7.8.18

[Foo]

even in 2005, the skeleton key wasn't held as very high. so there's that. the descent stomped all over it, as acclaim goes, even in that time.

Roughly twice as many people went to see The Skeleton Key in theaters. Lots of people go to see the latest Star Wars flick or Marvel flick because the character sprites and explosions are very well done.

still doesn't mean much to how the film will be viewed/ production value can be largely the same on two films today. one is trashed. the other is praised. there's clearly much more going on than just production value. that won't determine how the film is received.

Sure, because they are viewed through the spectrum of today. When you have dozens of movies with similarly high production value, you suddenly become more critical of other areas.

What would people be saying about The Last Jedi if it came out in 1988? They would be blown away by the production. Even recently, Avatar was blowing minds not long ago, now no one even talks about it.

if you want to try to pretend that production value is what determines good art, then it's all yours. i'm not gonna keep going in circles with this.

as much as i love the films of the 1980s, i'm still finding movies, today, that will remain favorites, probably, for as long as i'm still alive.

I am saying that if you were first exposed to a certain production level, it can be difficult to accept less. This goes for anything. It could be pizza, tacos, cars, bikes, etc.

[zombie]

Production values consistently improve. Everything else that makes a quality movie, that's up for debate.

I will say TV improved leaps and bounds in every way in a pretty short amount of time. It's amazing how much better the average TV show is today. Even HBO stuff from 15-20 years ago looks low rent today.

i stand by production value not really being the thing that drives a movie to success or acclaim. the last jedi had great production value, yet fans are divided on it's worth.

television, though, as really improved in quality, lately. i can definitely agree to that.

Yet look at how many people went to see it? The greatest wrestler is not who knows the most holds but who puts the most asses in seats.

you seem to changing the argument here. to me, "knows the most holds" would seem to be in the same line as "high production value", would it not?

hulk hogan got by on subjectivity. bret hart got by on objectivity. hogan lasted because he had what the fans wanted. he caught their attention in a bigger way, despite not be as technically proficient. that is more in line with my argument, than yours seemingly.

You realize that Hulk Hogan could do every move Brett Hart could do, right?

You were talking about "acclaim" as if that is a replacement for doing good numbers.

he didn't show it as much, especially not to american audiences.

no, i wasn't. not until you tried to change the argument. originally, it was about production value being what determines quality then you shifted it. and i went along with your shifting. but at this point, we're just going in tighter and tighter circles, farther and farther from where we actually started. so yeah.

[zombie]

I am saying that if you were first exposed to a certain production level, it can be difficult to accept less. This goes for anything. It could be pizza, tacos, cars, bikes, etc.

maybe. but that's still subjective. art is mostly subjective. that's been my main point all along.

[Foo]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

[zombie]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

i can agree to that. that doesn't work against what i've been saying.

[Foo]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

i can agree to that. that doesn't work against what i've been saying.

What I am saying is that to a casual viewer, production value matters a lot because they don't always have perspective. They are going to enjoy The Hunger Games more than Logans Run.

[Foo]

Also, back to my Atari 2600 example. That console dominated for a very long time. How many Atari games can you objectively place in the top 100 games in terms of enjoyment?

[zombie]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

i can agree to that. that doesn't work against what i've been saying.

What I am saying is that to a casual viewer, production value matters a lot because they don't always have perspective. They are going to enjoy The Hunger Games more than Logans Run.

i don't think it matters as much as you want it to. i've never seen logan's run, as far as i know. so it's possible that i would enjoy the hunger games more too. how much of that is because of the production value?

if there was a formula that could be quantified and repeated, then every new movie would be an initial success. the studios want nothing less than that. but it doesn't work that way. art doesn't work that way. it's something reacted to and capitalized on, rather than measured and formulated.

[Foo]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

i can agree to that. that doesn't work against what i've been saying.

What I am saying is that to a casual viewer, production value matters a lot because they don't always have perspective. They are going to enjoy The Hunger Games more than Logans Run.

i don't think it matters as much as you want it to. i've never seen logan's run, as far as i know. so it's possible that i would enjoy the hunger games more too. how much of that is because of the production value?

if there was a formula that could be quantified and repeated, then every new movie would be an initial success. the studios want nothing less than that. but it doesn't work that way. art doesn't work that way. it's something reacted to and capitalized on, rather than measured and formulated.

Would you say the modern blockbusters are focused more on the art, or the successful formula for high box office returns?

[zombie]

Also, consider that you are not a casual viewer at this point. Think of the sheer number of hours you have invested into entertainment compared to what those ladies talking probably have? The same could be said of me and wrestling. Between what is on TV and podcasts, I soak up more hours per week than most, and I have been watching since I was tiny. My perspective is going to differ from the average person who can maybe name 5-10 wrestlers.

i can agree to that. that doesn't work against what i've been saying.

