Nolan-fever will certaiinly boost man of Steel, but lets not try and pretend Superman Returns did not leave a lot of people disappointed and with a really bad idea of how Superman is/can be.
I doubt the film will hit a billion and I will consider it a success if it reaches 700million, but if it does get to the 1 billion mark then LOL@Marvel.
If box office is the all and end all "factual" way to judge, then I guess Transformers 2 was amazing. Clearly much better than the first as it grossed much more.
And clearly Spider-Man 3 was by far the best Spider-Man film since it was the highest grossing.
No the truth is the ONLY reason we're all hoping for MOS to do well at the box office is so that we can get more DC Superhero films. Otherwise the majority of us are just hoping for a damn good film so we can enjoy the entertainment.
An epic Superman movie is what we all want (except Quanchi). If I hate the movie then I couldn't give a damn about Box Office crap.
I was disappointed in IM3 so really don't give a rats ass how much over a Billion it made. Because end of the day, that doesn't increase my enjoyment of the film.
In fact it's box office success could actually be a bad thing if the studios are going to keep on Shane Black as a Director of Marvel movies due to IM3's box office success. If that happened then Marvel movies would take a turn for the worse Imo. Especially with Downey's contract also coming to an end.
But hopefully that won't happen because I'm sure Marvel Studios isn't just run by a bunch of Quanchi's saying "More money means it's Factually Better!"
Originally posted by DARTH POWERYou like so many others are missing the point. You can't really argue subjectivity. That's the point. Objectivity is success here or bottom dollar.
If box office is the all and end all "factual" way to judge, then I guess Transformers 2 was amazing. Clearly much better than the first as it grossed much more.And clearly Spider-Man 3 was by far the best Spider-Man film since it was the highest grossing.
No the truth is the ONLY reason we're all hoping for MOS to do well at the box office is so that we can get more DC Superhero films. Otherwise the majority of us are just hoping for a damn good film so we can enjoy the entertainment.
I think the transformers movies stunk but they are a huge success. My opinion is just my own. Isn't factual just like yours isn't.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERIf the movies makes money more sequels are made. The way it works. Many enjoyed IM3 just because you and I didn't that doesn't make people's opinions invalid who loved it.
An epic Superman movie is what we all want (except Quanchi). If I hate the movie then I couldn't give a damn about Box Office crap.I was disappointed in IM3 so really don't give a rats ass how much over a Billion it made. Because end of the day, that doesn't increase my enjoyment of the film.
In fact it's box office success could actually be a bad thing if the studios are going to keep on Shane Black as a Director of Marvel movies due to IM3's box office success. If that happened then Marvel movies would take a turn for the worse Imo. Especially with Downey's contract also coming to an end.
But hopefully that won't happen because I'm sure Marvel Studios isn't just run by a bunch of Quanchi's saying "More money means it's Factually Better!"
Originally posted by jaden101I didn't say this was the perfect way to judge. It's objective unlike something we judge subjectively.
This is true but unfortunately films are no different from music now in that regard. Justin Bieber sells 10s of millions of albums while genuinely talented musicians have a small but dedicated fan base and don't make anywhere near as much money. It doesn't equate that Bieber's music is superior.There's also the fact that with films it doesn't matter how many trailers you've seen and made you want to see it, you can still come out of the cinema not liking the film but by that point they've already made their money from you. It also works the opposite way. The trailer for Cabin in the Woods made it look like a very cliched horror movie when it was anything but. It didn't take a colossal amount of money but was a far better film than almost anything else that year. It was my favourite film of last year followed by Seven Psychoypaths which both made a fraction of my next 2 films which were Avengers and TDKR.
So I don't think either are a perfect way to judge how 'good' a film is. Imagine if a trailer made a film look brilliant and on the basis of that st made hundreds of millions at the box office yet not a single person liked it. Would it still be a 'good' film? Obviously an unlikely scenario but it highlights my point via money generated isn't a good indication of whether a film is any good or not.
If movies stink to the masses they don't generally make tons of movie. You're in the minority so as I said opinions vary. Deal with it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I didn't say this was the perfect way to judge. It's objective unlike something we judge subjectively.If movies stink to the masses they don't generally make tons of movie. You're in the minority so as I said opinions vary. Deal with it.
