|
El Grillo posted:Never saw this when it came out and it's on in a couple of London cinemas today and tomorrow... not in 3D though. Definitely torn as to whether to see it, especially as it seems like it'd be a lot more fun in 3D. Should've caught it at the BFI Imax when it came out damnit! Don't see it in 3D, it's the worst 3D I ever saw. It actively made the movie worse. Huge landscapes looked like they were model-sized.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:Don't see it
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
This is still the best comedy of 2015. I don't know why you guys hated it so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:This is still the best comedy of 2015. I don't know why you guys hated it so much. When I left the theater I was certain that it was meant to be a disaster comedy in the vein of Airplane or the like. I'm still not convinced that it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Of all the articles written about the lady who was eaten by 3 things, that scene cracked me up. It was so over the top it had to be a joke during the making of It.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I don't know why you guys hated it so much. Because everyone else liked it so much. Hell, this reminds me of a pre-movie ad that I saw a lot earlier in the year, advertising some new website/service where you can record your own quick video reviews of popular movies. JW was one of them, and everyone gave JW 5/5. Except for the tall chubby guy who said the complete opposite of everyone else, giving it a 2/5. SA is that Guy Whose Review Is Put On Screen Because It's So Different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Because everyone else liked it so much. If that were true then no one here would like Fury Road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:This is still the best comedy of 2015. I don't know why you guys hated it so much. Funnier than the Spongebob or Shaun Sheep movies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Oh it's funny alright - just not 'ha ha' funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Because everyone else liked it so much. MisterBibs posted:Just got out of the theater, profoundly unimpressed. The movie is two hours of car chases wherein samey cars are blown up, watching samey Bad Guys be flung from the wreckages of said cars, while we watch samey waif-wifes and eventually samey old warrior women. Yep that's goons alright, always gotta be contrary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
It's kind of like the third Hobbit movie. It had a bunch of goofy elements (far more than Jurassic World) but didn't fully commit to it. The extended edition does, though, resulting in a fantasy film that's equal parts 300, a Total War computer game and Monty Python. That one scene in Jurassic World is the one scene with that tone. If the film had committed to it, it probably would have been a lot more fun, and that scene less jarring. All the rest of the "Dinosaur eats people" scenes are so comparatively sombre and imagination free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Yep that's goons alright, always gotta be contrary. Contrary to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Contrary to? I'm saying that he's accusing goons of not liking this movie to be contrary, while simultaneously pointing out that he dumped on a movie that was almost universally praised by critics and goons alike (Fury Road). I'm not sure why I have to point this out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If that were true then no one here would like Fury Road. No, they liked it here in part because nobody else went to see Fury Road. Had to make its money back overseas, like John Carter or Terminator Genesys. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:No, they liked it here in part because nobody else went to see Fury Road. Had to make its money back overseas, like John Carter or Terminator Genesys. Ah, so goons only hate films that are both critically and commercially successful. Good to know. Oh wait, Jurassic World wasn't one of those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:No, they liked it here in part because nobody else went to see Fury Road. Had to make its money back overseas, like John Carter or Terminator Genesys. Fury Road made twice as much as both of those movies domestically and was universally praised by critics (97% on RT compared to 51% for John Carter and 26% for Terminator Genisys and 70% for Jurassic World). You're free to have your own (garbage) opinion, but trying to claim that Goons only like something because of an absurd (And incorrect) metric you pulled out of your rear end is pretty precious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Mrbibs is autistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Fury Road made twice as much as both of those movies domestically and was universally praised by critics (97% on RT compared to 51% for John Carter and 26% for Terminator Genisys and 70% for Jurassic World). So? My point wasn't about the critical reviews (who give's a rat's rear end about that); only the popular/financial aspects. Why are there so many people who hate JW? Because it was really popular and made a lot of bank. Cinematic jealousy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So? My point wasn't about the critical reviews (who give's a rat's rear end about that); only the popular/financial aspects. That's Certainly a way to look at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So? My point wasn't about the critical reviews (who give's a rat's rear end about that); only the popular/financial aspects. Or, you know, it had a garbage script, uneven effects, mostly bad acting, and was mostly banking on nostalgia for a twenty year old predecessor that was better in every way. But no, I guess I just don't like it because it made a lot of money 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So? My point wasn't about the critical reviews (who give's a rat's rear end about that); only the popular/financial aspects. Lots of people here like Transformers though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
And loving love the original Jurassic Park, which was insanely successful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Burkion posted:That's This year has actually been more tiresome than usual for CD because whenever some movie is even slightly a modest financial success, somebody like Groovelord Neato or whoever will drop in and be like BLURRRRRGH FURY ROAD. It basically is jealousy. Or inferiority complex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:This year has actually been more tiresome than usual for CD because whenever some movie is even slightly a modest financial success, somebody like Groovelord Neato or whoever will drop in and be like BLURRRRRGH FURY ROAD. Okay maybe so- I tend to avoid most of the threads here so I wouldn't know about them. But to write off EVERYONE who has issues with JW is more than a bit short sighted. Writing it off as jealousy is just stupid. I don't even give a poo poo about Fury Road or anything else- if a movie is bad it's bad. JW is just...flawed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Also i really like godzilla movies and this was the best godzilla movie to come out in a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
