Trading Lincecum?

[msgkings322]

The TV show is better than the movie, and the day I let the Village Voice decide what I want to take in as entertainment is the day I, likely, cease being entertained.

Rep for mad funny.

 

[msgkings322]

Yes!! Mad rep. There should be a EARM stat...entertainment above replacement movie. The benchmark could be something like Lincoln Lawyer, which would be set to EARM of 0.0.

Lolita, Sling Blade, Romeo is Bleeding, Godfather I and II would all be in the 7+ EARM class.

Avatar -1.5.

Nice

I think this has been done somewhere (Bill Simmons?). But it's just BSing, WAR is pretty rigorous, movie love is completely arbitrary.

 

[msgkings322]

That's just it. I don't watch any movies in the theatres anymore. My fixed Netflix cost is all that stands between me and entertainment bliss or agony.

I apologize for making it sound like I was dismissing Ms. Wallace's opinion solely because her periodical represents and appeals to a faction of society that I don't relate to. I was dismissing her opinion because I dismiss all reviewers opinions. They have hidden agendas, and no idea what I like. I would rather take the two hours to stream the movie than however many hours it would take to find a reviewer that I trust, and then read more of their reviews.

You're right. Eventually, I will have kids, and not have the time to simply chance it. I figure I won't be able to do a lot of the things that I enjoy when that time comes, and I still won't care about losing two hours. I'll most likely nap through all movies, anyway. :popeye:

This is 100% true. I have seen exactly 2 movies in the theater without my kids in tow since they were born. It's no longer just the $10 and 2 hours. Add on another $60 for the sitter.

Rep for whomever guesses em (hint: movies released in the last 7 years, nothing super arty or obscure)

 

[calsnowskier]

This is 100% true. I have seen exactly 2 movies in the theater without my kids in tow since they were born. It's no longer just the $10 and 2 hours. Add on another $60 for the sitter.

Rep for whomever guesses em (hint: movies released in the last 7 years, nothing super arty or obscure)

2005 to current...

Some candidates...

Hangover (almost 100%)
Hurt locker
Cloverfield (?)

 

[msgkings322]

2005 to current...

Some candidates...

Hangover (almost 100%)
Hurt locker
Cloverfield (?)

Decent guesses but no...

I did see and love Hangover, Netflix style.

More hints: 1 was a 'spectacle' type movie with special effects (not Avatar).

Both movies were based on properties that came out initially in the 1980s

 

[calsnowskier]

Decent guesses but no...

I did see and love Hangover, Netflix style.

More hints: 1 was a 'spectacle' type movie with special effects (not Avatar).

Both movies were based on properties that came out initially in the 1980s

A-team???
GI Joe??
Transformers?

I would have thought all of these (maybe not A-Team) would be ok for the rug rats...

 

[tzill]

I am guessing we are both in agreement that the expansion to 9 noms for Best Pic was a bad idea (if you remove the obvious marketing reason that it was done for, that is).

I actually like it, as it insures worthy movies that most of the academy doesn't see (e.g. 127 hours, Winter's Bone) still get some recognition. And it lessens the effect that the BIG BUDGET CRAP MOVIE!! has on the nominations. That is, Avatar only took up 10% of the nominations instead of 20%.

 

[tzill]

I hated the hurt locker. I've done the job and that might be the most inaccurate and retarded army movie I've ever seen.

Says the guy with the Trailer Park Boys avatar....Ummmmm, yeah. OK.

 

[guitarmy21b]

Says the guy with the Trailer Park Boys avatar....Ummmmm, yeah. OK.

I'm not sure what this implies...that soldiers don't watch Trailer Park Boys or that somehow that changes the fact that the Hurt Locker is the most inaccurate and ridiculous Army movie ever made?

 

[calsnowskier]

I actually like it, as it insures worthy movies that most of the academy doesn't see (e.g. 127 hours, Winter's Bone) still get some recognition. And it lessens the effect that the BIG BUDGET CRAP MOVIE!! has on the nominations. That is, Avatar only took up 10% of the nominations instead of 20%.

How often are the BIG budget movies nominated? Titanic and Avatar and...

 

[msgkings322]

A-team???
GI Joe??
Transformers?

I would have thought all of these (maybe not A-Team) would be ok for the rug rats...

My kid likes the Transformers for sure. But still not those.

More hints: both movies based on comics/cartoons. Not kid movies.

 

[fordman84]

I'm not sure what this implies...that soldiers don't watch Trailer Park Boys or that somehow that changes the fact that the Hurt Locker is the most inaccurate and ridiculous Army movie ever made?

Most soldiers who fought in a conflict say that about the biggest movie set during that war. I think it is because if you weren't there, then you just don't know. And since the majority of the time you aren't seeing action, that would translate to a crappy movie. So Hollywood takes a little bit of realism and adds a whole lot of action.

Have you met any Vietnam vets that like Apocalypse now?

 

[guitarmy21b]

Most soldiers who fought in a conflict say that about the biggest movie set during that war. I think it is because if you weren't there, then you just don't know. And since the majority of the time you aren't seeing action, that would translate to a crappy movie. So Hollywood takes a little bit of realism and adds a whole lot of action.

