Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: MikMaq on December 13, 2012, 01:39:16 PM
-
1) foreign market is bigger than domestic, meaning writers can't write shit, unless some dude with broken english understands it.
2) the rating system means, we have to dumb shit down for kids, because we have to pretend that kids won't hear about sex until there 13th birthday.
3) CGI, means that there is no need for a film to have anything cool in it. Be it, fights, shoot outs, chase scenes, landscapes, extra's or anything else that make a bad movie bearable.
4) movie's today spend more money on advertising than on the actual film, meaning it's impossible for low cost films to compete with the shit made for kids and foreigners.
5) Anyone with actual taste in movies, knows how to steal it. Meaning unless a film is made for idiots, it won't get viewership.
-
Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.
-
Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.
Fuck you sir, I enjoyed Prometheus.
-
Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.
Lol whatever dude you know I'm spot on the money.
-
Yeah compared to all the other shit these days it wasn't too bad.
And that's when you factor in how bad the studio's hijacked the film.
Eh, it was OK. It raised more questions than it answered, which was probably Sir Scott's intent from the beginning. E.g., why do the Engineers hate modern humans so much as to A, ready a ship 2 millenia ago to come exterminate us; and B, why was the one brought out of cryosleep such a rampaging madman? Did the droid say something wrong? :)
What I don't understand about the flick is that the ancient Engineers left Mankind with celestial clues worldwide, and all of those lead to coordinates for what amounted to be a WMD testing ground planet. When we had the means to reach LV-228 (?), did they mean to test us and see if we could survive a virtual obstacle course of nasty alien difficulties? That might make sense apart from the fact one of those horseshoe ships was bound for Earth and loaded with black goo around the time the Roman Empire peaked.
Then there's the whole question of Weyland's daughter, droid or no? In one scene, if you look very carefully, Charlize's character was exhaling smoke on the Prometheus' bridge. Some of the humans in the Aliensverse smoke, but we never see droids smoke, ever.
I say Charlize's character was human. I also don't see a droid worrying about "staying home to argue over" who should be in charge of Weyland-Yutani after the old man croaked.
-
Eh, it was OK. It raised more questions than it answered, which was probably Sir Scott's intent from the beginning. E.g., why do the Engineers hate modern humans so much as to A, ready a ship 2 millenia ago to come exterminate us; and B, why was the one brought out of cryosleep such a rampaging madman? Did the droid say something wrong? :)
What I don't understand about the flick is that the ancient Engineers left Mankind with celestial clues worldwide, and all of those lead to coordinates for what amounted to be a WMD testing ground planet. When we had the means to reach LV-228 (?), did they mean to test us and see if we could survive a virtual obstacle course of nasty alien difficulties? That might make sense apart from the fact one of those horseshoe ships was bound for Earth and loaded with black goo around the time the Roman Empire peaked.
Supposedly they hate us because they sent us an emissary to help guide our evolution, and we killed him. We knew him as Jesus. Being dead serious here. Scott said he left it out of this flick because he didn't want it to get to religious before the sequel or some shit.
Anyway, the Engineers decided that we suck, and were going to send a military ship loaded with their biological weapons to wipe us out, as they saw us as a failed experiment at creation, but they had an accident at the base where the biological weapon broke containment and fucked them up, allowing humanity to survive on without them.
Supposedly the robot told the engineer that the old man had come to him trying to find a way to cheat death, which is an insult to them, since one of their own sacrificed his life in order to create humanity.
-
Supposedly they hate us because they sent us an emissary to help guide our evolution, and we killed him. We knew him as Jesus. Being dead serious here. Scott said he left it out of this flick because he didn't want it to get to religious before the sequel or some shit.
hahaha this would have been unspeakably awesome
-
Supposedly they hate us because they sent us an emissary to help guide our evolution, and we killed him. We knew him as Jesus. Being dead serious here. Scott said he left it out of this flick because he didn't want it to get to religious before the sequel or some shit.
