Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1491 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Jan 2009 at 6:14 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-01-26 12:09:53 AM  

SpyVsSpy: 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.


Dude, people don't use "blockbuster" like that. They mean the big, bombastic summer releases, you know? I definitely know what you're talking about, but you're just coming at it from the wrong angle.

wwffan7385: it won't make #1 next week, if the 3756 ads every hour rate for "Taken" has any effect.


Good. Liam Neeson as Jack Bauer + 20 Years sounds awesome.
 
2009-01-26 12:13:24 AM  
People don't use the word "blockbuster" for Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings?

Really?
 
2009-01-26 12:22:24 AM  

SpyVsSpy: People don't use the word "blockbuster" for Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings?

Really?


Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey. When people say "the Oscars ignore blockbusters," they're not using it in that way, period.

/Gladiator came out in May and Titanic was intended for a July release, actually, but that's neither here nor there
 
2009-01-26 12:39:48 AM  

wwffan7385: it won't make #1 next week, if the 3756 ads every hour rate for "Taken" has any effect.


Those ads sold me!. Man, oh man.. Liam Neeson in an ass kickin' movie? Sign me up. He can dish the believable pain. The Batsman Begin proved that.

/Would also like to see Defiance..
 
2009-01-26 12:41:00 AM  
That's silly.

Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings are the very definition of blockbuster, by any standards. The very essence of popcorn crowd-pleasing big moneymakers.

And they were all BP winners.

And the other winners weren't exactly arty films unfairly chosen over Pixar's latest.
 
2009-01-26 12:42:07 AM  
According to Rotten Tomatoes, only 3 of the current top 10 films are any good. Can't it at least partly be that when there is almost nothing better out, the crappy films do well by default? The majority of crappy films you see making it to #1 are there because there is almost nothing better to beat it.

/Oh, and one of the other better-reviewed ones is Benjamin Button, which is down there because it's several weeks old
//Crappy films being the majority is as old as the industry itself.
////"B movies," anyone?
//But yeah, the American people generally have bad taste
//Lives on a small island showing nothing but a second-run copy of "Hotel for Dogs"
//Slash filter!
 
2009-01-26 12:44:02 AM  
www.hairtodreamfor.com

All this Kevin James talk and not one pic of Leah? C'mon now
 
2009-01-26 01:05:56 AM  
Saw Benjamin Button this weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it. Saw the Mall Cop last weekend and there are some nice laughs in that film. So what if it isn't artsy/craftsy enough for some people? It was a funny movie about a nice guy. It isn't as though those kinds of movies are released every week, ffs.
 
2009-01-26 01:29:04 AM  

SpyVsSpy: That's silly.

Titanic, Gladiator, and the Rings are the very definition of blockbuster, by any standards. The very essence of popcorn crowd-pleasing big moneymakers.

And they were all BP winners.

And the other winners weren't exactly arty films unfairly chosen over Pixar's latest.


What's silly is your insistence that 99% of people aren't talking about high-grossing, non-Oscar winners as "blockbusters" when they use the term. And again, Gladiator came out in May. Forrest Gump was released in July. "The Rings," as awful as they all are, weren't. Doesn't change that people aren't thinking about American Beauty's final grosses when they say things like that.
 
2009-01-26 01:34:41 AM  
C'mon, subby, don't you understand that 1) it's a down economy, 2) it's one of the lowest-grossing times of the year for films, and 3) quality is rarely the reason people go to see a movie?
 
2009-01-26 01:39:31 AM  
And again, Gladiator came out in May. Forrest Gump was released in July. "The Rings," as awful as they all are, weren't.

What's the time of release have to do with anything? Certainly not anything I was talking about, with the original comment I was responding to.
 
2009-01-26 01:40:30 AM  
Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised I have to be the first:

www.finlandforthought.net
 
2009-01-26 01:54:20 AM  

SpyVsSpy: And again, Gladiator came out in May. Forrest Gump was released in July. "The Rings," as awful as they all are, weren't.

What's the time of release have to do with anything? Certainly not anything I was talking about, with the original comment I was responding to.


We really have to start at the beginning here? Your tilting at the windmill of "most people don't define 'blockbuster' as summer popcorn shiat" is charming and all, but.
 
2009-01-26 02:08:48 AM  
So you're making up both sides of your own argument then?

You're the one being disingenuous here. You can keep changing the definition of "blockbuster" by placing absurd restrictions on BO or now when it was released(!), but to say "Titanic" and The Rings aren't popcorn blockbusters is silly.

But, that argument aside, answer this--

--if people define a blockbuster as you say as "summer popcorn shiat" why in the world would anyone EXPECT it to win a best picture award?
 
2009-01-26 02:13:12 AM  

crak_rabbit: All this Kevin James talk and not one pic of Leah? C'mon now


don't you mean...

img213.imageshack.us

// hot
 
2009-01-26 02:15:17 AM  

SpyVsSpy: So you're making up both sides of your own argument then?

You're the one being disingenuous here. You can keep changing the definition of "blockbuster" by placing absurd restrictions on BO or now when it was released(!), but to say "Titanic" and The Rings aren't popcorn blockbusters is silly.

But, that argument aside, answer this--

--if people define a blockbuster as you say as "summer popcorn shiat" why in the world would anyone EXPECT it to win a best picture award?


Dude, don't ask me! Have you not understood this entire time that I'm talking about how OTHERS define the term? Jesus, that would explain a lot.
 
2009-01-26 02:23:24 AM  

robsul82: SpyVsSpy: So you're making up both sides of your own argument then?

You're the one being disingenuous here. You can keep changing the definition of "blockbuster" by placing absurd restrictions on BO or now when it was released(!), but to say "Titanic" and The Rings aren't popcorn blockbusters is silly.

But, that argument aside, answer this--

--if people define a blockbuster as you say as "summer popcorn shiat" why in the world would anyone EXPECT it to win a best picture award?

Dude, don't ask me! Have you not understood this entire time that I'm talking about how OTHERS define the term? Jesus, that would explain a lot.


Further, while there's been some megagrossers as BP winners, and indeed most of their grosses are high, the point is that most people don't think of most of them that way. Titanic, yeah. "The Rings," as you keep saying, yeah. American Beauty? No. A Beautiful Mind? No. EVEN THOUGH both of those films also grossed a whole lot of money, I just think most people have a general blank spot over that. THAT, in turn, feeds into the whole "AMPAS only nominates movies nobody's seen" thing that really isn't correct.

Coming from the perspective of a person who definitely would've voted The Dark Knight #1, the problem wasn't the popularity, the problem was the source material. "The Rings" were still based on actual factual books, etc.

In my own arguments in these threads and elsewhere, indeed I held up the success of the LOTR movies as a reason why AMPAS would nominate TDK for Best Picture, that it HAD opened its mind. That if a movie with goblins and walking trees and all the rest of it could be nominated and in the third movie's case win, then so could TDK. But I lost sight of the fact that it's not what's on screen that counts, it's where it came from.
 
2009-01-26 02:28:15 AM  

Hilarious Double Entendre: wwffan7385: it won't make #1 next week, if the 3756 ads every hour rate for "Taken" has any effect.

Those ads sold me!. Man, oh man.. Liam Neeson in an ass kickin' movie? Sign me up. He can dish the believable pain. The Batsman Begin proved that.

/Would also like to see Defiance..


Taken is the shiat.
 
2009-01-26 03:09:04 AM  
"The Rings" were still based on actual factual books, etc.

You mean based on books as opposed to comic books?

(Obviously because the Rings books weren't 'factual books')...

Okay, I see what you're saying--though I don't think TDK not getting a BP nom is because it comes from a comic book--There's plenty of nits to pick in that movie, no matter what the source material. I know it's big on the online community especially, but lots of people were underwhelmed when they saw it, especially post-hype. (Maybe because it was so hyped. Onliners were calling it as good as "Godfather 2" and such. I mean, c'mon...)

