Thoughts from a latecomer (a.k.a., F you, Cameron)

[Mikey]

And neither will I, either tomorrow or Wednesday.

Actually, it was completely legit. HBO has it OnDemand.

[SolkaTruesilver]

"Being good" is irrelevant to what is important to those who finance the movie. The question is: DID IT GIVE ME MONEY. The answer is "Yes". Mission accomplished. I can't say I can argue about "the movie was good" or "the movie wasn't good", as it's (surprise!) a matter of TASTE, which is entirely subjective to the people's preference AND what they expect to see in a movie. Low expectation = further enjoyment.

But record-breaking selling is telling that people 1) Saw the movie a lot and 2) Either went to see it again or told their family/friends to see it. Mouth-to-ear recommendation is what you need to reach the recordbreaking level of box-office income, and it did. This isn't just a simple movie that was overhyped by publicity and happened to sell well on the first week (*cough* Episode 1 *cough*) and then slowed down (I know Episode 1 is one of the most grossing film, but it kinda shattered Titanic's record for the 1st week, but never managed to reach it in term of overall grossing income, which means there was a definite slowdown in moviegoing).

So what? Since you obviously didn't read the OP, let me summarise it for you: the movie was s**t. Not "the movie was unsuccessful", not "the movie made a pittance", not "the movie's financiers are unlikely to be happy with it". The movie was s**t. You can waffle on about how much money it made until the cows come home, it doesn't improve the quality one iota.

And if you actually cared to read my fucking post, you could read that the first time I posted in this thread, which sparked this whole argument, was me answering to Shran's post:

My basic point is: Should filmmakers do the research first and construct a decent universe and story seting before taking on the story? If they would, there would be fewer plotholes and it is more atusfying to watch a film or experience a story without having such mistakes bugging the beholder's experience and make for more consistent storytelling.

Which I CLEARLY made the point that filmmakers won't be "that" interested in making sure there is as less plot holes as possible, as there is more rewarding and profitable ways to spend your money and energy.

Suck it, bitch. At least check what I quote before accusing me of not being relevant to the conversation. Of course I wasn't replying to the OP, 'cause if I was fucking replying to the OP, I'd BE QUOTING THE OP.

My gosh, shocking revelation, ain't it?

[Mikey]

Fine. Ignore the OP, which Shran was referencing, and have a private conversation with him. The fact remains, though, that you are happy with folks making films that are fiscally successful but suck when they could make films that are fiscally successful and don't suck. You also repeatedly equated the box-office success of a film with its quality, which is completely false no matter to which post you were replying.

Sorry, no matter to whom you were speaking, I still ain't buying the fact that I should have to force myself to overlook a movie's flaws in order to make myself enjoy it, simply because other people saw it.

*EDIT* BTW, why do you bring up the fact that you "weren't talking to us" only now, after you've been responding to us for a couple of pages already? Hmmm...

[Captain Seafort]

Which I CLEARLY made the point that filmmakers won't be "that" interested in making sure there is as less plot holes as possible, as there is more rewarding and profitable ways to spend your money and energy.

There are also more rewarding and profitable ways for me to spend my energy than debating brainless fuckwits on the internet. Nonetheless, this post exists. Likewise, if people decide they want to make films sure, they have to make money out of it, but it should not be too much to expect them to produce a decent story in the process, instead of plot-hole-ridden incoherent crap.

Suck it, bitch. At least check what I quote before accusing me of not being relevant to the conversation. Of course I wasn't replying to the OP, 'cause if I was f***ing replying to the OP, I'd BE QUOTING THE OP.

And Shran was replying to the OP and asking his question in the context of said OP, so your post was also such as to be interpreted in the context of said OP. So get your fucking facts straights before you start bitching.

[Tsukiyumi]

And neither will I, either tomorrow or Wednesday.

Actually, it was completely legit. HBO has it OnDemand.

Oh, mine is too. I have cable now, after all.






Nah. I'm just messing with you.

[Mikey]

Whew! I thought we broke the universe again.

[Deepcrush]

Whew! I thought we broke the universe again.

Helps that me and seafort aren't agreeing much lately.

[Mark]

Next time we run out of duct tape and the universe is tearing, I guess I can just tell Deep that Seafort says the Lakota sucks and the GCS rules

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

*Sighs, then runs to get some duct tape* Knowing you guys...

[Tsukiyumi]

Just watched it. I liked it.

Go figure.

I think I'll go into more detail as to why I liked it in a thread tomorrow.

[Deepcrush]

Next time we run out of duct tape and the universe is tearing, I guess I can just tell Deep that Seafort says the Lakota sucks and the GCS rules

Seafort isn't short on saying stupid things but I don't think even he'd go that far.

[Reliant121]

Just watched it. I liked it.

Go figure.

I think I'll go into more detail as to why I liked it in a thread tomorrow.

I'm the same. I know it's full of plot holes and flaws but I still like it.

[Captain Seafort]

The Lakota sucks and the GCS rules.

[Deepcrush]

The Lakota sucks and the GCS rules.

...and you have sex dreams about Janeway!

[Captain Seafort]

Deep, while I'm sure you'd like the whole world to have your attitudes and preferences, that doesn't make it so.