PDA

View Full Version : 2002 The Great Year in Movie History!?



icatch9
08-14-2002, 12:34 PM
Is this year the greatest year in moive history? I've thought about this and in my mind I think it is. Never befor have we had such an amazing list of moives in one year. Here is just a handful of what I came up with.

Resident Evil
E.T. Special Edition
Blade 2
Spirit
The Scorpion King
Lilo and Stich
Mr. Deeds
Spiderman
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Sum of all Fears
The Borne Identity
Minority Report
Men In Black 2
Austin Powers 3
K 19
Sighns
Stewart Little 2
Spy Kids 2
XXX
The Road to Perdition
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets
Jomes Bond : Die Another Day
Star Trek: Nemisis
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers


In recent past there has never been a year with 4 major Blockbusters that have done and will do very well at the box office (Spiderman, AOTC, Harry Potter, LOTR)

This year is also filled with the best actors of the day, playing roles they aren't familar with and some that are.

Harrison Ford (K 19)
Tom Cruze (Minority Report, Autin Powers 3)
Mel Gibson (Sighns)
Tom Hanks (Road to P)

The two greatest Directors of our time have movies this year

George Lucas (AOTC)
Steven Spileburg (Minorty Report & ET S.E.)

Plus some real good up and comers
Peter Jackson (LOTR: TTT)
Chris Columbus (HP: TCOS)
M. Night Shalama (Sighns)
I'm sure there are more, but these are directors that have already had smash hits.

We also get movies with some of the most popular Stars in Hollywood
Along with Ford, Hanks, Cruz, and Gibson we get

Will Smith (MIB 2)
Sam Jackson (AOTC, XXX, Changing Lanes)
Ben Aflack (Sum of all Fears, Changing Lanes)
Matt Damon (Borne ID)
Adam Sandler (Mr. Deeds)
Mike Myers (AP 3)
Wesly Snipes (Blade 2, Undisputed)
Morgan Freeman (Sum)
Tommy Lee Jones (MIB 2)
Clint Eastwood (Bloodwork)
Leim Neeson (K 19)
Pierce Browsnon (James Bond)
Patrick Steawart (ST 10)
Mila Jovavitch (Resident Evil)
The Rock (Scopion King)
Juaken Pheonix (Signs)
Vin Desil (XXX)
Ving Rames (Undisputed)
Paul Newman (The Road to P)
Kirstin Dunst (Spiderman)



This is by no means an all inclusive list, but I think it clearly backs up my claim. We may very well be living in the greatest movie year ever. Perhaps there isn't som Earth shattering movie like Gone with the Wind, Jaws, or Star Wars ANH. However those years didn't offer much else. This year we have all the blockbusters to compete with any other year not to mention a long list of other really great movies. Clearly many have been left off, but I think I highlighted the vast majority of them.

So, what do you guys think? Any great movies I left off? Any bad movies I put on (I know The Scorpion Kings wasn't good, but it did kick off the Summer Blockbuster streak so I thought I had to add it :)).


Of course next years movies are already lineing up well
Matrix 2 and 3
The Hulk
DareDevil
LOTR: Return of the King

So who knows what will happen?

Beast
08-14-2002, 12:45 PM
Actually, I think it is actually the greatest year for home video. I'm not sure that I would consider 2002 the greatest year in movie history though. Previous years had just as many big releases, this year is just fresh in your mind. But if you look at 2002 for DVD releases, it's the best year ever. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DeadEye
08-14-2002, 12:51 PM
I agree with that list--those are all great movies (except the Sum of all Fears :frus: ) but you should have added Eight Legged Freaks, too. :D

Pendo
08-14-2002, 12:56 PM
I think the greatest year in movie history has got to be 1977!!! So what if there weren't as many good films released that year than this year, but there was one film released that year that changed the way EVERYBODY looks at movies. Yes that's right, The Spy Who Loved Me was released that year :D. Star Wars was also released in 1977 so '77 will always be the greatest year in movie history for me.

PENDO!

SQueek
08-14-2002, 01:17 PM
eight legged freaks was a very good movie and sum of all fears was one of the worse movies i have EVER seen.

icatch9
08-14-2002, 02:14 PM
Alright, I didn't start this thread to debate what movies where good and what movies where bad. I'm sure plenty of people would love to discuss that in another thread.

True this year is freshly in our minds, but that doesn't make it any less relevant. Do you think people in the 50's knew that they were makeing movies in "The Golden Age" of Hollywood? Probally not. Now, this year may turn out to be just a good year and not the best year, but I still don't see any other year competeing with this year.

I've thought about it a little, and I couldn't think of any other year that offers as much as this one. Sure 77' had ANH wich changed movies forever, but what else did it have? One movie cannot and doesn't make a year the greatest movie year ever. AOTC is the first all didgital movie wich may very well change movies forever from this point on. When GWTW and The Sound of Music came out there were not to many other moives, so those years really coulnd't compete.

So, you can say what you will, just as I have, but I haven't heard any competetion for 2002 other than '77, but Star Wars and James Bond cancel each other out so more would be needed.

I stand by my statement, that never befor in movie history have we had so many movies that are extreamly popular and sucessful. Furthermore certain movies that are out this year will be popular for years to come, and that is an important aspect to remember too.

JON9000
08-14-2002, 07:16 PM
Yes, fiscally, 2002 is on track to have the best take at the box office, so from a popularity standpoint, fine. But look at that list again- I see a lot of sequels, reissues, and cookie cutter crap.

How many of those films broke new ground? How many of them challenged your beliefs? How many of them touched you emotionally? Minority Report did for me, and I hear Road to Perdition should as well.

The best year for film, IMHO, was 1962.

In that fine year, although I was nowhere near alive, the public was favored with the following:

Lawrence of Arabia
The Longest Day
Mutiny on the Bounty
To Kill a Mockingbird (in the middle of the civil rights era)
The Music Man
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
The Manchurian Candidate (that's for you, Mandalorian C.!)

Sorry, but any of the above simply trounce most of the 2002 list. I love AOTC, but Lawrence it ain't.

Directors that year included Stanley Kubrick and David Lean- Spielberg can go kneel before Zod!

And for you Bond fanatics, two words- Dr. No

Pendo
08-14-2002, 07:20 PM
Hey you missed Dr. No of your 1962 list!! That's an important film for '62, just look at ALL the Bond films that have been made!

PENDO!

Hasbro'sBountyHunter
08-14-2002, 07:22 PM
This is truly the year of special effects.

Pendo
08-14-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Hasbro'sBountyHunter
This is truly the year of special effects.

You're right there it is a year for Special Effects, but I still prefer the old ways of doing it! I'm not a fan of CGI!!! I wish things would go back to the way they were!

PENDO!

JON9000
08-14-2002, 07:26 PM
Hey you caught me Pendo! I was editing my post as you posted!!

AdmiralPiett
08-14-2002, 07:34 PM
I believe Lolita was also made in '62.
Piett

JON9000
08-14-2002, 07:38 PM
Yah, that was the Kubrick flick.

Beast
08-14-2002, 07:40 PM
Every year has it's blockbusters. And every year has it's stinkers. I don't think that any year can really be considered better then the other. The only reason we are seeing these huge epic movies now, is that CGI is allowing those kinds of movies to be made. It's no different then the big movies that were made when stop motion, go-motion, puppeteering, color, and sound was the big new wave of movie making. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DarthBrandon
08-14-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Every year has it's blockbusters. And every year has it's stinkers. I don't think that any year can really be considered better then the other. The only reason we are seeing these huge epic movies now, is that CGI is allowing those kinds of movies to be made. It's no different then the big movies that were made when stop motion, go-motion, puppeteering, color, and sound was the big new wave of movie making. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks


Better yet, what will we say when all movies are CGI and they won't need actors anymore? That day may come as well, so I guess it may be awards for best CGI characters etc.:D By the way, don't ask me why I posted that, because it's just and idea that popped in to my head.:)

JON9000
08-14-2002, 07:53 PM
There was a sci fi flick in the early 80s that addressed the issue. It was called "Looker"

I think this movie Simone follows in the same vein.

