Customer Discussions > Movie forum

So Who Are the People Paying to See Crappy Movies. .


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 274 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 8:43:21 AM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
I would say, objectively, Chavez would fall closer to totalitarian than Bush/Cheney.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 8:51:53 AM PDT
C. J. Vasta: Doesn't take a genius to know that Chavez is more a dictator than either Bush or Cheney. And I'm not calling myself a die-hard fan of them, but by golly, bring them back, already! At least he was better than Mitt Romney will be, and there is no way I will ever allow Barrack Obama to run in office again. If he does get re-elected, I am fleeing the States and moving to the place of my birth, the U.K...or Italy if I can afford it. I don't care if they aren't Capitalists societies; they're better than a second term underneath arguably the worst President in American history.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 8:58:15 AM PDT
CJV: re: Chavez: if anyone does not recognize that statement as self-evidently true--then I pity them for their lack of either sophistication, or objectivity.

Gordo: shall we get back to films? (Not that you don't know my sympathies lie, but political discussions have a way of spiraling out of control even more than discussions on animation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:11:45 AM PDT
WAS: Very well. And speaking of politics, I personally never got into the political film genre, even prior to the films becoming a constant propaganda machine. I do like All the King's Men though (the original, not the awful Sean Penn remake), and Frost/Nixon was an okay picture. Other than that, the genre is pretty barren. One of the core problems that plagues the genre is that the subject matters should be interesting (heck, Star Trek has a very interesting political structure just to name a single example), and yet most political films are either heavy-handed, or completely boring. There's very little middle-ground, unfortunately.

...Wait! Political films aren't really monemakers, are they? Son-of-a-b!+(h!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:17:37 AM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
The first Pirates of the Carribean was a great pastiche of old swashbuckler films. One reason, so many swashbuckler revivals had been big flops was they took the subject too seriously. Unfortunately, the sequels went in the wrong direction trying to add darker and seriouser themes.

The Dark Knight is probably the best executed live action Batman film. It certrainly gives Alfred and Lucius Fox weightier material. One felt the casting of Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman was wasted in the first movie. On the othe hand the character of Rachel Dawes, had a great potential as a counterweight to Batman and her character is wasted here.

Btw, how would you rate the film of the Order of Phoenix. I've just now finished the reading the book and it's really the most solid novel so far. I know the first two movies had to trim some material when the books were slimmer. I don't really see a lot that can be cut from the plot.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 9:25:12 AM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
But American films have always done well over seas. One reason foreign films have such a highbrow reputation is that Foreign Studios decided they couldn't compete with Hollywood in terms of spectacle, the exceptions would be in area that were not culturally covered by Hollywood (such as martial arts films).

Beginning in the 1950s, Hollywood began more agressively courting the foreign market casting international stars in key roles to boost their international box office. It's also known many foreign countries like American Movies and TV show that have fallen out of favor here. I'm saying the Box-Office receipts are probably incomplete. It's possible that greater globalization in the 1990s led to wider Distribution of American movies. But it's more likely we are missing statistics from an earllier time period. It's rather odd that Phantom Mencace made more internationally than the Original Trilogy.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 10:00:17 AM PDT
CJV: re: The Potter films. I'm a big fan of the books, and the films; but to determine which film I'd rate most highly, I would have to watch them all again. It's been awhile.

When you look at the film business and the relative strengths of US versus non-US films, there are a number of factors to consider. First of all, the business was far more international, in a way, during the silent period--after all, pretty easy to film new title cards. An Italian film like Cabiria was a big hit in the US in the teens, and was a significant influence on D.W. Griffith. The US industry really came to dominance in the 1920s; the industry was doing significant business worldwide during the 30s. (Witness things like the Spanish language version of Dracula.)

I just tried to find some information on where boxofficemojo.com gets historical international grosses. No luck. I believe that you are right, and that there are holes in the data.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 10:28:08 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 10:30:18 AM PDT
W.T. says:
I don't care what you want to call Chavez, the fact remains that he had his own people shot at (and several shot down) in the street for protesting the shutdown of the last private TV station several years ago. Eye-witnessed by a Venezuelan college friend of mine who sent me a chilling email imploring his college buddies to "pray for Venezuela". We didn't hear from him for six months, but he finally got out of the country and is never going back.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 5:02:45 PM PDT
stevign says:
lolol...Gee, ya think?!!

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 8:18:50 AM PDT
I guess a fairer question would be, "Has Hollywood and television fostered a lazy, film-going public?"

I throw television in there because television is accused of the lack of attention span that modern movie goers are supposed to now possess and thus the reason for explosions, rapid editing and lack of character development in lieu of cardboard cut-outs. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this and that television is being used as a scape-goat, because I now find a lot a television to be quite innovative when it comes to characters and some very thought provoking plots in some shows.

Has Hollywood in fact brought about this situation where a challenging film doesn't have much of a chance, by it's insistence on not only making every film try to appeal to the largest demographic, but also de-emphasizing story and internal consistency (in other words the film itself) in favor of superficial ephemera. A good example is the soon to be released Hollywood telling of the Japanese story, The 47 Ronin, in 3D and starring . . . Keanu Reeves?

