cedec0
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by cedec0
-
-
Spoiler
I don't know how to delete this.
QuoteLol idk why everyone is so salty about this one. Just saw it and it was great. Story was nonsense but no more nonsense then pretty much any marvel movie anyways, but it was hilarious and fun. A couple complaints on it but no where near as many as multiverse
Some are more nonsense than others, and everyone has a different tolerance level for that.
-
Quote
Something’s felt off about THOR for a few weeks, though I can’t put my finger on what. I wonder if there’d be more momentum if this flipped release dates with DS2? That had the whole “mythology episode” hook whereas L&T looks decidedly more standalone.
I think that endgame damaged Thor. Everyone saw him become a basement dwelling, out-of-shape loser. That image is seared into our minds. Seeing your favorite character turned into a joke hurts.
This is probably the reason for the lack of excitement.
-
1
-
-
Quote
It's funny to see the trolling in here. They want MCU to fail so bad, because they are not doing what they want or how they want it. Yet the MCU just keeps winning. Some would make up anything even if it makes no sense. This is how a conversation gos with trolls when you give them facts they don't like.
When Captain America picked up Thor's Hammer in Endgame, that was it for me. It retconned a central plotline of Thor Ragnarok (Ie: the lighting was in Thor and the hammer was only a tool to focus it). I checked out because I don't like watching downward spirals.
MCU's central selling point was it was it's tight cohesive world-building across multiple films. You could count on what you saw in one to matter in the future. It took until Endgame for the general public to realize how awesome this. It will take everyone a few years to realize that it's now gone.
The problem isn't that they're adding identity politics, but that they are forcing it in at terrible cost. The hammer retcon was obviously to enable female Thor.
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
9
-
-
6 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:
But it has nothing to do with the coronavirus
Coronavirus is probably going to cause a recession, and during recession people try to pinch pennies. Pirating content is one way to save money.
13 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:And it doesn't matter if the leak is high quality or not, if most theaters are closed. People are just not going to leave their homes, BO revenue will crash regardless.
Well, yes. I see what you are saying. I just don't see releasing major movies to streaming as a viable replacement to theaters during non-corona times.
I believe that there is a significant and growing percentage of the population (especially younger people) that pirate everything but still pay money to go to the theater because they can't stand poor quality cam versions of movies. For these people, releasing movies on stream is giving it away for free.
-
12 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if some 2020 blockbusters end up releasing on Disney+/HBO Max... if things get as bad as it looks at the moment. Studios would lose the (awful) box office theatrical run but get major buzz for their new streaming services at a time people will be desperate for home entertainment.
I keep hearing about Studios releasing directly to streaming, and I am skeptical for one central reason: piracy.
If a movie opens in theaters, the alternatives are: (pirating VS paying)
free crappy cam + poor sound VS costly full theater experience
If a movie opens on streaming, the alternatives are: (pirating VS paying)
free HQ home experience VS costly HQ home experience
Releasing a movie on streaming will allow pirating high quality versions of the movie on day 1. I think releasing movies on stream would turn a lot of people to piracy, especially is we a have a corona related recession.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, TheGullsHaveBeaks said:
If this movie gets about 50% on rotten tomatoes, I’ll eat a cockroach. There is no way it will get even above 50%. Probably will land around the thirties.
When she was young, my mother once took a bite out of a cockroach. It was in a yogurt container, and she sunk her teeth into it before she realized what it was. The company gave her a year's supply of yogurt coupons as compensation which her brother was really happy about (my mother, being slightly traumatized, didn't eat any).
Anyway, I wouldn't recommend eating a cockroach, but if you feel you have to, go ahead.
-
1
-
3
-
-
18 minutes ago, TMP said:
There's literally nothing political in that Sonic review.
Perhaps, but I would argue giving bad boys for life 0.5/5 is pretty political. I also feel, (this may be bias on my part) that someone who judges movies from this perspective is likely to dock his score of sonic for it just being a normal movie (not pushing agenda). For example, I haven't heard sonic having any LGBTQ representation. That is the type of thing that might impact some reviews.
Heck there is a site out there (Mediaversity Reviews) that judges movies 3/4 on political correctness. This type of thinking impacting reviews makes it harder to gauge a movies actual quality (Also, Disney's influence over critics is also somewhat of a problem, at least in opinion).
