And yet he completely avoided the question. I wonder why he even bothers to respond if he's not going to bother saying anything meaningful in his responses.daxterx2005 said:
Movie Defense Force: The Perfect Host
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
As soon as I saw the title of the movie, I was upset. This movie doesn't need defenders. It's awesome.Jimothy Sterling said:
Then I checked its Tomatometer Score. I gave it a positive review, but apparently I'm in in the minority there.
Fortunately, it did make a profit on the home market, so it was rewarded in the end.
He did answer the question. This series reviews movies that earned bad reviews. Just because daxterx2005 liked the movie doesn't negate the fact that it earned weak reviews.Aardvaarkman said:
No, he didn't answer the question. This is what Jim said:C.S.Strowbridge said:
"This series is not based on what you, personally, think about movies."
But he does not answer the question of why this movie needed defending. He also sis not say anything about "bad reviews." He could have taken the opportunity to say exactly what this series is supposed to be about, but instead he acted condescendingly - as if the question was stupid and not worth answering.
Maybe you can point out where Jim has explained the rationale behind the series? Because you seem to be putting words into Jim's mouth and making up your own reason for the series. Meanwhile, Jim for some reason is acting like his reasons for doing the series are some kind of big secret that we don't deserve an explanation of.
Your argument about the series is about films that got bad reviews falls apart when he does episodes on movies that got good reviews.
He did so in the video.Aardvaarkman said:
Have you listened to the theme song?Aardvaarkman said:
It's about defending movies that society thinks are bad. Overall reviews are certainly part of that.
If you think the film is good, great, but that doesn't change the public's perception of the film.
If, not when.Aardvaarkman said:
It hasn't happened so far.
I wasn't talking about the video, I was talking about his response here.C.S.Strowbridge said:
It's unintelligible.C.S.Strowbridge said:
But they aren't the same thing. "Society" can think a movie is "bad" that got good critical reviews.Aardvaarkman said:
Yes, it has. He did The Phantom Menace, which not only got good reviews at the time, was a massive box-office success.C.S.Strowbridge said:
Anyway, you are again speaking for Jim, and making up criteria for his selections that he hasn't confirmed. I'm pretty sure that he just chooses whatever the hell he wants, and doesn't have any real criteria, but again, that's also speculation.
I actually saw this in a theatre. I was totally unaware people thought it was bad. I thought it was awesome, and super creepy.
Magnolia/Magnet are good at picking out winning films for release, but not so good at advertising them, or doing wide releases. The only reason you hear of gems like Trollhunter is via the internet. Magnolia seems to only advertise via promos on their DVDs/Blu-Rays, and only does limited releases for a lot of great movies.SwimmingRock said:
How did I not hear about this movie? David Hyde Pierce = me going to have to see it! Thanks for the heads up Jim.
Trollhunter was f'n brilliant. I stumbled across it by total accident.HappyRat said:
Pretty much this. I've seen just about every other movie you've defended, but this is one I'd never heard of before I saw this episode, which is a shame because this movie is right in my wheelhouse. I really love quirky dark comedies like this. I agree that the only real problem with the movie is that it doesn't know how to end itself, but the first three quarters of the movie are strong enough that I don't mind a bit of a weak ending.O maestre said: