Jump to content

George Parr

Free Account+
  • Posts

    1,875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by George Parr

  1. Not saying that this will definately work, but Naked Gun (and Airplane for that matter) worked because they used serious actors for the main roles, not actors people would associate with comedies. Leslie Nielsen didn't do comedy prior to Airplane / Police Squad / Naked Gun, they are what turned him into a comedic actor. Lloyd Bridges, Peter Graves, George Kennedy, none of them were known for their comedies prior zo Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker. There are more recent examples as well. Like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. A role that goes completely against everything else he had done. It can easily fail, put I'd rather they go with someone you wouldn't expect it from, than someone known for these sort of roles.
  2. I think those are two completely seperate topics. The former is about contradicting people who claim that a movie is badly received by pointing at all the people who went to see it. If it was oh so disliked, the box office would have been a failure. Indicating that a certain bunch of people is trying to push an agenda against a movie. Or the other way round, of course. Basically, the difference in reception between those who talk about the movie and those who don't. The general audience is unlikely to engage much in such debates, which which leaves the debate being driven by minority opinions. The other topic is studios still deciding to release further movies from the same franchise. For that you don't necessarily need the prior installment to have been a big hit. There can be a whole range of reasons why you would do another one, even if the last installment seemingly didn't do well at the box office. I don't think there is much of an issue between the reception among critics and the reception among audiences. Critics - in general- are trying to gauge whether a movie is good or not, for the most part they will be having higher standards than the average movie-goer, who is just looking to have a nice time for two hours or so. This can turn on its head when it comes to hardcore fans in big franchises. There, fans can rage-quit because the creatives dared to do something with the characters the fan doesn't agree with, while a critic will have little issue with that as long as it makes sense. Things get muddied if the critic is a big fan himself though.
  3. That seems a bit over the top to me. Suits was a decently successful tv-show that had a long run. It was nowhere close to the big shows of its day, or at any point a "hit" really, certainly not to any degree that would suggest it would blow up on streaming in such a way. There are plenty of shows with similar or better audience numbers - which really are a far cry from something like The Office, which in itself was not crazy big of a show either (audience numbers, not pop-culture influence) - which never got anywhere near those sort of streaming numbers.
  4. The episode seemed pretty fine to me. Thrawn was compelling enough. Even though the "time" bit just screams it won't be much of an issues for the heroes at all. Now if only they could have stayed away from their usual failure to do fights against henchmen...
  5. Second and third trend have come in, I'll just go directly with the last one. Pretty big changes now that the impact of Kinofest becomes a bit clearer: http://www.insidekino.com/News.htm #1 The Equalizer 3 175k (up 50k from trend 2) #1 Barbie 165k #3 Oppenheimer 125k (up 40k from trend 2) #4 Meg 2 65k #5 Rehragout-Rendezvous 60k (only one down from earlier trends) #6 Elemental 55k #7 Enkel für Fortgeschrittene 65k (maybe this one is supposed to be 55k? it's listed behind the two above) #8 Gran Turismo 35k #9 Jawan 25k My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 seems to be at about 15k
  6. That was a really good episode, apart from being 90% fighting again. I would agree that the last one and this one probably could have been one longer episode instead, especially if you cut down on the way too long space-chase sequence from the last one. The overall feel of the show is really solid. It seems more cohesive than Mando S3, Kenobi and Boba Fett. It's not nearly as jumpy, characters have solid reasoning in their actions. Visually it looks really good, even if some of the action and editing is a bit off at times. The soundtrack rocks. Right now I have it pretty firmly in the middle of the seven seasons of tv we got from all the shows so far. It's quite a step behind Andor and Mando S1 and S2, but also quite a bit ahead of Mando S3, Kenobi and Boba Fett. That being said, the CGI-face didn't look that good to me. And I don't really need to see more of those anyway. Not a fan of the TWBW in any form either. Those were completely different things. One was a head on collision, the other was ships being affected by a "wave". This time around they were inside the ring, hence no direct impact. Not that I could see how either would destroy stakes at all. Crashing headfirst into an enemy is nothing but a hail mary, you don't win, you just might be able to temporarily prevent a loss. A superior force has no use for such a tactic as it already is the superior force, and an inferior force can't afford to trade losses. The only time such a tactic is ever useful, is if you have the choice between being doomed entirely and saving at least a few people. It is not, in any way, shape or form, something you could or would use under normal circumstances. Both scenes are perfectly fine as they are.