-
22 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:
YouTube reviews really don't matter (I remember Godzilla KOTM having positive YouTube reviews). Critics choice (although still a pretty loose indicator) is a better indicator of where the RT score will land. A 42 means sub 50%. Not sure how much below but I don't see it go above 50% unless Sonic critics choice score goes up to 60/100 or higher. Detective Pikachu is at 66/100.
Also a 50% score would count as negative on RT.
50% score might technically be negative, but it would probably be good for Sonic. joker got 68% on RT, so that shows you how meaningless that score really is. Personally, RT score only matters to me if it is really low (under 30%). As long as Sonic does better than 30%, I think it will do fine at the box office.
---------
On another note, There is one english language review for Sonic that is out:
Slant Magazine: 1.5/5
https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review-sonic-the-hedgehog-doesnt-rock-even-after-a-new-paintjob/
That didn't seem very good until I realized that this same reviewer gave Bad boys for life 0.5/5 :
So sonic is three times better than bad boys for life! Seriously though, I wish reviewers wouldn't let politics influence their reviews so much. It ends up making them pretty meaningless.
-----------
Edit: That review also makes me think they were right to lift the embargo late. Not sure reviews will be fair.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, stealthyfrog said:
Over/under 50% Rotten Tomatoes? I say under.
I say over 50%.
Of the two reviews already on imdb, one has it at 50%, and the other 3/5 stars.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3794354/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt
Also, the dozen or so reviews out on youtube are pretty positive (there was only one who outright didn't like it).
One youtuber put it nicely. 3/5 for general audience. 4/5 for sonic fans. 4.5/5 for kids.
-
Quote
With each day I think this is going to break out more and more. Unless reviews absolutely kill it, I think this could be a decent hit.
There are two reviews out on imdb, both in German. One has it at 50%, and the other 3/5 stars.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3794354/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt
-
Another reason the movie might have unperformed: people, especially those inclined to go see a female lead action movie, don't like seeing men mistreat women.
When a movie markets itself as "tackling misogyny", you know what is guaranteed to be in the movie? misogyny. Men mistreating women.
From what I have heard about BOP, every single man in the movie mistreats women. I guarantee you this turned off people otherwise excited about the movie.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Quote
I have always admired Star Wars for its cultural impact, and I enjoy it greatly for the space opera aspect, but growing up as a big wuxia fan, I have always found those action scenes in Star Wars pretty...laughable? (no offense to the fans, just personal preference and experience)
There are a few exceptions to this which show what the potential could be:
-
2
-
-
Quote
If the Disney+ Star Wars shows continue to have critical acclaim and are widely loved by the audiences I see no reason why the brand would be permanently tarnished or other ideas that are being tossed around.
Couple years down the road someone with fresh ideas can step in and make an interesting and well received SW film.
Mandalorian is doing well because it is focusing on the half of the star wars brand that is relatively undamaged: the Western sci-fi side. The other half of the star wars brand, which has been horribly damaged, will be much harder to salvage.
To understand the part of star wars that lies in ruins, you have to understand the two elements that turned star wars into a multi-billion dollar franchise. One part was western science fiction, and the other part was Chinese martial arts fiction (referred to as wuxia)
Below is a description of elements found in nearly every wuxia novel: (it should seem familiar.)
QuoteThere is an energy in the world (Qi/force/etc). Some people have the rare gift of being sense this energy and have the potential to harness its power through training in the martial arts. Force/Qi-sentative children are taken from their families and join martial art sect/order to devote their lives to harnessing its power. After years of training, they become martial arts master able to use Qi/force to do all manners of supernatural things (move objects with their minds, shoot lighting from their fingers, manipulate the minds of mortals, etc). These force/Qi martial arts users can sense each other over great distances and dodge/block attacks by predicting the future. There preferred weapons are swords.
The best way to describe the first six star wars film is a beautiful mixture of Easter martial art fiction and Western sci-fi fiction. Problem is, lucasfilm has been managed by people who think of star wars as "wizards with laser swords". These people didn't understand that star wars was the world's most valuable martial arts franchise, with horrifying results.
How do you break a martial arts franchise? Here is how. You have a nobody from nowhere, who has never trained a single day in martial arts, pick up a sword for the first time and defeat one the galaxy's strongest martial artists, who has trained for decades on how use the force and the sword. That is how you turn a martial arts franchise into a joke. How you turn star wars into "wizards with laser swords".
