Punisher: Warzone is another flop

[Luminus]

Okay, I'll bite now. I've read everything you've said and here's the only quote that needs to be commented on:

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...

I said "Low-Budge films tend to suck." That doesn't mean that they all suck. Who's painting with a broad brush here? And you've mentioned some old films there, I do believe, long before film budgets started skyrocketing due to CGI.

 

[benny]

I said "Low-Budge films tend to suck." That doesn't mean that they all suck. Who's painting with a broad brush here? And you've mentioned some old films there, I do believe, long before film budgets started skyrocketing due to CGI.

Big budget films tend to suck, also. See: Spider-Man 3 $258 million; King Kong $207 million; The Golden Compass $205 million; Rush Hour 3 $180 million; Waterworld $175 million.

You're right, I mentioned some old movies (thought Brokeback Mountain is recent) from my personal DVD collection which fit the bill of not sucking and having a low budget. All a smaller budget means is the director and script have to focus on the characters and judiciously use whatever effects they can. Personally, I'd rather have a character movie than a CGI action fest.

Pieces of April (2003): budget $300k. Transamerica (2005): budget $1,000,000.

Please note: there was never a stipulation that the movie had to be recent to argue against your "low budget movies tend to suck" comment. Not once. Further, I do not gauge whether a movie sucks or not on the budget or how much it makes. I decide what sucks and what doesn't for me.

 

[Siwilliams]

Rush Hour 3 is funny

 

[benny]

Rush Hour 3 is funny

It made money. That's the best thing I can say about it.

 

[Captain Craig]

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.

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

True. Guys I think when he is in here he will use the accepted term for flop, dissapointment, underperformer and hit.

He should be commened for at least objectively looking at the facts he was presented and realizing his error. That rarely happens on the 'net.

 

[Siwilliams]

Rush Hour 3 is funny

It made money. That's the best thing I can say about it.

It was just like the first two movies, which are also funny

 

[Luminus]

Big budget films tend to suck, also. See: Spider-Man 3 $258 million; King Kong $207 million; The Golden Compass $205 million; Rush Hour 3 $180 million; Waterworld $175 million.

I liked Waterworld and Rush Hour 3.

You're right, I mentioned some old movies (thought Brokeback Mountain is recent) from my personal DVD collection which fit the bill of not sucking and having a low budget. All a smaller budget means is the director and script have to focus on the characters and judiciously use whatever effects they can. Personally, I'd rather have a character movie than a CGI action fest.

Pieces of April (2003): budget $300k. Transamerica (2005): budget $1,000,000.

Please note: there was never a stipulation that the movie had to be recent to argue against your "low budget movies tend to suck" comment. Not once. Further, I do not gauge whether a movie sucks or not on the budget or how much it makes. I decide what sucks and what doesn't for me.

I decide what officially sucks based on the amount of people that dislike the movie. If I like a movie that the majority has deemed bad, it's still a bad movie. That's showbiz.

So, for example, even though Transformers: The Movie apparently officially sucks, I love the hell outta that film. Watched it over 10 times and counting.

 

[Luminus]

True. Guys I think when he is in here he will use the accepted term for flop, dissapointment, underperformer and hit.

He should be commened for at least objectively looking at the facts he was presented and realizing his error. That rarely happens on the 'net.

Thanks. 5 years ago, I would've gone to great lengths to debate you to death using endless sources of information and debating tactics in a deliberate attempt to at least appear to be right.

Things change.

 

[benny]

I liked Waterworld and Rush Hour 3.

The extended cut of Waterworld is better. Never meant to offend anyone with lumping Rush Hour 3 in there, btw. I personally didn't care for it. Liked the first one, though.

I decide what officially sucks based on the amount of people that dislike the movie. If I like a movie that the majority has deemed bad, it's still a bad movie. That's showbiz.

Wow. Then we have totally different ideas of how to figure out if something is good or not. I enjoy dipping my grilled cheese into ranch or italian dressing. Most people don't like it. Does that mean it's bad?

Do we judge by critics or regular folks? Does Rotten Tomatoes work to judge if something sucks or do we need some kind of formula to take into account critics and box office receipts? Cuz, according to RT, RH3 sucks to high heaven...20% fresh rating.

So, for example, even though Transformers: The Movie apparently officially sucks, I love the hell outta that film. Watched it over 10 times and counting.

I don't see T:TM sucking at all. It has a very fun soundtrack, was ahead of its time in terms of TV to movies and has an excellent voice cast. Doesn't suck for me.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Sorry Luminus, I started writing my last post, got called away to do something, returned and finished it and, in the interim, obviously did miss the post where you conceded re the term flop.

Back on topic, I see that TP:W did get at least one positive review on the generally-reliable Chud website.

http://chud.com/articles/articles/17245/1/REVIEW-PUNISHER---WAR-ZONE/Page1.html

 

[JoeZhang]

I think transformers was great - I watched it on an IMAX - it was big robots knocking the shit out of each, the story didn't make much sense - but so what? It's big robots knocking the shit out of each other not Tolstoy.

 

[Luminus]

Wow. Then we have totally different ideas of how to figure out if something is good or not. I enjoy dipping my grilled cheese into ranch or italian dressing. Most people don't like it. Does that mean it's bad?

No. It's only applies to showbiz. If significantly more people say it's bad, then it's bad.