And yet Spiderman 3, The Day After Tomorrow, 10,000bc. X men origins, pearl harbour, 2012, the last airbender and a lot more besides are all widely considered as bad films that all made a ton of money. So there goes your theory.
And what am I in the minority in regards to exactly?
Originally posted by jaden101They made money though and opinions vary. I loved the Last Airbender. It was not a huge success. I still want my sequel though.
And yet Spiderman 3, The Day After Tomorrow, 10,000bc. X men origins, pearl harbour, 2012, the last airbender and a lot more besides are all widely considered as bad films that all made a ton of money. So there goes your theory.And what am I in the minority in regards to exactly?
I haven't seen it. Don't really know anything about it or what it's based on. Never interested me. There are people that like them but the majority consensus is they're not good. Saying that there's a lot films that are considered poor that I like. Probably the 'worst' of which would be The Core. I recognise its badly acted with poor effects and other problems besides but I still enjoy it.
On the opposite side. Look at Shawshank Redemption. A total flop at the box office but now widely regarded as a modern classic and repeatedly on people's 'best films' lists.
Originally posted by jaden101I never said money equals great film. I said arguing subjectivity is silly. Opinions vary. You have my points and they are quite logical.
I haven't seen it. Don't really know anything about it or what it's based on. Never interested me. There are people that like them but the majority consensus is they're not good. Saying that there's a lot films that are considered poor that I like. Probably the 'worst' of which would be The Core. I recognise its badly acted with poor effects and other problems besides but I still enjoy it.On the opposite side. Look at Shawshank Redemption. A total flop at the box office but now widely regarded as a modern classic and repeatedly on people's 'best films' lists.
Originally posted by quanchi112If movies stink to the masses they don't generally make tons of movie.
Spider-Man 3 made tons of money. And it did stink to the masses.
Opinions are subjective, but some movies are pretty Unanimously considered great movies like Iron Man, Avengers, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins and X-Men First Class.(Just naming superhero movies for the purpose of this debate).
Not all of those made a ton of money, and a few people don't like some of them, but all are generally considered great super hero movies.
Whilst even though IM3 has made tonnes more than IM1, it's reactions are a lot more mixed. And it's generally not considered Epic like the first one. Some people may think it is, but from what I've seen it's not given the same entertainment value to the Masses that the first one did.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERNo, it didn't otherwise it wouldn't be successful.
Spider-Man 3 made tons of money. And it did stink to the masses.Opinions are subjective, but some movies are pretty Unanimously considered great movies like Iron Man, Avengers, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins and X-Men First Class.(Just naming superhero movies for the purpose of this debate).
Not all of those made a ton of money, and a few people don't like some of them, but all are generally considered great super hero movies.
Whilst even though IM3 has made tonnes more than IM1, it's reactions are a lot more mixed. And it's generally not considered Epic like the first one. Some people may think it is, but from what I've seen it's not given the same entertainment value to the Masses that the first one did.
Opinions vary. Is your rant over ?
Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it didn't otherwise it wouldn't be successful.Opinions vary. Is your rant over ?
You realise how opinions work?
You form your opinion AFTER you go see the movie. Not before. I realise this escapes you though what with you having opinions and forming arguments on films you've clearly never watched.
Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it didn't otherwise it wouldn't be successful.
Completely wrong. Spider-Man 3 was the worst of the 3. Everyone Universally agrees to that. In fact I've never met anyone who thought it was the best of the 3.
And guess which ones considered the best? Spider-Man 2. Which grossed the least of all 3.
So there goes your theory "Box-Office Gross = Entertainment Value to the Masses" out of the window.
Originally posted by ares834
Uh. Yeah, it did. That's why Spider Man 3 has a low score on IMDB. Just because a movie has a high gross does not mean the masses enjoyed it.
Yep and out of movies this year Star Trek into Darkness has a higher IMDB score than Iron Man 3. Despite the massive massive difference in Box Office gross.
Which makes sense to me. I was more eager to jump to the cinema to watch IM3 than Star Trek, but enjoyed Star Trek a lot more.