What's the best blockbuster?

redowl90 said:HA HA!! That doesn't make the story any better, that's not the point... The thing is, the producers behind Command were actually BELIEVING in the project (meaning they genuinely thought it was a good, high-quality movie)

This being stupidity de-luxe. Command was built to turn out exactly how it did. An action riot like nothing else.

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...

redowl90 said:I don't think you guys get what I'm actually saying... Back in the eighties and before, computer tech just wasn't where it is now. You couldn't have filmed something like LotR in the eighties...

They could have filmed it then, and honestly, probably better than they do today. Plus, your post doesn't even address what I actually wrote. Even commandos have special effects.

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: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...

redowl90 said:I really hope you're fucking kidding me here... 🙂

Did you actually work on the film or something? You know the truth? I get the feeling you were maybe five or six years old when they were filming.

redowl90 said:There's no way they filmed it to look like it does today...

So what? Who cares? Indiana Jones looks worse than Tomb Raider anyway, so it’s all just different dimensions.

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: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: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! 😉>

redowl90 said:Whoa, I totally blanked on Tomb Raider... Man, that movie is pure garbage. Just top-tier blockbuster trash.

You really have no clue what you're talking about...🙄

lepa.pametna@neudata said:We have what we need, and we can make it work...

What's the issue?

Liability is the issue. But we can discuss that, along with plenty of other things, over a drink sometime.😁

Alright redowl90, you're kind of overthinking it, but you nailed one thing... blockbusters are trash! Sure, there are decent exceptions, but 90% of what they spend money on is garbage.
Still, we're the ones mostly to blame for actually watching that junk...🙂

Out of the movies you mentioned, I'd say The Rock (even if the hunt was terrible), X-Men, and Spider-Man are alright. You could find a million flaws in any of them, but let's not go there. Same goes for Titanic—don't want to hurt anyone's 😁

But honestly, the best blockbuster ever, no contest, is Braveheart! A total masterpiece. Not sure if the OP will be annoyed by the lack of special effects, but whatever..

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!" 😉

I disagree. Just because a movie is chasing an Oscar doesn't mean it stops being a blockbuster. Not sure how you see it, but in my book, any flick with a $100M budget qualifies as a blockbuster...

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 🙂

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... 🙂

quietdriver3 said:Braveheart isn't a blockbuster even if it wanted to be 😁

it didn't cross that magic $100 million line on the stock market 🙂

😂 Is the stock market Scotland or Australia?

We were talking about the budget, you know, the cash put into the movie. And Braveheart crushed it.... 😛

I'm with redowl90, in that kind of grouping, BH is a "must be". Too much blood spilled for the movie not to make money 😁

slywolf9 said:😂 Is the stock market Scotland or Australia?
We were talking about the budget, you know, the cash put into the movie. And Braveheart crushed it.... 😛
I’d side with redowl90; in that kind of category, the US is a "must be." Too much blood was spilled for the movie not to make money 😁

Come on, slywolf9, don't be a White and just talk nonsense... look up what a blockbuster actually means and see how much it made in the USA... might sound unbelievable, but definitely less than 100...

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