X
Comments to #74
All comments (2)
2
1.
Driver 4 year s ago
Everything shown above from 2010 on is complete sh*t as movies go. Hollywood sucks - can't come up with an original plot to save their own disgusting, heartless evil souls.
1
2.
Christmas 4 year s ago
Driver, 2011 Harry Potter epic was pretty original both literary and cinematically. That was from Warner Bros. I agree though that they're relying more on blockbuster action films based on comic books rather than more interesting content. But people want to be entertained, and this post was about what's been most popular, not what's had the most integrity. The older I get I become more irritated by so many film re-makes instead of original content too. As if the greats needed improving. But some classics come more alive again when coupled with new technologies in sound, color, etc. It keeps us engaged for entertainment.
2005: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
Adjusted gross: $1.1 billion
Unadjusted gross: $897 million
What it's about: Even though he's ineligible, Harry is entered into the dangerous Triwizard Tournament, where he faces off against the representatives of other magical schools in a competition.
2
1.
Driver 4 year s ago
Everything shown above from 2010 on is complete sh*t as movies go. Hollywood sucks - can't come up with an original plot to save their own disgusting, heartless evil souls.
1
2.
Christmas 4 year s ago
Driver, 2011 Harry Potter epic was pretty original both literary and cinematically. That was from Warner Bros. I agree though that they're relying more on blockbuster action films based on comic books rather than more interesting content. But people want to be entertained, and this post was about what's been most popular, not what's had the most integrity. The older I get I become more irritated by so many film re-makes instead of original content too. As if the greats needed improving. But some classics come more alive again when coupled with new technologies in sound, color, etc. It keeps us engaged for entertainment.