That's fine that people have certain point of views. But once someone tells me specifically why they don't like this or that, and I think that reason is stupid, then I tend not to think much about that opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To say that I think these people are stupid is my opinion goes without saying.

There's a difference between "not thinking much about an opinion" and thinking someone is stupid. For example, I don't think much of your opinions, but I have not once called you or your comments stupid.

What is a marriage then?

Something you shouldn't do.

Well, don't let me stop you.

Well, boo-hoo. Just because you don't agree with or don't like the criticisms leveled at the film doesn't mean they were made up. Other people didn't like the film a much as you did, and a sizable number of people too. Arguing that the criticisms are "stupid" or "unfair" isn't going to change the facts that the criticisms exist, are held by a large number of people, and influenced the box-office of the film, even in the first weekend.

So you live a lonely and loveless life. I see why you're having trouble understanding how other people can be different than you then.

It's not you that's stopping me, it's the idea that you're as entitled to your opinions as I am to mine, as vehemently as I may disagree with them.

No, it just means that their opinion doesn't matter to me, having seen what everyone else has seen first hand. I don't care if the criticisms exist, but they should make sense.

You do realize you just confirmed my point: The quality does affect the first weekend's box office.

By your own explanation: if a film isn't screened for critics, people know it's probably bad, and don't go see it. Thus, the perceived quality of the film affected its performance.

That's my point though: since Eragon was a better known film, and didn't have a boycott, the two factors you say are the only reasons The Golden Compass didn't do well the first weekend, then Eragon should've done significantly better. That it didn't is a further confirmation that quality affects box-office, since Eragon's significantly lower ratings earned it a lower box office despite its advantages in other areas.

Obviously, they do matter to you, otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to claim that they don't "make sense." To the people who hold these opinions, their criticisms make perfect sense. To say that the character development in the film wasn't good enough to make one care for the characters is a perfectly sensible criticism, no matter whether you personally agree with it or not.

They do make sense, you just may not agree with them. Although, I must admit, I did once read an article condemning 2001 (sorry to bring it up again) as a failure of a film because when we hit the year 2001, life wasn't at all like what the movie said it would be. Now, to me, that is the kind of criticism that doesn't make any sense.

Considering that he was featured fairly prominently in all the trailers, and a good amount of the poster art, I'd say the idea that he was expected to be in the movie more than he was isn't that silly an idea at all.

However, find me the bevy of reviews that make the comment that his role was "too short," since I can't seem to find them on my own.

Well, if people know that a studio is afraid to show their movie, they don't tend to think much of the studio, and thus don't think much about seeing the movie. But if a movie is screened, and it gets terrible reviews, people at least know that the studio isn't gutless, and respect that.


Eragon was a better known film (I'm sure you meant book)? If it is, I had no idea. But you also omitted my Will Smith point, which was a huge one.

I have never, ever heard anyone express anything remotely resembling that.

Studio not screening a movie == certainty of bad reviews

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgfp1938...ass-poster.jpg

What about "And Daniel Craig" don't you understand? In case you didn't know, that means his role is small.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...-compass_N.htm
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...T02/712070331/

I'm sure there's more, but those were the ones I remembered specifically.

Eh, plenty of people go see movies that have terrible reviews. But people tend to think "if a studio doesn't even think their product is good (by not screening it), there's no way I'm seeing it." That's what I think anyway.

I know. I'm one of them. This has nothing to do with your point. When Fox doesn't screen a movie for critics, I think "wow, they must've come up a cropper with that one", not "Fox <small>(or whatever)</small> is a terrible studio", which is what you suggested above.

...but who thinks, "Golly, this movie got awful reviews, but kudos to the studio for screening it for critics!"

This is what you said a couple of posts up.

In reality, with the exception of Disney and not much of anyone else, hardly anyone pays attention to what studio releases a movie, thinking of them more as some amorphous "they" than a company.

No I didn't, I suggested that people know that the studio doesn't think much of their movie, and think less of the studio to some degree. I never said the studio was terrible, just sort of pathetic.

Respecting something and giving "kudos" is not the same thing.

I rather doubt a statistically significant number of people think of the studio in either case.

No, they probably just say "pathetic" without thinking of the studio. But that's where the pathetic is directed, whether someone knows it or not.

They don't make a lot of sense. I thought we got to know Lyra well enough, and she was an interesting character. That's who we were supposed to care about, right?

I think I've reached the point just about everyone else has in this thread where they just throw their hands up in disbelief and walk away. Sorry to have wasted both of our time.

Philip Pullman wishes he could pen a fantasy like the one you've created in your mind.

you're arguing with me about what people think given in a certain situation. It doesn't occur often, but that was my best guess. Shame on you, Adam.

:lol:

I've got nothing else to add to this thread, other than Golden Compass was not that good.