Critic's Cafe: Are Movie Credits Unnecessarily Too Long?

Bill: Ever notice how long movie credits seem to be? I think they systematically get longer every year. The question is: Who deserves to be listed in the movie credits? Personally, I believe that anyone who’s work is visibly or audibly represented in the film deserves credit. That means caterers and their staff, drivers, personal assistants to the actors should be excluded.

Scott: Interesting. So you think too many people are being listed in the movie credits, huh? Well, I’ve got to say, I agree with you in part. It does seem silly to credit folks who are basically unskilled laborers. But you’re not saying they don’t deserve any credit, are you? They still perform important jobs without which the film would not be able to be made. You’re just saying that they shouldn’t receive written credit in the scroll at the end of the film... right?

B: That’s a loaded statement, “the film would not be able to be made.” Surely if John Doe didn’t fetch Mr. Spielberg his bear claw and coffee, someone else would have. It would not have impacted Schindler’s List in the slightest. So no, he does not deserve a movie credit. However, if John Doe was an assistant prop guy who placed a coffee mug on the table that was in frame during the shoot, than yes, he deserves to be in the credit.

S: I’ll concede the point, but I’ll maintain that the workers on the film that produce no visual or auditory result still perform important functions - think of them as grease between the wheels. By your standard of who should receive credit, film credits may actually not be inclusive enough. I was just examining the credits for Captain America and, although the credits list is quite comprehensive, I noticed that it doesn’t list every extra who appears in the film by name.

B: I think in terms of extras, there is a legal reason. Since extras work for free, the studios are not obligated to credit them as they are not on the payroll. Surely a movie like Rudy isn’t going to name 20,000 fans at the stadium.

S: Hey, I’ve been an unpaid extra before (Major League 2) - I got paid a hot dog and a soda for an entire day’s work of cheering! But specifically to Captain America, I don’t believe that the soldiers at the USO show in the crowd or the many extras in the lab were unpaid volunteers - there is such a thing as a professional extra. If the guy who places a mug on a desk gets credit, why not the scores of extras whose faces actually appear in the film?

B: So, are you arguing for LONGER credits?

S: Not necessary - perhaps just a refocusing of priorities. It seems odd to me that Tom Hank’s assistant gets into the credits but not some of the people that actually appear in the film. The same can be said of the musicians who play in the orchestra - they go uncredited but they serve a critical function to the film. In my opinion, ditch the accountants and janitors in the credits and use that same space to actually credit the folks who make a difference on the screen.

B: I see your point, but since the goal is to reduce credit length, it seems you’re in favor of omitting a credit and replacing it with 20. For example, you bring up music. So, in Star Wars, who’s responsible for the dramatic theme? John Williams? Sure. He composed and conducted it. I don’t need to know the name of every oboe, tuba, and violin player during the production.

S: Let’s agree to disagree on that point. I was just taking your earlier assertion to the logical conclusion. I actually think that credits should be WAY shorter... perhaps “Wizard of Oz” short. There are only 37 people credited in the Wizard of Oz (the cast and the major creative supervisors such as the producer, director, costumes, etc.).

B: Well, maybe not THAT short, but I get ya. In today’s cinema, special effects are a huge contribution to movies that weren’t around then.

S: Wizard of Oz had a special effects credit!

B: Right, but in today’s world, what is a special effect? Is it CGI? Animation? Horror make-up, etc? To simply say “:Special effects by _____” isn’t specific enough. In Star Wars, if they credited Phil Tippet with “Special Effects,” what special effect? Did he build the model star destroyers, or create the visual effect of the lightsaber?

S: Well, hence the slippery slope that has gotten us where we are today. I think it’s actually very difficult to draw a clear line in the sand and say, “These people directly contributed to the film and these people didn’t.” Are there clear examples of both- sure (director, caterer). But there’s a big, fat grey area in the middle as well.

B: Every journey begins with a first step. So, let’s first weed out the obvious ones. Who are they?

S: Well, I’d definitely say anyone who is pushing paperwork behind the scenes needs to go. Personal assistants, food services, tutors for child actors, and nurses as well. Agree? Got more to add?

