MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What makes a successful movie?

What makes a successful movie?


I recently watched Galveston on Netflix with Ben Foster. Enjoyed it a lot... a slow burn character study.

It reminded me of other movies such as Hell or High Water, or Sweet Virginia... Typically, these movies have minimal plot, are set in small towns and filmed in a sort of noir-ish way -- grainy look, muted colours, dark lighting, no soundtrack, emphasis on closeups. I'm not even sure if there is a specific name for this genre of movie.

It got me to wondering how/why these movies do so well. I don't mean commercially... typically these movie only do moderate business, but they are often critically praised, or earn good-word-of-mouth.

Yet others that follow the same formula can suck so badly. Is it the directing, the writing, the cinematography? All three? How much influence do the actors have?

Thoughts, opinions? Movie recommendations?

reply

The problem with that is, what defines success when it comes to a film? There are several ways to tell if a film is "successful" in some field:

1 - A classic that everyone and their dog has seen, people quote it, and it's been referenced in many other mediums? And please keep in mind that such films aren't always critically acclaimed, get high box office sales, or won awards, and yet people love them.

2 - A cult classic that was not initially successful when it first came out, but years later it has a strong following from a small group of fans?

3 - Film got HUGE box-office turnovers and earned several times as much money as was used to make it?

4 - Critically acclaimed and won tons of awards?

So you're gonna have to be more specific about "success" when it comes to a movie.

reply

AmeriGirl, I agree with all your qualifying questions, and they deserve answers from the vague OP, but I am jumping in with: It makes money.

William Shakespeare, an actor, wrote plays to sell tickets. That he did so successfully resulted in an artistic legacy that remains, in live productions, to this day. Likewise, George (and his brother, Ira) Gershwin wrote the most popular songs in history to make a buck. In my very first college English class, the first words my professor spoke after the welcoming niceties were, “Gentlemen [Union was an all-male school back in the old days, often corrupted by the ghetto to “back in the day” (back in what day, exactly?)], the man who writes and doesn’t get paid for it is a fool.” Ethical young R_Kane raised his hand immediately and said, “But, professor, many great writers were impoverished. Poe, for example, died penniless in the gutter.” My teacher smiled a little smile to himself, because I now know he’d been here many times before, and replied, “If you’re not getting paid, you’re not reaching an audience. If you’re not reaching an audience, what’s the point of writing?” He remains right to this day.

To elaborate: absent what I just wrote, I don’t offhand know any definitions of a successful movie, but I do have a definition of a great movie that resonates with me, if that will do. Alfred Hitchcock defined a great movie as, “Three great scenes, no bad scenes.”

That kind of movie would also turn a profit, and reach, you know, an audience.

PS Old joke: Three movie theater owners were discussing what kind of seats they wanted in their theater: Partner 1: “Let’s cover the seats with velvet.” Partner 2: “Let’s cover the seats with leather.” Partner 3: “Let’s cover the seats with asses, and make money.”

reply

So then, why do you persist ? Good writing is about informing, entertaining and displaying a respect for the reader. Your incessant, ego-laden drivel accomplishes none of that.

reply

You're most probably already on his ignore list lol.

reply

Well, of course ! Always so above the fray with his assumed superiority & infamous ignore list.

reply

He really could just get over himself but I suppose it will not happen

Profile of Kane:

1. Grossly and creepily befriends all of the female posters in a grovelling manner
2. Insults posters randomly
3. Mentions his mad martial arts skills, best-selling books he wont name and 'sexual prowess' to a degree that is vomit-inducing
4. His body is toned and amazing...he told us so!
5. He sells electronics and is the best ever at it...He likes to 'bring people joy' with his amazing knowledge of home theater systems he seriously didn't just google
6. Has a dozen regs here on ignore so he never needs to read when someone calls Bullshit on his phony stories
7. Was in the hospital recently for an undisclosed procedure that he drama-queened about so I PM'd the guy to offer sincere best wishes...no response:/
I guess that Kane is just too cool for some of us
8. In keeping with his NYT Best Selling Author mask he is the biggest grammar cop on the site

What an annoying goofball...some of the things he had to say are interesting but he avalanches all of that with his dripping sarcasm and nonsense

I hope he's not so lonely in real life but I suspect he may be:(





reply

Very perceptive and accurate analysis, Shogun !

