Re: Post Random Movie-Related Thoughts You Have
Posted: Wed June 01, 2016 11:15 pm
My query just got explained by Selfs post I guess.
BurtReynolds wrote:the Rock is a better actor than Mark Hamill.
dimejinky99 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:the Rock is a better actor than Mark Hamill.
In what? and how do you measure that? Just seems to be a chump marketed towards lowest common denominator easily pleased morons

Oh manSelf wrote:that reminds me, I have san andreas dvr'd
Not those two specifically, no. But those were Phase Two properties. They were built on an already existing universe that requires expansion. Those examples don't change the argument.BurtReynolds wrote:Did you know a lot of Ant-Man fans growing up? Guardians of the Galaxy?durdencommatyler wrote:People aren't watching movies based on characters/myths they grew up with and adored and desperately wanted to see movies made of (especially after Burton's Batman) for a long, long, long time?BurtReynolds wrote:People aren't watching Thor or Ant-man or even Ironman for nostalgia. Few know or care who these characters are. Same for Deadpool.
Sequels and name recognition are a problem, but its not much to do with nostalgia.
Superheroes make great subjects for blockbusters.
Iron-Man and Thor were hardly household names. Even in comics, they weren't A-listers. Phase one or two, no one was going to see these movies to relive childhood memories. It's not nostalgia. Marvel/Disney built a brand with wildly popular products.durdencommatyler wrote:Not those two specifically, no. But those were Phase Two properties. They were built on an already existing universe that requires expansion. Those examples don't change the argument.BurtReynolds wrote:Did you know a lot of Ant-Man fans growing up? Guardians of the Galaxy?durdencommatyler wrote:People aren't watching movies based on characters/myths they grew up with and adored and desperately wanted to see movies made of (especially after Burton's Batman) for a long, long, long time?BurtReynolds wrote:People aren't watching Thor or Ant-man or even Ironman for nostalgia. Few know or care who these characters are. Same for Deadpool.
Sequels and name recognition are a problem, but its not much to do with nostalgia.
Superheroes make great subjects for blockbusters.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:The Rock is awesome and you can suck it.
Yes and no. I see what you're saying. But you're telling me there isn't a single restaurant you go to because it brings back good memories of good times? Fine if you don't but I absolutely do.BurtReynolds wrote:People don't go to their favorite restaurant out of nostalgia. They go because it was good the last time, and it will probably be good this time. They don't go because it reminds them of when they first ate there.
Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.
is it good?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Oh manSelf wrote:that reminds me, I have san andreas dvr'd
dimejinky99 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:the Rock is a better actor than Mark Hamill.
In what? and how do you measure that? Just seems to be a chump marketed towards lowest common denominator easily pleased morons

I would just be happy if Star Trek were good again, or if something were around to deliver what it used to have.LoathedVermin72 wrote:Man I would love it if sci-fi were good again. That genre is a shadow of its former self.
I don't want to influence you one way or the other. Let me know what you thinkSelf wrote:is it good?E.H. Ruddock wrote:Oh manSelf wrote:that reminds me, I have san andreas dvr'd