B: I agree. Who would I add to that list? Production assistants. Like personal assistants, they are essentially errand boys...oops, errand persons. Also, security.

S: Ha... that’s funny! I’m actually surprised how many of the job titles have the word “Man” or “Boy” in them still. I also noticed when I was examining the Captain America credits how many supervisors, directors, producers, executives, coordinators, and managers are listed! It’s literally SCORES - probably a few hundred. That’s sick! Now wonder these movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make!

B: What about concept artists? Those that paint concepts of characters and scenes, many of which don’t actually make it into the film.

S: See, that’s a big grey area, isn’t it? I would personally include these folks. I’d rather include the person who conceptualizes the things on screen than the electricians and plasterers who make it come to life.

B: Yeah, I’m going to disagree with you there. Those that bring it to life are more deserving IMO than those that conceptualize it. Not that concepts aren't important, but neither is crediting those who don’t make the cut. The guy who conceived Jabba the Hutt as a 6-legged crab-thing shouldn’t be in the credits, should he?

S: Wait until the next special edition... lol.

B: Also, when it comes to music, recording, etc., I’d be fine with differentiating between direct and indirect hires. For example, let’s take music. If Elton John writes and performs a song in the film, he gets a credit as he lends his unique talent to the film. Where as an entire orchestra does not need to be individually credited. Unless a particular musician is brought in for a solo piece or what have you. Now, extrapolate that concept. If you contract an audio studio to do the recordings, the company, and maybe manager/director gets a credit. But any “in-house” staff should not. Again, same applies to all areas of special effects, etc. Unless someone is specifically brought in because of a unique talent.

S: Okay, but how would you answer somebody who says, “What does it matter? There are no negative consequences to having a longer credit sequence!”

B: Actually there is. I generally make it a rule not to pay for a movie ticket unless the run time is 90 minutes or longer. That is the definition of a “feature length film.” Since credits are included in a films run time, I don’t want to see an 82 minute movie cause the credits ran an additional 10 minutes. Also, those pesky PCS, or Post Credit Scenes that fanboys wait for at the end of, well, Captain America in this example, to get a tease for the next film. It traps people into essentially sitting through nine minutes and 800 people you will never remember or care about.

S: I agree. I also think that in the mentality of crediting everyone, you actually deny people credit because the names become just a big blur of small font. Compare Wizard of Oz and Captain America again - WoZ has really big font letters up on the screen for seconds at a time so you can actually read the entire page. To read the credits for Captain America I needed to pause the movie over and over again. So I think all-inclusive credits are actually harmful.

B: Lol, just wait till Captain America hits cable television. The 9 minute credits will be reduced to 11 seconds on a condensed screen as the next show/movie begins.

S: True dat. So let’s wrap this up. Although we seem to disagree on the specifics, we both agree that movie credits need to slim down and trim the fat. Any final thoughts?

B: Yes, Jessica Alba is hot. :)  

S: The movies should credit God for that! lol

B: Got to thank God for a (insert favorite body part) like that. Seriously though, too many credits only serve to create a disservice to the artisans and craftsmen who make the movie happen. I, as a movie goer, will see a film based on who directed it, and/or who stars in it, who wrote it, or even the music score. Flashdance anyone? I don’t see films because Tony’s Food Service catered the production.

S: Agreed. Maybe that’s a good rule of thumb: Credit only those job titles that attract moviegoers.

B: Agreed.

This conversation was brought to you by...

Cast
Bill - Himself
Scott - Himself

Crew
Conceptualization - Bill
Scheduling Coordinator - Scott
Font Scout - Scott
Casting - Bill
Score - Bill
Location Scout - Scott
Lead Editor - Scott
Assistant Editor - Bill
Stunt Coordinator - Bill
Assistant to Mr. Scott - Scott’s wife
Assistant to Mr. Bill - Bill’s wife
Dialogue Coach - Scott
Continuity Director - Scott
Stand In - Bill

