English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

some people take it as a point of reference as to whether a movie is "worth watching"

in my opinion, most people based their own opinions on what "experts" or the "buzz" likes. i think that people who can't watch a movie without reading first the reviews, don't have their own preferences. they just follow the rest.....

Pao

2006-11-08 04:24:59 · answer #1 · answered by Pao 2 · 1 0

A common misconception is that to be a writer, you must write novels or prose. However, in order for a movie to be made, you need someone to actually write the script. The screenwriter can either create an original idea and write it specifically for the screen or they can adapt an existing piece of fiction or prose for those purposes. Both are very valid and can be equally rewarding/frustrating as the novelist ambition. One of the issues that many people have with book adaptations is they change fundamental things in order to get it on the screen - but often these changes are necessary as we are talking about two completely different mediums. Sometimes, things that work well in a book cannot be translated properly to the screen. Other times, the screenwriter has to decide what are the major plot elements and stick to those, eliminating all the secondary goodness that fans tend to love. There have been a lot of complaints that the more recent Harry Potter movies aren't 100% accurate. However, if they did a true adaptation, a movie like Goblet of Fire would be around 6 1/2 hours long. Sometimes a change hurts the story (ex - I, Robot) and other times it helps greatly (ex - My Sister's Keeper - the movie ending is much better) Nothing wrong with your dream - we would all like more people to read, but at our core, we are storytellers - as long as our stories get to the people, the medium should not matter.

2016-05-21 22:03:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

The hard part is finding a critic that seems to share your views on movies you're already seen. I like Roger Ebert - even if he doesn't get into a certain movie, he judges it on what it intends. For instance, he doesn't like silly thrasher films, but he can go beyond that and tell you if it is likely to satisy fans of the genre. Otherwise, all you have to go on is the trailer, which is far less informative than a person that has seen the full movie. They lie to you! They give away the 2 or 3 only funny moments from a comedy. They made a drama look like it's going to be funny. They can make a movie look action-packed, when it turns out it's not [Jarhead].

The key is finding the right critic - please come back soon, Roger! Joel Siegel loves everything: why bother? Others think that only actionless foreign films are ever worth seeing - too limited. Find a critic you can trust, it can be like a friend tipping you off on what's garbage and what's a treasure (or maybe garbage, but FUN garbage!).

2006-11-08 05:04:08 · answer #3 · answered by mizerock 3 · 0 0

The opinion of one critic alone, I think has little impact, but the collective opinion of critics whether positive or negative, for me at least, is the deciding factor about whether I see a film. It there is negative buzz generated by critics, that buzz too will eventually be heard by general audiences, who watch TV and go on the Internet. If I'm going to pay $13 to see a movie in theatres, Id's prefer to know that the experience will be worthwhile

2006-11-08 05:29:11 · answer #4 · answered by Cybele 1 · 0 1

Cause they like getting disappointed. That's what movie critics really are. SPOILERS! They tell you everything wrong with the movie even before you see it. I think if you go with an open mind to a movie, you are more likely to enjoy it. Unless it's Gigli. lol

2006-11-08 05:59:43 · answer #5 · answered by Island Princess 6 · 0 0

I prefer to see the movie myself and make up my own mind.

I also tend to agree with certain critics about some movies that are blockbuster hits, but are really devoid of substance.

For example any of the Charlie's Angels movies. YUCK!!!!

2006-11-08 05:07:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I don't because I normally don't agree with what they have to say. There has been quite a few movies that were given bad reviews and in my opinion were good, great, or one of my favorites.

2006-11-08 04:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by Chris 4 · 1 0

i do not care what they say i have my own mind if you go back in time.....to 1982,,, most critics gave ET a bomb another ex is...its a wonderful they hated it... anyone who goes for what a critics say i feel sorry for them because they will truly miss some good movies

2006-11-08 06:11:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I dont think I actually care, I like to hear if a movie is good or not before seeing it, but everones opppinions differ, and not everyone is right...

2006-11-08 04:29:22 · answer #9 · answered by lady_of_the_stars97412 2 · 0 0

I don't know i thnk everyone has a different opinion, so it really up to you if you want to listen.i don't if i want to see amovie i go no big.

2006-11-08 06:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by love me like me hate me 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers