Collection or a good film?

I went through the "Ready" and couple of other topics and people are just bringing article with stats in how much a film earned. A film earning can be enormous but it can still be a bad film.

For some reason people think Good cinema = Art cinema ... I don't get this "leave your brains behind" cinema at all ...

We ALL want a good film ... Why would we care about collections ... its not as if we are getting any money ... its just the idea of what is good differs from person to person

interesting topic...

I dont care what type of movie it is, art, parallel, comedy, action etc etc. Now all I want is a good movie from Bollywood. Dont give a rat's ass about how much money it makes.

Personally for me a good film is a good film when it entertains me... It can be any genre... Just does not matter... As long as it entertains me in some way...

Good film: That's subjective, isn't it? Why can't all sorts of films co-exist? Why do we have to always take cinema so seriously? Movies should not only be about class and intellect.

I dunno, when i watch a movie i should see atleast some sort of an effort. I was a big fan of masala and still am but ready totally turned me off. Even 20-30 year old bollywood movies seem better to me than ready. What i hate is when directors stop making an effort and just totally rely on star power and gimmicks to sell their movies. Yes techincally you can do that, but at this stage i have stopped enjoying gimmickry. I hate movies with old and tired looking stars, doing the same things they have done in 10000000000000000 previous movies, showing zero enthusiasm, trying to make zero progress... i think it just sucks.. celebs who are established should try to do better than what they have done before.. and not worse...

Originally posted by: TheDilettante

Viks,

We've had the same discussion under different headers in the past few weeks so I'll keep it short. [and add few lines from my previous posts on similar subject]

A film's earning: Matters for everyone associated with the film. If films flop then bigger stars don't get affected much but the ones working at the bottom level become down-and-out.

Good film: That's subjective, isn't it? Why can't all sorts of films co-exist? Why do we have to always take cinema so seriously? Movies should not only be about class and intellect.

That said, Erma Bombeck's (I love that woman) quote comes to mind again. "Don't confuse fame with success. Madonna is one; Helen Keller is the other." In Bollywood we give too much credit to superstardom/big collections but does it really matter in the long run? Rajesh Khanna was called the first real Superstar. Where's he today? Stardom is nothing if an actor can't keep it.

I think there is a kind of snobbery nowadays about terming all small budget, artsy-looking cinema as "good" and the movies which are unapologetically loaded on fun and masala as "bad". Defining a "hit" movie is easy (just look at the earnings). Bt how do you define "good" cinema? It is such a subjective concept. Depends on your interests, preference and outlook. And good cinema doesn't necessarily means BO duds. . Parineeta was good and successful. But Lafange Parinda by the same director was awful. Clever camera angles, shadowy lighting and long pauses between dialogues doesn't mean a film is good. Neither does background dancers, opulent sets and glamorous locales mean a film is bad. A good film connects with the audience.. in every format.

Originally posted by: Theatre

I went through the "Ready" and couple of other topics and people are just bringing article with stats in how much a film earned. A film earning can be enormous but it can still be a bad film.

Do you want a film that is bad and make loads of money or a good film? this is directed towards those people who bring in earning issue.

Collections or a good film?

your pick!