The Film Thread

[Eames]

 

Scarlett Johansson > Megan Fox

 

ergo Transformers is needless.

I often find myself nodding when I read your posts but have you taken leave of your senses?

 

Nope. He is dead right. 

 

Scarlett Johansson is soooooo much better.

[Zatman]

Scarlett for me as well 

[Houlston]

WTF is wrong with you people??? Now offtopic is turning into ontopic. No no no no no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

I need to return some video tapes.

[Designer1]

Yep Scarlett is the absolute definition of sexy for me.

 

And she can act, which is a bonus what with her being an actress.

[CVByrne]

A bit late to the party on this but I watched The Hunger Games last week, the best film I've seen in a long time. Really enjoyed it. Had no idea it was part 1 of a trilogy so eagily awaiting parts 2 and 3.

 

 

Seriously. Sometimes I just can't understand things. I genuinely do not understand how some people actually enjoy horrendous films. 

 

That is without doubt the worst acted film I've ever seen. It's direction is appalling too, the script is beyond bad. 

 

That is the one film I would hold up as being in every aspect terrible. It is so bad it almost becomes enjoyable to watch something that's THAT bad. 

 

Almost. 

 

Please please someone tell me they agree. Otherwise we're all doomed. 

[BOF]

Scarlett Johansson > Megan Fox

 

ergo Transformers is needless.

I often find myself nodding when I read your posts but have you taken leave of your senses?

I'm not saying Megan Fox is minging or anything. She's ridiculous. And easily the best thing about that film.

 

But Scarlett is hotter.

I read Houlston slightly differently. I think he might be saying that just because Scarlett is hotter* doesn't make TF 'needless'.

* which she totally is btw

[CVByrne]

 

 

Define Blockbuster

 

 

Big budget non pixar/disney which will have big marketing push and likely plenty of CGI. But doesn't strictly have to, key is big budget which is around 100mil these days.

 

Why non pixar/Disney?

 

I'm not being facetious, genuine question.

 

 

Because they are cartoons. They are different to live action because they are cartoons. People view them completely differently. There are no actors, no live sets, no connection with real world.

 

They're very different. 

[mjmooney]

 

 

Rather good, I thought. 

 

Added that one to my list thanks Mike - looks up my street. 

 

 

I see my image has gone tits-up (in the OP) for some reason.

 

For those interested, it was "The Big Picture" (aka "L'homme qui voulait vivre sa vie"). Enigmatic, Hitchcock-style French thriller.

 

Official site

Edited June 28, 2013 by mjmooney

[Pelle]

Not in a million years is Scarlett hotter than Megan. Scarlett is cute, Megan is hot. Though, it feels a little like chosing between a cold beer on a sunny day or another cold beer on a sunny day.

[BOF]

Though, it feels a little like chosing between a cold beer on a sunny day or another cold beer on a sunny day.

Exactly. Either way there'd be a *cough* happy ending.

[Stevo985]

 

 

 

Define Blockbuster

 

 

Big budget non pixar/disney which will have big marketing push and likely plenty of CGI. But doesn't strictly have to, key is big budget which is around 100mil these days.

 

Why non pixar/Disney?

 

I'm not being facetious, genuine question.

 

 

Because they are cartoons. They are different to live action because they are cartoons. People view them completely differently. There are no actors, no live sets, no connection with real world.

 

They're very different. 

 

Well I understand that. Of course they're different.

 

But I don't see how any of that excludes them from being a blockbuster?

 

Big budget? Check

Big Marketing push? Check

Plenty of CGI? Check

 

I agree with you on the most part, as in huge blockbusters are often quite shit. I just don't see how disney pixar films are excluded from being blockbusters.

[Stevo985]

 

A bit late to the party on this but I watched The Hunger Games last week, the best film I've seen in a long time. Really enjoyed it. Had no idea it was part 1 of a trilogy so eagily awaiting parts 2 and 3.

 

 

Seriously. Sometimes I just can't understand things. I genuinely do not understand how some people actually enjoy horrendous films. 

 

That is without doubt the worst acted film I've ever seen. It's direction is appalling too, the script is beyond bad. 

 

That is the one film I would hold up as being in every aspect terrible. It is so bad it almost becomes enjoyable to watch something that's THAT bad. 

 

Almost. 

 

Please please someone tell me they agree. Otherwise we're all doomed. 

 

Conor, don't take this the wrong way... but a lot of your posts in this thread make you sound like a pretentious arsehole.

 

You're not one, I've read enough of your posts to know that. So take this as constructive advice. You might want to give some people a bit more respect.

[mjmooney]

 

 

 

 

Define Blockbuster

 

 

Big budget non pixar/disney which will have big marketing push and likely plenty of CGI. But doesn't strictly have to, key is big budget which is around 100mil these days.

 

Why non pixar/Disney?

 

I'm not being facetious, genuine question.

 

 

Because they are cartoons. They are different to live action because they are cartoons. People view them completely differently. There are no actors, no live sets, no connection with real world.

 

They're very different. 

 

Well I understand that. Of course they're different.

 

But I don't see how any of that excludes them from being a blockbuster?

 

Big budget? Check

Big Marketing push? Check

Plenty of CGI? Check

 

I agree with you on the most part, as in huge blockbusters are often quite shit. I just don't see how disney pixar films are excluded from being blockbusters.

 

 

No actors? Big name actors fall over each other to do voiceovers for Pixar. And they seem to think that they are somehow actually "in" the film too, the way they talk about it.

[Genie]

 

A bit late to the party on this but I watched The Hunger Games last week, the best film I've seen in a long time. Really enjoyed it. Had no idea it was part 1 of a trilogy so eagily awaiting parts 2 and 3.

 

 

Seriously. Sometimes I just can't understand things. I genuinely do not understand how some people actually enjoy horrendous films. 

 

That is without doubt the worst acted film I've ever seen. It's direction is appalling too, the script is beyond bad. 

 

That is the one film I would hold up as being in every aspect terrible. It is so bad it almost becomes enjoyable to watch something that's THAT bad. 

 

Almost. 

 

Please please someone tell me they agree. Otherwise we're all doomed.

 I think you have a view of "terrible in every aspect" that is not shared with very many other people.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[CVByrne]

 

 

 

 

Define Blockbuster

 

 

Big budget non pixar/disney which will have big marketing push and likely plenty of CGI. But doesn't strictly have to, key is big budget which is around 100mil these days.

 

Why non pixar/Disney?

 

I'm not being facetious, genuine question.

 

 

Because they are cartoons. They are different to live action because they are cartoons. People view them completely differently. There are no actors, no live sets, no connection with real world.

 

They're very different. 

 

Well I understand that. Of course they're different.

 

But I don't see how any of that excludes them from being a blockbuster?

 

Big budget? Check

Big Marketing push? Check

Plenty of CGI? Check

 

I agree with you on the most part, as in huge blockbusters are often quite shit. I just don't see how disney pixar films are excluded from being blockbusters.

 

 

I just mean good movies aside from Pixar. There are loads of them but the quality is not there. I want to see if there are movies I missed that were great basically. 

[Ingram85]

But Hunger Games IS terrible. Its cynically targeted waffle for the great unwashed. Its twilight for people who don't care for vampires. Shite.

[CVByrne]

 

 

A bit late to the party on this but I watched The Hunger Games last week, the best film I've seen in a long time. Really enjoyed it. Had no idea it was part 1 of a trilogy so eagily awaiting parts 2 and 3.

 

 

Seriously. Sometimes I just can't understand things. I genuinely do not understand how some people actually enjoy horrendous films. 

 

That is without doubt the worst acted film I've ever seen. It's direction is appalling too, the script is beyond bad. 

 

That is the one film I would hold up as being in every aspect terrible. It is so bad it almost becomes enjoyable to watch something that's THAT bad. 

 

Almost. 

 

Please please someone tell me they agree. Otherwise we're all doomed. 

 

Conor, don't take this the wrong way... but a lot of your posts in this thread make you sound like a pretentious arsehole.

 

You're not one, I've read enough of your posts to know that. So take this as constructive advice. You might want to give some people a bit more respect.

 

 

I don't mean to disrespect, I would LOVE to be entertained by more films and am rather annoyed and jealous of others who are entertained far easier than I am. It's actually frustrating, hearing xxx is great, reviews being great and watching it being a complete turd of a movie, Looper for example. 

 

As for my posting style, it's always comes off arrogant and abrasive and it's pretty hard and taxing to have to reread posts to make sure it isn't insulting or whatever. Just don't take things too seriously. My posts quite often come off very different to what I actually mean. 

 

I do have a dislike of the written word, being Irish we've gift of dgab and spoken words communicate far more than written ever can. 

 

Though Hunger Games is a biblical turd of a film and you're all wrong. 

[BOF]

But Hunger Games IS terrible. Its cynically targeted waffle for the great unwashed. Its twilight for people who don't care for vampires. Shite.

Or a portent.

[CVByrne]

But Hunger Games IS terrible. Its cynically targeted waffle for the great unwashed. Its twilight for people who don't care for vampires. Shite.

 

Thank GOD this thread isn't doomed. 

 

I was away for 9 months travelling and when I came back I checked out the big hits I'd missed while away. Saw Hunger Games and thought this is quite possibly the worst film I've seen in a long time. I physically cringed at the bad acting. 

 

I think that standards have gotten so low, and people are more loosely paying attention to films that this stuff can get by no problem. Basically people really aren't too fussed about the standard of acting or the dialogue. The whole cinema experience and some cgi and a bit of a story is enough. 

 

Basically as long as it's not boring it's fine. Hunger games wasn't a boring film. But it certainly is a bad film. I'm thinking the big difference there is the part I struggle with possibly. I will judge every film I see and maybe that's my major problem.