3 ms·

Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years to show this is the "Worst Movie Year Ever" The infographic shows what happens every year

by awa 16y ago

Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years to show this is the "Worst Movie Year Ever" The infographic shows what happens every year, some of the highly anticipated movies don't work (Sex and the city, Prince of Persia) , some of them work (Toy story) and then there are a few surprises(Inception, which released 2 weeks back so the $ figure will go up)

mechanical_fish 16y ago
Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years Of course not. That would be mindful. This is a mindless nostalgia piece, right out of central casting. The fun thing to do when one of these articles arrives on the radar is to see which cherry-picked "classics" are being name-checked: "The Godfather," "Jurassic Park," "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," "My Fair Lady" and "The Matrix," These lists are always carefully constructed. In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. That's to establish your street cred as someone who has actually seen some great movies. Then one film each from the 60s, 70s, early 90s, and late 90s, to ensure that every one of your readers over the age of thirty has something to be nostalgic about, and that they believe that the author is sufficiently "hip". (No sense in listing too many films from the 2000s; twentysomethings don't read newspapers.) Then I got as far as this line: Where once there was "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," there is now "Robin Hood," prince of duds. This line is a dead giveaway, because "Prince of Thieves" was not a good movie, let alone among the best Robin Hood movies; it was redeemed only by the presence of Alan Rickman. Why, then, is the movie praised here? Because the writer really needed to write a cute sentence, reality be damned. That's about all you need to read. The rest just wrote itself. It can read itself as well.
- evgen 16y ago
  > In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. Just to beat a dead horse, the two films you reference were from the same year; 1939, the best year Hollywood ever had. Ever. Other films of that year included Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka, Dark Victory, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Stagecoach, Of Mice and Men, and Young Mr. Lincoln. It was the peak of the "studio system" and Hollywood never again came close to it in terms of the sheer quantity of quality that was produced that year.

by awa 16y ago

mechanical_fish 16y ago

Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years Of course not. That would be mindful. This is a mindless nostalgia piece, right out of central casting. The fun thing to do when one of these articles arrives on the radar is to see which cherry-picked "classics" are being name-checked: "The Godfather," "Jurassic Park," "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," "My Fair Lady" and "The Matrix," These lists are always carefully constructed. In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. That's to establish your street cred as someone who has actually seen some great movies. Then one film each from the 60s, 70s, early 90s, and late 90s, to ensure that every one of your readers over the age of thirty has something to be nostalgic about, and that they believe that the author is sufficiently "hip". (No sense in listing too many films from the 2000s; twentysomethings don't read newspapers.) Then I got as far as this line: Where once there was "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," there is now "Robin Hood," prince of duds. This line is a dead giveaway, because "Prince of Thieves" was not a good movie, let alone among the best Robin Hood movies; it was redeemed only by the presence of Alan Rickman. Why, then, is the movie praised here? Because the writer really needed to write a cute sentence, reality be damned. That's about all you need to read. The rest just wrote itself. It can read itself as well.

evgen 16y ago
> In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. Just to beat a dead horse, the two films you reference were from the same year; 1939, the best year Hollywood ever had. Ever. Other films of that year included Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka, Dark Victory, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Stagecoach, Of Mice and Men, and Young Mr. Lincoln. It was the peak of the "studio system" and Hollywood never again came close to it in terms of the sheer quantity of quality that was produced that year.