Highest Grossing or Most Critically Acclaimed?

But that is not the point. It's a question of choice. What is more important....Money and fame or creating the masterpiece. I'm not talking about a choice that incorporates both.

For example in a boxing discussion someone may ask "If you had to choose, would you choose Speed or Power?". Someone idiot who thinks he's clever may respond "Tyson, Hearns, Robinson, Jones had both......I don't think any successful champion who has power has ever been a sloth".

Trying to have a specific discussion with someone who enjoys doing that is tiresome.

 

Creating the masterpiece would be a higher priority for me, the money would come with it.

Orson Welles has been dead for over 30 years yet Citizen Kane lives on 75 years after it was made.

In 70 years do you think people will give a shit about Transformers?

Money is very important, but creating something that will live on after you die is priceless.

There's NO Hollywood director that's living off baked beans I can assure you, so money wouldn't be an issue anyway.

 

George Lucas is heavily criticized for most of his star wars work and even the best of the films are not considered historical masterpieces...but star wars will live on forever and far more people have seen it or heard of it than have citizen Kane. It is far more part of culture than citizen Kane will ever be.

So...that's not to say that someone who picks being the Creator of Citizen Kane, over Star wars is wrong....but let's be balanced with our assessment of the two choices and stop throwing in "transformers" type bullshit.

 

WTF are you talking about?

Empire Strikes Back is DEFINITELY considered a movie masterpiece.

 

So it's not a choice that incorporates both but stop bringing up transformers because we're talking about a good film

anyway, even if I didn't make a single penny from it gimme the masterpiece.

 

Good. That's a fair choice.

In the same way that a masterpiece...invariably makes money...a top grossing film (or franchise) is typically well received critically. the two are linked. Word doesn't get out about a film which causes more to flock to it...and it doesn't get repeat viewing unless it is well received....and obviously a film that is highly rated by the critics tends to get a lot of views.

This logic is rudimentary. The discussion was only about which would be more important to you as a filmmaker. I thought it was a simple question really and didn't expect so much ignorance.

 

No. It was trying to get posters to indirectly agreeing with you that they'd prefer a higher-grossing (aka Stupid) movie....the sort you think are potential G.O.A.Ts


You've been rumbled again. ::

 

Boooolsheeeet!

 

I thought the point was you make a great film but make no money or make some real shit that sells like crazy. Otherwise you'd take the masterpiece every time, no real choice to make there.

 

The choice was either that extreme...or....a bit of both. In other words...a film that's a world wide phenomenon with masses upon masses of people flocking to see it and it affecting pop culture as a result...making you super famous....and still being received well critically...............VS..........a film that an absolute masterpiece according to all film critics...and sells reasonably well but is more of a niche product.

 

Ask the Millennials about 'Citizen Kane' and you will get the deer-in-headlights look in their faces.

 

Take Frank Darabont for example. He wrote and directed the classic The Shawshank Redemption considered one of the best movies you'll ever watch in your lifetime. The movie did not recoup its $25 million budget regardless of the glowing reviews. Still that masterpiece didn't lead to financial profitability afterwards since his next few movies even though very good, either just barely recoup the budget or just plain bombed. Darabont has been directing tv series episodes in the last few years.
Then compare him to Stephen Sommers, the director of The Mummy: that film got awful reviews but was so successful it spawned two sequels and a spin-off. Sommers got a few flops after that, but for the most part the clout of 'he directed 'The Mummy' which made over $415 million..." is what still keeps him having a lucrative career in Hollywood. Money talks.

 

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

 

We weren't talking about underage girls so he lost interest.

 

:bears:

 

Me.

I would like to make a classic that critics and film buffs gush over! However, thinking about it, I'd prefer to create a film that while received very well critically...isn't necessarily seen as the grand masterpiece of all masterpieces but is a phenomenal success and creates a worldwide cult of followers.

 

Which explains your fascination with a shit movie like Pocahon.... err umm I mean Avatar.

 

Do you see Avatar in my Top 5?

It's not even in my top 10.

Anyway...although this will likely go over your head....in the same way a non-conformist is as ridiculous as a conformist..in that both are influenced by what everyone else is doing at the end of the day....and an Anti-Establishment person is just as annoying as someone who doesn't question the establishment...for the same reason...a guy like you has proven himself to be just as ignorant a cunt as those people that are just wowed and awed by films with Special effects. You think you're clever by the fact that you hate films that are special effects heavy....but you just as foolish as the other extreme in that the effects cloud your judgement. The fact that you said on another thread that you hate The Matrix (and objectively very good film) is evidence of this. Now I understand why you also hate marvel superhero flicks and why you've dismissed Avatar...a film that has receive positive critical accolades from most. As soon as a film is heavy of special effects you dismiss it blindly. So you're the equivalent of a non-conformist....anti-establishment fuck.

You're similar to one of those people that feels proud of their "individuality" because they happen to look like this:



Fuck off kid.

 

Well, Hillary, it means that masterpieces often gets forgotten unless they also are pop culture icons which usually comes with big box office grosses.

 

word.

 

Let me ask you two geniuses a question... Is Orson Welles alive?

 

What is the meaning of this question...and why are you lumping me in with Panchy?

 

Here you go you cunts. Guess who is the voice of Unicron?






<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pBsqKDG1a64" allowfullscreen="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

"Millenials don't know who Orson Welles is"

Orson Welles doesn't know what a millenial is either ... He's fucking DEAD

While he was LIVING, he was a celebrated artist... He died a celebrated artist, anyone alive now who learns about him will learn about a celebrated artist

That's his legacy

 

Mozart has been dead almost 230 years and he's more famous now than he was in 1791... He'll still be famous in another 230 years ... Legacy, bitches

 

And? I'm not disagreeing with any of this. You're creating an argument that I haven't started.

 

Edited..to avoided fucking ridiculous response.

 

Carrot Top will be celebrated as a genius 300 years from now.

 

'Who?'

 

Honestly I'd make the pile of shit that makes me a zillionaire. Then I'd never make another film and use the money to uplift my friends and family. Fuck fame.