What's the best blockbuster?

Jose Miller17 said:Come on slywolf9, don't be such a redowl90 and just talk trash for nothing... look up what even a blockbuster is and see how much it actually made in the US... might sound crazy, but definitely less than 100 bucks for sure...

Gotta admit, that sounds pretty insane to me...😕
If that's the case, my bad, whatever...😬

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.

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 🙄

quietdriver3 said:Your name is a total contradiction, redowl90 🙄

At this point, we should probably just call it 'redowlism.'

redowl90 said:It seems you haven't quite grasped the point I'm trying to make.

Why are you still surprised by this? First, you claim modern movies rely too heavily on special effects. When someone points out that practical effects existed long before computers, you pivot and argue that the eighties were more focused on storytelling than spectacle. If I remind you that Commandos has plenty of action but lacks a decent plot, you immediately start fantasizing about how producers back then supposedly thought differently than they do today—though, frankly, I have no idea how you could possibly know that.

The eighties were packed with genuine adventure classics like Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, whereas the nineties—once technology took over—just became a nonstop parade of Spider-Man reboots and other cinematic garbage.

Here we go again. One minute we’re discussing the evolution of special effects technology, and then suddenly there's this massive logical leap connecting that directly to the quality of a film's *script*. What on earth? Why would those two things have anything to do with one another?

It seems to me that you don't actually possess a coherent theory regarding blockbuster quality or how they stack up against 80s cinema; rather, you are simply being driven by pure nostalgia. The reason those 80s films feel superior is likely because you experienced them for the first time at ten years old, when every movie felt like a miracle and left you with fond memories. In contrast, you watched Armageddon for the first time at twenty, a time when you no longer had the patience for such nonsense. Instead of admitting that your tastes have simply evolved, you've resorted to inventing theories about how modern Hollywood differs from the era of your youth—an era where, apparently, everyone focused solely on quality storytelling and deep, intelligent characters... like in Commando. 😬

You still haven't explained to me how Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter can be excluded from the poll just because they're adaptations with massive, die-hard fanbases, while Spider-Man and X-Men are allowed in despite being the exact same thing.

I honestly have no idea how The Rock ended up on this list, considering he earned significantly less than everyone else 😕

It used to be that hitting the $100 million mark was considered a massive achievement and the true benchmark for a blockbuster. But lately, it seems like at least ten movies hit that threshold every single year.
In my opinion, the bar for a real blockbuster has moved closer to $200 million, which almost all of these films reached or exceeded (with the exceptions of The Rock at $134 million and Pearl Harbor at $198.5 million)

Steven Williams5 said:I honestly have no clue how The Rock ended up on this list, considering he earned significantly less than everyone else here.😕

That’s because—and I’m increasingly convinced of this—redowl90’s definition of a blockbuster is essentially: "any high-budget movie from the last 30 years that I personally dislike." It explains why redowl90 can't seem to wrap their head around treating Rambo or commandos with the same weight as Spider-Man or The Rock.

It reminds me of those people who claim to hate sci-fi just because "it's all just space fantasies with light sabers and spaceship battles." Then, when you point out that "1984" is technically sci-fi, they invariably argue, "Oh, that's not sci-fi. That's a profound and intelligent book! How could it possibly be sci-fi?" Well, it is. Deal with it.

I get the impression that it isn't actually about the definition of a blockbuster for redowl90; rather, it's an unwillingness to admit liking certain blockbusters. They seem to be contriving this specific theory just to narrow the scope to only those big-budget Hollywood productions that happen to suit their tastes.

lepa.pametna@neudata said:You're talking nonsense. What kind of "drilling holes" is Titanic preaching, the most profitable film of all time?

(Oops! )

> isn't the most profitable film ever. It’s just the highest grossing one (in terms of box office, obviously). Profitability is measured by the ratio of investment versus return, and in that regard, >'s earnings are only three times better than its budget... (a factor of 3) which is excellent, sure, but > beats it out easily (factor of 4)...

No, the most profitable film is undoubtedly > (a factor greater than 2000!), making it actually the biggest > of all time. 😁

redowl90 said:I never actually claimed that movies from the '80s were superior to what we have today; I have no idea where you got that impression.

"Before the nineties. There was a time when filmmakers actually prioritized the narrative over spectacle, primarily because the technology simply wasn't there to support massive visual displays. As tech evolved, however, we saw a gradual shift where substance was tossed aside in favor of flashy effects and chasing cinematic prestige.

Are we focusing on the period from 1995 onwards?Hollywood has churned out a massive pile of more or less successful blockbusters that shattered box office records, while treating actual "quality" as an afterthought.

Because that is why they are. The eighties. Back in the nineties, we actually had genuine adventure films like Indiana Jones and The Green Diamond. Now, thanks to all this technological advancement, we're just stuck with endless Spider-Man reboots and other absolute garbage.

Besides, I fail to see why you’re coming after me. It's just movies. Ever since 1995. They’re in a complete tailspin, at least when it comes to the blockbuster scene; anyone who thinks otherwise can just go ahead and walk away. 🙂"

HTH! HAND! 👋

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't belong in this category; if they were included, everyone would vote for them immediately, which is only logical.

And honestly, when we put together that list of the best blockbusters from the late '90s, the last thing we want is to let people vote on it.

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...

redowl90> So, movies like Shrek...

wow... could someone please explain this to me, since I'm clearly clueless? What is this even supposed to mean???

Is Shrek a blockbuster but doesn't deserve it? Or isn't it a blockbuster but deserves to be? Or maybe it's neither and doesn't deserve it either??? What?

Personally, I think Shrek is a blockbuster, right up there with Independence Day, Armageddon, or The Matrix Reloaded. I guess the fact that it's animated makes it a bit of an outlier, but still... what the heck.

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...

Steven Williams5 > I honestly have no idea how The Rock ended up on this list, considering he made way less money than everyone else

Why??? 😕

Look... setting aside the paycheck he pulled in and ignoring any strict, textbook definition of what actually qualifies as a B-movie, I think “The Rock” is a textbook example of a B-movie—and a pretty good one at that.

Then again, I guess I just have my own personal definition of what makes a B-movie... *shrugs* 😬

redowl90> A blockbuster is basically any movie that clears the $100 million mark... So, Shrek is a blockbuster...

Ah, well... like I said in my next post... I guess I was just picturing some movie in my own head 😵 so, uh... nevermind the question. 🙂

redowl90> LOTR and Harry Potter don't even belong in this category, because everyone would just vote for them immediately, which makes sense...

But you literally just said…😕… Nah…. forget it. *waves/sighs*

redowl90 said:Good God...! I really don't have the energy to explain myself anymore—you simply fail to grasp what I am saying or what I have been trying to convey all along...

It is just me and nobody else in this thread. Face the facts: it's a breeze. 😬

is Terminator 2 a blockbuster? Or maybe a T3? 🤔
If they are, then I’m definitely giving them my vote (especially T2, man). Am I totally tripping here, or did you guys just forget about... ta-da: GODZILLA?😲

Star Wars??? 😕

What a pointless poll...

Honestly, I won't even get into the rest of it...

Is it like The Day After Tomorrow? Or would Troy fit better somewhere else?🤔

If I started making a list right now:
- Batman - Twister
- Twister
- Home Alone (though that 🙄 )
- Harry Potter
- The Aviator...

I honestly think the OP could have sniffed out some even better flicks than the ones listed here... no hard feelings intended...