Beast
08-14-2002, 07:55 PM
Well, stop motion, go-motion, and puppets never replaced human actors. So I don't really ever see CGI totally replacing actors either. It's fine for things like Shrek, etc. But those full CGI movies seem to be all about the CGI, and not about the plot. Case in point, look at "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DeadEye
08-14-2002, 08:39 PM
The best year for special effects was 1997. That's when the Star Wars Special Edition came out...and that's when Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, and Starship Troopers came out--and all 3 of those movies have effects so good, they could not be done better today.

Eternal Padawan
08-14-2002, 08:44 PM
Pendo, how could you claim '77 as the pinnacle of film and leave out

SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT?!?!?!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


ROLLO!

DarthBrandon
08-14-2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Well, stop motion, go-motion, and puppets never replaced human actors. So I don't really ever see CGI totally replacing actors either. It's fine for things like Shrek, etc. But those full CGI movies seem to be all about the CGI, and not about the plot. Case in point, look at "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I just thought it could be a possibility if CGI got so far advanced that moviemakers may not need actors on screen anymore. We've seen what they could do with yoda and this is just the beginning. I'm not saying it will happen, but it was just an idea that popped into my head, so why wouldn't movie makers think of this, in say ten or fifteen years? I know it sounds a little crazy, but I'm in that kind of mood today.:cool: :D :)


Originally posted by DeadEye
The best year for special effects was 1997. That's when the Star Wars Special Edition came out...and that's when Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, and Starship Troopers came out--and all 3 of those movies have effects so good, they could not be done better today.



That's your opinion DeadEye, think about the films this year, they are in my opinion way more advanced in the special effects dept today then they were in 97. They have better movies this year than 97 and in my opinion they are made better than 97.:D

Beast
08-14-2002, 09:17 PM
I'm just glad that the film that was planned that was going to star a CGI version of George Burns went nowhere. I think that is a pretty morbid idea to actually use CGI to bring actors back from the dead. It's fine if they died during the making of a movie, and they needed to complete it. That was the case with "The Queen of the Damned"

Yes, DeadEye that is your opinion. Frankly some of the stuff from the 80's before that early CGI looks a hell of alot better then the effects in Starship Troopers, The Lost Word, and Alien: Resurrection. Just look at Alien 4 and TLW, the original movies were much better, because they didn't linger on the effects. In TLW and Alien 4, it was like they were beating you over the head with it, and they forgot the plot most of the time. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DarthBrandon
08-14-2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I'm just glad that the film that was planned that was going to star a CGI version of George Burns went nowhere. I think that is a pretty morbid idea to actually use CGI to bring actors back from the dead. It's fine if they died during the making of a movie, and they needed to complete it. That was the case with "The Queen of the Damned"

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I hope that none of it ever happens, unless like you said, someone dies during production of the film. It is something that will however linger in the back of my mind.:D

DeadEye
08-14-2002, 10:34 PM
Jar Jar--

8 Legged Freaks, and the Star Wars prequels had some state-of-the-art effects. But the CG bugs in Starship Troopers could not be done much better today.

JediTricks
08-15-2002, 04:59 AM
IMO, many of the non-tangible f/x out there lessen the films they're in. I prefer real-world f/x to CGI.

'62 sure does have some great films in its list. '77 has probably the biggest film of all time though (plus oh, and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, ever heard of that one?). Even '99 had some pretty big films (Ep 1, Matrix, Mummy, Fight Club, 6th Sense, American Beauty, South Park:BLU). I think 2002 had some ok films, but only Spider-man has really made a HUGE cinematic impact on me thus far this year.

