New Moon

Yas786 · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:28

arknor said:
gerorce clooney can understand

Who

...never heard of him before...

Looks like ill be taking the gf to see this on the weekend...not really wanting to go as i hated the first one...thought it was absolute rubbish and pretty dire and im sure this will be pretty much the same...the things you have to do for love tho

Fenris · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:34

Spawn said:
Who...never heard of him before...

Looks like ill be taking the gf to see this on the weekend...not really wanting to go as i hated the first one...thought it was absolute rubbish and pretty dire and im sure this will be pretty much the same...the things you have to do for love tho

Demand "thank you sex" in advance.

Cosmic182 · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:36

I saw it last night and really enjoyed it

cant wait for the next

arknor · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:42

Spawn said:
Who...never heard of him before...

Looks like ill be taking the gf to see this on the weekend...not really wanting to go as i hated the first one...thought it was absolute rubbish and pretty dire and im sure this will be pretty much the same...the things you have to do for love tho

goerge clooney even

surely you havent heard of him either used to be in ER , made a bunch of hollywood films and made a lot of women wet

Casdawer · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:56

Best vampire -

Watched it with the missus yesterday and...

I liked it! It was slow and Bella's constant moods started to annoy me! But the small actions scenes made up for it.

5/10 at best.

sunama · 23 Nov 2009 at 12:57

arknor said:
gerorce clooney can understand
johnny depp can understand
brad pitt can understand

rob pattinson CAN NOT UNDERSTAND unless your 11-15 years old

LOL.

My thoughts exactly.

I know a good looking guy when I see one, but with Pattinson, I just don't see it.

Personally, I think it has to do more with the fact that he is the flavour of the month, starring in a hyped movie. If he was walking down the street, I think it would be a totally different story.

sunama · 23 Nov 2009 at 16:24

4.5/10 on imdb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259571/

It also scored US$141 in its first week, which is pretty damn impressive for November.

Its amazing what top class marketing and advertising can do - it enables you to sell a poor product for a high price.

Barks · 23 Nov 2009 at 17:32

It was technically excellent so all those slating it because it's too "teenage girl" are being ridiculous.

It remains, in my opinion, vastly superior to most of the rubbish coming out of Hollywood and it strikes me that people dislike Patterson (purely out of jealousy) and thus they follow the ridiculous logic that they must also dislike the film. I went in open minded and have no grudges against him.

Tell me it's crap if you want but the viewing figures suggest otherwise. I thought Lord Of The Rings was quite frankly bloody awful but I'll still admit it's technically awesome and extremely successful.

Prophet · 23 Nov 2009 at 17:40

scott212 said:
It was technically excellent so all those slating it because it's too "teenage girl" are being ridiculous.

It remains, in my opinion, vastly superior to most of the rubbish coming out of Hollywood and it strikes me that people dislike Patterson (purely out of jealousy) and thus they follow the ridiculous logic that they must also dislike the film.

Tell me it's crap if you want but the viewing figures suggest otherwise. I thought Lord Of The Rings was quite frankly bloody awful but I'll still admit it's technically awesome and extremely successful.

I can't comment on the film as I've not seen it, however..

Viewing figures don't mean a lot. You only have to look at the X Factor to see that. Most of the viewers will be young girls with at least one parent/adult. While a good few of them will be fans of the books, most will be fans of Patterson etc. I asked my niece (14 years old) and some of her friends the other day why they liked these films so much. My niece plus one other are into the books, while the other 6 stated RP as the main attraction. I also asked which was the best bit. They all agreed any scene when they have their tops off.

So, while being popular I don't believe the figures are a reflection of the films technical excellence!

Chimerical · 23 Nov 2009 at 21:43

sunama said:
4.5/10 on imdb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259571/

That rating is utter ****. I'm not defending the film (because it's obvious its going to be flawed to say the least and all men hate it anyway) but something like 40% of the ratings are a 1 and 24% are a 10 so obviously some sad internet war is going on.

If a film makes that much money then its obvious the majority who have seen it like it, regardless of whether its any 'good' or not.

4p · 23 Nov 2009 at 22:18

scott212 said:
I thought Lord Of The Rings was quite frankly bloody awful but I'll still admit it's technically awesome and extremely successful.

Wut

sunama · 23 Nov 2009 at 22:26

Chimerical said:
If a film makes that much money then its obvious the majority who have seen it like it, regardless of whether its any 'good' or not.

I gotta disagree with that statement. There are many movies out there that have made a lot of money. The one that sticks to mind is Independence Day. It was a very poor movie, however, it was heavily publicised and the marketing team deserve a medal for what they achieved.

Conversely, I've seen movies that have made very little money at the box office, that I've rated very highly.

Chimerical · 23 Nov 2009 at 23:23

sunama said:
I gotta disagree with that statement. There are many movies out there that have made a lot of money. The one that sticks to mind is Independence Day. It was a very poor movie, however, it was heavily publicised and the marketing team deserve a medal for what they achieved.

Conversely, I've seen movies that have made very little money at the box office, that I've rated very highly.

Yes but how do you know the majority who went to see it didn't like it? In fact, although I'm not claiming imdb ratings to be accurate (especially after my previous post), the percentages do indicate that the majority did like the film. The New Moon votes are a pure exception in my mind.

New Moon is a sequel and its made more money in its opening day than Twilight made in its entire opening weekend domestically. The people going to see it knew what they were going to get and must have liked the original to do so.

Michael Bay is a good example of a director that the critics hate but audiences seem to love him. Money isn't a measure of how good a film is but it can be a measure of how many people liked it.

Good movies that made little money aren't all necessarily flops though, they could just have had limited showings or downscaled marketing.

Films like Shawshank and Fight Club were flops upon release (Fight Club was down to poor marketing) but they still achieved critical acclaim and both are now widely respected.

Noel Gallagher · 24 Nov 2009 at 01:54

I thought it was rather decent, and a lot better than the first one

More action for the lads who get dragged to see it

I'd say 7/10 :$

PinkFloyd · 24 Nov 2009 at 12:55

Went to see this last night with 2 friends..... First hour was awful, was bored crapless!
Had to laugh at hearing someone in a row behind somewhere saying "this is worse than gay porn"
Second half of the film picked up a fair bit and was perfectly watchable even though I wasn't particularly interested in the love story side of things. I was hoping to see more vampires!
I was persuaded to watch the film by being told it had werewolves and vampires in it, I was tricked

Ok film overall, not something I'm likely to watch again. How this film has already taken in more money in the cinema than any Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Bond film is beyond me....

sunama · 24 Nov 2009 at 13:03

PinkFloyd said:
Had to laugh at hearing someone in a row behind somewhere saying "this is worse than gay porn"

LOL.

PinkFloyd said:
How this film has already taken in more money in the cinema than any Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or Bond film is beyond me....

Are you sure about this? The move has only been released for 1-2 weeks and I can't see how it couldve taken more money than any of the Lord of the Rings movies.

PinkFloyd · 24 Nov 2009 at 13:14

sunama said:
Are you sure about this? The move has only been released for 1-2 weeks and I can't see how it couldve taken more money than any of the Lord of the Rings movies.

I read it in a Daily Mail article
Read into that as you wish!

sunama · 24 Nov 2009 at 13:48

Oh I see.

New Moon now holds the record for the highest box office taking, on its opening day.

starfighter · 24 Nov 2009 at 14:08

I haven't seen it yet, I though the first one was all right, no worse than a normal Hollywood movie.

I think they have managed to get a product that hits the target audience perfectly.

Teenage girls. They are the best demographic really for getting hooked to a FAD and making them spend money on it, and this has them hooked. (look at the music industry)

Potter was good because it appealed to everyone but a possessed teenage girl is hard to beat.

EDIT: Don't dis Independence day. Is epic.

JAzz · 24 Nov 2009 at 14:53

I haven't seen any of these movies but I'm sure while flicking over the channels I saw one of those vampires walking in daylight. I always thought that was one of the underlying themes about vampires that they couldn't expose themselves to daylight.

scott212 said:
It was technically excellent so all those slating it because it's too "teenage girl" are being ridiculous.

It remains, in my opinion, vastly superior to most of the rubbish coming out of Hollywood and it strikes me that people dislike Patterson (purely out of jealousy) and thus they follow the ridiculous logic that they must also dislike the film. I went in open minded and have no grudges against him.

Tell me it's crap if you want but the viewing figures suggest otherwise. I thought Lord Of The Rings was quite frankly bloody awful but I'll still admit it's technically awesome and extremely successful.

I don't think they are being ridiculous, this movie was quite clearly aimed at the teenage market and if they make money out of it fair play to them. Also just because it has done good business doesn't mean it is a good movie. The High School Musical movies have done well at the Box Office it doesn't mean they are any good. Same goes for music in America, don't the likes of Backstreet boys, N'Sync and Britney Spears have the fastest selling albums of all time? You are going to be in a minority if you start suggesting their music is one of the best.

I'm not sure about your LOTR comments either, not sure what you mean by technically awesome. Special effects or screenplay or the actual story?

starfighter said:
Teenage girls. They are the best demographic really for getting hooked to a FAD and making them spend money on it, and this has them hooked. (look at the music industry)

That is a market where you don't exactly need a masterpiece to bring in huge audiences, reviewers have slated this movie as have many other folks but as long as that market they aim it at like it this movie will be like a cash cow as it has proven so far.