Tuesday Numbers: Jumanji 10.2, TLJ 7.9 (Asgard)

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

I love love love love Titanic.  And its run was something special.  There's no denying that.

 

But let's be fair.  Titanic didn't have to deal with streaming, Android boxes and other kinds of illegal downloading that stunts a films box office like it does today.  I'm taking absolutely nothing away from Titanic, it's in my top 15 films of all time.  But it came out in an era of box office that is so so very different than what we have today.  It's fine if you want to sing Titanic's praises all the time, but let's be fair.  Maybe if TFA or R1 or TLJ came out in 1997, they would have done even more than they did in their runs.  

 

You have a very biased view of Titanic and Avatar, you rarely tell both sides of the story.

 

Titanic was the last run of the classic Hollywood epic type. Doctor Zhivago, Ben-Hur, Jaws, ANH, E.T. - Titanic was a bit like a last good bye to those kinds of runs.

[JonathanLB]

14 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

Just as TLJ wasn't making 800m then wasn't beating Avatar then wasn't making 700m, it won't be beating Titanic.

 

Every cookie cooker that passes Titanic does so underservingly, using past films glory and years of ticket inflation.

 

I'm happy for you guys that it's not passed Titanic but I suppse the ticket price difference will be getting too big. Atleast for now Titanic deserves to beat out marvels and star wars.

Based on what, exactly? Based on its box office success, nothing deserves to beat out Titanic because it was an historic box office run that hasn't been matched in ticket sales or even close by either Avatar or The Force Awakens.

 

Based on quality, I would argue just about every blockbuster made in the last 20 years deserves to beat out that piece of shit movie. Your results may vary, I know other people enjoy it, but there's a difference between "deserving" of something monetarily and artistically. If movies made what they deserved to make, I wouldn't be living in a world where a goddamn piece of ass like Suicide Squad beats Blade Runner 2049. But here we are.

 

Let's not forget that ultimately the box office isn't a security blanket for our opinions. I know people including myself love to use it that way sometimes, but it's not reality. It simply indicates how many people chose to consume a given piece of media in a given distribution platform; it indicates nothing about what they thought of said film. That is literally it. It's actually an astonishingly narrow way to measure success as some properties ended up achieving most of their lasting success on home video, things like Austin Powers that probably doesn't get an Austin Powers 2 except for the home video success, or something like Boondock Saints which I don't honestly know a single person who saw that movie in theaters. Yet I know a dozen people who count it among their favorite films because we all saw it later. 

 

PS: I'll end the laughably silly "legs" argument real fast. The Blair Witch Project has some of the best legs in modern cinema history and managed most of its incredible gross after opening weekend. Yet I think MOST moviegoers agree that it was an enormous pile of crap. I don't know anyone who defends that film. I thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen that went to theaters. But I guess its "amazing legs" indicate the incredible word of mouth that it was the greatest film of all time. OR, maybe they just indicated it was a curiosity and that people had to see for themselves. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by JonathanLB

[redfirebird2008]

17 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

That's just north of a 50% drop and looks much more realistic imo.

 

He said $27m is on the low end. That's a 48.5% drop and I think it's very optimistic considering TFA's 53% drop and Rogue's 55% drop. I think it's going over 50% drop, which means around $26m or less for the weekend. Would not surprise me at all if it lands close to Rogue One's $22m. 

[IronJimbo]

@Christmas baumer

Hmm do we have more or less movie goers now than in 1997? I don't know the answer.

 

Yes I'm baised championing Avatar and Titanic but I've really got a stacked deck. The madman made Titanic in 1997, he had no right to have be able to make that film. You say maybe the new trilogy would perform better in 1997, well I think it's not something we can even hypothisise. They would be completely different films made back them, I would have liked to see a run of the mill director attempt a cgi epic in 1997. My main point that these films reap the benifits of the orig trilogy would still stand also.

 

 

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

Based on what, exactly? Based on its box office success, nothing deserves to beat out Titanic because it was an historic box office run that hasn't been matched in ticket sales or even close by either Avatar or The Force Awakens.

 

Based on quality, I would argue just about every blockbuster made in the last 20 years deserves to beat out that piece of shit movie. Your results may vary, I know other people enjoy it, but there's a difference between "deserving" of something monetarily and artistically. If movies made what they deserved to make, I wouldn't be living in a world where a goddamn piece of ass like Suicide Squad beats Blade Runner 2049. But here we are.

 

Let's not forget that ultimately the box office isn't a security blanket for our opinions. I know people including myself love to use it that way sometimes, but it's not reality. It simply indicates how many people chose to consume a given piece of media in a given distribution platform; it indicates nothing about what they thought of said film. That is literally it. It's actually an astonishingly narrow way to measure success as some properties ended up achieving most of their lasting success on home video, things like Austin Powers that probably doesn't get an Austin Powers 2 except for the home video success, or something like Boondock Saints which I don't honestly know a single person who saw that movie in theaters. Yet I know a dozen people who count it among their favorite films because we all saw it later. 

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.  All I got from it is that you hated Titanic and that some films on HV did very well.  

 

Based on quality?  Quality film making?  Your opinion is your own and you are entitled to it but to emphatically and empirically state that Titanic is horrible is wrong.  It excelled in every way possible.

 

critical darling

Multiplier of more than 20

All time highest grossing film of all time

Won a record tying set of Oscars

 

It simply doesn't get any better than that.  There's no film in the history of film that has ever done what Titanic did.  It set box office records, set oscar records, had an insane multiplier and then to top it all off, it was a HV monster as well.  As I said, no film in cinematic history did what Titanic did.  So it's fine for you not to like it, but you are in the minority and to say it was a piece of shit artistically is really not fair at all.   

[baumer]

3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

@Christmas baumer

Hmm do we have more or less movie goers now than in 1997? I don't know the answer.

 

Yes I'm baised championing Avatar and Titanic but I've really got a stacked deck. The madman made Titanic in 1997, he had no right to have be able to make that film. You say maybe the new trilogy would perform better in 1997, well I think it's not something we can even hypothisise. They would be completely different films made back them, I would have liked to see a run of the mill director attempt a cgi epic in 1997. My main point that these films reap the benifits of the orig trilogy would still stand also.

 

 

 

 

I understand what you are trying to say and I'm just disagreeing with it.  You and I have no idea what a film like Star Wars or the Avengers or Jurassic World would do in an era that didn't have android boxes where you can watch the films on line two weeks after they get released in theaters.

[redfirebird2008]

7 minutes ago, Christmas baumer said:

 

 So it's fine for you not to like Titanic, but you are in the minority and to say Titanic was a piece of shit artistically is really not fair at all.   

 

I don't agree with him. Titanic is great in my opinion. But he has a right to that opinion, same as you have a right to your opinion that Citizen Kane is a piece of shit. I disagree with that opinion as well. They're both great movies. But you both have a right to hate them if you want. 

[IronJimbo]

10 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 I would argue just about every blockbuster made in the last 20 years deserves to beat out that piece of shit movie.

Your posts are too long to quote all so I'll summarise it.

 

Titanic best run of all time best run, titanic is a crap film, box office doesn't indicate quality and legs don't either.

 

Well if you think WOM and legs don't matter your not giving me many ways to prove Titanics quality are you?

 

We only have reviews and online comments left...

 

Oh and this.

[IronJimbo]

8 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

I understand what you are trying to say and I'm just disagreeing with it.  You and I have no idea what a film like Star Wars or the Avengers or Jurassic World would do in an era that didn't have android boxes where you can watch the films on line two weeks after they get released in theaters.

Well I don't disagree with you but if we have no way of knowing why does it matter?

[Brainbug]

10 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Well I don't disagree with you but if we have no way of knowing why does it matter?

 

Because you compare the new SW films more often than not to runs like Titanic. And that's just nonsense

Edited January 3, 2018 by Brainbug

[That One Girl]

I’ve thought long and hard and have come to the conclusion that Titanic is in my top five favorite movies I’ve ever seen

[baumer]

3 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

I don't agree with him. Titanic is great in my opinion. But he has a right to that opinion, same as you have a right to your opinion that Citizen Kane is a piece of shit. I disagree with that opinion as well. They're both great movies. But you both have a right to hate them if you want. 