LTBasker
08-15-2002, 07:19 AM
I think Starship Troopers had some pretty good CGI, considering what they had to do with it, I think they pulled it off very well from changing between CGI bugs and puppet bugs (dead ones and the ones that were still alive but moving and got their own segments). Only flaws in CGI I really gave a care about was when they did the CGI shots of Rico on the huge fire bug, that looked a little too fake with how he was just staying on the slippery shell without holding on.

I have to say '81 and '83 were great years for effects. Bespin, Endor chases, Space Battle of Endor, and Battle of Hoth were alot of great stuff compared to even stuff that's out there now. Right now, 98% of those scenes would've probably been CGI, if not more.

As for this being a "great movie year" there are 3 films that I have to say make this a great movie year: Attack of the Clones, Spider-Man and tied with Spidey is Two Towers. (After watching LOTR, how could it be bad? On the behind the scenes it was looking great already. Plus since they were shot at the same time, well that means that hopefully they'll all be of the same quality even though they're gonna be spaced apart for the F/X.

icatch9
08-15-2002, 08:35 AM
It's hard to judge movies in the year of thier release. Maybe 50 years from now Spiderman will be some wounderful cenamatic adventure. We judge LOA againts AOTC, that's not fair to either film. LOA is old and has had 40 years to be viewed and talked about. AOTC has had exactly 3 months, not fair to judge how grand or popular it will be in the long run. Often I think old movies get to much credit just because they are old. I've never sceen any of those movies from 62' save Dr. No, so I am no judge. Often in this life we get the "things were better in my day" attitude, so that may play a part in old moives being thought of so well. I have sceen parts of The Day the Earth Stood Still and it's no feat of film magic.

So, I propose a new topic. Instead of compairning this year against all other years, how about we compair it against this generation of movies. In my mind this generation of moives started in 1975 when Spielberg did Jaws. This was the first real blockbuster movie and it did change the world. People were afraid to go in a pool after seeing this one. So, 2002 is the greatest movie year of our generation. I'm sure no one will agree, but it's fun to discuss.

scruffziller
08-15-2002, 09:05 AM
AS far as my own opinion, there may have been alot of "BIG" titles. But the quality of alot of hose titles left alot to be desired.

billfremore
08-15-2002, 09:48 AM
How about 1999?

Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace
The Matrix
Deep Blue Sea (I love shark movies)
Lake Placid (This movie was seriously underrated)
American Pie
Sixth Sense
The Mummy
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Toy Story 2
The Blair Witch Project
Magnolia
Dogma
Being John Malkovich
American Beauty
Fight Club
Sleepy Hollow
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

That's a pretty good year for movies.

DeadEye
08-15-2002, 10:15 AM
LTBasker,

You forgot '82. Have you ever heard of a little movie called The Thing? That had revolutionary special effects, better than anything in Star Wars--and save CG, we couldn't really make it look much better even today.

icatch9
08-15-2002, 11:09 AM
I don't think that one B movie in 82' no matter how good the f/x are make it the best movie year. CG hasn't made this year or any other year the greatest. I'm not interested in movies that changed the way we look at movies. That Title goes to The Wizard of Oz (first color movie, not to mention good F/X for that time period). This year is packed full of super popular movies. I'm sorry,but I don't think The Thing falls into that category. It's a fine movie but most people haven't seen or even herd of it.

True 1999 is a great year for movies. I thought that myself. I'm sure there are some that aren't even on the list that are great. I think the difference is Star Power and Blockbuster Power. On your list I don't see any larger than life stars. I guess Cruze and Bitt are larger than life, but those roles didn't exactly use thier star power to fule the movie. With the exeception of Star Wars there are no other blockbusters on your list. The Matirx, The Mummy, The Sixth Sense, and American Pie where all sleeper hits and word of mouth casused them to be successes.

