• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Punisher: Warzone is another flop

^^^^
Now you're switching gears. When you say "flop" the mindset is instantly going to be based on its budget to profit ratio regardless of how good the movie is creatively.

If you want to criticize a movie based on its creative merit, despite what success it has at the box office, then feel free.

Oh, no you don't. You know when someone says "flop" they mean the film sucks. Stop backsliding.
 
Let's not get a feel for my mind and get straight to the point - you aren't use the word "flop" like the rest of us - which is budget/box office ratio, you are using it as to describe your subjective view of the quality of the film?

So then you think Ghost Rider was a success. Thanks for clarifying your mindset.

Ghost Rider:
Budget: $75 million
Box Office: US – $115.80; international – $108.15

So, let me get this straight, according you and the "rest of you" as long as the film makes some money back, it isn't a flop? Is that how we're going to play it?

If that's the case, why bother criticizing a movie at all?


You are comparing apples and oranges - the two are unconnected - A film can be the best film ever made and a complete box office flop, it can be complete crap like POTC and make bucket loads of money.

The financial performance of a film is unconnected to it's "worth".

You seem to want to use flop in some non-standard way - that's upto you but don't be surprised if people have no idea what you are talking about. When people talk about films and call them flops they talk about films that either lose money or barely break events - that's a statement about box office, it's not a critique of the film itself.

As for the wider question - I simply don't care, it's the low brow popcorn films that provide the revenue needed for cinemas to exist and for studios to take chances on risker and more interesting films. they can knock out 100 transformers a year for all I care - it's just not a concern of mine as a viewer.
 
Furthermore, like I said earlier, if you're gonna play it that way, then why criticize a film? If it made it's money back, then it's a good film. So I want you to admit to me that you think Ghost Rider and Batman & Robin are a good films.
 
^^^^
Now you're switching gears. When you say "flop" the mindset is instantly going to be based on its budget to profit ratio regardless of how good the movie is creatively.

If you want to criticize a movie based on its creative merit, despite what success it has at the box office, then feel free.

Oh, no you don't. You know when someone says "flop" they mean the film sucks. Stop backsliding.

It's not backsliding - it's a common piece of terminology used by people in those sorts of discussions to indicate they are discuss box office not the critical merits of the material provided.

Your use is non-standard.
 
Joe nails it here.
FF:2 and Ghost Rider at the least underperformed(which is the word the rest of us would use) to studio expectations. Both made money in totality before DVD, cable/network rights etc.
I'd wager Transporter did as well.

Batman & Robin was released on June 20, 1997 in North America, earning $42,872,605 in its opening weekend,[19] making it the third-highest opening weekend of 1997.[20] However, the film rapidly declined with a 63% second week plunge.[21] Many observers based the second week drop on negative word of mouth. In addition, Batman & Robin faced early competition with Face/Off and Hercules.[1] Schumacher blamed it on yellow journalismHarry Knowles of started by Ain't It Cool News and other movie websites such as Dark Horizons.[22] The film went on to gross $107.3 million in North America and $130.9 million internationally, coming to a worldwide total of $238.2 million.[19] Warner Bros. declared Batman & Robin a financial success, but not on the scale they were hoping for.[1]

Source: Wikipedia

The bolded text proves the point the "rest of us" would acknowledge...as did Warners. I believe they used a very similar statement for Superman Returns.

Damn, that Batman & Robin was such a GREAT film.:guffaw:

Why you can't separate the two is beyond me on this. No one would call Batman & Robin a great movie...creatively. Financially though it wasn't a flop. You can't seem to differentiate financially vs creative for some reason and yes there is a difference.
 
Furthermore, like I said earlier, if you're gonna play it that way, then why criticize a film? If it made it's money back, then it's a good film. So I want you to admit to me that you think Ghost Rider and Batman & Robin are a good films.

Not see Ghost Rider, Batman and Robin was a terrible film but I think it made money so it wasn't a flop.
 
Let's not get a feel for my mind and get straight to the point - you aren't use the word "flop" like the rest of us - which is budget/box office ratio, you are using it as to describe your subjective view of the quality of the film?

So then you think Ghost Rider was a success. Thanks for clarifying your mindset.

Ghost Rider:
Budget: $75 million
Box Office: US – $115.80; international – $108.15

So, let me get this straight, according you and the "rest of you" as long as the film makes some money back, it isn't a flop? Is that how we're going to play it?

If that's the case, why bother criticizing a movie at all?


You are comparing apples and oranges - the two are unconnected - A film can be the best film ever made and a complete box office flop, it can be complete crap like POTC and make bucket loads of money.

The financial performance of a film is unconnected to it's "worth".

You seem to want to use flop in some non-standard way - that's upto you but don't be surprised if people have no idea what you are talking about. When people talk about films and call them flops they talk about films that either lose money or barely break events - that's a statement about box office, it's not a critique of the film itself.

As for the wider question - I simply don't care, it's the low brow popcorn films that provide the revenue needed for cinemas to exist and for studios to take chances on risker and more interesting films. they can knock out 100 transformers a year for all I care - it's just not a concern of mine as a viewer.

I didn't say "Box Office Flop". I said flop.

2. flop
Something that fails miserably
The Final Fantasy movie was the biggest flop since Battlefield Earth.

Source

The word as I have used it is perfectly valid. It also proves that people DO use the word as I am using here.
 
Oh, no you don't. You know when someone says "flop" they mean the film sucks.

Please find me someone else who thinks this way. I think even high schoolers would understand the difference...you're not in H.S. are you?

