MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
1. I have no idea what anyone who shouted that, if anyone even did, was thinking. I think many people will chant a slogan, or even shout a wild opinion, but it's an abstract thing, and they don't mean it literally. But perhaps some did. Or maybe those were the FBI agents, that the FBI has now admitted were there, tasked with fomenting rage in order to discredit Trump who shouted that. What matters is that no one actually *did* anything. If you want to protest with a noose and a slogan, by all means do so. Where it becomes a problem is when you begin assaulting people, a la Antifa or the BLM rioter, burning buildings, and looting stores.
2. I'm 100% sure he will. He has never said or done anything that gives me even the slightest reason for concern that he won't.
Dude, have you read any of his other posts? Everything he says is over-the-top satire. I don't know his actual position on masks or the vaccine, but I guarantee he isn't still wearing a mask.
Either some people don't get your jokes, or I think you're joking when you aren't. Either way, I'll be wearing my usual 3 masks at tonight's showing, and as always, I'll dust my popcorn with some vaccine powder. Safety first!
If a few people had a weapon on them, that doesn't change the point. We've been told the mob was there to overthrow the government. If that was the goal, why weren't they violent? Why didn't the attack anyone? Why did they do nothing more than walk around holding up signs, and then go home peacefully?
Those are all original movies. An original movie is something that isn't a remake or a sequel. Since the dawn of cinema, films have been based off of books and plays. A film doesn't need to be made from a script that was written from scratch to be considered original.
If you really get down to it, nothing is original by your definition, because there are only a small number of stories in existence, and all books, plays, and films are variations on those tales.
For as great as Trump has been, and one expects him to continue being for the next 4 years, Vance has the potential to be an even greater leader.
The real issue here is that you've bought into the fake, media-created narrative about January 6th. There was no fomenting, riotous mob. Trump did not orchestrate anything that took place on that day, and in fact tried to have the National Guard called in to quell things. Many of the so-called protesters were undercover FBI agents, tasked with inciting a riot, and many others were Antifa, and other paid activists. And yet, despite all those anti-Trump folks on site determined to turn things into a violent riot, all that took place was a peaceful protest. Until the police opened the gates and ushered people inside the Capitol, no one stormed, or otherwise entered, the building.
Also worth noting: we live in the most heavily-armed nation in the world, and yet not a single supposed insurrectionist brought a gun. These people were allegedly there to overthrow the government, but came unarmed? No one killed anyone other than the police, who shot and killed one unarmed woman, and when the 8pm curfew came, everyone quietly packed up and went home.
So no, I see absolutely no reason to expect Trump to do anything other than lead the nation as president, as he did before, and as was done by his predecessors.
What you mean is you can't admit when you're wrong.
No one is moving goalposts. That Wicked is making money for Universal is a positive for the studio, but separate from the issue at hand. That's what "and" means in that sentence.
I don't know how else to explain this to you in a way you'll understand. How about this.
If a movie is the highest-grossing film of the year, and makes twice as much as the 2nd place film, and packs theaters for months, but it cost a lot to make, so ultimately it only turned a small profit, or even lost money, would you not say it was dominant at the box office in its year?
If another movie makes only a fraction of what that first movie made, and ranks 30th that year, but it was made for a tiny amount, is that your juggernaut?
You seem to be so caught up in profitability that it seems you'd say a film that made $1 million on a $10k budget is a force to be reckoned with at the box office, while a film that made $600 million on a $150 million budget was floundering. If we're talking profit, sure, but we aren't.
The movies that sell the most tickets are the most successful/dominant films/ juggernauts/ choose your term in terms of drawing audiences, even if they lose money. Those have been the goalposts the entire time.
I'm not talking about profit at all. The industry is in big trouble right now, but that's an entirely different discussion.
A movie being the most popular among movie-goers is not about profit. Even if every film loses money, that doesn't change what movies were most popular among those who chose to go to the movies that year. A film can lose money but be a juggernaut at the theaters if it is the movie most people are choosing to see. Profit doesn't enter into the discussion.
It's like we're speaking two different languages.
If a film is the top-grossing film of the year, it deserves just as much praise or respect as a film that was the top in another year. Comparing the two is apples to oranges. A film that dominates the box office dominates the box office. Doing so in an era when fewer people go to the movies in no way reflects on the film.
Which is why I said it's a juggernaut by today's standards. Because yes, if (when?) theater-going dwindles to the point where every movie loses money, there will still be certain movies that more people see than others, and those will be the ones said to dominate the box office.
Think of it in sporting terms. If Oregon wins the national championship this year, they'll finish the year 16-0. It's fair to say they were a juggernaut that dominated college football this year, even though you know full well if they took the field against the New York Giants, the absolute worst team in the NFL this season, the Giants would destroy them.
If sports aren't your thing, then another way to look at is that if this year, for whatever reason, theater-going were at an all-time high, there is no reason to think the most-watched films would be different. The order in which they are ranked would stay the same, only the number of tickets they sold would change. And that's what matters: which films outperform others, and by how much. You can't blame a film for the popularity of movie-going vs. streaming, you can only rate it by how it performs against the other films of its year.
But it's all relative. The top 10 films are still the top 10 films, whether only 10,000 go see them or if 10 million go. If a film dominates the box office, it dominates the box office.
We're talking about box office, not quality. The film itself looks awful, but it's doing very well at the box office by modern standards.
🙄
Is anyone really to say?
It depends how you count them. Reeves made 4, then there was Superman Returns. After that came 3 films that heavily featured Cavill's Superman, though one was technically about the entire Justice League. I don't think it's unreasonable to say there have been 8, but only 2 or 3 or them have been any good.
It feels a little refreshing to me, as the recent run of Superman films were completely ignorable and forgettable, and seemed almost to be about a different character. It's like we're FINALLY getting another Superman movie.
What was counted twice? I don't know what AE is.
It was a bullet dodged. He's a goofy guy who will forever be Jim from The Office. He can't pull off heroic. Meanwhile, there's nothing "diverse" about Pedro Pascal. He's a white guy, just like Krasinski, and just like Mr. Fantastic.