(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I've never heard of this movie.

Basically it gives an inaccurate view of 99.9% of college classrooms and furthers the belief to those on the far right that colleges are filled with nothing but ultra-liberal god hating ****** loving professors.

I took a religious studies class in college and it was actually the opposite of what is portrayed in the movie. The professor took a very neutral stance on the actual beliefs themselves and was examining the religion from a purely historical context and he made it very clear that that is what the class would be (the professor was a relatively young christian). There were about 5 kids in there though armed with their bibles that were ready to do battle with everything he said to the point that they ruined the class and made it unbearable to be in. I ended up dropping it after about 2 weeks because they turned it into a damn argument every time.

(05-05-2014 11:18 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  If mathenis is scared of the film then it must be darn good.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wanna bet he stood in line for hours waiting to buy a ticket to go see "Promised Land" and thinks it was amazing? Talk about a REAL flop.

(05-06-2014 05:53 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Rotten Tomatoes disagrees.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not...entReviews

Rotten Tomatoes is the _last_ Place I go to see what average people think of a film.

Quote:Much like this pitiful film at the box office.

You think it bombed? It's still #9 on the Box office charts (Spent 3 weeks in the top 5)

Total Gross (all Domestic): $55,561,308 (1860 screens)
Heaven is real: Total Gross: $66,619,422 (2930 screens)
Son of God: total Gross; 59,631,575 (3271 screens)

I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

sorry dude but it's a bomb.

Based on what? They expanded the screens originally from 700 to 1860... How is that a bomb? Is it Star Wars/Captain America/etc. Numbers?

Nope.. but there's no way I put those numbers in the "bomb" category. If they spent 30 or 40 million to make those movies, I'd say .. okay, it qualifies in "bomb" category. But none of the three spent more than $12Million... (GiD = 2 M, HiR = 12M, SoG = Supposedly in the 12M range... (But boxofficemojo didn't have that number available for SoG).

Promised Land is much more the speed for john and mathenis. Perhaps I'll shed light on what a real flop looks like.

Matt Damon’s much hyped anti-fracking film “Promised Land” has failed to make the impact that its producers and environmental groups had hoped for. As of January 20, “Promised Land” has raked in a whopping total of $7,542,000 since it opened on December 28, according to Box Office Mojo. According to The Hill, the movie cost $15 million to make. Box Office Mojo ranked it 139 out of all movies from Jan. 23, 2012 to Jan. 21, 2013.

(05-06-2014 09:08 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 08:49 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I've never heard of this movie.

Basically it gives an inaccurate view of 99.9% of college classrooms and furthers the belief to those on the far right that colleges are filled with nothing but ultra-liberal god hating ****** loving professors.

Stopped reading here. Nobody thinks they're (???) lovers, just whitey haters. Big difference, buddy. Nice stereotype you toss out there though, probably sound just like all the God hating, uber liberal college professors that don't know what they're talking about either.

I don't watch those Left Behind movies and I won't be watching this one.

(05-06-2014 05:53 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Rotten Tomatoes disagrees.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not...entReviews

Rotten Tomatoes is the _last_ Place I go to see what average people think of a film.

Quote:Much like this pitiful film at the box office.

You think it bombed? It's still #9 on the Box office charts (Spent 3 weeks in the top 5)

Total Gross (all Domestic): $55,561,308 (1860 screens)
Heaven is real: Total Gross: $66,619,422 (2930 screens)
Son of God: total Gross; 59,631,575 (3271 screens)

I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

sorry dude but it's a bomb.

Based on what? They expanded the screens originally from 700 to 1860... How is that a bomb? Is it Star Wars/Captain America/etc. Numbers?

Nope.. but there's no way I put those numbers in the "bomb" category. If they spent 30 or 40 million to make those movies, I'd say .. okay, it qualifies in "bomb" category. But none of the three spent more than $12Million... (GiD = 2 M, HiR = 12M, SoG = Supposedly in the 12M range... (But boxofficemojo didn't have that number available for SoG).

because you have an insanely inaccurate view as to how the movie industry works. a box office does not reflect the true quality of a movie because those numbers are affected by distribution, marketing, & demographics.

movie execs know that there are certain genres of movies that will attract people in large numbers simply because of the content. No professional movie critic would EVER do what you did. there are times when you can use box office numbers and there are times that you can't to judge how good a movie is. this is clearly not one of those times

13% on RT and they got $55 million in the box office

hangover part 3 got 19% on RT and $362 million in the box office

fruitivale station got 95% on RT and $17 million in the box office

nebraska got 85% on RT and $23 million in the box office ==> that movie was nominated for 6 academy awards

the very fact that a movie that had 6 nominations got half the box office as god is not dead should all but silence any argument that pure box office numbers are the way to go.

and just and fyi $55 million = the 63rd highest grossing film based on 2013 numbers

(05-06-2014 11:39 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't watch those Left Behind movies and I won't be watching this one.

Because of what I personally believe in, I'm skeptical about any faith based movies. I did enjoy the Left Behind series, but so many others can be over or under done. I also heard that an atheist made Noah to see how many people would watch it, and that it wasn't at all in line with the actual storyline.

13% from critics but 85% of the audience said they liked it...I've never seen a discrepancy like that before on RT.

(05-06-2014 12:37 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  13% from critics but 85% of the audience said they liked it...I've never seen a discrepancy like that before on RT.

it was a clearly targeted audience and the execs knew because they gave the people what they wanted plot wise they would turn out in large numbers for it.

when we get into political movies, especially small budget ones like these expect those discrepancies to be extreme.

(05-06-2014 02:34 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  I cringed the second I started reading the synopsis. The plot is ludicrous. It makes me think of those stupid chain emails people send about atheist professors.

You mean those aren't real?

I may watch it one day, but it's no where near the top of my list. Unless it has some top shelf acting (Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain? It's gotta be good!), writing, or other artistic qualities that should bump it up my queue, it may be a while.

(05-06-2014 12:26 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:39 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I don't watch those Left Behind movies and I won't be watching this one.

Because of what I personally believe in, I'm skeptical about any faith based movies. I did enjoy the Left Behind series, but so many others can be over or under done. I also heard that an atheist made Noah to see how many people would watch it, and that it wasn't at all in line with the actual storyline.

He is an atheist but said he has been interested in the story since he was 12. Nobody could get 125 million in investment to see how many people would watch it.

(05-06-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:53 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:00 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Rotten Tomatoes disagrees.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not...entReviews

Rotten Tomatoes is the _last_ Place I go to see what average people think of a film.

Quote:Much like this pitiful film at the box office.

You think it bombed? It's still #9 on the Box office charts (Spent 3 weeks in the top 5)

Total Gross (all Domestic): $55,561,308 (1860 screens)
Heaven is real: Total Gross: $66,619,422 (2930 screens)
Son of God: total Gross; 59,631,575 (3271 screens)

I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

sorry dude but it's a bomb.

Based on what? They expanded the screens originally from 700 to 1860... How is that a bomb? Is it Star Wars/Captain America/etc. Numbers?

Nope.. but there's no way I put those numbers in the "bomb" category. If they spent 30 or 40 million to make those movies, I'd say .. okay, it qualifies in "bomb" category. But none of the three spent more than $12Million... (GiD = 2 M, HiR = 12M, SoG = Supposedly in the 12M range... (But boxofficemojo didn't have that number available for SoG).

because you have an insanely inaccurate view as to how the movie industry works. a box office does not reflect the true quality of a movie because those numbers are affected by distribution, marketing, & demographics.

movie execs know that there are certain genres of movies that will attract people in large numbers simply because of the content. No professional movie critic would EVER do what you did. there are times when you can use box office numbers and there are times that you can't to judge how good a movie is. this is clearly not one of those times

13% on RT and they got $55 million in the box office

hangover part 3 got 19% on RT and $362 million in the box office

fruitivale station got 95% on RT and $17 million in the box office

nebraska got 85% on RT and $23 million in the box office ==> that movie was nominated for 6 academy awards

the very fact that a movie that had 6 nominations got half the box office as god is not dead should all but silence any argument that pure box office numbers are the way to go.

and just and fyi $55 million = the 63rd highest grossing film based on 2013 numbers

You keep quoting Rotten Tomatoes.. Forget the numbers of the RT site, they have nothing to do with the numbers. That has nothing to do with that.

A) How much money did it bring in?
B) How much money did they spend in production and Marketing?

Is A > B ? Then it's not a bomb... It may not be spectacular money, but that's an entirely different argument.

(05-06-2014 08:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 11:48 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 05:53 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 11:41 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Rotten Tomatoes is the _last_ Place I go to see what average people think of a film.



You think it bombed? It's still #9 on the Box office charts (Spent 3 weeks in the top 5)

Total Gross (all Domestic): $55,561,308 (1860 screens)
Heaven is real: Total Gross: $66,619,422 (2930 screens)
Son of God: total Gross; 59,631,575 (3271 screens)

I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

sorry dude but it's a bomb.

Based on what? They expanded the screens originally from 700 to 1860... How is that a bomb? Is it Star Wars/Captain America/etc. Numbers?

Nope.. but there's no way I put those numbers in the "bomb" category. If they spent 30 or 40 million to make those movies, I'd say .. okay, it qualifies in "bomb" category. But none of the three spent more than $12Million... (GiD = 2 M, HiR = 12M, SoG = Supposedly in the 12M range... (But boxofficemojo didn't have that number available for SoG).

because you have an insanely inaccurate view as to how the movie industry works. a box office does not reflect the true quality of a movie because those numbers are affected by distribution, marketing, & demographics.

movie execs know that there are certain genres of movies that will attract people in large numbers simply because of the content. No professional movie critic would EVER do what you did. there are times when you can use box office numbers and there are times that you can't to judge how good a movie is. this is clearly not one of those times

13% on RT and they got $55 million in the box office

hangover part 3 got 19% on RT and $362 million in the box office

fruitivale station got 95% on RT and $17 million in the box office

nebraska got 85% on RT and $23 million in the box office ==> that movie was nominated for 6 academy awards

the very fact that a movie that had 6 nominations got half the box office as god is not dead should all but silence any argument that pure box office numbers are the way to go.

and just and fyi $55 million = the 63rd highest grossing film based on 2013 numbers

You keep quoting Rotten Tomatoes.. Forget the numbers of the RT site, they have nothing to do with the numbers. That has nothing to do with that.

A) How much money did it bring in?
B) How much money did they spend in production and Marketing?

Is A > B ? Then it's not a bomb... It may not be spectacular money, but that's an entirely different argument.

plenty of other critics outside of rotten tomatoes are giving negative reviews.

and just and FYI you can believe any sort of bull crap that you want, but no one and i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

are you totally clueless to the concept that certain topics sell simply because of that particular topic & not the quality of the movie? this movie didn't make $55 mill because it was a good movie, it made $55 mill because it targeted the insecurities that a large % of americans have.

My own impression of move critics has for some years been that the better the critics like it, the less I will, and vice versa.

(05-06-2014 09:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My own impression of move critics has for some years been that the better the critics like it, the less I will, and vice versa.

don't doubt it.

when a film is at the 50%-35% range, most think its bad but there is a chance that I will walk away liking it. anything lower than 35% ==> not so much and 13% is a lost cause.

Quote:i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

Definition of a movie bomb: "The term box office bomb or flop generally refers to a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes following hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts, and often coinciding with negative reviews from professional critic"

Doesnt' matter if a movie is good or not... I'm sure we can find a TON of movies out there which got great ratings, but stunk in the terms of income. Those would still count as bombs.

Whereas a movie could STINK to high heaven and make a fortune. It's therefore doesn't rate as a "Bomb". Hell, Waterworld STUNK as a movie, and I mean STUNK... It still brought in $255Million (while only spending $175M), therefore it doesn't count as a "Box office bomb". It counts as a LOUSY movie that disappointed in

(05-06-2014 10:07 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

Definition of a movie bomb: "The term box office bomb or flop generally refers to a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes following hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts, and often coinciding with negative reviews from professional critic"

Doesnt' matter if a movie is good or not... I'm sure we can find a TON of movies out there which got great ratings, but stunk in the terms of income. Those would still count as bombs.

Whereas a movie could STINK to high heaven and make a fortune. It's therefore doesn't rate as a "Bomb". Hell, Waterworld STUNK as a movie, and I mean STUNK... It still brought in $255Million (while only spending $175M), therefore it doesn't count as a "Box office bomb". It counts as a LOUSY movie that disappointed in

LOL you are such a ******

your whole argument was "the movie wasn't bad because it had success at the box office"

now you are saying the two are unrelated. way to backtrack

(05-06-2014 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:07 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

Definition of a movie bomb: "The term box office bomb or flop generally refers to a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes following hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts, and often coinciding with negative reviews from professional critic"

Doesnt' matter if a movie is good or not... I'm sure we can find a TON of movies out there which got great ratings, but stunk in the terms of income. Those would still count as bombs.