But it could have just as easily been nominated--"Titanic" was long and had what many considered flaws, and it won. Which was the original point I was making with the person I was originally talking to... Movies that please audiences and make buckets of money are certainly not being ignored by the Academy. Even in BP--which, again, there's only 5 spots per year for hundreds of annual releases--they can't all be nominated.
 
2009-01-26 03:20:44 AM  

SpyVsSpy: "The Rings" were still based on actual factual books, etc.

You mean based on books as opposed to comic books?

(Obviously because the Rings books weren't 'factual books')...

Okay, I see what you're saying--though I don't think TDK not getting a BP nom is because it comes from a comic book--There's plenty of nits to pick in that movie, no matter what the source material. I know it's big on the online community especially, but lots of people were underwhelmed when they saw it, especially post-hype. (Maybe because it was so hyped. Onliners were calling it as good as "Godfather 2" and such. I mean, c'mon...)

But it could have just as easily been nominated--"Titanic" was long and had what many considered flaws, and it won. Which was the original point I was making with the person I was originally talking to... Movies that please audiences and make buckets of money are certainly not being ignored by the Academy. Even in BP--which, again, there's only 5 spots per year for hundreds of annual releases--they can't all be nominated.


Sure, sure. But I have to disagree on the comic book basis derailing the hopes of TDK. If you could have Ernest Borgnine running around during the '05-'06 Oscar season screaming about how he'd never even watch the Brokeback Mountain screener and "John Wayne would be rolling over in his grave," I'm thinking the online community, et al isn't incorrect in thinking that a big segment of the voters just tossed it out because it was "a comic book movie," which is an insult. I mean, fark, they can't all be nominated, but Frost/Nixon and The Reader (and like I said, I liked 'em both more than most people) could've hit the bricks easily. Small disclaimer - haven't seen Milk yet, so I can't comment on that one way or the other.

/not to mention Slumdog, but apparently that's a losing battle with most people
 
2009-01-26 03:46:21 AM  
You're right, people vote or don't vote for Oscars for good and bad reasons, so I wouldn't be surprised that was a reason for some folks. Agreed.

But to me TBK wasn't this automatic slamdunk of a great film being denied its props--it seems to me that Heath's performance was the only aspect that seemed to truly get almost complete universal respect, and that performance got rewarded. The rest of the movie has had its share of criticism--some even say Iron Man was a much better movie, aside from Heath's Joker. I saw both movies and I'd agree-- though neither movie was BP-worthy in my opinion.

But again, my original point wasn't about comic book movies, it was about big moneymaking audience pleasures of many sources getting more than their share of noms and wins in the BP category. Which they do, every year.

(Take that, Ernest Borgnine!)
 
2009-01-26 04:20:26 AM  

SpyVsSpy: You're right, people vote or don't vote for Oscars for good and bad reasons, so I wouldn't be surprised that was a reason for some folks. Agreed.

But to me TBK wasn't this automatic slamdunk of a great film being denied its props--it seems to me that Heath's performance was the only aspect that seemed to truly get almost complete universal respect, and that performance got rewarded. The rest of the movie has had its share of criticism--some even say Iron Man was a much better movie, aside from Heath's Joker. I saw both movies and I'd agree-- though neither movie was BP-worthy in my opinion.

But again, my original point wasn't about comic book movies, it was about big moneymaking audience pleasures of many sources getting more than their share of noms and wins in the BP category. Which they do, every year.

(Take that, Ernest Borgnine!)


Well, being nominated by the WGA, PGA, and DGA has been a BP-nominated slam dunk for, I believe, every other movie that'shiat that hat trick. The Dark Knight is the only movie ever to do so and miss out on a BP nomination, if I'm not mistaken. Looks like not getting that SAG Best Ensemble nomination was more telling than it appeared - those same Borgnine-like older actors probably kept it off there too.

