Harpospoke
-
Posts
4,451 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Harpospoke
-
-
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:
Here you go, from January 13th:
Shouldnt be surprised that America is dumb enough to give Paddington only $2.4, look at out current state.
At the same time it is disappointing that we still have a hard time breaking out and embracing things that arent American. Hell Despacito didnt break out until they slapped Americanly-marketable Bieber on it after all.
Don't really see how you can get triggered and infer I'm talking about Trump in that post. I never elaborated on what exactly I meant, you just got triggered and assumed I was referring to Trump because you were sniffing for politics, just like I said. You don't fool anybody.
You on the other hand do "fool somebody" because you are fooling yourself.
You "don't really see" because you agree with your politics.
Ok...explain what you mean by "current state". What does that have to do with the movie? Not about Trump?
Explain how your xenophobic attack on an entire country for not supporting your movie isn't politics? That's the worst kind of politics. You actually somehow saw box office numbers and translated that in your brain somehow to an entire country of people being "dumb". Yeah...that happened.
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:Yet, I like the fact that you ignore the rest of my post and instead get triggered and resort to calling me an SJW and say I have "tirades." Whatever that is supposed to mean. Anyone that knows me will tell you I'm not close to being one.
You still won't say exactly what you mean by that though, so I can only assume you're calling me an SJW because I said this movie is important for black people, and that triggers you.
Well of course you would assume things. That's what SJWs do. They often claim to have mind reading skills.
I on the other hand know what "important" means. It's about race and race only. It about the color of the skin of the cast and director and that only. It has nothing to do with the movie itself. You actually believe that everyone else should be eager to talk about race first and if not ...they are "triggered".
It's called apathy to your politics. I'm more interested in the character, the MCU, and the movie itself. In no instance that you get upset about did I bring up politics first.
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:And you still won't say exactly what you mean by "important narrative infecting the movie", so I can only assume you're saying this movie shouldn't be celebrated as pro-black/pro-African art that is very important to the black community, because we shouldn't be mixing in race with entertainment, because that triggers you.
Is this you not talking about politics again?
Yeah...I see no valid reason to make a movie political. And you certainly can't force people to accept your politics while claiming you aren't talking about politics.
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:You won't even take the time to actually understand what any of us even mean and why we see this movie as valuable. You see "black people" and "this movie" in the same sentence and automatically go into triggered level 2000. The only reason the movie didn't trigger you further was because they didn't give you a 2 hour lesson on white guilt.
More politics that of course you claim you aren't talking about.
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:You're awful dude, and dangerously myopic. And you're a hypocrite. My review mentions nothing about politics, but yours does. I say "great acting, great soundtrack, powerful movie", and you say "don't worry, the politics aren't heavy yall." Sounds like you were relieved to not be triggered.
Yes it was a relief to discover that the SJW politics were not present in the movie. That's nothing to be ashamed of despite your inference here. SLW politics are toxic and divisive. SLWs typically speak to people exactly like you did here. Pretty much political bullies. Not that I mind. I find it revealing.
And since politics have been brought up...by other people...throughout this thread it was certainly relevant to point out it's not really there in this movie. If we are going to get into mind reading maybe I should try it too. I think it bothered you that the movie didn't bother me.
On 2/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, Jandrew said:I'm quite respected around here and I don't think anyone else sees me as some radical militant, so maybe it's your act that you should reflect on.
The argumentum ad populum fallacy means nothing to me. Just another logical fallacy that SLWs often resort to. A SLW is "respected" by other SJWs? Well isn't that surprising!
-
1
-
-
Ok...this is how you know a movie character is getting into the mainstream. Check out what happens at 1:56:
-
1
-
-
Nice to live in a world where everyone will know who the hell T'Challa is. F**k yeah!
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Jandrew said:
Lemme tell you what your problem is: you don't practice what you preach. You are constantly on this forum up in arms complaining whenever someone makes a topic remotely political, yet you go out looking for it. I say Americans are dumb for not going to Paddington and you somehow throw Trump into it. You look for the political narrative. You sniff and seek it out so you can call out people on their "bullshit."
My "problem" is that I notice your SJW tirades.
You mean that Paddington post where you obviously brought politics into it? Then you denied it whereupon I quoted you again proving that you brought politics into it? You of course had no answer for that and just posted a "clever meme". You brought "Trump" into it of course. Go dig up your post if you think you were so "innocent". I dare you.
