Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think is the movie of the century? It can be anything a indie film, a classic film, and a new release.

the Land Before Time !

Which one there was like 20 of those movies

This century or last?

This - Kill Bill
Last - Pulp Fiction (or Godfather if you aren't looking for my bias view)

Mines is Spider-Man 2

The LOTR trilogy!!!

Spider-Man 2

This is sort of like saying "What the best movie of all time?"

Not really. This century is only 4 years old. My vote goes to LOTR Trilogy, as well, hands down.

ITS 4 FREAKIN YEARS DIFFERENCE!!!!

I agree lotr trilogy

I do know one thing though it sure isn't I, Robot

Havent seen it yet

It seems to me like they stold the basic idea from the Terminator movies which is evil robots that kill people try to take over and humans have to stop them all.

Sorry I, Robot its been done before and in my oppinion alot better

Spiderman 2

hehe

Spider-Man 2

This Century LOTR Trilogy
20th Century the orignal Star Wars

Everybody keeps saying all robot movies are related to the whole robot story of them taking over the world.

T3,I,Robt,The Matrix Trilogy

I don't about all the other robot movies but all I'm saying is I, Robot is an unoriginal story it even based the film in the same year as Terminator 2035

lol

Basically and early version of t4 ?

Newsflash, tough guys. "I, Robot" was written by Isaac Asimov between 1940 and 1950.

So much for unoriginality.

It seems to me the only thing different is that theres not a robot with flesh and blood like the Terminator movies but they even tried that partially by splashing some type of weird rubber skin on thier heads.

I never said it was original

Yeah I robot was written 30 something years before Terminator,sorry

Newsflash, tough guys. "I, Robot" was written by Isaac Asimov between 1940 and 1950.

So much for unoriginality.


__________________


I'm not talking about the book or whatever I'm talking about the new movie in 2004 not 1940.

Prophet, that makes "Terminator" the copycat, in that case.

Stormy, I took this..



and read is as this...



Which looked like you agreed with him. I know you meant to say..



Just so there is no confusion.

The movie is based on the book, so what's your point there? "I, Robot" is the original work, and as I said, that would make most other robot invasion movies the copycats.

CA just stop we understand now just leave the thread so we can carry on with our discussion

Whatever but the fact remains that they didn't make the film until Terminator won all of its fans and popularity. T3 released last year then I, Robot released year after

.....and they didn't make "Titanic" until 85 years after it sank, and Robert Ballard found it. What's your point? There were plenty of other "robot movies" long, long before "Terminator".

Besides, Isaac Asimov is a genius, and I'm willing to bet that nobody bothered adapting he book, because nobody could do it justice.

CA your confusing me

Its like secretly a continuation but with differenct actors and plot

James Cameron didn,t copy anything he completely created the Terminator story on his own but now I, Robot wants to cash in on the success of Terminator.

Prophet said "I, Robot" was unoriginal.

You said "basically and early..". You put an extra "d" on "an", to make it read like "and", which read like you were agreeing that "I, Robot" was indeed unoriginal, and an early version of T4.

"I, Robot" came long before the "Terminator" franchise. That's all I am saying. Any similiarities between the two would be on James Cameron.

It would actually be on the scriptwriters of I, Robot which added any and all new elements.

Where would that put Starship Troopers in the timeline of sci-fi movies? I can't remember the year of Heinlein's book. Not that this has anything to do with the current topic of discussion...

If that were true, why wasn't his movie released 12 years ago, right after "T:2" was released, and made so much money, and not after "T:3" BOMBED in theatres.

Take pride in knowing you're the only one that thinks "I, Robot" was made because of "Terminator".

I dont think anything that made over 100mil bombed

Screenwriters aren't going to change the entire plot of the book and movie, just to make it mesh with an already existing project, and STILL call it "I, Robot".