And yeah, totally disagree on Iron Man being better than The Dark Knight and the rest of it, but you could've assumed that anyway, lol.

/TDK has 94% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, damn near universal respect, and they weren't just reviewing Ledger's performance
 
2009-01-26 04:50:07 AM  
Fair enough, I certainly have to admit that TDK did get a lot of great reviews, and if it had been nominated, I wouldn't have been shocked.

But it's lack of nomination doesn't shock me either--the Oscar history is filled with overlooked classic movies, 2001, Psycho, Hitchcock never won for directing, etc.

So in that way, it's in good company. But at least it got 8 nominations. "Mama Mia" made 600 MILLION dollars world wide, and it got nothing.

Now, that movie was robbed.
 
2009-01-26 06:39:20 AM  
Hollywood will never learn. For every entertaining movie like Paul Blart, they feel the need to roll out a movie like Frost/Nixon that no one cares about.
 
2009-01-26 07:22:05 AM  

dahmers love zombie: "American Movie Critics" are a somewhat more educated, effete group who got made fun of as children, so they feel only their opinion about culture counts.


www.thehollywoodgossip.com

Would question you on the point, if he had passed his GED.
 
2009-01-26 09:16:12 AM  
We wanted to see something funny and light so we went saw it with some friends. We all thought it was pretty funny and worth the time and money to see.

The holes in the story are large enough to drive a semi through and my wife was tired of hearing about them after the movie, but overall it was well worth the watch.

/very curious about 9 and how it will be, looks interesting
//show the trailer to anyone who has seen a Tim Burton movie and they will know instantly that he was involved in it
 
2009-01-26 09:31:54 AM  

johnny_vegas: Hadn't gone to a movie in a long time, but went last night to see Gran Torino...that was good.


It played out too close to an After School Special (pops). There were some great legendary lines in there though. The aged Dirty Harry aspect was actually believable.
 
2009-01-26 10:23:24 AM  

dahmers love zombie:
Generally speaking, sometimes we want to be scared, sometimes happy, sometimes grossed out, sometimes moved, sometimes jazzed, sometimes just distracted. Hollywood generally lays out that smorgasbord for us, with the occasional prime rib at the head of the table, being cut by a master chef. We're hungry, so we'll eat whatever, but we like the good stuff from time to time.

It's OK.


I honestly don't understand this opinion at all. It's like saying, sometimes I want McDonald's, sometimes I want prime rib. Only, in realty the reason most people eat at McDonald's is because it costs next to nothing, whereas prime rib tends to be quite expensive. Movies all cost the same amount to see at the theatre, so why would I waste my time with a McD's flick when prime rib is playing in the next theatre for the same price?

I honestly think that the movie going public is by and large just plain retarded and there is no analogy that can explain that away.
 
2009-01-26 10:47:33 AM  

SilentStrider: i make no apologies for seeing paul blart, it was funny.


This. I enjoyed it, as did my kids.
 
2009-01-26 02:27:03 PM  

geom_00: To quote Jay Sherman from The Critic.

"If the movie stinks, JUST DON'T GO!"


IF the movie stinks... Doh See doh!

img403.imageshack.us
 
2009-01-26 11:20:15 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.


Dude, chill. AP didn't usher in raunchy humor, it was always there. And if you want to pick a movie that started appealing and marketing to the lowest common denominator, it would be Scary Movie.
 
2009-01-27 02:22:02 AM  

dahmers love zombie: "Americans" are largely sheep with marginal intelligence and an "Ow My Balls" mentality about entertainment.


to be fair, the movie had no ball shots, and fart jokes, no diarrhea jokes.

/liked it for what it was. a chance to turn off my brain for a couple of hours and laugh at stupid jokes
//somewhat of a movie snob.
 
kab
2009-01-27 09:23:25 AM  
Folks still associate ticket sales with movie quality? Has the record industry taught you nothing?

There are worthwhile flicks made year after year. The fact that they generally don't smash box office sales should do little to sway one from viewing them at some point.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report