Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Yes, as I figured, someone would contradict the statement without really thinking about it or understanding what I was saying.
As I said, there were a few exceptions, and some audience pleasers - but overall - there just were not a large quantity of quality films this year. I mean, 3 out of the first 4 films you listed were virtually unknown until the Golden Globes. The Martian is an outlier - one of the few good and original films. The last 3 you list are "audience pleasers" that I mentioned.
It's not that there wasn't anything good - it's that it simply was a crappy year overall for films, particularly when you have an awards show like the Globes which is known for leaning toward popular films/well-established actors yet 4 out of 5 Best Actress nominees were complete unknowns.
Oh my bad, you had said QUALITY films which is why I gave you a list of films that are considered quality by many (including your favorite...the Golden Globes, The Academy Awards, critics, etc) I guess you meant to say POPULAR which can be different than quality but does not have to be.....
....And yet if you did mean popular and not quality then surely a year that had Jurassic World that did ok at the box office and Star Wars that did just a little better than ok plus a few films like Inside Out (popular and quailty, dontcha know), Avengers: Age of Ultron and Furious 7 (both really popular...not to sure about quality) and whole bunch of others I would say that this year was pretty good for both popular films AND quality.
So to recap:
1) quality does not equal popular
2) quality does not equal box office returns
3) Golden Globe nominations do not have to reflect popular films/actors but QUALITY (and those nominated can be unknowns)
And btw, I did happen to both think about AND understand what you had written...its that what you had stated was not actually factual OR you just didn't like many of the films last year which is fine....they weren't all quality.