1. American Beauty
2. The Dark Knight
3. Super 8
4. Close Encounters
5. Wizard of Oz
6. Batman Returns (Trey worked on it)

Well, this is all coming from a humble 20 year old who has yet to leave college and become poor yet.  But so far I don't regret going to film school for a second.

But it is a big decision to spend the tuition money on such a specialized and competitive field (i am a sophomore at nyu, and it's 60,000 here.)  The biggest distinction I have noticed in my year or so here is that some students have come in with some level of background in the process, while there are others who either (to their credit) have just watched a lot of movies...or have next to no knowledge of the medium at all and just thought "hey, this looks like a good major."

For the second type of person, I feel like film school might be a waste.  To spend that type of money without having picked up a camera (especially in this day and age where it's so easily accessible), is nonsensical to me.  Like trey said, you may arrive and realize this isn't what you wanted to do, or, hey, you're just not good at it.

For me, I have been pretty passionate about making movies since I was about nine.  And I spent about seven years going to places like TFN and (sorry  ) forcing good people to watch the crap I made, until about midway through high school I had made most of my mistakes and finally found myself producing material I was genuinely proud of. 

By the time college applications rolled around, I knew there was nothing else I wanted to do, so it was a nobrainer to go to film school.  To me the waste would be spending money on learning other subjects I have no interest in.  And so far, a year and a half in at nyu, I couldn't be happier.

also, i was the fella who mentioned the studio-brand theory

Carrie. 

Love the set pieces, am oddly bothered by the way some of it unfolds...especially at the very end.

Ooh, I eagerly await then

EDIT: Battle: SD is actually genius.

I haven't listened to the full commentary yet, so I don't know if this is addressed or not.  But I feel like the problem with Teague's cleaned-up, save-the-animals version is that the dinosaurs essentially no longer become a threat. 

Sure, in JP 1, the dinosaurs weren't evil and didn't want to eat you because it was fun.  But we certainly weren't rooting for them either.  They were the antagonist, and it was a simple man vs. nature story.  Now granted, as with most man v. nature tales, a lesson was learned and we realize we never should have tampered with nature in the first place.  But this was all more conceptual, and not a physical series of actions throughout the film of people intending to capture/control the dinosaurs.

If we place all this focus on the hunters in Lost World, it becomes less clear who our antagonist is.  The only way to really do it would be to completely eliminate the dinosaurs as a threat, and make it just about stopping the "bad guys."  But then you completely eliminate the reason people go to see a Jurassic Park movie.

And then if you throw both in, it becomes a man vs. nature vs. man? story.  It's like making a movie where our hero tries to stop poachers from harming panda bears.  Oh yeah, and the panda bears also EAT YOU!!!

EDIT: Better example.  Jaws 5!!  Chief Brody has to stop the bad men from hurting the shark.

yes!! you are a saint.  now i dont have to listen to johnny depp and gore verbinski mumble for 2.5 hrs