Anyway, the Engineers decided that we suck, and were going to send a military ship loaded with their biological weapons to wipe us out, as they saw us as a failed experiment at creation, but they had an accident at the base where the biological weapon broke containment and fucked them up, allowing humanity to survive on without them.
Supposedly the robot told the engineer that the old man had come to him trying to find a way to cheat death, which is an insult to them, since one of their own sacrificed his life in order to create humanity.
I liked the Movie, it didn't suck...but it would have been a hell of a lot better with this info IN the movie. I understand a director wanting to challenge an audience and not spoon feed them everything, but a linear plot is something we shouldn't have to make up in our head
-
Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.
Ouch! :'(
-
Movies exist for one reason: To make money.
They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)
Making a movie costs many millions of dollars. Into the hundreds of millions these days.
They will make what they think the people will buy.
That's why you have sequels, remakes, and reboots. The audience has been proven and they can bank on it.
There are PLENTY of GREAT movies out there that you will NEVER see just because they will never get funded. I dabbled in screenwriting for a number of years and tried to sell movies to Hollywood. I've read a LOT of screenplays that are better than 99.999% of the shit you see in the movies that will never see the light of day. Sad, really.
-
As long as there is a big strong muscle man in the movie i consider it to be good.
-
Movies exist for one reason: To make money.
They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)
oh brother... movies exist for one reason: people make them. money is the main consideration by far, yes, but there are others too.
and I guess avatar didnt "further the art of filmmaking" despite featuring groundbreaking CGI. nor did Spiderman or Batman Begins "further the art of filmmaking" despite opening the floodgates for superhero movies that are about 1000x more enjoyable than any that came before.
::)
-
1) foreign market is bigger than domestic, meaning writers can't write shit, unless some dude with broken english understands it.
2) the rating system means, we have to dumb shit down for kids, because we have to pretend that kids won't hear about sex until there 13th birthday.
3) CGI, means that there is no need for a film to have anything cool in it. Be it, fights, shoot outs, chase scenes, landscapes, extra's or anything else that make a bad movie bearable.
4) movie's today spend more money on advertising than on the actual film, meaning it's impossible for low cost films to compete with the shit made for kids and foreigners.
5) Anyone with actual taste in movies, knows how to steal it. Meaning unless a film is made for idiots, it won't get viewership.
Hey moron,
There are plenty of good movies out there, with clever writing (ever heard of Woody Allen). The thing is though, you are too dumb to realize this.
-
Audiences are dumb therefore movies are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Simple as that. There isn't a conspiracy here.
-
oh brother... movies exist for one reason: people make them. money is the main consideration by far, yes, but there are others too.
and I guess avatar didnt "further the art of filmmaking" despite featuring groundbreaking CGI. nor did Spiderman or Batman Begins "further the art of filmmaking" despite opening the floodgates for superhero movies that are about 1000x more enjoyable than any that came before.
::)
Anything that is new and novel will make money. That goes for CGI or the new Hobbit film with the upgraded frame rates.
Big studios make films to make money. You can moan "Oh brother" all day long but it's a fact.
-
Movies suck because America's best actors speak in a Australian or British accent in real life.
-
Hey moron,
There are plenty of good movies out there, with clever writing (ever heard of Woody Allen). The thing is though, you are too dumb to realize this.
Blow me, dude whatever you wanna say, movies have gone seriously downhill in the last 20 years.
It's no magical formula it's due to changing times. All you gotta do is look at the biggest grossing films of twenty years ago and compare em to now, major changes.
And don't go pretending I'm some elitist against making money, I like good old pop corn flicks just like anyone else, but no matter what you like there's been a decline.
-
Blow me, dude whatever you wanna say, movies have gone seriously downhill in the last 20 years.
It's no magical formula it's due to changing times. All you gotta do is look at the biggest grossing films of twenty years ago and compare em to now, major changes.
And don't go pretending I'm some elitist against making money, I like good old pop corn flicks just like anyone else, but no matter what you like there's been a decline.
Decline in what?
Here are the biggest grossing films 20 years ago (1992).
Wayne's World? LOL
1.
