If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(DHD)   "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" still #1 movie in USA. "Again, if Americans want Hollywood to make better quality movies, then they should stop showing up for crappy ones"   (deadlinehollywooddaily.com) divider line 133
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1490 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Jan 2009 at 6:14 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-25 08:31:18 PM  
Up yours, Snob Boy. On a cold Chicago night, there's nothing like going to a warm jumbo-screen theater with my friends, drowning myself in buttered popcorn and Mt. Dew, and laughing my ass off at a hilarious slapstick comedy like "Mall Cop." Which is just what I did last night. I won't apologize to a self-important psuedo-intellectual like you for enjoying myself.
 
2009-01-25 08:37:10 PM  
therhinodep: hilarious

Maybe the trailers misrepresent the film, but it hardly looks "hilarious". It looks like a moderately funny event, which is a huge step up from the rampantly unfunny things that come out of Hollywood.

And no, I'm no snob. I liked BASEketball.
 
2009-01-25 08:42:19 PM  
therhinodep: Up yours, Snob Boy. On a cold Chicago night, there's nothing like going to a warm jumbo-screen theater with my friends, drowning myself in buttered popcorn and Mt. Dew, and laughing my ass off at a hilarious slapstick comedy like "Mall Cop." Which is just what I did last night. I won't apologize to a self-important psuedo-intellectual like you for enjoying myself.

Nikki Finke is a broad.

If it wasn't for the WGA strike last year no one outside of LA would ever have heard of her.

She's actually a great source for insidery shiat going on behind the scenes in the film industry. Film reviews, not so much.
 
2009-01-25 08:45:03 PM  
CornFedIowan: No matter how much I hate some of the crap that's been put out there and makes big bucks, there are also very good movies that do the same. For the past decade or so, though, Hollywood seems keen on rewarding the movies that DON'T make much at the box office. LOTR:ROTK is one of the very few exceptions.

Wrong, wrong wrong.

I hate when people say this.

Every best picture in the past 10 years has earned worldwide at least 100 million (except Crash at 98 m) most have earned over 200 million, and HALF of them have made over 300 million, and a couple of them over HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. If you go back one more year, you have Titanic which is the largest box office in history.

People act like the Academy awards nothing but art films--when they almost ALWAYS go for the crowd-pleasers.
 
2009-01-25 08:50:02 PM  
SpyVsSpy: If you go back one more year, you have Titanic which is the largest box office in history.

And Titanic stunk on ice. Awful, awful movie.
 
2009-01-25 08:50:11 PM  
OH PUNKY!
 
2009-01-25 09:09:53 PM  
Part 1 (new window)

NSFW Language
 
2009-01-25 09:15:09 PM  
Paul Blart hardy looks like the worst movie to take number one at the box office (anyone remember Kangaroo Jack?). Not the type of movie I'd go out o my way to see, but if I ever happen to catch it on HBO, I'll probably give it a look.

/Saw Slumdog Millionaire this weekend, left very impressed
 
2009-01-25 09:17:24 PM  
CornFedIowan: For the past decade or so, though, Hollywood seems keen on rewarding the movies that DON'T make much at the box office.

I don't think you're 100% clear on how movies are rewarded, and who rewards them. Hint: money and moviegoers.
 
2009-01-25 09:20:59 PM  
SpyVsSpy: People act like the Academy awards nothing but art films--when they almost ALWAYS go for the crowd-pleasers.

"Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" are crowd-pleasers?
 
2009-01-25 09:33:02 PM  
I say this as a filmmaker who hates cheap crappy movies like Mall Cop:

Most of America is not that creatively or artistically complex, and most of them go to the movies entirely for the escape. It has nothing to do with quality. Most of them can't tell the difference between schlocky crap like Meet the Spartans and the comedy brilliance of guys like Judd Upatow and the Farrelly brothers.

I mean, my god -- You Don't Mess With the Zohan made $100M dollars!
 
2009-01-25 09:40:54 PM  
shower_in_my_socks: I say this as a filmmaker who hates cheap crappy movies like Mall Cop:

Most of America is not that creatively or artistically complex, and most of them go to the movies entirely for the escape. It has nothing to do with quality. Most of them can't tell the difference between schlocky crap like Meet the Spartans and the comedy brilliance of guys like Judd Upatow and the Farrelly brothers.