Asimov's work came first, by 30 years, and to think that Cameron wasn't influenced by that book by some way is ludicrous. Even more so than thinking this new movie was made to cash in on a failing franchises success.

When it costs $240 M to make/promote, and makes $150 M in theatres, it bombed.

Unless, of course, if you consider losing almost $100 M a success.......

what about overseas records?

catwoman erm LOTR of coures

$283 M extra worldwide, but with that you have to take into consideration the population, the fact that Arnold is a cult figure overseas, and the amount of merchandising that franchise has produced there. Japan's population alone is 127 M, 1/2 the U.S. Then take into account Germany, South Africa, South America, etc etc etc.

The "U.S." numbers are what matter to film makers, that's where their core audience, and the critics lay. "Harry Potter" does 3 times better in the U.K. than the U.S., just because of the author and characters origins.

"T:3" was still a disappointment, overall.

Then the movie made almost a 150 mil profit

And if the studio thought that was a failer then they wouldnt be making T4

It cost $175 million to make and a sequel is being made so if it wasn't successful would it have a T4? Just like Stormy said

Last I heard, they were contemplating making a Battlefield Earth 2. I don't recall that heap of garbage doing too well.

What does that have to do with I'm talking about?

"T:3" cost $240 to make/promote, it made $150 M in the United States, which is the only revenue that matters. You acknowledged that in the Shrek thread, after I mentioned it here, so you'd agree apparently. The movie took a huge hit in the U.S.

The "Terminator" movie franchise alone is only getting worse. When the next sequel drops, if it does, although it's totally unnecessary, it will be about 5 or 6 years from now, and Arnold won't be in it.

Hollywood tends to ignore the fact that a sequel grossed poorly, just because they know they can always bank on the American pop culture crazed foreigners support, especially with iconic movie franchises.

Big budget movies, whos sequels door poorly, shouldn't bring on evern MORE sequels. They should cut their losses, and call it a day. Especially after the Matrix sequels flopping so horribly.

"T:4" is a bad idea, if you ask me.

Just providing evidence that a movie doesn't have to be successful in order to justify a sequel, Film Prophet. Granted, those movies are more the exception and not the rule. Hope that helps clarify my post.

I was talking about about the production budget which was $175 so it came close enough apparently. Marketing costs is seperate to me however I do agree T4 is uneccessary without Arnold.

SPIDERMAN 2 !!!

Spider-Man 2 is the greatest film of the year I can't wait for Spider-Man 3

The year isn't even 1/2 way over, and why people/critics make such ignorant statements, totally jumping the shark, is beyond me.

You want to know why I just said Spider-Man 2 is the film of the year?
Ask yourself is there any other film that will most likely be better than Spider-Man 2 this year?

No maybe....the Village storywise not actionwise

That's a very subjective question you're posing, for one. "Spiderman" is a very safe movie. It's rated PG-13, so everyone and their kids can go see it and enjoy it, what have you. I loved it too, but I don't make comments like that until the year is over, even while you may be a little partial/biased.

Period.

Besides, alot of people would argue with you, me excluded, and bring up "The Prisoner of Azkaban". I've seen a few movies that I felt were better than "Spiderman", personally, and I have seen 26 movies in the theatres this year, namely:


Butterfly Effect, The
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
Man On Fire
Monster
Passion Of The Christ, The
Shrek 2

I don't know about that one I mean think about it the director did movies like The Sixth Sense yes its true but he also made films like Unbreakable which was a horrible movie. Anyway Spider-Man comes from the amazing mind of Stan Lee so its pretty hard to beat.

I actually would give movie of the year to Shrek 2 over SM2 at this point. I haven't seen Passion yet...

Yeah man,you`d be surprised I thought X2 was the best movie of last year,and I saw Big Fish in December,and changed my mind

Shrek 2 over Spider-Man 2? What are you 8 years old

Everyones entitled to their opinion Prophet

Alright ok I'll leave you alone but I'm still confused why you would vote that over Spidey

If I had the choice to see Shrek 2 or Spidey 2 again - it'd probably be Shrek.

Yeah well I guess thats a natural choice if your a kid but for adults its Spidey.

Well Spiderman 2 is the best movie I have seen all year and it really is horrible how Shrek 2 has almost broken 750 million since May 19th. What kind of state is the world in when a green, ogre with a Scottish accent can almost trample a pop culture icon like Spiderman, who's existed since the early 1960's???? A really bad state.

Your absolutely right it makes me sick to my stomach
I'm afraid we only have one last hope my friend and that is that Spider-Man 2 takes everything back from Shrek 2 thats why I have supported this film since before it was even released. Go Spidey

Ever consider maybe you're a little partial. Besides, have you seen either "Shrek" or "Shrek 2" lately? It's very entertaining, and alot of fun.

Being an adult, and an animated movie, makes no difference.

Yes I have seen Shrek 2 and like I said before its great for kids but for the more sophisticated moviegoer Spider-Man 2 is more entertaining it has relationships, action, story, and all the elements needed. Shrek 2 is suppose to be for kids so you might get a cheap laugh out of it but its not what you would see yourself voting for as the film of the year at the end of this year.

"Sophisticated"?

People who are looking for sophistication in cinema sure as shit aren't going to see "Spiderman". That's what film society screenings, and independent films are for. Not safe, summer blockbusters. Not only are you coming off as partial, you seem a little delusional as well, frankly.

It's a fact, not opinion, that "Spiderman 2" is far from sophisticated, itself. The same elements in "Spiderman 2" can be found in basically any other comic book, or action movie, at that.

Don't let a bias or personal opinion take control of your better judgment, man. Keep in mind, movies are subjective, and people are going to have opinions, most of which that aren't easily swayed by enticement.

If thats what you think thats your problem But I will say this I COMPLETELY disagree with you.

And you, yours, and I with you. The movie is far from complex, or intellectually stimulating. That's why it's a run of the mill summer movie from a big studio.

We both think differently undeniably so we can debate about the cinematic value of Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2 all day.

I'm not debating that, I'm debating the fact that "Spiderman" is far from sophisticated. The opinion half of what movie is more enjoyable is totally subjective, and there's no point in debating over it.

I didn't say I was ging to debate about anything I just said that if I began discussing Spider-Man 2 and how great or not great it is we would be at this all day.

I understand, so why not explain to my what makes "Spiderman" so sophisticated? I'd like to hear your reasoning for what would make it the supposed "film of the century". Not opinions, or a predisposition to liking it because of the comics, but actual instances that seperate it from other movies of the same genre.

Ok...whatever. The bottom line is Spiderman 2 is a better and more endearing film anyhow.

Same could be said for "Shrek, "Star Wars", or any other franchise of movies that someone grew up watching. Again, it's all subjective, and held to opinion.

Just because "Spider Man" is a product of American pop culture doesn't necessarily make him any more endearing in mainstream media than the next icon, especially given not every one reads comic books.

Yes, it is subjective and I can dislike Shrek If I want. Plain and simple.

Indeed, that's the beauty of free will and opinion. Makes for great debate, and I see that nobody is disputing my claims, because I'm being reasonable.

You can like or dislike a movie for what you feel it is. No need to build it up to something it's not, for the sake of trying to prove it's "better" than another, which is personally subjective, or because of personal bias.

I loved both movies, no need to hold a grudge because of box office draw. "Spiderman" will always have more fan support than Shrek, guaranteed.

What seperates it from the other movies of the same genre is that the acting is perfect no overacting or underacting the relationships and personel conflicts perfectly depicted unlike other films such as Hulk and Daredevil. I did not say it was film of the century I said it was my film of the year remember there is still Spider-Man 3 in May 2007

Yea...what ^he said^.

Alright. More opinions, just as I suspected.

Thanks, guys.

