New Moon Discussion Thread [put all rumors, speculation, etc here]

[ryan4blu]

Originally Posted by 1blufan

How much it makes doesn't make it a good movie.
Phantom Menace pulled in $924,317,558 Worldwide doesn't mean it's a great movie. It's a fad, the "it" movies of the time.

what....

surely it wasnt a good movie, it was a great movie!!

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Completely right. Making money is great for the studios, but that doesn't mean that the film is quality. A film can be absolute trash and make a ton of money because of its built-in fanbase or, as you say, being a "fad." Definitely correct.

But when a movie make's $924,317,558 world wide, you cannot call it trash, it might be trash for you but it sure wasn't trash for a heck of a lot of other people however.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Obviously context isn't your strong suit.

A good investment in a movie, means that it's a good movie. Especially if you're a production company.

Logan

Not surprisingly, you are missing the essential difference in the way "good" is being used.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

But when a movie make's $924,317,558 world wide, you cannot call it trash, it might be trash for you but it sure wasn't trash for a heck of a lot of other people however.

I wasn't saying this or any other movie is trash. My point was that a movie that is a financial success does not directly correlate to it being a quality film in an objective sense. Of course, there are many who saw New Moon who absolutely loved it (even my roommate), which is understandable. However, there is a significant difference between a movie being a good investment and a good film. There is no doubt that the line is undoubtedly blurred almost to the point of obscurity when it comes to producers and media heads. However, even they understand when they have a film that will solely do well financially but win no awards, and when they have a film that will not be a financial success but will win awards. Take this past year's Oscar's race, with none of the films being particularly successful. Studios realized that the films were (arguably) of high quality and pushed them to the forefront of the minds of the Academy and the general population. It is a very distinct difference.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

But when a movie make's $924,317,558 world wide, you cannot call it trash, it might be trash for you but it sure wasn't trash for a heck of a lot of other people however.

Well, that depends. Good is a subjective term. The film was profitable, sure. However, just because of a film's box office return doesn't mean we should go out and add it to a list of best films of all time.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

But when a movie make's $924,317,558 world wide, you cannot call it trash, it might be trash for you but it sure wasn't trash for a heck of a lot of other people however.

Exactly. Not just in regards to New Moon, but all movies that make a lot of money can't be complete trash if it makes a ton of money at the box office and even on home video. It might be to some, but obviously a lot of people would disagree. On the flip side, just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it is an actual good movie. It's all subjective.

And I see ckent just posted something similar. Oh well.

[Diesel]

Actuals are in,

Domestic: $142,839,137 52.0%
+ Foreign: $132,100,000 48.0%
= Worldwide: $274,939,137


Almost six times it's budget.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by killowertz

Exactly. Not just in regards to New Moon, but all movies that make a lot of money can't be complete trash if it makes a ton of money at the box office and even on home video. It might be to some, but obviously a lot of people would disagree. On the flip side, just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it is an actual good movie. It's all subjective.

And I see ckent just posted something similar. Oh well.

Agreed with both...there is a high degree of subjectivity involved, although objectivity def plays a role as well.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by killowertz

Exactly. Not just in regards to New Moon, but all movies that make a lot of money can't be complete trash if it makes a ton of money at the box office and even on home video. It might be to some, but obviously a lot of people would disagree. On the flip side, just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it is an actual good movie. It's all subjective.

And I see ckent just posted something similar. Oh well.

I agree with you Crap Movie Master ()

Just because a movie is a blockbuster or uber blockbuster doesn't mean it sucks.

And just because it is an art house film doesn't mean it's fantastic.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Actuals are in,

Domestic: $142,839,137 52.0%
+ Foreign: $132,100,000 48.0%
= Worldwide: $274,939,137


Almost six times it's budget.

That's almost scary... It'll likely see about a 40% drop in it's second week, but even still, 40% of 274 million is what again...?

Logan

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I agree with you Crap Movie Master ()

Damn right, and I'm proud of it.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

That's almost scary... It'll likely see about a 40% drop in it's second week, but even still, 40% of 274 million is what again...?

Logan

Ahelluvalot

Originally Posted by killowertz

Damn right, and I'm proud of it.

[Diesel]

Marvel/DC Twilight and New Moon Parody

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Well, that depends. Good is a subjective term. The film was profitable, sure. However, just because of a film's box office return doesn't mean we should go out and add it to a list of best films of all time.

Of course not, I would never call Phatom Menace the greatest movie ever. Is it one of my favorite? Of course it is. I am very sure that most fan of New Moon will call it one of their favorite but won't make a claim it's the greatest movie of all time, unlike others just 12 months ago who were claiming at the top of their lungs that TDK was the greatest movie ever.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I wasn't saying this or any other movie is trash. My point was that a movie that is a financial success does not directly correlate to it being a quality film in an objective sense. Of course, there are many who saw New Moon who absolutely loved it (even my roommate), which is understandable. However, there is a significant difference between a movie being a good investment and a good film. There is no doubt that the line is undoubtedly blurred almost to the point of obscurity when it comes to producers and media heads. However, even they understand when they have a film that will solely do well financially but win no awards, and when they have a film that will not be a financial success but will win awards. Take this past year's Oscar's race, with none of the films being particularly successful. Studios realized that the films were (arguably) of high quality and pushed them to the forefront of the minds of the Academy and the general population. It is a very distinct difference.

I think that 80%-90% of all movies that are succesful at the box office will always be looked upon as ordinary movies by a lot of people. There is a bit of snobish attitude related to this. Most of the succesful box office movies are made with a general audience in mind and the more general or the more you try to reach a large audience, no more chances you will alineate the good will of the hard core film critic both professional ones and amateur ones like here. What I mean by this is that there is lest chance that the movie will have the art look and feel we normaly associate with a great movie.

There is also who make these movies. Those with the great talents to make "great" movies would generaly not be seen in a New Moon movie or 2012 or Transformers. Be it from director down to actors and everyone else working on the movie. It's like in sports, you have the "Michael Jordans" and then you have those who have a bit of talents but will never be Michael Jordan. Sure we should expect the best out of every performances, that is normal but that being said expecting and reality are two different words.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think that 80%-90% of all movies that are succesful at the box office will always be looked upon as ordinary movies by a lot of people. There is a bit of snobish attitude related to this. Most of the succesful box office movies are made with a general audience in mind and the more general or the more you try to reach a large audience, no more chances you will alineate the good will of the hard core film critic both professional ones and amateur ones like here. What I mean by this is that there is lest chance that the movie will have the art look and feel we normaly associate with a great movie.

There is also who make these movies. Those with the great talents to make "great" movies would generaly not be seen in a New Moon movie or 2012 or Transformers. Be it from director down to actors and everyone else working on the movie. It's like in sports, you have the "Michael Jordans" and then you have those who have a bit of talents but will never be Michael Jordan. Sure we should expect the best out of every performances, that is normal but that being said expecting and reality are two different words.

Very nice, well-thought out post. I agree with you on all accounts. Then you have those films like Titanic and LOTR, which make a ton of money but also have high cinematic value.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Very nice, well-thought out post. I agree with you on all accounts. Then you have those films like Titanic and LOTR, which make a ton of money but also have high cinematic value.

Yes you will always have the exception, they will be rare but they will happen. You see them in every decade since movies came along. A HUGE box office hit that is also worthy of being call a classic or greatest movie.

[joe1515]

I for one am a big fan of the Twilight saga. I read all the books and saw the first two movies. I really liked Twilight and New Moon, are they oscar award winning movies, no. Is ther bad acting yes, the only real actor is Kristen Stewart. But they are a lot of fun.

My wife and I saw Twilight without reading the books, then my wife started reading them and so did I.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by joe1515

I for one am a big fan of the Twilight saga. I read all the books and saw the first two movies. I really liked Twilight and New Moon, are they oscar award winning movies, no. Is ther bad acting yes, the only real actor is Kristen Stewart. But they are a lot of fun.

My wife and I saw Twilight without reading the books, then my wife started reading them and so did I.

No, the only real actor is Michael Sheen and maybe whoever plays Bella's dad. He's decent. At least i believe that he's a sheriff in a small town who's not much on parenting. Stewart however, is atrocious and she's on screen about 80% of the time. Is she always out of breath or what? I..I.........can't...........leave you. You........you..........you promised.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

No, the only real actor is Michael Sheen and maybe whoever plays Bella's dad. He's decent. At least i believe that he's a sheriff in a small town who's not much on parenting. Stewart however, is atrocious and she's on screen about 80% of the time. Is she always out of breath or what? I..I.........can't...........leave you. You........you..........you promised.

No, she's actually a good actress. She was actually a pretty well respected indie actress before the Twilight Saga. It's all a matter of opinion though, even if I disagree. I agree about Michael Sheen being pretty good, and Billy Burke (her dad) actually seems to be pretty decent.