So we can dispense with your little act right now.
And you think the "important" narrative that has infected this movie for the past few months isn't obvious? It's toxic and cannot possible be a positive for anything.
-
15 hours ago, Jandrew said:
Lmao at dude saying this movie does a good job in not diving in politics, and then calling a character a left wing extremist.
There is a difference between politics and divisive politics. T'Challa is a king so there will always be politics. It's what the character is and his wise and calm reaction to political problems concerning Wakanda has always been a strength of the character.
And it's certainly not divisive that the extremist is the bad guy. Of course he is. Only an extremist would think that is divisive.
-
9 hours ago, expensiveho said:
Now, I hate the way Marvel kills all their villains. It isn't a coincidence that the only villain that has appeared in more than one movie is their best. I hope they at least do Baron Mordo justice.
Yeah that's been bothering me for years. All the fake complaints about "Marvel never kills anyone" made me roll my eyes. They kill too many characters in my book.-------
My impression was I liked it but didn't quite love it. Maybe a 7/10 or 8/10 even.
No preachy politics unless you are really looking for it. It's about a King so obviously there will be politics. (power struggle stuff) But there is a difference between that an an agenda. I didn't feel that except maybe one line. And it's not like T'Challa is going to "throw open the borders" to Wakanda. He's more about helping other countries advance than bringing them to his country. (great idea) So that really isn't there if anyone is worried about that.
If there is a political "message" it's that political extremists are dangerous. No big revelation on that one. The bad guy is a left wing extremist. T'Challa certainly doesn't agree with him. T'Challa has always been a voice of reason. He is a wise leader in the comics and they do the same with him here. Well done.
The movie also reveals the flaws in a monarchy. It's fine if the leader is a good man like T'Challa....not so fine if you get an extremist in the chair.
The flaws I found weren't really about politics. The movie drags a bit in spots and the fight scenes are "meh". Nothing like the inventive and interesting fights in Winter Soldier and Civil War. The CGI was noticeable in spots if you care about that. (I don't)
The actors do a good job all around. Chadwick Boseman is perfect. Not overly impressed with Michael B. Jordan though. Sterling K. Brown played his dad and has way more charisma imo. I would love to see him in more movies.
As a T'Challa fanboy I was a bit irritated that he seems a little underwhelming as a fighter without the Panther powers. Kinda like how Daredevil gets his butt kicked so much in every fight in season 1...not a fan of that. The odd notion that freezing someone in ice to keep them alive in a coma was weird...but a minor thing.
Not a ton of humor but they put it in the right places. One line in particular near the end was perfectly placed to defeat a familiar movie cliche scene.
edit: Forgot to mention. Beautiful movie to look at. Very well done there.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
This is still true. How are you managing to question the fact a movie would not exist if it there were no visuals?
You're still making zero sense. I'm still trying to understand what you mean by VFX vs the term 'Visual' - answer my question about the white screen that was shot black please, I think that will help me understand.
It think it falls back on the context of what the original poster said and meant.
You are right. No movie would exist if you removed all visuals.
So knowing that...is that what the original poster meant when talking about Avatar?
That statement would not mean anything special about the movie Avatar if it just meant "remove all the visual elements and the movie wouldn't be as good". That would be true of every movie ever made.
So knowing the poster was talking about Avatar....doesn't that indicate the poster meant "CGI visuals"? ...Or...the main thing that made Avatar a big deal?
The counter argument would be that the FX in Avatar is not a minor achievement. Removing that achievement would of course diminish it. But removing a major achievement from any movie would diminish it as well.
-
25 minutes ago, dudalb said:
Define success.
The whole freaking point I and a few other people are trying to get across is that finiancial success and artistic success are two different things.
I am not denying that Cameron is not a hugely successful director as far as box office goes. As far as being an artistic success. that is a another story.
Why is this so freaking hard for some people to get?
There have been lots of finiancialy successful movies I think were not very good,and lots of very good movies that failed at the box office.
I think his point was that you can only define one of those things...box office.
All the other stuff you mentioned is just opinion. What is "very good movies"? What is "not very good"? What is "artistic success"?
-
28 minutes ago, dudalb said:
And I might argue that Oscars are of questionable worth as a sign of artistic merit, given how much studio and Hollywood politics are involved, and the many questionable wins we have seen in Oscar History.
Of course they are of questionable worth. As in....they are worth nothing.
It's just something Hollywood invented to have an excuse to get together, throw a party, get drunk, and pat each other on the back with fake "awards".
There is no way to determine that one movie is better than another. The Oscars are just one example of how that fails. Use any other measure and the same thing happens.
List movies in order of their RT score or Metacritic score and you won't agree that they fall in order of quality.
List movie in order of their IMBD scores...same thing.
List movies in order of the box office....same thing.
There is no method anyone ever uses that proves anything about art. Art is only good if you think it is good. That's pretty much the end of it. You can be the only person on the planet to like a piece of art and it will be just as good. Popular vote means nothing. "Expert opinion" means nothing because they don't agree with each other either. (they can't even make up their minds about which movie is "greatest of all time")
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, IronJimbo said:
It's weird I don't feel "roasted". I don't know about JSC but all I've said (in other threads) is that the only objective measure we have is dollars grossed (which is true), you're the one who added the artistic worth bit.That's what I read. Not sure what other people are reading.
Box office is objective measurement. "Quality" in art is a myth and is 100% subjective. We prove this every single time we talk about it. Getting two people to agree on the "good" art is almost impossible. Get 10 James Cameron fans in a room and ask them to rank Jim's movies. You'll probably get 10 different lists. Try the same thing with 10 Beatles fans. Who is the better songwriter....Paul or John? What are the 10 best Beatles songs?
18 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:Of course there is, I'm glad some of you are able to articulate this fact that seems lost on so many! One can be measured and therefore discussed with some rigor, the other cannot and is practically nonsense.
Like Barnack said, we don't have a lot of choice but to talk about the subjective. The objective facts can be interesting, but we can cover it very quickly and there isn't much to discuss.
So we have to get into opinions in order to have something to talk about. What box office run is "more impressive"? (that's a big one here)
Art being subjective is really the reason it is so important to people. It effects everyone individually and so that makes it a personal thing. Can anyone else feel what we feel when we watch a certain movie or listen to a certain song? We don't know...but it feels amazing so we try to see if it works that way for someone else. We "know" we are the most important people in the world but at the same time we are pack animals who need to fit in to survive. All that stuff swirls around in our feelings about art.
Just do that "rank" thing which is done here so often. What happens in your brain when you see a list that is very different from your own? Now how does it feel when a list is just like your own? One prompts a negative reaction and the other prompts a positive reaction.
This entire thread is based on those feelings. The poor moderators have to fight this human reaction to art on a daily basis.
16 hours ago, Barnack said:It went with recognition with how well it is aged on a craft level, one of the most acclaimed movie of all time now:
http://theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php
#715 according to this aggregate of best movie list.
Cameron has 5 movies perceived by world critics in the top 1000 movie of all time:
Aliens 372
Terminator 455
T2 637
Titanic 715
Avatar 769
Also in the Afi top 10 american EPIC in their latest update:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_10_Top_10
1 Lawrence of Arabia 1962 2 Ben-Hur 1959 3 Schindler's List 1993 4 Gone with the Wind 1939 5 Spartacus 1960 6 Titanic 1997 7 All Quiet on the Western Front 1930 8 Saving Private Ryan 1998 9 Reds 1981 10 The Ten Commandments 1956 And, #83 in their top 100 american movie of all time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years...100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition)
I love stuff like that. Every "measurement" we try comes up with different results. Even the "experts" can't agree with each other. How good is Titanic? We can't quite work it out, can we?
We are about to try the whole futile process again with the Oscars. Surely we can figure out what the "Best Picture" is, right?
Nope....all the Academy members will vote for different movies and when they announce the "winner" the annual arguments will begin again. The Academy will either be smart or stupid depending on whether or not you like the movie they settled on through popular vote.
But like you said....what else would we talk about if we only stayed with things that are objective fact?
-
11 hours ago, RRA said:
As much as I can’t stand DCEU stans, they don’t deserve to suffer Bay
My thoughts exactly. Haven't they suffered enough?
-
Should have kept this one open longer. Jumanji and TGS are doing crazy things after it closed.
-
Just heard an ad for "ABBA Mania" tour on local radio. Looks like a tribute act. https://www.abbamania.com/usa-tour-dates/
-
51 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:
chris klein's mamma mia audition is one of my favourite things to watch. up there with tyrese's django audition for insta-comedy
I'm confused. They didn't cast him. Sounds right....
...but then they did cast Pierce Brosnan?? I think Klein sings better.
-
26 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:
There is a big difference between a movie with the hero you are interested in like WW is her own movie as a lead and just another hero on a team movie like she was in JL.
That's what makes me wonder if fans of the WW movie are fans of the character or just fans of that movie.
I could not imagine not going to see JL if I were a fan of the WW character. It seemed like there were effectively zero people who liked WW and then went to see JL.
Same with BP. I would think anyone who liked him in CW would go see his solo movie based on that. And then wouldn't you go see IW as well? Why would a fan of the BP character skip IW? I guess if you hated the BP movie maybe.
That's assuming there is a significant number of people who are only fans of BP and not Marvel in general. Not sure how many of those exist.
-
I love ABBA so I'm in. But fear more Brosnan singing. That was blood curdling in the first one.
They pretty much have to use a lot of the same songs again since they did all the most popular ABBA songs in the first one. Hard not to think the novelty will suffer from that. But doubting the power of ABBA is a fool's errand.
-
36 minutes ago, Barnack said:
YOu are right, but except for the lowest possible common denominator type of movies, you will always do, make a movie a musical you are alienating the majority of ticket buyer that would never see it (but interesting musicals fans) , have Adam Sandler you are alienating half of it (but interesting the other half) and so on.
If you sales a ticket to 10% of ticket buyer, you are making around 250m at the domestic box office, you are not trying to please more than half of that most of the time and it can be better when you are not some giant blockbuster that need to do nothing to be sure to not displease any group to have a strong appeal among a smaller percentage of the audience than a moderate one among a larger one.
To test that question, imagine how much more (or less) The Post would be making if it was not perceived as a political charged title, a drama about the post in the 70s, without any of the moment angle to it. Is the people lost not feeling for this larger than those gained, by the free press surrounding the title (and maybe award attention) gained by that angle ? I am not sure it is clear cut easy to answer that it is hurting is box office performance.
The funny thing to me about a political movie is how futile it is.
The people that go see it already agree with the message. Kinda like hoping to convert more people to heavy metal music by hosting a heavy metal concert. Guess who shows up to the concert? Not a lot of jazz fans out there.
So a political movie ends up with a crowd of people nodding their heads in agreement who agreed before they sat down. "Right on!"
-
2 hours ago, Barnack said:
It is doing significantly more than the much better and best picture winner Spotlight, I am not sure about the Post not making the what it should message. Drama like those will not gather mass audience, it is certain.
Political message can help in some case, would a movie like The Post not based on a real story and absent of any political message have made much more ?
When Fox news goes on to promote them (like American Sniper) it possibly can I imagine.
Maybe (I am a bit astonish each them some element of liberal political like free speech or even more so free press does not seem to make consensus or bit that controversial), but it is just I have very often read that split the audience in 2 or 50% on a side and every time I see the MPAA breakdown of the ticket buyer I feel like that statement was never calculated and just repeated without taken time if it hold up and being curious about doing that calculation to see what it would look like.
I think you got caught up in the "50% of the audience" thing. What I meant was that you are alienating part of the audience if you make a movie political. Going around claiming that "this movie is important and everyone should see it because of the political message" is going to turn away ticket buyers.
I know I lost interest in seeing it due to how it was described on this board. (and I love Hanks and Streep) I'll go see Jumanji again instead.
Was American Sniper some political message movie? I didn't see it. I thought it was about some war hero. (I guess that makes it "conservative"?)
Both parties love freedom of speech and the press....
....but of course only when they agree with the message. Both work really hard to shut people up they don't agree with. The hypocrisy there is pretty thick. Neither understand that free speech is about freedom to say things people don't like or agree with. It's easy to let people talk who say things you like. Hitler and Stalin pulled that one off without any effort. Real freedom of speech is hard. That's why laws are required to allow it.
2 hours ago, Barnack said:There is something there, but it can of work both ways, saying that :
I can keep watching them every year and derive the same enjoyment and fun out of them.
Is a bit saying that it changed absolutely nothing to watch it, it was simple popcorn fun to the extreme that the rewatch is the same experience, i.e. that you were the exact same person before and after, that it was completely useless outside the having fun during that moment and that is probably what they meant by that expression, not the literal made to be consumed only one time like a disposable camera.
