Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47
  1. #31
    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.
    Peeps who have hooked me up: General Grievous Dark Marble jjreason Ramy GrandMoffLouie Josephe vader121 Val Da Car

  2. #32
    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.
    If you want to find it you have to shop.

  3. #33
    Registered Eternal Padawan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Outside SSG, banging on the window furiously, yelling "LET ME IN!"
    Posts
    2,368
    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!
    Who's a sexy kitty? Who is? Yes, you are. You're a SEXY kitty...

    PHONE BOOK Written by Bendis. Art by Jim Lee. Total copies sold: 15 billion.

    "Comic Collecting. Miss a decade, miss a lot."

  4. #34
    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.

  5. #35
    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.
    If you want to find it you have to shop.

  6. #36
    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.
    Peeps who have hooked me up: General Grievous Dark Marble jjreason Ramy GrandMoffLouie Josephe vader121 Val Da Car

  7. #37
    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.
    If you want to find it you have to shop.

  8. #38
    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.

  9. #39
    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.
    "I'm just a YES man trying to make my way in the universe." - Jango McCallum

    "Good dialogue and smooth editing are no match for a good YES man by your side, kid." - George Lucas

  10. #40
    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.
    Peeps who have hooked me up: General Grievous Dark Marble jjreason Ramy GrandMoffLouie Josephe vader121 Val Da Car

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO