and pacing. And Maborosi I would say is a more modern type of movie, but within the same style.

I think the main difference between the two categories as far as I can see it, is that popcorn movies are story-driven. And the story has to fit the movie formula of the genre the movie is set in. The movies I has listed as Good movies aren't that focused on telling a particular story with a beginning, a climax and an end. That's not what they do.

**Posted by gently69** April 2, 2015 10:43 am

I think, I divide the films I watch into "popcorn movies" and "movies with depth".

Explanation for that (just my opinion):
"Popcorn Movies" = films which don't challange me, which don't "involve" me, so that eating popcorn meanwhile doesn't disturb; for example any of the "Die hard" films, "Men in Black" films, "Jurassic Park", "Harry Potter", "Pirates of the Caribian" and so on.

"Movies with depth" = films which touch me, make me think, make me cry; for example "The Imitation Game", "Schindler's List", "Good Morning, Vietnam", "The Pianist", "A Beautiful Mind" ...

That's how I would categorise ... if possible. But that's all a matter of taste and not possible to fix in general.

Last edited by gently69 (April 2, 2015 10:44 am)