And yet you're the one who resorted to ad-hominem attacks?:vulcan:
Don't get all super sensitive on us it was meant tounge in cheek.

I didn't say "Box Office Flop". I said flop.

2. flop
Something that fails miserably The Final Fantasy movie was the biggest flop since Battlefield Earth.

Source

The word as I have used it is perfectly valid. It also proves that people DO use the word as I am using here.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
OK now I must ask if your just being obtuse.
They are exactly talking about Final Fantasy in terms of box office revenue when compared to Battlefield Earth. Did you bother to look up Battlefield Earth?

That term is specifically speaking to its budget vs box office revenue.
Battlefield Earth Budget: $75m WWTotal: $29m
Final Fantasy Budget: $137m WWTotal: $85m

Although that Urbandictionary needs an update to include The Adventures of Pluto Nash, it supercedes both of them as true flops(as everyone else uses the term).
 
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
OK now I must ask if your just being obtuse.
They are exactly talking about Final Fantasy in terms of box office revenue when compared to Battlefield Earth. Did you bother to look up Battlefield Earth?

That term is specifically speaking to its budget vs box office revenue.
Battlefield Earth Budget: $75m WWTotal: $29m
Final Fantasy Budget: $137m WWTotal: $85m

Although that Urbandictionary needs an update to include The Adventures of Pluto Nash, it supercedes both of them as true flops(as everyone else uses the term).

Alright, fine. I concede.:klingon:
 
Sweeney Todd was unwatchable and the Transporter films are beyond silly and vomit-inducing. Twilight features vampires who don't function like vampires; therefore, it's a garbage movie to me, but great for chicks since it's really just a romance story based on a novel and we know how ridiculously silly romance novels are. Those other two movies you mentioned are not even on the radar. So, no, you have not proven me wrong.

Let's see...Milk not on the radar? It's being platformed out. It's getting Oscar buzz, too. Lots of it.

Whatever. My original point still stands, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Studios put a gag order on all early reviews. Period. Regardless of film, stars, genre or release date.

More evidence the movie sucks. Low-budget films tend to suck. Are you going to deny this, too?
Absolutely I will deny this. American History X: budget $20 million. Alien: budget $11 million. Batman: budget $35 million. Brokeback Mountain: budget $14 million. Keep painting with a broad brush...

You're asking the wrong question and clearly they did as well. What you should have asked is: Why make a mindless-action movie? I've said it before and I'll say it again, change needs to come to Hollywood.
Because they make money. Look, I don't necessarily like mindless action either. However, the business reality is these kinds of films make money while epics like Australia do not. The tentpoles and marquee films allow the studios to take a chance on smaller projects.

When the film flops to the tune of the Transporter – another male-targeted movie (and I dare you to deny that movie sucked) – then maybe you will learn. Experience at least tells me that the studios won't.
All this movie needs to do is make $35 million + $17.50 million for marketing (total $52.50 million) around the world to make a profit. The original, based on a $33 million budget, made $54 million internationally, not including DVD's, which, btw, accounted for another $10 million in rentals and 1.8 million DVD's sold in the first five days. Hollywood is a money making business. I understand that.

By the way, never saw The Transporter and don't care to.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
Now you're switching gears. When you say "flop" the mindset is instantly going to be based on its budget to profit ratio regardless of how good the movie is creatively.

If you want to criticize a movie based on its creative merit, despite what success it has at the box office, then feel free.

Oh, no you don't. You know when someone says "flop" they mean the film sucks. Stop backsliding.


Nope. The Wizard of Oz was a flop when it came out but is now regarded as a children's classic. Charles Laughton's only movie as a director Night of the Hunter flopped at the box office but is also regarded as a classic. Heaven's Gate flopped at the box office but is now regarded as having some merit, if not exactly a classic.

Batman and Robin was not a flop. It was a box office success (if less so than its predecessors) but disastrously received by critics and fans.

Sorry, but your definition of the word 'flop' is unique to you. A film may flop financially and critically - Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Johnny Mnemonic, Speed 2 - but you're the only person I've ever heard to use the word to refer solely to the quality of a movie as oppose to its box office success.
 
Absolutely I will deny this. American History X: budget $20 million. Alien: budget $11 million. Batman: budget $35 million. Brokeback Mountain: budget $14 million. Keep painting with a broad brush...

Primer - $7000 (no not a misprint).
 
I ignored that other guy (Ben something or other), since he's only itching to hurl insults.

Nope. The Wizard of Oz was a flop when it came out but is now regarded as a children's classic. Charles Laughton's only movie as a director Night of the Hunter flopped at the box office but is also regarded as a classic. Heaven's Gate flopped at the box office but is now regarded as having some merit, if not exactly a classic.

Batman and Robin was not a flop. It was a box office success (if less so than its predecessors) but disastrously received by critics and fans.

Sorry, but your definition of the word 'flop' is unique to you. A film may flop financially and critically - Catwoman, Battlefield Earth, Johnny Mnemonic, Speed 2 - but you're the only person I've ever heard to use the word to refer solely to the quality of a movie as oppose to its box office success.

Maybe you've missed my post a couple of minutes ago. I conceded. What more is there to discuss?

Anyway, I am not the only one to ever use the word "flop" the way that I used it. Just because you haven't heard the term used in that way, doesn't mean that it isn't used in that way. You don't have experience with every human being on the planet.

EDIT: I see a certain post has been edited, since my comment.
 
The original, based on a $33 million budget, made $54 million internationally, not including DVD's, which, btw, accounted for another $10 million in rentals and 1.8 million DVD's sold in the first five days. .

That's right, The Punisher from 2004 was huge on DVD
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top