Still '99 may be the best competion for this year. I also think that we are living in the greatest era of movies ever (hear we go again). 1999-2002 has has some amazing movies. That is why I feel that this is the second golden age of Hollywood. But, I'm sure someone can make a case for 1980-83. Still, todays movies rock and we are so lucky to be able to view them in great theaters, then again in woundeful home video formates.

JON9000
08-15-2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by icatch9

True 1999 is a great year for movies. I think the difference is Star Power and Blockbuster Power. On your list I don't see any larger than life stars. I guess Cruze and Bitt are larger than life, but those roles didn't exactly use thier star power to fule the movie. With the exeception of Star Wars there are no other blockbusters on your list. The Matirx, The Mummy, The Sixth Sense, and American Pie where all sleeper hits and word of mouth casused them to be successes.


Okay- let me get this straight- the "best year of the modern era" means the year that had the most bankable stars, directors, and properties (sequels)? Or God forbid, the best effects? Sounds like the best marketing blitz ever, to me. This year, 2002, has not pushed the envelope in any way. At least 1999 had a couple of gutsy flicks- Dogma, American Beauty, Malkovich, and Fight Club.

And I'm sorry, but on your list of actors, the only ones that will live on in posterity are Ford, Gibson, Cruise, Eastwood, Freeman, Neeson, Newman, and perhaps Stewart.

Vinn Deisel and The Rock? Are you kidding?

I think we are just too far apart on what makes a good movie. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you would dig any of the flicks I listed from 1962.

icatch9
08-15-2002, 12:40 PM
I agree, I probally wouldn't like any of the moives from '62. I don't care for Vin Disel or the Rock, but they are two extreamly popular stars I bet more people know who The Rock is than who even know what Lawrence of Arabia is. It doesn't matter how good of an actor The Rock is, he's one of the most recognizable people in the World today.

Clearly there will always be a struggle between good story lines vs. entertaining movies. I started this thread knowning no one would agree and knowing that no clear cut answer could be found. This year has had some amazingly entertaining movies, and there are more to come. Most people don't go to moives hopeing to learn something, or be moved to tears or what ever. They go to be entertainted. That's exactly what we got this year. A dozen entertaining movies that will live on for a long time.

No one has to agree with me. Movies will always be a topic of hot debate. We can't even agree that Star Wars is the greatest film of all time, and we love star wars more than any other movie. Clearly when talking about "The Greatest" there is no clear cut answer. Perhaps we can agree that 2002 has offered some real amazing movies. Moives that will be chereshed for a long time by many differnt people.

I still feel that old moives are respected so much becaue they are old. Were movies in 62' or whenever thought of as some of the greatest movies of all time. Maybe, who knows. What will the movies of this year be thought of in 2050? When NBC does a "Time and Again" on the year 2002 don't you think they'll mention how great the movies where and how well they did at the box office? When 2002 is the past, we'll see how great these movies were.

Eternal Padawan
08-15-2002, 03:26 PM
I still feel that old moives are respected so much becaue they are old.

Nope. Because for every brilliant film like Citizen Kane, or Wizard of Oz, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Star Wars, there a hundred crap films from that year that no one remembers because they suck. It's not age that makes a film get better or more respectable. Twenty years from now, no one will be discussing Scorpion King or Dude, Wheres my Car? because it's a forgettable film. People still talk about Lawrence of Arabia because it's a brilliant, exciting, well acted, epic film. The only recent (in the last year) film that will stand in that category of high caliber films is LOTR.

ROLLO!

wedgeA
08-16-2002, 07:52 AM
icatch9,

I don't think that I can even agree that there have been some films this year that will be cherished from years to come. True, I think this summer has offered more quality films, but there is nothing I consider an artistic landmark. These films are just enjoyable fluff, not films that will somehow define the medium (perhaps AOTC may be remembered for its use of digital capture and projection).

