Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About GirafficPark

  • Rank
    Sleeper Hit

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

655 profile views
  1. GirafficPark

    Golden Globes thread

    Some of these nominations seem like a joke that im missing..
  2. Ive seen no evidence that Abrams has grown as a director at all. I dont think he is capable of doing so. Most of the problems with VII were because of him, and its far too late to course correct now and salvage the problems with the story. IX will be awful because its an Abrams movie, it will be doubly awful if the story doesn't pull a miracle and make sense of the train wreak story. There is no version of this where the trilogy is saved.
  3. Audience voting right now would be horrible. The world has never been so polarised. BP might get a LOT of votes, but there would without doubt be an organised counter voting strategy doing on.
  4. GirafficPark

    Is physical media dying?

    Thats true, they are, but ive got a few that way, and haven't watched them more than once. Too inconvenient, especially if they have menus/ads you cant skip. Dont get me wrong, the market isnt dead yet, its just on a one way trajectory, thats not up. Eventually, probably within 5 years, some titles wont even make it to physical media.
  5. GirafficPark

    Is physical media dying?

    I did say 'going'. Of course its holding out in countries/areas with shitty internet, but its dropping pretty fast and is going niche. I have little doubt that it will keep going that way until its eventually an enthusiast only market, at which point only artzy and larger movies get released at all.
  6. GirafficPark

    Is physical media dying?

    I think the data shows that physical media is going niche. The general public dont care about that extra bit of image quality, and most dont even have the TV to see it anyway, or know what to look for. DVD is the most pointless thing ever now, since its got awful image quality on a modern 4k TV. Blu-ray is too expensive when its all just on streaming services a month or so later in a quality most find the same (even if it isnt), and Ultra Blu-ray is far too expensive to make any impression on over all sales. Ive got all the high end gear but I only have 6 U-BR movies/shows and 2 of those are BBC nature docs, the quality is great, but at £26+ a movie at release, is it really worth it? Not really, it only seems worth it if the movie is a good example of HDR, 4k itself isnt enough of a draw.
  7. I will say it again, its got nothing to do with not liking it, I do like it. Its to do with the fact that its not a technically proficient enough movie by Oscar standards. If Black panther can win then any Marvel movie should as well, since it wasnt technically any better in any area, in fact its technically inferior to IW, so really that should get a nom and beat it. The only way BP should get a best picture nomination is if all the Oscar bait movies this year fail to live up to expectations, epically. Movies can get a BP nom and not be nominated in many or even any other areas, but its super rare, and no movie has won with less than 5 nominations total in the last 40 or more years. There is no way in hell Black Panther deserves 5 nominations, and I challenge anyone here to make a case for it to do so. Comparisons to Lord of the Rings or The Dark Knight (or even Avatar) dont hold up, since those were vastly better technically, or broke new ground.
  8. Its getting it for social justice reasons, not because its actually anywhere near deserving in quality terms. Although I think the Oscars are good at resisting public opinion usually, they arent immune to fashionable causes affecting their noms.
  9. Just being 'richer' doesnt make it better. Black Panther isnt Dunkirk either (which has almost no story at all by the way). Black Panther is a good paint by numbers Marvel movie with mostly black people in it, thats all it will ever be. I dont agree with the academy often either, there are some true stinkers in the BP list, but I do understand what they are looking for, and Black Panther isnt it. Remember this isnt about whats objectively the best movie, its about what the Oscars value. While I dont agree with the Oscars choices often at least they have held on to those values somewhat (until now it seems), compare that to the objectively garbage that gets awarded at the Grammy awards, because its 'popular'.
  10. I agree that Black Panther is probably more entertaining than most BP winners, but that doesn't make it a better film. The Oscars are about the movie making craft, not the entertainment value. Black Panther doesnt have the acting, editing, cinematography, direction, screenplay or any other factor in its favour to win, so no its not 'better made'.
  11. FS is eligible for any category that applies to it, however that doesnt mean it stands a cat in hells chance of getting an award. For reference FSOG was nominated for best original song, but that category is a joke and always has been. 90% of the noms in that category are bloody awful, and in the case of FSOG it has nothing to do with anything in the movie whatsoever, its just a random song attached to the movie for 'reasons'. That absolutely horrifyingly un-selfaware abortion by Ellie Goulding is more in line with the rest of that movie.
  12. Sorry, but this talk of Black Panther being a legitimate candidate for Best Picture has to be a joke, right? On what grounds? Its a decent Marvel movie, but its hardly Oscar worthy in any category.
  13. I didnt follow half of that, but the point is that for most old movies the gross BOM quotes is far too high. The reality for GWTW is that in todays money it grossed somewhere in a wide area around $ 700-$1B. I havent run the figures for ANH, but I guess its also lower than quoted, but only slightly. To me real money is what counts, not some made up theory with a number of spurious assumptions. GWTW tickets were already more than the ticket average of the time, there is no reason to assume attendance would have held up if they were even more. Real attendance over 60 years was closer to that of TFA and Titanic
  14. I did say going further back makes it worse. What also makes it worse is that the 'average ticket price' is meaningless since its a very gross estimate. Its not so much the prequels that adjust wrong, as much as something 20+ years further back , or more. GWTW for example adjusts in a way that is wildly wrong. It depends what you want to compare though. GWTW for example had a standard ticket price of 39c for most of its main run. That adjusts to $7.07 with general inflation, not the $9+ they claim for ticket price inflation. This also means the claim they sold 200M tickets is bogus, because that estimate is based on the assumption tickets were 23c. Differences like that are too big to ignore, and opens the question of what you want to compare. Do you want to compare how much it actually grossed in todays money or how much you think it would gross if tickets cost as much as today? To me the latter is wrong, because it implies price would have no effect on attendance.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.