Kristen Stewart...

and so on..

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:41 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:32 PM, Hoodie said:

people being made millionaires by appeasing the masses with mindless entertainment

 

#america

 

 

isn't that every other industrialized country with a movie industry?

 

#india

#south korea

#japan

#china

#uk

 

and it's not just movies. The person who wrote "twilight" is fucking stinking rich now. Same with J.K. Rowling. And Harry Potter is hardly great literature.

i think you are misinterpreting me. im not "rating" Harry Potter higher than Twilight in any sense other than the perceived impact in terms of advertising, word of mouth, and a loyal fanbase. What Im asking is whether the Twilight series is completely dominating cinemas in monetary results? Combine that with an incredibly fervant loyal fanbase, I would suppose it would make sense that she makes that kind of money despite her acting skills, shes guaranteed to make a draw even in a "artsy" movie that might otherwise jeopardize making back its budget and turning a profit.

Kristen Stewart is a horrible actress, but I feel that watmm, of all places, should support her. Because she's very obviously "on the spectrum."

like...weren't Stallone, WIllis, Schwarznegger, etc. the highest paid actors in Hollywood during the action hero craze?

Shes pretty hot.

Why is anyone surprised that the shitty popular films make lots o money that goes to their actors.

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:45 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:41 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:32 PM, Hoodie said:

people being made millionaires by appeasing the masses with mindless entertainment

 

#america

 

 

isn't that every other industrialized country with a movie industry?

 

#india

#south korea

#japan

#china

#uk

 

and it's not just movies. The person who wrote "twilight" is fucking stinking rich now. Same with J.K. Rowling. And Harry Potter is hardly great literature.

 

i think you are misinterpreting me. im not "rating" Harry Potter higher than Twilight in any sense other than the perceived impact in terms of advertising, word of mouth, and a loyal fanbase. What Im asking is whether the Twilight series is completely dominating cinemas in monetary results? Combine that with an incredibly fervant loyal fanbase, I would suppose it would make sense that she makes that kind of money despite her acting skills, shes guaranteed to make a draw even in a "artsy" movie that might otherwise jeopardize making back its budget and turning a profit.

I'm just backing up your point about every other industrialized country with a movie industry, and then extending it to other media.

Box-office numbers for US Domestic Gross here

  On 6/20/2012 at 3:46 PM, schlucharski said:

never heard of her, sorry

me neither , but i find it hard to believe how much people get payed to say words and make faces. Oh well....

Whoa Whoa....Please do not compare Harry Potter to Twilight. Even if you do not care for Harry Potter it is still much much better than Twilight. The Twilight movies are so friggin bad that they are painful to watch. Harry Potter is at least well made regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. I'm not going to comment on the literature though. 50 Shades of Gray is the new twilight btw. It is getting made into a movie series.

I didn't mind the Harry Potter movies, I mean, they're fine for a fantasy series. It's hardly great literature/cinema though. Never seen or read "twilight", so only know that there are silly teenage vampires in it. sounds gash. but anyway, since I've never seen or read twilight, I can't compare the two.

  On 6/20/2012 at 6:11 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Whoa Whoa....Please do not compare Harry Potter to Twilight. Even if you do not care for Harry Potter it is still much much better than Twilight. The Twilight movies are so friggin bad that they are painful to watch. Harry Potter is at least well made regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. I'm not going to comment on the literature though. 50 Shades of Gray is the new twilight btw. It is getting made into a movie series.

fucking christ. I AM NOT COMPARING THEM OTHER THAN IN REGARDS TO BEING POPULAR CASH GENERATING MOVIES. Do you fucking disagree with this? Is this fucking incorrect? Jesus christ

sorry.

put it this way

Im not asking which is the better series, Im asking if Twilight generates profit on the level of Harry Potter movies. That's. All.

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

how much do the twilight movies gross? im sorta surprised..i mean, I knew the series was a pretty big draw for Hollywood, but I didn't think it was that major in comparison to say, Harry Potter or something else like that.

New Moon: $709,827,462

Eclipse: $698,491,347

Breaking Dawn Part 1: $705,068,657

So collectively it has made 2.1 billion dollars, and the last one isn't out yet.

  On 6/20/2012 at 6:23 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:38 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

how much do the twilight movies gross? im sorta surprised..i mean, I knew the series was a pretty big draw for Hollywood, but I didn't think it was that major in comparison to say, Harry Potter or something else like that.

 

New Moon: $709,827,462

Eclipse: $698,491,347

Breaking Dawn Part 1: $705,068,657

 

So collectively it has made 2.1 billion dollars, and the last one isn't out yet.

thank you. (an chen for the list).

I can understand why she is such a huge earner now.

also, I had no idea The Avengers made it to the top three grossing films of all time. Wow.

I guess that's good marketing, bunch of smaller (relatively) movies leading up to the big all-star cast of superheroes. Its really impressive; tons of people Ive known for years who would have otherwise been completely disinterested in this were allured into seeing it from watching all the Iron Man, Thor, etc. movies.

  On 6/20/2012 at 5:37 PM, jefferoo said:

If it is, it hardly looks like her. The picture closer resembles chloë grace moretz.

It's not her, I was being sarcastic. :)

That image was supposed to represent the fictitious girl I invented who was happy about the news. Oops.

What I'm hoping is that studio movies will reach a critical mass where with increasing revenue, they will amp up the production and advertising budget more and more to where one movie could potentially make or break a studio. Then they let Uwe Bol direct a 600 million dollar movie about Pokemon.

  On 6/20/2012 at 6:11 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Whoa Whoa....Please do not compare Harry Potter to Twilight. Even if you do not care for Harry Potter it is still much much better than Twilight. The Twilight movies are so friggin bad that they are painful to watch. Harry Potter is at least well made regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. I'm not going to comment on the literature though. 50 Shades of Gray is the new twilight btw. It is getting made into a movie series.

it's all personal bias. harry potter is just as mindless. sure, the movies are better made, the books are better written, but in the end they're both equally pointless exercises in lowest common denominator pandering. i love when people scoff at 50 shades of grey and proceed to talk about game of thrones for five hours. it's all the same shit.

goddess

I've always thought that the overall narrative value of the HP books lies in their depiction and modeling of adult-child and adult-young man/woman relationships. Otherwise, it's the same general "pointless exercise in LCD pandering" to be sure, right? You just pick the universe or setting you find most interesting and dive in head-first. When it comes to the movies, I'd rather spend my time wandering Hogwarts than panning and tilting over the awkward shithsacks passing for high school vampires. As for the books, no thanks. The 16 hours I've invested in watching the movies is bad enough!

  On 6/20/2012 at 7:00 PM, zaphod said:

i love when people scoff at 50 shades of grey and proceed to talk about game of thrones for five hours. it's all the same shit.

truth

  On 6/20/2012 at 7:00 PM, zaphod said:

it's all personal bias. harry potter is just as mindless. sure, the movies are better made, the books are better written, but in the end they're both equally pointless exercises in lowest common denominator pandering. i love when people scoff at 50 shades of grey and proceed to talk about game of thrones for five hours. it's all the same shit.

you are wrong and you will pay for your lies.

Wow, maybe WATMM really has jumped the shark. There are young enough and dumb enough kiddies posting here that unironically like Kristen Stewart.

Last post?

theres only been maybe two?

  On 6/20/2012 at 7:06 PM, thanks robert moses said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  On 6/20/2012 at 7:00 PM, zaphod said:

  On 6/20/2012 at 6:11 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Whoa Whoa....Please do not compare Harry Potter to Twilight. Even if you do not care for Harry Potter it is still much much better than Twilight. The Twilight movies are so friggin bad that they are painful to watch. Harry Potter is at least well made regardless of whether or not it appeals to you. I'm not going to comment on the literature though. 50 Shades of Gray is the new twilight btw. It is getting made into a movie series.

 

it's all personal bias. harry potter is just as mindless. sure, the movies are better made, the books are better written, but in the end they're both equally pointless exercises in lowest common denominator pandering. i love when people scoff at 50 shades of grey and proceed to talk about game of thrones for five hours. it's all the same shit.

No the acting in Twilight literally is worse than a soap opera...literally. They are shit movies. Complete shit. The fucking wig they put on that jacob dude is so horrible. If you call Harry Potter mindless than you have to call LOTR mindless as well. I mean if we are going to call entertaining fantasy movies mindless. Either way though I'm sure you can find some interesting literary themes in the Harry Potter movies if you wanted to dissect them.

well lotr is mindless shite, so you won't get an argument out of me.

anyway my point isn't that you can call these things mindless, or what their inherent value is as art, because they don't have any. my point is shitting on one and loving another is just a personal bias and it's kind of stupid to get on a high horse about one cash cow versus another.