What's the best blockbuster?

Before the nineties, movies felt different. Filmmakers used to pour their energy into the actual storytelling because they didn't have much choice—the tech just wasn't there to rely on flashy visual effects. But as technology evolved, it seems like people started trading substance for spectacle. There was this gradual shift where the core narrative took a backseat to big CGI numbers and chasing awards. Now, we’ve landed in an era where the budget and the projected box office haul seem to matter way more than the soul of the story itself.

Looking back at everything since 1995, Hollywood has pumped out a massive wave of decent enough blockbusters that consistently smash box office records, while treating actual "quality" like a secondary concern.

So, here’s what I’m wondering: in your opinion, which type of film has seen the biggest return on investment—those massive blockbusters where they pour a mountain of cash into production just to rake in an even larger fortune at the box office?

I've put together a few title options in the poll based on what's currently on my mind, but please feel free to vote for anything else if you have a better idea that isn't listed.

Just a heads-up: this poll focuses exclusively on American films that lean into those occasionally over-the-top patriotic themes. 🙂

P.S. For obvious reasons, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings were left out of the poll.

none of the options work 🙏 👋

redowl90 said:Just a heads up, this poll is strictly about those overly patriotic, flag-waving blockbusters we see in America all the time. 🙂

Man, you totally forgot to include PATRIOT 😲 😲 😲

redowl90 said:Just a heads-up: this poll focuses exclusively on those American films that lean a little too hard into the patriotism trope.

We've got what it takes. We can make this happen.

U Why? Is there an issue?

P.S. For obvious reasons, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and LOTR were left out of the poll.

What exactly constitutes a "reasonable" reason? It’s like holding a poll for Miss America and then deciding, "Alright, we're only discussing the contestants who..." Not at all. "They made the top five!" Hilarious.

redowl90 said:P.S. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings were excluded from the poll for obvious reasons.

And what about you?

You could argue that Spider-Man and X2: X-Men United deserve a bit more credit than being dismissed as mere films where "people gradually abandoned the plot in favor of special effects and chasing cinematic prestige," but I suppose it's all just a matter of taste.

I voted for X2: X-Men United because, in my opinion, Singer did an excellent job balancing a massive ensemble cast, giving everyone at least a small chance to establish a personality, plus it has great action and is a sequel to a movie I actually enjoyed.

Spider-Man would have been a very close second for me. As for the rest, they were either alright or just mediocre. I wasn't a fan of The Rock either, though he was significantly carried by Ed Harris playing the villain.

Out of the options, X2: X-Men United

I don't really see the point—there have been so many absolute masterpieces out there that had massive budgets behind them. Take Mann's Heat or Collateral, for example.😍 Personally, I'd find a topic like "great films that should have been blockbusters" much more interesting—not that I'm just looking for an excuse to bring up Stephen Sommers' brilliant little gem, Deep Rising.

slylynx16 said:What exactly counts as a "reasonable" excuse?

It’s because Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are just fundamentally different types of movies. You can't really watch them through the lens of, "let's make a flick about oil drillers heading out to punch a hole in a meteor to save humanity." They're more geared toward die-hard book fans and cinephiles than the general public (though I guess that's debatable too)...

But Star Wars is just Star Wars... 😉

redowl90 said:You can't exactly watch Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings through the lens of "let's make a movie about oil drillers heading out to puncture a meteor to save humanity." They're just different beasts entirely.

You're talking nonsense. What kind of "drilling holes" is Titanic even preaching? Best value. Best movie of all time? Hard question.

Oops! )

These movies feel more like treats for die-hard book fans and cinephiles than anything meant for a mainstream audience—though even that distinction is a bit debatable.

So, $1,129,219,252. That’s what Lord of the Rings: Return of the King pulled in at the global box office. It wasn't exactly a windfall from the casual public; it was more like a dedicated collection from die-hard book fans and cinephiles who—given how many times they likely rewatched it—probably felt obligated to show up.

P.S. Seriously, just drop it already. For your own sake.

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...

I voted for The Rock because, honestly, it’s just such a terrible movie. I actually used to own it on VHS, but someone swiped it from me and never gave it back. 😢

As for Spider-Man and X-Men, I just can't bring myself to group them with the rest of these movies, so I'm skipping over them... even though they're actually pretty good, especially X-Men.

redowl90 said:"Let's go make a $100 million movie that'll pull in three times that amount."

Well, you know, I guess they basically used those exact words when they started filming Harry Potter😉

And, uh, regarding the topic... I feel like you're missing Jurassic Park, which I think is probably the best example of what you're calling a typical summer blockbuster

Also, I'm not really sure why Titanic was grouped in with that list of movies, honestly😕

redowl90 said:The thing is, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are fundamentally different beasts. You can't really view them through the lens of, "Let's make a movie about oil drillers heading out to punch a hole in a meteor to save humanity." They lean more toward dedicated book enthusiasts and cinephiles rather than the general public—though even that distinction is debatable...

So, what, Spider-Man and X-Men aren't based on other sources that already have their own hardcore fanbases? Or am I missing something?

Give me a break.

Melissa Moore32 said:I simply can't group Spider-Man and X-Men with those other films, so I tend to skip them... even though they're quite good, especially X-Men.

Fair point. Now I'm actually regretting being a voter at all.😢

redowl90 said:Back before the nineties, movies were actually different; they were films where people put more effort into the actual story itself.

In the 80s? Maybe on the planet Jupiter. During that era, the situation in Hollywood was more like this:
"Big sweaty men! Big noisy guns! Dozens of people getting beaten and slaughtered--per scene! Entire cities razed to the ground! Liberal wimps beware as simple handguns become judge, jury and executioner! And the only repercussion is that the Stupid Chief takes your badge and gun for the weekend... THE RUTHLESS GUIDE TO 80s ACTION

Maybe try reading a few comments. It might serve as a helpful reminder of what Hollywood movies were actually like during the 80s.

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.

I'm voting for the unlisted Jurassic Park, but if I have to pick from the options, I'll go with Titanic.

redowl90 said:Sure, you've got Rambo and commandos... but they didn't blow millions on special effects. Those kinds of movies just aren't made anymore (sadly)...

Look, think about what "special effects" actually means. It covers everything, not just the CGI stuff. Both Rambo and commandos movies rely heavily on special effects for explosions and fight scenes.

redowl90 said:Sure, Rambo and Commandos exist... but they didn't blow millions on special effects.

I fail to see how that makes the story in Commandos any better or higher quality than a typical 90s blockbuster.

nimblemarlin17 said:You should really consider the actual definition of SPECIAL EFFECTS. That includes everything, not just CGI. Both Rambo and Commandos feature special effects like explosions and fight scenes.

Precisely so:

90s blockbusters: tons of effects, little plot.

80s blockbusters: tons of effects, little plot.

I don't see the distinction. Unless we insist on claiming that extras, explosions, miniatures, and similar practical special effects aren't actually special effects through some sort of alchemy.

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...

Look, there might be a bit of a thematic gap between the 80s and the 90s when it comes to the typical blockbuster. The 80s were all about those high-octane action flicks, but once the 90s hit, disaster movies started popping up way more often than they used to, and science started creeping into everything.

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...