Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1296445" data-attributes="member: 177">I don't claim to have objective truth, Mark.  However, I will note that Hollywood and television still make a great many things that bomb miserably.  If there were some sort of real definition of what makes an "excellent property" and "proper development" of the script, there would be none such, as Holllywood would be able to avoid them.  Well, if I'm reading these right, there's something very interesting here...The box office take on the sequels seems to take a very different pattern than the originals do.  The sequels peak high and fast, but don't carry well in the long haul, whereas the originals don't peak so fast, but they linger longer with large takes.  And, let's see, The Matrix did well.  Matrix 2 did better, money-wise.  But the third did worse than the first.  And for Back to the Future - the original did well, with a better all-time rank than the Matrix, even.  But neither sequel compares well at all to the original.Out of four sequel movies, only one surpassed it's original at the box-office.  So far, not a ringing endorsement of this style of moviemaking.  Well, the IMDb specifically says it doesn't disclose it's exact rating methods.  How large the sample is doesn't mean too much when you don't know what they're doing to generate their numbers.  So I suppose they can be taken with a grain of salt.<a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com" target="_blank">Rottentomatoes.com</a> is a compilation of the reviews of approved critics who meet certain standards.  As such, the sampling size is perhaps not so relevant.  However, it looks like they sample the opinion of over 2900 critics, which isn't shabby.</blockquote>

Verification