Best Boy - Bill

2nd Unit Director - Scott

2nd 2nd Unit Director - Scott

Caterer - Taco Bell

Microsoft Windows XP Production/Crew
Co-Founder Of Microsoft Bill Gates
CEO of Microsoft Steve Balmer
also
Brad Silverberg
Bob Muglia
Paul Maritz
Jim Allchin
Orlando Ayala
Mike Maples
Chris Smith
Jim Grey
Gordon Bell
Bernard Vergnes
Rick Rashid


No animals were harmed during the production of this blog

Any similarities to persons living or dead, locations, names or titles is purely coincidental, and not to be inferred

Based on a true story

Special thanks to:
Acer
Google
Septre
Blogspot
Al Gore  - for inventing the internets (yes, internets)
Macho Man Randy Savage - for his tireless pursuit of perfecting his craft and inspiring generations of colorful characters. May you R.I.P.
Arial - For being the default font on most major document programs.

George Bush hates black people

Michael Moore is right, about everything... EVERYTHING!



And now, the Post Credit Scene...enjoy.

Post Credit Scene

Critic's Cafe: Bill & Scott Discuss The Potential Lasting Power Of Their Generation's Films

Scott: Isn't it amazing that we still remember and watch the Wizard of Oz when it was made in 1939? That's 72 years ago! It got me thinking... are there any movies that were made during our lifetimes that will be remembered fondly 75 years from now, in the year 2086? And by "remembered fondly" I don't mean in that, "Oh yeah - I've heard that was a classic," way but I'm thinking of, "This movie is the pinnacle of the cinematic experience and it is still watched and loved today." Maybe we should start by identifying some more films by bygone eras that we still remember fondly in 2011.


Bill: Our lifetime is almost 40 years. I'm not sure if Wizard Of Oz is a fair comparison. It's 72 years old. For instance, I think we can agree that Star Wars has staying power. But it came out in 1977. So, by your reckoning of 2086, should Star Wars endure, that's a 109 years! No movie has met that benchmark and is still watchable and acceptable to modern audiences.
But, if we're talking movies in our lifetime that have the potential to sustain itself for three quarters of a century, regardless of whatever year that would be, I'm game. I would say, off the top of my head, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Godfather, Forrest Gump, Titanic, Jaws, Superman: the Movie, and Back To The Future. We can discuss these at length, but they each have a pedigree going back 15-38 years already. Certainly well on their way towards the 75 year benchmark. The real challenge, as I see it, is what films over the last 10 years have that potential? 

Scott: Sure... 2086 would be for a movie released this year. Maybe we should qualify our exactly lifetimes. I am born in 1977 so that makes me 34 year old. I completely agree with Star Wars, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Godfather (even though Godfather was a little bit before my time - was it released in your lifetime?).

I think I'm going to disagree with you on Back to the Future, Jaws, Titanic, and Superman: The Movie. Not to say that all of these aren't great films - I just don't believe they'll be held high as the gold standard of cinema, watched, and loved by fans 75 years after their release.

Since we disagree, allow me to briefly defend my positions.

Back to the Future - While it's a great film, I believe it may be only for our generation. I don't think newer generations watch and appreciate it the way we do. I don't see loyal Back to the Future fans among people outside of our generation.

Jaws - Certainly a classic, but I don't think it rises to the level of Wizard of Oz. It has a reputation for genuinely scaring people out of the water and there are plenty of folks that will stay away from something that could disturb them.

Titanic - While it performed epicly at the box office, I don't think it has staying power. I think people kinda got sick of it, actually. The scene on the bow of the ship and the scene when Jack dies are both thought of as jokes now - not as serious drama.

Superman: The Movie - I would say this is THE Superman movie... but then again, I would because this is my generation's Superman. If you asked somebody who grew up in the 50's they would tell you that George Reeves is "the" Superman. While good, it's not even the best superhero film let alone the one that will endure the longest. Superman will continue to be reinvented and reimagined for each generation. Once a good, newer version comes out the old will eventually be forgotten. EX: Tim Burton's Batman.

Bill: Well, I was born in 1972, which makes The Godfather within my lifetime. It also makes you a whipper-snapper sonny-jim, lol. As far as the films you disagree with, let's start with Superman. It was released in 1978. Now, 33 years later, it is still going strong. Of all superhero films, it has endured the longest without a reboot. Batman has had 2 reboots so far, and Spider-Man is getting one a mere 10 years later. It is still a mainstay on cable television and reboots or not, it will be the gold standard by which other Superman films will be measured. Was Gary Oldman's Dracula superior to Bela Lugosi's? Perhaps. Did it erase Bela's from the history books? Certainly not.

