Summer Score

[BentonGrey]

I came across this today:
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/collections/gallery/3572/2011-summer-box-office#photo11
It is the boxoffice earnings of a lot of the top films for the summer (so far).  I have to say, the position of a few of those films (I'm look at you Fast Five) makes me weep for our world.

[GogglesPizanno]

Fast Five was actually pretty damn entertaining.
The whole series has morphed from a quick niche car racing film to some weird comic book-esque action franchise (complete with post credit twist/setup). I know a lot of people that dont like the first films who greatly enjoyed the fun spectacle of this last one.

It was way better than the boring sleepwalk that was Pirates 4.

[Talavar]

I'm actually more upset by Transformers 3 and the Smurfs on that list than Fast Five.

[BentonGrey]

I'm actually more upset by Transformers 3 and the Smurfs on that list than Fast Five.

Well, I rather thought Transformers 3 went without saying.  I didn't even want to think about the fact that it made money...and not just some, but an unholy (in so many ways) amount. 

Goggles...I find that very hard to believe...but seeing as I've only seen the first one (though it was bad enough to assure me that it should have NO sequels), I will say I could be wrong in my assumptions.

[thalaw2]

I couldn't make it past the first 5 minutes of the first HP film.  I must have some kind of disconnect from society.  In fact I wouldn't put any of those movies in my top 5 for the summer (I haven't seen Hangover 2 though...or smurfs, but don't wanna see smurfs).

[detourne_me]

Fast Five wasn't that bad actually.. I saw it at a 4d theater and the ridiculousness of the movie was only amplified by the moving seats with the butt pummeling pistons whenever someonw took a punch and the air whizzing out when someone dodged a bullet.

I'd have to say that Rise of The Planet of The Apes was probably the best movie I saw all summer (and I saw Thor twice and Cap 3 times in theaters) - or maybe it was just the company i was with at the time

[Mr. Hamrick]

I have to agree with Googles, Fast Five was actually somewhat enjoyable.   (And not just because it was partially filmed in GA but it doesn't hurt.)

And keep in mind Benton, you're probably not really in the "target demographic" for the Fast and The Furious series.  I don't know that I am either.  That said, the first one and Fast Five are the only ones I have remotely enjoyed. 

It's like I've said about "Twilight", I'm not the target demographic but I still somewhat defend Kristen Stewart as an actress.  (Primarily because of "Welcome to the Rileys" and the upcoming "On the Road" adaptation which I have high hope for.)  I get why "Twilight" has fans but I still reserve the right to take it apart from a technical standpoint.  It's target demographic (and others) find that type of film to be entertaining.  It's a film that is both a genre film and a film for target demographic in that genre.

The same goes for the "Fast and the Furious" series.  It is meant to be "a mindless action film" ala the kind of mindless action film that our generation enjoyed in the 80s.  I mean I look back at some of the movie that I enjoyed in the late 80s and early 90s...  there were some bad movies in that bunch but they were entertaining as bad as they were.

[BlueBard]

Not sure what it says about society in general when "bad" movies are considered entertaining.

I look back at some things I used to enjoy, including certain movies, and often find myself cringing.

"Why on earth did I ever think that was worth watching?"

I think we should make a distinction between "empty" entertainment, whose value is in sheer escapism, and truly "bad" movies that corrupt our brains with flawed ideas or that fail even in providing a pleasant diversion.

There's nothing wrong with "empty" entertainment, as long as one recognizes it as such.  The point of "empty" entertainment is not to have to think about it.  You just go see it and tune out reality for an hour or so.  In moderation, I'd say that's theraputic.

"Good" movies are the ones that actually benefit mind and/or soul.  Even if you disagree with a "good" movie's premise, at least it got you to think.

[Mr. Hamrick]

Not sure what it says about society in general when "bad" movies are considered entertaining.

I look back at some things I used to enjoy, including certain movies, and often find myself cringing.

"Why on earth did I ever think that was worth watching?"

I think we should make a distinction between "empty" entertainment, whose value is in sheer escapism, and truly "bad" movies that corrupt our brains with flawed ideas or that fail even in providing a pleasant diversion.

There's nothing wrong with "empty" entertainment, as long as one recognizes it as such.  The point of "empty" entertainment is not to have to think about it.  You just go see it and tune out reality for an hour or so.  In moderation, I'd say that's theraputic.

"Good" movies are the ones that actually benefit mind and/or soul.  Even if you disagree with a "good" movie's premise, at least it got you to think.

I think you're more or less spot on with how many people would define a good movie.   The same goes for "empty entertainment" as you call it.  However, there is a segment of the population who argue that movies that are mean to be "empty entertainment" cannot possible be "good movies".  However, if you really want to hold the standard that a "empty entertainment" can not be a good movie then 75-80% percent of action, sci-fi, horror, and comedy movies made in the late 70s through the late 90s would not be considered "good movies".  And animated kid films?  90% of those would be arguably considered "bad movie" for the simply reason that children are more looking for movies to entertain them than movies to "benefit their mind and/or soul". 

This is not to say that bad movies are not being made... and made quite often.  It is simply saying that the standards for what make a good or bad movie generally vary between genre and even who the target demographic is for that movie. 

As I alluded to in an article I wrote for http://www.zombiecatproductions.com recently, the first two Nightmare on Elm Street movies were not bad,  However, once Freddy started getting more laughs than scares, the movies really quit being good but were still mildly entertaining because of how bad they gradually became.

That said, I'd go as far to suggest that not all films that have an effect on one's mind or soul is necessarily good.  There is a film, I believe it was the 1972 film "A Thief in the Night" that was a bad movie which had a message that to many would be considered a "good message to the mind and/or soul".  For those not familiar with the film, it is the first of a series of seemingly very low budget Christian films about The Rapture.  The movie is now considered unintentionally amusing to many (even amongst some Christians even if they won't admit it) because of the poor quality.  It is a bad movie from a technical standpoint.  Bad acting, cinematography that tried to be inventive but failed, and other issues.  The writer and producer of the film notoriously cast himself in one of the key roles because he felt he appealed to secular audiences.  I was subjected to the film in the late 80s by my family and still consider it one of the worst made films I have seen despite the good intentions.