Aladdin
Disney
voices of Scott Weinger, Robin Williams, and Linda Larkin
Ron Clements and John Musker
$504,050,219
$28 million
2.
The Bodyguard
Warner Bros.
Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston
Mick Jackson
$410,945,720
N/A
3.
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
Fox
Macaulay Culkin, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, Catherine O'Hara, Tim Curry, and John Heard
Chris Columbus
$358,994,850
$20 million
4.
Basic Instinct
TriStar
Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Jeanne Tripplehorn, and George Dzundza
Paul Verhoeven
$352,927,224
$49 million
5.
Lethal Weapon 3
Warner Bros.
Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, and Rene Russo
Richard Donner
$321,731,527
$35 million
6.
Batman Returns
Warner Bros.
Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, and Danny DeVito
Tim Burton
$266,822,354
$80 million
7.
A Few Good Men
Columbia
Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Pollak, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, and Jack Nicholson,
Rob Reiner
$243,240,178
$40 million
8.
Sister Act
Touchstone
Whoopi Goldberg and Maggie Smith
Emile Ardolino
$231,605,150
N/A
9.
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Columbia
Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Cary Elwes Richard E Grant Billy Campbell
Francis Ford Coppola
$215,862,692
$40 million
10.
Wayne's World
Paramount
Mike Myers and Dana Carvey
-
Decline in what?
Here are the biggest grossing films 20 years ago (1992).
Wayne's World? LOL
1.
Aladdin
Disney
voices of Scott Weinger, Robin Williams, and Linda Larkin
Ron Clements and John Musker
$504,050,219
$28 million
2.
The Bodyguard
Warner Bros.
Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston
Mick Jackson
$410,945,720
N/A
3.
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
Fox
Macaulay Culkin, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stern, Catherine O'Hara, Tim Curry, and John Heard
Chris Columbus
$358,994,850
$20 million
4.
Basic Instinct
TriStar
Michael Douglas, Sharon Stone, Jeanne Tripplehorn, and George Dzundza
Paul Verhoeven
$352,927,224
$49 million
5.
Lethal Weapon 3
Warner Bros.
Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, and Rene Russo
Richard Donner
$321,731,527
$35 million
6.
Batman Returns
Warner Bros.
Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, and Danny DeVito
Tim Burton
$266,822,354
$80 million
7.
A Few Good Men
Columbia
Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Pollak, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, and Jack Nicholson,
Rob Reiner
$243,240,178
$40 million
8.
Sister Act
Touchstone
Whoopi Goldberg and Maggie Smith
Emile Ardolino
$231,605,150
N/A
9.
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Columbia
Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Cary Elwes Richard E Grant Billy Campbell
Francis Ford Coppola
$215,862,692
$40 million
10.
Wayne's World
Paramount
Mike Myers and Dana Carvey
You just destroyed the resident retard.
-
Decline in what?
Here are the biggest grossing films 20 years ago (1992).
Wayne's World? LOL
1.
Aladdin
2.
The Bodyguard
3.
Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
4.
Basic Instinct
5.
Lethal Weapon 3
6.
Batman Returns
7.
A Few Good Men
8.
Sister Act
9.
Bram Stoker's Dracula
10.
Wayne's World
Compared to now they're far preferable.
The only two on the list that would even list today are home alone, and aladin, and even then home alone, would have to be cgi'd to hell
1 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows –
2 Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3 Pirates of the Caribbean:
4 twilight
5 Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Paramount
6 Kung Fu Panda 2
7 Fast Five Universal
8 The Hangover Part II Warner Bros.
9 The Smurfs
10 Cars 2
Seriously are any of these suppose to be remotely good for an adult audience.
The only descent film on the list is MI, and compared to tom crusises old stuff it's a fucking joke.
-
Anything that is new and novel will make money. That goes for CGI or the new Hobbit film with the upgraded frame rates.
