... and the top three of all time all find there way onto the WZ overrated list. The only sequel in the top three being the Dark Knight; but obviously I'll get to that later.
Negative, the third highest grossing movie of all time is Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. The Fellowship of the Ring is the film that made it onto this list, which is all the way down at 21.
And did you really take a good look at that list? Avatar is actually the only original screen play, everything else is an adaptation or part of a series. You have to go all the way down to 22 at Finding Nemo to find the first non-Avatar original screen play.
Do you still want to argue that their gross has anything to do with being overrated? Most of these films range from very good to great with a couple of absolute duds that people saw just because they were part of a series (New Star Wars series, Transformers, etc.). Nobody is going to argue that more than a couple of these films belong on the greatest all time list.
When a really shit movie makes more money than every really good movie ever made, it's probably a bit overrated/over hyped. Case and point, Avatar.
That's ridiculous. More often than not, truly great films don't make all that much money. American History X is my favorite film ever and is without a doubt a fantastic film, but it made a measly 23 million on a 20 million budget. That film probably lost money after you take out the cinema's cut.
Nothing wrong with good graphics, it's something pretty much everyone can appreciate; but when that's all you got and all you're relying on there's gonna be a problem. There is absolutely no substance to Avatar, no depth, no meaning; it's basically a three hour visual distraction, a visual distraction I can get for free on my computer using one of many different HD visualizers.
No depth, no meaning? That's bull shit. The plot was recycled, but they used this plot because it does have meaning, it does have substance. Invaders vs. Natives, it's been done in film, television, professional wrestling, it works because it catches our interest. Couple the effective if not overdone plot with the best graphics anyone has ever seen, and you have yourself a movie worth watching.
Actually, 3D technology has been used since the 70's, there's a ton of 3D films prior to Avatar.
Yes, I said that, and they drew shit. It wasn't a huge draw until Cameron made Avatar.
Clash of the Titans was a remake that was gonna make money whether it was 3D or not, and like you said, they didn't even shoot it in 3D, they just tried to do a quick capitalization by adding the technology last minute, and everyone who saw it in theaters said that the 3D version was shit. That's a shitty attempt at trying to capitalize, but it didn't, people where going to see that whether it was 3D or not, I thought the movie was pretty shit too.
Oh, it was a shit movie, so to say it would have made money if it wasn't for the 3D is ignorant as hell. It got panned by critics, panned by moviegoers, and it wasn't a remake people were waiting for. Have you seen the original? It was terrible, the only reason they remade the movie is because they thought it would be better with modern effect. It wasn't, but it made a shit ton of money because people wanted to see the Kraken, Medusa, Zeus, and all the other giant figures of Greek lore in 3D.
How to Tame your Dragon, I don't have time for this kinda shit, I'm not sure how this fits in or what point your trying to make, ALL ANIMATED movies have been making bank since Toy Story, it's not the 3D, it's the computer animation targeted at family's and kids.
But How to Train Your Dragon absolutely MURDERED at the box office. It's Dreamworks highest grossing non-Shrek film, and was the 10th highest grossing movie in 2010, beating out such films as Tron, Robin Hood, Shutter Island, The Social Network. And I know, these aren't kids movies, but it also beat out Megamind, that Owls movie, The Karate Kid, The Last Airbeder, Gulliver's Travels, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and a ton of others. If you don't realize that the 3D is what put them in the top 10 then there is no getting through to you.
So your saying without James Cameron these two movies above wouldn't be what they are today...Is that really your argument?
No, my argument is that without James Cameron NONE of the 3D movies would have grossed like they did. That includes, but is not limited to: How to Train your Dragon, Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland, The Last Airbender, Piranha 3D, Resident Evil Afterlife, Tangled, Tron Legacy, and Gulliver's Travels. Basically any non-sequel film has Cameron to thank for a good chunk of the money they made.
Now I have to assume what it was being hyped for, visuals I presume, hype for visuals, and hype for storylines all boil down to hype for the movie, it was hyped to the fucking moon, no denying that, and it doesn't even come close to living up to it's hype, not for a second.
The visuals did live up to their hype, no doubt. If you were unimpressed with the visuals that puts you in a very, very small group. The story was tired, but it did well enough to keep me interested in the film to enjoy everything else it has to offer.
You recognize he created one of the shittiest movies off all time that capitalized on the 3D fad that was going on at the time. He didn't create the 3D fad, to took advantage of all the peons willing to pay 15 bucks a ticket to see one of the worst acted storylines with fucking C-list actors galore, like the guy who does the robot voice in Grandma's boy; which coincidentally is a better acted movie that Avatar.
As I said, he didn't capitalize on the 3D fad. He took the 3D fad and made it his bitch.
Still aren't buying it? Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#3-D_re-enters_mainstream_cinema_.282003.E2.80.93present.29
After Avatar was made, there have been 78 movies released or announced that were/are/are going to be in 3D. Actually, make that 77 movies because How to Train your Dragon was already designed for 3D. Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were not, though, and were converted just because the studios realized 3D would make them a killing.
