It is rather simple they are a part of culture. The definition of culture is
the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
The question was not what holds a higher weight on cultural impact it was how you measure it. Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the ring not only has good box office but acclaim from critics and the mass public to back it up. Something like 2012 or the newest Jurassic Park makes gobs of money but the acclaim to those films is non existent as they are seen as bad films. Critical acclaim you simply look at the scores gathered in total , collectively. You can use Rottentomatoes, wikipedia, metacritic etc. It gathers up the critical score for films as a whole.
Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the Ring is measured by itself as a film as I can provide you the wikipedia link. That is a whole other issue though.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
How do you know that rottoentomatoes, wikipedia, and metacritic are the criteria for critical acclaim? Example I know that Pressure, Volume, Temperature, Moles and the Ideal Gas Constant are the variables in the Ideal Gas Law because they have been tested and scientifically confirmed repeatedly to the point that it's a scientific law, can you show me any kind of objective measurement that confirms those are the varaibles.
How do you know that wikipedia is the standard for what's a film and what's not a film? Tolkien disagrees with you.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
Simple you can click the link of the critics review on rottentomatoes and go to the website where the critic published their review. Where else would people go for critical acclaim? Back in the day you read the paper for a published review now you can look at it online.
When you consider Fellowship was released by itself and runs well over two hours it is a safe bet to make. I saw them all in theaters individually and they are measured as such. Tolkien the writer of LOTR disagrees with me on this? If I recall correctly didn't he die in 1973? So how is that possible? Second why does it matter what he thinks? You clearly do not care that Vince Gilligan disagrees with you Breaking Bad now do you?
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
That's not what I asked: How do you know the reviews are the objective measurement of cultural impact? What if the studio were to pay the critic to give them good reviews, how does that factor into your formula?
Fellowship of the Ring doesn't tell a complete story, yet Star Wars: A New Hope does so therefore Fellowship of the Ring is not a movie, it's one part of a movie. Tolkien never saw LOTR as a trilogy and the movie is based on his novel so his thoughts to transcend to the movie unless you'd care to explain to me how the structure of the movie makes it a trilogy but not the novel, seeing how they tell the same damn story.
Two completely different things, whether Walt was a villain or not is clearly a matter of opinion, a trilogy however needs to have 3 different entries that can stand on their own, LOTR does not.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
This is a silly rabbit hole you are attempting to go down. I said these are what factors into cultural impact. Box office, critical acclaim, and acclaim by mass public. Those are what I said take it or leave it. Also do you have any evidence of a studio paying off critics? I will disagree with critics but I never bought into that conspiracy. It usually is claimed simply when someone disagrees with the score that was given. Why not hey I disagree and that be the end? Anyway that is a whole other topic though.
Nope actually since you were free to disagree with Gilligan I can disagree with Tolkien. Also so that means there are no differences in the book and the movie then correct? Want to double down on that? Careful here I have read the books. I measure things separately.
Nope it was rated as a film individually so I am going off that as well. Books and films are not the same medium. Similar to how the Harry Potter films might be based off the books but there are many differences from the books.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
How do you know those are the factors that determine cultural impact? What is the relationship between those variables? What unit is cultural impact measured in? What has more cultural impact Lord of the Rings or Gladiator? I expect to see exact calculations and measurements like I can do with the Ideal Gas Law.
Irrelevant, you would have to account for that in your formula, I never once said that this was an objective measurement, that's all you kid.
These are two completely different things, junior. One is open to interpretation the other isn't. Another strawman I never said there weren't differences, in fact there are lots of differences most of which don't make any sense. I asked what is it about the movie that makes it a trilogy that the novel doesn't have?
Please show me where that is the criteria? Again what is different about the movie's structure that makes it a trilogy that the book doesn't have? Simply saying it's a trilogy isn't going to cut it little boy.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
Are critics a part of culture? Is box office not a part of culture? Are movies not a part of culture? I believe I already answered this question didn't I? Fellowship of the Ring has more cultural impact than Gladiator does. It made more money and has better acclaim from the mass public and critics. If I am wrong argue against the facts I stated. Tell me how Gladiator would beat Fellowship in cultural impact. I just openly stated how Fellowship had more now refute that.
I said it was part of culture. Do you know the definition of cultural impact? I gave you the definition. Need me to cite it again?
Then if there are differences we can measure them in and of themselves. Nobody has to read the books of LOTR in order to critique the movies. That is not a requirement for a critic before entering the theater to watch it.
