do I misunderstand the meaning of "tanked"? I thought it meant, "did not do well financially".
Buffy ,'Get It Done'
Buffista Movies 6: lies and videotape
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
do I misunderstand the meaning of "tanked"? I thought it meant, "did not do well financially".
I don't think MM's been shy about his opinion that the movie deserves to not do well financially, do you?
I think Laga's point is that it is doing well financially. $277 million is nothing to sneeze at.
I think Laga's point is that it is doing well financially. $277 million is nothing to sneeze at.
That doesn't mean MM can't want it not to, does it?
No, it does not, but I don't think that's what Laga is confused about. Since it would be hard to have missed MM's opinion of the movie. Unless I'm wrong.
MM may not have perfected the teleporter but obviously his reality-distortion field is doing just fine; no one here is sure if Indy IV is a hit anymore.
Yeah, I'm distorted because I feel I should be confused, and I'm not. MM thinks the movie should be a failure. Laga says it wasn't.
Cool.
Now, if MM says the movie was a failure, or Laga says it shouldn't be, then things are weird.
Okay, kidding on the latter.
Mostly.
I was curious as to how it was doing a couple of weeks out and was too lazy to look up the numbers myself.
Oh, I see! I didn't think anyone still thought it tanked, though. Did you?