  7. First trend from insidekino: http://www.insidekino.com/News.htm #1 The Equalizer 210k #2 Barbie 175k (-36%) #3 Oppenheimer 110k (-39%) #4 Rehragout Rendezvous 100k (-42%) Barbie tops Super Mario for no.1 movie of the year, while Oppenheimer beats Nolan's prior best Plenty of good weather this weekend, and it looks like summer will return in full force next week. Lots of sunshine and 25+ degrees all over the country.
  8. Visuals look great, and the rest was also fairly enjoyable, but the chase sequence just dragged on and on for no apparent reason, hampered even more by the villains being completely non-threatening as ever. What did those fighters even have guns for if they are that useless? The episode was fine as a filler, but the usual mix of incompetent New Republic and harmless villains doesn't really cut it for me. You could pull off the troubled New Republic quite easily, yet somehow they always opt for the most stupid way to deal with it. And if you make enemy fighters that harmless, don't drag out the chase for all eternity. Outside of that, at least the characters have coherent storylines that aren't all over the place, and the dialogue for the most part is also flowing smoothly when not dealing with the issues mentioned above. That still puts it quite a bit ahead of much of the other shows lately.
  9. I'd say that was a pretty good start. Definately more structurally sound than Book of Boba Fett, Kenobi or The Mandalorian season 3 I didn't particularly care for the characters prior to the show, I don't particularly care about them now, but they weren't bad either. I had heard some reports about the dialogue being a bit weak, but it seemed fine to me. Not great, but better than much of what we've gotten lately. The fights were a mix of some really cool shots and some that felt more like they were taken straight out of the animated shows (and I never liked how fights looked there). Moves should have purpose, and each strikes and parry needs to follow a flow. They need to make "sense", if that makes any sense Here, at times it feels like the clashes were mashed together as if they weren't part of the same fight. Two characters swinging at each other while their lightsabers ignore the impact the enemy's weapon should have. And then they switch over to a close up, and suddenly the engagement between the weapons is right there. It's not like it doesn't work all the time, it's that they jump back and forth between doing it right and not doing it right. Some stuff was so obvious though that you could see it coming a mile away, which just feels off: Filoni loves to throw in stuff that just reminds me of KotOR. Makes me wish they would actually try and tell that story. I'd definately take it ahead of all the movies or shows announced right now (minus Andor season 2).
  10. Always nice to see an already great weekend constantly getting corrected upwards... 😎 The weather has been mixed for some time now, and the peak holiday period of all states being off ends with the coming week. It's still going to be a high percentage throughout the next few weeks though.
  11. The second trend has Oppenheimer up to 550k, Mission: Impossible up to 140k, Lassie down to 115k, and Indiana Jones up to 90k: http://www.insidekino.com/News.htm Looks like the second weekend in a row with six movies above 100k, and if Indiana Jones keeps growing, maybe a seventh one, though that seems a bit unlikely at this point.
  12. Yeah, no, not at all. First of, there is no such thing as generation Z, or any of that type, it is all made up bs. Completely arbitrary. Groups of people who have nothing to do with each other get lumped together, all while setting arbitrary age limits that make no sense at all. Secondly, just because there are some comments on social media, doesn't mean that they in any way represent younger people today, or that they are even made by younger people in the first place. You are confusing there being more social media today, with there being more outrage or more people being offended. That isn't true at all. Social media is far larger than it was even ten years ago, 20+ years ago it barely existed at all. It's just that it is much easier now for someone to be heard today. Nowadays people nobody would have heard from in the past can get recognized among a larger audience. Not to mention that there are people searching for outrage from complete nobodies, so they can be outraged about the outrage, and present individual opinions from people no one cares about as some sort of wider issue. All these claims along the lines of "oh you can't say things anymore" or "you couldn't make such a movie anymore" is nonsense. As is the idea that the past was somehow more open to things. It wasn't. Not by a long shot. I mean, where was this great age of "freedom"? When blacks were slaves or segregated? When women weren't allowed to vote? When tv only showed Elvis from above the waist because his moves were deemed to shocking and sexual for the public? Or was it the 70s, when some theater owners didn't dare to show Life of Brian because of the outrage among religious groups and some regions even banned showing the movie at all? Maybe it was when tv bleeped out cuss words (oh wait, they still do that to some extend) or when gay people got threatened and vilified or then got "normalized" by being told not to tell anyone about being gay? Most people who complain about not being able to say certain things anymore just mean that they now face backlash for saying mean or insulting things to people when in the past no one spoke up against such garbage. And yes, there are some people who get offended by anything, just like there are some people who seek out that outrage so they can start a career as professional "outraged about the outrage" person. It's two fringe groups making a mountain out of a molehill. If there is some controversy about a comedy, or if there are some people who whine about it, that isn't somehow a sign of impending doom. It is exactly how it has been in the past. And if Monty Python is any evidence, the outrage used to be far larger. Comedy is just fine. There are plenty young comedians, quite a few of which have been very successful. Just because SNL isn't what it used to be, doesn't mean that they somehow stand for comedy as a whole. The Simpsons aren't what they used to be either, and haven't been for a very long time, yet it sticks around, because they don't want it to end. That is how things go. Stuff fades over time. Hollywood tried very hard to go after certain foreign audiences, audiences who comedies weren't particularly suited for. They focused on what audiences at home and those in the rapidly growing markets wanted to see (or what they thought those audiences wanted to see), less so on what the existing stagnant markets liked. Comedies never were huge to begin with. They did well, some very well, but they were never the ones that blew the roof off. They could make far more money making other movies. That's why you have so few comedies, not because there aren't enough funny people around. The really famous comedians represent a tiny sliver of the comedians as a whole. Just because there hasn't been one or two comedians who define an era yet, doesn't mean that the group as a whole is struggling. Just like the overall quality of a sports league isn't in crisis just because the legend of the sport has retired and there is no one at his level right now. The overall level can be even better, it's just that there isn't this one huge figure that defines the sport anymore.