He was recently lecturing/talking down to, once again, a poster here about the narcissism of trolls and how they are incapable of change without the intervention of psychotherapy. I couldn't help but think, " physician heal thyself. "

reply

I read that...I don't 'ignore button' anyone but 99% of the time I ignore this fake doofus

reply

Same here.

reply

😊😊😊

reply

I forgot...

9. Rambling, barely coherent self-aggrandizing walls of text that insult other users (without naming names because the guy is full of it) and are so boring you can't even read them

What a dork!

reply

and don't forget we are "the old boys' club" and none of us went to college.

[–] R_Kane (5097) 9 days ago
Bravo, and most impressed! Then you can fill the role of Dazed! I don’t know how familiar you are with her. She (who managed to delete her account here) is irreverent, intelligent, educated (whether formally, by-self, or both), very funny and intolerant of the focus on posting on General Discussion instead of on the actual entertainment sections of MC, and of what she called “the boys’ club” here the wannabe frat-boys who probably never went to college, whose synapses bump up against solid bone when they try to, you know, think. If you didn’t know her, I think you would have liked her.

“What? Me worry?”

reply

I recall...He constantly embarasses himself with these creep appeals to female posters by dissing the guys while at the same time seeming like he's an actual man...the dummy uses terms like 'cuck' and 'beta' so you just know he's no good for the ladies at a party...Kane tries too hard:/
He should go write another book by himself or whatever lol

And if he cared so much for former/retired posters he could have pissed off with them...

reply

I've seen very little if any evidence in his posting history of professional writing experience in his background and yet, when he first appeared here, he was bragging about having had simultaneous columns in the Boston Herald. That was one of my first red flags. Why would anyone leave such a prestigious position to go to work in retail, something you referenced and which he also frequently posted about?

reply

His posts are poorly thought out and seem to exist only to make a big man of himself
If he was a published writer than I guess any snarky 14 year old with a laptop could be too

reply

My definition goes with #1, if you want to hear the truth. A successful film is one that has a timeless story that many people can relate to, and it sticks in their memory due to something unique, something the other movies don't have. There are many movies that can go under that category, regardless of how much money they earned, how popular they were in theaters, how many awards they got, or how many critics said they were great.

reply

re-reading my question, yes, i guess it was kinda vague.

let's rule out financial success or any measure of success based on awards.

i guess i was referring to movies that don't have big production values, don't have a moving or memorable soundtrack, don't have major distribution or publicity, often don't have current a-listers starring in them, have little to no plot beyond us following the main characters around on their very simple quests...

by any standard such movies should be failures. most of them are.

yet some of them manage to find an avid following with fans and/or critics. the three examples i picked happened to fall into the category of modern noire. in the realm of comedy, i think of 'Serial' a 1980 movie that featured a director and cast most often associated with tv shows.

so when these small movies 'click' who deserves the lion's share of the credit... the writer, the director, the cinematographer, the cast? all of them?

reply

It's true, there are a number of memorable films that were made with a surprisingly low budget, and yet people love the story and the characters because more work was put into them, compared with costumes or visuals. One good example is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." It was cheap, they only used one castle, they had a small cast that had actors playing at least 5 or 6 different roles each, and each knight's costume cost only 1 Pound. And yet you still hear the jokes, the quotes, and you can see it referenced in other mediums, such as on tv shows and children's programs (you would laugh if you knew what I was talking about).

reply

I was actually thinking of Holy Grail when I thought about my previous reply. I omitted it though as a bit of a cheat since it came with its own built-in fanbase who were aware of the troupe and what to expect from them.