In both wuxia and the OT/PT, being force/qi sensative means nothing without training in the martial arts. You don't become a master martial artist without training, period, this is common sense. TFA badly damage the wuxia side of star wars. TLJ finished it off.
In TLJ, Rey is able to lift ten times more stuff than Yoda, with essentially zero training. This completely breaks the martial arts side of star wars. Not only can someone with zero training do the same things as martial artists who have trained centuries, they can do it ten times better. Sigh...
In the first six movies, the force/jedi were based on chinese martial arts lore (talented individuals gain strength through training). In the last three movies, the force/jedi was based on a bad version of Harry Potter (sense the force, poof >> jedi master).
A four billion dollar martial arts franchise was put in the hands of people who think martial artists are wizards...
------------------------------------
EDIT: It should also be clear from this why TROS is bombing in China. They see the corruption of the wuxia side of star wars far clearer there.
-
16
-
1
-
-
Quote
I agree that AOU didn't end up hurting the MCU at all and I agree that TLJ did hurt the SW franchise somewhat. But it's funny, as standalone films I feel TLJ is way way better than AOU.
AOU had rock solid world building (like the rest of the MCU). As long as the foundations are respected, a movie can be bad without damaging a franchise.
Jar Jar binks is an example of something terrible that does nothing to hurt a franchise. He may ruin a movie or two, but has zero long term impact.
Bad dialoge and acting hurt the movie they happen in, but have little impact on the franchise brand overall.
Edit: TLJ is the opposite of AOU. An entertaining movie that destroys a franchise by breaking the foundations that franchise is built on (the world building).
QuoteAnd why is he regarded as someone who would be the saviour of Lucasfilm? He already directed and screenwrote all of the prequel trilogy which, whatever your personal opinion, was definitely divisively received overall among fans, and overall pretty mildly or poorly received critically. (Perhaps not as relevant, but I was surprised to learn that of the original trilogy, George Lucas was director and sole screenwriter of only the first film, A New Hope. As a non-fanboy when it comes to Star Wars, I totally assumed George Lucas had directed all of those films.)
George can't fix it even if he comes back. World building doesn't work that way.
Rey being 100 or 1000 times stronger than yoda (going by what she can lift with the force). How do you fix that? Are all force users going to be super jedis from now on? How do you undo the weaponization of hyperspace from the last jedi?
ST trilogy turned the force into an ass-pull machine. How do you take the force seriously again after Leia flying through space?
All the rules and understanding of star wars have been broken by this ST.
------------------------
The Star Wars movies are the pillars of the star wars universe, and those pillars are broken. A retcon of this ST is the only thing that could fix the star wars brand, and that is impossible. You might be able to reccon a TV series or game, but not a central movie. George wouldn't be able to do anything if he comes back.
Disney can put bandage bandages on by doing quality shows like the mandalorian, but the broken world building from ST will plague Star Wars for the rest of time.
The people behind the ST considered star wars to be space wizards for kids. Now that is what it has become.
-
5
-
2
-
-
Buying up tickets to make a movie look better does happen: (at least in China)
Quote...
In 2016, the distributor of the martial arts film “Ip Man 3” inflated its ticket sales by around $4.7 million through so-called ghost screenings — sold out shows with higher ticket prices that never actually took place — and by an additional $8.3 million by buying up tickets in bulk, VOA News reported. ...
It all kind of depends of your opinion and trust in Disney to not engage in that type of behavior...
-
1
-
-
Quote
Venom's run will always confuse me. What audiences saw in that movie, I'll never know.
I watched the second half of venom and loved it (started about 40 min into the movie). That is how I advise watching the movie btw.
As to why the audiences loved that movie, that is easy. It is new and unique. There is no movie out there with anything close to the dynamic of venom and eddie (superpowerful parasite talking in your head).
This two individuals in one body thing (with one being very psychopathic) is what sold the movie.
-
Quote
So instead of killing him when you least expect it, you want him killed in the third movie, just like what happened to the Emperor?
If you kill him in the second movie, fine, but you need to create his replacement. A credible villain needs to exist going into the last movie of your trilogy. Kilo (who has basically lost every fight in all three movies) doesn't work as a main antagonist.
Rian's sin was taking out the main "mastermind villain" without providing any kind of alternative. I mean, with snoke dead and most of the new order's fleet destroyed, what was supposed to be the threat for the third movie? Kylo that Rey has already defeated?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Quote
TLJ killed Star Wars, the movie wasn't that bad, but turned the fandom so toxic, I think people just need a break.
If the TLJ was a stand alone movie, not part of any franchise, you could say that it wasn't that bad.
However, one of Star Wars main selling point is its in dept world building and its lore. All six of the first movies (regardless of the quality of some) fit together and told a cohesive story. This cohesive storytelling across multiple movies is the MCU's selling point too.
Imagine if the next Avengers, directed by Ryan johnson, Captain marvel is unceremoniously killed off and Black panther becomes a loner that drinks green milk. That would definitively "subvert" everyone's expectations. Even if it was a good movie, it would tear the MCU fan base apart just like what happened in Star Wars.
In multi-billion dollar franchises, movies need to be more than simply good.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Quote
I'm really curious how things unfold this weekend and for the run in general. For all the anxiety of the Disneyfication of the box office, the fact that <$1B is on the table demonstrates how quickly things can change. If Disney's mega franchises just kept on rolling along, box office would get pretty boring after a while. Whatever dominance they have is only sustainable if they can meet the very high expectations of fan bases, which were seeing is no easy feat.
It is not that difficult as long as you have an outline, some time of plan on where you are going, especially with a trilogy.
Letting Rian Johnson kill snoke in TLJ is an example of having no plan. Imagine if they killed the emperor in Empire strikes back, what the hell do you do in the next movie?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:
The way the movie presents it is that Harlan wants his family to learn to be self-sufficient. He wants them to make a name for themselves, instead of piggybacking off his success. It helps that, with the possible exception of his granddaughter, his family members weren’t exactly portrayed as likable people.
Thanks for the answer.
SpoilerFinal thoughts
1) Maybe I am weird. I still can't believe that I haven't seen any comments by people who had issues with the things that are bothering me. It is a little disturbing, but hopefully I will understand this better when I eventually see the film.
2) If "Harlan wants his family to learn to be self-sufficient" then leaving all the money to Marta Cabrera was the worse possible choice, because it makes his will contestable due to "unduly influenced". If he left his money to charity for example, there would be no grounds to contest it. As it is, Marta will probably be forced to give everything back after years of lawsuits that tear the family apart... The only winners here are the lawyers which are going to make a fortune...
3) Disinheriting someone causes harm beyond the simple loss of money. Deep phychological scars. The only "legitimate reason" for completely disinheriting someone is wanting to hurt someone, wanting to cause them harm. It is never "in the interest" of the heirs to be disinherited (ie: virtually guarranteed to have a negative impact on the lives and psychology). Using a trust to limit accesss to the money is the correct way to "force heirs to fend for themselves". A trust also serves an emergency fund that can save lives. (ie: If a family member develops a costly medical condition they can't afford to treat on their own). Leaving the money to Marta only makes sense if it was Harlan's intent to reduce his entire family to ruin in a way that maximized their pain and humiliation (if that was his intend, then I have no problem with the movie)...
Anyway, the moral of all this is that family members should insists on nurses and caretakers who are complete assholes. You can't trust the elderly to nurses that are "nice", as they will "nicely" screw you out of your inheritance.
-
Ok, I have two questions for people who have seen knives out. I keep hearing all these good things about the movie, but when I read about the plot, I am slightly horrified on the moral front. Could someone who has seen the movie help explain more how Knives out works, morrally speaking.
Spoiler1) The optics of an elderly parent Disinheriting their heirs without their knowledge and leaving everything to their caregiver seems terrible.
How did Knives out make this work morally? What did Harlan's great grandchildren do to deserve being disinherited? Having his wealth skip all living family members was option (ie: give everything to his great grandchildren via a trust)
Knives out seems like textbook inheritance theft: (something terrible that happens to real, good people)
Spoilerhttp://pennyborn.com/disinheritedbyparent.html
How You Could Be Disinherited
If you have a normal, close relationship with your parents, you may assume you will inherit any property or assets they leave behind. However, as this article will explore, you may be one of the many people surprised to find you have been disinherited by an elderly parent. While estate planning law has long recognized that children are the natural objects of a parent's affection, unless the child is with his elderly parent on an almost continuous basis, that parent can easily begin to transfer his affection to a caretaker or friend that would not otherwise be entitled to inherit.
This discussion is specifically directed at the complex problems many adult children face as their elderly parents become subject to the influence of caretakers, neighbors, acquaintances, and other individuals that may seek to take advantage. See inheritance theft. Unless you are fortunate enough to be with your elderly parent the majority of the time and help your parent manage his or her day to day affairs, your parent may be vulnerable to the undue influence of someone that seeks to gain access to all or part of your family estate.2) Isn't Harlan sentencing his family to live out the rest of their lives in destitution and shame?
This isn't about his heirs losing their inheritance
The entire world is going find out that the family has been disinherited for the reason that "they are terrible people". If an admired, famous person hates something, their fans will hate you it too. Seems to me the fallout from this movie will be the entire family losing everything they have in fallout (Forget being a "lifestyle guru and influencer" after being disinherited, lol). Twitter is going to laught while their lives fall apart (that is what twitter does when someone famous denounces someone).
If Harlan was giving his wealth to charity or something like that, the situation might be salvageable for the family. They might be able to spin it in a way so that it doesn't destroy their lives. However, having his nurse inherite everything makes things as clear as day: Harlan hates his family because they are bad people. His heirs are going to die early, in poverty, while being ridiculed by the world. How exactly does knives out sell this as a happy ending? (Harlen's great grandchildren are going to be answer the question "if great grandfather was Harlan, why are you so poor?" for the rest of their lives)
--------------------------
I am not trying to knock the movie. This is just something that bothered me enough to ask.
I understand that the movie is fun. how does it work morally speaking?
-
Quote
It would certainly be a nice 'fuck you' to Johnson's critics who thought TLJ would kill his career if this went big. Talk about a quick turnaround.
Yea, well, might not "kill his carreer", but it didn't help it any. "Knives out" might do well at the box office, but it would have done better without the TLJ... and Rian's behavior since then.
I mean, as part of the marketing of knives out, he attacked fans who didn't like TLJ... That doesn't help.
For the record, "Knives out" is the type of movie I would normally go see, and I will watch it eventually for free on a plane or something. I just not going to support the box office of someone who keeps going out of his way to throw shade at people who didn't like TLJ (like me).
-
3
-
3
-
-
Quote
I blocked several people. The Terminator series was "woke" from the beginning but this new hysteria from man-children on the internet loves to ignore actual themes in older films.
I am probably one of the people you consider "man-children", which is fine (better than some of the other names going around). I just wanted to add that most people, when they complain about movies being "woke", aren't complaining about diversity or female empowerment. They are complaining about the bait and switch that always seems to come with it.
-----------------------------
Examples of "Woke" Bait and switches
Wreck it ralph. I watched the sequel on a plane ride and I couldn't finish the movie. They made Ralph, the fun character I wanted to see more of, into the villain of the sequel (because of "Toxic Masculinity").
Lego Movie. On the same plane, I tried watching the lego movie sequel and half way through I realized it is the same thing. They take the male protagonist of the first film and turn him into the villain of the second. I don't watch sequels to see characters that I love turned into bad jokes.
Star Wars. I went to see TLJ in theaters based on the promise of the return of Luke Skywalker. What I got was Luke throwing away his light saber and drinking green milk (that scene was absolutely disgusting and unnecessary).
Last season of game of thrones.
Terminator Dark Fate. Can't say anything here because of spoilers, but it definitely fits the list.
ETC...
-----------------------------
I have started to think of all this as DFC (diversity-flavered cr@p). That it makes clear that It isn't the diversity that is the problem, it is the stuff that always seems to come with it.
If you want to know why "woke" movies are starting to bomb harder and faster at the box office, this is the reason. There is only so many times you can pull off a bait-and-switch before people get wise to you.
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
9
-
-
Quote
Being loved by audiences means Paramount will continue to make money on it for years to come. Fans will always want to watch it again, whether it's on DVD, on TV, on streaming, or whatever the next form of consumption. They will eventually make a profit with this film.
Actually, RT critics and audience scores are both 69% for dark fate, and I don't know if that qualifies as "love". I don't trust RT's "verified" audience rating (I always buy tickets as a walk-in. Not going to pay more and use Fandango just to leave a "verified review")
Thor: Love and Thunder | July 8, 2022 | Directed by Oscar Winner Taika Waititi | Ninth most profitable movie of 2022
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
The MCU's strength was based on its source material. They took the best story beats, whose popularity had stood the test of time, and adapted them. Phase 4 changed that approach, focusing on newer, less proven characters and storylines.
Adapt popular comics >> profit
Adapt less popular comics >> less profit
It seems simple to me.