Jaws - Currently holds the #48 position on the AFI's top 100 films of all time. Released in 1975, it is 36 years old, almost 1/2 of the 75 year benchmark, with no signs of slowing down. Outside of some 70's haircuts, the movie transcends the era it was filmed in. It's a classic tale, perhaps the Moby Dick of the 20th Century. 

Back To The Future - 26 years later, it is still relevant today. "Hello McFly", "Flux Capacitor", and "Slacker" are as much a part of our cultural lexicon as "Live long and prosper", and "Go ahead, make my day." Films as recent as Knocked Up (2007), Fanboys (2008), and Arthur (2011) reference BTTF. As long as the future continues to hold a strong contingent of nerds and geeks, this Time Travel film will hold up as the measuring stick of other time travel movies.

Titanic - Oh, absolutely this film is gonna make it. It seems once a month some cable channel is playing it somewhere. There has been a dozen films about the Titanic, but none so vivid as this. The fictional love story alone is great. Poor boy meets rich girl, they fall in love, jealous fiance and his lackey interfere, timeless. Now, put that with the most historically accurate account of the Titanic to date, and you have an instant classic.

Ohh, and before I forget, other movies that I need to shout out, that came to me after the "top of my head" moment, are Ghostbusters and E.T. the extra-terrestrial.

Scott: Listen, I'm not disputing the quality of these films. The AFI list is completely irrelevant to this conversation. There are plenty of amazing films that have found themselves on the ash-heap of history. In the top ten alone you have Raging Bull, Singing in the Rain, and Lawrence of Arabia - all of which are cinematically fantastic but nobody watches anymore.

Sure, Titanic is shown on cable monthly... but do you believe that will be the case in 2072? I think not. And as for the way movie quotes make it into our everyday language, I'm sure plenty of people have said, "Go ahead, make my day!" Or "Asta la visa, baby!" without having ever seen Dirty Harry or Terminator 2.

As for your other two suggestions, I agree with E.T. You actually stole that one from me! I was going to say it. But as for Ghostbusters, I think this is the perfect example of a movie that was loved by its generation and forgotten by the next.

Here are a few movies I had in mind:
In the tradition of Christmas movies remembered far after their initial release such as It's A Wonderful Life how about A Christmas Story? That movie has a die hard fan base even though it's initial theatrical release was a complete bust.

I also think Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Princess Bride, Toy Story, and Disney's Beauty and the Beast?   

Bill: You couldn't be more wrong. You could try, but you couldn't do it. AFI completely irrelevant? The point of the AFI is to preserve film. If some film is expected to go 75+ years, it would need to be preserved and worthy of preservation, wouldn't you agree? Nor was the AFI mention the crux of the argument, but just reinforcing the others.

If people who never saw films like Dirty Harry and Terminator 2, yet recite lines from it, just further proves my point. They've had enough cultural impact from those who have seen it to make it part of our vocabulary. There are people who never saw Star Wars, yet will say "may the force be with you", and know that they just recited Star Wars.

Ghostbusters forgotten by this new generation? Explain the upcoming Ghostbusters 3 film. Explain a successful animated series and recent video games that have carried the torch for this widely accepted and beloved film. The film is referenced in recent films like Casper (1995) The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005), Just My Luck (2006), Zombieland (2009), as well as television episodes of Family Guy (2006) and Robot Chicken (2006).

100% with you on Christmas Story. In fact, this could be a separate discussion unto itself. "In our lifetime, has there been a Christmas Movie that will be as timeless as Scrooge, A Wonderful Life, and Miracle on 34th St?" The Santa Clause, Elf, Bad Santa, all funny films, but destined to be lost through the filter of time.

I also agree with The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The exception here is that unlike Wizard of Oz, which has mass appeal, Rocky Horror will never grow beyond its small, but persistent, cult following.

I think as far as animated Disney films go, we can do better than Beauty and the Beast. Aladdin and the Little Mermaid spring to mind. The Lion King is epic too, thanks in part to Elton John's "The Circle of Life" which owned the Billboards back in the day.

I have nothing but love for The Princess Bride, and it has the hallmarks of an enduring film. My gut tells me it'll get passed over around the 40 year benchmark, but I hope I'm wrong. 

Scott: When I mentioned the AFI I was referencing the top 100 list you mentioned. It is clearly evident that quality films are completely forgotten about by the general population.

Ghostbusters 3 may thrust the original back into the spotlight once again but I feel very comfortable saying that in 2059 it will not be remembered like Wizard of Oz is today. There have been a recent string of very late sequels and video games released (such as the Warriors video game and the new Rambo film) that have very little to do with fans demanding their release. Hollywood is, for the most part, out of new ideas so they just keep recycling the old ones.

You mentioned Lion King. While I don't think it will stand the test of time as Snow White has it will be interesting to see how it does when released as a 3D film. Are families willing to pay in the theater to see something they have at home on DVD?

I think the big challenge animation has in staying relevant is the progression of CGI technology. Almost every animated film is now fully CGI. Once the technology moves on, so do audiences - as is evidenced by silent films to talkies and black and white film to color. No silent films remain relevant today and very, very few black and white ones do. Could 3D be the next big revolution that makes 2D films seem obsolete in the eyes of audiences?

Bill: I still say its a bad call on your part about Ghostbusters. But time will tell, and we just have to be patient. Still, if the Mayan Doomsday Calender is correct, I predict that Ghostbusters will endure to the end of mankind.

I don't think 3D will ever replace 2D. While it certainly is a sustained novelty, going as far back as the 1950's, audiences don't seem compelled to watch television with special glasses all the time. 3D will be, at best, a specialty, like a "directors cut." Unique, but not fully replacing the original (unless its a film by George Lucas).

As for animation, good call. Will be interesting to see how the old ink & celluloid hold up. Old Bugs Bunny, Tom & Jerry, and Flintstones still hold up on television, but as for big screen films, anything new is given the CGI treatment. Still, Disney vaults their films, releasing them periodically, driving up public interest as they do. So, conceivably, this method may sustain their films for decades to come. 

While we seem to agree on what makes a film have lasting value, we differ on some of the titles. Still, the real challenge in this discussion for me are recent films. Anything 2001 and forward? Any thoughts, ideas, prospects?

Scott: If there are any, I think I'll be surprised by them. There are some good movies but I think they lack the qualities to truly withstand the test of time. Dark Knight, Iron Man, Gladiator, Sin City, Avatar, the Lord of the Rings films, and Memento - I like them all but I don't think they're going to be the next Wizard of Oz. For a movie to achieve that level of sustained popularity it has to have timeless themes and a great deal of re watchability. What are your thoughts - agree or disagree?

Bill: Lord of the Rings has potential for one reason, it's been done, and done well. While it is true that Hollywood does run out of ideas and is prone to reboots and remakes, I don't recall them ever remaking an epic film on an epic scale. So I don't think this trilogy will ever be touched. LotR will always have a core literary fan base, but will it be enough to sustain the film for decades to come? 

Gladiator may be our generation's Spartacus. But how often do you come across Spartacus? 

Dark Knight, Iron Man, shoot even Spider-Man. But I fear that in 75 years, there will be at least 2-4 reboots of these franchises.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, totlly left field, and say Shaun of the Dead. Here are my reasons. Despite its lack of universal appeal, I can offer this up as you offered up Rocky Horror, which also has limited appeal. I would venture to say that not since Airplane! has there truly been a movie that knows how to spoof an entire genre, and spoof it well. While films like Scary Movie, Date Movie, and Meet the Spartans tend to spoof a few movies in their films, Shaun of the Dead wonderfully spoofs the zombie sub-genre of horror. It touches on many zombie movie themes, but tells its own linear story without ripping off other zombie movie scenes. Having re-watched Airplane! recently, I noticed just how funny that film is, even if so many things have changed regarding air travel today. Today, you do not run into Harri-Krishna's (sp?) at the airport, there are no smoking sections, and overhead luggage are now put in closed-door compartments. Still, people of a post 9/11 world still laugh at this films comedy, because there are so many universally funny things involved. Therefore, I feel that as long as the Zombie genre holds up, Shaun of the Dead will always be an appreciated and often watched film by fans of the genre. 