As for movies respected just because they are old, that's a little narrow of a viewpoint, especially considering what you seem to define as old. Many film enthusiasts are complaining that Sight and Sound's list of the greatest films ever (done every ten years), have all but abandoned silent films in favor of "newer" films. Also keep in mind that in order for a film to be great it has to withstand the test of time, so of course the film will be not be too recent.

icatch9
08-16-2002, 08:59 AM
Clearly none of the movies this year have lasted out the test of time. That doesn't mean they won't. Maybe this year doesn't have a "Citizen Kane" or a "Wizard of Oz", but does that mean this is a bad year? What other movies do those years offer? I think many are missing the point. Your looking for the greatest movie of all time, and that's not going to come out of 2002. Still as a whole 2002 has offered many great movies. Many of our favorite stars and many of our favoirte characters. Classic characters that people have come to know and love. Your looking to the past wich is fine, but 100 greatest movies of all time and only something like 10 of them happened in the 90's+.

2002 as a whole has had great movies. Maybe not the greatest movie, but when you put the crop of movies from 2002 up against any other year I think it will do well. I've heard an argument for '99, wich makes for a good competition. Until you can agrue another year I don't see how you can claim that 2002 isnt' a good if not great year. I've been waiting for a claim for older years, but no one has said much more than 1 movie from any year. Frankly, AOTC or LOTR would beat of most any film ever. These movies may not change the world, but did any movie really change the world? GWTW and W of Z are great movies, but they are just that, great. I think AOTC and LOTR are great movies and 50 years from now they will still be great movies. Good movies last and I think this year has offered many movies that will last over the years.

JON9000
08-16-2002, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by icatch9
Maybe this year doesn't have a "Citizen Kane" or a "Wizard of Oz", but does that mean this is a bad year? What other movies do those years offer?

when you put the crop of movies from 2002 up against any other year I think it will do well. I've been waiting for a claim for older years, but no one has said much more than 1 movie from any year.

I gave you six or seven from 1962, and every one of them lays the smack down on what was produced in 2002. Lawrence of Arabia is certainly one of the top 5 films ever made, right up there with Kane, Oz, Gone with the Wind, and the Godfather. The other movies I listed from that year are highly regarded as well.

icatch9
08-16-2002, 02:21 PM
Well, I am not going to argue how good those movies from 62' are. I haven't sceen them and it wouldn't be fair. I haven't sceen them, many people haven't sceen them. If they are so great then how come I can't go to WM and buy them? With the acception of Dr. No I'd probally have a hard time buying any of them. They may be good movies but are they really that popular? Would they be that popular if they were in the theaters again? Didn't Gone with the Wind come back out in Theaters not to long ago? Wasn't it gone with the wind after a few showings? Hey I dont' know. Clearly you like older movies, to each their own. I cannot agree that these movies are better, again I haven't sceen them. As far as popularity goes I am afraid they wouldn't win. Furthermore, since movies are judged in money I don't think those 6 or seven would compete with the best 6 or 7 of this year. It's unfair, but its how movies are judged.

Clearly I cannot find a single person to back up my claim, so I must be wrong. Or at least in the minority. That's fine. I still think that this is and will be a great year for movies. Great, entertaining, and money makeing movies. Be greatful. It wasn't to long ago when Batman and Robin was the big sumer blockbuster. Now that was a bad year compaired to this one. But aparently any year but this one is better, so who the hell knows.

wedgeA
08-16-2002, 04:37 PM
icatch9,

I think that my point of contention is how you define great films. Just because a film happens to be even substantially better than utter garbage like Batman and Robin, or made a lot of money, at least in my opinion, does not make it a great film. I agree that LOTR is a great film that will be remembered in 20 years, but I think it stands far above AOTC as a film. Like I said before, I agree that this summer has had better films than usual, but that's basically saying that you've been eating excellent fast food rather than eating a great meal.

As for this older film debate, adjusted for inflation, GWTW is the highest grossing film of all time, as it grossed over $1 billion in 2002 USD. Many of these films have been seen countless times over and available on home video, so of course the films will not make as much as a new film if released to theatres. Also, being frank, I think that the expectations of the general movie going public have declined tremendously, and many film goers would not recognize a great film if they saw one.

Mandalorian Candidat
08-16-2002, 05:24 PM
Sorry, I don't remember who started the post (was it you icatch?) but I agree without partially about this being a great year for movies. We did (and will still) get several great blockbusters and smaller films like ET, AOTC, TTT, etc. but I think the success lies more with the amount of money generated. I could be mistaken but it seems that more box office records have been made and more $ produced due to this year's crop than any other year. Whether it's because the movies are generally better or because people are into major escapism due to 9/11 or the stock market I just don't know.

It seems that almost every other year or so this debate arises as to the current year being better than the last. Is it Hollywood blowing smoke to increase the ratio of full to empty movie seats or critics being as honest in their subjective opinions as they can be?

I remember as a kid 1984 being a great year for summer movies. We got Indy Jones 2 (I think it was 84), Ghostbusters, Gremlins, and many others that were terrific at the BO. I think I was at the movies every Sat. that summer. Even the year before when ROTJ came out wasn't as good.

As the debate continues let's try to think of the quality of the movies we've been getting, both story-wise and technical-wise. Should we keep supporting the dumbing down of movies with lame, crude humor, idiotic dialogue, and bad execution? I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but perhaps we should discriminate more as to what we see. Sure there are those dopey movies like Scooby-Doo that you go into knowing that it'll be stupid, but if we keep up the patronization are we to blame for the continuation of these lame-o efforts?

Just a thought.

JON9000
08-16-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by icatch9
I haven't sceen them, many people haven't sceen them. If they are so great then how come I can't go to WM and buy them? With the acception of Dr. No I'd probally have a hard time buying any of them. They may be good movies but are they really that popular?

I don't think availability in Wal-Mart is the ultimate arbiter of what makes a good film, or even a popular film. I can go into Wal-Mart and buy "Booty Call" and I would not put it in either category. You could probably find Lawrence, Mockingbird, or Music Man in Wal-Mart, you might have to go to Suncoast for the others.

Lawrence of Arabia was an incredibly popular film in its time, even at a running time of 3 and 1/2 hours (the DVD runs close to 4).

Oh well, I've made the point as best I can, and there is no use repeating myself. I am glad that this summer has you enthused and excited. I have enjoyed what I've seen so far, too.

bigbarada
08-16-2002, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Eternal Padawan

The only recent (in the last year) film that will stand in that category of high caliber films is LOTR.


I totally agree there! The first truly worthy film adaption of Tolkien's epic. It's not the story material that stands out, but the way it was presented. Anybody remember the Ralph Bakshi LOTR cartoon that premiered in December 1977? Or the Rankin Bass cartoons from 1979? Not really. Tolkien's story was impossible to film until just recently when the advancement of CG technology made possible the shrinking of actors and creation of beasts from the depths of myth. However, the effects don't overshadow the story, which is still very personal and endearing (unlike another recent blockbuster trilogy).

The reason I believe people are so upset by CGI is that very often the movie itself is built around the effects (Anaconda, Jurassic Park, Armageddon, Volcano, Twister are just a few examples of many) and the story only exists to showcase as many whiz-bang! CG effects as possible. However, the same things were said about stop motion and optical compositing when those techniques debuted. So the problem isn't a new one.

scruffziller
08-18-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by billfremore
How about 1999?

Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace
The Matrix
Deep Blue Sea (I love shark movies)
Lake Placid (This movie was seriously underrated)
American Pie
Sixth Sense
The Mummy
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Toy Story 2
The Blair Witch Project
Magnolia
Dogma
Being John Malkovich
American Beauty
Fight Club
Sleepy Hollow
South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

That's a pretty good year for movies.

YES my friend a very rich quality resevoir indeed.:happy:

icatch9
08-19-2002, 11:56 AM
I never wanted to debate old movies vs new movies. It's unfair. Forget about the money or inflation. Other things come into play too. How much would Star Wars ANH of made if it was the only movie playing in theaters for months. We never factor in the competition and what other movies where playing when we say that GWTW made a Billion.

My intial thought of this thread was one of discussion, and I never figured on comeing out with a concreat answer. No one ever agrees on anything hear, so why on Earth would we agree on this. Furthermore, I changed this topic is a reply a while ago in wich I changed the time frame to 1975 (the Year of Jaws and the birth of blockbusters and the modern age of movies). So, again, I don't care about Lawernce of A or GWTW or Wizard of Oz. 1975 and up, that's when movies really changed and that's only fair to compair with the movies of today.

What makes a good movie? God only knows. I know that popular movies must be good or no one would go see them. Lets say that 20 Million people saw Scooby Do. A bad movie, but a lot of people saw it. Lets say that only 8 million saw K19 a great story and movie, but many people didn't see it. Wich is better? Well, K19 is a better story and a better movies, but more people went to see Scooby. So what? How do we judge? We cannot. It's impossible. Some people love Lawerce of A, but I don't. Some people think it's the best movie of all time, but I don't. Who's right and who's wrong? We can never tell. What's great to you is crap to me and what's crap to you is great to me.

People have never been able to agree on what is the best ever, of anything ever. The best car, best vaction spot, best soft drink, or best movie, people will never agree. Perhaps we can agree that this year is a pretty good year for movies. You can remember it however you will. I will remember it as one of the greatest years in movie history. That's the truth to me, but it could be BS to you. Who cares? We are both right.

Patient Zero
08-22-2002, 01:05 AM
I will say this in the shortest amount of words as possible. 2002 the best year yet for movies? Pass me the crack!

Just take the "best" movie (whatever awards show you want to put your faith in) from any year in the past 5 years or so and compare it to some of the older movies. Garbage!

Even some of the "better" movies (Award winners like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, Traffic, etc...) do not even begin to hold the title of best movie for anything.

I could go on for ever about this, but it is pointless. Done.

icatch9
08-22-2002, 11:05 AM
I'll say it's pointless. What make these old movies so good? You like them, but I don't. What makes what you say any better than what I say? I don't like old movies, but aparently you and other do. So, that makes new movies bad or something. Can't hold a condle to, yea right.

My statement of 2002 is the best is a gerneralization. Movies out this year are good! If you don't like them fine. Get out the old reel to reel and watch some good ones. I'll be at the theater enjoying some new and aparently crappy movies.

Maybe this year is just the greatest to me. Maybe that's my fault for not clearing that up a long time ago. This year offers 5 out of 8 of my favoirte movie titles of all time (Star Wars, James Bond, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). The only three that are missing are Indiana Jones, The Matrix, and Jurrasik Park (those three will be out again in the next year or two). This movie year also offers my two favorit directors (George Lucas and Steven Speilburg). This year offers my favorite funny men of Hollywood (Adam Sandler, Mike Myers, Dana Carvy, Robin Williams, David Spade). This year offers my favoirt actors (Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Sam Jackson, Patrick Steawart, Tom Hanks, Clint Eastwood, Wesley Snips). To me this year offers so much more than any other I've been around to see.

So there. To me this is the greatest movie year ever. To me, no other year stands up. This is my opinion and I don't care what anyone else things. Why would I care what other think, or what the Academy thinks or what the box offices say. I've enjoyed so many movies this year and that is all that matters. I stand by my statements and no one can change that.

billfremore
08-22-2002, 11:10 AM
Arguements can be made for any year to be the 'greatest year' for movies but your statement says it all.
You think this year is great, because you're enjoying it more than any other year. I can say the same for 1999.
People can disagree with you and throw awards and box office and what not at you as arguements but the important thing is that you're enjoying this year.

So enjoy icatch9, lots more fun stuff on then way in the next 4 months! :D

icatch9
08-22-2002, 11:46 AM
Thank you billfremore, finally someone understands. I can say that '99 was a great year too. A lot of great films. Most likely my second favoirte year :D!