Oh no thanks. I don't need or want a movie to "change me". I'm fully capable of forming my own opinions without guidance from an "important" movie. Any movie with a political message is going to conveniently leave out any details that don't support the opinion of the filmmaker. Anyone can make a compelling case when they do that.
-
6 hours ago, Barnack said:
You could be right for a movie that target old white people, but in general that cutting in half your audience does not hold up that much.
Specially for a movie like The Post or All the president men, people are mostly for a solid and free press, Trumps supporter that would disagree on that question are bit on the extreme fringe and far from 50% of the US + Canada population. It is not really a hot issues that does not make overall consensus.
In the general case
Before Trump election, there was around 248m moviegoers in the domestic market, young, black, latinos are over represented in it, only 51% of the ticket are bought by white people.
https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-Report-2.pdf
And Young are vastly over represented.
Ticket sold
white : 51%
hispanic: 21%
black : 14%
asians : 14%
Ticket sold By age group:
18-24: 12%
25-39: 23%
40-49: 13%
50-59: 13%
60+ : 13%
Trump support by age group and ethnics group in the 2016 election:
18-24: 35%
25-29: 39%
30-39: 40%
40-49: 50%
50-64: 53%
65+ : 53%
White: 58%
Black : 8%
Hispanic:29%
Asian: 29%
Now if Canadians for the most part really do not care (only 13% of Canadian like Trump presidency and it is just a foreign country affair) and if they are around 10% of those 250m movie goers, that leave us 225m in the US and say around 10b.
Say if it we would have around 10b of domestic box office from the US was by age:
18-24: 1.2b around 0.42b from Trump supporter age pro-rata.
25-39: 2.3b around 0.92b from Trump supporter age pro-rata.
40-49: 1.3b around 0.65b from Trump supporter age pro-rata.
50+ : 2.6b around 1.378b from Trump supporter age pro-rata.
That is 3.388 billion from Trump supporters vs 4.012b among americans adult if we adjust by age or 46% not 50%.
Adjust by ethnicity of the tickey buyer.
That 7.4b box office was from:
white : 3.774b that 2.18892b from Trump voters
hispanic: 1.554b that 0.45066b from trump voters
black : 1.036b that 0.08288b from trump voters
asians : 1.036b that 0.30044b from trump voters
So that 7.4b among american adult end up being
3.03b from trump voters vs 4.3771 for non Trump voters or just 41%.
Now if we add the 17 or less and Canadian, it probably get closer to 35% vs 65%
And that is using peak Trump + republican no matter what support, December 2017 Trump numbers were
Approve of Trump
18-34: 26%
35-49: 33%
50-64: 42%
65+ : 41%
Using those number instead of those who voted for the republican candidate, we would probably end up more 20-25% vs 75-80%
There is part of the reason I imagine we saw no down effect for the very openly and loudly anti-Trump Disney in general or MCU title and that movie like Patriot Day flopped, Trump strong base is not a big portion of the domestic box office and the vast majority of people probably do not follow or mind stuff like that thatmuch, the very vocal always triggered by cultural product Breitbart crowd is not necessarily representative.
So this still supports the point that a political message isn't going to help a movie either. Either way you aren't going to gather a mass audience or turn off a mass audience.
So the complaints about this movie "not making what it should" must mean it's getting bad WOM or people just aren't interested in it. Can't be turning off part of the general audience with the "message" right?
The thing applies to a right wing movie too. I don't see that kind of thing getting people into a theater. I get the feeling you were in "defense of liberal politics" mode here.
6 hours ago, JonathanLB said:The irony is you see critics refer to fun movies as "disposable" entertainment, but I'd actually argue the opposite. Schindler's List is disposable -- see it once, never want to see it again. I have no interest in watching Good Night and Good Luck a second time, though I think it's a really good movie everyone should see once. It's disposable. It has no value beyond that first viewing to me, at all. Whereas fun movies are not disposable, I can keep watching them every year and derive the same enjoyment and fun out of them.
Now that is an interesting idea. I agree. I've probably watched Back to the Future 10 times but only watched Sophie's Choice once. Supposedly the former is "disposable popcorn fun".
-
On 1/21/2018 at 12:47 PM, wildphantom said:
Just saw The Post.
This movie should be doing well over $100 million in the states. It’s a rollicking good Spielberg film and couldn’t be much more cathartic for the shit going on right now.
Here’s hoping it gets some big nods on Tuesday to convince people to get off their asses and see it.
