05-17-2010, 11:05 PM
<!--quoteo(post=362843:date=May 16 2010, 08:30 PM:name=DAKAZA)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DAKAZA @ May 16 2010, 08:30 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362843\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecWhere did you find this "objective" criteria? It sounds like a subjective system that you designed yourself. Movies simply aren't that easy to categorize. People have different ideas of what classic means. Sometimes critics consider only the era in which a movie was filmed. You might find this link interesting: <a href=\"http://www.classicfilmguide.com/\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.classicfilmguide.com/</a> Also, many elitist film critics scorn horror movies in general. I've seen debates online about whether the original NOES was even a true classic.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndYeah, I designed the National Preservation of Film Society. I invented AFI and every other film society that works hard to preserve films and maintain their reputation over the years. There's a whole system that's already alive and well that separates the wheat from the chaff. I'm not even a part of it, but I wouldn't say it's just a subjective view of only three old men who decide what's classic and what's not. I'm not going to argue that everything is completely objective, but it's not just one person saying a film is great. It's a whole group of people who know what they're talking about. The average film goers hardly knows anything about films or the filmmaking process, like with any craft. That's why there are film historians and critics and even filmmakers who are preservationists like Martin Scorsese. Their opinions on film are going to have much more weight and substance behind it than the average person. Otherwise, Transformers would be a classic film. It's not about honoring only movies you like, but honoring a film that leaves an impact. On top of this, cultural significance plays a part in determining the classics. Nightmare on Elm Street has this in spades. You can't think about the 80's without thinking about horror icons, and Freddy is undoubtedly the most recognized and most profitable of the big three. The series was right there with pop culture. Freddy was on MTV! You can't deny it's classic status by how much of an imprint the film made on our culture. And that's without debating whether it's a good film or not. See what I'm getting at? There are different ways to understanding why a film is a classic and deserves that title. Avatar is going to be a classic not because the film itself was great, but because of the technology that was invented for it as well as its box office success. It brought back the 3D trend in a big way. Film historians are going to look at that. Even though I didn't really care for it, I'm not going to be a moron and say it won't be written about just because of how I felt about the movie. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but there are reasons why certain films end up becoming classics and many others don't. It's not as simple as a movie being good or bad. There's other factors that come into play. On your other point, of course many critics don't give horror films the best reviews because let's be honest... many horror films aren't made for quality, they're made to make a buck. Everybody in the business knows this. If you can make a horror film that's also interesting and has a great story, that's pure gold and rare. But unfortunately, most of them aren't too good when it comes to the acting, the writing, the camera work, the editing, the directing, etc. A lot of horror movies are sold on money shots, like Sleepaway Camp which is really average with the only interesting thing about it is the ending. It's hard to make a great horror film. It's not easy. And that's why a lot of films get bad reviews because these guys have seen every horror film you've seen, only they don't think a film is good because they liked the kills. <!--quoteo<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE </div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecBy the way, I think it's arrogant to call Rob Zombie a "hack". In my opinion he's a very creative, gifted artist. The Devil's Rejects was an imaginative, entertaining movie and many people agree with me. I also liked his other flicks...including Halloween. Artists always have influences that inspire them and it's only natural that these manifest in their work at some level. Zombie loves the 70's era of horror and he works diligently to bring that vibe to his movies.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndIt's not arrogant to call any director a hack if you've seen their movies and think they're all pretty low on the quality scale. Rob Zombie is most definitely a hack to me who only makes movies today because of his musical credibility from the 90's. I don't find the guy creative at all. He really borrowed a lot from the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre films for his two first features, even casting Chop Top himself to play a variation of the same character. On top of that, he's the worst writer in horror films today. He can't write a believable character if his life depended on it. Everyone is pretty much a version of himself. He can't write a conversation without having the word coonoodle, cunt or beeeoootch said at least once. He's also guilty of using the shaking camera technique to generate suspense rather than letting it build through telling a story properly. He does everything so over the top without any kind of filter. He can barely even get a decent performance from his actors. H2 had some of the worst I've ever seen, specifically from Taylor Scout who was screaming, yelling or crying in just about every other scene, sometimes all three in one scene. It's atrocious. All of his choices as a director reek of an amateur. He's just a horror junkie without much talent who convinced a couple of produces to give him money. Luckily, H2 showed everyone how "talented" he really is and his films are now going to have a hard time getting funded.The worst part is how I heard Rob Zombie talk for years about how horror movies today aren't scary or they rely on gore too much and it's hilarious because he's describing his own movies. I was all ready to support him the moment I heard about the House of 1,000 Corpses, but then he showed he was just as bad as the people he had been debasing leading up to that. The Devil's Rejects was an improvement, but that's not much of a feat consider how awful the first film was.