- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Gravity the highest rated movie on IMDB that nobody will watch again?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 10:26 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 10/15/13 at 10:26 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I still don't see the not great character argument. The theme of Stone's character was laid out in scene 1 when she didn't let go of the device. That central piece of her character that kept showing up over and over again was in the very first scene and resolved. The movie wasn't complex, but I don't think complexity=great either.
Great movie. The story, while “simple," works perfectly with the movie. The movie gets everything it needs from the story and the actors.
0
Posted on 10/15/13 at 10:38 pm to DURANTULA
quote:
Yes which explains why James Cameron has written three sequels, put out several tie in novels, and has numerous licensing deals (including one with WDW that will add Avatar Land to the Animal Kingdom).
But yeah you're right, all he wanted to do was create new 3D tech. That's all. He didn't want to create his own film universe like Star Wars, POTC, or Harry Potter. Nope. Just wanted the new 3D tech. Also explains why he was going into production in 1998 on the film too.
Do you ever get tired of having your arse handed to you by me?
Yeah, because all sequels are made solely of artist integrity and not for the sake that the first did well that that there is clearly more story to tell, or merchandising or any other tie-in product the movie could possibly sell.
And please take note of earlier in this thread before you showed up. There was no name calling, insults, or condescending tone like you have resorted to, just very friendly debate amongst peers. Then you come in and act like a twat. It would be nice if you knew how to treat your fellow posters and people wouldn't hate you half so much, even if you had the same basic opinion.
This post was edited on 10/15/13 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 10/15/13 at 10:41 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Gravity set out to make us feel isolated in outer space with virtually no hope, and it did. So what? A movie accomplishing it's goal should be expected.
Honestly, it's much easier said than done. I'd honestly say that 90%+ of movies do not completely achieve what they've set out to do. There's some place where they fall flat on their goals, whether gloriously or just subtly.
Posted on 10/15/13 at 11:11 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Yeah, because all sequels are made solely of artist integrity and not for the sake that the first did well that that there is clearly more story to tell, or merchandising or any other tie-in product the movie could possibly sell.
That's all good and well except for the fact that James Cameron stated before Avatar was even released that he already had an outline for at least two more movies, hopefully three.
This is his magnum opus. This will be his legacy long after he is dead. The revitalization of 3D is the byproduct of his desire to have his own franchise. Like I said, he was going to go into production in 1998 after Titanic ended his run but he in his own words said that the technology wasn't there yet to achieve his vision.
This isn't exactly national secrets. Five minutes of Googling would have told you this but you can't stand being wrong or learning anything that might make you not seem like an arrogant prick.
As far as the thread topic goes, if people have no desire to see your movie again then no you don't have a movie that can even remotely begin to be considered the best of the year, much less the best of all-time.
Yes this movie was gorgeous in theaters, but it fails in story, dialogue, and acting (at least Clooney bothered to give a shite). I've talked to several people who have seen it and even those who love it have zero interest in seeing it again.
This post was edited on 10/15/13 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 10/16/13 at 12:50 pm to DURANTULA
quote:
As far as the thread topic goes, if people have no desire to see your movie again then no you don't have a movie that can even remotely begin to be considered the best of the year, much less the best of all-time.
Op is just being silly. In the other thread he gave Gravity a 6/10, so of course he wouldn't consider the movie to be rewatchable. All I get from his post is that those who rate Gravity low, don't intend to watch it again. Rocket science.
quote:
Yes this movie was gorgeous in theaters, but it fails in story, dialogue, and acting (at least Clooney bothered to give a shite). I've talked to several people who have seen it and even those who love it have zero interest in seeing it again.
If it's as bad as you suggest, I wouldn't expect it to:
* Have a 98 percent Rotten Tomatoes score
* Be considered a lock for a Best Picture nomination
* Have an opening weekend box office (which was a record for October) drop of only 21 percent (which is another record)
All of the above points to Gravity being considered an exceptional movie by reviewers, moviegoers and people in the business. If it's as bad as you say, why doesn't the rest of the world think so?
Posted on 10/16/13 at 1:10 pm to Ace Ventura
quote:
Op is just being silly. In the other thread he gave Gravity a 6/10, so of course he wouldn't consider the movie to be rewatchable. All I get from his post is that those who rate Gravity low, don't intend to watch it again. Rocket science.
I still think it was an interesting question that we got far away from, still no good answer that was about "quality" in general. Everyone just bashed Gravity.
quote:
If it's as bad as you suggest, I wouldn't expect it to:
* Have a 98 percent Rotten Tomatoes score
* Be considered a lock for a Best Picture nomination
* Have an opening weekend box office (which was a record for October) drop of only 21 percent (which is another record)
All of the above points to Gravity being considered an exceptional movie by reviewers, moviegoers and people in the business. If it's as bad as you say, why doesn't the rest of the world think so?
Well said.
Posted on 10/16/13 at 1:14 pm to DURANTULA
quote:
As far as the thread topic goes, if people have no desire to see your movie again then no you don't have a movie that can even remotely begin to be considered the best of the year, much less the best of all-time.
But WHY? I don't see what's so difficult, you all just keep repeating the same thing:
BECAUSE!
Why is rewatchability important? Is it because greatness much equal enjoyment? Is it because a movie must NOT be able to be consumed on one viewing?
Do you really think that the second experience of watching a film is EXACTLY like the first? If so, so a movie must duplicate an experience every single time? If not, then how can movie be great if the experience is not the same each time you watch it?
I'm generally interested, but
quote:
if people have no desire to see your movie again then no you don't have a movie that can even remotely begin to be considered the best of the year, much less the best of all-time.
