Is there a limit to how great a movie can be? Does the medium have a maximum in the realm of quality and accomplishment? If so, has that already been achieved, and if so, when?

Greatness to some extent is in the eye of the beholder so is limited by who and how much someone, anyone, gets their kicks

Movies are only capable of being 107 great, unlike songs, which can reach a greatness level of 286, and novels, which can reach a greatness level of 497.5.

For reference, I am over 9000.

Some movies go to 11.

I'll bite.

I think some movies are perfect. But that doesn't mean they've hit the peak of the artform. I don't think that any movie has and I don't expect one to.

In terms of limits, there is a limit to how much any form of art can accomplish in that experiencing art created by others can be amazing in the human experience, it cannot actually replace real life. When people say a movie or song or book changed their life, there's truth to that, but there's also the larger truth that the events surrounding the time they experienced that art that led them to a place to be ready to be affected by it. Real life is better and more important than art, but art can be a part of real life.

498.2. You forgot to carry the melon-fornicator.

God damn it. Clearly I need to read Suttree again.

Doesn't everyone?

Eye of the beholder?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

Ultimately I'm driving at the idea of a specific ideal, or maximum, quality that a film can reach. If a movie wants to be great, is there something specific it should strive for? For example, Welles became obsessed with Stagecoach when developing Citizen Kane. He was striving for a very specific ideal that had been exemplified by John Ford. Is that the correct way to aspire for greatness? Finding a model and striving for the plane of that model? If so, I think it implies a finite level of greatness for movies. OR, does a more profound greatness come from pure originality; working from the ground up? I would argue for the former, which does not mean I'd advocate overdoing the latter (Super 8).

Here we go again: a philosophical question. I love those. Here is my humble input:

First of all we need to define greatness. I think that greatness of any artform is something which needs to be measured within a specific time (what was great 500 years ago might be lame by now - or greater), a specific audience and their cultural references, and of course tastes. I think that greatness in art does not completely lie in the eye of the beholder. There are great pieces of art which are dismissed as bullshit by many - because these people don't have the understanding and reference pool necessary to truly appreciate it. I don't think that a great piece of art will be diminished in any way each time someone says: "Naw! Bullshit!".
The big problem is being unbiased and seeing the "big picture". To attenuate/minimise this problem, a team should do the research and develope the necessary thesis.

I, personally, think that there is NO limit to greatness regarding a movie. There is only a limit implied by the usual process of filmmaking with many people involved who have conflicting ideas. In theory there is no limit.

...but that's just my humble opinion....

If we can agree that something has to evolve in order to survive, then there is a certain element of good quality that can't come from a preexisting model. Evolution does not strive for a goal. It merely strives for something different that might increase the organism's ability to thrive.

Hmm-Kay.You are saying that Darwinism applies here (=the ideal example of an artform) as well. Yep, I agree.
But that doesn't answer the question whether there's a limit to it or not. I guess you are saying that the actual quality of the best possible example of a piece of art at any given time is rather random, the actual goals and reasons are different. Unless I missed something....

I'm saying that thinking of it in terms of having a floor and a ceiling is a mistake. There's always somewhere else it can go.

Agreed 100% That was the exact same idea I had right from the beginning.

I think the problem is that "great" is not what movies should aspire to be. I think movies should aspire to many things, but "great" is not one of them. "Greatness" causes movies to use all the cliches that "great" movies are supposed to use and to conform to the rules that "great" movies are supposed to conform to.

Movies, and art in general, should (in my opinion) aspire to something other than greatness. Something in this case could simply mean trying to tell a good story, inspiring people, trying to get people to think, react, or perhaps learning a bit about themselves in the process. Other things can be to scare people, to make them cry or laugh or most simply, to entertain people. Maybe even get them to analyze their own lives or consider the perspectives of other people, cultures, and/or ways of thinking. Maybe, in certain cases, experiment with different modes of telling stories or creative styles, although these efforts can easily become self indulgent.

Furthermore, greatness having a limit requires greatness to be quantifiable, at least if we're looking at limits in mathematical or logical terms. I don't think that is the case. Since greatness is not easily quantifiable, then no, there is no limit to how "great" a movie can be.
-Jeremy