The Star Wars prequels were terrible and still did well. Batman Begins was pretty bad and it did pretty well. Twilight is godawful and it did pretty well.
In what world do you live where the quality of narrative drives box office ticket sales?
It’s not going to be Titanic because it’s Science Fiction and your Grandmother isn’t going to go see it. That’s why Titanic made so much money because it crossed so many demographic boundaries. This one won’t, but I’ll be surprised if it’s not in the top 10 US, and I won’t be surprised if it’s in the top 5.
Then of course there were the Spiderman movies that were the narrative equivalent of dogshit, and look how well they did.
The difference is that all three that you mention there had a considerable fan base before the movie, they were already established franchises in one form or another. And what I meant about story is that it has to be engaging on some level, not that it has to be Shakespeare.
I am not making a statement about whether or not Avatar is like that. I do trust James Cameron to recognize the need for that, as opposed to say Michael Bay (Transformers 2 anyone?).
Nothing about this movie has captured my interest, in any way. Sure, it’s visually stunning, but I fear that there’s no “there” there. I think it’ll bomb.
Not sure if we’ll see it in a theatre or not. I’ll wait to see what the buzz tells me, here on the Boards and elsewhere.
Well if you thought Batman Begins was good, then you don’t really have a good idea of what makes good narrative.
Hint: When Katie Holmes doesn’t pop like a hamster in the microwave when they setoff the microwave pulse RIGHT NEXT TO HER, and yet it boils all of the water in the city’s watermains in order to release aerosolized DMT in order to make the entire city crazy with fear, you know they don’t really give a fuck about narrative.
So you may like Batman Begins, and that’s fine, and we might have different tastes, and my wife indeed like I was, was disappointed that Katie Holmes didn’t 'splode, but our differences are not over an ability to recognize the quality of a narrative.
Hint: It has fuckall to do with whether or not you enjoyed the movie, which I did, it has to do with whether or not the narrative was a piece of crap, which it was.
Well we’ll see. I think that Avatar has the benefit of Dragon riding aliens fighting Space Marines in power armor, and can rely on that in lieu of brand identity. And anyone who was alive in the 90s knows that James Cameron films are splodey goodness.
It is actually objectively true. When you violate the rules of a particular piece of the narrative for dramatic impact, it does indeed violate the rules of a good narrative. If your machine boils then all of the mammals within its pulse radius who are more than 80% water, will indeed boil.
Just like musical tonality can be viewed objectively, and color theory can be viewed objectively, a narrative is judged by whether or not it has to violate the rules of its own content to make its point.
No it’s not. It is objectively true that it’s not 100% faithful to science. It is not objectively true that it damages the narrative, as that’s a subjective matter.
Were this to be true, practically every movie that demonstrated anything scientifically implausible would fail to be a good movie. For you, clearly it interfered with the narrative–for me, it did not. Hence my point above.
No. Everyone alive in the 80s knows that James Cameron films are full of splodey goodness. For a whole generation of people, James Cameron is the guy who made Titanic. His name has no currency for a 2009 action movie to a huge chunk of the moviegoing audience.
:rolleyes: You’re just avoiding the question. I don’t need an exhaustive list; your wife is certainly free to exclude anything that she feels might prejudice me against her. Still waiting on examples of movies she’s liked and disliked.
Which, on the surface, is fucking awesome. \m/ etc. However, if I’m so distracted from the WOW SHINY by the OH MY GOD I WANT TO PUNCH THE WRITER IN THE TEETH FOR SHITTING THIS OUT THROUGH HIS PEN, it’s not going to go well.
Don’t you fucking judge my grandparents. Two of them saw *Shaun of the Dead *before I did, even. Me! Who loves zombie films!
The teenagers who made Titanic a gigantic hit in 1997 would have only been eight years old when T2 was released. They may not even have known what it was. And judging by T4’s box office take, they didn’t.
True Lies is nice and all, but it’s the least “James Cameron” of all of his films. It’s just another action movie. A good one, but if it wasn’t directed by Cameron would anyone even care about it today?
I think you are confused about what made Titanic a hit. I think you are also confused as to the nature of brand recognition in the age of priced to own videos. Teenagers were not hte driving force behind Titanic. What made Titanic a hit was that it hit lots of markets that WERE NOT teenagers. That’s precisely why it is such a significant event. Sci Fi blockbusters and action movies depend on the teenage marketplace, that is not true for Titanic, which was made a hit by grandmothers, mothers, and teenagers.
I don’t see what T4 has to do with it. Different director, different cast, franchise that was already run into the ground by poor choices such as Terminator 3 and the Sarah Connor chronicles.
Dawwwwww. That’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me all day.
It’s her prerogative, certainly, but it does bite into your credibility. When your argument is “my wife says it’s going to be good,” but you don’t do anything to demonstrate to those of us who’re curious about how it will turn out that your wife’s tastes mesh with ours… Well, it’s just not going to cut it.
Side note: Seriously, you can’t on your own come up with **any **films your wife has liked or disliked?
My grandparents are fuckin’ awesome. And don’t you forget it!
I understand that. I know teenagers weren’t the sole audience for Titanic (but if you think they weren’t a significant portion, you weren’t a teenager in 1997). But now tell me how many people went to go see Titanic because it’s a Jimmy Cameron movie. Because that’s the point you’re making, and I’m telling you that he is not an event director anymore.
