| ishiki said: Look, you ignored everything but one thing I posted. how does popularity not equal quality. if popularity = sales? And thus quality = sales = popularity? Does this mean, mean michael bay films, filled with plotholes (this is objective) is of a higher quality than a less popular movie with less plot holes? |
A film is the sum total of more traits than I care to list in mere selection of camera lenses as angles of shots, let alone script. It even includes the use of colour, music, and countless others. Every film possesses different traits, each of which are of a different importance depending on the viewer. If the traits in a plothole-ridden film by Michael Bay are enough to compensate for its own deficiencies to such a margin that more people will seek out the movie in spite of it than another film without such deficiencies, then yes, it is of higher quality. I loved the King's Speech but it would have been a greater technical achievement if Birtie led an elite task force of British special ops to wrestle the crown from his brother. Dialogue and story wouldn't have been as tight and the acting probably not spot-on, but perhaps the movie would have possessed more traits at higher levels to have grossed more than Return of the King. But if you don't put much personal stock in the effort it takes to choreograph wall-to-wall explosions in a period piece, it won't entertain you and you probably won't buy the DVD or tell your friends to see it. That money will be invested elsewhere.