Big studios make films to make money. You can moan "Oh brother" all day long but it's a fact.
what the hell are you talking about? "anything new and novel will make money" LOL weren't you just talking about "tested audiences"? what's the point of banking on a "sure thing" if "anything new and novel will make money"?
are great directors, actors, makeup artists, wardrobe people, computer artists, -- you know, the people who actually MAKE the movies -- incapable of thinking anything other than "HOW CAN I MAKE THE MOST MONEY???" every waking second?
it seems like you, and practically everyone else here, wants to portray the movie industry as some soulless money gobbling machine, as if people are purposefully trying to make bad movies in order to make the most money possible. the reality is, people try to make the BEST movie possible WHILE STILL BEING PROFITABLE. it's not that complicated.
-
Movies suck, for one Reason, the WRITING SUCKS
Bad Script = Bad Movie
GREAT SCRIPT = AWESOME MOVIE With unknown actors
-
Compared to now they're far preferable.
The only two on the list that would even list today are home alone, and aladin, and even then home alone, would have to be cgi'd to hell
1 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows –
2 Transformers: Dark of the Moon
3 Pirates of the Caribbean:
4 twilight
5 Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Paramount
6 Kung Fu Panda 2
7 Fast Five Universal
8 The Hangover Part II Warner Bros.
9 The Smurfs
10 Cars 2
Seriously are any of these suppose to be remotely good for an adult audience.
The only descent film on the list is MI, and compared to tom crusises old stuff it's a fucking joke.
Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?
There are a ton of great movies out there.
-
Actually, movie studios make all sorts of movies for a variety of audiences. Most of those lose money but garner critical acclaim, give young actors and directors experience and become tax write offs. To recoup those losses, pay saleries, bonuses and stock yields, they bankroll the 'big movies' to the mass market during the summer. Go look at the number of divisions a movie company has and what they produce each year.
-
You just destroyed the resident retard.
oh Noh you diddent
I already set I'm expecting no fucking masterpieces, you can take a top ten of ever year before and after 93, and you'll see a marked decline.
Not all movies back than were perfect. But atleast there's a few that are ok.
-
oh Noh you diddent
I already set I'm expecting no fucking masterpieces, you can take a top ten of ever year before and after 93, and you'll see a marked decline.
Not all movies back than were perfect. But atleast there's a few that are ok.
Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?
-
Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?
There are a ton of great movies out there.
Never said there wasn't but 20 years ago I could of went to a theatre and said fuck it, one of these ten will be good, nowadays you simply lack these options.
The top ten is simply a condensed version of a much larger trend.
You can't pretend with the movies listed that there wasn't a vast difference in how the big studio's operate.
As I said this isn't about art/indie films this is about the popcorn films.
-
what the hell are you talking about? "anything new and novel will make money" LOL weren't you just talking about "tested audiences"? what's the point of banking on a "sure thing" if "anything new and novel will make money"?
Are the studios barred from taking multiple approaches? (Answer: no) However, the reason you see so many remakes, reboots, and adaptions is that the audience is established. If a studio can make money from a NON-ESTABLISHED audience with unknown actors, limited budget, etc. They will. Paranoral Activity is an example. Which brings another point. The best scripts an aspiring screenwriter can write are horror and romantic comedy. Low budget, possible huge payoff.
are great directors, actors, makeup artists, wardrobe people, computer artists, -- you know, the people who actually MAKE the movies -- incapable of thinking anything other than "HOW CAN I MAKE THE MOST MONEY???" every waking second?
They make the movie. But somebody pays them. The people who pay, call the shots.
it seems like you, and practically everyone else here, wants to portray the movie industry as some soulless money gobbling machine, as if people are purposefully trying to make bad movies in order to make the most money possible. the reality is, people try to make the BEST movie possible WHILE STILL BEING PROFITABLE. it's not that complicated.
It's a business. Businesses exist to make money.
-
Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.
;D
-
;D
He really has earned the title of moron. It would be best if he left this thread altogether at this point.
-
They make the movie. But somebody pays them. The people who pay, call the shots.
"call the shots"? what shots are those? certainly not every shot, or else who needs the directors, actors, etc.? and who makes the shots the execs don't call? maybe the people who love to make movies, who try to make the best movies possible?
businesses exist because people make them. money is one reason, but there are others.
::)
-
Movies exist for one reason: To make money.