I mean, my god -- You Don't Mess With the Zohan made $100M dollars!


Dude, I just totally can't believe these movie-going cockroaches don't "get" your totally deep film exploring your personal psyche in a dream sequence shot in black and white. I bet they didn't get that scene which was totally influenced by Jean Delannoy. I mean, ugh, what the hell is wrong with them. How dare those -- those proles want to be entertained!

/Get over yourself
//Nobody wants to see your shiatty art "film"
 
2009-01-25 09:41:09 PM  
They had "Paul Blart" pacing the field for the Toyota All-Star Challenge at Irwindale on a Segway last night. I was shouting "SOMEONE LOSE YOUR BRAKES!!!" at the TV. Alas.

Unfortunately, the best paying market in North America is the lowest common denominator. A lot of people go to movies that are cast for around Grade Four or Five mentalities. The stupidity burns... but people go to them because it's easy to get and laugh at in a lot of cases. My family does that; I was subjected to a couple of horrid "comedies" over Christmas that made me want to claw my eyes out and throw them at my brothers, but they found them hilarious - and the more F-bombs, the more amusing.
Not much that can be done about it until people start to recognize that they're watching garbage, and that won't happen very soon.
 
2009-01-25 09:41:52 PM  
CornFedIowan: SpyVsSpy: People act like the Academy awards nothing but art films--when they almost ALWAYS go for the crowd-pleasers.

"Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" are crowd-pleasers?


They're both really good movies that people who seem them enjoy. Of course it is self selective because people who choose to see them have attention spans longer than that of a gnat.
 
2009-01-25 09:45:44 PM  
SpyVsSpy: People act like the Academy awards nothing but art films--when they almost ALWAYS go for the crowd-pleasers.

"Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" are crowd-pleasers?


You said "Rings" was an 'exception' of the last ten years when EVERY single Best Picture winner was a HUGE moneymaking crowd-pleaser.

If "Milk" or "Frost/Nixon" beats, say, audience-pleasing "Benjamin Button", which, by the way, the academy has already "rewarded" with 13 award nods, AND which has already earned more than 100 MILLION DOLLARS... that would be the first 'exception" in at least 11 years.

And both "Milk" or "Frost/Nixon" are still in early limited release, so their final totals aren't even in yet.
 
2009-01-25 09:47:04 PM  
Sorry but Im not taking the bait. Ill hold out for the good quality movies like "Slumdog" and "Gran Torino".
 
2009-01-25 09:47:15 PM  
Five Tails of Fury: They had "Paul Blart" pacing the field for the Toyota All-Star Challenge at Irwindale on a Segway last night. I was shouting "SOMEONE LOSE YOUR BRAKES!!!" at the TV. Alas.

Unfortunately, the best paying market in North America is the lowest common denominator. A lot of people go to movies that are cast for around Grade Four or Five mentalities. The stupidity burns... but people go to them because it's easy to get and laugh at in a lot of cases. My family does that; I was subjected to a couple of horrid "comedies" over Christmas that made me want to claw my eyes out and throw them at my brothers, but they found them hilarious - and the more F-bombs, the more amusing.
Not much that can be done about it until people start to recognize that they're watching garbage, and that won't happen very soon.


... You were watching NASCAR. NASCAR.

I don't think I have to say anything further about the stupidity of your post following that tidbit of information.
 
2009-01-25 09:55:49 PM  
shower_in_my_socks: I say this as a filmmaker who hates cheap crappy movies like Mall Cop:

Most of America is not that creatively or artistically complex, and most of them go to the movies entirely for the escape.


Yep. If they wanted reality, they could watch CNN. Or MSNBC. Or Fox News. OK...maybe not Fox News.

It has nothing to do with quality. Most of them can't tell the difference between schlocky crap like Meet the Spartans and the comedy brilliance of guys like Judd Upatow and the Farrelly brothers.

OK...I think I've just been trolled. But I press on...

I mean, my god -- You Don't Mess With the Zohan made $100M dollars!

True. But that's not the point.

People go to movies to be entertained. Even Gran Torino, as good a movie as it is, got a lot of its initial buzz from the commercials featuring the steely-eyed gaze of Eastwood as he growls to the punks, "Get off my lawn".