Scott: I just had the chance to poll a group of 19 to 22 years olds on this topic and I think they've changed my mind on a couple of movies.

They all said that they had seen Titanic, Jaws, and Superman: The Movie but that they thought they were bad for various reasons (such as the Jaws shark looking too fake). They DID however say they loved Back to the Future so I'll change my mind and agree with you on that one. They also said Lord of the Rings so I'll agree with you on that one as well.

Two movies they suggested that I actually agree with are Rocky and Grease.

As for Shaun of the Dead... I think it has cult film potential but not on the level of Rocky Horror Picture Show. In its heart it is a parody and parodies have a shelf life that is tied to what they are spoofing.

So far, we've agreed on the following movies:

Star Wars (all three originals?) -1977

The Godfather - 1972

Back to the Future - 1985

Lord of the Rings (all three?) - 2001

A Christmas Story - 1983

Rocky Horror Picture Show - 1975

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark - 1981

E.T. - The Extraterrestrial - 1982


Bill: Well, for Star Wars and LotR, I'd say all movies in their respective trilogies. I just can't see A New Hope lasting 75 years, while Return of the Jedi fades away. I'd also say Rocky Horror Picture Show should go. Yes, there will be a cult following, but the argument was for films to be as accepted as Wizard of Oz. Clearly, Wizard has far more appeal. Other than that, I'd say the list looks solid. But let's include: Rocky.

Critic's Cafe: Bill's Movie Evaluation Criteria

So what does it mean to label a film as "good" or bad"? Is there a certain criteria that has to be met? Is that criteria universal?

Let's be clear, when engaged in conversation with friends and associates regarding a film, inevitably someone says that, "_______ was a good film", or "______ was a bad film." But that isn't a true or honest critique. What they're really saying is that they either liked or disliked a film. So how do we properly apply the terms of good and bad to a film, regardless of personal preference? We start by defining the terms good and bad. Like anything else, "good" is a term applied to something that does what it is expected, or intended, to do. "Bad" is when something fails to do what is expected or intended. For example, a meal may be considered good, if it is well balanced, provides essential vitamins, is nutritional, and does not contribute to high cholesterol or weight gain. A bad meal is one of little to no nutritional value. It raises cholesterol and fat in the body, leading to ongoing health problems. Yet good or bad have nothing to do with a meal's preference. We all enjoy a tripe-cheese pizza, but it is "bad" for us. Same with film.

For me, this begins and ends with the narrative. Simply put, the narrative is story which the movie is trying to tell. Embedded in each narrative, and arguably just as important, if not more so than the story element, is the intention of the narrative. What is it trying to convey? The intentions of the narrative can be many things. A narrative may simply have entertainment value. These movies are generally not thought provoking, but allow the audiences to escape their world for a couple of hours and simply enjoy the moment. Some narratives look to elicit an emotional response. Some people may say of a film, "I had to see this movie, I just needed a good cry." Narratives that resonate with deep emotional content connect with audiences in a more profound way than a simple "popcorn flick", which only entertains. Other narratives look to challenge the audience's thought process. Films like these look to raise awareness of cultural or social issues, challenge their moral and philosophical notions, or expand their aesthetic awareness. A film's narrative incorporates one, and often times more, of these intentions.

Of course, there is a virtual cornucopia of elements that go into a film that if not executed properly, can detract from the narrative so much, the narrative gets lost, and thus becomes a bad film. Chief among these elements are:

Direction: Like a coach in a football game, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the director. It is his job to  put the pieces together and complete the picture. This position has often proved that it isn't just the story that's important, but how it's told. That alone doesn't make a film good or bad, but would radically alter how the narrative is delivered. Consider what Star Wars would have been if originally directed by Quintin Tarantino. What if Jerry Bruckheimer had directed Schindler's List? Good or bad, these narratives would have been told completely different than the version we're used to. So matching a screenplay with the right director is important. But once the director is chosen, his techniques and sensibilities are paramount in how the narrative comes across. Dialogue, lighting, sound, camera angles, pacing, and choice of soundtrack are but a few of the many seasonings these chefs use in their kitchen.

