MovieChat Forums > einsteinfountain > Replies
einsteinfountain's Replies
I said those were some of the things which played into cultural impact. So um yeah fail again.
I gave it to you. Also bad example in the ratings department. Joker made more than a lot of MCU films and it was r rated. Now typically the movie that is rated pg-13 can make more money but that is why I also mentioned critical acclaim as well. As to which Fellowship still won.
Problem is you have not one thing to back up that claim nothing! I gave you box office and critical acclaim. Two things as opposed to nothing. So no not the same.
Nope. I measure it as a film. And it is a great film by my measurements as well as the mass majority.
Interesting by claiming that you are saying Gilligan also does not understand it either then. So apparently you know more than the writer himself does.
Already did.
You said you did not understand the movie. Which movie did I not understand? You then said go watch LOTR instead. Which means you were not referring to LOTR you were referring to another movie. Which was it?
To which I did. Is it not a fact Fellowship made more money than Gladiator and had higher critical acclaim? Answer that.
Nope they are and you know how I know you will not refute the facts I presented you side step them.
It does have less unless someone can dispute my facts I can openly state Fellowship had more cultural impact than Gladiator. They are a part of culture are they not?
What proof of any do you have the flying Spaghetti Monster did that? I can cite box office and critical acclaim now can't I? Can you cite anything for the Spaghetting Monster?
Nope that is closed no more book stuff. Last time telling you this. This discussion is about films.
Okay then I am not wrong and neither are you. Next time do not say I do not understand something simply because my interpretation was different.
Read your quote again. I already cited it once. You said clearly you did not understand the movie. Which movie are you talking about? You then say go watch your LOTR movie instead. Which means you are saying Breaking Bad is above my intelligence level and are saying LOTR is for those who are less intelligent. In that you called Breaking Bad a movie.
A politicians answer is what you are giving because you know you are wrong. I already answered that now didn't I? If you will not answer yes or no I have nothing further to add on this issue. Box office is part of culture, as are critics and the mass public.
They are a part of cultural impact and I proved that already. Who said Gladiator had no cultural impact? You asked me which had more and I answered you. Nope I gave two facts it made more money and had better critical acclaim. Two facts and you can not dispute them and it is rather obvious since you are side stepping these two things.
Nope I proved box office and critical acclaim are part of culture.
Your book point is ignored. I will not be addressing books. The books and the films have many differences therefore I measure them differently.
So then when I disagreed with your interpretation why did you get defensive and say well it is my interpretation and it is all up to interpretation? If that is the case then neither one of us can be wrong. So again which is it?
Nope you implied it. When someone implies something it is not an assumption you just need to read between the lines. So no not an assumption an observation.
You are not getting an apology for something I did not do.
No it was a simple question to which you know the answer to but are attempting to side step. Yes critics are a part of culture, yes box office is a part of culture, yes the mass public is a part of culture.
I already did. You have nothing to support Gladiator having more cultural impact than Fellowship. I have box office, critical acclaim as well as acclaim by the mass public. Where is your proof for there being a case for Gladiator in that regard? How is it baseless when it is an objective fact that Fellowship made lots more money, and has higher critical acclaim? Baseless would be if I provided nothing, guess what I did provide. So no sorry try again.
Nope I already just disproved you telling me I made baseless claims. It is an objective fact Fellowship is higher rated critically and made more money than Gladiator, go ahead and dispute that.
Books and films are separate last time I am saying that. I am discussing films not books.
Films not books anything further about the books will be ignored.
Are critics a part of culture? Is box office not a part of culture? Are movies not a part of culture? I believe I already answered this question didn't I? Fellowship of the Ring has more cultural impact than Gladiator does. It made more money and has better acclaim from the mass public and critics. If I am wrong argue against the facts I stated. Tell me how Gladiator would beat Fellowship in cultural impact. I just openly stated how Fellowship had more now refute that.
I said it was part of culture. Do you know the definition of cultural impact? I gave you the definition. Need me to cite it again?
Then if there are differences we can measure them in and of themselves. Nobody has to read the books of LOTR in order to critique the movies. That is not a requirement for a critic before entering the theater to watch it.
Do not need to. The fact is they were individually released and rated. I do not need to go any further than that honestly. Also I am discussing the films not the books.
Lol that is just it though I never said you were wrong, I disagreed. There is a difference. You attempted to say an interpretation was wrong.
Good I am glad you are finally getting it.
