i miss him.
Not sure if you're being facetious. But I did always look forward to his take on things--and I usually agreed with him. I liked his writing style. Can't recall why he got the boot, but yeah, it's too bad.
The Wook
Am I REALLY the only one disappointed with TFA?
- Thread starter sithman66
- Start date
Not sure if you're being facetious. But I did always look forward to his take on things--and I usually agreed with him. I liked his writing style. Can't recall why he got the boot, but yeah, it's too bad.
The Wook
Mr Mold Maker
Master Member
I do! It's a great reminder of the guy to not be on the Internet. :thumbsup
TFA is what? 60M shy of 2 billion, the last time I checked? A lot closer than any other film in recent memory has come to the magical 2.8B you're throwing out there. So let's say this film artistically stinks... Sure, It's the worst. Are you saying that Avatar is a better film? It's a visual spectacle, definitely.. I wouldn't call it a great film however.
Why is TFA more highly rated than both Titanic and Avatar on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc.?.. (The one exception being Avatar's Metacritic.. A whopping 2% higher rating.) Your claim is a movie (TFA) is worse than another (two, in this case. Avatar and Titanic) due to its gross, when at the same time it is being rated higher almost everywhere across the board?
Before you reply with "blarg blah blarghe stupid masses blah blarg," I'd remind you those same stupid masses are the exact reason Avatar and Titanic brought in the money it did...
Last edited:
Ya know, when you open up a dialogue with someone by insulting them the way you insulted me in your first sentence, you're really getting off on the wrong foot. So, against my better judgement, I'm writing this reply to you. Having said that, I will keep it brief.
You've made two egregious assumptions in your post, both of which are wrong. One, I didn't like Titanic. Saw it once in the theater. Thought the boat sinking was very well done, but the silly Jack/Rose love story which permeated the film ruined the overall experience. Two, I didn't like Avatar. I saw it on a 13" black & white TV in Canada. Didn't impress me.
So stop putting words in my mouth. I defy you to show me where I said TFA was a worse film than Titanic and/or Avatar--in any way other than box office trajectory and box office haul.
The Wook
Solo4114
Master Member
Ok, but you do realize you're holding Avatar and Titanic out as examples of "good" movies in comparison to TFA, right? Hence people's confusion.
Actually, let me rephrase that.
It's more like you're holding TFA's failure to beat Avatar's and Titanic's respective box office performances as evidence of the fact that it's bad, or at least not as good as it should have been, or maybe just that it's not as popular as it should be. It's hard to tell, actually. It's fair to assume, therefore, that you view Avatar and Titanic as some kind of benchmark for "good" or "popular" at the very least.
So, when you then say "I thought Avatar and Titanic stunk," it leaves folks scratching their heads at why you're bringing them up. You seem to want to point to TFA's box office take in comparison with those films to back up a point. What's that point?
It seems like you've been bringing up box office performance to prove that TFA isn't a success. But it is. By any metric you want to pick, TFA is objectively a successful film. (Well, unless the metric is "Did it entertain The Wook," I suppose.) It's had fantastic box office revenues. It's a merchandising success. It is a critical success. Sure, you can find individual reviews and comments within reviews that point out its flaws. But in the aggregate, the film has been wildly successful. That's fact, not opinion, and it's not really open for debate at this point.
The film is not a failure, except by the subjective standards of some members of the audience, and it appears that those audience members are in the minority. Which is perfectly fine, by the way. There's nothing wrong with being in the minority of audience members for a particular movie. It's really not that important.
I guess the way I see it is that, if you want to talk about what you don't like about the film, hey, knock yourself out. But if you're gonna try to claim that the film is an objective failure, like a financial failure, that's just flat-out wrong on the facts. Failing to attain the goal of "#1 film of ALL TIME" doesn't make a film a financial failure, unless "#1 film of ALL TIME" is the only measure of success, in which case, every movie except that one film is a failure.
Actually, let me rephrase that.
It's more like you're holding TFA's failure to beat Avatar's and Titanic's respective box office performances as evidence of the fact that it's bad, or at least not as good as it should have been, or maybe just that it's not as popular as it should be. It's hard to tell, actually. It's fair to assume, therefore, that you view Avatar and Titanic as some kind of benchmark for "good" or "popular" at the very least.
So, when you then say "I thought Avatar and Titanic stunk," it leaves folks scratching their heads at why you're bringing them up. You seem to want to point to TFA's box office take in comparison with those films to back up a point. What's that point?
