Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Just watched F4

Reply
Thread Tools

Just watched F4

 
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
> Black Locust wrote:
>
>> I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>> like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>> studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.

>
> I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
> poorly or so-so at the box office.


Worldwide: $329,471,472

Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Goro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005

Justin wrote:
> M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
> > Black Locust wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
> >> like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
> >> studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.

> >
> > I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
> > poorly or so-so at the box office.

>
> Worldwide: $329,471,472
>
> Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?


He said, "none of them did poor or so-so" which translates to "They all
did eihter good to great"... ? ALthough the preluded "I think the
public has." seems to be at odds with the statement. I'm not sure
exactly what he was trying to say...

-goro-

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Goro wrote on [6 Dec 2005 06:42:40 -0800]:
>
> Justin wrote:
>> M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
>> > Black Locust wrote:
>> >
>> >> I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>> >> like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>> >> studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.
>> >
>> > I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>> > poorly or so-so at the box office.

>>
>> Worldwide: $329,471,472
>>
>> Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?

>
> He said, "none of them did poor or so-so" which translates to "They all
> did eihter good to great"... ? ALthough the preluded "I think the
> public has." seems to be at odds with the statement. I'm not sure
> exactly what he was trying to say...


Right, "I think the public has" implies that they didn't do as well as
poor or so-so, or that maybe they were complete and utter flops.

That's my interpretation anyway
 
Reply With Quote
 
M.B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Justin wrote:
> Goro wrote on [6 Dec 2005 06:42:40 -0800]:
>
>>Justin wrote:
>>
>>>M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
>>>
>>>>Black Locust wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>>>>>like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>>>>>studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.
>>>>
>>>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>>>poorly or so-so at the box office.
>>>
>>>Worldwide: $329,471,472
>>>
>>>Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?

>>
>>He said, "none of them did poor or so-so" which translates to "They all
>>did eihter good to great"... ? ALthough the preluded "I think the
>>public has." seems to be at odds with the statement. I'm not sure
>>exactly what he was trying to say...

>
>
> Right, "I think the public has" implies that they didn't do as well as
> poor or so-so, or that maybe they were complete and utter flops.
>
> That's my interpretation anyway


Your interpretation is correct. My syntax was bad.

So for the record, I meant to say that the previously mentioned movies
did either poorly or so-so at the box office. Which means that I
believe the public has finally caught on and they're not as susceptible
to slick marketing for bad movies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Justin wrote:
> M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
>
>>Black Locust wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>>>like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>>>studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.

>>
>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>poorly or so-so at the box office.

>
>
> Worldwide: $329,471,472
>
> Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?


Pointless, basically.

Derek Janssen (oo, did the Hong Kong audiences REALLY go to see it??)
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Jeff Rife wrote:

> M.B. ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>
>>>I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>>>like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>>>studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.

>>
>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>poorly or so-so at the box office.

>
>
> Huh?
> budget US box office
> Fantastic Four $100M $154M
> Dukes of Hazzard $ 53M $ 80M
> Stealth $150M $ 32M
> Deuce Bigelow II $ 22M $ 22M
>
> Those box office numbers are *total*, not the opening weekend. None of
> these movies come close to being as good as "poor" at the box office. Only
> "Dukes of Hazzard" can be considered "so-so", FF is slightly worse, DB2 a
> flop, and "Stealth" being a big old stinking bomb.
>
> Compare that to the following:
> budget US box office
> March of the Penguins $ 8M $ 77M
> Longest Yard $ 82M $158M
> Hitch $ 70M $177M
> Batman Begins $135M $205M
> Wedding Crashers $ 40M $209M
> Harry Potter 4 $130M $230M (to date)
> War of the Worlds $132M $234M
>
> Now, some of these movies are just as poorly written as FF or "Stealth",
> but they are all at least moderately successful at the box office, so
> expect sequels to anything that can have one.


There's an old saying:
You can make a movie for five bucks, and if you make six, that's a
profit, but it ain't "Harry Potter".

Derek Janssen
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Derek Janssen wrote on [Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:46:05 -0500]:
> Justin wrote:
>> M.B. wrote on [Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:19:44 -0800]:
>>
>>>Black Locust wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I suspect these movies were written by 13 year olds or adults who think
>>>>like 13 year olds. But until Joe Public stops eating this crap up, the
>>>>studios will continue to produce it. Sad, but true.
>>>
>>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>>poorly or so-so at the box office.

>>
>>
>> Worldwide: $329,471,472
>>
>> Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?

>
> Pointless, basically.
>


It wasn't that long ago that 150 million at the US box office was
considered a solid hit. No matter the production costs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Justin wrote:
>
>>>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>>>poorly or so-so at the box office.
>>>
>>>Worldwide: $329,471,472
>>>
>>>Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?

>>
>>Pointless, basically.


(I mean, you just don't WANT to sound borderline-racist about Asian
countries flocking to see *anything* with an American label on it where
Stuff Blows Up, but then there's those numbers that don't lie...)

> It wasn't that long ago that 150 million at the US box office was
> considered a solid hit. No matter the production costs.


Let's see, that would be back when movies were still $7-8, cineplexes
only averaged 5-6 screens, and and a 2000-screen opening was considered
"big" because it could only play on one screen at a time?

Derek Janssen (such memories)
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Justin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Derek Janssen wrote on [Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:30:23 -0500]:
> Justin wrote:
>>
>>>>>I think the public has. None of those movies, including F4, did either
>>>>>poorly or so-so at the box office.
>>>>
>>>>Worldwide: $329,471,472
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm, is that poor or so-so?
>>>
>>>Pointless, basically.

>
> (I mean, you just don't WANT to sound borderline-racist about Asian
> countries flocking to see *anything* with an American label on it where
> Stuff Blows Up, but then there's those numbers that don't lie...)


I dunno, Stealth failed pretty bigtime in Asia, as well

>> It wasn't that long ago that 150 million at the US box office was
>> considered a solid hit. No matter the production costs.

>
> Let's see, that would be back when movies were still $7-8, cineplexes
> only averaged 5-6 screens, and and a 2000-screen opening was considered
> "big" because it could only play on one screen at a time?


Or only 1996...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Derek Janssen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2005
Justin wrote:

>>>It wasn't that long ago that 150 million at the US box office was
>>>considered a solid hit. No matter the production costs.

>>
>>Let's see, that would be back when movies were still $7-8, cineplexes
>>only averaged 5-6 screens, and and a 2000-screen opening was considered
>>"big" because it could only play on one screen at a time?

>
> Or only 1996.


Again...

Derek Janssen (those pre-AMC Twenty days seem so faraway now, don't they?)
(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just watched that new Dell ad... Jamie Kahn Genet NZ Computing 12 12-05-2006 10:02 AM
I just watched Buffy:TVS musical in 2.35 Waterperson77 DVD Video 41 08-07-2004 02:56 AM
Re: Am I being 'watched'?! ilmc Computer Support 6 08-16-2003 09:14 PM
Re: Am I being 'watched'?! Solo Computer Support 0 08-15-2003 11:11 PM
Re: Am I being 'watched'?! Brian H Computer Support 0 08-15-2003 09:39 PM



Advertisments