Avatar

Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
I think you are right about it not staying with people. I can't even remember the main character's name, or anyone else's for that matter, unlike the icons such as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.

That's really weird because I have a REALLY (there's not question that I'm a retard when it comes to names) hard time remembering names and I remembered many of the names from Avatar.

Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
IA sequal would be cool, but if it's in the same environment it would just fail. They would have to explore different ecosystems of Pandora as you talked about. I highly doubt there will be a sequal though, since the movie held it's own quite well without any open ends.

No, the film is wide open. One of the major plot holes of the film is assuming that Padnora is done with the company looking for more unobtainium. You think that just defeating a very small army is going to push away the humans? NO! It's really retarded that the audience is expected to swallow that the Na'Vi is done with the humans.

The real world would see a massive force of humans come next time. The humans would then rape the shit out of Pandora.

There's plenty of room for a sequel. LOL.

But it would probably comprise of the Na'Vi trying to convince the humans back on Earth the Pandora's planetary neural network is unique enough to spare.

Originally posted by Tired-Hiker
IAnd how about the release date for Avatar, pretty smart if you ask me. It came out the week before X-mas where everyone was on vacation and went to see it. It sold out all week long. Then on X-Mas, everone went to see Sherlock Holmes which sold out, so they decided to see Avatar instead, causing it to sell out again.

That's good marketing and that same story happens every single holiday season with a different film.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Really?

Cos I thought that sales prove nothing besides how many people paid to see it.

Oh wait, no...that's exactly what it means because it has no bearing on quality, just financial success.

-AC

Obviously, I disagree. ("Hollywood" is on my side.

You can't pretend that an argumentum ad populum fallacy can be applied to movie sales success. Movie ticket sales are EXACTLY how you tell how good a movie is. Are we to assume that the very select few, like yourself, should dictate what types of movies are to be made? You know how retarded that would be? Not that you have bad taste in films, because you don't. It's just that your taste is far from something that would appeal to the population...which is the target of big budget films.

For whom it was intended, the movie was successful and it was a great film. If they intended to make the film for cynical hard to please critics, like yourself, it would have been a much different movie and not done nearly as well.

And, no, I disagree. A movie's success does have bearing on quality. It just depends on which traits you want to classify for quality. Here's how:

Color: A+
Lighting: A+
(Optional)3D Effect: A+
CGI Animation/Visual Effects: A+
Sound: A
Music: A

Score 582-6 categories.

Now, for you, it would appear that the story and character development is almost everything (which is very short sighted, imo.)

Story: C-
Acting: C+
Character development: B-
Character Interaction: B
Character realism: C-
Emotional Impact of the film: B+

Score 477- 6 categories

But, that's not all there is to a film, either. There's also these:

Setting: A++
In ovation: A+
Fictional Tech in the movie: B
Unique Flora and Fauna (usually applies to Sci Fi): A+
Wow Factor: A
Camera Angles/Use: B+
Re-watchability: B

Score 649 - 7 categories.

If you add all of those numbers up, and divide them by the total number of categories, you end up with a score (rounded up) of 90. You arrive at my original assessment of the film: a low 9/10. (See, there is a method to seemingly arbitrary assessments.)

For me, each category is important. For you, the middle section is heavily weighted in your final assessment.

I'm sure if you filled out each category, and averaged it out the way I did, your score would increase (please don't make the score lower just to spite me. Give it an honest go.) But, I'm actually curious as to how much weight you put on the middle section. (Obviously, you and I differ there.)

Edit - BTW, an A++ is a 100. A+ 98. A 95. A- 92. A-- 90. (All other letters for a ++ end in a 9. So a C++ is a 79.)

Originally posted by dadudemon

No, the film is wide open. One of the major plot holes of the film is assuming that Padnora is done with the company looking for more unobtainium. You think that just defeating a very small army is going to push away the humans? NO! It's really retarded that the audience is expected to swallow that the Na'Vi is done with the humans.

Na, dude. Na'vi won; it's over.

Just like when the rebels destroyed a few ships, killed some troopers and took out the Emperor, then suddenly, a vast galactic empire is broken.

Originally posted by Robtard
Na, dude. Na'vi won; it's over.

Just like when the rebels destroyed a few ships, killed some troopers and took out the Emperor, then suddenly, a vast galactic empire is broken.

That's not what happened, though. There are many more battles after the Battle of Endor. The rebels eventually win, of course, but it wasn't over immediately. With the Emperor and Vader gone, however, victory was much easier. In fact, many major leaders died in that battle, as well.

But, yes, I see your point. With Star Wars, we get novels that logically contain the events for the Rebels that occur after the Battle of Endor. With Avatar, though, we don't even see upper level people from the company, nor do we see upper level military personnel. (The highest rank is Colonel.)

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
this movie must be staying with people since it has made nearly $ 624 million worldwide

I really don't think people will remember this movie in a year. I'm sure it will be referenced for it's effects for quite a while but i think in a year or two people will be talking about avatar like...,"Avatar..wasn't that the movie with those blue people." I'll remember the movie for a very long time. It struck a cord with me and felt very unique but i really don't think it did the same for most people.

Originally posted by dadudemon

There's plenty of room for a sequel. LOL.

Well Cameron has hinted it may be possibility

http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/100/1007496p1.html

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obviously, I disagree. ("Hollywood" is on my side.

You can't pretend that an argumentum ad populum fallacy can be applied to movie sales success. Movie ticket sales are EXACTLY how you tell how good a movie is. Are we to assume that the very select few, like yourself, should dictate what types of movies are to be made? You know how retarded that would be? Not that you have bad taste in films, because you don't. It's just that your taste is far from something that would appeal to the population...which is the target of big budget films.

For whom it was intended, the movie was successful and it was a great film. If they intended to make the film for cynical hard to please critics, like yourself, it would have been a much different movie and not done nearly as well.

And, no, I disagree. A movie's success does have bearing on quality. It just depends on which traits you want to classify for quality. Here's how:

Color: A+
Lighting: A+
(Optional)3D Effect: A+
CGI Animation/Visual Effects: A+
Sound: A
Music: A

Score 582-6 categories.

Now, for you, it would appear that the story and character development is almost everything (which is very short sighted, imo.)

Story: C-
Acting: C+
Character development: B-
Character Interaction: B
Character realism: C-
Emotional Impact of the film: B+

Score 477- 6 categories

But, that's not all there is to a film, either. There's also these:

Setting: A++
In ovation: A+
Fictional Tech in the movie: B
Unique Flora and Fauna (usually applies to Sci Fi): A+
Wow Factor: A
Camera Angles/Use: B+
Re-watchability: B

Score 649 - 7 categories.

If you add all of those numbers up, and divide them by the total number of categories, you end up with a score (rounded up) of 90. You arrive at my original assessment of the film: a low 9/10. (See, there is a method to seemingly arbitrary assessments.)

For me, each category is important. For you, the middle section is heavily weighted in your final assessment.

I'm sure if you filled out each category, and averaged it out the way I did, your score would increase (please don't make the score lower just to spite me. Give it an honest go.) But, I'm actually curious as to how much weight you put on the middle section. (Obviously, you and I differ there.)

Edit - BTW, an A++ is a 100. A+ 98. A 95. A- 92. A-- 90. (All other letters for a ++ end in a 9. So a C++ is a 79.)

not that I actually read all that, but I think that ticket sales does not always mean movie quality

weren't Epic Movie... or "don't-know-how-to-name-this movie" number 1 when they were released

... granted that was just for a few weeks, but they still outsold everyone 😬

Ticket sales generally can be used to tell if a movie is good or not. One exception to that would be transformers 2, that blew chunks but did well at the box office, only because of the first film having a huge following so anyone who like the first one (myself included) will see the 2nd even though it sucked because we didn't know it would suck.

No you can not tell how good a movie is by how much money it makes. If this is what you honestly believe, I don't know why you are here.

Originally posted by S_D_J
not that I actually read all that, but I think that ticket sales does not always mean movie quality

That's your opinion, but not my point. The first part of my post explains why. Just read the second paragraph and it explains what I was talking about.

Originally posted by S_D_J
weren't Epic Movie... or "don't-know-how-to-name-this movie" number 1 when they were released

How do you know? Also, I highly doubt it made anywhere near $600 million +.

Originally posted by S_D_J
... granted that was just for a few weeks, but they still outsold everyone 😬

Epic Movie wasn't that bad. I gave it a 6. It got laughs, and it made fun of other films. So it accomplished what it set out to do.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Ticket sales generally can be used to tell if a movie is good or not. One exception to that would be transformers 2, that blew chunks but did well at the box office, only because of the first film having a huge following so anyone who like the first one (myself included) will see the 2nd even though it sucked because we didn't know it would suck.

That's sort of true. Movie ticket sales/DVD and Blu-ray sales simply tell how well the film appeals to the general population. How good a movie is to the individual is solely dependent on the film itself. For instance, Titanic was considered Uber WTF PWN, but I, personally, didn't like it that much. And, Transformers 2 was a great film. Solid 8. 🙂 (See what I mean?) Also, Ep. I of Star Wars was awesome, but most people posting in this thread would disagree with you and I on it. Yet, it still did REALLY well at the box office.

Originally posted by Quincy
No you can not tell how good a movie is by how much money it makes. If this is what you honestly believe, I don't know why you are here.

Exactly. You can only tell how well it appeals to that concurrent population. If you want to know how good a movie is, ask a friend that has tastes similar to yours.

Or simply watch the movie.

I was excited to see this...but halfway thru i could not wait for it to end.....it never really got me hooked.....yeah it looked great...but it lacked big time in story and characterization..i.m.o

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Or simply watch the movie.

But you could waste thyme! I'd rather get an opinion from a trusted source instead of wasting time. Wouldn't you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nonsense and irrelevance.

1) Why are you grading movies for me? I'll decide how I grade the movies I see, thank you. There are no objective grades. Grading implies opinion. All of those numbers is just how you grade Avatar, they aren't a factual barometer of how good the movie was.

I'm sitting here now and saying: "I didn't think it was great.". Your numbers do not disprove that. I didn't enjoy the visual aesthetic, regardless of how amazingly advanced of a creation they were. I thought the "Emotional Impact" would be an F, because it didn't affect me whatsoever.

The effects, as factually advanced as they are, have no need to be graded in that sense. They can't be. They ARE the most advanced effects. So here "Quality" refers to whether or not the viewer enjoyed what all those effects portrayed. Therefore, you cannot say they are all A+ gradings.

You cannot disagree with the technical advancements of the movie, but I did not enjoy the aesthetic. So for me it would get a C or below. I was floored by how they did what they did, not what they did with it.

Also, you can't sit there pushing the fact that it if a movie is intended for an audience, and that audience likes it, it's a great film in any objective way.

There is no objective "great" in terms of taste. There isn't, at all. The only objectives are technical aspects, and not only are fans of Epic Movie not going to give a shit about that, but who else would? Stop focusing on the technical aspects, in a feeble attempt to highlight the only area of appreciation you're competent in, and enjoy the movie.

Steve Vai is an objectively wicked guitar player, but subjectively I think he makes shit music. No amount of adoration for his playing changes that for me.

2) The music involved was neither brilliant to me personally, nor was it so technically astounding that it deserves an A+. If you can read music, if you can judge music by ear, then you'd know this. James Horner is noted for being a repetitive soundtrack composer who simply incorporates other artists. He overuses Rachmaninoff's four-note motif, and that's something that he has been criticised for many times. It's a hallmark of his work.

So if you wanna get technical, there. It was, in my opinion, a D grade soundtrack on a subjective level. It also wasn't anything objectively worthy of an A. If you knew about music, you'd know this.

3) All of that means literally nothing.

At the end of the day, most people say "Quality" with reference to how good the overall movie was. That is and will always be subjective, it is not and will never be reflected in sales.

New Moon is the biggest opening day of all time. It's also a piece of garbage.

Epic Movie, another piece of shit movie in my opinion.

Where does your maths figure into that? How can your maths prove that the money those movies made makes them good movies? Considering "Good movie" is subjective, as is "bad movie".

Every time someone says something like that, you immediately dive into a thread and start proving the technical facts, despite them not having any bearing on the overall opinion.

So what? Avatar had the most advanced effects seen in a movie. You can prove that. Well done. So what? I still think it was an over-hyped piece of generic filmmaking, it doesn't even make my top five.

