Seriously...a SEQUEL?!?!?!

Originally posted by Vits O.K..You're right on the fact that you're entitled to your opinion,but you can't simply say it's bad,considerin'that aside from the good B.O.,that as we established,doesn't mean a lot,it has good reviews,and the Golden Globe for "Best Movie-Comedy And/Or Musical".   It's not "the most profitable comedy of all time",it's the most profitable R-rated comedy of all time.   THE PROPOSAL did $100 million better than PAUL BLART,and that one had better reviews,but of course not as good as the reviews of THE HANGOVER.

Which movie are you talking about? If you're talking about Paul Blart, it had an abysmal 34%. There's no argument that it's a good movie, unless you're 13 and under, and you've never seen a good comedy. Great BO simply does not mean a good movie.
Whatever Hangover has, it holds a record, and it was not the best R rated comedy of all time. I'd call Airplane!, for example, far better. The Proposal was a 43%... Still pretty awful. Look, critics are pretentious and holier-than-thou, and sometimes their tastes are a bit TOO specific for the common man, but when you look at them collectively, like Rotten Tomatoes does, you get a pretty good idea of how good the movie is, by getting the professional opinion of a wide variety of people, keyword "PROFESSIONAL". And then, if you take into account the top 10 BO of the week, and how often you see the little green splattered tomatoes, you start to get a sense that there's a very large disconnect between "the people" and "the people who know what they're talking about".
Great Box Office =/= Great, Good, or even Not Terrible

Paul Blart won a Golden Globe?

I don't doubt that The Hangover is the highest grossing R-Rated Comedy... That's kinda why I brought it up.

I think I'm entirely missing what you're trying to argue at this point. My point, stated simply and clearly, is "A bad movie can do well at the box office, for as long, if not longer, than a good movie."

Lol dude, no one gets and does sarcasm better than I do. I never said anything bad about The Hangover, other than it wasn't the funniest movie ever. Now, I've said Paul Blart was crap, and therefor, if you're talking about a movie that I said was bad, I'm going to assume you're referring to Paul Blart. In other words, you simply weren't clear enough as to which movie you were referring.

My argument is independent of his in this case, yes. I'm guessing our points of view aren't terribly different, but I feel that I've stayed fairly consistent with my point.

I just saw WHITE CHICKS AGAIN.I still laugh,despite having bad directing.

I totally agree with Vits (see below). We've seen quite a long thread of badly reviewed films doing great and those with great reviews flopping. I think it's a trend that has been established that whatever doesn't appeal to the massive audience, regardless of its actual quality, will probably not do too well at the box office, while something "made for the masses" can receive terrible reviews and still make money. That is the reality of film-making now, isn't it? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am not trying to sound like an expert.   

Oh, haha, sorry about the late quote :D. It's just my personal impression, really, I am not trying to pass for an expert :)