In reality how can you discuss a film without stating some form of oppinion? Answer you can't

That's true you can't. But someone can dislike your opinion and openly state it, it's THEIR opinion that YOUR opinion is wrong, so their opinion that your's is wrong is an opinon, and, opinions can't be wrong..

And back to the "Spider-man 2" "Shrek 2" debate, yes "Spider-man 2" is a much more advanced film.. plot wise. Then again Spider-man and Shrek were both intended for different target audiences. Keep in mind that spider-man 2 has to be easy enough so that little 7 year-old Jimmy, who wants to be spider-man can understand it and 23 year-old comic book collector..NED can relate back to comics and enjoy it. They're also two different genres, so they shouldn't be compared.

There's only one form of an opinion, which is personal. Your problem is you present opinion as a matter of fact, when it's not. I asked for instances in the movie that seperate it from all others, and you failed to do so, just stating what you felt.

There's no logical comparison between Tobey's performance in "Spiderman" movies to that of, say, Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next", Adrien Brody in "The Pianist", or Orson Welles in "Citizen Kane". If anyone were so mentally handicapped as to think there is a comparison, not only are they wrong by virtue, they are totally alone in thinking so.

The plot of "Spiderman 2" is no more advanced that that of a television series' plot. Hero saves the day from evil villain and gets the girl. It doesn't get any more simple, or unoriginal.

As for "Shrek", it's a clever amalgam of all your favorite fairy tales, modernized with some great adult humor, topped off with some groundbreaking animation, which is fun for the entire family.

Both are targeted at the same audience, being average movie goers, while "Spiderman" will have a natural edge because of the 40 year old comic franchise. If they were geared towards anyone other than the mainstream, they would be released in the Winter or Spring, when fewer people would see it.

Both franchises intentions are clear, to get their product to as many people as possible, not being selectively permiable as to who can or will want to see their films.

Check my profile, FP. I'm old enough to interview you for a job opening. Shrek and Shrek 2 are both extremely original, creative works. And some of the humor in Shrek and its sequel would be wasted if it were solely directed to 8-year olds.

I wasn't saying they were being selective. What I was saying with the target audience was that they could have made the movie much more complicated, it would have been stupid but they could have quite possibly done it. However, their audience is made up of quite a diverse age range so the younger ones to be able to understand it. I'm sure it wouldn't matter, because the kids would go see it anyway but if they didn't understand it then less kids would go see it and more middle aged -- adults would go see it. I agree, they don't care who sees it as long as someone is seeing it but if they wanted to make the plot better they would risk loosing half of their audience.

Um, TECHNICALLY, all of the stories that Shrek 2 pays homage to have existed well before the 1960's. People have grown up with fairy tales and nursery rhymes a whole heck of a lot longer...

Careful with the Scottish digs, too... lest you find Connor MacLeod waiting on your doorstep one day...

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.

Spider-man 2

No independent movies will get nominated for this, will they? *sigh*

Just as long as its a movie its acceptable to me

Spiderman series (for this century so far at least)

The Matrix (for last century)

or Indiana Jones Trilogy (for last century also)

Good choices

Hm.. not the biggest Matrix fan.

I'm not a very big Matrix fan neither I just meant they were some interesting choices.

Do you mean "Film of the last 4 years" or "Film of the last century"

Last century - A Matter of Life and Death (Powell/Pressburger)
This century Spider-Man 2.

No - just kidding - Amelie (so far) with "The Shipping News" a close second.

This century

Amelie? That was a strange little movie. I did like Amelie's "unresponsive" sex scene... rather humorous. But a better French movie than Triplets of Belleville. That was just plain odd.

Well, Audrey's fame is fleeting, especially if you saw "Dirty Pretty Things", you know what I am talking about.

She's had quite the career so far?

In other news, did you not like Dirty Pretty Things - or am i mis-interpreting?

blow with johnny depp

Land Before Time 897

Spider-Man 2