try reading some of the links i posted up thread and then say that. Better yet, perhaps provide me with a link to something you said before it came out that predicted it had "hit" written all over it,...
Try reading my post before claiming it is incorrect.
A few links claiming it would be a flop does not represent 'everyone'.
A few links claiming it would be a flop does not represent 'everyone'.
It's not a few articles, though, as I noted, there are hundreds of them. Perhaps you can post articles from people predicting it was going to be a big hit in advance, since clearly there will be many of them given it was so obvious it was going to be a hit. (note I don't mean positive reviews for the film).
Your comment about Pitt being a bankable star isn't actually entirely true, Pitt films don't tend to open big, in fact World War Z ironically enough turned out to be the biggest opening weekend of his career (domestic).
Google will tell you otherwise. In fact all you have to do is google bankable star and guess who pops up quite a lot.
"Pitt films don't tend to open big" is the pertinent part of the post that you cut out. And that very much is true. World War Z has been his biggest ever opening weekend domestically. He also does't typically have the best track record when it comes to summer blockbusters, as noted here:
When it comes down to box office numbers -- the tangible evidence of an actor's or actress's audience draw -- Pitt leaves something to be desired. Stack him up against his contemporaries: On Box Office Mojo's index of top grossing actors (basing the statistics off of cumulative filmography totals), Pitt ranks 36th. He's never had a movie cross the $200 million mark domestically, unlike say, Will Smith (four films above $200 mil), Tom Cruise (three films), and Robert Downey Jr, whose Marvel appearances (and the "Sherlock Holmes" franchise) have given him five $200+ million films.
eagerly awaiting those links by the way, coming any minute now i am sure.....;)
eagerly awaiting those links by the way, coming any minute now i am sure.....
Considering you said 'a film everyone thought was going to be a mega flop is making money?'
I'm pretty sure I'm included as everyone and I didn't think it was going to be a mega flop, no link needed, you're proven wrong as you don't speak for everyone.
Considering you said 'a film everyone thought was going to be a mega flop is making money?'
I'm pretty sure I'm included as everyone and I didn't think it was going to be a mega flop, no link needed, you're proven wrong as you don't speak for everyone.
So that'll be a no on the evidence to support your statement that it's "obvious" it would be a hit then?
Considering you said 'a film everyone thought was going to be a mega flop is making money?'
I'm pretty sure I'm included as everyone and I didn't think it was going to be a mega flop, no link needed, you're proven wrong as you don't speak for everyone.
Yes, referencing articles supporting your argument are traditionally known as evidence.
A few links represent 'everyone', again, I think not.
Use of a range of existing sources to represent your argument again is traditionally recognised as secondary research.
Epic fail.
Anyone who uses this term has automatically lost the argument.
Particularly when said individual makes a claim that something is "obvious" without being to identify any source that concurs with the argument they are trying to make.
Again, i would say it's relative really. If you have this film you've been sitting on for six months because it's a bit of a ticking time bomb and it winds up making a small profit, I'd say thats more likely to be seen as a hit than a film that people were predicting would be a big hit but only gave a modest return in the end. It's all about expectations.
Yes. WWZ is very much a surprise hit. Or rather it's surprising that it's done so well with its well documented issues and the fact that it's just crept into fresh rating.
Is it a particular surprise that a summer blockbuster is making money? No, but obviously that's rather a moronic statement to make when the context surrounding WWZ is well known.
And what a superior attitude it was to suggest that only film reviewers count in this assement of who exactly "everyone" is.
Anyone familiar with Rotten Tomatoes.com can see that film reviewers are out of the loop with regards cinema-going public taste.
Not sure what you mean, tbh. Film reviews for this film have generally been moderately positive, as has the audience response, so in this case the reviews are broadly in line with audience feedback.
And mainstream and social media (not reviewers) before this film came out where united in the view that this film would be a flop, as per the links I posted up thread (which were not to reviews at all).
