According to the LA Times, Pathfinder came in sixth behind Disturbia, Blades of Glory, and Meet the Robinsons. Looks like this movie won't be a hit. Perhaps people are getting tired of the clash of civilizations as an excuse for brutal violence.
Weekend Gross: $4,800,000
Total Gross: $4,800,000
Writerfella here --
In actual fact, PATHFINDER's gross was $5,426,613 according to boxofficemojo.com, but that really makes little difference overall. Audiences have stayed away from the film and likely so will continue. The 300 syndrome is not being repeated. Could it be that the avoidance is occurring because the film has a Native context?
Could be. Or maybe it's just a bad movie.
Writerfella here --
Well, no, since writerfella ENJOYED the film when he saw it. But then again, the theater in which he saw it barely was half full. What makes any film a bad film? Critics? Audiences? Lukewarm popcorn? It just may be that an ongoing war can be good for a film (300) and then again bad for a film (PATHFINDER), IF THE SECOND FILM IS A REMAKE?
Who can say?
From what you've told us, it's not uncommon for you to enjoy bad movies.
What makes a movie bad? Failing to have artistic qualities in terms of writing, acting, cinematography, etc. Which describes Pathfinder, according to the critics. (They liked some aspects of the cinematography, but that's about it.)
Writerfella here --
But what would make anyone a competent judge of such factors (writing, acting, cinematography, or whatever) if they themselves have no experience or expertise in such matters? That is the criterion between those who are filmmakers and those who merely are film consumers. It is like the old question: in order to write a book, is it necessary to have read one?
POSTSCRIPTUM: writerfella always has made no bones about seeing all movies, good, bad, or indifferent. However, his attendance of a particular movie does not render it any of those qualities as it merely is the luck of the draw. And whether he enjoys or despises them totally is up to the particular movie and its makers. Nobody goes to movies because they are good or because they are bad. If a movie pleases writerfella, he will say so. If a movie displeases writerfella, he also will say so. The quality of any given movie is not based on writerfella's arbitrary assumption of success or failure, but rather is based on his own experience when he sees a given film. Unlike certain other persons, NEVER would writerfella judge a film on the basis of simple HEARSAY...
Re "But what would make anyone a competent judge of such factors (writing, acting, cinematography, or whatever) if they themselves have no experience or expertise in such matters?": I have a ton of experience in the literary and visual arts, so that qualifies me to judge movies on those bases. I'm also hugely qualified to judge Native stereotypes, and that's usually the point of my discussions.
In contrast, I don't claim any special expertise in areas such as acting or directing. Which is why you don't see me saying much about those things.
FYI, a critic doesn't have to have the same skills as the people he criticizes. If he did, no art museums would exist except those run by master artists. The only movie studios and TV networks would be run by writers, actors, and directors. Etc.
That your attitude is silly is shown by the success of champion sports coaches. Did these people need to have played the game, especially at a championship level, before becoming a coach? No. Many coaches have won championships despite having no champion- or even pro-level experience. They were able to criticize and teach their athletes because knowing how to perform isn't the same as performing.
Re "It is like the old question: in order to write a book, is it necessary to have read one?": No, it isn't necessary. I'm sure people have written books without having read a book before.
A lot of people go to movies because they think the movies will be good. In fact, I'd say that's the predominant motive. Meanwhile, what's your motive? Do you intentionally go to movies you think will be bad?
I don't judge movies I haven't seen so much as report on them. But if the critics are united on something, I'm willing to take their word for it. That is, I'm willing to share their opinions because they've proved themselves in the past.
Similarly, I don't have to replicate every science experiment before assuring myself that a plane will fly or some medicine will work. Nor do I have to meet George W. Bush or visit Iraq before forming an opinion on them. I take the word of the scientists or journalists who have firsthand experience with these things.
Apparently you do need firsthand experience for everything. Either that or you haven't thought through your ridiculous position. Which wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Let's examine your claim that "audiences have stayed away from the film and likely so will continue." This is hearsay, bright boy, since you have no firsthand facts on the issue. You're taking the word of boxofficemojo.com just as I've taken the word of film critics.
Or your claims about Sonny Skyhawk and Mark Reed. Have you met them in person? Then what are your opinions based on other than hearsay? Aren't you a hypocrite for judging them without firsthand experience?
I could go on like this all day--noting how people like you use hearsay constantly. Just say the word and I'll do it. I love pointing out your flaws and contradictions.
Post a Comment