That's gotta be part of the problem. Every person I've seen post about it here brings up something about how it's "important", "relevant to the times we live in", or some other politically motivated statement.
Not hard to see who it's made for and that cuts your audience in half. At least half because a lot of people aren't interested in going to the movies for a political message even if they agree with it.
Hard pass.
-
2
-
-
On 1/11/2018 at 2:43 PM, dudalb said:
Agreed, The first one was OK, but did not have the charm of the Potter films.
I think the problem is they cast a lead who is never going to be able to carry a movie. Eddie Redmayne is another Miles Teller in my book. A guy who seems to be in the midst of a love affair with the media but doesn't have the necessary charisma to be a lead. Some actors are awesome as supporting players only.
On 1/12/2018 at 7:19 AM, Brainbug said:All the highest-grossing films of all time had memorable characters and storys.
Gone with the Wind, Jaws, Star Wars: ANH, E.T., Jurassic Park, Titanic...
Once you hear the titel of one of those movies you instantly remember famous scenes/dialogues or moments from these films. Every one of them is a big part of (western) popular culture.
Avatar just grossed a lot of money. Thats it. Imo.
I sorta agree but I think some may be under selling Avatar a bit too. I get a feeling that the instant A2 shows up, people are going to flock to theaters to buy as many 3D tickets as they can. If Cameron delivers a movie that entertains (what are the odds?) then we are probably looking at big numbers. Not as big as the original, but maybe bigger than some expect. A middle ground thing.
I'm actually expecting the story to be better this time similar to T2 vs T1 provided he doesn't get too consumed with a "political message".
-
8 hours ago, AndyK said:
Has she got a Rotten Tomatoes account?
Every little bit helps.
Might want to get her a Metacritic user account too. TLJ has a weak 4.6/10 there.
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-viii---the-last-jedi
Someone needs to invent a new conspiracy theory to explain that one away to keep alive the idea that only a small minority dislike the film.
Pretty evident what good word of mouth looks like during Christmas season. It looks like Jumanji and Greatest Showman.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Mojoguy said:
Already proven untrue when BvS and JL underperformed. They should keep Batman in solo movies. Wonder Woman too.Agreed. He's like the Hawkeye in Avengers...except the Avengers movies don't have to pretend Hawkeye is the most important member and make the other characters into idiots to make him look smart.
20 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:Yes, but they're both in contention for the all time admission record of a CBM and it would be nice to definitively know which wins (or SM1).
Interesting how "admissions" was not brought up when TDK was passing movies due to inflation but then it became vitally important when Avengers passed TDK.
-
On 1/13/2018 at 3:32 PM, Jandrew said:
Hey, why dont you unwedge your panties, calm down, and take a seat. I never said anything about politics. If I wanted to call Trump out specifically, since youre making broad assumptions, then I wouldve. I'm an American, so I can call us Americans whatever I want to for whatever reason I please.
The state of my underwear is fine. Thanks for your concern fine citizen.
You said this:
QuoteShouldnt be surprised that America is dumb enough to give Paddington only $2.4, look at out current state.
At the same time it is disappointing that we still have a hard time breaking out and embracing things that arent American. Hell Despacito didnt break out until they slapped Americanly-marketable Bieber on it after all.
First of all, your "Americans suck" tirade is political. You singled out a particular country and assigned a broad negative description to them. You are right that you have every right to do that...but others also have the right to notice you wedging politics into a discussion about the box office for a movie because you are upset that it "should be making more". Naturally that means "Americans are dumb" in your mind.
And go ahead and tell me what this "current state" is? Not political? Maybe you were talking about the weather perhaps?
So go ahead and find a way to make an effort to connect politics to you being upset about a movie's gross. But don't pretend it didn't happen.
Yeah...I see no valid reason to make a movie political. And you certainly can't force people to accept your politics while claiming you aren't talking about politics.
Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
The upside of that is that it indicates there is a huge audience out there just waiting to spend money on a movie they like. The people come back quick. Just at Star Wars fans running back after the Prequels when TFA came out. Some of them are unhappy now but they'll be back the minute there is a SW film they like.
I know it's not wise to doubt Cameron, but I can't help feeling that he'd better deliver something special with the next Avatar. Marvel is killing it right now in an unprecedented way commercially, critically, and in popular culture. Maybe I'm off base, but Marvel seems to be more ingrained in pop culture than Avatar at the moment.