Originally Posted by DogofKrypton
Actually, not it's NOT. You just want to "move the goal posts" because you know my examples were all that mattered.
I gave MY "criterion", and you wanted to run back to his when you couldn't counter it.
If you look back over Bruce Begins’ original post, you can see that his assessment of SR
was quite calm and measured - without hysterics or hyperbole. He said the film was “moderately successful” and had garnered generally good reviews, etc. In terms of box office, specifically
, there was no claim that SR
was in the same league as Avengers
or Iron Man
. But it did favorably compare to other films like BB
, etc. with respect to popularity (number of tickets/units sold) during its theatrical release. Bruce B provided the numbers to support this - and I commented that these numbers (adjusted for inflation) were accurate.
Now, you speak of “goal post shifting.” I would suggest that this is what you
did. Knowing the particular goal post Bruce B was using, you ignored the context and responded that Thor was more “successful” - according to different
criteria (it had a lower budget [was more profitable] and had earned a sequel). Quite true! - but not something that Bruce B (or I) was denying. The only claim being made was that SR
was slightly more popular (more “units sold”) than Thor
. But instead of acknowledging this factual point and then introducing ones which you felt were more relevant, you skipped the acknowledgement part and switched to a new/different criterion. This is classic goal post shifting - ignore the evidence for argument A by presenting argument B. The thing is, no one was disputing argument B (that Thor
was more profitable than SR
, that Thor
is getting a sequel). The only real point in contention was your curious inability to concede that 59.7M (SR
’s ticket sales) is a bigger number than 56.6M (Thor
What do those films have to do with Singers abomination? Besides you trying to divert the discussion?
You said that if SR
was any good, it would have been more “successful” (profitable, produced a sequel). I assumed you were claiming this as a universal standard - so I cited some counter examples (e.g., Serenity
). Now if your statement was supposed to be arbitrarily specific to SR
- I stand corrected.
Also irrelevant? Where does "also" come from?
And it's only "irrelevant" because, again, you have no leg to stand on. SR having an ADDITIONAL 3 weeks on "THOR" is irrelevant to "units sold"? Seriously?
With due caution, we might gauge a movie’s “popularity” via gross $ or seats sold or even historical legacy. But it’s not obvious to me that “duration of release” is any kind of valid measure. If a million people see a movie over 1 week or 1 year, the total number of seats sold is still a million. This is the relevant value - not duration.
Man, some people need to preview their posts before they hit submit. Or else they make themselves look foolish...
Fyi, I enjoy discussion and debate - so I try to confine my comments to the specific topic at hand. I don't deliver personal, gratuitous insults nor do I respond to them.