Whereas a movie could STINK to high heaven and make a fortune. It's therefore doesn't rate as a "Bomb". Hell, Waterworld STUNK as a movie, and I mean STUNK... It still brought in $255Million (while only spending $175M), therefore it doesn't count as a "Box office bomb". It counts as a LOUSY movie that disappointed in

LOL you are such a ******

your whole argument was "the movie wasn't bad because it had success at the box office"

now you are saying the two are unrelated. way to backtrack

In your presence I am in awe. I never met such a young person who was an expert in everything.

(05-06-2014 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:07 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

Definition of a movie bomb: "The term box office bomb or flop generally refers to a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes following hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts, and often coinciding with negative reviews from professional critic"

Doesnt' matter if a movie is good or not... I'm sure we can find a TON of movies out there which got great ratings, but stunk in the terms of income. Those would still count as bombs.

Whereas a movie could STINK to high heaven and make a fortune. It's therefore doesn't rate as a "Bomb". Hell, Waterworld STUNK as a movie, and I mean STUNK... It still brought in $255Million (while only spending $175M), therefore it doesn't count as a "Box office bomb". It counts as a LOUSY movie that disappointed in

LOL you are such a ******

your whole argument was "the movie wasn't bad because it had success at the box office"

now you are saying the two are unrelated. way to backtrack

John, once again you show you have _ZERO_ reading comprehension:

Quote:I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

You were the one that went on about RT and critics and all that. Point me one point where I defended/derided any of the ratings someone gave it? I said "I don't use RT" for the average movie goers' opinion.

So again, where'd did i make the statement the "movie wasn't bad because of it's success"? Cause I haven't even seen the movie, so I've never said one word _about_ the movie and whether it's good or bad. NOT ONE...


Come on John, point out where I said whether or not the movie was good..... Or are you going to refuse to apologize to me AGAIN (this isn't the first time) for lying about what I wrote.


Again, _YOU_ were the one who used the term "Bomb".. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, I'd suggest you NEVER use it againI

(05-06-2014 10:35 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:07 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:i repeat NO ONE who is remotely close to anything resembling a movie critic uses the metric you are using to judge how good a movie is.

Definition of a movie bomb: "The term box office bomb or flop generally refers to a film that is viewed as highly unsuccessful or unprofitable during its theatrical run, sometimes following hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts, and often coinciding with negative reviews from professional critic"

Doesnt' matter if a movie is good or not... I'm sure we can find a TON of movies out there which got great ratings, but stunk in the terms of income. Those would still count as bombs.

Whereas a movie could STINK to high heaven and make a fortune. It's therefore doesn't rate as a "Bomb". Hell, Waterworld STUNK as a movie, and I mean STUNK... It still brought in $255Million (while only spending $175M), therefore it doesn't count as a "Box office bomb". It counts as a LOUSY movie that disappointed in

LOL you are such a ******

your whole argument was "the movie wasn't bad because it had success at the box office"

now you are saying the two are unrelated. way to backtrack

John, once again you show you have _ZERO_ reading comprehension:

Quote:I'd say those aren't "bombs" (considering expenditures on God's Not Dead was only about 2M.)

You were the one that went on about RT and critics and all that. Point me one point where I defended/derided any of the ratings someone gave it? I said "I don't use RT" for the average movie goers' opinion.

So again, where'd did i make the statement the "movie wasn't bad because of it's success"? Cause I haven't even seen the movie, so I've never said one word _about_ the movie and whether it's good or bad. NOT ONE...


Come on John, point out where I said whether or not the movie was good..... Or are you going to refuse to apologize to me AGAIN (this isn't the first time) for lying about what I wrote.


Again, _YOU_ were the one who used the term "Bomb".. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, I'd suggest you NEVER use it againI

you have zero grasp on reality

countless times movies are referred to as bombs despite making a profit in the box office.

there are more than enough links out there referring to Hangover 3 as a bomb despite it making 200 mill in profit.