Posts by quietdriver3

redowl90 said:Exactly! Though I should probably mention, I guess, that this isn't really meant to be a debate about every single blockbuster ever made. It’s more about those specific movies that are basically destined to be massive hits because they just dump an insane amount of cash, advertising, and all that other nonsense into them...

redowl90 said:So, movies like Shrek,

it's kind of a contradiction, if you ask me, redowl90 🙄

slywolf9 said:😂 Is the stock market Scotland or Australia?

We were talking about the Beaver's budget, you know, that money put into the movie. And Braveheart just blew right through it... 😛

I guess I'd agree with redowl90, and in that kind of categorization, BH is a "must be." I mean, too much blood was spilled for the movie not to make some cash 😁

Before you end up having a heart attack from all that laughing, maybe we should clear a few things up

First off, Braveheart is an American film

Second, the definition of a blockbuster doesn't really have anything to do with the production budget. It's more about how much it makes at the domestic box office, which has to pass the $100 million mark (for Braveheart, the earnings were around $80 million in the US market)

🙂 🙂

you haven't got a clue

Braveheart just can't be considered a blockbuster, no matter how you look at it 😁

I mean, it never really crossed that magic $100 million line on the stock market 🙂

Jose Miller17 said:The only thing that can actually compete with how much you don't know is just how consistently you keep talking nonsense....

😁 😁

he he I didn't even catch that Hollywood part

redowl90 said:I get that, but I don't really see why you're into Stanley Kubrick then. I mean, his movies just don't really have that entertainment factor... 🙂

sometimes you just don't have the energy for penetration

but I guess that doesn't mean you'd turn down a smoke 🙂

well, that's just how Kubrick is, his movies are basically a blowjob

nimblemarlin17 said:A filmmaker who approaches a movie strictly as an artist is basically asking for bankruptcy. I mean, everyone knows movies aren't just high art. To me, all that artistic quality doesn't really matter if the film isn't actually fun or engaging enough to keep me from nodding off.

👍

Art without entertainment is like foreplay without the main event.

northerncrane4 said:I just don't really get how those Spielberg vehicles are any different from Emmerich's.

if Spielberg's characters feel like they're reading Psychology for Beginners, then Emmerich's characters are basically just fortune tellers 😉

redowl90 said:"Let's go make a $100 million movie that'll pull in three times that amount."

Well, you know, I guess they basically used those exact words when they started filming Harry Potter😉

And, uh, regarding the topic... I feel like you're missing Jurassic Park, which I think is probably the best example of what you're calling a typical summer blockbuster

Also, I'm not really sure why Titanic was grouped in with that list of movies, honestly😕

northerncrane4 said:It honestly feels like you went out of your way to misunderstand everything I just said. No, a movie doesn't need to be some dramatic masterpiece with perfectly polished characters to actually be good. In my opinion, it’s pretty annoying when a director decides to focus on "deep" character motivations right when they should be running for their lives from rampaging dinosaurs, Nazis, aliens, time glitches, zombie hordes, or genetically modified eggplants, just because they feel the need to prove they're some kind of "artist."

And those subplots you keep seeing in his movies? They aren't much more than little vehicles used to move the main plot from point A to point B. I mean, wouldn't those movies be kind of unwatchable if they were nothing but action scenes and characters who exist just to fill up the background? (I guess a documentary style might work there, but that's getting into experimental territory). Aren't those "deeper motives" just an excuse for the necessary downtime—which happens in all parts of life, including movies like these—where you're really just watching for the fun, the adrenaline, and those unforgettable visuals??

northerncrane4 said:So, is there actually any chemistry between the exes in "Jurassic Park"?

yeah, I was kind of hoping for that when I sat down to watch Jurassic Park

I mean, I was really looking forward to seeing a movie about the dynamics of former spouses, but instead, it’s just jungle, dinosaurs, and genetic engineering

And then you have Indiana Jones III, where he spends so much time obsessing over his relationship with his dad that the title might as well have been Indiana Jones and his Legitimate Father 😛

...

Does every single movie have to be this massive dramatic tour de force with perfectly polished characters to actually be good? 😕

Like, is Evil Death II even a good movie? 😕

northerncrane4 said:From my perspective, the way they handle characterization, the relationship arcs, and how everyone reacts to the situation feels like pure cliché. It’s got zero originality, yet it tries to pass itself off as this deep, profound insight into the human psyche and interpersonal connections.

I totally agree 👍

Like, for instance, when I went to see Jurassic Park, I was kind of expecting a movie where the dinosaurs served as an allegory for the aging psyche—you know, where the whole park is actually just a cleverly packaged Bergmanesque analogy for a nursing home and the heavy stuff people deal with in their later years (like, how to manage incontinence, which brand of hip replacements is actually reliable, or if those high-tech hearing aids are even a real thing?). But instead, what I actually got was just a really well-directed, fun action movie. 👎

... I mean... the genre... what even is that... 😕

northerncrane4 said:Nah. I don't think Steven Spielberg has a single genius film in his entire filmography. But hey, that's just my grumpy opinion, I guess.

He's got three geniuses in there, and one perfect
one.

northerncrane4 said:Give some credit to Harold Ramis, too.

you've got illegitimate kids and premature ejaculation, but good movies? Not really... 😉

northerncrane4 said:Who asked you anyway?

i'm a shit sweeper... consider yourself swept 😁 😁

northerncrane4 said:but you won't find anything "above" that level.

ok... I guess I know you're just messing with me now 🙄

As for those poll results: 👎 👎 👎 👎

I mean, people seem really confused about how Resident Evil could ever pull in over $100 million... I guess it’s pretty obvious, though. It feels like there was just some massive, questionable clearance sale happening somewhere, and from what I can see, everything just flew off the shelves 😛

northerncrane4 said:I mean, how do you not get it? It’s because Steven Spielberg is a genius. And he’s a genius simply because he writes letters to the editor saying so.

And then there are those ghost directors supposedly calling the shots on his "brilliant" movies, right?

and he just happened to stumble onto a few good ones, I guess?

it's just great being part of this crew of brilliant, ultra-cool people like northerncrane4, isn't it? yeah, totally... we know everything, we basically discovered cinema ourselves, we're the gods of celluloid, we all follow this super strict arithmetic-logarithmic approach to filmmaking—heaven forbid anyone frames a shot slightly wrong, because if it's not written in some textbook by Dušan Stojanović or Ante Peterlić, then northerncrane4 and I will immediately jump down their throats and claim we have a massive headache... yeah, for sure, man, that's exactly how it works. 🙄 🙄 🙄

Elizabeth Price2 said:So, which one of these two movies do you guys think is better, and what's the reasoning? Personally, I’d go with Independence Day, mostly just because of the story itself. I guess it feels a bit more realistic to expect—God forbid!—that kind of invasion and how things would play out afterward. And, as weird as it sounds, it feels more likely that we’d beat a computer-based threat rather than some biological virus.

it's probably more realistic to imagine George W. Bush hopping into an F-16 and blasting off toward some giant alien mothership...

hang on! 🤔

well, maybe that actually IS more realistic 👍 👍

anywho

I guess I care more about the vibe than the actual plot, so I'll pick War of the worlds😛

Richard Howard2 said:There isn't any sarcasm here. I'm being serious.

I guess I'll just admit I misjudged the guy 😉

Brian Foster2 said:I have to admit, I don't really get why Elektra gets so much hate from critics and everyone else... personally, I thought the movie was alright. It wasn't exactly a masterpiece or anything, but it definitely wasn't boring, and I found it pretty easy to watch!

Yeah, that’s exactly my point—it's just a decent watch.

Now, Catwoman? That is some genuine, top-tier garbage.

Richard Howard2 said:I’m not sure if you realized this, but Bob Sapp is actually a highly educated intellectual...

my sarcasm detector is giving me some pretty mixed signals here

I guess I'm just not sure how to read into that🙂

Archangel said:Electar (I haven't actually sat down to watch the latest one, but I've been reading reviews that absolutely trashed it)

I don't think Electar is actually bad at all...

I mean, in this movie you've got various random characters, demon ninjas, and these white ninjas just falling out of the sky—and yeah, I kid you not, Mortal Kombat 2 isn't the only movie with an entrance that epic—plus there's that showdown between Bob Sapp and Wood (which is basically the same level of intellectual depth, I guess), and that lesbian kiss between Natassie and Jennifer...

honestly, those two seconds of them kissing kind of makes the whole thing worthwhile 😍

uuuu

man, how many comments are 😁

honestly, the only thing I actually remember from that movie was the lead actress's chest

actually, now that I'm thinking about it more, did anything else even happen on screen?? 😁 😁