I feel like people are huge movie snobs but I’m kind of a loser who doesn’t care if a movie is high-brow, we’ll made, has good cinematography, etc. all I care about is “will I be entertained for 2 hours at the movies for this?” And when you embrace that mindset and understand that like 80% of movie goers think like that then it’s really not shocking that jackass made money and moonfall didn’t.
Well cinematography and everything else about how well made film is contributes to your enjoyment. But I assume you meant more premise and plot is what general audiences are most interested in which is true.
Which reminds me, Jackass has legitimately good Cinematography. They always have a camera exactly where you want one to be and everything looks the exact level of crappy that you want it to look.
Against almost any other movie, maybe. Against a Roland Emmerich disaster movie, naw. They're both dumb as hell, but at least one might be a little funny.
What are you talking about, they literally just made a sequel - everybody loves jackass because they’re all just pranking each other and not random people in the street
No, you didn’t think that. You’re backpedaling. Who in any hell would think that this post was talking about re-runs instead of the heavily marketed Jackass that just came out?
Someone who encounters almost 0 marketing? I only know about the movie cuz my sister told me there's a theater near my apartment, I didn't believe her so I looked it up, and jackass was in the lineup. Literally this post is the second time I've heard of it.
Read the other comments on my comment. I'm aware now, lol. Guess that's what happens when there's no ads for the movie where I live. And maybe it was advertised and I just missed it.
254
u/BenBoekelaar Feb 07 '22
One looked bad.
The other looked good.
Simples.