It seems like you've been bringing up box office performance to prove that TFA isn't a success. But it is. By any metric you want to pick, TFA is objectively a successful film. (Well, unless the metric is "Did it entertain The Wook," I suppose.) It's had fantastic box office revenues. It's a merchandising success. It is a critical success. Sure, you can find individual reviews and comments within reviews that point out its flaws. But in the aggregate, the film has been wildly successful. That's fact, not opinion, and it's not really open for debate at this point.
The film is not a failure, except by the subjective standards of some members of the audience, and it appears that those audience members are in the minority. Which is perfectly fine, by the way. There's nothing wrong with being in the minority of audience members for a particular movie. It's really not that important.
I guess the way I see it is that, if you want to talk about what you don't like about the film, hey, knock yourself out. But if you're gonna try to claim that the film is an objective failure, like a financial failure, that's just flat-out wrong on the facts. Failing to attain the goal of "#1 film of ALL TIME" doesn't make a film a financial failure, unless "#1 film of ALL TIME" is the only measure of success, in which case, every movie except that one film is a failure.
Dollars inflate. Ticket prices inflate. Audiences watch more movies at home. Etc. There is no directly comparing TFA with anything from even as recently as 2009, let alone 1997.
But the broader point stands. TFA was probably not quite as successful as Avatar or Titanic.
When movies get this big every one is unique. Gone with the Wind was huge because it played to an under-served region. Independence Day was a fresh movie with a leading man who sold well to both black and white audiences (uncommon 22 years ago). Titanic was a well-done movie in a genre that had been neglected for decades. Avatar was a technical breakthrough at the time. Star Wars ANH was a bit of both neglected genre and SFX breakthrough.
TFA is . . . well, none of those things. It's probably the most long-awaited sequel/boot ever. But it comes at a time when people are sick & tired of long-awaited sequel/boots being disappointing (with this very same franchise being the worst offender).
What I'm saying is that TFA had a lot to make it a success but it lacked that extra thing that THE BIGGEST movies always need. Some extra spin to set it apart. TFA didn't even break any new SFX ground at all, unlike almost every single new SW movie before it. Everybody knew what they were seeing before they saw it, and they had seen it before. It was only a question of how well TFA would retread the familiar ground.
But the broader point stands. TFA was probably not quite as successful as Avatar or Titanic.
When movies get this big every one is unique. Gone with the Wind was huge because it played to an under-served region. Independence Day was a fresh movie with a leading man who sold well to both black and white audiences (uncommon 22 years ago). Titanic was a well-done movie in a genre that had been neglected for decades. Avatar was a technical breakthrough at the time. Star Wars ANH was a bit of both neglected genre and SFX breakthrough.
TFA is . . . well, none of those things. It's probably the most long-awaited sequel/boot ever. But it comes at a time when people are sick & tired of long-awaited sequel/boots being disappointing (with this very same franchise being the worst offender).
What I'm saying is that TFA had a lot to make it a success but it lacked that extra thing that THE BIGGEST movies always need. Some extra spin to set it apart. TFA didn't even break any new SFX ground at all, unlike almost every single new SW movie before it. Everybody knew what they were seeing before they saw it, and they had seen it before. It was only a question of how well TFA would retread the familiar ground.
Yes, distribution models are so different now, especially in regards to the number of screens a film opens on, it makes comparisons difficult. The new paradigm is to front end load revenue. And as I have said, repeatedly, Titanic was hugely successful among women and had multiple re-releases. I think TFA has also succeeded in bringing in a strong female audience percentage and that has been instrumental to its success over the other traditional blockbusters. And I don't doubt TFA will get another release prior to Ep. VIII.
Solo4114
Master Member
Right, I don't generally disagree with that.
But, so what?
I mean, I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly haven't been claiming that TFA is THE BIGGEST MOVIE EVAR!!! Frankly, I find the "Well, box office numbers support it, so nyah nyah" line of reasoning to be fairly weak, because, hey, Transformers movies do well at the box office and are undeniably crappy films. Crappy, popular, and successful films, but crappy films nonetheless.
But likewise, it's undeniable that TFA is both popular and successful. Is it AS successful as Avatar or Titanic? Eh, I think it depends on what you mean. Box office-wise, no. Not yet, anyway. We'll see if and when it's re-released in theaters. But the thing is, I don't think anyone was ever saying "We're taking Avatar and Titanic DOWN!! WE WILL BE NUMBER ONE!!!!!", so there's no reason to characterize TFA as having failed somehow because it didn't do that. TFA is a massive, massive success for Disney. It's a huge financial win for them in more ways than one, and it has rejuvenated a franchise that was languishing. It also brought in a bunch of new audience members and younger fans, so by that measure, it's a success, too. The merchandising machine is going full tilt now, including hitherto unrealized (at least by some Hasbro execs) demand for characters like Rey. That means new markets for merchandise (again, at least in the minds of Hasbro execs).
Pretty much across the board, by any business-related standard you pick, TFA is a huge success. So, the whole "Well...it still didn't catch Titanic or Avatar, so....y'know..." line of thinking seems rather beside the point. Doubly so if one takes a rather dim view of Titanic and Avatar as films. Personally, I haven't seen -- and have no real interest in seeing -- Titanic, but I watched and sadly own a copy of Avatar, and as anything other than a tech demo, it's pretty underwhelming. Frankly, even the tech is underwhelming to me, but I digress.
Solo4114
Master Member
I watched it at home on a 54" plasma with my 3D glasses on, and it looked...I dunno, kinda neat at first, but ultimately didn't seem to offer an experience that I really enjoyed.
Mostly, I'm just not convinced that 3D -- even native 3D -- is a good experience for watching a movie. You want to take that same technology and incorporate it into a video game? NOW we're talking, but for watching a film on a screen in front of me, I don't see it really being much better than regular cinematography.
joshvanrad
Master Member
The Avatar story, and more importantly, the dialogue fell flat with me. Add to that that I don't particularly care for 3D... and Avatar REALLY fell short of the hype for me. If I had to choose between Avatar and TFA.
I would gladly take TFA every day of the week, without hesitation.
Just my opinion of course.
I would gladly take TFA every day of the week, without hesitation.
Just my opinion of course.
Darth Lars
Master Member
Box office numbers is a stupid way to judge the quality of a movie. People go to see the movie because it is called Star Wars and the trailer is good.
Disney knows that Star Wars is going to bring in a lot of money - that is why they bought it. They designed the movie to bring in people for this movie, and made it incomplete at the end to make people would be wanting to see the next movie right away.
I like this video series on Youtube about what the author finds to be the n best movies in the last decade. Yes, there are many youtubers that have made the same thing but what sets this one apart is the comparison of box office earnings of each good movie against a bad movie: Grown Ups 2 with Adam Sandler (7% on Rotten Tomatoes) ... None of the movies on the "best" list earned even half of what Grown Ups 2 did.
Disney knows that Star Wars is going to bring in a lot of money - that is why they bought it. They designed the movie to bring in people for this movie, and made it incomplete at the end to make people would be wanting to see the next movie right away.
I like this video series on Youtube about what the author finds to be the n best movies in the last decade. Yes, there are many youtubers that have made the same thing but what sets this one apart is the comparison of box office earnings of each good movie against a bad movie: Grown Ups 2 with Adam Sandler (7% on Rotten Tomatoes) ... None of the movies on the "best" list earned even half of what Grown Ups 2 did.
Any time someone talks about the best movies, all I ever think of is Dead Poets society..."Avatar had nice 3d and I could dance to it"
As a species we've spent hundreds of years and millions of words to find new ways of discovering what should have been obvious to us from day one, but still...strangely...isn't:
Opinion is subjective. It's the best if you, personally, like it better than the others. And you're not wrong, even if other people like something different.
I don't know why that always pisses us off so much as a species, but it really is how we're built. We don't have objective taste in entertainment. Not even if we use pie charts.
As a species we've spent hundreds of years and millions of words to find new ways of discovering what should have been obvious to us from day one, but still...strangely...isn't:
Opinion is subjective. It's the best if you, personally, like it better than the others. And you're not wrong, even if other people like something different.
I don't know why that always pisses us off so much as a species, but it really is how we're built. We don't have objective taste in entertainment. Not even if we use pie charts.
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, I agree. That was my point about the Transformers movies. They make boatloads of cash and are just garbage films built around explosions, robots punching each other, some more explosions, and Megan Fox's ass.
That said, box office is a measure of financial success and general popularity. Take Fantastic Four, for example. Lousy box office, due largely to an indifferent public and bad word of mouth from people who went to see it. (poor suckers...) So, a good trailer and brand alone aren't enough. Well, aren't always enough.