What I am saying is that to a casual viewer, production value matters a lot because they don't always have perspective. They are going to enjoy The Hunger Games more than Logans Run.

i don't think it matters as much as you want it to. i've never seen logan's run, as far as i know. so it's possible that i would enjoy the hunger games more too. how much of that is because of the production value?

if there was a formula that could be quantified and repeated, then every new movie would be an initial success. the studios want nothing less than that. but it doesn't work that way. art doesn't work that way. it's something reacted to and capitalized on, rather than measured and formulated.

Would you say the modern blockbusters are focused more on the art, or the successful formula for high box office returns?

i think the studios are more focused on trying to find a formula, and have a return on their investment. as i think they mostly always have been. how that works out for any given movie is not so easily formulated and repeated or else every movie would be an initial success. that's what the studios want.

i think that the writers and directors are focused on the art. some more than others. watch thor ragnarok and tell me that that was not about the art? it was still a marvel movie, but it was about the art too.

[zombie]

take a well made car from the 1970s and show it to 100 different people. take the godfather. show it to 100 different people. which one is more likely to have a wider variance of reactions?

[Foo]

take a well made car from the 1970s and show it to 100 different people. take the godfather. show it to 100 different people. which one is more likely to have a wider variance of reactions?

Are we taking into account that out of 100 average people today, only 5 will actually be able to sit through and pay attention to the entirety of the Godfather?

[zombie]

take a well made car from the 1970s and show it to 100 different people. take the godfather. show it to 100 different people. which one is more likely to have a wider variance of reactions?

Are we taking into account that out of 100 average people today, only 5 will actually be able to sit through and pay attention to the entirety of the Godfather?

[zombie]

even take you and me or jason and me, whoever. we grew up in more or less the same span of time. how much do we differ on the art that we like? how much do we differ on what we like about the art that we have in common?

[Foo]

Not even kidding, in particular, The Godfather 2 was hailed for two decades as the height of cinematic art. It became the new Citizen Kane, the measuring stick by which all others are judged.

How many people under 30 have seen it? Would someone with a huge interest in film of mafia movies have seen it? The odds are much more likely, but for the average 30 year old slapdick? Maybe 1%.

[zombie]

Not even kidding, in particular, The Godfather 2 was hailed for two decades as the height of cinematic art. It became the new Citizen Kane, the measuring stick by which all others are judged.

How many people under 30 have seen it? Would someone with a huge interest in film of mafia movies have seen it? The odds are much more likely, but for the average 30 year old slapdick? Maybe 1%.

if they have more than a casual interest in film... in all film, not just a specific genre that excludes the godfather, then chances are that they have seen it, or have it on their list. if they are just casual movie watchers, then probably not.

[Foo]

even take you and me or jason and me, whoever. we grew up in more or less the same span of time. how much do we differ on the art that we like? how much do we differ on what we like about the art that we have in common?

I would say we don't differ as much as you imply, and in large part because of selection bias due to the fact we are all here.

Btw, think it is a coincidence that aside from a few outliers, basically everyone who has ever been an hmf regular are from the same era? As in, our cinematic experiences were largely born of the 1980s and VHS and transitioning into DVD. It is not coincidence.

[zombie]

even take you and me or jason and me, whoever. we grew up in more or less the same span of time. how much do we differ on the art that we like? how much do we differ on what we like about the art that we have in common?

I would say we don't differ as much as you imply, and in large part because of selection bias due to the fact we are all here.

Btw, think it is a coincidence that aside from a few outliers, basically everyone who has ever been an hmf regular are from the same era? As in, our cinematic experiences were largely born of the 1980s and VHS and transitioning into DVD. It is not coincidence.

what do you mean about selection bias?

it might not be coincidence that we are all, of the 1980s, pretty much. but our tastes still vary quite a lot. will you watch amelie with me?

[Foo]

Not even kidding, in particular, The Godfather 2 was hailed for two decades as the height of cinematic art. It became the new Citizen Kane, the measuring stick by which all others are judged.

How many people under 30 have seen it? Would someone with a huge interest in film of mafia movies have seen it? The odds are much more likely, but for the average 30 year old slapdick? Maybe 1%.

if they have more than a casual interest in film... in all film, not just a specific genre that excludes the godfather, then chances are that they have seen it, or have it on their list. if they are just casual movie watchers, then probably not.

We live in a world where Madea is far more well known that Don Corleone.

[Foo]

even take you and me or jason and me, whoever. we grew up in more or less the same span of time. how much do we differ on the art that we like? how much do we differ on what we like about the art that we have in common?

I would say we don't differ as much as you imply, and in large part because of selection bias due to the fact we are all here.

Btw, think it is a coincidence that aside from a few outliers, basically everyone who has ever been an hmf regular are from the same era? As in, our cinematic experiences were largely born of the 1980s and VHS and transitioning into DVD. It is not coincidence.

what do you mean about selection bias?

it might not be coincidence that we are all, of the 1980s, pretty much. but our tastes still vary quite a lot. will you watch amelie with me?

Only if you find a dubbed version.