Started by Morgan Williams · · 👁 839 views · 18K replies
…
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.
brightpilot6 said:Does anyone happen to have any recommendations for some solid independent films worth watching?
Jessica Gonzalez said: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.
Jessica Gonzalez said: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.
Larry Fox5 said:Everything you said is true, I just want to point out that cash and viewership are exact metrics—unlike subjective vibes.
Even Rolling Stone gathered a bunch of "music experts" to publish their list of greatest songs ever, and they put "Like A Rolling Stone" at number one, which makes zero sense... It's not even because the song is bad or because those people are biased, it's just that as a composition, it doesn't pass any actual test. You have to look at a track as a whole, and from a musical standpoint, it's below average.
C-F-G Em-Dm........ total nonsense.
The fact that every single cover of that song is better than the original tells you everything you need to know about how musically weak it is.
vivideagle7 said:I don't know, man. To me, every cover is literally half as good as the original. Like, the only exception is Hendrix. Everything else just misses the mark.
Larry Fox5 said:Yeah, true—but the question is just which dimension we're talking about. Half the time Dylan is totally faking it, playing like he couldn't care less, and his voice? Absolute garbage. My old mentor always said he was a brilliant songwriter, sure, but a pathetic musician and singer at best...
Between Seal & Jeff Beck, Jimi & BB King, and even the Stones on *Stripped*, there are plenty of versions that are five classes better than the original.
ambertinker41 said:Avatar and Titanic are putting them to shame.
Jessica Gonzalez said:Moving right along:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...s-the-old-ones
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...american-films
I guess I have to ask, where did "Interstellar" go? It seems to be missing from the list entirely.