Yep Hollywood executives thought a movie that is ostensibly a classic Japanese historical tale needed a bankable star. So they got Keanu Reeves as a draw (obviously ignoring the draw he was to the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still), and made his character the focus. Not only is this wrong on several different levels, it also shows no appreciation for the story, and it makes for dumb movie goers. Still Hollywood has tried to justify lots of nonsensical stuff on the fact that movie-goers wouldn't except an alternative. That is until someone tries it and audiences accept it.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 8:37:56 AM PDT
JNS: Take a look at this Wikipedia entry on the film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_Ronin_%282013_film%29

Sounds far too much like the remake of The Three Musketeers to me. Besides which: my understanding is that the story of the 47 Ronin has tremendous cultural significance in Japan. This version sound rather like telling the story of the battle of Yorktown with aliens and wizards tossed in. Disturbing, to say the least.

To the way that you phrase the question: I think that it is more the case that, in pandering to the worst instincts and lowest common denominators in our culture, that the industry is making things worse, rather that better. I certainly can't see anything truly innovative and worthwhile in television--increasingly squalid realism and increasingly vulgar and crassly sexual comedy is what passed for creativity there. Certainly you can't see any virtue in reality TV!

Historically, the TV and film industries contained a high-minded minority dedicated to something better than mere entertainments--and senior management who were willing to mix art with commerce. (Mayer, Zanuck as two examples.) The only vestige left is pious left-wing platitudes trotted out for Academy Awards competition.

Honestly, it's almost too depressing to contemplate.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 8:52:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 9:31:04 AM PDT
" good example is the soon to be released Hollywood telling of the Japanese story, The 47 Ronin, in 3D and starring . . . Keanu Reeves?"

Doesn't seem to be any excuse to film this thing again no matter who stars in it. How many versions of this story do we need anyway? Plays, tv, movies--what's so interesting about it? Its essentially preaching a lot of platitudes about "noble" motives and high ideals that reveal themselves in a lot of murder and mayhem.

Come to think of it, no wonder Hollywood wants to film it again. Yet another bloody revenge movie all wrapped up in preaching about how all that slaughter is high-minded and honorable.

The Few, the Proud, the Ronin...

Maybe Keanu Reeves will play an American reporter named Steve Martin and have his scenes poorly cut into the actual film.

The 47 Ronin probably served as a nice propaganda piece for Hirohito. Blind obedience to authority is always popular, not surprisingly, with those in authority. Hmmm. This should be a BIG hit in America.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 8:58:29 AM PDT
And, once more, TAS displays his cultural sensitivity and the nobility of his soul.

That curdled, shriveled, malignant little toad of a thing that passes for a soul.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 1:41:02 PM PDT
J. Methena says:
I've been known to go to a bad movie just for the popcorn. Case in point, Jack and Jill. I swear Adam Sandler owes me $3.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 1:44:42 PM PDT
I swear Adam Sandler owes me $3."

Caveat emptor.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 1:50:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 6, 2012 1:51:16 PM PDT
stevign says:
Adam Sandler owes A LOT of movie-goers their money back for his movies!

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 1:59:55 PM PDT
I'm very iffy about seeing comedies in theaters anyway. Jack and Jill did look very silly. The last movie I've seen of Sandler's was Anger Management. It wasn't by choice because X-Men 2 was sold out. lOl

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 5:02:48 PM PDT
None says:
I wish I had seen Transformer Dark Side of the Moon in the theater... it was FUN. I'm kinda growd'up and need some fun stuff to watch cuz like I have drama in life and stuff and like I watch filosofical stuff already but not every movie I watch has to make some grand exitinshil point about universal stuff.

But really anyone should know better than to pay to see Adam Sandler movies .

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 5:16:41 PM PDT
But really anyone should know better than to pay to see Adam Sandler movies ."

Anyone should know better than to see them for free.

If the cloudbursts thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes...

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 6:05:15 PM PDT
It comes down to this- theres just nothing better to do. Humans are by and large sheep and go to movies just because.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 6:52:14 PM PDT
stevign says:
re: "Humans are by and large sheep"

You must be a politician, they think like that too.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 7:03:34 PM PDT
stev ole buddy, it's true, the fact that movies are in the state they are in proves that.

people make plans to go to the movies without even knowing what movie they want to see.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 9:48:15 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
I enjoyed Happy Gilmore but I never saw it in theaters. I have the DVD.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 10:50:45 PM PDT
stevign says:
I honestly don't think so. I think it's a matter of way too many people just having poor taste....or at the very least, undeveloped taste in cinema. I assume the majority of people who go to movies are under 30; young males want Action, Special Effects and care very little about the storyline, acting or what does or doesn't make sense.

Young women on the other hand want Romance movies and care very little about the acting and what does or doesn't make sense. If it were really a matter of people being sheep, they would come back from all these movies complaining that they didn't know why they went and they hated the movie. Fact is, they "like" the majority of movies they see. If you want evidence of this, look at how popular Reality TV shows have become.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 10:54:24 PM PDT
stevign says:
While I think you're crazy, I admire you for having the guts to admit that in public. I guess your next step would be to find a good therapy group. ;~)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  274
Initial post:  Jun 18, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions