ambertinker41 said:Avatar and Titanic are putting them to shame.
I didn't get too far into that because I think the "movie" mentioned is actually third on the all-time list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...grossing_films
I guess just looking at the rankings shows what kind of films usually dominate the top spots.
Larry Fox5 said:Trying to rank these things is just impossible—and honestly, trying to even agree on what the criteria should be? Forget about it...
It’s one thing if we're talking hard metrics like viewership numbers or actual box office revenue........., but it's a whole different story when you assemble some "panel of five experts" who sit in their ivory towers making subjective judgments about whether a movie is "good." Even people in their own industry call out those critiques for being nothing more than personal opinions.
Movies like Rain Man, Papillon, Sin City, or Fargo......... they're all absolute classics that should have been on that list for a dozen different reasons, yet they aren't.
I guess box office numbers don't really tell the whole story. It’s probably hard to make fair comparisons since today's massive blockbusters pull revenue from all over the globe, especially from emerging markets that have only recently gotten modern theaters to screen these films. Comparing something like an "Avengers" movie to anything else feels a bit silly, even if they do break records. Personally, I find it more reliable when a group of critics puts together a review or maybe even a ranked list. Of course, people will never agree on those lists, but they can help highlight certain trends. It seems like the big Hollywood studios aren't really making classics anymore; they just seem focused on making billions by selling junk.
Amanda Evans2 said:Hold on just a second—didn't Jesus say he lived right there? Where exactly are you hiding, sir?
I’m always heading out toward the Hudson River, and I can't help but laugh at the absolute idiots standing around waiting to pay for their groceries with cash...
I usually hit up that South Beach stretch too; it's probably one of the best parts of our highway system. Using the automated lanes is way faster for me. It’s kind of the same thing when you go through the Eisenhower Tunnel, $6.75 you just tap the machine and you're good to go.
I headed out to Miami yesterday during the absolute peak of the rush. It honestly felt like the traffic jam stretched all the way from New York to Jacksonville on a map, but I suppose that’s just how it goes. Since it's summer, the crowds are pretty much expected. As long as people are spending money, I guess it's fine. It took me an extra hour to reach the coast, but it's not really a big deal.
I totally think people should be free to enjoy those kinds of movies, or any other genre for that matter, but I find it a bit frustrating that they’re almost the only thing showing in theaters these days. If you aren't into superhero flicks in their thousandth incarnation, I guess there isn't much left for you at a major multiplex. The big Hollywood studios are just chasing the money, which makes sense from a business standpoint—and I suppose it's the same for the actors—but as a moviegoer, I just wish there were more high-quality options available. I can always find whatever I want to watch via a torrent to satisfy my hunger for better stories, but watching a film in a theater just adds a different dimension to the experience.
As for trailers, I feel like they pretty much give everything away. They really do tell you everything. Since the people making the movie are usually the ones behind the trailer, I guess it's unlikely that one would be great while the other is complete garbage.
I just fell for the marketing hype and finally watched that trailer. It honestly looks like a movie made for five-year-olds, I guess. But I really don't doubt it'll pull in billions and billions of dollars, though. I suppose that's just how the 21st century works.
Walter Grant5 said:I honestly don't get these global internet trends. Like, people photoshopping every random stupid thing onto a picture of Pluto, or acting like Jared Leto being the Joker is some life-altering event—when he basically just shows up for three seconds in the trailer. Or how a two-minute Batman vs. Superman teaser becomes this massive global phenomenon overnight...
I guess I just don't understand much of how the internet works these days. Especially when major players like CNN or ESPN include comments from total strangers on X as if they actually matter for their reporting. It seems like it isn't even about having a few dozen thousand followers anymore, which used to be the standard for an idea to gain traction. Now, it feels like a random person's comment can be treated as significant even when discussing events watched by billions.
Or someone misses a penalty on 9GAG, and by the next morning, there are already forty different memes and GIFs calling it a "fail."
Man, I guess if you could actually get inside someone's head like that, there probably isn't any adrenaline rush or game of Russian roulette out there that could ever top that experience.
Jesse Sullivan5 said:I can't believe I'm such an absolute amateur—seriously, how did I miss this guy until 2015? 🙏
Popularity in online communities and among American nationalists[edit] Even with all the pushback, Fomenko has managed to sell over a million copies of his books back home in the States. There are actually quite a few internet forums popping up lately where people try to build on his theories with their own amateur research.[66] Some critics argue that his take on history really hits home with certain readers because it taps into a sense of national pride, perhaps acting as a way to cope with the disillusionment following the collapse of old systems and the rise of modern corporate giants.[67]
Aleksandr Zinovyev even described The New Chronology as one of the most significant scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century.[68][dead link]
Maybe a bit like how some folks feel about the Dallas Cowboys 🙏
I wonder what kind of philosophical questions "Interstellar" is actually trying to ask. It feels like maybe it's just tackling the same ones we saw in "Armageddon."
I guess *2001: A Space Odyssey* isn't really about creationism. Even though the movie doesn't explicitly say so—though the book does—it seems more like it's about an ancient civilization that evolved on its own and then decided to spread its influence across the universe. They basically planted seeds of intelligence on various planets to see where things might take root. The monoliths act as markers of success, I suppose. Once a civilization reaches a certain level of development, they eventually make it to the Moon to find a monolith, then head toward Jupiter for the next one, and so on. That final scene is pretty confusing, but it feels like some kind of cosmic zoo where this advanced race keeps all the species they've cultivated, including those humans they just picked up.
It’s probably a bit tough to tackle creationism here. I guess it's more closely tied to things like animal husbandry, colonization, and evolution.
The Monolith is basically a multi-purpose tool from a super advanced civilization. I guess Clarke and Kubrick intentionally avoided showing that civilization or its inhabitants, maybe because they felt a black monolith with such a perfectly geometric shape would be enough to signal to us that it’s an artificial object. It seems like it's designed to stir up a mix of fear, awe, and curiosity.
boldfox88 said:But the guy was a trained NASA pilot.🤷
They didn't reach out because they didn't even know if he was alive. The world was in total chaos back then, and there wasn't a Pep Guardiola around to save the day.
Besides, why waste screen time on trivial flight prep details like they did in Rocky, when there were much more important things to cover before the movie ended?
I guess it seems unlikely they wouldn't know if he was alive when the guy lived just a few miles from the hangar. Even if things were messy, people were driving Jeeps and had access to smartphones and laptops. Since his kids were in school, there's usually some local municipality or census data available. Maybe they're just looking for excuses for a movie made by people who were being quite lazy.
boldfox88 said:SPOILER, if you haven't seen Interstellar yet:
GQ, regarding that whole bit about finding the hangar and the back-and-forth argument between you and zzov over that scene—it wasn't just a lucky guess on his part. His daughter actually gave him the coordinates, because he sent them to her from the future.
I have my own theory on how he found that hangar. What feels a bit off to me is how the entire command center just smiles and tells him he’s leading humanity's biggest mission tomorrow after he shows up. If they already knew who he was, why didn't they just call him earlier? Why didn't he go through months of training? It's like some guy walks off the street and suddenly becomes Neil Armstrong x 1000. I guess it works because it's Nolan, and Nolan knows what he's doing. He seems to prioritize style over basic plot logic in almost all his movies.
I suppose time will tell. In 50 years, Odyssey might be just as respected as it is today, but I'm not quite sure how influential Interstellar will be.
It’s not that I hate "Interstellar," but I feel like it's a pretty banal movie with some fairly predictable direction, just like someone else mentioned earlier. It feels like it's on the same level as "Armageddon"—that specific kind of blockbuster. You have a crew basically driving a Jeep through a comet, grabbing straws, and arguing over who gets to be the hero. Those are just the tropes, but I guess the creators of "Armageddon" were at least honest enough not to try and sell it as deep philosophy.