Isn't really an answer. And few people say they DON'T want to watch that again, it's about not being able to duplicate the experience. That's the key.
Posted on 10/16/13 at 1:39 pm to Freauxzen
I really didn't find the acting all that bad and i am a big bullock hater. I have no desire to see again because i don't want to pay for it again but that was an awesome theater experience. It is rare that movie is a most see in theaters now a days, not to be cliche but it was a roller coaster ride.
This post was edited on 10/16/13 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 10/23/13 at 11:30 am to Rex
quote:
I saw it on Thursday on an Imax 3D. I'm happy I did, but I'm also happy it didn't last beyond an hour and a half. The graphics were impressive, but they really weren't enough to hold this movie together for much longer than that: the story was a bit ridiculous.
I'm sort of surprised at how it's rated on IMDB... 8.7... which ranks it among the very best of all time, which seems a bit absurd because everybody in our group expressed that it's very unlikely they'd ever watch it again, even on DVD.
I saw it last night. I enjoyed the experience, but this is the kind of movie that 3D IMAX is made for, and vice versa. I wouldn't even rate it, personally, because I don't think that highly of it as a movie.
It did a good job of making you feel the fear of space though.
Posted on 10/23/13 at 11:55 am to wadewilson
I haven't read this thread, but wanted to say that I saw Gravity over the weekend and thought it was fantastic. The cinematography (obviously) was gorgeous, the story was great (even if simplified and "reality" was stretched a bit), the actors both did a fine job (never got the hate that's been going on for months prior to its release), etc.
Great movie. And I definitely will be watching it on my 65" plasma once it comes out on DVD...and I wouldn't mind seeing it again in theaters actually.
Great movie. And I definitely will be watching it on my 65" plasma once it comes out on DVD...and I wouldn't mind seeing it again in theaters actually.
Posted on 10/23/13 at 12:10 pm to Rex
quote:
Posted by Rex quote: Does a movie have to be re-watchable to be considered best of all-time? That would be a good topic for discussion. I say yes, but others might disagree.
I've only seen citizen Kane once.
Posted on 10/23/13 at 1:19 pm to CocomoLSU
I'm glad I saw it, but I probably won't watch it again.
Posted on 10/25/13 at 9:06 pm to wadewilson
Saw it tonight, I liked it a lot.
Posted on 10/25/13 at 9:08 pm to PANTHER
quote:
Is Gravity the highest rated movie on IMDB that nobody will watch again?
It has now made over $300 million worldwide and is approaching $200 million at the domestic box office.
Yeah...no one is going back for seconds or for thirds.
And just an FYI: Boxoffice.com's original prediction for its box office intake was $80 million. That's total.
This post was edited on 10/25/13 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 10/25/13 at 9:16 pm to wadewilson
quote:
I'm glad I saw it, but I probably won't watch it again.
Posted on 10/25/13 at 11:38 pm to madamsquirrel
We just saw it tonight 3D not Imax. Great experience, sweaty palms watching it. I didn't think the acting was that bad considering the lines handed to them. Probably won't watch it again though.
Posted on 10/26/13 at 5:53 am to Ace Ventura
I haven't seen this movie (not interested in the least, but curious about the chatter about it) and have been reading most of this thread. Have to address this though:
There are dozens of movies that have a RT score of 98 or better and few of them are really that great. A better telling of the quality for movies would be their average score, not the percent who liked it. Keep in mind that that's 98% of roughly 150 people who like it. These are just people who get to see a lot of movies for free and a lot of them are cynics who just like to hear themselves talk (or read what they type).
As for the Best Picture Nomination, when Les Miserables can be nominated for your award, then it doesn't mean much to me. Especially with how voting is done with the Academy and the make up of who votes in the Academy. I use to place a lot of stock into their opinions, until I learned who "they" are and why "they" vote the way they do.
I don't believe your number for lowest drop is accurate considering some movies have actually had an increase from first weekend to next and that's not jut limited releases going to wide releases.
quote:
* Have a 98 percent Rotten Tomatoes score
* Be considered a lock for a Best Picture nomination
* Have an opening weekend box office (which was a record for October) drop of only 21 percent (which is another record)
There are dozens of movies that have a RT score of 98 or better and few of them are really that great. A better telling of the quality for movies would be their average score, not the percent who liked it. Keep in mind that that's 98% of roughly 150 people who like it. These are just people who get to see a lot of movies for free and a lot of them are cynics who just like to hear themselves talk (or read what they type).
As for the Best Picture Nomination, when Les Miserables can be nominated for your award, then it doesn't mean much to me. Especially with how voting is done with the Academy and the make up of who votes in the Academy. I use to place a lot of stock into their opinions, until I learned who "they" are and why "they" vote the way they do.
I don't believe your number for lowest drop is accurate considering some movies have actually had an increase from first weekend to next and that's not jut limited releases going to wide releases.
Posted on 10/26/13 at 8:01 am to Rex
is it rated higher than avatar?
Posted on 10/26/13 at 10:48 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Gravity set out to make us feel isolated in outer space with virtually no hope, and it did.
I never got the sense she wouldn't make it. There was zero suspense for me.
Posted on 10/26/13 at 11:09 am to Rex
quote:
I never got the sense she wouldn't make it. There was zero suspense for me.
I'm sure this can be said for 99% of films though too. You either let yourself run with it and feel the intensity and emotion of the film, or you don't.
And I'm sure we're all hypocritical in the fact that some films will connect with us and we'll feel the pull, and some films won't.
This has nothing to do with the film's quality or rewatchability.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News