Had to throw that one out there...it's an old Werner Herzog film, and yea, you could call it weird, I guess. But it's as perfect as a film can get, really.
Mulholland Drive. In fact, I don't even know how I feel about that film. All I know is after I watched it, I felt uncomfortable for like 2 hours, lol. Don't know why, exactly.
I'd venture to guess that a lot of people who didn't like Shoot 'em Up thought it was being serious.
But, um, I actually like End of Days and Collateral Damage. I hated the ending of End of Days, but otherwise it was solid. There aren't many Arnold movies where he plays an older, more realistic guy, and I guess that's why I like those two. By more realistic, of course I mean by Arnold standards.
Rambo III isn't bad. Especially when put up against Rambo II.
Ang Lee's Hulk. I absolutely don't understand the hate for this film. It's a thinking man's Hulk (or at least an artsy man's Hulk), if there can be such a thing.
Magnolia. I won't argue that it's not pretentious, and no, I don't understand why it rained frogs. Still, I love the movie, and Tom Cruise was very good.
The Machinist. I haven't seen a lot of hate, per se, but most people just call it weird and something they wouldn't watch again. I consider it a horror film, and it's pretty damn awesome.
@Aelric: Seventh Seal is Swedish, not German. Great film, though.
hmmm, what to recommend that hasn't been said already......
Chinese:
Bullet in the Head PTU: Police Tactical Unit
Japanese:
Survive Style 5 Tokyo Zombie Strange Circus Long Dream Uzumaki Bright Future Freeze Me Marebito
Korean:
Foul King (good luck finding a copy in Korean w/ English subs, though) Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring A Bittersweet Life Memories of Murder I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK
I don’t like Kotick either but I think Sir Phobos is going a little overboard.
The guy focuses on the bottom line and is really overt about it. I prefer that other execs who insult my intelligence by acting like they are running an altruistic commune.
And in Kotick’s defense his leadership brought the company back from bankruptcy and he has allowed Infinity Ward and Blizzard to operate independently enough to produce some real gems.
"
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but you're basically saying you'd rather someone would spit directly in your face instead of walking past then talking about you behind your back. That makes no sense to me.
Also, I would hardly say Kotick is "allowing" Infinity Ward to make solid games. The whole reason we can all agree that IW and Blizzard are so great is because they create awesome games, and they sell phenomenally. That's why they have the wiggle room they do. Not the other way around. They don't put out quality *because* Kotick lets them.
" Oh man, all he has to comfort himself from the angry peoples on the internet is a wildly successful company. I'm sorry if pragmatism gets your goat but the results speak for themselves. "
The same results can be achieved by much better means. Look at Valve and Criterion, to name a couple of great companies. "
Criterion doesn't publish, they develop. And both companies rely on EA to distribute their games in the retail market. "
You miss my point. Valve and Criterion are great examples of companies who make great products while not screwing over the very people they want to buy their games. Publisher or developer makes no difference to what I was talking about. "
And that's fine, but they're much less successful when it comes to yearly net earnings. If it paid to be the nice guy, everybody would be the nice guy.
"
lol.....I guess one of my basic points is that do we want to help foster this kind of thing? It's not like I'm advocating everyone should go insane and start living in the mountains divorced from the reality of the world. I think we can do simple things like, for instance, not buy Activision's products (at least new). It's a personal choice. Whether or not it affects the way a company does business depends on how many people are reacting and are vocal about what that company does. A lot of times, a vocal minority can affect change. And someone else in this thread said if this is the worst thing I've seen all week, then I haven't seen much or something to that effect. It's not like I'm so morally outraged at Bobby Kotick specifically that I'm frothing at the mouth and unable to function. I just think if we don't call out shit like this, it will continue.
And while Valve might not be *as* successful as Activision, I wouldn't say they're hurting. You dont have to make the maximum possible monitary amount at all times regardless of the way you go about it in order to be successful. That's called greed, and yea, Gekko up there is a good example of that.
" Anyone here who thinks that the way Bobby Kotick is running his company is the only real way to stay profitable needs to read this article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6227735.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=hot-stories&tag=hot-stories;title;1 It discusses what it's like to work for Valve, and in it, you actually see Valve head Gabe Newell operating from antithetical principles to Kotick, to the point where he pays his valued employees even when they need to leave for medical reasons for six months. He also is the opposite of Kotick's whole "take the fun of out making video games," in that he actually encourages his employees to play games at the office, to help them build ideas. Last time I checked, Valve isn't doing too bad for themselves.... maybe some of you have heard of them. Oh, and unlike Activision, Valve has yet to release a product that wasn't profitable. "
So doesn't that mean that Valve is more risk-averse than Activision?
I won't speak for anyone else, but my comments were to point out that there is nothing unethical in selling something you own, including shares. You did not start this thread to illustrate the contrasts between good game publishing and bad game publishing, you started this thread to bash a CEO for being a CEO. As I said before, I think that Kotick is incorrect in attempting to 'remove fun' from an industry that is about producing fun, but that doesn't mean he's unethical, just that he's ignoring the source of value in the products he sells. It is foolish to do so, but not unethical. "
I disagree with your definition of ethical. What Kotick is essentially doing, at least according to his quotes, is making other people's lives shittier for the sole purpose of making him more money. Regardless if his viewpoint is actually true or not, he's still enabling a hostile environment for personal gain. That, to me, is unethical. And I didn't write this whole thing just to bash a CEO randomly. I've honestly never seen anyone be that blatant in his disregard for the people who work under him. He's unethical because of that very reason.
Log in to comment