Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

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

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 274 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 10:14:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 10:29:26 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
I've seen that footage. Glenn Beck is a cynical assclown who knows that's not true, and manipulates his audience like putty to believe his asinine distortions of reality.

That's an enormous leap into the absurd to claim Shaw supported Mussolini when he was clearing making a satirical comment for an old movie Newsreel, if you watch the footage unedited, and without Beck's moronic preface.

↓ Warning: more footage below that makes out-of-context claims that can't be supported by contextual facts ↓

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 10:24:14 PM PDT
stevign says:

Here is Shaw in his own words;

Posted on Jun 29, 2012 10:32:09 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
History and reality can't be Googled and Youtube'd in flash. Usually the worst dishonest propaganda come up in Top Search. The above is an example of this.


Fox News and INFO WARS is not real news!!!

Posted on Jun 29, 2012 11:21:26 PM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
Fox News is certainly real news as much as any major outlet. Fox News didn't "break" the Tailwind story after all or edit George Zimmerman footage to hide his bruises.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 11:45:37 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
You're right. Fox News never distorts anything. They report, we decide. The no spin zone.....................................................................................


In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 4:15:46 AM PDT

re: here was a newspaper (Hearst) man who didn't want his OWN life exposed but had no qualms about exposing everyone else's as long as it suited him or made him money.

Yes... the irony is wonderful.

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 4:20:50 AM PDT
Glenn Beck? Congress? Fox News? I am in the wrong forum? ;)

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 7:17:14 AM PDT
Re the OP

Top 20 Box Office (Adjusted for Inflation) - Domestic

1. Gone with the Wind - $1.6 Billion
2. Star Wars (a.k.a A New Hope) - $1.4 Billion
3. The Sound of Music - $1.13 Billion
4. E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial - $1.12 Billion
5. Titanic - $1.07 Billion
6. The Ten Commandments - $1.04 Billion
7. Jaws - $1.01 Billion
8. Doctor Zhivago - $983 Million
9. The Exorcist - $875 Million
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $863 Million
11. 101 Dalmatians - $791 Million
12. The Empire Strikes Back - $777 Million
13. Ben-Hur - $776 Million
14. Avatar - $770 Million
15. Return of the Jedi - $744 Million
16. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace - $715 Million
17. The Sting - $706 Million
18. The Lion King - $705 Million
19. Raiders of the Lost Ark $698 Million
20. Jurassic Park - $682 Million

Top 20 Box Office (Adjusted for Inflation) - Worldwide

1. Avatar - $2.78 Billion
2. Titanic - $2.19 Billion
3. Marvel's The Avengers - $1.44 Billion
4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - $1.33 Billion
5. Transformers: Dark of the Moon - $1.12 Billion
6. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - $1.12 Billion
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - $1.07 Billion
8. Toy Story 3 - $1.06 Billion
9. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - $1.04 Billion
10. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace - $1.03 Billion
11. Alice in Wonderland (2010) - $1.02 Billion
12. The Dark Knight - $1.00 Billion
13. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - $974 Million
14. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $963 Million
15. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - $956 Million
16. The Lion King - $951 Million
17. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $940 Million
18. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - $934 Million
19. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - $926 Million
20. Shrek 2 - $919

So, who sees "crappy" movies? Me. It looks like I have international tastes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:04:03 AM PDT
JB: I suppose that I ought to have noted that my own use of the term conservative reflects what might be called Goldwater conservatism--which is certainly antiauthoritarian, liberal in the classical sense, and free-market--which is the sense I was using. Hayek is, after all, the intellectual ancestor of the Chicago economic school. And, to ascribe any tolerance of socialism to Hayek would be an error.

Socialism fails in two complementary ways. As the basis for government, it inevitably strangles individual liberty. As the basis for economics and social policy, it inevitably strangles growth and creativity. One cannot separate the two.

Shaw (a particular favorite author of mine) mounted one of the most stirring defenses of capitalism in literature in the last act of Major Barbara. And, as a Fabian socialist, he preached socialism with the firm and comfortable understanding that it would never come in his lifetime.

And in re Mao, Bernie Sanders, Joe Stalin--differences in degree, not in kind.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:06:34 AM PDT
JB: Extremists on both sides of the fence are not praiseworthy.

Tje OED lists Michael Moore in its citation for cynical assclown. Also hypocritical pseudo-prole. Also witless totalitarian dupe (with links of Castro and Chavez.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:10:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 8:11:12 AM PDT
Re box office and crappy: Well, for starters, I would put into the extreme crap pile: ET, Titanic, Jaws, Avatar, and The Lion King. And in the first-rate film category: oops, none of them. And that's domestic. The extreme crap pile gets considerably larger for the international list.

We all watch crappy movies--but at least some of us understand that they are crap, and don't go a second time.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:14:43 AM PDT
stevign says:
re: "I am in the wrong forum?"

Nope, we're putting together a dramedy for NBC. It's sure to drive 'em nuts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 9:29:25 AM PDT
Mike Gordan says:
WAS: box office and crappy: Respectfully disagree with two of them. Kinda surprised you didn't include any of the Star Wars movies or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or heck, The Ten Commandments, which I know you love to death, in the box office and first-rate category.