Do we judge by critics or regular folks? Does Rotten Tomatoes work to judge if something sucks or do we need some kind of formula to take into account critics and box office receipts? Cuz, according to RT, RH3 sucks to high heaven...20% fresh rating.

I'm talking regular people, but critics factor in as well to a lesser degree. It's the combination of the two.

I don't see T:TM sucking at all. It has a very fun soundtrack, was ahead of its time in terms of TV to movies and has an excellent voice cast. Doesn't suck for me.

I've heard people say the movie was bad. But, it's one of my favorite movies. It might actually be #1 on the list. I'd have to think about it more carefully.

 

[JoeZhang]

No. It's only applies to showbiz. If significantly more people say it's bad, then it's bad.

Argumentum ad populum is not a particular useful debating tactic - it just says that more people thought it was bad, not that was bad.

If I like a film, it's good - that's really the start and end of it, how many other people hated it is neither here or there to my enjoyment or indeed the intrinsic merits of the work.

 

[Luminus]

No. It's only applies to showbiz. If significantly more people say it's bad, then it's bad.

Argumentum ad populum is not a particular useful debating tactic - it just says that more people thought it was bad, not that was bad.

If I like a film, it's good - that's really the start and end of it, how many other people hated it is neither here or there to my enjoyment or indeed the intrinsic merits of the work.

But if you're part of the let's say 10% who liked Batman & Robin, how can you claim that it's a good film? You can say it's good to you, but not that it's a good film.

 

[benny]

Wow. Then we have totally different ideas of how to figure out if something is good or not. I enjoy dipping my grilled cheese into ranch or italian dressing. Most people don't like it. Does that mean it's bad?

No. It's only applies to showbiz. If significantly more people say it's bad, then it's bad.

Okay. I'll stick by my stance of making up my own mind and to hell with other people. Why let someone else-or a group of someone else's-tell you whether something is good or not? That just doesn't compute for me.

Do we judge by critics or regular folks? Does Rotten Tomatoes work to judge if something sucks or do we need some kind of formula to take into account critics and box office receipts? Cuz, according to RT, RH3 sucks to high heaven...20% fresh rating.

I'm talking regular people, but critics factor in as well to a lesser degree. It's the combination of the two.

So, seriously, what kind of formula are we coming up with? Where do we pull these numbers from?

I don't see T:TM sucking at all. It has a very fun soundtrack, was ahead of its time in terms of TV to movies and has an excellent voice cast. Doesn't suck for me.

I've heard people say the movie was bad. But, it's one of my favorite movies. It might actually be #1 on the list. I'd have to think about it more carefully.

I'm sure some people think The Godfather sucks. And Superman The Movie. And 12 Angry Men. And Lord of the Rings...

 

[Luminus]

benny

See previous post.

 

[benny]

benny

See previous post.

There are parts to Batman & Robin I enjoy. It's cheesy fun. I enjoy watching Chris O'Donnell and Val Kilmer. I like the soundtrack. Jim Carrey is a hoot. I think it's a "good" movie based on that criteria.

If we use the "financial success" definition of "good," the movie turns out to be good, too.

Will it ever compete for an Oscar alongside The Godfather? Heavens no. But it was never designed to. Warner made the movie to make money, to extend the franchise. It succeeded on both those counts.

Similarly, Punisher: Warzone isn't designed to be a Best Picture winner. Ever. It's designed to reboot the franchise and make Marvel and Lionsgate money. That's it.

EDIT: I gave Ghost Rider a very positive review. I liked it for what it was (28% on RT). Same for 300 (RT 60%). On the other side, I gave a generally negative review to The Savages (RT 89%). I don't have the luxury of seeing a movie, waiting three weeks, taking the temperature of the audience as a whole and then writing a review. I have to form an opinion, write it coherently and then publish it often times on the first day the movie is released.

(I'm going to see The Day the Earth Stood Still next Thursday. The movie opens on Friday. The first reviews can be posted Friday morning, for the sake of reference.)

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

There are parts to Batman & Robin I enjoy. It's cheesy fun. I enjoy watching Chris O'Donnell and Val Kilmer. I like the soundtrack. Jim Carrey is a hoot. I think it's a "good" movie based on that criteria.

Batman Forever is the one with Kilmer, O'Donnell and Carrey. Batman & Robin is the one with Clooney, O'Donnell, Schwarzenegger, Thurman and Silverstone.

 

[benny]

There are parts to Batman & Robin I enjoy. It's cheesy fun. I enjoy watching Chris O'Donnell and Val Kilmer. I like the soundtrack. Jim Carrey is a hoot. I think it's a "good" movie based on that criteria.

Batman Forever is the one with Kilmer, O'Donnell and Carrey. Batman & Robin is the one with Clooney, O'Donnell, Schwarzenegger, Thurman and Silverstone.

You're right. I therefore retract my statement. Batman & Robin is vile.

 

[Cicero]

There are parts to Batman & Robin I enjoy. It's cheesy fun. I enjoy watching Chris O'Donnell and Val Kilmer. I like the soundtrack. Jim Carrey is a hoot. I think it's a "good" movie based on that criteria.

Batman Forever is the one with Kilmer, O'Donnell and Carrey. Batman & Robin is the one with Clooney, O'Donnell, Schwarzenegger, Thurman and Silverstone.

You're right. I therefore retract my statement. Batman & Robin is vile.

I love Batman & Robin as a comedy. It's hilarious.