Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel's The Avengers' started by Thread Manager, Aug 27, 2012.
Finally, someone who understands what an analogy.
I disagree. I think it was an amazing movie, and should not be compared to fast food . However, I never expected it to win any Oscars, it's not that sort of film, and it doesn't try to be.
The Oscars are dumb anyways. I know what I like!
Box office is more a function of how good a film is expected to be (possibly based on prior films in the series & previous works by the directors & other cast & crew), how suited to a cinema outing, marketing & awareness than just quality of the film itself. A sequel to an amazing film will always make money no matter how bad it is.
Avengers was expected to make a lot of money and it did. Another important point is that it was not a big dumb movie where the director and studio put forth a movie with high production values and good cgi, a lot of action with a weak plot and bad acting. While the Transformers is filled with all of that and is very successful Battleship was not. Avengers had rousing action, good plot and well developed characters that did not insult the moviegoers intelligence. All the elements coming together in this genre or similar genres can be rare. Do I feel that Avengers deserved a best picture nod? No. But I think it should have been nominated in more than one category.
No avengers is a film, it's part of the film genra. Using my comparison Avengers is gourmet food while Macdonalds is Days Of our Lives, which by the way has more viewers than your average art film ,but that doesn't make it a film.
Again with the flawed thinking. John Carter lost money. It doesn't matter what it grossed at the box office because you have to subtract the cost of making the film, making prints, advertising and marketing etc. The film didn't make any money therefore it's not an example of what I'm talking about at all. It is however an example of how marketing and distributiuon aren't what makes a film a blockbuster, having a great film and knowing it before you start the advertising campain is what makes a film a blockbuster. John Carter just proves they're not always right.
Look ultimately film is a buisness. In buisness you can have a great product that only has a small market. As long as you understand this you can make that product and make a small amount of money and there is nothing wrong with that but nobody thinks that small little product that every one in it's tiny little market loves is a beter product than one with mass appeal. The exception to this is in art like film but even here the only ones who think their small art film is better than the one with mass appeal are the art film snobs.
Actually he missunderstood the analogy completely but at least he can compose a cohearant sentence.
If that were true then they wouldn't have failures like john Carter or Green Lantern.
Yes the advertising and distribution goes into films that are expected to be good but that is based on them having the film before it's released just like the budget for a film is often decided by how good the script is and who's interested in making it (directors and actors) both of which they know before production begins.
People with a lot of experience know when a film has a small market and when it will have mass appeal and they market it accordingly. The box office is a function of them being right more often then they're wrong.
still haven't seen Carter...... and I want to
But the winners are "Best _____ " according to the organization giving out the awards, in this case the Academy of motion picture arts & sciences. It's the consensus of that specific group of people.
Going by what you are saying, the highest grossing movie of the year should automatically win every award. "It made the most money, therefore it is the best picture, had the best director, the best actor..."
You should check it out, it's a terrific film.
no... Days of Our Lives is Television... Avengers is Film, Mcdonald's is Still food, but falls into the fast food genre (like avengers is a film that falls into the action genre). You don't understand the parallels of this analogy apparently.
your analogy was severely flawed. this is basic High school analogy comparisons....
Apples is to Oranges as Carrots are to Broccoli....
Not what I said at all. read my first post on the subject.
I'm not entirely sure he understands the concept of the whole "Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences" aspect...
Avengers was a great film... but the acting and story are no where as moving or groundbreaking as ... let's say Gone with The Wind, Titanic, Chicago, or Argo... (not to mention majority of the character development for the characters didn't even actually take place in this film, it was all in their solos). Strip away the solos and i'm not entirely sure the movie could stand on it's own. So no.. it's no where close to "Best Picture" of the year... However... while i do think Life of Pi looks fantastic and would love to see it for the visuals... i also am VERY glad Avenger's got nominated for special FX because it certainly deserved to be nominated for that. Does the category for "best original score" exist anymore? because Avengers should have been nominated for that as well.
it's "Best Picture" award.... not "The Film That DID the best in theaters" award.
I made the analogy so clearly I know what I meant. Genre is a sub category of a broader spectrum. Film and television are all visual media so in this case the genres are sub categories of visual media. Gourmet and fast food are genres of restuarants or food quality. I compared Avengers to Gourmet food and Micky D's to soaps. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
The best picture does the best in theatres!
I did. A "Best Picture" category isn't anymore snobby than the rest of the categories. They are all just the opinion of the group giving out the award.
...according to you. Not according to the Academy, obviously.
is it really effective if apparently you're the only one to understand it?
The Analogy i made was much more clear, and actually spot on. It just sounds like you're forcing an analogy to make sense into what you're trying to dispute.
I think the MTV Movie Awards is far more your speed...
you know... the ones where you can vote online (multiple times)... and How Kristen Stewart and Megan Fox actually win awards...
That's not actually true. There is a lot to be judged in all the other categories. Best film is pretty cut and dry but I might not think the actors or director of those films are the best. A more emotional film requires more of the actors. Directors might have to direct the actors more in an emotional film but there is so much more to direct in an action film and it is so much harder. I personally think that if there is a great action film out that year then the diredctor of that film should always be in the hunt for best director but they almost never get the credit they deserve. Ultimately most of the other categories require a better understanding of what goes on behind the scenes in a film process than what most casual viewers know but best film is an opinion on the quality of the finished product and as far as Im concerned the majority rules and some small group thinking their oipinion is better and givinbg it such prestige is snobby.
Well DUH! My first comment was that I didn't think any of these awards shows should have a best picture category. Appearently you a an a couple of others don't think anyone should have a differing opinion from your own and if they do they must be beaten into submission.
I made that analogy as a specific reply to someone else and it it was tied into what they said. I don't give a rats ass if you understood it but in all seriousness you'd have to be pretty dim to struggle with it the way that you did.
Oh please, it's more clear to you because you made it and it's far from spot on.