And for the list as it currently stands and based entirely on the numbers given, I see, heading down the list, The Avengers, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Dark Knight, most of the Harry Potters (though I personally never got into that series myself), and to a lesser extent, Phantom Menace (which I know is your least favorite of the 6 episodes, but you still enjoy it).

Actually, in order for us to answer the question, ''Who are the people paying to see Alice in Wonderland or Avatar?'', we will have to break it down some, both within the history of film and the history of the modern individual. Where does the bad movies and television start? With entertainment tailored for young children of course. And I'm not just talking about Walt Disney, or Pixar, or Nickolodean or other stuff like that. I'm also talking about PBS Kids, Cartoon Network, 4Kids (which, personally, is really just a silly joke that significantly underestimates kids and is barely worth hating), and whatever other networks kids tend to tune into. Because the origin of the marketability of crappy films start with the young ones as the main demographics.

Also, take into account some of the social, economic, and political influences such films ever get made. Especially since animation is clearly a big issue here; I personally find the medium too tailored towards children, too violent and vulgar just to force that it's an adult film, or is just too preachy and/or sentimental in general. But also take into account live-action films made with children in mind.

After that, we go from there.

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 10:00:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 10:02:30 AM PDT
Gordo: Those all first into the category of good films. Great films--one notch up to Beauty And The Beast, The Women, The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, Vertigo, and so forth. I've also noted that, because a film is for children, that is not an excuse for poor quality. The Potter films are well-made (although not a substitute for the books) and would fall in class 1, below.

Why do these films make these numbers? Several reasons, I think:

1. In some cases, they are good, solidly entertaining films with the added thrill of eye candy embellishments. Or good, but lightweight films--The Sting comes to mind here.

2. In some cases, they are sentimental twaddle--Titanic (and to a lesser extent Gone With The Wind, a film I do not greatly admire, but which does have some solid virtues) that cater to the emotionally overwrought. Much as I admire most of David Lean's work--I would put Zhivago in that category. How telling that its gross is greater than that of Lawrence, a far better film in every way.

3. In some cases, they are cheats--the Burton Alice in Wonderland, for instance, and The Dark Knight, that promise much, deliver little, and as wrapped in a kind of pseudo-profundity. (I would, for the record, classify Alice as crap and a blot on Burton's career, and I would classify The Dark Knight as a deeply flawed film.

4. And finally, in some cases, they are mindless spectacle for mindless viewers--Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean. I've already said that there's nothing wrong with thrill-ride films--but some offer no well-designed thrills, and are, ultimately, repetitive bores.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 4:16:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 4:17:29 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
William Smith,

If you think Chavez is "totalitarian" your argument against Michael Moore's "links to" being a "witless totalitarian dupe" fails immediately.

And what on earth are these "links" you're referring to (Moore>Castro>Chavez)?
That's as sensible as the Sanders>Mao>Stalin connection.
Or the Bernard Shaw = Benito Mussolini & Hitler fan absurdity.

It's fundamentally anti-intellectual to make sweeping claims like these.
P. S. - check your bed, I'm worried there might be some Reds under there.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 7:34:36 PM PDT
Oh, that's okay, then. Give yerself Executive Producer credit if you like.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 9:02:05 PM PDT
stevign says:
Thanks Sardy, I could use the money.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 7:43:11 AM PDT
JB: Come now. You don't recall Moore's fulsome praise of Cuba's medical system? And you don't know the Castro / Chavez axis? and you believe that totalitarians can't be elected?

Actually, witless totalitarian dupe is one of the kinder things I can say about Moore.

And that, dear children, is why we should avoid political discussions on the film board.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 7:45:14 AM PDT
It's funny. Americans who fought against Franco (a fascist) during the Spanish Civil War were labeled "premature anti-fascist," i.e. they were against fascism before they were supposed to be.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 7:58:36 AM PDT
And, of course, they were fighting for Communists.

Ah, the vagaries of ideology.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 12:56:26 AM PDT
Q says:
Sloany: Live From Mars says:
Are you thinking of The Experiment (Das Experiment), of course, re-made as The Experiment."

-Yeah! Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:21:21 AM PDT
C. J. Vasta says:
In the second list, don't you think it's odd that there are no films before the 1990s. Is it possible that International returns were not compiled before then? Perhaps the Cold War would have interfered with tracking receipts in some countries.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 5:45:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 8:07:39 AM PDT
W.T. Keeton says:
Note that Hayek wrote "Why I am not a conervative" in 1960. It was not until the Reagan Revolution in 1980 that American conservatives finally completely moved from the post-WW2 "Rockefeller Republican" mindset that Hayek criticized and embraced (at least economically) the a return to classical liberalism. That's why Reagan was so hated by the party establishment (Anybody else remember the East Coast Republicans chanting "Ronald Reagan? Ov vey!" during the Republican National Convention?) Heck, 1960 even predates the Goldwater presidential campaign. By the date alone, it's clear that Hayek was criticizing Eisenhower.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 6:00:13 AM PDT
Perhaps American action movies suddenly became popular in India starting in the '90's, or something like that. Lots of ticket sales.

Posted on Jul 2, 2012 7:58:32 AM PDT
WK: We should note that many political terms, in particular conservative and liberal, have so many possible shades of meaning that they need to be read in context and qualified.
[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

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


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