Do you know how far you have to go back to get to 77 3D movies? I don't, but probably close to the start of 3D technology. On top of all that, almost ALL of the movies are either animated, re-releases, or total duds.
Is the story that Avatar tells weak? Yes, but the film as a whole is not overrated. I find it odd to say that a film that revolutionized the film industry is overrated.
Adding to the avalanche of over hype I see, this is part of what makes it so overrated. Critics and fans alike blinded by a dead man.
I'm sorry, are you saying that people only think the Joker was brilliantly played because Heath Ledger is dead? That is the stupidest thing you've said yet. He was absolutely brilliant, dead or alive. His death added mystique to the film, but that doesn't change the fact that he actually delivered the performance of a lifetime.
It's really not even close, BB is an all around better story, with better actors, better acting, a better story ( An origin story at that).
Katie Holmes a better actor than Maggie Gyllenhaal? She might be a zillion times more fuckable, but she's not a better actor, not in a million years. Other than that you have largely the same class, and none of the supporting characters even come close to matching Eckhart's or Ledger's performance.
Critics and fans slobbering over a dead joker, sounds like over hype to me.
But the movie delivered on it. Nothing wrong with getting a lot of hype if you deliver.
Nothing to do with being a pretentious jackass, and everything to do with the fact that it's clearly an underrated movie, with everyone and their mothers thinking that TDK is the end all be all off Batman films.
I don't think it has anything to do with BB being underrated, it just has to do with TDK being a better film.
I wasn't the one who voted it onto this list, so there's clearly at least one other person who shares that opinion with me. TDK is a case of a mass group of people who think there shit doesn't stink, and that's because the odor of HL dead ducking corpse is clouding your judgement.
You're reliance on the "Heath Ledger's death is why people think this movie is good" argument is getting pathetic. And if you're trying to strike a nerve with the death jokes, you will fail. I'm a big supporter of Owen Hart and Dead Baby jokes. I haven't heard too many Heath Ledger ones, but I'll start working on it. He died by OD'ing on sleeping pills right? There should be some millage out of that.
As for the group of people who share your opinion... like I said, it's a small fucking group. The movie got a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes from the critics, and a 96% from fans. Batman Begins fares a little worse on both sides, but still good overall at 84%/90%. It would appear that The Dark Knight has the advantage from both critics and fans, and you know what they say, "50 million Ledger fans can't be wrong."
Not to beat a dead actor here (See what I did there), but that's the only reason he was nominated.
Bull. Shit. Performance of his career, easily, and the Oscars wouldn't nominate someone, much less give him the award to someone just because they died. Let's not act like he was Meryl Streep or Jeff Bridges either, he was far from being a staple at the Oscars. He had been nominated once before and didn't win, the Academy didn't owe him shit. I don't think the Academy would have gotten any bad publicity if they gave the award to Hoffman for Doubt or Brolin in Milk, Ledger was just the flat out best.
Trying to keep score like this is just gonna make you look silly.
Oh contraire, mon frer.
Well, considering the Dark Knight is meant to have that "Real Life" feel to it, and not the silly comic book bull shit that we've seen so many time in the past.
What the fuck real life film? The bad guy wore fucking clown makeup, killed a man by slamming his head on a pencil, broke into a bank by backing an unmanned bus into the wall, Batman rode upside down on hit motorcycle, and there was a guy who had half his face burnt off but managed to be absolutely find without getting any skin graphed onto it. When the FUCK was this film presented with a real life vibe?
You know what, I'm changing the score, JGlass one zillion, SSC negative eighteen billion and three. What the fuck are you talking about?
Good prevails over evil, even a boat full of serial killers have a heart, how fucking touching. Almost makes me want to twiddle a twat, but I'll pass for now.
God forbid a super hero movie tries to do something different while still fitting the bill.
One if not both of those boats should have blown.
Then the Joker would have won. Is that what you want, the Joker to win? Superhero movies are meant to fulfill expectations, not defy them, and the bad guy winning would definitely defy expectations.
You heard it from JGlass first. The Oscar is the official "It can't be overrated award"
This is an argument for another thread, but I will say this: I don't like the Oscars and I think it's a device created to try to tell people what they should and should not like. That said, the winners often deserve the Oscar, and Ledger falls into that category.
If only I had the power to somehow change the score...
- SSC
+ JGlass
I love when the kids think they blew up the truck, lol, my favorite kind of "dark" humor. I see you don't disagree either.
I see that you're nitpicking.
Your opinion of the TDK is that's it's NEAR PERFECT, it doesn't get more overrated that that.
As far as super hero movies go, and even past that, it is a near perfect film, and there's really not much you can do to convince me otherwise. Believe it or not, your argument of, "You only like it because Heath Ledger is dead," isn't really doing anything for me. Go figure.
Unless your opinion is a fact, it's still just an opinion. Same as mine, just an opinion, and yes, I laugh wholeheartedly at your opinion of TDK.
And it just makes you look small. Unqualified to have a debate with and small.
, but a lot of people did.