  13. That has nothing whatsoever to do with reality... No, TLJ most definately did not "tear down everything the first movie set up". That's just the usual lazy attempt at "criticism" that ignores what is actually happening in the movies. You might be confusing that with not doing what you wanted to see, which is something else entirely. The first movie did not set a specific path. It offered broad strokes that could have gone in many different ways, while purposefully avoiding anything that was too definitive. That was the entire point, leave everything as open as possible. There was only a very limited number of things TFA set up clearly. The Republic basically being decapitated and its fleet being destroyed for one. The First Order having suffered a setback but not being defeated yet. Han Solo being dead. Rey and Kylo Ren being the main protagonist / antagonist the story would revolve around. The heroes being split up for the next adventure. Luke leaving everything behind because he blamed himself for what happened. TLJ did follow that to the letter. And where does this idea that JJ Abrams pushed for a four sequel even come from? That sounds more like clickbait rubbish from the usual "sources" than something JJ Abrams actually asked for.
  14. Isn't it kind of odd to be so desperately into insulting Jennifer Lawrence, yet mentioning Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansen as if those two were somehow on a roll? The former has been in flop after flop lately, and if it weren't for two movies from 2019 which brought critical acclaim - yet not much at the box office - the latter would basically be reduced to being a side-character in Marvel movies for the last 10 years or so. Has Jennifer Lawrence been at the peak of her career lately? Most definately not. Is she a very respected actress who is one of the few female actors of the younger generations who get consideration for being the lead of a movie (not just the female lead)? Yes, most definately In the real world, there isn't just black and white. You just sound incredibly childish and immature with your attempts of being "witty" at her expense. It really isn't that hard to give her a fair assessment, even if you dislike her. Or at least it shouldn't be for anyone remotely trying to argue in good faith.
  15. It's called common sense, and human decency... I mean, since when does "I'll judge it for myself" and "some people are way to prone to declare something to be the best or the worst, never anything in between" fall under copium? That's just an absurd hot-take for the sake of making an absurd hot-take.
  16. They don't need to force themselves to lower their expectations to enjoy the movie, they are perfectly capable of liking it without any prior change in their stance towards the movie. That was rather obvious from the post I wrote...
  17. Or maybe it's just back to a more casual audience compared to who watches at Cannes... People are capable of making up their own mind, you know. They don't need to force themselves to do so.
  18. No, that is its score now, it wasn't remotely close to that back then. As I said, it was lifted up by relatively recent reviews, just like the other movies I listed. And no, Empire strikes Back did not have great reviews when it came out. It had a great audience reception, but not great reviews. Those only came later, which is exactly what I mentioned. You can't use modern reviews to judge the perception a movie had at the time of its release. Nowhere did I say that KOTCS was near the 60s, or that Dial of Destiny would jump to a 7/10 average, or that it won't be the critically lowest (now, not at the time of release). I really don't know why you bothered to write any of that, because none of it has much to do with the post I wrote. The only thing one can actually say right now about Dial of Destiny, is that it certainly won't be lifted by great reviews. The best it could probably hope for, is an average that is decent/fine, with a better shot at either lackluster or okayish.