 

I said he could hate it, read my post again.  But to claim that empirically speaking Titanic is a horrible film, and not just his opinion, is wrong.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Well I don't disagree with you but if we have no way of knowing why does it matter?

 

Then if we agree on this point, don't keep mentioning that films have no right in passing Titanic.  Times change and basically if people are willing to spend the money on a film, then deserves got nothing to do with it.

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

I’ve thought long and hard and have come to the conclusion that Titanic is in my top five favorite movies I’ve ever seen

 

What is with Blade Runner 2049 and Valerian?

[redfirebird2008]

5 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

I said he could hate it, read my post again.  But to claim that empirically speaking Titanic is a horrible film, and not just his opinion, is wrong.

 

It's pretty obvious he was only stating his opinion. Same as when you say Citizen Kane is terrible...we know it's just an opinion. There is no objectivity when it comes to movie quality. 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

It's pretty obvious he was only stating his opinion. Same as when you say Citizen Kane is terrible...we know it's just an opinion. There is no objectivity when it comes to movie quality. 

 

Fair enough.  The difference is Citizen Kane is a piece of shit and Titanic isn't.  

[IronJimbo]

5 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Then if we agree on this point, don't keep mentioning that films have no right in passing Titanic.  Times change and basically if people are willing to spend the money on a film, then deserves got nothing to do with it.

Yeah ok.

 

Suppose its from a different era now. It's just nice to have original films higher up the all time gross list.

[Brainbug]

Just now, redfirebird2008 said:

 

It's pretty obvious he was only stating his opinion. Same as when you say Citizen Kane is terrible...we know it's just an opinion. There is no objectivity when it comes to movie quality. 

 

Thats not 100% true (in my opinion ): You can definetly say that the camera work, acting, lighting, cinematography, special effects, editing or pacing of Movie A is better/worse than Movie B. Thats why nobody can say that Troll 2 is "a better movie" than Raiders of the Lost Ark for example. When it comes to blockbusters, most of the mentioned aspects are just always top-quality - The Last Jedi is a technical masterpiece for example, it looks and sounds just as good as a movie could look and sound.

 

Most people look more on story and characters and dialogue though. These things are a lot more subjective than the technical aspects of moviemaking. The GA doesnt care about editing.

[redfirebird2008]

2 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Thats not 100% true (in my opinion ): You can definetly say that the camera work, acting, lighting, cinematography, special effects, editing or pacing of Movie A is better/worse than Movie B. Thats why nobody can say that Troll 2 is "a better movie" than Raiders of the Lost Ark for example. When it comes to blockbusters, most of the mentioned aspects are just always top-quality - The Last Jedi is a technical masterpiece for example, it looks and sounds just as good as a movie could look and sound.

 

Most people look more on story and characters and dialogue though. These things are a lot more subjective than the technical aspects of moviemaking. The GA doesnt care about editing.

 

Oh I think there is still subjectivity on those things too. You can always find someone who will disagree with that statement about Troll and Raiders. The person might be a troll in their own right, but still doesn't change the fact you can't have 100% agreement on anything these days. 

[Brainbug]

13 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

Oh I think there is still subjectivity on those things too. You can always find someone who will disagree with that statement about Troll and Raiders. The person might be a troll in their own right, but still doesn't change the fact you can't have 100% agreement on anything these days. 

 

100% agreement isnt my target and a world where that would be the case for movies would be incredibly boring . However, the technical aspects of a movie - there i stand by my viewpoint - can and should be judged objectively. Otherwise, we should just abandon any awards or the Oscars, because whats the point when nobody could say "Blade Runner 2049 had the best visuels of any 2017 movies" (which is right by the way), because somone disagrees?

 

In that case, there also shoundt be any film critics. What would be the point of their job? Its the same with other pieces of art like paintings. I could paint some random picture and say "This painting is better than any work from van Gogh. Subjectively, i can think that way. Objectively, im not better than a goblin from Troll 2 in that situation.

Same thing with movies.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Brainbug