They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)
Making a movie costs many millions of dollars. Into the hundreds of millions these days.
They will make what they think the people will buy.
That's why you have sequels, remakes, and reboots. The audience has been proven and they can bank on it.
There are PLENTY of GREAT movies out there that you will NEVER see just because they will never get funded. I dabbled in screenwriting for a number of years and tried to sell movies to Hollywood. I've read a LOT of screenplays that are better than 99.999% of the shit you see in the movies that will never see the light of day. Sad, really.
There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.
-
He really has earned the title of moron. It would be best if he left this thread altogether at this point.
Shut the fuck up troll, your side tracking a solid fucking argument and you know it.
Whether or not you personally would rather see cars 2 versus a few good men or not is irrelevant. You at least have to admit there is a drastic way in how the top pop corn films are made.
I'm not mad that the studio's have resorted to this to make money, I'm simply mad that I'm expected to watch childrens movies if I wanna go to a fucking theatre.
If mcdonalds served only happy meals, I'd complain too.
-
Movies exist for one reason: To make money.
They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)
Making a movie costs many millions of dollars. Into the hundreds of millions these days.
They will make what they think the people will buy.
That's why you have sequels, remakes, and reboots. The audience has been proven and they can bank on it.
There are PLENTY of GREAT movies out there that you will NEVER see just because they will never get funded. I dabbled in screenwriting for a number of years and tried to sell movies to Hollywood. I've read a LOT of screenplays that are better than 99.999% of the shit you see in the movies that will never see the light of day. Sad, really.
My original post above. I was talking about big budget films from major studios. If there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and people were eating corpses, movies would still be made..simply for the art. No money would be made, but the films would be produced.
-
Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?
The Shawshank Redemption did very poorly at the box office and is considered by many to be in the top 5 films of all time.
-
There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.
Thin red line was great. Tree of Life is on my "recently downloaded, going to watch" list. But that pocahantas film he made was fucking brutal
-
As TA said, there are plenty of great flicks out there, absolutely tonnes.
My favourites do tend to be older and happen to be mostly Kubrick's work. This is mainly because he knew how to shoot films perfectly from a technical point of view and I get pretty pissed off on a daily basis that we couldn't get any more out of him before he died.
-
There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.
this kind of thinking is dumb as well.
Tree of Life was mediocre at best. The rest have many great movies between them, but guess what... many of them are popular, and made a lot of money. Many of them share lots of traits with very popular "movies". Many of these directors have directed "mere movies". For example, what about Scorcese's Shutter Island distinguishes it as a "film"? Is it just a "movie"? It has a lot more in common with your average "genre flick" than a "real film" like Goodfellas, for example. So does it suck?
Nope.
-
As TA said, there are plenty of great flicks out there, absolutely tonnes.
My favourites do tend to be older and happen to be mostly Kubrick's work. This is mainly because he knew how to shoot films perfectly from a technical point of view and I get pretty pissed off on a daily basis that we couldn't get any more out of him before he died.
At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.
My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.
I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.
-
My original post above. I was talking about big budget films from major studios. If there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and people were eating corpses, movies would still be made..simply for the art. No money would be made, but the films would be produced.
Again, were Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, etc. not great movies that "furthered the art of filmmaking"?
"But but but, the POINT was to make money!" Maybe from the perspective of some of those involved. What about the rest of the staff? Are you saying there's some fundamental difference between how George Lucas felt about his movies and, say Gasper Noe does about his own films?
Do no one's intentions count for anything except the jew writing the checks?
-
At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.
My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.
I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.
???
-
Again, were Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, etc. not great movies that "furthered the art of filmmaking"?
"But but but, the POINT was to make money!" Maybe from the perspective of some of those involved. What about the rest of the staff? Are you saying there's some fundamental difference between how George Lucas felt about his movies and, say Gasper Noe does about his own films?
The point was EXACTLY to make money. It's not a charity. Is this something you don't understand?
-
At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.
My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.
I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.
I was making a general observation on the trend of the thread tbh old chap.
-
I was making a general observation on the trend of the thread tbh old chap.
