#1 Posted by MirrorWave4 (1099 posts) - - Show Bio

- For example:

Ironman 3 made 1.17 Billion dollars at the box office but I thought it wasn't that great.

What do you guys think?

#2 Posted by Veshark (9058 posts) - - Show Bio

While there definitely is a correlation (i.e. good movies leads to good word-of-mouth which leads to good numbers, or vice versa), I wouldn't say it's a definite one for all cases.

#3 Posted by Wolfrazer (6738 posts) - - Show Bio

Its one of, but ya should look at the reviews too and see what they say.

Online
#4 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (33469 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope not at all. Superman Returns is hated yet it was still a successful movie

#5 Posted by akbogert (3222 posts) - - Show Bio

Not even remotely.

Not for film, not for any medium.

It sounds hipster but honestly things with the most mass appeal tend to be fundamentally lacking in true artistic merit or quality. The Avengers was fun, and even pretty good for a summer action movie, but I don't think it has any lasting cinematic impact; it will not go down as a must-see or classic to anyone besides perhaps comic book enthusiasts. They keep making crappy Scary Movie and Tyler Perry films but no one would ever argue they were good.

Moreover, the reverse argument is even more ridiculous, that a movie that doesn't make a lot of money is therefore bad. Many things can contribute to a critical success being a commercial failure, not least of which being the company's own attempts to market.

#6 Edited by KnightRise (4785 posts) - - Show Bio

No. I don't think anyone thinks that it does.

#7 Edited by AjO16 (68 posts) - - Show Bio

No way

#8 Posted by TheGerk (27 posts) - - Show Bio

There is some connection between the revenue and the quality of movie but its not a good idea to judge a movie by its revenue. For example Avengers was a good movie and had ridicules profits, on the other hand Serenity's profits weren't very high and it is amazing!

#9 Posted by lilben42 (2544 posts) - - Show Bio
#10 Posted by Fenderxx (410 posts) - - Show Bio

@mirrorwave4: on the flip side, for a movie get to the Billions, it shows that people are going to the movie multiple times and not just seeing it once, which shows a solid percentage of people really enjoyed the movie, and while we can debate whether any movie is "great" or not, I would say a Movie that makes that much has to be enjoyable to get the return business that it got. That being said, everyone has their own opinion and as you have stated, you did not think it was great, but a lot of other people did.

#11 Posted by Tacos_Kickass (844 posts) - - Show Bio

Tons of crappy movies make tons of money, Just like how most mainstream music sucks ass but those "artists" still make tons of money.

#12 Posted by JediXMan (30631 posts) - - Show Bio

It does in the eyes of studios, yes.

Moderator Online
#13 Edited by XImpossibruX (5174 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends.

It's not a direct correlation, but it has some relevance.


#14 Posted by logy5000 (5785 posts) - - Show Bio

Not really. Avatar was a huge hit, 2nd most financially successful movie of all time, (right behind Avengers,) but I don't like it that much.

Online
#15 Edited by cameron83 (7342 posts) - - Show Bio

that's opinion....

#16 Posted by cameron83 (7342 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

Not even remotely.

Not for film, not for any medium.

It sounds hipster but honestly things with the most mass appeal tend to be fundamentally lacking in true artistic merit or quality. The Avengers was fun, and even pretty good for a summer action movie, but I don't think it has any lasting cinematic impact; it will not go down as a must-see or classic to anyone besides perhaps comic book enthusiasts. They keep making crappy Scary Movie and Tyler Perry films but no one would ever argue they were good.

Moreover, the reverse argument is even more ridiculous, that a movie that doesn't make a lot of money is therefore bad. Many things can contribute to a critical success being a commercial failure, not least of which being the company's own attempts to market.

Tons of crappy movies make tons of money, Just like how most mainstream music sucks ass but those "artists" still make tons of money.

#17 Posted by Extremis (3350 posts) - - Show Bio

@mirrorwave4: dude, of course not. Films that do that good at box office aren't usually masterpieces of cinema.They're popcorn flicks, mostly. They're popular, not critical darlings.

