Posts by redowl90

Melissa Moore32 said:wow… could someone explain this to me? I’m a bit lost on what this is actually supposed to mean.

Is Shrek a blockbuster but doesn't deserve it? Or isn't he one but deserves to be? Or maybe he's neither and deserves nothing? What?

A blockbuster is basically any movie that clears the $100 million mark... So, yeah, Shrek is a blockbuster.

That said, almost every animated film hits blockbuster status these days, and the math works out a little differently for animation than it does for live-action movies...

Oh, God... I really don't have the energy to explain this anymore—you just aren't grasping what I'm trying to say or what I've been trying to get across until now...

quietdriver3 said:The definition of a blockbuster isn't actually about how much money was spent on production, but rather what it pulls in domestically. It has to clear the $100 million mark (for context, Braveheart made around $80 million in the US).

Exactly. I should also point out that we aren't here to debate every single movie that ever qualified as a blockbuster. We're talking specifically about those massive productions that are *destined* to be hits because of the sheer amount of cash, marketing, and other nonsense poured into them...

So, movies like Shrek, the Blair Witch Project, or the sixth sense don't really fit into that specific category.

slywolf9 said:I don't really see it that way. Just because a movie is chasing an Oscar doesn't mean it loses its status as a blockbuster. I'm not sure how you look at it, but in my book, any film with a $100 million budget automatically falls into the blockbuster category...

Yeah, I agree with you there... Once a movie clears the $100 million mark, it's pretty much a blockbuster by default...

But I think there's a distinction between movies that "accidentally" become blockbusters (or rather, aren't accidental, they're just genuinely great enough to earn it—take sixth sense as a good example), then you have the "wannabe" blockbusters (like Elektra), and finally the "must-be" blockbusters (think War of the Worlds or Pearl Harbor)... Hope that makes sense... 🙂

Man, you guys... Once you grow up, you'll finally understand Stanley Kubrick...

slywolf9 said:I'm just not sure if the lack of special effects is going to bother the OP, but oh well...

The absence of special effects won't bother me, but this isn't your typical blockbuster... It’s one of those "give me an Oscar!" movies. Usually, once those types of films sweep the awards, they turn into blockbusters anyway because people love dressing up and saying, "Look at me, I actually watched an Oscar winner!" 😉

Jose Miller17 said:More nonsense...🙄

True... If all the Stanley Kubrick fans had been buried along with him, one of Hollywood's saddest stories would have been laid to rest and forgotten long ago...

quietdriver3 said:Art without entertainment is like foreplay without penetration.

I agree, but I don't quite get why you're such a fan of Stanley Kubrick then. His movies aren't exactly "entertainment" in that sense... 🙂

nimblemarlin17 said:Indiana Jones looks worse than Tomb Raider, so it's all the same in another dimension.

But that’s exactly the POINT! That's why I went with the newer blockbusters—because they actually have a story to tell instead of just relying on effects. With Indiana Jones (and some of those older titles), it was always the exact opposite! 😉>

nimblemarlin17 said:So what? Is that really an issue? Indiana Jones isn't even as good as Tomb Raider, so it's all just different flavors of the same thing.

Oh man, I totally blanked on Tomb Raider... Honestly, that movie is pure garbage. Top-tier blockbuster trash!

nimblemarlin17 said:Did you actually work on the set to know the truth? I get the feeling you were maybe five or six years old when they were filming.

What does that have to do with anything right now?

Besides, I don't get why you're attacking me. Movies from 1995 onward are a complete mess, at least when it comes to the typical blockbuster, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly 🙂

By the way, of course anyone working on Rambo would tell you today that they intended to make a movie exactly like that... But if you had been there back then, everyone would have told you how hard they were grinding on the production, how much effort went into the direction, the acting, and all that other nonsense—most of which doesn't even show up in the final cut... 🙂

nimblemarlin17 said:It could have been filmed better than it was today. Besides, your post doesn't actually address what I wrote. Commandos has special effects.

It wasn't possible to film it to look the way it does now... I'm talking about the effects, not the plot...

nimblemarlin17 said:Command was made to turn out exactly how it did. An action riot unlike anything else.

I really hope you're kidding me... 🙂

nimblemarlin17 said:I’d vote for an unlisted Jurassic Park, but out of the options provided, I'm going with Titanic.

Let's try to actually R E A D... I set my timeframe starting from 1995 onwards, and Jurassic Park came out in 1993...

nimblemarlin17 said:Think carefully about what "special effects" actually means. It covers everything, not just CGI. Both Rambo and commandos have special effects for explosions and fight scenes.

I feel like you guys aren't quite grasping my point... Back in the eighties and before, computer technology just wasn't where it is today. You couldn't have filmed something like LotR in the eighties if you tried. That’s why the eighties were full of great adventure flicks (like Indiana Jones or Green Diamond), whereas the nineties—once the tech finally caught up—became flooded with various Spider-Man movies and similar junk...

casualotter21 said:I don't see how that makes the Commander's story any better or higher quality than a 90s blockbuster.

Haha!! Well, it doesn't make the story better—that's not really the point... It's more about the fact that back then, producers actually BELIEVED in the project (meaning they genuinely thought they were making a good, quality movie). Nowadays, that's just not the case; they just look at what audiences will swallow and serve it up to them. That's why we get all these American versions of Circle, Oldboy, and other pieces of crap...

casualotter21 said:Maybe take a look back at some of the comments. It might help you remember what kind of movies we were actually watching back in the 80s.

Sure, you had Rambo and command... but they weren't burning through millions on special effects. Sadly, those kinds of movies just don't get made anymore.

quietdriver3 said:Wouldn't those movies be a little hard to watch if they were just pure action sequences and characters who exist solely to fill out the background?

Actually, no—that would make for the perfect action movie! If someone ever actually made one (which isn't happening), I’d happily call it the greatest blockbuster of all time.

But this is how it goes: 👎disastrous plotlines in disaster movies!

quietdriver3 said:Is, say, Evil Death II actually any good?

Of course it isn't!

It's a GENIUS FILM! 👍

slylynx16 said:Ah. So you're saying the $1,129,219,252 earned by LOTR: ROTK at the global box office wasn't exactly "squeezed" out of the general public, but rather from dedicated book fans and cinephiles who—given their numbers—probably went to see it about 50 times each?

What are you even talking about? LOTR and Harry Potter aren't your typical "let's make a $100 million movie and hope to triple our money" projects, unlike Armageddon and Pearl Harbor, which are exactly THAT kind of business model. That's my point...