Devildoc
Verified Military
Cinematic masterpiece.
But I did not like Hurt Locker, The Great Gatsby (in any form), any LOR movies (or any in that genre), Dances with Wolves.
I am ambivalent about Zero Dark Thirty, Green Zone, Slumdog Millionaire.
The Worst "Best" Movies
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Cinematic masterpiece.
But I did not like Hurt Locker, The Great Gatsby (in any form), any LOR movies (or any in that genre), Dances with Wolves.
I am ambivalent about Zero Dark Thirty, Green Zone, Slumdog Millionaire.
Devildoc
Verified Military
I think that's a valid point: It was SO hyped up it was bound to be disappointing. I was almost expecting an orgasmic experience based on what social media was telling me, but I left like, "meh." Glad I went to a matinee and did not spend the big evening $ on it.
Florida173
SOF Support
So you guys didn't like it because of the hype? Not based on the movie itself? I'd suggest learning to manage your expectations next time.
Also, to use the word hype, it typically means it doesn't perform in the box office. It's made over $2billion in the box office so far. Your argument is moot.
I think what this thread is suggesting are the worst movies that ended up winning best picture. So kind interesting that you are suggesting the movie should even be nominated if you guys don't like it.
Sharknado.
DocIllinois
Verified Military
I would suggest that the argument is somewhat valid; Titanic was hyped in '97 and made almost $2.2 Billion, and its a steaming pile of cinematic shit.
If that's our criteria, I would call it a tie between Shakespeare In Love (steaming enough to fog my glasses) and the Hurt Locker.
Devildoc
Verified Military
First, Roger Ebert, I never said I didn't like it. I said I thought it was over-hyped. Difference. Second, "hype" could refer to box office receipts, it could also mean how good the movie is relative to the advertising.
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in wondering about me managing my expectations. That's my wife's job; not sure she would like the competition.
The hype isn't what ruined it for me. It was an Episode IV ripoff to me and that's why I don't like it. Hype probably wasn't the right word to use. The reactions people had after watching it and how many were claiming its one of the best movies they've ever seen is what I really had in mind.
Florida173
SOF Support
I don't want to derail the thread with star wars, but I would like to suggest that the reasons for it being a combination of a ripoff of ep4 and ep5 are exactly what the franchise needed after ep1-3. The movie had its moments both ways and did a great job of giving us more star wars movies in the future. So I am all for it.
The only reasons to see Titanic are on Kate Winslett, my future ex-wife.
-----
And my intent for this thread before it TWA 840'ed out of here was "The worst films despite box office or award success."
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Incorrect. His use of hype is accurate.
The movie's success in sales is not what hype refers to, it is the building of expectations through marketing thereby encouraging people to buy a ticket and go see the movie. The fact it made so much money is not an indicator of how good the movie is. Using your own assessment of ep 1-3, Episode 1 is the third highest overall grossing star wars film (adjusted). Is it not fair to say that the reason such a poor movie made so much was because of the hype generated leading up to its release? The force awakens was an over-hyped mediocre film, that while entertaining, did not live up to the wonder and awe of the original trilogy.
Except Deadpool, agreed.
Bio Dome. It's @Freefalling favorite movie.
"making a filter, making a filter, making a fillllllllter"
"making a filter, making a filter, making a fillllllllter"
Florida173
SOF Support
So it was a victim of it's own phenomenon. There is a good article out there suggesting that every sci-fi movie ends up being compared to Star Wars and generally doesn't do well.
To you first comment. I would only say that it's about earnings over time, not just the raw numbers. context makes everything. Also. The hype was fan based. I don't believe that the studio over-exaggerated any marketing. If anything, Deadpool was way more marketed, but at least lived up to the hype. It just won't make the money that ep7 will make. There are of course such things as market measured metrics, and ep7 exceeded performance expectations.
Florida173
SOF Support
Because even journalist thought it was actually filmed in space...
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
Caution, the fan boy is strong with this one. Look, I get it. You are a fan and don't like negative comments towards it. We all have our fandoms and strive to protect them. Mine are Deep Space Nine, Farscape, and the HALO franchise. We will defend our fandoms to the end.
However, Star Wars is not science fiction. It is fantasy set in a science fiction setting. So the idea that every other sci-fi movie ends up being compared to SW is ludicrous. How can you say the studio did not exaggerate marketing? There were kids toys on the shelves before the movie even came out, people bought movie tickets to movies that only showed a two or three minute trailer and ignored the feature film. I won't deny that they did a fantastic job on marketing. However, the movie itself was hyped, partly as its own phenomenon and partly because the studio flooded the market. The movie, based on the hype, failed to meet expectations. If our unit mandated a perfect PT score of 300, and the army standard was 150 (not really but for simplicity's sake), and we scored 250, then we did well. However, we still fell short of expectations. A crude comparison I know, but it helps to illustrate the point.
You are correct about context. You also cannot make a logical argument that it was a good movie based on the metrics and performance expectations. If we were executives reviewing the movie, then we could objectively agree that the movie did fantastic. As science fiction fans, we can subjectively disagree as to the film's success based on its content and not on its box office performance. Example, John Carter, Jupiter Ascending, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion, and others were fantastic science fiction movies that did not do well at the box office. However, their stories were excellent as was the execution of the movies.
It seems like most people don't understand the difference, unfortunately. They are ships in space and lasers and automatically label it as science fiction.
I meant to say
"All they see are" in the second sentence. Proofread fail on my part.
