Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Well I hope so. I mean if we had to cut her off we wouldn't have E.T.
FUCKING FANSERVICE MOE SHIT THE CANCER KILLING ANIME
It has images, they just change every frame:
I will never in a million years understand why anyone considers Titanic a good movie.
I always just chalked up to the fact that it's pretty people being naked and painting each other.
Fair enough, but that's over three hours of shit for three minutes of porn. Not a good ratio.
Though I guess the internet was less widespread at the time, so nudity was more elusive then.
Some men and women are quite patient.
and in the nineties your porn was downloaded in five hours. so i guess they were trained in patience
Let's ask the internet!
Oh.
Titanic, much like Superman Returns, has enough pretension to reek of 'feels important' to trick a lot of people.
Yes I brought superheroes into it. Deal with it.
I think that's more likely than what malk said.
The human experience is telling your boyfriend you'll never let go of him, then dumping his corpse in the ocean, moving on with life and marrying some guy you don't give a shit about, having at least one kid, then coming back to the ocean in your old age to dump your jewelry too?
Fair point. See also: Braid.
I think the going back to the ocean is the 'through space and time' part.
Fair enough on the "through space and time," but I'm not seeing the "human experience," mostly because none of the characters act like humans.
^^^^I think that's needlessly gender binary and the two aspects feed into each other to make my point.
But even if you take into account the argument in the article, then it doesn't make sense that "boys" (Which as Malk pointed out, it's a dumb distinction anyway) went to watch it more than once (and trust me, to make the money it did it couldn't have just been watched once by everyone)
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure I buy that explanation because it implies that it succeeded because people are willing to pay for a movie so they can watch half of it and be bored for the other hour and a half.
I also think that you're taking what I'm posting a bit too seriously. I only posted that because your reason, in turn, seemed overly... silly.
Here's the entirety of the review I originally posted, though.
>Yeah, I'm not entirely sure I buy that explanation because it implies that it succeeded because people are willing to pay for a movie so they can watch half of it and be bored for the other hour and a half.
Then again, the Transformers franchise.
I've avoided those movies, so I can't really comment on them >.>
but he's right though? A lot of films are considered good because they operate under the premise that they are good and self-important. See: Kubrick's entire ouvre.
giant robot fights
easy worth spending the same amount of time watching boring scenes.
^ I don't buy that a movie can become this widespread simply because it allows people to feel self-important through pretentions. It's got to have something genuinely enjoyable to it. So no. I don't think he's right.
Kubrick's movies are at least interesting in terms of filmmaking, so they have something going for them.
Marketing's a big part of why Avatar and Titanic have attained the success they have.
That is not to say that there aren't any ways for these movies to be resonant or liked because that's a gross exaggeration but the fact is that when you're selling a movie that supposedly harkens back to the old classic romance movies by Hepburn (When there was an appetite for such post-Anne Rice, mind you) and a movie that's not just the first full blown 3D movie in a while using the most recent 3D tech but also the fact that this movie's directed by the guy who supposedly helped invent this tech and did Titanic as well? Well...it's hardly gonna tank, is it?
And even then you are not getting the point. It's not a matter of letting people feel self-important: it's a matter of a movie acting like it's already a classic. Which is a complicated way of explaining that Titanic is pretty much your typical Oscar Bait movie made only to please people with sensibilities similar to those in the Academy as well as those who just let the Academy decide what's good or bad. And trust me, as paranoid and stupid as it sounds, it's both a pretty big trend and a big market.
Well yeah but the fact is that Kubrick's movies tend to not have much going on for them besides being pretty as hell, which is my biggest issue with him, really.
Then again, most of his material was not written by him so I can't blame him for his movie's lack in entertaining writing.
Juan's already mostly made the points I have. The thing is Titanic plays a safe middle ground and admittedly it does it far better than that other... thing I mentioned. It plays a very safe line between oscar bait, blockbuster, and tear-based romance. It's a brilliantly cynical film.
But isn't that Cameron's post-T2 career.
fuck it