Movies that exist

[Skitch]

Me too! Haha!

[baby doll]

Anything with Thandie Newton in it can't be a complete waste of time.

[MadMan]

I discovered thanks to the previews before Safety Guaranteed out on DVD/Blu Ray the following movie with Gerald Butler:



Funny enough this could be decent, maybe. I smell mediocrity though.

[Boner M]

baby doll, you're not very good at this.

[Winston*]

[Dead & Messed Up]

In addition to Russell Crowe, Gerard Butler's getting good at making these movies:

[Irish]

@boner pretty sure baby doll was making a joke, ie Crash isn't a "movie that exists" but it should be.

@damu the ugly truth generated over $200 mil on a reported $40 mil budget. Lotsa people saw that one, lotsa people talked about it. Maybe Butler's pairing with Jennifer Anniston be a better fit. (that was him , wasn't it?)

[Dead & Messed Up]

@damu the ugly truth generated over $200 mil on a reported $40 mil budget. Lotsa people saw that one, lotsa people talked about it. Maybe Butler's pairing with Jennifer Anniston be a better fit. (that was him , wasn't it?)

The Bounty Hunter cumed $140 mil ww against $40 mil exp. And adjusted for inflation, your earlier contribution The Bone Collector cumed $230+ mil against $70 mil cost.

The point of the thread is that nobody cares about these movies. "Lotsa people saw it"? So? Lotsa people saw Monsters vs. Aliens. Does anybody give a monkey's nut about it now?

[Irish]

The Bounty Hunter cumed $140 mil ww against $40 mil exp. And adjusted for inflation, your earlier contribution The Bone Collector cumed $230+ mil against $70 mil cost.

The point of the thread is that nobody cares about these movies. "Lotsa people saw it"? So? Lotsa people saw Monsters vs. Aliens. Does anybody give a monkey's nut about it now?

Whoa, relax. My read on the idea was similar to yours, except I thought "movies that exist" really needed to be productions that came and went without little to no notice. (Gamblor's entry above is a perfect example).

From that angle, popular movies don't fit. And "The Ugly Truth" was a widely seen and discussed, no matter what anyone here thinks of it. That's all I was trying to suggest.

If you're making a distinction between "movies that nobody cares about" and "movies that nobody on Match Cut cares about," that's a different story. Personally, I think it's a bit less interesting.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I'll bet no one cares about The Ugly Truth anymore.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My read on the idea was similar to yours, except I thought "movies that exist" really needed to be productions that came and went without little to no notice. (Gamblor's entry above is a perfect example).

See, I saw it differently. Gamblor's example points up a different sort of film, in that Fireflies in the Garden didn't just come out to little fanfare - it came out to no fanfare whatsoever. It was unceremoniously shat out by the studio into a tiny number of screens, most likely to satisfy a contractual obligation for theatrical release. I don't think this is as much fun: almost nobody remembers it because almost nobody had the opportunity to remember it.

I think it's more fascinating to see films that we can't remember that nonetheless got a push, and got talented (mileage may vary) A-listers, and opened on big screen counts, and did a fair bit of business, and then get condemned to apathy a week after arrival, doomed to a sad legacy of late-night TNT fests, where people of almost any stripe click on the info button and remember that, yes, that was a movie that existed.

[amberlita]

I've never heard of this movie. Ever.

But then again, maybe I have. And I have completely blanked it from my memory. Making it the perfect choice for this thread.

But how do I know which is the case? Is there any difference between once knowing something and forgetting it, and never knowing it in the first place?

Philosophical crisis going on over here.

:lol:

I'm still floored over the revelation that Fireflies in the Garden exists. I've now watched a trailer, read a synopsis, read a bad review and found on Boxofficemojo that this thing was released in November 2011 and made $70,000. It really happened! Where the hell did this thing come from? I'd like a poll of Match-cut to see how many people knew this movie existed before Gamblor posted it. Cannot possibly be more than 4% of the posting population who knew.

[Irish]

I think it's more fascinating to see films that we can't remember that nonetheless got a push, and got talented (mileage may vary) A-listers, and opened on big screen counts, and did a fair bit of business, and then get condemned to apathy a week after arrival, doomed to a sad legacy of late-night TNT fests, where people of almost any stripe click on the info button and remember that, yes, that was a movie that existed.

My only issue with that take is that it casts too wide a net. Half the movies made with big stars would fall into the category (and with someone like Nicolas Cage, that percentage might rise to ninety or so).

