Reply With Quote
I said the numbers didn't show HOW MUCH people enjoyed the movies, not that they didn't show whether people enjoyed the movies or not.
Why don't you post the IMDB ratings?
You didnt really just say that did you?
Thats EXACTLY what it shows. An aggregate of both FILM CRITICS and general users. You can view results by "Top critics", just regular viewers etc.
Youre not doing a good job, here. You just seriously embarrassed the out of yourself.
Why don't you post the IMDB ratings?
IMDB isnt deterministic. You wont understand what that is, but I'll tell you anyway.
Why don't you post the IMDB ratings?
Toy Story is better than Taxi Driver, because it has a better Rotten Tomatoes score.
IMDB doesnt count because its not deterministic.
I can vote one film an 8 and another and 8. Do I think one is better than the other?
I was a computer science major, so I dont expect you to understand. "The Social Network" briefly touched on this subject and whether a site is "Turing Complete" when Zuckerburg first made his website rating girls "hotness".
"Right or Left". Which one is hotter?
NOT rate a girl "1 to 10" like amihotornot.com. Thats not deterministic.
You should thank me for educating you.
Do the majority of people think Toy Story is better than Taxi Driver?
I have no clue. Most people have never seen taxi driver.
Do critics think Toy Story is better than Taxi Driver?
Probably.
As for imdb, there are 3 Nolan films now in the top 15. Above acknowledged classics like: Goodfellas, Star Wars: A New Hope, Seven Samurai, Once Upon a Time in the West, Psycho, Apocalypse Now, etc etc.
Both must be taken with a grain of salt, but RottenTomatoes is a better indicator of a film's overall reception, without the overwhelming influence of fanboys.
Saw The Dark Knight Rises the other day, and it was a of a movie, but the Nolan cult is just insane.
Very true.
Dont compare the Batman trilogy with the connection of The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It doesn't make sense to.
The Batman movies are a continuous Trilogy that follow where the last one left off, while The Hobbit does not.
Why not?
Plot wouldn't fit in just one movie.
Much like The Lord of the Rings, the story is too long.
I agree though that making The Hobbit into a trilogy is just milking it. But as long as it is well done, I see no problem with it being made into a 3 part movie.
It's a completely different book with a completely different protagonist
Why? Jackson is using other Tolkien material not from The Hobbit, he's not just stretching out stuff from one book into two movies. There's enough history and material that Tolkien made of Middle Earth to make plenty more than what Jackson's using. Tolkien pretty much made up his own world with its own complete history. It's actually pretty insane. Plus, even though making two movies will obviously make more money than one, Jackson's a legit fan. I completely trust him to stick to what Tolkien made
It's gonna be a 2 parter, not a trilogy. An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again
For now.
Jackson has said he would like to make it a trilogy per Wiki.
The two parts, led The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again,[5] were filmed back-to-back in New Zealand and are currently in post-production; principal photography began on 21 March 2011 and completed on 6 July 2012.[6] They are scheduled to be released on 14 December 2012 and 13 December 2013, respectively. Jackson appeared at Comic-Con, where he unveiled more information about the films.[5] He recently announced that he wishes to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy of films and that the possible third film is close to entering production
Not so fast:
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2012/07/p...ing-the-ho.php
Though The Hobbit's production was plagued with issues like director drop-outs, hobbit racism, union demands, and ulcer perforations, sources say an undeterred Jackson wants to devote even more of his life to shooting sweeping, dwarf-filled vistas. He reportedly wants to spend another couple months in New Zealand next summer to extend his two-part Hobbit adaptation into a full trilogy, turning his full Tolkien epic into a six-part series that is going to take all day to watch if you keep insisting on the director's cuts.
What. The. !!
I say wtf very enthusiastically! I don't know how I haven't heard about this. Like I just said, there's PLENTY of Tolkien material to work with. He could make more movies than there are Bond movies and still never drift away from Tolkien's material. This is also why I don't believe that Jackson will pull a George Lucas and start making mockeries of his previous films, because he doesn't have to come up with his own material. Plenty has been written, he just has to adapt it to the screen and he's obviously got that skill
btw, what's with the "hobbit racism" part?
Something to do with the midget population maybe?
Otherwise I dont get it.
Karate Kid
The Danielsan Trilogy
It sucks that a great movie gets penalized in people's eyes because they lack the attention span to follow something that doesn't have a quick pace with one event following another in unrealistic fashion.
As an adaptation to the book, the story has every right to be split into several movies. This way we get as close as possible to the full effect of actually reading the book.
I can translate your argument to this: "Books are long and boring. Movies shouldn't be like that."
Not being diverse in their hobbit actor hiring
I say wtf very enthusiastically! I don't know how I haven't heard about this. Like I just said, there's PLENTY of Tolkien material to work with. He could make more movies than there are Bond movies and still never drift away from Tolkien's material. This is also why I don't believe that Jackson will pull a George Lucas and start making mockeries of his previous films, because he doesn't have to come up with his own material. Plenty has been written, he just has to adapt it to the screen and he's obviously got that skill
btw, what's with the "hobbit racism" part?
yeah, that was kind of rhetorical. I just roll my eyes to like that, especially considering Tolkien based Middle Earth on a sort of fantasy pre-history of Great Britain.
I read an article about how nobody really gave a about the all white casting for LotR because no one was certain it would even be a success, it was such a gamble of a movie. But now that everyone knows how profitable a Jackson/Tolkien movie will be everyone suddenly seems to care
Grantland (Bill simmons) just did a "Best sequel ever" bracket.
Lots of LOTRans were upset by seedings but Empire Strikes back beat Godfather part II for best sequel of all time.
Im just glad Nolan fan boys didnt it up.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions