When we talk about movies, we often refer to them as “good” or “bad” films, but we confuse things as we have “good bad” films, and “bad good films.”
To clarify things, I’d like to suggest the lens of “entertaining” vs “good.”
Good films are those that are masterfully done. The plot makes sense, there are no unnecessary story elements that don’t get resolved, and the dialogue is great. The score is powerful yet almost unnoticeable, and the sound design is amazing. The acting is phenomenal, and cinematography masterful, and the editing superb.
Entertaining films are ones that regardless of quality of craft, I’d still watch again and again because I find them entertaining.
A film could be good, entertaining, both at once, or neither.
By adding an additional axis of measure (we now have two axes: entertaining and not entertaining, good and bad) we can now add even more nuance and precision to our thoughts about a film.
By adding another axis, you can get even more precise.
And if we can get this level of precision when it comes to the movies we watch and the media we consume, why can’t we get this level of precision when it comes to the feedback we give our colleagues?
Leave a Reply