By contrast, Serial arrived with little fanfare, its unrelated cast and directors were mostly unknown to filmgoers. It was funny in a low-key way with its mocking look at the Socal hippy/New Age-y lifestyle and I still remember it all these decades later. No idea if it has aged well.

I guess another example might include Primer, a critical and fan favourite with zero budget and a cast of unknowns. Blair Witch Project that started a whole genre of found footage film?

reply

A strong, powerful, RELATEABLE story, edited quick and concise, with likable actors.

A shittily shot movie will be forgiven, can even be seen as quaint. Makes it seem more real. You can shoot a movie with a iPhone if the performances are genuine. Big production always covers up shit writing. That's why all these modern HD movies and television shows are disposable. You watch me once, never again. But we're still wearing out films from the 80s.

reply

"Big production always covers up shit writing."

I don't know if I agree entirely with that sentiment. True in the cases of movies such as Batman vs Superman and the Justice League movie. The director/writer didn't really get the source material.

The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, Aliens and T1 and T2... all well written movies with big production values.

It's a case-by-case thing...

reply

We're having an opinion war here but I think The Dark Knight and Winter Solder are two of the worst films ever made. And T1 is the text book example of no budget all go. I believe the budget of Winter Soldier was 170 mill.

reply

What?! The Dark Knight one of your worst films ever?

It takes a brave man to say that when over 2 million people on IMDB think otherwise (9/10). And a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 94% based on critics and audiences.

Maybe a generation from now though you'll be vindicated when people will look back and say: "What were THEY thinking back then? The Dark Knight? Worst film ever!"

The numbers for Winter Soldier are slightly less, but well above average.

Yes, T1 was a cheap movie... I was typing faster than I was thinking and was really only meaning to type in T2. James Cameron is probably the director who spends most on movies that turn out to be critical and popular successes. (But, yes, he's had an equal number of big misses... Again, it comes down to a case-by-case basis).

reply

Yes. I'm a writer first and The Dark Knight is hot garbage. Forget the actors and just look at the beats.

reply

Not sure what your definition of successful is. But for me a successful movie is one that I really enjoy. There are some great movies that weren’t commercially successful due to poor marketing, bad timing, or they just don’t appeal to the masses for whatever reason.

Yet - if I think they are good - I think they are successful. Cause that is all I really care about.

You used the example of Hell or High Water I had heard good things about it and after seeing and loving Sicario and Wind River - I went into it with high expectations. It surpassed my expectations. I just watched it about a month ago and thought it was one of best movies I have seen in the last couple of years.

In fact, I watched it the night after watching The Shape of Water - and HOHW was a far superior movie in every way in my opinion. The SOW despite winning the best movie Oscar - was cliched, predictable, weird for the sake of being weird and boring above all else. I haven’t been that disappointed in a movie in years.

What made HOHW great was the writing, acting, characters and unpredictability. Honestly I enjoyed every minute of it. The director just told the simple story in a straightforward manner (it was a refreshing 1:42 min) and so it had no lulls for me.

I also absolutely loved the ending. Despite the simple story and characters it kept my mind engaged the entire time. That makes a successful movie in my book - despite only earning 26 million.

reply

Sicario, Wind River, HOHW... it's like I'm looking in a mirror.

The best part of HOHW was that last dialogue between Pine's character and that of Bridges. The suspense was palpable but, unpredictably, it unwinds like a long pent-up sigh. That scene is burned in my brain.

Taylor Sheridan was a big part of all these movies were so damn good.

And though I've admired some of del Toro's movies, I also thought the Shape of Water was over-rated.

reply

Completely agree on the last scene of HOHW. The hidden conversation within the dialogue was so clever.

Yes, obviously I am a big Sheridan fan and plan on checking out Yellowstone soon.

reply

Not much these days.

reply

1. Good plot
2. Good cast
2. Good direction.

reply