(EDIT: removed accidental quote.)
You still talking? It's just you said you were 'done' a few pages up, and your general patronising tone does not automatically qualify you as an authority.
Why do you act like this? Regardless of what you think or want, I'm still entitled to partake in this discussion. Even if you don't understand what part of this discussion I am done with. Ignore me if you wish, continuing to insult me shows your character, not mine. Or perhaps we could just refuse to engage in personal insults?
Just because you are unable to hold any movie to some sort of aesthetic quality, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot.
I never said or implied any such thing.
Yes these views are always subjective, but there is also still common ground, otherwise movie makers wouldn't bother striving for anything at all.
That's something worth discussing.
What do movie makers strive for? Seems to me that many of them strive for financial success primarily. Yes their are "true artists" or whatever they wish to call themselves that strive for artistic values above finance, but very few of them are making major movies. But do either of us have support for what movie makers are actually striving for and what movies those movie makers those people are actually making (i.e. film school/academic, Hollywood, etc?)
The finances tend to look after themselves if the marketing is done right and the movie delivers with certain standards met.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I would argue that the financial failure of so many critically acclaimed movies shows that the finances do not look after themselves.
The financial failure of so many movies that have spend loads of money on marketing shows that marketing alone is not sufficient. This gets into what is "marketing is done right". Which I would tend to agree with
The notion that there is no such thing as a "good" movie, as you have argued ...
Ah no. You haven't read what I said carefully enough or have forgotten what you attributed to me above. This is no universal definition of a good movie, or as you attributed to me above, movie quality is subjective. I've never said that quality is not worth discussing. I've said financial success is more important than subjective quality. I think I may have said earlier that I wasn't interested in discussing subjective quality.
...is such a one dimensional outlook I'd be surprised if you watch anything other than free porn - which is the logical extent to what you are arguing. If it makes money as the only bottom line, then bully for you.
Thanks for the insult. You've gotten the last one in so can we stop them now?
Again, I've never said their is only one thing of importance about the movie. I have said financial success is, imo, the most important one. That does not mean that nothing else is important. Though I understand it is very easy to turn any comment into a one dimensional statement so that it can be argued with, such is disingenuous and not productive.
Now, back to my statement that financial success is the most important criteria for the movie. Do you disagree? Why? Please explain.