  19. I never really understood why people would root against a movie. I mean, what is the point of that? It just seems to petty and immature, especially when you haven't even seen it yet. If I'm interested in a movie I might go and watch it, if I'm not, I won't. If I do happen to watch it, I will judge after I have seen it whether I like it or not. I might comment on that, or state what I liked or disliked, but that's basically the end of it. I would never think about slamming a movie before I have seen it, or wish it to fail if I disliked it. I mean, why would I? What is there to be gained by wishing for something to fail? it seems like something someone who is insecure about himself might do. Someone who needs to lift himself up by putting others or other things down. Similarly to how certain elites push their followers to look down on those who are even worse off, so that they don't realize that any issues they might have tend to come from above, not below. Nothing wrong with disliking a movie. That wouldn't make me root gainst it though. After all, the movie is done, nothing is going to change about it, nor is my life in any way impacted by the movie succeeding or not, So why waste time attacking something I don't like? I'd much rather do something I actually enjoy.
  20. I'm pretty sure Temple of Doom didn't have a particularly good reception from the critics at its time. It's only more recent reviews that pushed it upwards again to where it stands now. Similarly to how Empire strikes back and Return of the Jedi didn't get quite the positive reception they have now at the time of their respective releases. Who knows where Dial of Destiny will end up at. Right now it's at 50% with 46 reviews at RT. That's not a ton of reviews. Depending on which sort of critics are left, it could very well get back up into the 60s even with just decent reviews. That's not particularly good, but not exactly poor either.
  21. Again, no one forces them to make the statements they do. Yet they still always make them. You can find the occasional case where things went sideways and the director kept quiet about it, but that happens here and there, not all the time. Do studios sometimes interfere with stuff? Yes, of course they do. Does a studio like Disney call all the shots and give their directors hardly any creative room to work with? Not at all. Most of the stuff gets decided by the people directly involved, not by some overbearing executives in the background. What is more likely to happen, is that once a clearer picture of the movie is taking shape, higher ups might on some occasion disagree with the path that has been taken, leading to changes in the crew involved. But that comes after a director has been able to go with his vision, and it still requires broad agreement among the studio-leads directly responsible for the movie that the course of action is indeed a bad one.
  22. Based on what exactly? There isn't a whole lot of an argument to be had that "Disney" is getting much involved at all, beyond some conspiracy theories where everything someone doesn't like somehow gets blamed on unnamed Disney-executives forcing it to be that way. In fact, such statements ran contrary to everything the directors tend to say. And while one shouldn't take everything a director says at face-value, it seems rather absurd to claim that they would all go out of their way to make such statements when there is no truth to it.
  23. If you mean Gareth Edwards, his first movie since Rogue One is coming out this September, it's called The Creator. It's a sci-fi movie. There are quite a few people who worked on Rogue One involved, including Greig Fraser, Christ Weitz (who co-authored Rogue One) and former Lucasfilm-producer Kiri Hart. Rogue One is a bit difficult though, as Tony Gilroy did some rewrites and supposedly took over during the extended reshoots. So that's a bit of a mix of multiple influences and not a straight up Gareth Edwards movie anymore. He did however get sole directing credit though. Rogue One was visually stunning. I wish other SW-projects took some notes in that regard, especially when it comes to space-scenes. The arrival of the rebel fleet at Scarrif, as well as the space-combat scenes themself just trounce all space-scenes in the other new SW-movies and shows.
  24. No, they didn't. The audience reception at that time was a completely generic one, neither particularly good nor bad. Stating anything else is a flat out lie, twisting what actually happened to create a narrative years later. Some people who really didn't like it criticised the stuff you mentioned, but none of that has anything to do with how the general audience as a whole reacted. Its reaction was just fine. Which in itself was somewhat disappointing, seeing how the first three movies got a better reaction than that. But being disappointing relative to expectations is not the same as audiences thinking the movie was bad. Such a claim is not something the data from that time backs up. Sounds like French reviews for this movie are more positive than the ones we've got so far. Seems rather unusual when it comes to Hollywood-movies. (Second hand info, I didn't check them myself).
  25. No, it wasn't. Reviews were good but not great, starting at Cannes and continuing from there. The same can be said for audience reactions, which for the most part was in the mold of "pretty solid entertainment, not on the level of the first three". The over the top criticism came from the usual loudmouths, who represent a vocal minority, not the general audience. The latter pretty much never really cares about some over the top stuff or things that impact the lore, only fans really do (outside of loons who love to hate stuff for the sake of hating on it, but those tend to be very few). Just like with the Star Wars sequels, it's fans who freak out if something isn't according to their liking, not a casual viewer. The casual viewer doesn't go to length telling others how good or bad something is, he simply doesn't care enough to do that. Only people with a fixation on the movie do. Sadly, those who shout the loudest often get remembered, even if they don't represent the actual audience as a whole. That's how a movie with a reaction that was just fine (and not more than that) somehow got slandered as bad, horrid or whatever else you can think of, which isn't in any way representative of the audience reaction at that time.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.