They want to see Clint kick ass. They want to see Daniel Craig whip ass on the Nazis in Defiance. They want to see the kid win in Slumdog Millionaire.

Now whether they're happy with what they actually get depends on how good the cast and director are. But it's not a crime to just want to be entertained.
 
2009-01-25 09:57:18 PM  
deltabourne: You were watching NASCAR. NASCAR! NASCAR! On SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

FTFY
 
2009-01-25 09:58:30 PM  
Tissot: Trik: I would like to take this opportunity to say how much I miss John Belushi and John Candy.
All the other *fat actors /slash/ comedians* since them (with the exception of Will Sasso and he got thin and kept it I think) farking suck.
That goes double for Chris Farley who just riffed on other big guys sthick.
And sweated a LOT. Buckets in fact

Dude - you're wrong. I wouldnt see that movie, but ...Kevin James is 100 times more talented than Belushi ever could be, and I would say he is on-par with John Candy. It is just different times these days - they just dont make those awesome 80's comedies anymore (Uncle Buck, Harry Crumb, Summer Rental, Great Outdoors, to name a few), so people like Kevin James are showcased in this type of crap.

They have different careers - he made it big on TV in a top 10 of all time sitcom. John Candy made it big making those movies that were fantastic, and that I grew up with. But that doesnt take away that Kevin James is funny.


Kevin James is more talented than JOHN BELUSHI?! You best be farking trolling . . .

If you meant Jim Belushi, you are forgiven.
 
2009-01-25 10:00:25 PM  
deltabourne: shower_in_my_socks: I say this as a filmmaker who hates cheap crappy movies like Mall Cop:

Most of America is not that creatively or artistically complex, and most of them go to the movies entirely for the escape. It has nothing to do with quality. Most of them can't tell the difference between schlocky crap like Meet the Spartans and the comedy brilliance of guys like Judd Upatow and the Farrelly brothers.

I mean, my god -- You Don't Mess With the Zohan made $100M dollars!

Dude, I just totally can't believe these movie-going cockroaches don't "get" your totally deep film exploring your personal psyche in a dream sequence shot in black and white. I bet they didn't get that scene which was totally influenced by Jean Delannoy. I mean, ugh, what the hell is wrong with them. How dare those -- those proles want to be entertained!

/Get over yourself
//Nobody wants to see your shiatty art "film"



Nice troll. I'm not talking about "art films." You can make films that are both brilliantly done AND popular with everyone. The Indiana Jones movies (not the last one), the first three Star Wars movies, most of the stuff Spielberg has done, The Dark Knight - last year's #1 box office move - was farking BRILLIANT, Iron Man was fun, Wall-E was great. But for every one of those, you have something like an Adam Sandler movie, where every single person involved -- the writers, the director, Adam Sandler -- totally phoned it in as soon as their paychecks cleared.

You don't have to be a movie snob to understand this, but judging by your insecure overreaction, it's apparently over your head.
 
2009-01-25 10:01:09 PM  
Riche: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a slapstick comedy with a hero who is a nice guy. I thought that wasn't allowed anymore. He's a single dad, bringing up his daughter with the help of his mom. He takes his job seriously. He may be chubby but he's brave and optimistic. And he's in a PG-rated film with no nudity except for a bra strap, and no jokes at all about bodily functions.

Seriously: What the hell is wrong with nudity? People in this country act like they don't see themselves naked every day.
 
2009-01-25 10:01:11 PM  
angrygrizzly: Yep. If they wanted reality, they could watch CNN. Or MSNBC. Or Fox News. OK...maybe not Fox News.

Actually, I think the problem is that news organizations realize that, so they are now trying more for entertainment than news. That's why NPR and PBS have the only news shows worth watching (with the possible exception of the Rachel Maddow Show when she is actually willing to be confrontational).
 
2009-01-25 10:08:11 PM  
RemyDuron: Actually, I think the problem is that news organizations realize that, so they are now trying more for entertainment than news.

I was at my parents earlier today and CNN had a news story on today about auditions for the Florida Marlins "Manatees," a dance team made up of fat guys.

I told them "They cancelled their science division, and fired Miles O'Brien for this?"

