1. I don't know what your definition of "blockbuster" is. Most people define that to mean that a film made tons of money, either in total gross or relative to cost. Either way, I certainly think Rain Man qualifies: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095953/business So your argument against "blockbusters" and "wealth" and the relevance of that to this movie has completely lost me.
2. If instead you are defining "blockbuster" to so-called "popcorn films" that don't aim to tell a particularly compelling story, your argument also doesn't make sense. You do realize that there were plenty of "popcorn films" in the 1980's, right? There were at least as many as there are now. Top Gun, for example, came out at about the same time as Rain Man. Or perhaps by "blockbuster" you are just talking about higher budget films. If so, then what you are saying is completely incorrect. Higher budget films in the present are much more likely to be of high quality than those in the 1980's. Aviator and Dark Knight, both very expensive films are generally considered to be of very high quality, as are many other recent high budget movies such as Hunger Games. There are both high budget popcorn movies and high budget movies of very high quality (as well as plenty in between).
3. There also are plenty of lower budget movies where filmmakers "simultaneously educate and entertain an audience" and where "money was obviously not the highest priority on his/her mind". The Hurt Locker, Requiem for a Dream,A Beautiful Mind , are three fairly recent excellent films that just pop into my mind which would obviously fit within what you are trying to discuss. There are hundreds of middle or lower-tier budgeted films released every year in which filmmakers obviously are attempting to tell a real good story that shares something compelling and in which money is clearly a lesser priority. Some are successful and some are not (both creatively and financially). Do you even pay attention to the movies that come out? For Christ's sake, you cannot just take one movie of 1988 and compare it to some unnamed movies of today that you happen to be thinking about and act as if these movies are representative of all movies in their time. It is like randomly taking one individual in New York and one individual in California and then deciding that the differences in personalities of these two people showcase the differences between east coast individuals and west coast individuals.
4.
Whoever made this
You can find out who made this by simply doing a little bit of searching here on IMDb or elsewhere. There is no need to say "whoever made this". And once you do find this out, you will discover that these people have made plenty of movies in recent years that would seem to qualify for the types of things that you act as if are never done anymore.
5. I cannot stand simpletons like you.
reply
share
BBernbaum
12 years ago
I take it from your erratic, squabbling post that you disagree with me.
Let me try another angle for user yldr45.
Take a look at the IMDB all time worldwide Box Office list, up there in the menu. And look at the top 50 movies.
Just to do a quick readout, we have: Kung Fu Panda 2, Transformers, Shrek, Spiderman, Finding Nemo, Lord of the Rings, 3 Pirates of the Carribean movies and 8....yes 8 Harry Potter movies.
Out of the top 50, 43 of them were made after the year 2000.
And you're telling me, times haven't changed in the movie business?
reply
share
yldr45
12 years ago
Oh my goodness! You don't even seem to understand (at least not adequately) the concept of inflation. I suggest you learn what it is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation?s=t Movies tickets cost more in recent years. So obviously recent films are more likely to be on the top of the list. Why don't you take a look at the all time box office list that is adjusted for inflation: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm What do you notice about that list? Do you see mostly recent movies there? No. And that's despite the fact that there has been large population growth over the years and thus more people available to see movies.
And you're telling me, times haven't changed in the movie business?
I never told you any such thing. I explained to you why the points you had made (none of which was simply "times have changed in the movie business") were wrong. Apparently, you don't even comprehend what people are saying to you. I guess you are the type of person who, when confronted with things that don't conform to your views, simply change what you think the person is saying so that you can decide that it is wrong.
reply
share
BBernbaum
12 years ago
'movie making today is just not what it used to be.'
'times have changed in the movie business'
To me, those two quotes I said, carry pretty much the same sentiment.
But apparently to you they mean completely different things? - and you want to argue over their exact, precise meaning?
Well you're welcome to. I'm not really interested though because I think you're just being pedantic. And I don't know why you're getting so worked up over things either?
reply
share
yldr45
12 years ago
Here is what you are doing now. I actually find it somewhat of an intriguing question as to whether you realize that you are doing it. In your original post, you made a statement in the title of the thread. And then you wrote 11 sentences in order to try to support what you said in this title. In these 11 sentences you went way beyond the more benign and general statement you made in the title and made some incredibly absurd conclusions. For example, you argued that no filmmaker today makes a movie for artistic reasons or to tell good stories and implied that when Rain Man was made there were not films made with mediocre stories whose sole purpose was to attempt to make a lot of money. I explained why you were, in my opinion, incorrect about the arguments you made in the body of your post. Instead of responding to what I said you are pretending that I was arguing only with what you said in the title and not the body of your original post. That way you are minimizing the effectiveness of what I said. I don't know whether you are attempting to delude yourself in addition to everyone else and, if so, whether you have been successful.
reply
share
BBernbaum
12 years ago
>> you argued that no filmmaker today makes a movie for artistic reasons..
I don't remember arguing that at all.
And the fact that you see my post in the way you do, confirms my suspicions about you all along, as just being an unnecessarily argumentative person. Which is why I haven't chosen to really argue with your so called 'points'. Because they aren't really points dealing with what I have ACTUALLY said. Rather what you have chosen to see them as.
You have over-simplified my post into blanket statements about cinema. And gone off on a tangent arguing about it. Stop sifting through what I have said with a fine tooth comb and just try to grasp the general statement I'm trying to make.
Do you honestly think that I'm saying that todays Hollywood produces absolutely no intelligent movies AT ALL?
And likewise, do you honestly think that I'm saying the 80's had no brainless blockbusters at all?
Seriously?
I stand by everything I have said in my original post. You've not really convinced me of anything. Because you've just failed to understand it.
>> you wrote 11 sentences in order to try to support what you said..
You counted my sentences? Not pedantic at all then.
reply
share
yldr45
12 years ago
I don't remember arguing that at all.
Here's an idea. You can always just go back and look at your earlier posts to see what it was that you did argue. You don't have to depend on your memory.
You counted my sentences? Not pedantic at all then.
It is not very difficult or time consuming to count to 11.
reply
share
BBernbaum
12 years ago
Well I take it from that subdued response, that you've realised your were arguing over nothing and are probably feeling rather silly now. Good. So you should.
Whilst we're suggesting ideas, one for you would be to look up the terms 'pathologically antagonistic'. I think people should be aware of such things.
reply
share
yldr45
12 years ago
Well I take it from that subdued response, that you've realised your were arguing over nothing and are probably feeling rather silly now. Good. So you should.
Whilst we're suggesting ideas, one for you would be to look up the terms 'pathologically antagonistic'. I think people should be aware of such things.
You do realize that each of those two paragraphs are mutually exclusive, right? Why don't you at least choose whether you want to say that it reflects negatively on me if I argue too much or if I argue too little. It can't be both. It can be neither (which would be the correct option). My last post was fairly short mostly because I wanted to encourage you to reread your first post so that you could find out for yourself what you had actually said and implied. You alleged that I took too much out of it but then indicated, by saying "I don't remember arguing that at all", that you didn't even look them over after my earlier replies.
reply
share
yldr45
12 years ago
Just for the record, I meant to say Avator in my earlier post instead of Aviator, though I suppose that The Aviator would also fit with what I was saying.
reply
share
Rupert_Pupkin1
12 years ago
"Rain Man" did use established genres (road movie, buddy movie, fish out of water) to tell its story. It's much harder to do that today and not sacrifice something.
"The royal penis is clean."
reply
share
gcarras (2727)
6 years ago
Popcorn films...I'll name some from 88
Hairspray
The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad
Working Girl
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
reply
share