Acting: Since most films involve people (even animated films require voice acting), it is the job of the actors to make their characters real, engaging, relatable and believable. The lead roles are usually what drives a film, but even for films where characters are not essential to the narrative, they still play a vital role in the films momentum. Like selecting the right director, casting is important. Times have shown that even bankable actors have been the wrong choice, and sometimes casting an unknown have propelled the film to unexpected heights. Superman: The Movie is a prime example.

Continuity. How many times have we noticed a scene where a glass of water mysteriously changes position several times, or the volume of water goes from full, to 1/2 empty, back to full again. These are called continuity errors, and plague every film to some degree. This is the result of multiple shots, multiple takes during a scene. But that's not the continuity I speak of. What I refer to is the continuity that a film establishes for itself, than violates it. This happens a great deal in sequels. Christmas Vacation, for example, for the sake of story, alters Rusty and Audrey's respective ages. Rusty was always the older sibling except for this installment. Spider-Man 3 sees Peter Parker blindsided by the New Goblin, yet it was established in the first film that Spider-Man has "Spider-Sense", an almost precognitive ability that keeps him from being harmed from unseen dangers.

Sight, Sounds, Action. Costumes, sets, props, settings, visual, and audio effects also contribute greatly to propelling, or hamstringing, the films narrative. Sometimes effects can be so vivid, that they become the story. Avatar's breathtaking scenery, costumes, and special effects took an often retold plot and breathed considerable new life into it. Other times, bad props and sets can detract from an otherwise compelling plot.

Ultimately a "criteria" in and of itself isn't used, by me anyway, to determine a films worth. Indeed, the concept of checking boxes off a virtual checklist of whether a film scores a pass or fail is really a disservice to the film, as each film should be held in its own regard. I'm not going to penalize Police Academy for its unrealistic characters because its a comedy, and the farcical nature of the characters is whats central to the film. I'm not going to withhold appreciation of the film Up because it's scientifically impossible for helium balloons to rip a house from its foundation. It's a children's fantasy film that caters to their imagination. What I look for is what the films narrative is and how it's crafted. Then, are there any detracting components that prevent the film from telling the audience what it needs to convey. Did the audience lose their escapism? Does the plot make sense? Did they leave with a sense of disappointment? Were the events believable in the context they were presented? Added up, did this all overshadow the purpose of the film? If so, than it was a bad film. If not, it was a good film.

Notice my use of the words "they", "Audience", and "their"? This is essential to keep in perspective when critiquing a film. If one critiques a film with "I didn't this", or "I find that", than pure objectivity is lost, and personal preference comes into play. Of course, I am one man and cannot speak for all. So I have to analyse  my own reaction, and compare its objectivity to my personal preference. So I will often follow up a statement in conversation of a film being good or bad with "I liked it", or "I hated it", to give a clear distinction between a  films performance and my preference. Regardless, the very nature of critiquing a film will always have objectivity tarnished by personal preference. The goal is to minimize personal preference as much as possible. What I find as a detractor may be forgivable by me, but to someone else it might be the deal-breaker. For example, I am a fan of the film Armageddon, due to its strong cast and depth of characters. The narrative is a bunch of every day Joe's are tasked with saving the world from a comet large enough to destroy all life on the Earth. To me, the character element is more important than the premise, which is scientifically unsound, bordering on ridiculous. Yet, I can overlook these flaws when viewing the bigger picture. Other's find the premise too absurd to be taken seriously, and cannot. Again, they say it's a bad movie, but is it "bad", or just disliked? If the narrative was to tell the story of an Earth killing comet in the parameters of true aerospace physics, and a realistic natural progression of events,than yes, it is a bad movie cause the narrative is lost. This type of narrative clearly is meant to be thought provoking. But Armageddon's narrative was for pure entertainment value, and to be inspiring in its characters and theme. It was, and therefor a good film. Perhaps not a film everyone will like, but certainly not a bad film.