It also depends too much on generational reference points and ignorance. If you were born in 1995, than the early films of Jeff Bridges and Harvey Keitel might feel downright obscure to you, no matter how well known they really are. Likewise, Qrazy's ignorance of Kiss the Girls or Shoe's ignorance of Jagged Edge is independent of their impact.

If you're extending the category to be more-or-less "forgotten" movies, then you up talking about a majority of most films that are ever made.

Most of what people create becomes less important over time.

[MadMan]

In addition to Russell Crowe, Gerard Butler's getting good at making these movies:

Heh I mentioned that movie in my post above yours, but the link doesn't show up. ritch:

[Winston*]

If you're extending the category to be more-or-less "forgotten" movies, then you up talking about a majority of most films that are ever made.

Wouldn't want to let the category of 'movies that exist' get too broad.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My only issue with that take is that it casts too wide a net.

This is why my original post carried over my agitation - because it's a silly-ass thread, and the variety of responses made it clear we were casting a wide net, and I wasn't expecting someone to step in and vouchsafe my contributions with box office statistics and the meaningless vagary of "lotsa people."

Maybe part of this agitation is simply my incredulity that someone would say, "Hey now, let's not diminish the cultural permeation of The Ugly Truth."

[Irish]

This is why my original post carried over my agitation - because it's a silly-ass thread, and the variety of responses made it clear we were casting a wide net, and I wasn't expecting someone to step in and vouchsafe my contributions with box office statistics and the meaningless vagary of "lotsa people."

I think it's more fun than straight up silly, and an interesting topic for discussion around movies. (And yeah, getting contradicted can be annoying. I get that.)

But if all answers are permissible, then why did half dozen people jump on Duke when he suggested You've Got Mail? Or check Qrazy when he impled Kiss the Girls was obscure?

I don't -- and didn't -- mean to pick in you, Damu, but even if you vehemently disagree with a post, isn't that ultimately more interesting than a forum where everyone constantly agrees and parrots opinions back to one another?

Maybe part of this agitation is simply my incredulity that someone would say, "Hey now, let's not diminish the cultural permeation of The Ugly Truth."

My 'meaningless vagaries' (now who's fact checking?) were based in the dozen or so articles I read at the time of this movie's release, mostly by female journalists and feminist bloggers, decrying its crudity and shitty worldview.

The box office citation was meant to point out that, holy shit, a lot of freaking people paid to see this movie in the theaters, despite its 14% rotten critical pasting.

A movie isn't forgotten simply because M-C didn't see it or talk about it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

But if all answers are permissible, then why did half dozen people jump on Duke when he suggested You've Got Mail? Or check Qrazy when he impled Kiss the Girls was obscure?

Casting a wide net doesn't mean casting an ocean-sized net. There were some barometers people were working off of, like critical acclaim and significant popular success that extends beyond what simple market saturation can accomplish.

I don't -- and didn't -- mean to pick in you, Damu, but even if you vehemently disagree with a post, isn't that ultimately more interesting than a forum where everyone constantly agrees and parrots opinions back to one another?

It's not like there's no middle ground. We debated in good spirits regarding Miss Maddow a few days back. My confusion was that your rejoinder seemed out of place and inconsistent. On the latter point...

My 'meaningless vagaries' (now who's fact checking?)

I pointed that out because of the immediate discordance between empirical statistics and anecdotes. It was like hearing someone say, "You don't think McGwire is a good baseball player? The man hits 36.4 homers per season, and some folks talk about him." My brain got whiplash.

[Grouchy]

This film is notable for being the complete Hollywoodization of a true crime story already covered with more truth by the film Deep Crimson.

The film is so Hollywood that the morbidly obese woman is played by Salma Hayek.

[Sycophant]

It feels like now is the time to admit a friend and I contributed about $15 to The Ugly Truth's gross. I'd say I regret it if it hadn't given us several hours of fun conversation over the years.

[Watashi]

Richard Gere edition:

[Winston*]

[Watashi]

To be fair, Richard Gere's entire filmography post 1980 could have fit in here.

[Winston*]

The response section on Hachi: A Dog's Tale's Wikipedia page seems to dispute its inclusion in this thread:

Critically acclaimed all over with great response. It is considered one of the saddest movies ever made

[Mara]

I have seen a weird number of these films. I blame insomnia and working at a video store in the late 90's.

How bout this?