Therefore there has actually been a general agreement between the media and wider audience about expectations for the film before it came out and the more positive perception of the project later.
Not sure where the superior attitude thing comes in to it as such.
Comments
Try reading my post before claiming it is incorrect.
A few links claiming it would be a flop does not represent 'everyone'.
It's not a few articles, though, as I noted, there are hundreds of them. Perhaps you can post articles from people predicting it was going to be a big hit in advance, since clearly there will be many of them given it was so obvious it was going to be a hit. (note I don't mean positive reviews for the film).
Your comment about Pitt being a bankable star isn't actually entirely true, Pitt films don't tend to open big, in fact World War Z ironically enough turned out to be the biggest opening weekend of his career (domestic).
http://news.moviefone.com/2013/06/24/world-war-z-brad-pitt-biggest-opener/
(oh look theres another article indicating that this was predicted by all and sundry to be a bomb)
Google will tell you otherwise. In fact all you have to do is google bankable star and guess who pops up quite a lot.
"Pitt films don't tend to open big" is the pertinent part of the post that you cut out. And that very much is true. World War Z has been his biggest ever opening weekend domestically. He also does't typically have the best track record when it comes to summer blockbusters, as noted here:
http://news.moviefone.com/2013/06/19/brad-pitt-blockbuster-movies/
eagerly awaiting those links by the way, coming any minute now i am sure.....;)
Considering you said 'a film everyone thought was going to be a mega flop is making money?'
I'm pretty sure I'm included as everyone and I didn't think it was going to be a mega flop, no link needed, you're proven wrong as you don't speak for everyone.
So that'll be a no on the evidence to support your statement that it's "obvious" it would be a hit then?
Lol, tragic.
Links are evidence, um I think not.
A few links represents 'everyone', again, I think not.
Epic tragic pathetic failure.
By "everyone" he wasn't being literal, and by believing/saying that you're just making yourself look silly....
Epic tragic pathetic failure.
In this new age of world-wide mega-releases a hit would be about $750m on this films budget.
The problem is that every studio is basically doing the same thing, so the pickings are slim.
Why are you speaking for him. How do you know he wasn't being literal?
You're doing a great job of making yourself look silly, have I offended your chum.
Epic tragic pathetic failure and embarrassing.
Yes, referencing articles supporting your argument are traditionally known as evidence.
Use of a range of existing sources to represent your argument again is traditionally recognised as secondary research.
Anyone who uses this term has automatically lost the argument.
Particularly when said individual makes a claim that something is "obvious" without being to identify any source that concurs with the argument they are trying to make.
This is the argument loser and you know it.
some people just can't take losing a debate gracefully, unfortunately, I always feel kind of sorry for them really
Again, i would say it's relative really. If you have this film you've been sitting on for six months because it's a bit of a ticking time bomb and it winds up making a small profit, I'd say thats more likely to be seen as a hit than a film that people were predicting would be a big hit but only gave a modest return in the end. It's all about expectations.
Some people can't win a debate without getting their mate to jump in, sad really.
Without being rude, "Muttley76" is not my mate, I haven't come across him that much...
indeed you don't even know i'm a woman...not much of a mate are you....:p
Is it a particular surprise that a summer blockbuster is making money? No, but obviously that's rather a moronic statement to make when the context surrounding WWZ is well known.
Apologies, how presumptuous of me
And what a superior attitude it was to suggest that only film reviewers count in this assement of who exactly "everyone" is.
Anyone familiar with Rotten Tomatoes.com can see that film reviewers are out of the loop with regards cinema-going public taste.
Not sure what you mean, tbh. Film reviews for this film have generally been moderately positive, as has the audience response, so in this case the reviews are broadly in line with audience feedback.
And mainstream and social media (not reviewers) before this film came out where united in the view that this film would be a flop, as per the links I posted up thread (which were not to reviews at all).
Therefore there has actually been a general agreement between the media and wider audience about expectations for the film before it came out and the more positive perception of the project later.
Not sure where the superior attitude thing comes in to it as such.