I watched JW because I wanted to see some cool dinosaurs. I got to see the dinosaurs, and they were cool, so it accomplished the very basics to satisfy me. On top of that, I liked the way the park was designed and the "corporate shark" atmosphere of the first scenes. For the most part I did not like the humans, but who cares about those. This is no masterpiece but it does what it sets out to do. Can't complain about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Fury Road made twice as much as both of those movies domestically and was universally praised by critics (97% on RT compared to 51% for John Carter and 26% for Terminator Genisys and 70% for Jurassic World). You're free to have your own (garbage) opinion, but trying to claim that Goons only like something because of an absurd (And incorrect) metric you pulled out of your rear end is pretty precious. Ratings mean nothing for me, I like watching them myself several times before I figure it out. But I love reading about the costs of movies. John Carter  Why did they make a movie for 250 million about a lovely story from the civil war time. Terminator  Meh, enjoyed the flick. It made back over double the costs, expect to see more. Jurassic World  Man I thought this movie flopped, watched it again this weekend a few times. Its ok, hope they do better. No matter how you look at it the movie did well. Expect many more in till the golden goose is dead. Now lets look at your champion Mad Max  Holy poo poo, I liked this movie too. But those dollar bills, I hope they make more, Its just the cost of making a rated r film. Noting aside of John Carter did bad. I don't know what kind of return ratio they expect when they make a movie, but I'm pretty sure they expect a positive return ratio and wont risk it on more Tomorrowlands.  Who cares it people dont like the same things as you? Ok, here's a bonus, why found footage films will never die. 
Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Do those figures factor in home video/streaming revenue? If so John Carter is only a failure from a broader perspective of getting so little return on a huge 250 million dollar investment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Do those figures factor in home video/streaming revenue? If so John Carter is only a failure from a broader perspective of getting so little return on a huge 250 million dollar investment. John Carter was a failure for so many reasons, money is just one of those factors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Never saw this when it came out and it's on in a couple of London cinemas today and tomorrow... not in 3D though. Definitely torn as to whether to see it, especially as it seems like it'd be a lot more fun in 3D. Should've caught it at the BFI Imax when it came out damnit! It was amazing at the BFI IMAX
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Do those figures factor in home video/streaming revenue? If so John Carter is only a failure from a broader perspective of getting so little return on a huge 250 million dollar investment. Just the box office money I think. So this doesn't include the old movie becoming a cult classic and outselling dvds like a mad man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Do those figures factor in home video/streaming revenue? I don't believe so, but trust me, the marketing folks are always up for another "Well, it made its money back on X and that's super important because reasons".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I don't believe so, but trust me, the marketing folks are always up for another "Well, it made its money back on X and that's super important because reasons". That kind matters in the long run, maybe they would finance another movie in the next 10 years. They go off box office numbers to decide if they are going to finance another movie in the next 1-2 years. Ever wonder why there was a scarymovie/dumbmovie every year? Two different things that kinda matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Just the box office money I think. So this doesn't include the old movie becoming a cult classic and outselling dvds like a mad man. Dredd 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Dredd  That sequel is coming just wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:John Carter Because it included all of the previous production attempts of John Carter. This is also why Tangled and Frozen have such high budgets, although they both did well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
John Carter was a doomed movie. It had way too much baggage on it just from all of the different attempts to make it and it was always going to struggle to make its money back, and then there's the half hearted way they actually attempted to make it. The original John Carter stories have the very intentional and more than not kind of racist "White Man Saves The Day" stuff that old pulp would delve into, but you could play with that in a number of ways. Notably, changing the actor playing John Carter for one, but even if you didn't do that you could still include an element of John Carter that the movie just didn't. John Carter was never a normal human being. In the stories John Carter was a literal living tall tale, even on Earth- immortal and ageless who just appeared one day and was already super strong and a badass. He also had very little to do with the Civil War if anything which is just this whole weird Thing the movie forced on itself. Play up the fact that John Carter is this proto Superman, living legend figure that just happens to go to Mars and fights a corrupt empire to save the natives. Make it full on escapist fun. Instead they both tried to ground it in reality while simultaneously doing nothing of the sort in regards to his nearly literal cartoon animal sidekick, our hero fails at drat near everything he does and almost never wins a single fight, and the tone is weird as gently caress. It tried to appeal to a lot of different ideas and instead tore itself apart. Also it made the racisim stuff a bit more glaring and opened some unwanted questions by making the main character a literal unrepentant Confederate soldier which, curiously, was their own choice. Also that stupid loving thing about his nephew being the author of the books. You deserve what you got movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Also that stupid loving thing about his nephew being the author of the books. You deserve what you got movie. I thought the bookend was kind of clever, but otherwise yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Yeah, John Carter really needed to seem more like a near-unstoppable force of nature that you absolutely did not want to gently caress with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Yeah, John Carter really seemed more like a near-unstoppable force of nature that you absolutely did not want to watch. agreed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 22:37
|
|