Originally Posted by Visualiza
No, it really didn't. For one thing, you make too many presumptions, not the least which being the standards for measuring success. That's as open to interpretation as anything else; when was it ever established that success or failure is strictly based on financial performance?
Otherwise, since when does the term "mixed" figure into the criteria for success? Do you really believe that getting a mixed reception rather than a positive one is considered successful? The bottom rung of the ladder isn't exactly what I'd call success; that's the way I'd look at it if I was a studio exec, anyway.
But you already have:
Hate to say it, but that's the sort of reply you invite when you make backhanded comments.
The idea that MoS is only a failure to those who are lying to themselves is a ridiculous false dichotomy.
They weren't talking about mos being a failure in their eyes for their own reasons, they were talking about it being an objective failure to masses. Which is incorrect. If they want to state their personal reasons it failed them, they can do so. But claims that a movie that made 660 million or so, got mixed reviews and had decent DVD sales was a failure with the masses is incorrect. Maybe they expected more, but that still doesn't put it in failure category.
I didn't make any back handed comments. I was saying that people who think mos failed people en mass, rather than simply saying it failed them personally, are seeing what they want to see. You're twisting my words because all you've got is straw men. I never said mixed reviews made it the pinnacle of success. I said they don't mean it's a failure.
I don't even know why I'm bothering with this since I don't really care what other people think is a failure. I liked it. Others didn't. The end.