Sunshine, Light, and Joy


This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Free Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About dudalb

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

637 profile views
  1. ANd a film that many people felt was a mediocre sci fi adventure when you take away the visuals. I think it is the story and charecters that have to be upped a lot for the sequels; I am not sure that Cameron can get away with another 3 hour tech demo. He has to make a film that is a better film then "Avatar". Cameron has hired some other writers for this;which is a good sign; Cameron's writing was the weakest part of "Avatar". Let's put it this way;almost everybody remembers and can name the characters from Star Wars;how many people,aside from the fans, can name the characters from "Avatar"?
  2. Question is how many people have just gotten tired of Depp's Jack Sparrow shtick? IT was great back in 2003, but I think it showing it's age.
  3. And, Robin Hood prince of Theives is pretty much forgotten. The 1938 Errol Flynn film remains as popular as ever. So much for modernization always working.
  4. They were also talking about Michelle Pffeifer as Janet Van Dyne.
  5. Luc Besson is a lot like Zack Snyder....a very divisive director. In France, the critics have the same criticism of him that many US Critics have of Snyder....a nice visual sense, a nice style, but really lacking in the story/character department. Style without any real substance, basically. As far as box office goes,I think the studio expects this film to make it's big money overseas,and if the film does fairly well in the US it will be satisfied with that.
  6. Spielberg had felt for a long time that films were simply taking too long to make,and that this was a major reason for skyrocketing costs..since, in the film industry, time quire literally is money....there is a good reason why the terms "Overbudget" and "Overschedule" go together 90% of the time...and decided to show that you could speed up production and save money while not sacrificing quality if you scheduled and planned carefully enough. He pointed out that in the Golden Age of Hollywood, major directors routinely made at least 2 films a year,with often only a few weeks break.
  7. The classic studio system died, and the director gained a lot more power. But during the studio system, the producer and the studio execs (often the same person)pretty much took over post production and final cut of a film. The director's job, in most cases, ended when principal photography ended,although he often would be consulted during the editing process. There were exceptions, of course....Frank Capra and De Mille produced their own films, and the top flight directors like William Wyler and John Ford were heavily involved in Post Production and final editing. but the producer made a lot of creative decisions nowdays made by the director. If you are that interested, there are many good books on the History of Hollywood.
  8. Crap. Warners pays the bills,Warners has the upper hand. He might have his own company, but in this film he is working for Warners.
  9. I just though reading "Empire of Dreams:The Life and Times of Cecil B De Mille" (highly recommended.oneof the best books on Hollywood history I have read) and De Mille was ahead of his time when he stated that he made movies at his desk. De Mille was one of the first to heavily use story boards before production begun,had models of the major sets built and used those in planning the big scense, he used Previz before the word was termed. De Mille would have fallen in love with computers at first glance.
  10. "Gone With The Wind" had a revolving chair of directors;most historians of the film think that Victor Fleming,who got sole screen credit directed,at best, roughly 50% of the film, but FLeming got sole directorial credit. Of course the Producer, David O. Selznick was the real creator of the film, and did almost all the post production on the film..which was not unusual in the golden age of Hollywood. If Whedon did not actually direct any scenes in the film he will end up with an "Associate" or "Executive" Producer credit.
  11. It's tragic. I am no fan of Snyder as a director,but no one deserves what happened to him. I wanted Snyder off the film, but not like this.......I have nothing but sympathy for the man. Fact is we don't really know what is happening except that Whedon will take over, and apparently Whedon has had some involment in post production every before Snyder left. Other then that, we are in the dark. Of course Warner's is going to put as good a face on this as possible,but I suspect things are happenng behind the scenes that nobody is talking about. We are know rumors of retakes are going to happen.,with what truth no one knows.
  12. Why is it a shame when a bad movie flops?
  13. In the end, it is the casual audience that makes hits. You might have a modest success with a film that only appeals to the fanbase (if you keep the budget low enough) but for the kind of hit that Fox obviously wanted you needed the casual audience. They did not get it with "Convenent". The whole Blomkapf Alien film buzz was right after "District 9", when Blomkapf was the Next Big Thing. But two underperforming films in a row...and "Chappie" did not even break even....have taken the bloom off the Blomkapf rose. Fox will not pick him if they decide a rescue mission is needed for the Alien Franchise. I wonder if Scott really does not care about the Alien franchise anymore; he just makes sloppy mistake after sloppy mistake he does not make with his other films.
  14. Sorry,but in my book the Arthurian saga deserved better then "dumb fun". I am really beginning to hate these people who want to reduce everything to the level of mindless action film. I admit, I am happy this thing bombed. Maybe Hollywood will start treating some topics with the respect they deserve rather then dumb them down for the comic book fanboy crew.