If you know that taste is subjective, then you literally cannot argue that sales and box office revenue dictate quality of a movie.

"Quality" here having the meaning of "Did I enjoy it or not? Was it a good quality movie?". When people say "Quality", they most often mean whether or not it was of a quality that they enjoyed as a movie. Not the ins and outs of math-based technicalities.

The base fact of it is: sales factually do not indicate quality, ever. There is no objectively "good" or "bad" taste, so nothing can be an objectively good movie on the overall level.

You know this, so I'm not sure why you're arguing this point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, Ep. I of Star Wars was awesome

Not by fact, or people couldn't say this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
but most people posting in this thread would disagree with you and I on it.

Thus proving that:

Originally posted by dadudemon
it still did REALLY well at the box office.

...is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it determines quality.

Another basic point is; what kind of anally retentive human being sits there and grades the LIGHTING in a movie? In all honesty, dude.

For someone so adamant about how amazing Avatar was, you should try enjoying it some time. Not sitting there over analysing every single aspect of the movie. It wasn't meant to be seen that way.

-AC

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's your opinion, but not my point. The first part of my post explains why. Just read the second paragraph and it explains what I was talking about.

that's my opinion, and about those movies, almost everyone feels the same about them.

I did read everything else, I really don't understand how your grading works, but then again, is your grading.... aka: your opinion

Originally posted by dadudemon

How do you know? Also, I highly doubt it made anywhere near $600 million

my point wasn't how much money they made, my point was they were Nº 1 at the Box Office:

Epic Movie:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Terrible-Spoof-Leads-North-American-Box-Office-45621.shtml

Meet the Spartans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7212707.stm

so if you were to hear that week that particular movie was number one, does that equal quality?, does that mean it was better than all the other movies that week?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Epic Movie wasn't that bad. I gave it a 6. It got laughs, and it made fun of other films. So it accomplished what it set out to do.

then again that's your opinion... almost everyone else hated it, myself included... though I must admit I was fairly entertained by Meet the Spartans.... and did enjoy Date Movie quite a lot...Superhero Movie is utter crap.. and any other "..... Movie" I haven't bother seeing

Originally posted by dadudemon

That's sort of true. Movie ticket sales/DVD and Blu-ray sales simply tell how well the film appeals to the general population. How good a movie is to the individual is solely dependent on the film itself. For instance, Titanic was considered Uber WTF PWN, but I, personally, didn't like it that much. And, Transformers 2 was a great film. Solid 8. 🙂 (See what I mean?) Also, Ep. I of Star Wars was awesome, but most people posting in this thread would disagree with you and I on it. Yet, it still did REALLY well at the box office.

Exactly. You can only tell how well it appeals to that concurrent population. If you want to know how good a movie is, ask a friend that has tastes similar to yours.

you're complicating yourself:

Originally posted by dadudemon
... Movie ticket sales are EXACTLY how you tell how good a movie is.

No it isn't... not always

Yes, I agree with "how well it appeals to that concurrent population" that's totally true, but it does not tell you the quality... or simply how good it is, it just show financial success... a reason there must be for that success, so you have to see it and decide for yourself whether is good or not

If I want to know what the generally agreed opinion is regarding the best chick flick of all time, I'll look at reviews, I'll ask people and I'll look at sales.

That's not proof that it's a good movie, that's proof that a movie has done a job it intended to do for the most part.

Titanic was aimed at women, women who like Leo DiCaprio and women who like love stories. All sources combined; it clearly did very well to satiate those areas of the market. It was good at that.

That doesn't make it a good movie.

Then again, why is Dudemon praising movies for doing what they were supposed to do if what they were supposed to do is extremely trivial?

"Epic Movie got laughs.", yes...from retards and people who find things like saying "Pewpy pants" to be funny. That's not an achievement of a high level, it's the same level of achievement as getting a crayon drawing put on the fridge by your Mum.

It doesn't mean you're ready for the Tate Modern.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If I want to know what the generally agreed opinion is regarding the best chick flick of all time, I'll look at reviews, I'll ask people and I'll look at sales.

That's not proof that it's a good movie, that's proof that a movie has done a job it intended to do for the most part.

Titanic was aimed at women, women who like Leo DiCaprio and women who like love stories. All sources combined; it clearly did very well to satiate those areas of the market. It was good at that.

That doesn't make it a good movie.

Then again, why is Dudemon praising movies for doing what they were supposed to do if what they were supposed to do is extremely trivial?

"Epic Movie got laughs.", yes...from retards and people who find things like saying "Pewpy pants" to be funny. That's not an achievement of a high level, it's the same level of achievement as getting a crayon drawing put on the fridge by your Mum.

It doesn't mean you're ready for the Tate Modern.

-AC

I agree with the first part of your post, 100%, but you kind of lose me half-way when you try to pass off your opinion of films as fact. In your opinion, Titanic wasn't as good of a movie as most everyone else thought. That's your opinion, not fact. However, what is fact is that it appealed to many many people on such a level, that it set records. In that regard, it is an excellent film. As far as whether a film is good or not, as far as an individual goes, that is entirely up to the individual. (obviously.)

And, I find half of the art in Tate Modern to be lame.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
1) Why are you grading movies for me? I'll decide how I grade the movies I see, thank you. There are no objective grades. Grading implies opinion. All of those numbers is just how you grade Avatar, they aren't a factual barometer of how good the movie was.

You're implying that I graded the film on your behalf, which is no where near the case, or even my point. You didn't read all of my post (fair enough), but here is the section (again) that very politely asked your to review the film:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm sure if you filled out each category, and averaged it out the way I did, your score would increase (please don't make the score lower just to spite me. Give it an honest go.) But, I'm actually curious as to how much weight you put on the middle section. (Obviously, you and I differ there.)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm sitting here now and saying: "I didn't think it was great.". Your numbers do not disprove that. I didn't enjoy the visual aesthetic, regardless of how amazingly advanced of a creation they were. I thought the "Emotional Impact" would be an F, because it didn't affect me whatsoever.

Yeah. I think you're confused at what I did there. I graded the film, according to my opinion, to show you how I arrived at my score of a 9 out of 10, not to dictate to you what the actual, factual, score for the film is. That'd be retarded if I did that.

Also, if the middle section is how you completely grade a film, then you are missing out on a 2/3 of what a film is supposed to be about. (Which, to me, is sacrilegious to the film making process and disqualifies you from any legitimate opinion of a film, besides points that involve the middle section.)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The effects, as factually advanced as they are, have no need to be graded in that sense. They can't be. They ARE the most advanced effects. So here "Quality" refers to whether or not the viewer enjoyed what all those effects portrayed. Therefore, you cannot say they are all A+ gradings.

Yes I can as that portion of the film stands on it's on. No matter how crappy the middle section is, the other sections get their own grade.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You cannot disagree with the technical advancements of the movie, but I did not enjoy the aesthetic. So for me it would get a C or below. I was floored by how they did what they did, not what they did with it.

A 7 out of 10 is a good score, though. In fact, that's a "great" rating on my scale. Good is 6, and 5 is average.

Do you want to amend your score, or do you have a different scale than the 7 out of 10 thing?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Also, you can't sit there pushing the fact that it if a movie is intended for an audience, and that audience likes it, it's a great film in any objective way.

No, that's exactly what that means. If it is almost universally liked by the target audience, it objectively succeeds by measure of the subjective universal opinion. That is EXACTLY how it works. If you don't understand basic marketing and the film making process, you'll never understand.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is no objective "great" in terms of taste. There isn't, at all. The only objectives are technical aspects, and not only are fans of Epic Movie not going to give a shit about that, but who else would? Stop focusing on the technical aspects, in a feeble attempt to highlight the only area of appreciation you're competent in, and enjoy the movie.

I'm not focusing on the technical aspects, obviously. I outlined every major aspect of a film, which includes more than pretty colors, or just the damn story and characters. It's the whole package. My post was quite clear about that.

And, I am very glad we agree that there are some things that can be objectively used to measure a film (such as polygons a second, fluidity and natural CGI animation, depth of the color palettes, etc. Those are really easy to objectively compare (well, not REALLY easy, but easy enough.))

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Steve Vai is an objectively wicked guitar player, but subjectively I think he makes shit music. No amount of adoration for his playing changes that for me.