\It's not news
\\It's CNN
 
2009-01-25 10:11:04 PM  
I look at American Pie as the turning point in American comedy.

"ZOMG diarrhea! ZOMG sperm in a beer cup! ZOMG flute in the vagina at band camp!"

Once Hollywood realized that all you had to do was cuss, embarrass the characters (raunchily), and make sexual references, you have an instant multi-millionaire comedy, it all went downhill.
 
2009-01-25 10:12:12 PM  
SpyVsSpy: You said "Rings" was an 'exception' of the last ten years when EVERY single Best Picture winner was a HUGE moneymaking crowd-pleaser.

I'm sorry, maybe I wrote around myself there. What I meant to say is that the blockbusters are NOT being nominated for Best Picture.

Now, as a mitigating circumstance, once you get rid of the trilogy/series movies (Pirates, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Shrek) there aren't many left in the top tier. However, looking at domestic grosses from Box Office Mojo:
-No BP nominee has been in the top 14 since 2003.
-Excluding the LOTR trilogy, of top-20 domestic grosses 2001 and later only "Chicago" (#10), "Seabiscuit" (#17), "The Departed" (#15), and "Juno" (#15) have been BP nominees - and, admittedly, three of those won. That's four out of 35 spots in 2001-07.
-2000 was the last year to have four BP nominees in the top 15: "Gladiator," "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon," "Erin Brockovich," and "Traffic."
-In 2006, "The Departed" was 15th and the next BP nominee, "Little Miss Sunshine", made less than $60M domestically.

And this is without getting into the nomination-as-political-statement argument and the banishment of Pixar to the kids' table.
 
2009-01-25 10:12:38 PM  
RemyDuron: Tissot: Trik: I would like to take this opportunity to say how much I miss John Belushi and John Candy.
All the other *fat actors /slash/ comedians* since them (with the exception of Will Sasso and he got thin and kept it I think) farking suck.
That goes double for Chris Farley who just riffed on other big guys sthick.
And sweated a LOT. Buckets in fact

Dude - you're wrong. I wouldnt see that movie, but ...Kevin James is 100 times more talented than Belushi ever could be, and I would say he is on-par with John Candy. It is just different times these days - they just dont make those awesome 80's comedies anymore (Uncle Buck, Harry Crumb, Summer Rental, Great Outdoors, to name a few), so people like Kevin James are showcased in this type of crap.

They have different careers - he made it big on TV in a top 10 of all time sitcom. John Candy made it big making those movies that were fantastic, and that I grew up with. But that doesnt take away that Kevin James is funny.

Kevin James is more talented than JOHN BELUSHI?! You best be farking trolling . . .

If you meant Jim Belushi, you are forgiven.


John Belushi was really good at only one thing - getting farked up. And I admire him for that. But name one movie of note that John Belushi did - please don't say Animal House or Blues Bros.
 
2009-01-25 10:13:59 PM  
I'm watching the arthouse flick DAREDEVIL: DIRECTOR'S CUT right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

What's up now?
 
2009-01-25 10:22:04 PM  
Smitty,

Go fap to Ran and Clockwork Orange for the 98th time.
 
2009-01-25 10:25:22 PM  
CornFedIowan: SpyVsSpy: People act like the Academy awards nothing but art films--when they almost ALWAYS go for the crowd-pleasers.

"Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" are crowd-pleasers?


Frost/Nixon is Rocky but with talking instead of punching.
 
2009-01-25 10:27:01 PM  
Fact Man: I look at American Pie as the turning point in American comedy.

"ZOMG diarrhea! ZOMG sperm in a beer cup! ZOMG flute in the vagina at band camp!"

Once Hollywood realized that all you had to do was cuss, embarrass the characters (raunchily), and make sexual references, you have an instant multi-millionaire comedy, it all went downhill.


What are you, fifteen? American cinema was first undermined by American Pie? You think Porky's was high art, maybe?