Do not need to. The fact is they were individually released and rated. I do not need to go any further than that honestly. Also I am discussing the films not the books.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
I don't know, this is your premise you should be able to answer that question. It sounds like you are attempting to shift your burden of proof onto me which is cowardly.
Prove that Lord of the Rings had more cultural impact than Gladiator. "Tell me how Gladiator would beat Fellowship in cultural impact." Not my burden of proof as I never said Gladiator did, it's your burden of proof to prove Gladiator had less cultural impact and as it stands now it seems you're just making up this criteria. Yes you stated Gladiator had less impact but your baseless assertion means nothing kiddo.
You provided an assertion but an assertion without evidence is meaningless, also just a warning you are straying dangerously close to appealing to your own ignorance which is a fallacy in every sense of the word.
You didn't answer my question: What about the movie makes it a trilogy that the book didn't have?
The book was also released in 3 pieces and are reviewed separately but they are not a trilogy. I do not need to go any further than that honestly.
You are really bad at this son.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
No it was a simple question to which you know the answer to but are attempting to side step. Yes critics are a part of culture, yes box office is a part of culture, yes the mass public is a part of culture.
I already did. You have nothing to support Gladiator having more cultural impact than Fellowship. I have box office, critical acclaim as well as acclaim by the mass public. Where is your proof for there being a case for Gladiator in that regard? How is it baseless when it is an objective fact that Fellowship made lots more money, and has higher critical acclaim? Baseless would be if I provided nothing, guess what I did provide. So no sorry try again.
Nope I already just disproved you telling me I made baseless claims. It is an objective fact Fellowship is higher rated critically and made more money than Gladiator, go ahead and dispute that.
Books and films are separate last time I am saying that. I am discussing films not books.
Films not books anything further about the books will be ignored.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
And I said "I don't know" and I'm not required to know because this is all your premise little kid. How do you know it's part of culture?
Ball is still in your court, you need to prove that box office and critical acclaim calculate out to the cultural impact. I'll ask again how much cultural impact do they both have? "Where is your proof for there being a case for Gladiator in that regard?" again that's not my burden of proof, I never said it could be measured, that was all you kiddo, it's your burden of proof to prove that LOTR has more which you haven't, all you've done so far is just invent your own criteria. How do I know the criteria you are giving me are the right criteria?
You did provide a baseless claim, I asked how you could objectively determine the criteria for cultural impact and you haven't provided any. Where are you getting these criteria from? How do you know they are valid?
The film was based on the book and I don't see anything different about the structure of the film or the book (they do have differences though believe me and not for the better).
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
A politicians answer is what you are giving because you know you are wrong. I already answered that now didn't I? If you will not answer yes or no I have nothing further to add on this issue. Box office is part of culture, as are critics and the mass public.
They are a part of cultural impact and I proved that already. Who said Gladiator had no cultural impact? You asked me which had more and I answered you. Nope I gave two facts it made more money and had better critical acclaim. Two facts and you can not dispute them and it is rather obvious since you are side stepping these two things.
Nope I proved box office and critical acclaim are part of culture.
Your book point is ignored. I will not be addressing books. The books and the films have many differences therefore I measure them differently.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
How am I wrong? I have yet to make a claim either way all I've done is ask you to defend yours.
You asserted they were, an assertion is meaningless without proof.
You asserted it had less but if you can't prove it then all you are giving me is your subjective opinion which I don't care about. How do you know that money and critical acclaim are the variables of cultural impact? Show me the objective standard.
No you didn't you asserted they were, I can assert the Flying Spaghetti Monster farted the universe out of it's anus but that doesn't make it so now does it?
Then explain the difference in the book and movie which makes one a trilogy but not the other? Until you can it's not a trilogy.
I can't believe I'm saying this but moviefanatic is more intelligent than you are, congratulations you are the only person I have ever come across who fails to meet that standard.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
To which I did. Is it not a fact Fellowship made more money than Gladiator and had higher critical acclaim? Answer that.
Nope they are and you know how I know you will not refute the facts I presented you side step them.
It does have less unless someone can dispute my facts I can openly state Fellowship had more cultural impact than Gladiator. They are a part of culture are they not?
What proof of any do you have the flying Spaghetti Monster did that? I can cite box office and critical acclaim now can't I? Can you cite anything for the Spaghetting Monster?
Nope that is closed no more book stuff. Last time telling you this. This discussion is about films.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
That is not what you were talking about early, you were talking about "cultural impact" which you have yet to provide an objective standard for.
I'm still waiting for the proof, all you proved was that a few critics liked one more than the other and then you compared box office numbers which is not an accurate measurement because Gldaitor was rated R therefore kids cant' be admitted.
No no no, it's not up to me to disprove your assertions, it's up to you to prove your assertions. You have that backwards son, it's your burden of proof.
See there you go, it is my burden of proof to prove the FSM just like it's your burden of proof to prove if a film has a high degree of "cultural impact". I can site proof for the FSM, the planets look like meatballs, that is about as logical as what you've been saying
If you can't answer the question then you have no justification in calling LOTR a trilogy. Sorry you aren't a fan of facts and logic kiddo.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
I said those were some of the things which played into cultural impact. So um yeah fail again.
I gave it to you. Also bad example in the ratings department. Joker made more than a lot of MCU films and it was r rated. Now typically the movie that is rated pg-13 can make more money but that is why I also mentioned critical acclaim as well. As to which Fellowship still won.
Problem is you have not one thing to back up that claim nothing! I gave you box office and critical acclaim. Two things as opposed to nothing. So no not the same.
Nope. I measure it as a film. And it is a great film by my measurements as well as the mass majority.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
How do you know that and how do you calculate cultural impact?
No you gave me two other measurements that you can't justify fitting into your "cultural impact" formula. Doesn't matter Gladiator had a disadvantage because it was Rated R, just because another Rated R movie was successful is a non sequitur. Also it's "which" not "witch", learn your vocabulary kid.
I have as much proof as you do which is nothing, and I have yet to make a claim which is another strawman and you owe me another apology. You gave me the subjective opinions of a few critics and box office numbers, those are not cultural impact, you have yet to objectively define cultural impact.
Regardless of whether you measure it as a film or not is meaningless, I asked you to prove it was its own film which you have also failed at.
EDIT: I still never said that Gladiator had more "cultural impact", what I was asking was how to you adjust for the fact that R-rated movies have a disadvantage when it comes to the box office considering children under 17 can't get in? You would have to give R and X/NC-17 rated films an adjustment in your formula.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
Because they are a part of culture that is how I know.
Which is why I also cited critical acclaim and acclaim by the public. If I had said the only reason Fellowship had more cultural impact was box office you would have a case, thing is I never did. Even so though there are r rated films that have done better in box office than pg-13 films. Not always but it is in fact possible.
This conversation was never about proving Fellowship to be a a film it was about which had more cultural impact. Your attempt to steer the conversation this way is pathetic.
Which is why I did not only cite box office as a means of measurement. Your entire point fell apart.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
I'll ask again: By what objective standard did you determine this? It sounds like you're just making up your own rules.
You included Box Office and in order to be objective you'd have to have some way of leveling the playing field between a film that all audiences can get into to see and an R/NC-17, since you didn't you're method is flawed and inaccurate. It doesn't matter if some R rated films did well, they are still at a disadvantage by your system.
Oh I can walk and chew gum at the same time as I can dominate you in two separate issues on the same post.
But since Box Office goes into it and is clearly a variable in the equation non R/NC-17 movies have a clear advantage.
Again I will ask what is your formula and how did you determine LOTR had more cultural impact than Gladiator. Gladiator did much better at the Oscars that LOTR did, why is that not a factor in your equation? Could it be because it doesn't give you the answer you want? Clearly you aren't being objective at all sonny.
reply
share
einsteinfountain (922)
4 years ago
I already answered this. They are a part of culture which means they can be factored in. Last time I am answering that.
Even if we say it is a tie Fellowship still wins in critical acclaim, and acclaim by the mass majority. Which is why I also mentioned acclaim and not just box office.
Nope you attempted to steer it in another way because you have empty points.
I answered this already look above. Fellowship beat it in critical acclaim and acclaim by the masses. Even if you take out box office Fellowship still wins. That is the 4th time of answering that question. You ask it again it will be ignored.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
How did you determine they are part of culture and how did you determine they were the only 2 criteria? Also how do you calculate cultural impact and what are the units? This has to be the 50th time I've asked this. And give me a universally accepted and objective formula, not just something you made up.
How did you determine that and why is your measurement the objective, true one? You also filtered in box office by your own admission and LOTR has a definite advantage because it's not rated R.
Yet I didn't stop owning you on the topic you claim you want to talk about. If I stopped talking about your formula then you might have a point yet I didn't kiddo.
How do you know your measurement of "critical acclaim" is the right one? It sounds to me like your measurement of cultural impact is based on the opinions of a small group of people which makes it subjective.
reply
share
MovieChatUser497 (18943)
4 years ago
Also what is the unit of cultural impact and please objectively determine whether Lord of the Rings or Gladiator has had more cultural impact, be sure to show your work, junior.
reply
share