DVDizzy Forum

2099net wrote:Well Expressionism was originated in and mainly confined to Europe. It never was a US thing, even though a number of American directors and filmmakers appreciated it (and, indeed, hired European expressionists for some early US films).

That's what I meant too.

2099net wrote:In addition most could argue most of David Lynch's films don't have a plot in a typical sense of the word.

And it's one of the things that makes David Lynch the greatest cinematic hack of all-time.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

bambifan56 wrote: If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story

Interesting.... but that doesn't explain why "Napoleon Dynamite" was a flop!

Uh... no it wasn't. It was a huge hit. Next time, do your research.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE!!! As stupid as it was, the film will never lose its cult followers. And what exactly is the plot there? There is NONE!

Just Myself wrote:Uh... no it wasn't. It was a huge hit. Next time, do your research.

Well if you want research

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... namite.htm

Okay so it wasn't a flop, but it only made "$44,540,956" domestically.

Sure it has cult fans, but it certainly didn't make that much.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Just Myself wrote:Uh... no it wasn't. It was a huge hit. Next time, do your research.

Well if you want research

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id ... namite.htm

Okay so it wasn't a flop, but it only made "$44,540,956" domestically.

Sure it has cult fans, but it certainly didn't make that much.

A movie that costs less than half a million dollars to produce and makes that amount of money is by know means "cult-ish" or a "disappointment." It was a huge hit. If you're wondering why it didn't make more money, that's because the smarter segment of the population saw it for what it was and...nevermind, that's a completely different story.

Prince Eric wrote:
A movie that costs less than half a million dollars to produce and makes that amount of money is by know means "cult-ish" or a "disappointment." It was a huge hit. If you're wondering why it didn't make more money, that's because the smarter segment of the population saw it for what it was and...nevermind, that's a completely different story.

Alight since PE is Mr. Detail:

Napoleon Dynamite WAS a huge success. It had a very low budget and marketing price, but it made ALOT more than that.

However the original poster said "If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story...", so I responded that if that were the case, Napoleon Dynamite would've smashed records, or as least do much more successful, since it had no plot and was more original than pretty much anything made the past decade.

How's that?

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:
A movie that costs less than half a million dollars to produce and makes that amount of money is by know means "cult-ish" or a "disappointment." It was a huge hit. If you're wondering why it didn't make more money, that's because the smarter segment of the population saw it for what it was and...nevermind, that's a completely different story.

Alight since PE is Mr. Detail:

Napoleon Dynamite WAS a huge success. It had a very low budget and marketing price, but it made ALOT more than that.

However the original poster said "If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story...", so I responded that if that were the case, Napoleon Dynamite would've smashed records, or as least do much more successful, since it had no plot and was more original than pretty much anything made the past decade.

How's that?

Then you should have said that instead of saying it wasn't a hit. Duh.

Also, Napoleon Dynamite was a bad movie disguised as a movie with something meaningful for the youth of today. I didn't buy into it. It was neither original or inventive, just really annoying.

Prince Eric wrote: Then you should have said that instead of saying it wasn't a hit. Duh.

Also, Napoleon Dynamite was a bad movie disguised as a movie with something meaningful for the youth of today. I didn't buy into it. It was neither original or inventive, just really annoying.

Ok first, you completely miss my point, then you go totally off-topic? Are you becomming the new Alan?

If you read my original post, you would have seen I ended my post with a " " emotion. That means I wasn't being 100% literal. I was trying to make a point without going into so much detail. So I was never really wrong on anything.

Second, why are telling me ND was a bad movie? I never said it was a great movie(even though I really like it), so I don't know why you're giving your opinion. All I said was it was original. No matter how much you hate it, you can't deny its originallity.

As for it being annoying, well, I think you completely missed the point of the film. GOSH!

How was Napoleon Dynamite original? I've seen lots of glorifed nerd films. What's the difference?

Stop trying to backtrack while you're at it. You said what you said.

Prince Eric wrote:How was Napoleon Dynamite original? I've seen lots of glorifed nerd films. What's the difference?

Stop trying to backtrack while you're at it. You said what you said.

Could you give me the names of these "glorified" nerd films!

I've never heard/seen a nerd film similar or glorified like ND.

I'm glad to say that every other arguement is done.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:How was Napoleon Dynamite original? I've seen lots of glorifed nerd films. What's the difference?

Stop trying to backtrack while you're at it. You said what you said.

Could you give me the names of these "glorified" nerd films!

I've never heard/seen a nerd film similar or glorified like ND.

I'm glad to say that every other arguement is done.

Dazed and Confused
Slackers
The New Guy
The Perfect Score
Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle right off the bat? What other arguements are you talking about?

Prince Eric wrote: What other arguements are you talking about?

I was talking about the arguement about ND being successful. You were trying to prove to me that it was successful, but I knew it was, I was just trying to make an point that it wasn't huge in response to the original poster.

I think this is just an example of us going TOO far. I wasn't trying to argue anything, I was just trying to point out Napoleon Dynamite had no plot and was original, but it didn't do serious box office scores. So sorry for taking this too far.

As for those other nerd films, they certainly had different plots and characters. They had similar ideas, but none were really similar to ND in terms of plot.

I thought you said Napoleon Dynamite didn't have a plot. It was derivative all the way. I'm done.

When you say Napoleon Dynamite isn't original..where else are you gonna hear vote for Pedro?

Spongebob Squarepants wrote:When you say Napoleon Dynamite isn't original..where else are you gonna hear vote for Pedro?

How is one phrase going to make a whole movie "original." If that's the case, then every different wording of a known phrase or variant catchphrase should be enough to make a movie original.

Spongebob Squarepants wrote:..where else are you gonna hear vote for Pedro?

Any high school in North America!! I HATE ND!

Napoloen Dynamite had no plot and it was halarious lol

Most of you are way off.

Koyaanisqatsi and its sequels have been mentioned.

Man with the Movie Camera (Russian, 1920s)

Berlin, Symphony of a Great City

FANTASIA!

These are movies without a plot.