Post a response to this discussion thread
3>
Your definition of redneck is not only too widespread but innaccurate. A redneck is considered a white US citizen from the South situated in the economic strata from the lower middle class to downward who posses certain ethnic characteristics (too many to describe here) although not necessarilly all, who has low standards in many cultural aspects and may be culturally ignorant in many other aspects, and who generally has a rather low intelligence level. This does not suit your definition, which could encompass many different ethnic groups of people around the world, as, for example, "Independence Day" was a great hit worldwide. Furthermore, people that enjoyed that film have hated many other films that snotty critics think that they will enjoy, as, for example, any release by Disney in the last few years, or any comedy starred by the lead in a sitcom, or failed blockbusters. There is no trend in the people who enjoyed the film. Others enjoyed it at a different level. For example, one of my closest friends considers it excellent on an entertainment level, but crap in the "artistict" department. In any case, people who have enjoyed "Independence Day" do not necessarilly support beating up women, so I don't think it is a wise choice to put them in the category of rednecks.
As for the audience I watched it with, it was a diverse college crowd in Austin, Texas, a city where people enjoy small "art" films so much that EVERY indie movie makes it here, as well as every limited release, with packed theatres for films by cult directors as well as rereleases of "arthouse" films, and several succesfull film festivals. As for your choice of film to take the audience to, "Dinner With Andre", gourmet cinephiles and diverse serious movie critics have split opinions on it, as some consider it great as many that consider it a pretentious piece of boring crap that deserves to be laughed at, so ANY audience can have trouble with it.
As for insulting the audience, if you've watched a Carpenter film before you know that it is meant for entertainment, so deepness of the plot is not what matters as much as great action/horror sequences and one-liners. Oh yes, Carpenter is NOT one who entertains by being a "Big Honkin' FX" man, and furthermore, the effects here were minimalist. No CGI was used, and the bluescreen was reduce to the few scenes that involved flying vampires (to the extent that James Woods was narrating on a talk show his terrifying experiences of having to be in the same scene as an exploding cabin and several extras bursting into flames...
5>
You have to differentiate beating up a woman just for the heck of it and because she is a woman, and beating up a woman because she is a person who possesses a risk to the main characters. In any case, the one scene where she is hit by Baldwin is not done in a tone of entertainment, so your protests are better save for another film.
>
"Basement" here refers to a forum that has been abandoned by the regular crowd of several hundred posters every day and that has been reduced to 1 poster or less per month...
"Major box office release" is NOT the same as "box office hit". It means that it is a film that was backed by advertising by a big film studio and that was slated as being a film that would attract large audiences or that would be the only one in release that week (which was the case with this film). It may or may not flop. Also, "Vampires" debuted at #1. It may not have been a hit, but it didn't flop, as it made as much as it cost. A no win, no loss situation...
Post a response to this discussion thread