Quality of Films..

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Quality of Films..

Post by BarcaRulz on Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:46 pm

It may just be me, but does anyone think that the quality of films has gone up drastically these past couple of years?

I know there have been alot of stinkers, but i really felt that during 2008 the quality of most blockbusters was fantastic compared to what it was just one year earlier. Also, 2009 seems to be carrying that trend as well.

Are people picking up on this? Or did i just watch too much crap in th previous years?

_________________
-----------------------------------------------------
avatar
BarcaRulz
Admin
Admin

Posts : 799
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 30

View user profile http://thefantaverse.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Buscemi on Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:06 pm

I'd say it's gone down. Sure the IMDb ratings are grossly inflated (recent examples: Punisher: War Zone, My Bloody Valentine, most fanboy driven films) but that doesn't mean high-quality. I mean why are they doing sequels and remake to anything and everything? Sure we've had good films but audiences are still choosing to see shit over good films.

Just look at this lineups of bad 2008/2009 releases that managed to be hits:

One Missed Call
Meet The Spartans
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: Best Of Both Worlds Concert Tour
Fool's Gold
Jumper
Step Up 2 The Streets
Vantage Point
10,000 B.C.
College Road Trip
Prom Night
Baby Mama
Made Of Honor
What Happens In Vegas
The Happening
Hancock
The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 2
The House Bunny
Fireproof
Eagle Eye
Beverly Hills Chihuahua
Max Payne
High School Musical 3: Senior Year
Saw V
Four Christmases
The Day The Earth Stood Still (though a box office disappointment it still did decent box office and big international numbers)
My Bloody Valentine

I rest my case.

Note: I feel that Cloverfield (which only became a hit due to the fanboy effect) and Vicky Cristina Barcelona (which only became a hit due to its mismarketing and critics kissing Woody's ass) should be included but people somehow liked them.

_________________
"Dare to be stupid."- Weird Al Yankovic

My DVD's: http://damntheseloginnames.dvdaf.com/

The film lasts 99 minutes. The terror lasts forever.
Paranormal Activity
Now playing in select cities, coming soon everywhere.

Don't see it alone.
avatar
Buscemi
Tony Stark/ Iron Man
Tony Stark/ Iron Man

Posts : 3771
Join date : 2008-11-26
Age : 27
Location : Springfield, Missouri

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by geezer9687 on Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:25 pm

I would hardly call a lot of those films "hits." You do make a fine point but I would leave off:
One Missed Call (99th for 2008)
Meet the Spartans (74th)
College Road Trip (62nd)
Prom Night (65th)
Made of Honor (61st)
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (63rd)
Fireproof (83rd)

None of those movies even cracked the top 60 of the year. and I was being generous, as a few more didn't crack the top 50, and only 2, Count em' 2, films cracked the top 20, 4 Christmases (at number 20) and Hancock. They are the only true blockbusters of that entire group which you have presented. The only 2 to reach over 100 million. The rest were middling hits at best. They may have made a profit, but I don't think that is what Barca meant here. I think he was talking about the movies at the top of the spectrum. Where we have real hits like:

The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Wall-E
Kung Fu Panda
Madagascar 2
The Incredible Hulk
Wanted
Get Smart
Gran Torino
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Bolt
Tropic Thunder

And those all made at least 110 million dollars. I know you may not agree that all of them were good, but none of them were terrible either. Of the ones that I saw, I loved all of them.

Now Compare that to 2007 where out of the top 22 films I can name:
Transformers (which I know you hate, but that would help my argument not yours)
Harry Potter (which I don't know about, I'm just assuming it was good)
The Bourne Ultimatum
300 (another controversial pick)
Ratatouille
Juno (same thing as Transformers)
Live Free or Die Hard
American Gangster
Superbad

But when you look at the films most people thought were bad:
Spider-Man 3
Shrek 3
Pirates 3
I Am Legend
National Treaure 2
Alvin and the Chipmunks (all in the top 10)
Wild Hogs
Rush Hour 3
Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer

All of these are in the top 20. So in conclusion, I think Barca has a very good point. The blockbuster films are getting better, and I hope that continues. I haven't really seen where this applies to 2009 though, with the possible exception of Taken. The top film is Paul Blart, and is surrounded by Hotel for Dogs, He's Just Not That Into You, Bride Wars, My Bloody Valentine, Underworld 3 and The Unborn, but it is obviously WAY to early to tell.

_________________
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude

Check out my blog! http://geezersworld.blogspot.com/
avatar
geezer9687
The Frankenstein Monster
The Frankenstein Monster

Posts : 2384
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 29
Location : Chicopee,MA

View user profile http://geezersworld.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Buscemi on Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:36 pm

I liked Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix but I hated Live Free Or Die Hard. It was basically Die Hard With A Vengeance but without the fun of that film (in fact, this one didn't have any of the series' trademarks). If McTiernan had not been in jail during production, he could have returned to direct and not only would have made a worthy installment but in the process he could have resurrected his career.

And I mentioned Fireproof because the film made over 60 times its budget back and it played forever in some places (for example: it ran for two months in first run around here).

As for the "bad" films of 2007, I would agree on Spider-Man 3, Wild Hogs, National Treasure 2 and Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer while I Am Legend was hampered by a bad ending, At World's End, Alvin and The Chipmunks and Rush Hour 3 weren't too bad and I thought Shrek The Third was better than Shrek 2 (but also I was pissed off at how Shrek 2 ended).

_________________
"Dare to be stupid."- Weird Al Yankovic

My DVD's: http://damntheseloginnames.dvdaf.com/

The film lasts 99 minutes. The terror lasts forever.
Paranormal Activity
Now playing in select cities, coming soon everywhere.

Don't see it alone.
avatar
Buscemi
Tony Stark/ Iron Man
Tony Stark/ Iron Man

Posts : 3771
Join date : 2008-11-26
Age : 27
Location : Springfield, Missouri

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by transformers2 on Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:18 am

Kind of. but i dont think the films have completely went to shit just yet. geez and Buscemi do make points but out of those "bad films" i think about 30% of them are actually bad.
avatar
transformers2
Borat
Borat

Posts : 1253
Join date : 2008-11-26
Age : 25
Location : Swampscott,Massachusetts

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by mfrendo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:29 am

I think there are alot of good movies coming out these days, but they're not necessarily the blockbusters. Yeah, some of the big ones were good (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Gran Torino, Get Smart, etc.), but many were outlandishly horrible (Wanted), or pathos drenched emotionally manipulative fluff (Ben Button). By comparison, off of Busc's list (which is full of very successful films, btw, to all who are saying otherwise), the only ones I thought were decent were Bloody Valentine and Four Christmases. The rest all were shitty. Putting together the two lists, alot more bad movies were hits then good...

On the other hand Repo: The Genetic Opera was one of the most inventive movies I've ever seen, Revolutionary Road had some real emotion in a complex setting, How To Lose Friends and Alienate People was funny as hell, and Defiance was one of the better action-oriented films in recent years. So many good films did come out, however, the majority of "hits" were pretty damn awful.
avatar
mfrendo
Fletch
Fletch

Posts : 737
Join date : 2008-11-26
Location : California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by undeadmonkey on Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:43 am

this is one of those conversations having to do with opinions again, just hidden.

for example, I loved Ben Buttons, and thought Wanted was good, but I thought Repo was ridiculous and didnt even finish.

aslo with buscemis list, i lthought 4 christmases was fun and as well as eagle eye and vantage point were quite good
avatar
undeadmonkey
Animal Mother
Animal Mother

Posts : 1086
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 29
Location : Seminole, Tx

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Keyser Soze on Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:34 am

undeadmonkey wrote:this is one of those conversations having to do with opinions again, just hidden.

aslo with buscemis list, i lthought 4 christmases was fun and as well as eagle eye and vantage point were quite good

I just watched Eagle Eye on Sunday, and the only thought going through my head was, "How did this movie get made?"
avatar
Keyser Soze
Danny Ocean
Danny Ocean

Posts : 1050
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 54
Location : Pittsburgh, PA

View user profile http://comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=1284

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by mfrendo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:38 am

I thought Eagle Eye had a chance to be good, but the ending ruined it...if they had ended it (SPOILER ALERT NOW) with Shia being shot after shooting the gun in the air, as a tragic hero type role, it would've been pretty cool. As it stands, it's mediocre Hollywood dreck, at best.
avatar
mfrendo
Fletch
Fletch

Posts : 737
Join date : 2008-11-26
Location : California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Buscemi on Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:39 am

It got made because Spielberg came up with the idea and commissioned two billion screenwriters to write it. Sadly, it was a mess that only could have worked if Spielberg had directed the thing instead of produced.

_________________
"Dare to be stupid."- Weird Al Yankovic

My DVD's: http://damntheseloginnames.dvdaf.com/

The film lasts 99 minutes. The terror lasts forever.
Paranormal Activity
Now playing in select cities, coming soon everywhere.

Don't see it alone.
avatar
Buscemi
Tony Stark/ Iron Man
Tony Stark/ Iron Man

Posts : 3771
Join date : 2008-11-26
Age : 27
Location : Springfield, Missouri

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Keyser Soze on Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:44 am

mfrendo wrote:I thought Eagle Eye had a chance to be good, but the ending ruined it...if they had ended it (SPOILER ALERT NOW) with Shia being shot after shooting the gun in the air, as a tragic hero type role, it would've been pretty cool. As it stands, it's mediocre Hollywood dreck, at best.

You didn't think it went bad until that scene? This movie drove over the cliff about 20 minutes into it. I'm pretty sure 2001 did the rogue computer gone bad bit so much better 40 years ago. It had plot holes you could drive a truck through, and dialogue that sounds like it was written by a high school film class. Nothing about it was believable, and they gave away what was going to happen about half way through the movie. Let's see, you've got a person that can't even drive a stick eluding 200 police cars and the FBI, you've got the same two people who have never handled a frirearm in their life taking out two security guards. Need I go on?
avatar
Keyser Soze
Danny Ocean
Danny Ocean

Posts : 1050
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 54
Location : Pittsburgh, PA

View user profile http://comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=1284

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by mfrendo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:12 am

Well, yeah, but that's kind of the problem I have with every action movie made these days. With that given, I thought it could've been decent with the ending change. It kind of sucks, but I just don't expect much realism from action flicks these days...
avatar
mfrendo
Fletch
Fletch

Posts : 737
Join date : 2008-11-26
Location : California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by BarcaRulz on Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:12 am

OK.. first of all.. most people seemed to have missed my point.. I don't know why money-making became involved, i was only talking about the quality of films (EVEN blockbusters, not ONLY blockbusters) as a whole.

Second point is that while there were bad films (obviously), what i was saying is that they were better than the genre counter-parts of earlier years.

For example, horror remakes of 2006 included The Omen, When a Stranger Calls, The Wicker Man, and House of Wax.. Sequels included The Grudge 2.. Can you see where i'm going with this?

What i meant is that the quality is slowly improving, this of course is in MY opinion, just because there are still bad films doesn't mean it's not true. It just means i believe that the 2008+ ones are the lesser of the two evils.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------------
avatar
BarcaRulz
Admin
Admin

Posts : 799
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 30

View user profile http://thefantaverse.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by mfrendo on Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:36 am

Well, you might be right on that Barca. It does seem there were more quality films than usual, thinking back. Of course, using the horror analogy, 2009 is off to a bad start with the Unborn and Uninvited...though Bloody Valentine and Fri the 13 were both decent, if not good...
avatar
mfrendo
Fletch
Fletch

Posts : 737
Join date : 2008-11-26
Location : California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by NSpan on Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:51 am

i'd say the differences from one particular year to the next don't quite qualify as a "trend"--but it'd be interesting to do a little research on Rotten Tomatoes and see if there appears to be any long-term changes going on (for better or worse)

_________________
---
I saved Latin. What did you ever do?
avatar
NSpan
Borat
Borat

Posts : 1242
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 34
Location : Austin, TX

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by BanksIsDaFuture on Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:43 pm

I think the bad films are getting worse and the good films are getting better, if that makes any sense.

And as far as stupid vs smart blockbusters go, as a wise man once said: "It's called show business, not show art."
avatar
BanksIsDaFuture
Marv
Marv

Posts : 1723
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 29
Location : Lost In The Midwest, against my will.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by A_Roode on Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:59 am

That sounds like Louis B. Mayer talking.
avatar
A_Roode
Marty McFly
Marty McFly

Posts : 783
Join date : 2008-11-25
Age : 40
Location : Halifax, Canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Quality of Films..

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum