This. It reminds me of a conversation I once heard that just angered me to the core. I was at the AC/DC show waiting for them to come out, and there was a chick in front of me talking with the guy next to me. Apparently she had managed to make it to England for the Zeppelin reunion show, but she was disappointed because she didn't have any weed at the time. And all I could think was "Really? You really need weed to enjoy Zeppelin? You're 25 years old! The band broke up before you were born! You should count your blessings that you got to see them at all!"Ack wrote:2. Don't bother getting high and watching movies. You'll learn to appreciate them more.
Movie (must see)'s
Re: Movie (must see)'s
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
I think I made a mistake, there are some movies on that list that I had no idea were non-American like V for Vendetta or Hotel Rwanda , fifth element, Lawrence of Arabia and more you posted.
Didn't these movies have American actors(Willis on Fifth Element) and American companies like Universal and the others?
I know only of few British movies like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels I think(which was awkwardly funny, Pulp Fiction like?) and The Avengers. I know every one hates that movie and it got bad reviews but it has nostalgia factor for me.
I know Bond is British but a British movies? Isn't it Warner Bros?
Didn't these movies have American actors(Willis on Fifth Element) and American companies like Universal and the others?
I know only of few British movies like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels I think(which was awkwardly funny, Pulp Fiction like?) and The Avengers. I know every one hates that movie and it got bad reviews but it has nostalgia factor for me.
I know Bond is British but a British movies? Isn't it Warner Bros?
Re: Movie (must see)'s
Well what we meant by British movies was they were mainly filmed in the UK and/or acted/produced/directed by British people. It can be confusing tbh..The English Patient is a US production afaik but most of the actors not to mention the director were non-Americans.
Thy ban hammer shalt strike 
Re: Movie (must see)'s
Yeah, in The Fifth Element's case, the director is an established French director. While many of the actors were American and the film is in English and set in New York City, the majority of the crew were French, and the majority of the filming was done in Pinewood Studios, a British film studio(which handles way more films than you'd think, including all the James Bond films, as well as many American productions like Aliens and Superman). 76% of the money it made was from outside the United States.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
See thats what is funny about Americans, it made 76% outside of the US...like an amazing thing because the majority should be INSIDE the US. Thats a typical American thinking, on the opposite, I would be thinking if I was an American, my country made 24% of this film's revenue!!
We equal 1/5 of the world!! How huge we are...but no no no, its America vs the world..
Back to topic, I do not care if they filmed it on Mars with aliens as directors if it is an American production its an American movie. If it is non-American production it is non-American movie. Reason is the following...
Movies made by America(money, production, and whatever else) are superior to non-American equivalent like 98% of the time(We are talking real movies not Meet the Spartans ones). I do not know how this works really, but if it is by America it is better, the talent does not matter. And this works outside the movie world.
For example I have employee X , I higher him in an Indian car company. I hardly notice him. I hire employee X in a car company in the US suddenly he flourishes . You can apply it to anything. Japanese journalist works in The Japanese Times is un-noticed. He movies to The New York Times, he turns out to be journalist of the year... amazing. Indian actor stars in a perfect speaking English sitcom but an Indian production, no one cares about it. He flies to America he stars in a new sitcom he is suddenly so funny.
I really do not understand how this works, I just know it works like 90% of the times. The only times where I have seen the American thing is not considered the only best are videogames, car manufacturing, and electronics(is there an electronics company that builds TV's and DVD's and so on like Sony and Toshiba?)
back tot he topic, so these movies are American not British, doesn't matter who is on the movie. I know this sounds weird because most or all of the staff are non-Americans, but thats the way it is. Switch over to full American staff and a British production, you will notice its not of same quality if that exact staff worked on an American production.
As I said I only know it, I do not understand it.
We equal 1/5 of the world!! How huge we are...but no no no, its America vs the world..
Back to topic, I do not care if they filmed it on Mars with aliens as directors if it is an American production its an American movie. If it is non-American production it is non-American movie. Reason is the following...
Movies made by America(money, production, and whatever else) are superior to non-American equivalent like 98% of the time(We are talking real movies not Meet the Spartans ones). I do not know how this works really, but if it is by America it is better, the talent does not matter. And this works outside the movie world.
For example I have employee X , I higher him in an Indian car company. I hardly notice him. I hire employee X in a car company in the US suddenly he flourishes . You can apply it to anything. Japanese journalist works in The Japanese Times is un-noticed. He movies to The New York Times, he turns out to be journalist of the year... amazing. Indian actor stars in a perfect speaking English sitcom but an Indian production, no one cares about it. He flies to America he stars in a new sitcom he is suddenly so funny.
I really do not understand how this works, I just know it works like 90% of the times. The only times where I have seen the American thing is not considered the only best are videogames, car manufacturing, and electronics(is there an electronics company that builds TV's and DVD's and so on like Sony and Toshiba?)
back tot he topic, so these movies are American not British, doesn't matter who is on the movie. I know this sounds weird because most or all of the staff are non-Americans, but thats the way it is. Switch over to full American staff and a British production, you will notice its not of same quality if that exact staff worked on an American production.
As I said I only know it, I do not understand it.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
A couple of things: First off, America had the largest demographics of people watching movies in theaters at the time(though in the last decade it's shifted. The Japanese female now watches more movies on average than anyone in the world). Partly this is because there are more people here with the spending money to burn, and partly because, since we had a film industry, it was cheaper for films to be sent out over here, as opposed to overseas, so prices generally stayed low and companies made more money. Plus, with the general lack of government regulation of the film industry over here, film makers felt they could often do what they wanted. Eventually they turned it into a business, and over time it evolved into what we have today. To have 76% of a film's success in the international market is actually very high.
As for what country a film is from...look at it this way: who directed, who wrote, who produced, and what company did the production? Oftentimes a small company will get a film distributed through an American company because big American film companies have developed an infrastructure to handle international distribution. This is partly why you see so many American company names on many films that aren't considered American. And what country the actors come from has nothing to do with it. Ken Watanabe, an established Japanese actor, was in Batman Begins. But it was still an American film, not a Japanese one.
As for the ratios of success: that's partly because the markets over here are so big. An Indian actor doesn't get noticed in an Indian television show but does get noticed in an American show? It's because more people are watching American television. A few people, including in the United States, will have watched his earlier works, and if he is well-liked some people will go back and watch his old show. But India doesn't currently have the market that America does...yet. That will probably change in the next few decades as India becomes more and more of an industrialized superpower. As for the Japanese journalist, it's partly because of the audience for Japanese newspapers being considerably smaller than the audience for things like The New York Times. More people see it and notice it. But again, most American newspapers are currently dying out(NYT is currently about a billion dollars in debt, if I remember right), so expect this to change in the future.
A considerable amount of this dominance of particular industries comes from a general dominance on a worldwide scale. As power fluxes throughout the world, the dominant parties will change. In fifty years it's possible you'll be having the same conversation about the new superpowers and feel the same way you do about them as you feel about the United States now.
As for what country a film is from...look at it this way: who directed, who wrote, who produced, and what company did the production? Oftentimes a small company will get a film distributed through an American company because big American film companies have developed an infrastructure to handle international distribution. This is partly why you see so many American company names on many films that aren't considered American. And what country the actors come from has nothing to do with it. Ken Watanabe, an established Japanese actor, was in Batman Begins. But it was still an American film, not a Japanese one.
As for the ratios of success: that's partly because the markets over here are so big. An Indian actor doesn't get noticed in an Indian television show but does get noticed in an American show? It's because more people are watching American television. A few people, including in the United States, will have watched his earlier works, and if he is well-liked some people will go back and watch his old show. But India doesn't currently have the market that America does...yet. That will probably change in the next few decades as India becomes more and more of an industrialized superpower. As for the Japanese journalist, it's partly because of the audience for Japanese newspapers being considerably smaller than the audience for things like The New York Times. More people see it and notice it. But again, most American newspapers are currently dying out(NYT is currently about a billion dollars in debt, if I remember right), so expect this to change in the future.
A considerable amount of this dominance of particular industries comes from a general dominance on a worldwide scale. As power fluxes throughout the world, the dominant parties will change. In fifty years it's possible you'll be having the same conversation about the new superpowers and feel the same way you do about them as you feel about the United States now.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
No I sat through the entire thing once and hated it. Then my friend was over and we got high and were trying to find a movie to watch and I told her how much I hated Night Watch but it might be somewhat entertaining if we were stoned. We only made it through the first few minutes and I was like. . . nope. Anyway, I was just saying it was unwatchable to me both ways. I never said I had to be high to enjoy movies. . .
For the record, my feeling on book to film adaptions is that the movie has to be able to stand on its own. It's always cool to have references or in-jokes that only people who read the book will understand but it has to make sense without the books as a supplement.
Same thing with Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Great book, awful movie.
For the record, my feeling on book to film adaptions is that the movie has to be able to stand on its own. It's always cool to have references or in-jokes that only people who read the book will understand but it has to make sense without the books as a supplement.
Same thing with Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Great book, awful movie.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
It's cool, to each their own I suppose. While I really liked Night Watch, I hated the sequel. But then again, I am a big fan of the books, so that may color my opinion a bit. I'd say they're worth reading, but I read them after seeing the film.
And Hitchhiker's Guide had its moments, but the BBC television production still takes the cake for best visual performance of that series.
And Hitchhiker's Guide had its moments, but the BBC television production still takes the cake for best visual performance of that series.
Re: Movie (must see)'s
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8059832.stm
They're cancelling TSCC, Medium, The Unit and that series with the scientologist actor. But as bad as those shows were I'm not sure they'll come up with anything better. Unfortunately other countries seldom produce TV series worth watching. Of course there's the 80's cheese and some 90's drama on rerun (or on DVD) but one is bound to watch all of it eventually
Just seem unable to persevere with the likes of Lost, Heroes or Prison Break. Oh well, Caprica might be worth looking forward to!
They're cancelling TSCC, Medium, The Unit and that series with the scientologist actor. But as bad as those shows were I'm not sure they'll come up with anything better. Unfortunately other countries seldom produce TV series worth watching. Of course there's the 80's cheese and some 90's drama on rerun (or on DVD) but one is bound to watch all of it eventually
Just seem unable to persevere with the likes of Lost, Heroes or Prison Break. Oh well, Caprica might be worth looking forward to!Thy ban hammer shalt strike
Re: Movie (must see)'s
Wow I'm surprised to see earl getting canned. I thought that was one of their thursday night staples. I watched it the first couple seasons but have only caught it now if I'm really bored. I usually just wait til 9 and watch the office and then the last half of csi.
Does anyone watch Burn Notice? It comes back the first thursday in june I believe.
Does anyone watch Burn Notice? It comes back the first thursday in june I believe.