Have you met any Vietnam vets that like Apocalypse now?

Most that I know like hamburger hill the most.

 

[tzill]

I'm not sure what this implies...that soldiers don't watch Trailer Park Boys or that somehow that changes the fact that the Hurt Locker is the most inaccurate and ridiculous Army movie ever made?

Your "fact" isn't. It's an opinion. Here are five films, off the top of my head, which are inaccurate and/or ridiculous war movies:

1. The Tin Drum
2. The Battle of the Bulge
3. Midway
4. Flyboys
5. Pearl Harbor

And that's just off the top of my head. OTOH, here's a snapshot review of Hurt Locker:

The film opens and closes with an unnecessarily heavy hand, but everything in between is edge-of-your-seat, burrow-into-your-brain stuff. And what you'll remember most will be Renner's remarkably complex commander. By the time we finally figure him out, it's become clear we've witnessed a star-making performance, in a movie that deserves to stand as one of the defining films of the decade.

Read more: 'The Hurt Locker': Iraq war thriller is explosive drama - NY Daily News

 

[tzill]

How often are the BIG budget movies nominated? Titanic and Avatar and...

I guess it depends upon how you define "big budget," but here are my thoughts:

2011: Toy Story 3, Kings Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception
2010: Avatar, Blind Side
2009: Ben Button, Frost/Nixon
2008: Atonement, There Will Be Blood
2007: Departed, Babel, Iwo Jima
2006: Capote, Crash, Munich
2005: Aviator, Ray, Finding Neverland
2004: LOR III, Seabiscuit, Master and Commander
2003: Chicago, Gangs of NY, LOR II
2002: Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, LOR I, Moulin Rouge

All of those had significant budgets.

 

[guitarmy21b]

Your "fact" isn't. It's an opinion. Here are five films, off the top of my head, which are inaccurate and/or ridiculous war movies:

1. The Tin Drum
2. The Battle of the Bulge
3. Midway
4. Flyboys
5. Pearl Harbor

And that's just off the top of my head. OTOH, here's a snapshot review of Hurt Locker:

The film opens and closes with an unnecessarily heavy hand, but everything in between is edge-of-your-seat, burrow-into-your-brain stuff. And what you'll remember most will be Renner's remarkably complex commander. By the time we finally figure him out, it's become clear we've witnessed a star-making performance, in a movie that deserves to stand as one of the defining films of the decade.

Read more: 'The Hurt Locker': Iraq war thriller is explosive drama - NY Daily News

The movie being innacurate and wrong on just about every level is a fact. Whether it's a good movie or not is opinion. I think it's a well acted and well shot movie, I just personally hate it for being such a bad portrayal of my job. I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.

 

[calsnowskier]

I guess it depends upon how you define "big budget," but here are my thoughts:

2011: Toy Story 3, Kings Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception
2010: Avatar, Blind Side
2009: Ben Button, Frost/Nixon
2008: Atonement, There Will Be Blood
2007: Departed, Babel, Iwo Jima
2006: Capote, Crash, Munich
2005: Aviator, Ray, Finding Neverland
2004: LOR III, Seabiscuit, Master and Commander
2003: Chicago, Gangs of NY, LOR II
2002: Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, LOR I, Moulin Rouge

All of those had significant budgets.

OK, we simply have different ideas of what a MAJOR film is. Granted, I missed the LOR films (which I agree are over-rated), but VERY rarely are the top budget films of the year nominated. Usually the top budget films are the schlep that is typically produced (A-Team, Transformers, ID4, etc). LOR (I, II, and III), Inception (another one I missed), Titanic and Avatar are REALLY the only ones I would rank as MAJOR budget Hollywood films that got nominated. I will accept Jaws as well, but that was really the movie that launched the MAJOR Hollywood film, so it really does not belong.

The difference between you and I here, I think, is that I take the entire production into account for best picture. Although I was not a fan of the LOR films, they were impressive pieces of work (costumes, sfx, cinematography, etc) so I have no prob including them. Writing is not the ONLY thing, IMHO, that should be taken into account for Best Pic. Heck, if that were the case, Gran Torrino should have been nominated, but I am OK with it not getting the nod because the acting was SOOOO bad.

 

[calsnowskier]

The movie being innacurate and wrong on just about every level is a fact. Whether it's a good movie or not is opinion. I think it's a well acted and well shot movie, I just personally hate it for being such a bad portrayal of my job. I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.

tz challenges. Don't take it personally. He is just a lawyer, therefore, asshole is his default setting. Like a dog, you just need to put him in his place a time or two, then he is as snuggly as they come...

 

[fordman84]

The movie being innacurate and wrong on just about every level is a fact. Whether it's a good movie or not is opinion. I think it's a well acted and well shot movie, I just personally hate it for being such a bad portrayal of my job. I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it.

That is just hollywood though. If they ever did any non-documentary accurately, no one would want to see it.

Luckily no one will ever make a movie about my job, but they do about some of my hobbies.

 

[Heathbar012]

That is just hollywood though. If they ever did any non-documentary accurately, no one would want to see it.

Luckily no one will ever make a movie about my job, but they do about some of my hobbies.

Office Space? Men at Work? Moneyball?