It's always been this way, the main difference now is that the studios are far less forgiving when it comes to opening weekend receipts than they used to be. A film isn't allowed to slowly gather an audience, if it doesn't hit a certain dollar mark on that first weekend they turn their backs on it and cut off its promotional budget, but if Saw V pulls in $20m it gets an extra push. That's how all these lousy lowest-common-denominator films keep rising to the top of the earnings list.

img292.imageshack.us
 
2009-01-25 10:34:02 PM  
CornFedIowan: I'm sorry, maybe I wrote around myself there. What I meant to say is that the blockbusters are NOT being nominated for Best Picture.

Only five pictures can be BP nominees in any given year. Blockbusters are ALWAYS represented. And they almost without exception ALWAYS win.

And while "Little Miss Sunshine" made "only" 60 million in the US...it made over a HUNDRED MILLION worldwide.

By their very nature, blockbusters tend toward the safe and common-denominator. They are usually predictable and unadventurous. Why SHOULD they be nominated any more than a supposed "art film"--which by its very nature is probably more daring and creative than the latest Pixar film about cars that talk with celebrity voices instead of toys that talk with celebrity voices.

If money earned is the criterion for what makes best picture, that's what the People's Choice or MTV Movie awards are for.
 
2009-01-25 10:58:21 PM  
By their very nature, blockbusters tend toward the safe and common-denominator. They are usually predictable and unadventurous. Why SHOULD they be nominated any more than a supposed "art film"--which by its very nature is probably more daring and creative than the latest Pixar film about cars that talk with celebrity voices instead of toys that talk with celebrity voices.

If money earned is the criterion for what makes best picture, that's what the People's Choice or MTV Movie awards are for.


I don't think anyone expected a BP nomination for Cars and probably not for Toy Story, either. But WALL-E wasn't just a kids movie about sentient robots. Most people agree that it's also one of the best sci-fi and romance films in the last 50 years. Paul Blart may lead the box office but it still only has a 5.5 rating on IMDB. WALL-E has an 8.6. You can't seriously think that Benjamin Button and The Reader are more deserving of a nomination than TDK and WALL-E, which were praised by both critics and moviegoers.
 
2009-01-25 10:59:33 PM  
The Icelander: Riche: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a slapstick comedy with a hero who is a nice guy. I thought that wasn't allowed anymore. He's a single dad, bringing up his daughter with the help of his mom. He takes his job seriously. He may be chubby but he's brave and optimistic. And he's in a PG-rated film with no nudity except for a bra strap, and no jokes at all about bodily functions.

Seriously: What the hell is wrong with nudity? People in this country act like they don't see themselves naked every day.


There's nothing wrong with it, but it might be out of place given the film's rating. If you want nudity, see an R-rated film, or an NC-17 rated film, or just watch porn.
 
2009-01-25 11:00:46 PM  
The Icelander: People in this country act like they don't see themselves naked every day.

Growing up, I knew this kid who showered in swim trunks. I shiat you not.
 
2009-01-25 11:08:39 PM  
Dr. Rosenrosen: Paul Blart: Mall Cop was better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Blashemous!

/Where's the pic of that guy pointing when I need it?
 
2009-01-25 11:15:45 PM  
TribeFan695 2009-01-25 10:58:21 PM
By their very nature, blockbusters tend toward the safe and common-denominator. They are usually predictable and unadventurous. Why SHOULD they be nominated any more than a supposed "art film"--which by its very nature is probably more daring and creative than the latest Pixar film about cars that talk with celebrity voices instead of toys that talk with celebrity voices.

If money earned is the criterion for what makes best picture, that's what the People's Choice or MTV Movie awards are for.

I don't think anyone expected a BP nomination for Cars and probably not for Toy Story, either. But WALL-E wasn't just a kids movie about sentient robots. Most people agree that it's also one of the best sci-fi and romance films in the last 50 years. Paul Blart may lead the box office but it still only has a 5.5 rating on IMDB. WALL-E has an 8.6. You can't seriously think that Benjamin Button and The Reader are more deserving of a nomination than TDK and WALL-E, which were praised by both critics and moviegoers.




As I said, there's only 5 spots for BP--they can't all get nominated.

And I'm not sticking up for all of the Oscars' choices, just responding to the claim that somehow blockbusters are being ignored--they are not. Far from it--they always win. Maybe not your blockbuster of choice, but a blockbuster nonetheless.

As far as quality, or things that have been praised in the film world that got overlooked, the list is loooong of people/films that didn't get an Oscar. Hitchcock is the famous one...Kubrick, etc. That's a whole 'nother argument.

And a lot of people who deride say "Benjamin Button" and "The Reader" haven't even seen them. How do they know they aren't great pictures?

As far as TDK, it wasn't ignored--it got 8 nominations. And it'll probably win at least one for Heath's performance. Hardly ignored. As far as BP, well, there's only 5 spots. And there's been more than a little backlash that the movie wasn't that good. I saw it, and I agree, it's clunky and overrated. But arguments aside, it was hardly overlooked.
 
2009-01-25 11:16:51 PM  
Riche: Meh.

In fairness, Mall Cop isn't the typical gawd-awful stupid gross-out "comedy" like Disaster Movie.

While it isn't high art, Roger Ebert kinda liked it:



"Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is a slapstick comedy with a hero who is a nice guy. I thought that wasn't allowed anymore. He's a single dad, bringing up his daughter with the help of his mom. He takes his job seriously. He may be chubby but he's brave and optimistic. And he's in a PG-rated film with no nudity except for a bra strap, and no jokes at all about bodily functions.

What's even more amazing, "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" isn't "wholesome" as a code word for "boring." It's as slam-bang preposterous as any R-rated comedy you can name. It's just that Paul Blart and the film's other characters don't feel the need to use the f-word as the building block of every sentence. They rely on the rest of the English language, which proves adequate."



I often disagree with Ebert, but not always. I'll probably watch the movie when it rolls around to the cheap theaters.


RemyDuron: From what Ebert says, it doesn't sound like the most awful dumb comedy ever. It's not Disaster Movie or anything.

Ebert kinda likes everything these days, as a result of being in the "savor every blade of grass" stage of cancer.

See - 3.5 stars for Notorious.
 
2009-01-25 11:20:18 PM  
SpyVsSpy: TribeFan695 2009-01-25 10:58:21 PM
By their very nature, blockbusters tend toward the safe and common-denominator. They are usually predictable and unadventurous. Why SHOULD they be nominated any more than a supposed "art film"--which by its very nature is probably more daring and creative than the latest Pixar film about cars that talk with celebrity voices instead of toys that talk with celebrity voices.

If money earned is the criterion for what makes best picture, that's what the People's Choice or MTV Movie awards are for.

I don't think anyone expected a BP nomination for Cars and probably not for Toy Story, either. But WALL-E wasn't just a kids movie about sentient robots. Most people agree that it's also one of the best sci-fi and romance films in the last 50 years. Paul Blart may lead the box office but it still only has a 5.5 rating on IMDB. WALL-E has an 8.6. You can't seriously think that Benjamin Button and The Reader are more deserving of a nomination than TDK and WALL-E, which were praised by both critics and moviegoers.



As I said, there's only 5 spots for BP--they can't all get nominated.

And I'm not sticking up for all of the Oscars' choices, just responding to the claim that somehow blockbusters are being ignored--they are not. Far from it--they always win. Maybe not your blockbuster of choice, but a blockbuster nonetheless.

As far as quality, or things that have been praised in the film world that got overlooked, the list is loooong of people/films that didn't get an Oscar. Hitchcock is the famous one...Kubrick, etc. That's a whole 'nother argument.

And a lot of people who deride say "Benjamin Button" and "The Reader" haven't even seen them. How do they know they aren't great pictures?

As far as TDK, it wasn't ignored--it got 8 nominations. And it'll probably win at least one for Heath's performance. Hardly ignored. As far as BP, well, there's only 5 spots. And there's been more than a little backlash that the movie wasn't that good. I saw it, and I agree, it's clunky and overrated. But arguments aside, it was hardly overlooked.


Beyond your being wrong vis-a-vis TDK being "clunky and overrated," you're being disingenuous using the term "blockbuster" like that. It's clear that's not what the Farker meant.

Also, there being a backlash, especially in this age, isn't "proof" of anything. See the 8,500,000 examples across the Internet of people somehow thinking they're the first one to comment negatively about TDK for more about hipster douchebags.
 
2009-01-25 11:24:22 PM  
SpyVsSpy: As far as BP, well, there's only 5 spots. And there's been more than a little backlash that the movie wasn't that good. I saw it, and I agree, it's clunky and overrated. But arguments aside, it was hardly overlooked.