Really? Cause, no matter what, the only way to really measure music, objectively, is by just two items: harmonics, and notes per second. There are several contests and world records just for those things. You could also measure by a specific set of harmonics (chords), and that could be a speed test, as well.

But, there's really no way to measure music objectively until......you talk about sales, the target consumer/audience, and the success with that target audience.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
2) The music involved was neither brilliant to me personally, nor was it so technically astounding that it deserves an A+. If you can read music, if you can judge music by ear, then you'd know this. James Horner is noted for being a repetitive soundtrack composer who simply incorporates other artists. He overuses Rachmaninoff's four-note motif, and that's something that he has been criticised for many times. It's a hallmark of his work.

I don't think the music was groundbreaking and one of a kind. It was good enough to warrant making a CD out of it and listening to it while I study, but it isn't A+ level like John Williams tracks for Star Wars, or the sound track to A Beautiful Mind(just to name a couple soundtracks I like more). Sill it is better than most other sound tracks out there, was excellently timed, and the music was fitting for the film, which is what earned it an A.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So if you wanna get technical, there. It was, in my opinion, a D grade soundtrack on a subjective level. It also wasn't anything objectively worthy of an A. If you knew about music, you'd know this.

Now you're confusing me again. My opinion is my opinion. Not yours. Me giving it an A-- is my opinion.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
3) All of that means literally nothing.

At the end of the day, most people say "Quality" with reference to how good the overall movie was. That is and will always be subjective, it is not and will never be reflected in sales.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Ticket sales are one of the major things that people remember, decades later. Also, it's one of the only objective ways to measure a film.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
New Moon is the biggest opening day of all time. It's also a piece of garbage.

Millions upon millions of people disagree with you. Hollywood disagrees with you (they are going to make another...). The box office disagrees with you. KMC probably disagrees with you. However, I probably don't disagree with you. I'll see this movie, only because everyone I know has seen this and most of them say it was okay and worth watching. However, my hopes are very very low for this film. 🙁

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Epic Movie, another piece of shit movie in my opinion.

You have to qualify with "imo" at the end of your posts. I'm not going to be a jerk and assume that you're trying to pass off your opinion of a film as fact/objective. That'd be silly of me to do.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Where does your maths figure into that? How can your maths prove that the money those movies made makes them good movies? Considering "Good movie" is subjective, as is "bad movie".

See, now I'm confused again. How does my opinion of the movie make it objective? Not even you think of yourself as godly enough to pass that off, so why would me sorry a$$ think that?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Every time someone says something like that, you immediately dive into a thread and start proving the technical facts, despite them not having any bearing on the overall opinion.

Incorrect. For some people, movies are more about the "splosions" and effects. For some people, like myself and A-list movie makers, a film is all categories, working together, in harmony.

To NOT include them, imo, is disrespectful and sacrilegious to film making. You've cut a large part of what it means to enjoy a film.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So what? Avatar had the most advanced effects seen in a movie. You can prove that. Well done. So what? I still think it was an over-hyped piece of generic filmmaking, it doesn't even make my top five..

That's fine and cool, though. My original point was that it COULD be proven, on an objective basis, that Avatar pushed the bar up on the technical portions of film making. That was my original point (as I think you now obviously got and understand.) Now what seems to be the problem is you not thinking that is important for a film's overall appeal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you know that taste is subjective, then you literally cannot argue that sales and box office revenue dictate quality of a movie.

I've already addressed this point in a previous post. No reason for us to go "nuh-uh!" "Uh-huh!", etc. It's a waste of time.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Quality" here having the meaning of "Did I enjoy it or not? Was it a good quality movie?". When people say "Quality", they most often mean whether or not it was of a quality that they enjoyed as a movie. Not the ins and outs of math-based technicalities..

Actually, if you want to get "technical", quality would mean more of the level of proper editing; prop quality and placement; believable acting; character interaction and development; believable plot; realistic CGI and animation; etc. Also, that would be more contemporary "quality" as the bar could be pushed in the future. The bar for acting cannot really be pushed that much further, imo.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The base fact of it is: sales factually do not indicate quality, ever. There is no objectively "good" or "bad" taste, so nothing can be an objectively good movie on the overall level.

I don't like your use of the word "quality". I would replace that with something else like, "successful" or "enjoyable". And, I agree with the second part.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You know this, so I'm not sure why you're arguing this point.

Indeed, I do. However, there are ways of measuring the "quality" of a film based on it's box office and home media sales.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not by fact, or people couldn't say this:

Thus proving that:

...is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it determines quality.

While I see your point, it fails to actually understand my point. Sure, it's obviously my opinion, as well as darthmaul's opinion, that Ep I was awesome. But, most of the people in this thread disagree with us. However, the general population disagree with most everyone in this thread, at the time of it's release, meaning, contemporarily, it was a highly successful and well liked film. It was a quality film for its target audience, which happened to be the general population.

It just so happens that my very much subjective opinion of the film happens to land on the side of the portion of people that liked the film.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Another basic point is; what kind of anally retentive human being sits there and grades the LIGHTING in a movie? In all honesty, dude.

Me, the director, possibly a producer, the lighting effects supervisor, the visual effects supervisor, etc. Some people actually enjoy films, the film making process, and making films themselves. I don't expect you to be the same. Why should you expect me to have the same subjective standards for films, like you do?

But, I found that particular point in your post quite funny.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
For someone so adamant about how amazing Avatar was, you should try enjoying it some time. Not sitting there over analysing every single aspect of the movie. It wasn't meant to be seen that way.

-AC

You call it over analyzing, I call it actually paying attention to a film instead of only reviewing the story, acting, and character development.

That's your subjective opinion, and the way you review films is very much closed minded and limited. “No thanks” to how you grade them. I'll stick with my much broader way of reviewing films, and you stick to your narrow way of reviewing them. They each work for us, and probably have ups and downs to each. In the end, however, it is the individual and ONLY the individual to decide how he or she should review a film. It should be based on what they look for in a film.

Also, I wasn’t so adamant about how amazing avatar was. My initial review had tons of complaints about the films. I just posted a long arse diatribe about how silly the acceptability of the ending was.

Originally posted by S_D_J
that's my opinion, and about those movies, almost everyone feels the same about them.

I did read everything else, I really don't understand how your grading works, but then again, is your grading.... aka: your opinion.

Cool, so we agree on at least one section: it's still comes down to opinion.

Originally posted by S_D_J
my point wasn't how much money they made, my point was they were Nº 1 at the Box Office:

Epic Movie:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Terrible-Spoof-Leads-North-American-Box-Office-45621.shtml

Meet the Spartans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7212707.stm

so if you were to hear that week that particular movie was number one, does that equal quality?, does that mean it was better than all the other movies that week?

See, my point, which was the point you responded to, WAS how much it made at the box office, relative to all time figures. I apologize if that wasn't made apparant by myself.

Epic movie doing well at the box office only indicates that the target audience, young adults, liked the previews/marketing enough to see it and tells others to watch it, but it wasn't nearly good enough to appeal to large amounts of people. $240 million in no way copares to $18 million, for a weekend.

Originally posted by S_D_J
then again that's your opinion... almost everyone else hated it, myself included... though I must admit I was fairly entertained by Meet the Spartans.... and did enjoy Date Movie quite a lot...Superhero Movie is utter crap.. and any other "..... Movie" I haven't bother seeing

I agree. That's my opinion. Those are all your opinionso different films. That much is obvious on both our parts. Agreed?

Originally posted by S_D_J
you're complicating yourself:

But what I said was perfectly accurate, and must all be taken into context with each other to make my statement the way I intended it. I SWEAR! 😆

Originally posted by S_D_J
No it isn't... not always

Yes, I agree with "how well it appeals to that concurrent population" that's totally true, but it does not tell you the quality... or simply how good it is, it just show financial success... a reason there must be for that success, so you have to see it and decide for yourself whether is good or not

You've sort of got what I was saying.

The statement you called complicated captured it best, though.

Movie ticket sales/DVD and Blu-ray sales simply tell how well the film appeals to the general population. How good a movie is to the individual is solely dependent on the film itself... You can only tell how well it appeals to that concurrent population. If you want to know how ["]good["] a movie is [independent of the general populace], ask a friend that has tastes similar to yours.