h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought he was great in Sharpe, fantastic in Goldeneye and LotR, especially the extended verion of the Two Towers and pretty much the only decent thing in When Saturday COmes.

Isn't Brad Pitt 'The Last Samurai'?


Genre isn't the only thing which makes people want to see a movie, the same as advertising.

But advertising is the main way to let people know that a movie is out. That's what advertising is for, to let you know the movie is there THEN what's in the trailers is to get you to see the movie.

Advertising isn't the be all and end all of what gets people into the cinema. And they don't make you go and see a film, they just try to convince you as much as possible.

If you don't go to the movies to see films LEGALLY then how can you just tell people what makes them see a film?
Do you not think that many movies are poor because there are those who are stealing the money from the to make better ones?

On a side note, GoldenEye is a great film to watch backwards.

Sean Beans great in the extended two towers. Shows him as a general and as a likeable guy instead of some weirdo who turns up to play woth frodo's ring.

"Isn't Brad Pitt 'The Last Samurai'?" - no its tom cruise, and for a change hes pretty good in it too.

"Genre isn't the only thing which makes people want to see a movie"
True, but favoured genres such as the action movie and romance (as well as there off-shoots like romantic comedy and action adventure) are more popular with modern culture. Lord of the rings return of the king as an example, its trailer featured long shots of the love interest, as well as the huge battle scenes

"But advertising is the main way to let people know that a movie is out. That's what advertising is for, to let you know the movie is there THEN what's in the trailers is to get you to see the movie."
Your missing out probibly one of the key forms of advertising and thats reveiws. AOL Time Warner. Warner makes the films, AOL distributes the information and trailers, Time gives it a good reveiw.

"Advertising isn't the be all and end all of what gets people into the cinema. And they don't make you go and see a film, they just try to convince you as much as possible."
75% of film choice is based on advertising, whether it be a huge sign on a bus, a reveiw in a news paper, or even the picture next to the film title when you get to the cinema. The other 25% is split between free will and current favoured trend.

"If you don't go to the movies to see films LEGALLY then how can you just tell people what makes them see a film?"
Most of the time i watch films legally. Just occasionaly i dont. Honest. I can just tell people what makes them see a film because its been pointed out to me by several academics and media papers, and then used that information to look at it happening myself.

"Do you not think that many movies are poor because there are those who are stealing the money from the to make better ones?"
Not really. The big budget films can to a certain extent pay for each other. Phantom menace paid for itself a clones for example. Fellowship paid for itself and for the other two with plenty of cash left over (without the merchandising included). In fact i believe that the smaller films profit more from the bigger films. As the bigger films make more money, the companies get more cash to splash out on what could be a sleeper hit.

I wouldnt watch goldeneye backwards, id only laugh to much as bond leaps back up the dam, or blasts back through a wall (repairing it as he goes), or even as bond flies back out of a plane up a cliff and back onto a motorbike.

that's why you watch it backwards. It's great.

Bond rolling up steps on the radar and trevelyn screaming as it removed itself from his body then he flies up to be caught by Bond.



Tom cruise, Brad Pitt, it's all the same vampire in the end.


I don't include reviews as they're not really advertising otherwise you're saying that talking about a film is advertising aswell.

I'm pretty sure Awix isn't payed for this column. If he is, I want payed for mine!

Yeh but the post is read by any research that feels like it. Time and its associates are read by most of america. Think about it.

Reveiws are a great source of advertising, and are a form of media.

Sharpe was a lucky break for Sean Bean (bad taste pun, sorry Doctor).

Ahem. Anyway...

'Awix believed that movie choice was mainly down to free will, and people seeing what they wanted to see.'

Which it is. How else would you expect it to be? Any other kind of behaviour ('I want to go and see that film, because I expect I won't enjoy it in the slightest and it will be a complete waste of my time and money') would be irrational. Your point once again is simply that advertising works, which I've never really disagreed with.

Where we differ is simply in the fact that I don't believe advertising is the sole factor in the success or otherwise of a film - in particular, that advertising can't make a bad film into a real success.

I don't wish to be personal or offensive, but... I say ROTK is a very good film. You take great exception to this because you think it's a very very good film. I say advertising isn't the one and only factor determining which films people see. You say it is and argue at great length over a small difference in opinion. You're not going to change my mind on either point and neither am I going to concede that a media studies A-level automatically makes you right and me wrong in any film-related debate. If you want to wrap this up, fine, but you can't expect to get the last word as well.

(And if you want to make this into a debate about Free Will, fine, I think a degree in the actual subject outranks an A level in a different one.)

And Time isn't read by those who feel like it?


Reviews are a balanced arguement, usually, as to how good (in this case) a film is. It's an opinion.

Awix isn't trying to influence people into seeing the film.
I'm sure he isn't trying to get people to see 'The One' but just talk about it.

Reviews aren't advertising. They CAN be used as advertising but aren't adverts within themselves.

"a media studies A-level automatically makes you right and me wrong in any film-related debate. If you want to wrap this up, fine, but you can't expect to get the last word as well."

*cough*A-S Level*cough*

Whatever, I'm not even completely sure what one of those is.

Yes, I write reviews, I give my opinion, I don't lay down the law. Disgree with me all you like, but don't say I'm wrong. Or we'd get stuck in a seemingly-endlessly and repetitive wrangle.

Which would be terrible, wouldn't it...

An AS is half an A Level, Awix.

Oh, okay.

And who exactly is this Mrs Dynamite I've heard the urchins in the street talking about? Is that her real surname?

???

Not all reveiws are balanced, and what better way to promote a film then through a respected film reveiw. You have to bear in mind that AOL Time Warner own Time.
There not going to shoot themselves in the foot over there own film.

Give me a sec while i read awix's v long post

They're still giving an opinion though and that's 'This film is great'.

I'd be *very* wary of saying that all professional critics are corporate shills who write whatever their boss tells them to. Critics have their pride and self-respect too. How do you explain the fact that there's usually pretty much a consensus about many movies amongst all the critics working in the same area? This isn't something you can really generalise about anyway...

"Where we differ is simply in the fact that I don't believe advertising is the sole factor in the success or otherwise of a film - in particular, that advertising can't make a bad film into a real success."
Advertising, and the hype it generates, can make a bad film sellable. Just because star wars has a good fan base doesnt mean that that is the only reason it did well. A lot of hype, and a lot of good advertising made it do well even with bad reveiws, clones did similar well because of its advertisement.
I totally agree that advertising isnt the only way films can be successful, but for the most part it is advertising that does make a film successful.

I don't wish to be personal or offensive, but... I say ROTK is a very good film. You take great exception to this because you think it's a very very good film. I say advertising isn't the one and only factor determining which films people see.

"You say it is and argue at great length over a small difference in opinion."
Yes mainly because your reveiwing for the post. I have looked at the films in great detail. There are many great films out there, some absolute classics, but what makes me study these (and so readily defend them as i do) is the fact that a lot of people look at it and see the surface of a single film. Having studied it a look and see an extremely complicated set of logistics, a hell of a lot of attention to detail, and some good acting from fairly unknown actors (flipper boy, a goonie, and sharpe to name but three).

"You're not going to change my mind on either point and neither am I going to concede that a media studies A-level automatically makes you right and me wrong in any film-related debate."
I never asked you to do any of that. And i never said it makes me right. My use of the mention of an A-level was to show that i do actually know what im talking about, and not someone whos turned up simply to discredit you and your opinions.
My original point was that return of the kings is not a very very good film (its probibly as good as you describe it for your average cinema goer). The trilogy is a very very very good film, which you fail to mention.

Yes probibly awix, but seeing as though the companies who make films usually have an associated print or television company near by who will usually back them up.
Usually. Not always. But usually. Especially on big hitters.

1) 'Sellable' isn't 'successful'.

2) Yes, I'm reviewing for the Post. And? I'm giving an opinion. Probably won't match yours all the time, or most of the time. Learn to live with it.

3) You were the first one to mention your AS level. Why do you feel the need to *prove* that you know what you're talking about?

4) Again the patronising attitude towards the mythical 'average movie goer'! How can you stand to mix it with us proles?

5) I *wasn't* reviewing the LOTR trilogy and never claimed to be. So don't criticise my views on the trilogy, cos you've no idea what they are!