Funny, that is exactly what i thought of Benjamin Button too.
 
2009-01-25 11:25:34 PM  
If there's nothing to watch but a) bad grim movies with overserious actors shot in dark blue and black, or b) bad funny movies about fat guys on Segues keeping malls safe, shoot, I'll see the funny movie anytime.

That said, I seldom go to bad movies of either type. Life's much too short, and money's hard to get.
 
2009-01-25 11:28:56 PM  
And a lot of people who deride say "Benjamin Button" and "The Reader" haven't even seen them. How do they know they aren't great pictures?

My personal opinion of the films means little. I dislike 2001 and Humphrey Bogart but judging from public opinion it's a moot point to complain about the awards they've won. What I do know is that public and critical opinions have been a lot more favorable towards WALL-E and TDK (and I suppose I can't ignore The Wrestler) than towards those two films, despite the vocal backlash.
 
2009-01-25 11:31:06 PM  
TribeFan695: And a lot of people who deride say "Benjamin Button" and "The Reader" haven't even seen them. How do they know they aren't great pictures?

My personal opinion of the films means little. I dislike 2001 and Humphrey Bogart but judging from public opinion it's a moot point to complain about the awards they've won. What I do know is that public and critical opinions have been a lot more favorable towards WALL-E and TDK (and I suppose I can't ignore The Wrestler) than towards those two films, despite the vocal backlash.


I liked The Reader a lot more than most people, but it getting a nomination over The Wrestler (taking out my own feelings on AMPAS ignoring TDK and Wall-E for the big categories, outside of the Ledger nom for TDK) is totally farking ridiculous.
 
2009-01-25 11:31:47 PM  
Beyond your being wrong vis-a-vis TDK being "clunky and overrated," you're being disingenuous using the term "blockbuster" like that. It's clear that's not what the Farker meant.

Also, there being a backlash, especially in this age, isn't "proof" of anything. See the 8,500,000 examples across the Internet of people somehow thinking they're the first one to comment negatively about TDK for more about hipster douchebags.



I didn't say it was "proof" of anything--just that a backlash does exist, not everyone thinks TDK was as great a movie as the hype makes it to be. And I stated that as an aside, while pointing out TDK, no matter what you thought of it, was rewarded amply with Oscar noms--unless you think 8 was unfair.

And I took the word "blockbuster" to mean a movie that made at least 100 million dollars. That's the accepted definition I've heard it to be. And most of the movies I've mentioned have made much much more than that.

If you're talking only about "popcorn comicbook superhero Pixar" movies that made over a million dollars, then that's been awful selective to make a point.

And WALL-E was nominated twice, including Best Animated Feature. Again, not exactly being ignored.
 
2009-01-25 11:32:20 PM  
Again with the Paul Blart hating? Didn't see it and don't intend to, but if this is the biggest travesty at box office this year, then I'd say we'd have had a pretty good year.
 
2009-01-25 11:34:06 PM  
SpyVsSpy:
And I took the word "blockbuster" to mean a movie that made at least 100 million dollars. That's the accepted definition I've heard it to be. And most of the movies I've mentioned have made much much more than that.


100 million was considered a block buster during the 90s and maybe early 2000s. Today they consider 100 million Strong but most refer to blockbuster being over 200. Some won't consider it unless it breaks 250 or 400 world wide.


/the more you know
 
2009-01-25 11:34:51 PM  
I'd like to ramble something, but I have a feeling people will just scroll past my wall of text... so here's a mini-Heavy to grab your attention. *Jingles keys*

s10.photobucket.com

Anyway, I'd like to go back into the past... to Middle School. A certain movie came out which got rave reviews. It made a ton of money, it was cheered by critics, and it won several Oscars. Hey, with all that, it must be good, right?

Maybe it was... but not for me. I hated the movie. All three hours of it.

The movie I'm talking about is "Titanic."

Fast forward two years to another movie. This one got lukewarm reviews, and several of my friends said it was "a shiny snooze."

Maybe it was... but I loved it. Even bought several games based on it.

The movie I'm talking about is "The Matrix."

Now what do these two situations have in common? I listened to other people, and critics, give me their views on a movie.

A lot of people in this thread are saying "Stop going to crappy films and they'll stop making them." ...Okay, that might work. Tell me, since you're psychic and know exactly which films are universally-accepted as crappy so you can avoid them, how many winning lottery tickets have you filled out?

There are a lot of "low quality" films (their returns are less than half of production costs), but seriously, how can you know what movie is good until you see it? You've got the preview... that's really it. And we can polish a preview into a glistening gem, or screw up a good movie preview into a crusty heap.

So you can't really judge how a movie will appeal to you until you see it... and people do that... and then that movie makes money, and then people start bashing it if it did turn out to be low-quality. "Why did people go to see this? It's crud! If you stop going, they'll stop making things like this!" ...Well how are we supposed to know how a movie is until we see it?

Hell, look at "Watchmen." The trailers have me pumped, as well as many of you fellow farkers, but what will you do if you go and it turns out to be crud? Are you immediately going to hop onto fark and rant and rave: "See? This is why we shouldn't keep making comic book movies! Shame on you all for supporting Hollywood!"

And you can't judge a movie based on actors either. We've seen wonderful actors in bad films... and unknown actors in awesome films. You can't judge it by director, by director of photography, by producer, by music score, or whatever.

It's one thing if you don't like a genre of movies, but to bash movies without ever seeing them (which will in turn make money for it), or assume that every movie of its type will be bad, and that you can see the future to know exactly what people should and shouldn't go to see... it's just utter bull.
 
2009-01-25 11:38:15 PM  
SpyVsSpy: Beyond your being wrong vis-a-vis TDK being "clunky and overrated," you're being disingenuous using the term "blockbuster" like that. It's clear that's not what the Farker meant.

Also, there being a backlash, especially in this age, isn't "proof" of anything. See the 8,500,000 examples across the Internet of people somehow thinking they're the first one to comment negatively about TDK for more about hipster douchebags.


I didn't say it was "proof" of anything--just that a backlash does exist, not everyone thinks TDK was as great a movie as the hype makes it to be. And I stated that as an aside, while pointing out TDK, no matter what you thought of it, was rewarded amply with Oscar noms--unless you think 8 was unfair.

And I took the word "blockbuster" to mean a movie that made at least 100 million dollars. That's the accepted definition I've heard it to be. And most of the movies I've mentioned have made much much more than that.

If you're talking only about "popcorn comicbook superhero Pixar" movies that made over a million dollars, then that's been awful selective to make a point.

And WALL-E was nominated twice, including Best Animated Feature. Again, not exactly being ignored.


Again, stop being disingenous to make your points. When people say "blockbuster," they're thinking of Batman movies and the like, not how No Country for Old Men dragged its ass over the $100M mark after a long release and Oscar orgy ensuing.

Considering the argument is about AMPAS ignoring those same "popcorn comicbook superhero Pixar movies" when it comes to the big categories, that's EXACTLY how selective one has to be here.

And again, when people say TDK got ignored, trust me, they mean the big ones, not Best Sound Mixing and other technicals. People aren't saying it got ignored while considering the typical, usual technical nominations such blockbusters are expected to receive.

/you may not have explicitly used the backlash as "proof," but it was sure implied with your use of "and" in the middle of that paragraph, watch your phrasing if you don't mean something that way
 
2009-01-25 11:55:34 PM  
Sigh--
"No Country For Old Men" made 162 million world wide. That's not a blockbuster? Fine.

If you read my original comment and the comment I was responding to, EVEN BY the selective nitpicking of what makes a blockbuster...

Last 11 years, Best Pictures include...

Titanic -- almost 2 BILLION dollars
Gladiator -- half a BILLION dollars
The Rings -- almost 400 million
Chicago -- 300 million
Beautiful Mind -- 300 million
American Beauty -- 350 million

All earned over 300 million dollars. (And most MORE.)

All earned BP (apparently the only award that has any value here)

But it only counts if they're superhero movies?

The original point was blockbusters were somehow being ignored. They are absolutely not. It's crazy to say that. Only by the most ridiculously selective comic book standards can that be said.
 
2009-01-25 11:55:59 PM  
it won't make #1 next week, if the 3756 ads every hour rate for "Taken" has any effect.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report