#18 Posted by Mild_Karl (131 posts) - - Show Bio

No, of course not.

At a point, the biggest blockbusters have to hit that four quadrant demographic- male & female, young & old. When you're trying to please everyone, you're less keen to take risks to alienate one of those quadrants, which is why the more interesting films often don't perform as well- they're alienating, harder to digest, etc. They won't sell to certain demographics & just won't reach the market penetrability that an Avengers or Avatar would.

Something like a Before Midnight or Cloud Atlas might not be able to eke a profit (the former could/should, the latter most definitely didn't) but it's not like that makes it a "bad" film, just that it's not for the mainstream audience who'll make something like Ted or Fast 6 a smash hit.

Sometimes, great movies turn a huge profit despite being less than easy to market (Inception, for example). Sometimes, terrible movies get their due justice (Scary Movie V bombed hard earlier this year, effectively killing the franchise once and for all). Ultimately, playing the box office game takes a bit of quality, a bit of mystery & a whole hell of a lot of marketing, but looks like American audiences want more quality in their blockbusters & their arthouse films.

#19 Edited by JulieDC (957 posts) - - Show Bio

Nah some films only do good by piggybacking on the success of a previous or related film like hangover 2 was to the hangover. For movie studios its about making the first film good because it gives the moviegoing audience this false sense that the sequel will be handled properly. And unfortunately the average viewer won't care about quality until it degrades so horribly that it can't be saved like the parody movies have become.

#20 Edited by AllStarSuperman (21878 posts) - - Show Bio

Avatar, amazing Spiderman, superman returns, all prove big money doesn't actually mean good movie.

But, kick-ass did make much but its great

#21 Edited by lightsout (1829 posts) - - Show Bio

No, especially if you don't take inflation into account (when you do many more "old classics" rank higher.....although I admit there are more variables including the change of the rate at which people see movies in theaters).

Although I will say I hate when people "condem" commercially successful movies/music/TV as bad/unintelligent/unfunny (etc) just because they happen to appeal to a lot of people. Ideally everything should be judged on it's own & only after you actually experience it AND realize that it's just your opinion, and there's no SOLID definition of "quality". (I will admit there can be some grey shades, lol).

#22 Edited by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5907 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

While there definitely is a correlation (i.e. good movies leads to good word-of-mouth which leads to good numbers, or vice versa), I wouldn't say it's a definite one for all cases.

Best answer

#23 Edited by MirrorWave4 (1099 posts) - - Show Bio

My Question to you guys:

Do you guys think DC's Man of Steel has to do well for the sake of DC cinematic Universe besides Thor 2 which could "flop out" because like another Viner above stated is piggy backing the Avengers?

#24 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (5907 posts) - - Show Bio

@mirrorwave4: Either movie could flop but its unlikely. Man of Steel could flop because its piggybacking off chris nolan and its a Superman movie. People are going to see it because it stars Superman

#25 Posted by Farkam (4890 posts) - - Show Bio

- For example:

Ironman 3 made 1.17 Billion dollars at the box office but I thought it wasn't that great.

What do you guys think?

Does this really even have to be asked? The answer is a resounding no. Just look at the 3 Transformers films or the Twilight movies for that matter.

#26 Edited by Xwraith (18282 posts) - - Show Bio

It doesn't work like that for any art form... at least not anymore.

Online
#27 Posted by Jack Donaghy (1027 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope the Twilight and Transformers franchises say hi.

#28 Posted by DH69 (4258 posts) - - Show Bio

God no, there are hundreds of terrible TERRIBLE movies that have made loads of cash, simply cause people will see anything.

#29 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope.

#30 Edited by cfrehse (1004 posts) - - Show Bio

yes absolutely. iron man great- iron man two not as great but still good. it made more money cause of hype. avengers superhype. ironman 3 great because of the other movies and it was great. no ones gonna watch a movie if its bad or the ones before sucked. Its a good thing us comic book fans are a very small percentage or most of these movies would bomb because fanboys get pissed at everything.