Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ShadowDenizen" data-source="post: 3486031" data-attributes="member: 16485">WOW!I can see the point you're trying to make.But, as a cinephile, I'll say that that's a REALLY broad (not to mention flawed!!)generalization.&nbsp; &nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> I like the current top10 film list. But I also realize that just becase a movie doesn't make a BILLION DOLLARS, doesn't mean it's unsucessful. (How many millions of SPECTACLAR movies over the years haven't crested the $100 million mark?)Not to mention the advertising budget; how many commercials, trailers, &quot;HappyMeal&quot; toys, etc, have you seen for those top 10 films? Think about that, and compare that to the number of ads you've seen for &quot;Pan's Labyrionth&quot; or &quot;Hot Fuzz&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Studios spend TONS of $$$ trying toi saturate the market so that people see certain films (&quot;Blades of Glory&quot;, anyone? Or whatever-the-hell the last Adam Sandler move was?)And there are plenty of fantasy films that &quot;flop&quot;; not because they're fantasy, but becase they're terrible! (D+D movies? Eragon?)It's all about (or at least SHOULD be) the CONTENT and VISION of the film, not the genre!I'm gonna get off my soapbox now, before I really start ranting....&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad&nbsp; &nbsp; :mad:"&nbsp; data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ShadowDenizen, post: 3486031, member: 16485"] WOW! I can see the point you're trying to make. But, as a cinephile, I'll say that that's a REALLY broad (not to mention flawed!!)generalization. :eek: I like the current top10 film list. But I also realize that just becase a movie doesn't make a BILLION DOLLARS, doesn't mean it's unsucessful. (How many millions of SPECTACLAR movies over the years haven't crested the $100 million mark?) Not to mention the advertising budget; how many commercials, trailers, "HappyMeal" toys, etc, have you seen for those top 10 films? Think about that, and compare that to the number of ads you've seen for "Pan's Labyrionth" or "Hot Fuzz". Studios spend TONS of $$$ trying toi saturate the market so that people see certain films ("Blades of Glory", anyone? Or whatever-the-hell the last Adam Sandler move was?) And there are plenty of fantasy films that "flop"; not because they're fantasy, but becase they're terrible! (D+D movies? Eragon?) It's all about (or at least SHOULD be) the CONTENT and VISION of the film, not the genre! I'm gonna get off my soapbox now, before I [i]really[/i] start ranting.... :mad: [/QUOTE]

Verification