You said you did not understand the movie go stick with that little LOTR movie instead. Which implies I was not grown up enough to understand Breaking Bad therefore I should go and watch LOTR. Which in the quote shows you called Breaking Bad a movie. No strawman, you simply can not read or are playing dumb.
This is a silly rabbit hole you are attempting to go down. I said these are what factors into cultural impact. Box office, critical acclaim, and acclaim by mass public. Those are what I said take it or leave it. Also do you have any evidence of a studio paying off critics? I will disagree with critics but I never bought into that conspiracy. It usually is claimed simply when someone disagrees with the score that was given. Why not hey I disagree and that be the end? Anyway that is a whole other topic though.
Nope actually since you were free to disagree with Gilligan I can disagree with Tolkien. Also so that means there are no differences in the book and the movie then correct? Want to double down on that? Careful here I have read the books. I measure things separately.
Nope it was rated as a film individually so I am going off that as well. Books and films are not the same medium. Similar to how the Harry Potter films might be based off the books but there are many differences from the books.
That is fine but do not tell me my interpretation is wrong, which you attempted to do. You may not have directly said it but you implied it by saying I did not understand the show.
And I disagree with your interpretation. So right back at you.
Your exact quote.
<blockquote>You clearly showed that you don't understand the movie, junior. Maybe you should stop posting and quit embarrassing yourself. Go stick with that little Lord of the Rings movie.</blockquote>
No strawman here, I quoted you verbatim.
Simple you can click the link of the critics review on rottentomatoes and go to the website where the critic published their review. Where else would people go for critical acclaim? Back in the day you read the paper for a published review now you can look at it online.
When you consider Fellowship was released by itself and runs well over two hours it is a safe bet to make. I saw them all in theaters individually and they are measured as such. Tolkien the writer of LOTR disagrees with me on this? If I recall correctly didn't he die in 1973? So how is that possible? Second why does it matter what he thinks? You clearly do not care that Vince Gilligan disagrees with you Breaking Bad now do you?
That is fine but if it is all up to interpretation than I can not be considered wrong for my interpretation. You were the one who said clearly you did not understand the film. That implies that my interpretation was wrong. So which is it? If my interpretation was wrong that means the writer is also wrong. If it is all up to interpretation than no one is right. It can't be both ways.
Here you go again so then my interpretation was wrong then? I thought you said it is all up to interpretation? Also Breaking Bad is a tv show not a movie.
It is rather simple they are a part of culture. The definition of culture is
<blockquote>the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.</blockquote>
The question was not what holds a higher weight on cultural impact it was how you measure it. Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the ring not only has good box office but acclaim from critics and the mass public to back it up. Something like 2012 or the newest Jurassic Park makes gobs of money but the acclaim to those films is non existent as they are seen as bad films. Critical acclaim you simply look at the scores gathered in total , collectively. You can use Rottentomatoes, wikipedia, metacritic etc. It gathers up the critical score for films as a whole.
Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the Ring is measured by itself as a film as I can provide you the wikipedia link. That is a whole other issue though.
Not according to the writer Vince Gilligan or my personal interpretation.
Yep and I never said otherwise.
Yes you did. How do I not understand the show when I interpret it the same way the creator/writer did? You are literally saying your interpretation is correct and the writer's is wrong. You are saying this as if your interpretation is fact.
Cultural impact is measured by many things. Critical acclaim, acclaim by the masses and it's box office success. Gladiator had a budget of 103 million and made 460.5 million dollars. Lord of The Rings was made on a 94 million dollar budget and made 887.9 million dollars. Therefore in box office Fellowship wins. Now when you start factoring in critical acclaim Fellowship edges out Gladiator. The acclaim from Fellowship also edges out Gladiator from the mass public. Both solid films but in the end Fellowship would have the edge in that regard over Gladiator.
Probably not if you take away LOTR. I would say Heavenly Creatures, and They Shall Not Grow Old are his best films outside of LOTR.
No not when you consider how much acclaim critically culturally, and cultural impact LOTR has. LOTR has tons of respect in regards to film making.
No I would say he has some great flicks outside of LOTR under his belt.
Braindead is a fun cult flick
Heavenly Creatures
King Kong
They Shall Not Grow Old
LOTR is definitely his magnum opus but I think he is a solid film maker outside of that. Legend outside of LOTR? Debatable but I digress.
True I guess he did gain a tiny molecule of humanity before the end, but he still became a rather disgusting person.
Yeah it was probably the most piss poor apology I have ever seen which is why I rejected it.