Submit Your
2000s
List
The deadline for the Top Films of the 2000s list is days away! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

Great big budget movies never flop in theaters

Tools    





Was saying you were
Ah, I didn't realize he shifted to talking about the first.

Not sure why minor errors are always treated as occasions to attempt a full-on dunk, but my mistake.



If this is your philosophy then this thread is not for you. Which is okay.
It's the logic itself which is being questioned, so I'm not sure this works as a response (even though it would otherwise be a mature/admirable one).

As I've noted a couple of times, the logic of "real blockbusters never fail, therefore things that have failed were not real blockbusters" is backwards-facing, and appears to have no real predictive power. It's a definition that achieves purity only by excluding all seeming exceptions. You can always find a reason a film flopped after the fact. That's easy. The ones that didn't have reasons you could point to, as well, if only they had.



If this is your philosophy then this thread is not for you. Which is okay.
I thought it was yours?

And who is this thread for anyway? I haven't seen a single person who seems to understand what it is you're trying to say.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
It's the logic itself which is being questioned, so I'm not sure this works as a response (even though it would otherwise be a mature/admirable one).

As I've noted a couple of times, the logic of "real blockbusters never fail, therefore things that have failed were not real blockbusters" is backwards-facing, and appears to have no real predictive power. It's a definition that achieves purity only by excluding all seeming exceptions. You can always find a reason a film flopped after the fact. That's easy. The ones that didn't have reasons you could point to, as well, if only they had.
The counter example to blade runner 2049 is 1917. It is a movie that is well aware of the stakes. Its budget is 100 million and it has no stars. So the movie relied on oscar buzz and technical gimmicks based marketing . Universal studios is well aware of this. It is a movie that almost repeated the success formula of the revenant, which everyone thought was only because of leonardo dicaprio(here we go again haha) to everyone's surprise. I am sure universal went over the script 100s of time to make sure that it is academy type movie.
Now that's a movie that is okay/good/great but definitely not a bad movie depending on personal taste that is well thought out from a commercial angle and artistic angle before making and therefore its a hit. Blade runner 2049 is irresponsible in all fronts....from the pacing of the movie all the way to the budget.

So BR 2049 should have done a prestige franchise sequel equivalent to what 1917 did for a prestige oscar-bait war movie.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I thought it was yours?

And who is this thread for anyway? I haven't seen a single person who seems to understand what it is you're trying to say.
thats for me to decide



I really don't think you're listening to these questions. I'm not asking for counter-examples, because those are backwards-looking, too. That's the problem, as I described a couple of times earlier in the thread. Here are the questions I've been asking from the beginning:

Okay, but how is this statement supported? As I noted, it's backwards-looking. It seems like an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where you advance a definition of a thing, but any contrary examples will be excluded from it. How would you test this claim, except by saying, any time someone advanced a seemingly great movie "well, I guess it wasn't great, because if it was it would've been a hit"?
You're advancing a principle which does not make testable claims, it only retroactively describes things, and it does so by finding reasons why each seeming counterexample doesn't actually count. In statistics, this is called "overfitting."



thats for me to decide
Itís for you to decide who this public thread on a public forum is for? So is there like a survey we have to fill first somewhere or are we going by trial by combat maybe?

But whatever you say, American Psycho. Iíll let you rule your little thread of inconsistent nonsense then!



Welcome to the human race...
You can tell this is a good OP because people are responding to it.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I really don't think you're listening to these questions. I'm not asking for counter-examples, because those are backwards-looking, too. That's the problem, as I described a couple of times earlier in the thread. Here are the questions I've been asking from the beginning:


You're advancing a principle which does not make testable claims, it only retroactively describes things, and it does so by finding reasons why each seeming counterexample doesn't actually count. In statistics, this is called "overfitting."
so according to you we should just accept that BR 2049 bombing at the theaters is a travesty and original movies made for 100+ million can bomb no matter how good they are?



so according to you we should just accept that BR 2049 bombing at the theaters is a travesty and original movies made for 100+ million can bomb no matter how good they are?
No, and literally nothing I said implies this, either. You sound like you're actively avoiding the questions, at this point.

The phrasing here is weird, too. "We should just accept..."? As if the idea of a blockbuster that takes chances is some kind of personal affront? Seems like there's some discomfort with the idea that good films can do badly, too. I'm not gonna say the world's general unpredictability isn't unsettling, but we can't theorycraft it out of existence.

Regardless, if you want anyone to take these theories at all seriously, you'll need to answer the occasional question about their logic and implications. I'm presenting you with some really simple follow-ups, and all I'm getting back are weird non-sequitur contradictions about things I didn't say or ask.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I'm reading along.
From the title, you state that great, big-budget movies never flop in theaters. I assume you mean that if the movie is great, then it will never flop. Therefore, if it is bad then it will flop. Therefore, if a big-budget movie flops, it is by definition bad.

To clarify this, do you mean to say that a big-budget movie flopped because it was bad? Or that a big-budget movie must be labelled as bad because it was unsuccessful financially in the theater release, even though the movie might have actually been a good one?

Can you define good? You referenced 1917 earlier up and I read that to suggest that 1917 was good (or at least, not bad) because development was approached from a commercial point of view (assuming that, at least). Does this mean that "commercial" is good inherently (Transformers)? Does good "artistically" fit into that? Or must artistic success also include commercial success, leaving the primary standard of good to be its commercial success?


=\
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



I read the two pages since my post. And I am still








All I get is "big budget", "good" and "flop". Kudos to Yoda to at least try to make sense of it!
__________________
My Favorite Films



I'm trying to find better examples than BR2049 but I'm struggling.....

Polar Express
Ali
....

Anything on these aronis?



BTW, someone bumped a similar thread about Jake Gyllenhaal recently, and I came across some old posts there that are essentially identical to the ideas here, where aronisred decides they just don't have the "screen presence" or "star power" to be in blockbusters. I said this, which I think works well as a response here, a couple years later:

Re: "just have it." Right, so we've reached the point, as we did in a few other threads, where it turns out the premise is just "I personally think they just don't have some kind of hazy quality." Which is fine, to each their own, yadda yadda. But if that's what this stuff boils down to, there isn't really much to discuss.
This seems to be the unifying theme of all these threads: odd preoccupation with box office, an unexamined assumption that everybody is only interested in maximizing it, and the inevitability that when we unpack the empirical-sounding claims, they just turn out to be normal subjective opinions.



Link please... I am bored in this lockdown!



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Does The Last Airbender count as a big budget movie that flopped? Or does it not count as a flop cause it made double it's budget back?