I hope this has offered insight into my reasoning and opinions on evaluating a film from a critical point of view. See you at the movies.

Critic's Cafe: Scott's Movie Evaluation Criteria

So, how do I evaluate a movie? I know what I don't do - and that is rely on anything outside of the movie such as friend's opinions, critic's ratings and awards earned. Those things are only helpful to me in selecting which movies I see. So what factors determine if I enjoy a film or not?

1. Most important is believeability. I don't care how awesome the action sequences or character moments are - If I don't believe that they're plausible then the film lost me. For example, in Speed when the bus jumps across the gap in the road without falling below fifty five miles per hour they lost me. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't enjoy fantasy and science fiction with the best of them. But a film has to obey its own internal logic. So when, at the end of Transformers, the Allspark shrinks down from the size of a building to the size of a football the movie lost me because it didn't fit with the entire film's mass-retention principle.
2. Next is emotional impact. It really doesn't matter what emotion it is - it could either be humorous, uplifting, or sad. If a film moves me emotionally I think much better of it. I cry at the scene in Apollo 13 when the pregnant wife watches the astronaut going into space for the first time. I can't make it through the scene in Forrest Gump when he's standing at Ginny's grave without crying. Meanwhile, Office Space, Dirty Work, and Road Trip crack me up. If a film can make me care enough to be moved emotionally I know its a good one.
3. Another thing I look for in films is if they are thought provoking. That doesn't mean I want to be preached at or told a story with a social, ecological, or political agenda. But I like it when a film gives me reason to think more deeply on a topic or to see an issue in a new light. Back to the Future caused me to think about how time travel works. The Good Son had me thinking what I would do if I was in that mother's place with two children's lives in my hands and only one can survive. When the experience of watching the film doesn't end with the final credits, that's an indicator that it was a quality film.
4. Rewatchability is also very important to me. Sure, I saw Schindler's List in the theater and loved it but when I bought it and watched it again I couldn't drag myself through it a second time. It's a special thing when you can find enjoyment in a film even when you know every secret, every surprise, and every line of dialogue. I loved Tim Burton's Batman when I saw it in the theater but it just seemed tedious when I watched it again while The Wizard of Oz remains a timeless classic that I've watched dozens of times.  
5. Of course, I examine the technical aspects of film making such as acting, pace, lighting, shot composition, and special effects. Poor acting can kill a film almost as fast as poor directing. A truly monumental performance, on the other hand, can significantly improve my opinion of a film. Special effects, to a certain degree, apply back to the believeability of a film but I also think they're a distraction aspect to them as well. If I notice either a good or bad special effect and it takes me out of the experience of watching the film that's a bad thing. On the other hand, if they're integrated seamlessly into the fabric of the story then that's to the film's credit. I honestly didn't notice the CGI shots in Fight Club until I watched the bonus features on the DVD and they were pointed out to me. Bravo!
6. Finally, I can't totally discount star power and property value. I find myself being more willing to forgive the faults of a film if it features one of my favorite actors such as Denzel Washington or Harrison Ford. A film based on a pre-established property, however, can affect my judgment both for the good and for the bad. I find that I'm particularly hard on films based on a property I love (such as Spider-Man or Star Wars). But if a film based on a property I love is good, I find that my evaluation of that film is higher than perhaps it would have been if I wasn't already a fan.

So, there you have it. Believeability, emotional impact, thought provoking, rewatchability, technical aspects, star power, and property value are all factored in when I'm thinking about how much I like or dislike a movie.

Critic's Cafe: Movie Evaluation Criteria

Have you ever gone to seen a movie with a friend, walked out of the theater, and started talking about the movie with your friend only to wonder, "Did we even see the same movie?"

Your friend loved the action, you hated the action. Your friend hated the characters, you loved the characters.

It isn't that you saw a different movie but rather that both you and your friend look for different things in a movie. Part of this is personal preference but there are also a variety of other measures each of you use you measure the quality of a movie.

So tomorrow, here at R2R, both Bill and Scott are going to be lifting the curtain to reveal the criteria each of them uses to personally evaluate a movie. See who you agree with more!