Opinion is subjective, but you can still look at something both objectively and subjectively and evaluate its quality in both respects.
Example:
Eric Clapton is, objectively, a fantastic musician. Subjectively, though, I find his work to be completely unengaging, with the only song of his that I really enjoy being mostly elevated thanks to Duane Allman's slide guitar, and Martin Scorcese's use of Duane's solo in one of my favorite films. But the man can play, no argument there, even if what he plays just doesn't do it for me.
Likewise, there are plenty of films that I recognize as well crafted films, well told stories, which just aren't my cup of tea, just as there are plenty of films that are, objectively, crap -- even some that I actually enjoy. (Often because they are crap, e.g., Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins!)
So, like I say, I think you can evaluate a film objectively in terms of whether it tells its story well and otherwise is well crafted, but that doesn't really say anything about whether the film worked for you aesthetically.
Anyway, I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of TFA, but claims that the film is neither popular nor successful aren't.
I wasn't really trying to diss TFA, so much as just point out that THE BIGGEST movies tend to have some kind of rare circumstance pushing them over the top. TFA just wasn't in the circumstances to be that big no matter how good or bad it was.
Honestly I think TFA made (will make) about as much money as it possibly could have in the theatrical run. It could have been a better movie but I doubt that would have increased the box office by much.
I have been a little mystified about Avatar since day one. I'm not sure why such an average movie made so much money. I'm not sure why such an average screenplay feels more ripped off than every other ripped off screenplay we get every summer. It's not terrible but IMO it just doesn't resonate with audiences like it should. The ingredients are pretty good and it's made pretty well and yet somehow it seems worse than the sum of its parts.
I saw Titanic on a lark right after it opened. Back then the hype was pretty much the opposite of what came later. It was a "troubled production" that overran its budget on a Titanic scale, it had unknown actors, an unknown for the soundtrack, it was an outdated style of movie with no modern audience, and everyone already knew the ending. In case all that wasn't enough, some moron hired the Aliens and Terminator guy to write & direct this chick-flick period piece. How on earth could this movie possibly do anything other than bomb?
Seeing Titanic with no expectations (besides an FX spectacle), I really liked it.
Zombie_61
Master Member
I'm convinced Avatar was such a "success" purely because of it's visual quality--in their minds, average moviegoers interpreted "purty" as "good". Even I, someone who saw Avatar once and didn't care for it, have to admit it's 3D effects were among the best I've seen so far; possibly the best.
That being said, I'm not a fan of 3D movies and still consider 3D to be nothing more than a gimmick to sell more tickets. I've seen a number of 3D movies in both 3D and 2D, and in each case those movies were equally good or bad without the 3D. But, based on the one time I saw it, I can honestly say Avatar was the only movie I've seen that was made better by the use of 3D.
Mr Mold Maker
Master Member
I wouldn't have to put words in your mouth if you were coherent enough in your hatefilled babbling to get a point across.
You say that TFA stinks, and as such it will not follow the BO trajectory of Avatar or Titanic. What are the "legs" these films have? Clearly you're saying now you didn't enjoy them. You keep comparing the film to their box office with no explaination as to why.
You know what other film didn't reach Avatar's and Titanic's BO success? Literally every single one.
So what are you saying?
I understand not liking the film. Some parts were terrible. I have many faults with the film. I didn't leave the theater going "it's no box office hit like Avatar was."
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, no argument on either count there.
I think it's that, ultimately, the only thing the film really has going for it is the 3D technology. Avatar, to me, was like a videogame of a movie. The visuals all look like what I expect to see on my PC or XBOne. The story is completely forgettable. The acting is nothing special. After all the hype died down, the only truly interesting thing the film does is its 3D technology...and for me, that fell completely flat (ha, no pun intended).
So far, literally the only movie that I thought has ever used 3D to good effect is Dredd, and that's because (A) it was shot in native 3D, and (B) it was most prominently used in the sequences where a character was high on drugs. So, the 3D actually became an artistic choice that is directly relevant to the events of the film, rather than just some tacked on gimmick.
Every other film I've seen in 3D, at best, I find the effect is to make a world seem more surreal (e.g., the Oz movie that came out with James Franco). Other than that, it's just the same old "COMIN' AT YA!!!" gimmick it's been since 1955.
Similar threads
