You say that movies today (starting in the late 90's) are "consistently better" - I guess I haven't seen a lot of the small, independent films that you speak of.
@l0gically my favorite example is children of men, a 75 million dollar gamble which wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. according to IMDb, the most popular movies of last year were the fighter, black swan and hereafter; not exactly the soulless trash that hollywood opposers speak of. even the extreme examples of mainstream filth, such as the transformers films, are much more entertaining than the super-budget-no-brains equivalents from the early nineties.
Erland, I disagree that stars don't sell movies today - but having a star doesn't guarantee success at the box office or video store. What a star does is get you some initial recognition and attention - after that it's up to the quality of the film. Without a star, getting that important early press is very difficult.
@Profriend1 depends on your definition of a star - yes, an actor or a name can attract distributors and audiences to a film, but we barely have any true "stars" left. johnny depp, george clooney, angelina jolie... those are the only true stars i can think of. the actors with the currently highest IMDb "STARmeter" rankings are the twilight actors, yet none of their non-twilight projects have done spectacularly.
@apehodet Don't forget folks like Mel Gibson, Will Smith, Robert Deniro, Harrison Ford, Pierce Brosnan, and Christian Bale. Name recognition can mean a lot when choosing a movie to watch, regardless of your definition of "star."
@Profriend1 i don't know anoyne who would watch a pierce brosnan/harrison ford/mel gibson movie based solely on their participation, and none of them could get a studio project running by simply signing on. of course names help sell movies, but in a new way. from the early days of hollywood up until twenty years ago there were usually 10-20 stars who could control their films and consistently draw blockbusting amounts of audiences. nowadays we have 100+ actors whose movies get more publicity.
You say that movies today (starting in the late 90's) are "consistently better" - I guess I haven't seen a lot of the small, independent films that you speak of.
l0gically 11 months ago
@l0gically well, a lot of the major movies as well. studios have been taking bigger chances, content-wise if not in marketing.
apehodet 11 months ago
@apehodet I really haven't been that impressed with the more recent fare - I'd be interested in a few examples, if you'd care to share them.
l0gically 11 months ago
@l0gically my favorite example is children of men, a 75 million dollar gamble which wouldn't have happened 20 years ago. according to IMDb, the most popular movies of last year were the fighter, black swan and hereafter; not exactly the soulless trash that hollywood opposers speak of. even the extreme examples of mainstream filth, such as the transformers films, are much more entertaining than the super-budget-no-brains equivalents from the early nineties.
apehodet 11 months ago
@apehodet Thanks for the reply- I will look into these.
l0gically 11 months ago
do you use KOSS like a jewelry? thats just fcking awesome!!! love norwegian EMO
grandiking 11 months ago
@grandiking hehehe. it's hard to excuse, but i seriously just forgot to take them off. please do not judge me on the basis of looking dumb :P
apehodet 11 months ago
Erland, I disagree that stars don't sell movies today - but having a star doesn't guarantee success at the box office or video store. What a star does is get you some initial recognition and attention - after that it's up to the quality of the film. Without a star, getting that important early press is very difficult.
Profriend1 11 months ago
@Profriend1 depends on your definition of a star - yes, an actor or a name can attract distributors and audiences to a film, but we barely have any true "stars" left. johnny depp, george clooney, angelina jolie... those are the only true stars i can think of. the actors with the currently highest IMDb "STARmeter" rankings are the twilight actors, yet none of their non-twilight projects have done spectacularly.
apehodet 11 months ago
@apehodet Don't forget folks like Mel Gibson, Will Smith, Robert Deniro, Harrison Ford, Pierce Brosnan, and Christian Bale. Name recognition can mean a lot when choosing a movie to watch, regardless of your definition of "star."
Profriend1 11 months ago
@Profriend1 i don't know anoyne who would watch a pierce brosnan/harrison ford/mel gibson movie based solely on their participation, and none of them could get a studio project running by simply signing on. of course names help sell movies, but in a new way. from the early days of hollywood up until twenty years ago there were usually 10-20 stars who could control their films and consistently draw blockbusting amounts of audiences. nowadays we have 100+ actors whose movies get more publicity.
apehodet 11 months ago
i'm glad you're continuing with what you enjoy to do
take it easy
JerkRant 11 months ago
@JerkRant thanks - means a lot.
apehodet 11 months ago
What is that thing on your neck? I hope it isn't a tie!
DynaCatlovesme 11 months ago
@DynaCatlovesme What do you have against ties :P? No, it's my headphones. I forgot to take them off.
apehodet 11 months ago