Lackluster Blockbusters

**Dave19642006** · 05-12-2008, 12:02 PM

2008 Summer Movie Guide on MSN Movies

Movies that were to be big and kinda fizzled

**bos** · 05-12-2008, 12:06 PM

That guy is a tool. Half those movies on there were good flicks.

**cycloneworld** · 05-12-2008, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dave19642006

2008 Summer Movie Guide on MSN Movies

Movies that were to be big and kinda fizzled

Many of those movies are on the Top 100 grossing movies of all-time so I wouldn't consider them a bust.

Titanic, Star Wars, ET, Passion of the ******, all Spidermans, Independence Day, etc. These were HUGE movies...just because the author may not have liked him doesn't mean they were a bust. Quite the opposite in fact.

**Cybone** · 05-12-2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by bostinelosd

That guy is a tool. Half those movies on there were good flicks.

Yeah, what he said...

I enjoyed Da Vinci Code and half of those movies..Da Vinci was close to the book so what exactly did he expect from it??

**spanny** · 05-12-2008, 12:17 PM

Terrible article, he called The Passion a porno

**Gordyo5** · 05-12-2008, 12:24 PM

Something about him calling some of the biggest movie openings in history busts just does not seem logical.

**cyclonemaniac7** · 05-12-2008, 12:26 PM

Who does this guy think he is? What a joke.

**tejasclone** · 05-12-2008, 12:27 PM

Wow, he hates on Spielberg for using a crappy puppet in "E.T.", then spends the rest of the "article" ripping apart other films for overly flashy special effects. What exactly is this guy's idea of a "good summer blockbuster"? I'm guessing "Made of Honor."

**Mr Janny** · 05-12-2008, 01:05 PM

He doesn't ever say that they are busts. I think he's commenting on Summer Blockbusters in general. Typically you get films that are high on budget and high on action, but low on story and quality.

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for those films, but they're not the height of filmmaking.

**LindenCy** · 05-12-2008, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by cardinal&gold

Wow, he hates on Spielberg for using a crappy puppet in "E.T.", then spends the rest of the "article" ripping apart other films for overly flashy special effects. What exactly is this guy's idea of a "good summer blockbuster"? I'm guessing "Made of Honor."

He might want to remember that it was the early '80s.

**bmuff** · 05-12-2008, 01:11 PM

I'll agree that Bay and Emmerich mades some craptastic movies. Those two guys suck. Their movies seem to be all flash and a mostly unbelievable story. The Spider-Man movies to me look too slick and digital....like a cartoon. And Lucas did kill the SW movies both with the prequels and the new digital effects for the original trilogy (Greedo shooting first? Disgusting).

Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it was good. A lot of people buy in to slick previews with lots of explosions.

**cloneu** · 05-12-2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by jdewaard

He doesn't ever say that they are busts. I think he's commenting on Summer Blockbusters in general. Typically you get films that are high on budget and high on action, but low on story and quality.

Don't get me wrong, there's a place for those films, but they're not the height of filmmaking.

While that may be what he is hinting at, he is still a tool. I am sure that Michael Bay is like, hey this guy is right, all those movies that made hundreds of millions of dollars suck.

**Clone9** · 05-12-2008, 01:17 PM

This guy is one of those "I know what good films are and you don't" kind of guys.

Besides, I don't think too many people confuse a great summer "popocorn" movie for a great movie. These movies are mostly just entertaining pieces that you don't have think about too much....and they all have their place and make tons of money.

Everyone knows they're not ground-breaking, artistic cinema. Even the sometimes very generic Academy doesn't recognize most of these films with awards.

**cycloneworld** · 05-12-2008, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by bmuff

Just because a movie makes a lot of money doesn't mean it was good. A lot of people buy in to slick previews with lots of explosions.

It doesn't mean they are good but they are still blockbusters. If a movie is crap but makes $300 million at the box office, I don't think the studio cares one bit. There is a difference between a bust and a crap movie.

**Clone9** · 05-12-2008, 01:22 PM

I guess this article is a classic example questioning the definition of "good".

As an example, I don't really understand jazz music very well. I like it as much as the next guy, and have enjoyed several nights sitting in a jazz club listening to the bands. But I had a roommate who was a jazz musician and was a true connoisseur. He would play some stuff that he considered to the absolute best, and I thought it was crap. Most likely its because I don't really "get it", but the fact remains, I didn't like it.

The same can be said for any time of art, food, theater, film, music, etc.