Avatar

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

I know that's my opinion...

That's the whole point of the post. Whether you consider a movie to be good or not...? Opinion. If quality could be connected to factual sales, Titanic would be a factually good film.

It's NOT an excellent film because of the regard you said; it's an excellent SUCCESS, objectively. Do NOT confuse the two.

Titanic is an objective success, not an excellent movie objectively.

That's why I haven't replied to your above, long post. I understand your point, and you agree with mine, the fact is; we're making different points with different wording. You keep calling it an excellent film objectively, in one regard, when you should be calling it an objective success. It's YOUR poor wording that caused the problem here, though you'll never admit that.

You are calling it a great film because it did what it was intended to do. That doesn't make it a great film, that makes it a great success. That's where you caused your own confusion, by saying something was objectively "great", for accomplishing its intentions, as opposed to objectively successful.

If a movie hits all the marks it intends to with its intended target audience, that does not make it an objectively GREAT movie. It makes it an objectively great SUCCESS.

Titanic being the perfect example.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know that's my opinion...

That's the whole point of the post. Whether you consider a movie to be good or not...? Opinion. If quality could be connected to factual sales, Titanic would be a factually good film.

It's NOT an excellent film because of the regard you said; it's an excellent SUCCESS, objectively. Do NOT confuse the two.

Titanic is an objective success, not an excellent movie objectively.

That's why I haven't replied to your above, long post. I understand your point, and you agree with mine, the fact is; we're making different points with different wording. You keep calling it an excellent film objectively, in one regard, when you should be calling it an objective success. It's YOUR poor wording that caused the problem here, though you'll never admit that.

You are calling it a great film because it did what it was intended to do. That doesn't make it a great film, that makes it a great success. That's where you caused your own confusion, by saying something was objectively "great", for accomplishing its intentions, as opposed to objectively successful.

If a movie hits all the marks it intends to with its intended target audience, that does not make it an objectively GREAT movie. It makes it an objectively great SUCCESS.

Titanic being the perfect example.

-AC

Sure, I can agree with that. My bad on the wording.

But, I still hold the idea that you can call a film "great" if it just keeps selling and selling. But, that "great" designation doesn't have to be what you personally think of the films.

Here's more of what I mean:

List the greats:

Titanic.
Gone with the Wind.
Star Wars: A New hope.
The Dark Knight.
The Sound of Music.
Jaws.

Etc.

Those films were literally the all time greats.

So, if someone asks if a film is any good, you can say that it was great for most people, and then add your opinion on the end. That's really what I was getting at.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, I can agree with that. My bad on the wording.

But, I still hold the idea that you can call a film "great" if it just keeps selling and selling. But, that "great" designation doesn't have to be what you personally think of the films.

Here's more of what I mean:

List the greats:

Titanic.
Gone with the Wind.
Star Wars: A New hope.
The Dark Knight.
The Sound of Music.
Jaws.

Etc.

Those films were literally the all time greats.

So, if someone asks if a film is any good, you can say that it was great for most people, and then add your opinion on the end. That's really what I was getting at.

I wouldn't, though.

I'd just give my opinion. Nothing else needs to be said. They're asking me what I thought, not what it was perceived as.

-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.

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

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.

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.

I recall my previous post and will say It boils down to opinion more so than tickets sales, i went to see transformers 2 at the theater and that was by far the worst movie of the year. Titanic I saw once and it was good but that was enough. GI JOE was the best most entertaing movie of the year. The hangover IMO not good didn't find it funny besides the pictures at the end. Star wars episode I loved it. and there will be plenty of people that both agree and disagree with me on all of these. but the ticket sales on all say they are good.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wouldn't, though.

I'd just give my opinion. Nothing else needs to be said. They're asking me what I thought, not what it was perceived as.

-AC

But don't you think it's a tad dishonest to not say what most people thought of it? We are movie fanatics, more so than the regular population: ergo our presence here. I would think that we would at least try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially if someone came for advice completely ignorant.

At work, I get asked about films....A LOT. So, I make sure I tell them the troof, and then my personal opinion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But don't you think it's a tad dishonest to not say what most people thought of it? We are movie fanatics, more so than the regular population: ergo our presence here. I would think that we would at least try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, especially if someone came for advice completely ignorant.

At work, I get asked about films....A LOT. So, I make sure I tell them the troof, and then my personal opinion.

I'm no movie fanatic. I like the movies I like, or love the movies I love.

I don't love movies inherently.

No, it's not dishonest. I'll answer honestly about whatever I'm asked. If it's how they were/are perceived, I'll say: "As classic, must-see movies.".

If I'm asked what I think of them, I'll say my opinion.

-AC

Originally posted by darthmaul1
I recall my previous post and will say It boils down to opinion more so than tickets sales, i went to see transformers 2 at the theater and that was by far the worst movie of the year. Titanic I saw once and it was good but that was enough. GI JOE was the best most entertaing movie of the year. The hangover IMO not good didn't find it funny besides the pictures at the end. Star wars episode I loved it. and there will be plenty of people that both agree and disagree with me on all of these. but the ticket sales on all say they are good.

The ticket sales indicate that they appealed more to the general population and should send up red-flags for people like Alpha Centauri. I generally like what the general population likes, but I also like stuff that hardly anyone likes, so I am usually safe with watchin blockbusters, but not safe watching lesser known titles. That's sort of why I'm here.

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

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.

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

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! 😆

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.

Agreed

though I rather go see it myself than ask around, to see what all the fuss is about

I don't trust anyone but me 😐

131

I love movies. There's nothing that can compare to watching a movie at a cinema screen

Originally posted by dadudemon
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
The ticket sales indicate that they appealed more to the general population and should send up red-flags for people like Alpha Centauri. I generally like what the general population likes, but I also like stuff that hardly anyone likes, so I am usually safe with watchin blockbusters, but not safe watching lesser known titles. That's sort of why I'm here.

A film does not have to do well to be famouse ESB is the best of all six star wars films but made little money at the box office.

The way avatar is going it might beat Titanic's box office record 🙄

Saw it last night on IMAX 3-D at the local AMC 24. I liked it. Was it great? I don't know. It was definately good.

It didn't really blow me away but I was interested. MILES over ROTF. Avatar is a 2hr/40min movie and it breezed through for me. ROTF took forever.

The action? Great but I wasn't interested in it. I just liked the story, characters, and world. Translation: I liked looking at it. What you've heard is true. No, the story isn't original. It is pretty predicatable. But it is a joy to look at(see it in IMAX).

I was very engaged in it. I didn't like the cartoonish way the military was portrayed. Cliched. Egverything else was great. I loved the way it transition from animation to live-action. THEN at the end you get to see both fight each other! Awsome. Epic, yes, but not an outstanding flm by any means.

As far as popcorn flicks go I liked The Dark Knight, Star Trek, and Watchmen(if you can call it that) better. Haven't yet seen District 9 yet.

It shits all over Wolverine, ROTF, G.I.Joe, TS, etc. though.

This is one of the most colorful, beautiful, and engrossing film to look at. Lots of detail went into this. Pay the extra bucks to see it in IMAX 3-D.

As far as Cameron's popcorn films go. I like T2 better. But it's pretty good. It just didn't leave a very big impact on me after I walked out like something The Dark Knight.

8/10. See it in IMAX 3-D if possible.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Also, why the hell did so many animals evolve with what I've called "macro-dendrite interfaces"? Someone please explain to me how multiple species that are vastly different from each other, somehow evolved a neuronic interface that just happens to be compatible/works with the Na'Vi species?

That's what I was thinking. Puts USB to ****ing shame that.

It was extremely generic though. It had no original plot point at all. But I didn't think that's what it was about anyways, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what I was thinking. Puts USB to ****ing shame that.

Obviously it's fiction, so that's that.

But it stands to reason that during evolution, some species (all?) the species of Pandora evolved in some manner of a symbiotic relationship. Like how some species of animals here are evolved/adapted to only eat from one particular food source, from the structure of their mouths to their digestive tracts.

There's many other examples to be found too, eg human Botlfy, which relies strictly on a human host for it's life-cycle. Parasitic wasp and their caterpillar host etc. (I could only think of two at the moment)

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously it's fiction, so that's that.

But it stands to reason that during evolution, some species (all?) the species of Pandora evolved in some manner of a symbiotic relationship. Like how some species of animals here are evolved/adapted to only eat from one particular food source, from the structure of their mouths to their digestive tracts.

There's many other examples to be found too, eg human Botlfy, which relies strictly on a human host for it's life-cycle. Parasitic wasp and their caterpillar host etc. (I could only think of two at the moment)

Well, the answer was obviously that the magic planet of magic did it magically. I was just thinking that I wanted such a damn awesome interface.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the answer was obviously that the magic planet of magic did it magically. I was just thinking that I wanted such a damn awesome interface.

I don't like the magic angle, it would explain a lot, but I don't like it.

What would you do with it?

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't like the magic angle, it would explain a lot, but I don't like it.

What would you do with it?

Well, it's less that I want it personally and more that I want to have something that connects to everything and obviously has an incredibly bandwidth.

That's something they could elaborate on further in a sequel anyways, so far it was only implied at best, but I'd like to know more about the planet being a giant brain/the internet

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's less that I want it personally and more that I want to have something that connects to everything and obviously has an incredibly bandwidth.

That's something they could elaborate on further in a sequel anyways, so far it was only implied at best, but I'd like to know more about the planet being a giant brain/the internet

It's Ego the living planet, duh.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
GI JOE was the best most entertaing movie of the year.

At both the grammar and the statement you are attempting to make. I wouldn't say it's the worst(Wolverine) but it doesn't touch some of the greater movies this year.

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

Not really, that has nothing to with a movie staying with people. All it means is that a bunch of people have seen it. Don't waste my time.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
😆

At both the grammar and the statement you are attempting to make. I wouldn't say it's the worst(Wolverine) but it doesn't touch some of the greater movies this year.

HEY! 😠

Lay off him!

😆

I've made that same mistake MANY times. It happens when you type something, then edit it to sound better.

Most likely, he originally typed in "GI Joe was the most entertaining..." He then realized that that didn't have much of a punch to it, so he tried to edit it by changing it to "GI Joe was the best...", but forgot to delete, or accidentally hit "ctrl+c" and inadvertantly undid the deletion of "most entertaining" (that's usually what is happening with me when I make that mistake.)