I'm not directing that comment directly at you, more pissed off at TA, for derailing the thread.
-
The point was EXACTLY to make money. It's not a charity. Is this something you don't understand?
WHOSE POINT? What is a "point"? Do "points" grow on trees? No, points are ideas, held by PEOPLE. So, for whom was it THE POINT that the movie made the most money possible, to the exclusion of everything else?
The "exec" of course. No one is arguing that. But execs don't dictate movies down to the last detail, or even anything close to that. The battles between "execs" and "creatives" are well known and publicized. These fights happen because, from the perspective of the "execs" and the perspective of the "creatives," the POINT of the making the movie is often somewhat DIFFERENT. And because, ultimately, both of these groups are involved in making the movie, it's only sensible to say the POINT of making the movie is not PURELY for profit. Anyone who attempts to analyze them on this premise will simply be WROOOOONG.
Like I said, it's not that complicated.
-
WHOSE POINT? What is a "point"? Do "points" grow on trees? No, points are ideas, held by PEOPLE. So, for whom was it THE POINT that the movie made the most money possible, to the exclusion of everything else?
The "exec" of course. No one is arguing that. But execs don't dictate movies down to the last detail, or even anything close to that. The battles between "execs" and "creatives" are well known and publicized. These fights happen because, from the perspective of the "execs" and the perspective of the "creatives," the POINT of the making the movie is often somewhat DIFFERENT. And because, ultimately, both of these groups are involved in making the movie, it's only sensible to say the POINT of making the movie is not PURELY for profit. Anyone who attempts to analyze them on this premise will simply be WROOOOONG.
Like I said, it's not that complicated.
If you say so. I'm certainly not going to argue with you. You feel pretty strongly about movie production. lol
-
Nah, just bored at "work" and would rather argue than study for finals. No hard feelings!
-
I liked that movie zardos with sean connery back in the day
-
I liked that movie zardos with sean connery back in the day
Yes, his outfit was very good for accentuating the muscledefinition.
-
-
I liked that movie zardos with sean connery back in the day
(http://awkwardpress.com/wp-content/uploads/connery-zardoz.jpg)
-
1. There are always great movies coming out, if you know where to look.
2. They are rarely blockbusters.
3. This is a stupid thread.
-
watch scandinavian movies instead.
-
Blow me, dude whatever you wanna say, movies have gone seriously downhill in the last 20 years.
It's no magical formula it's due to changing times. All you gotta do is look at the biggest grossing films of twenty years ago and compare em to now, major changes.
And don't go pretending I'm some elitist against making money, I like good old pop corn flicks just like anyone else, but no matter what you like there's been a decline.
Aren't you, like, 20?
-
Next time you are refused entry to an 18 certificate because you're wearing a Glee t-shirt, please don't make a thread about the film industry, just get your money back and buy some ritalin
-
fuck these hollywood movies.
french movies for me.
(http://images.moviepostershop.com/i-stand-alone-movie-poster-1998-1020447857.jpg)
(http://magnoliaforever.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/i-stand-alone-poster.jpg)
-
watch scandinavian movies instead.
trust me they suck ;D
-
1992 was a exceptionally good movie year.
There are good movies now but I agree it has declined in the last 5-10 years.
-
1. There are always great movies coming out, if you know where to look.
2. They are rarely blockbusters.
3. This is a stupid thread.
I've never said there weren't good movies, my point is if I wanna goto a theater I can't.
90 percent of the movies I watch will never goto my local cinema.
I feel guilty for not paying for shit. Hence the thread. But the reality it isn't my fault as what goes to the theater generally sucks cock.
Big budget movies back in the day were simply better, I'm not bothering with people that seem to have this amount of denial.
1992 was no special year, and was just average, movies today are made for children, movies back than were made for adults it's essentially a fact.
-
1-"actor" are showing not acting.
that shit all started with angelina joly lips. tomb raider was a movie designed to show angelina joly body. she's the worst actress ever.
2 - NO scenario, it's all about special fx.
character are empty.
3 - people in cinema are noisy.