SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[redfirebird2008]

4 minutes ago, Goffe said:

No they weren't silly

 

the editing in the action sequences was appalling. 

 

 

They were very good.

 

[DAJK]

Yikes. This may end up rotten!

[The Stingray]

53 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

Thanks for busting that bubble for me after I just shelled out $13 for a ticket on Fandango.

 

Hey, I paid 18 bucks for mine.

 

[AJG]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

The disparity in opinion between British and US critics on this movie is amazing to see. The British critics kept it at 80% almost on RT, which means that US critics have given it less than 50% approval so far. Difference in how Bond is viewed culturally maybe?

 

No. There's just a difference between how business is conducted over here. Bond is big here and sites knew it, sites also knew that they were basically the only sources for Spectre reviews for a week which meant they had the oppurtunity to gain attention from more people than usual. The reviews for this movie was the top link for most news sites over here, a couple of critics got their reviews out about an hour after the screening had finished. They ran with the reviews for the movie for days. It's one of those deals where a review praising the movie or bashing the movie would gain more attention then just calling it mediocre, and the press is more concerned with telling everyone what they want to hear instead of the truth.  It's easier to paint this thing up as good instead of terrible so they went that route. I imagine if the US sites managed to get in their reviews at the same time we would've seen critics and websites be a tad more honest as they would've had less to gain and less to lose.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AJG

[redfirebird2008]

6 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

No. There's just a difference between how business is conducted over here. Bond is big here and sites knew it, sites also knew that they were basically the only sources for Spectre reviews for a week which meant they had the oppurtunity to gain attention from more people than usual. The reviews for this movie was the top link for most news sites over here, a couple of critics got their reviews out about an hour after the screening had finished. They ran with the reviews for the movie for days. It's one of those deals where a review praising the movie or bashing the movie would gain more attention then just calling it mediocre, and the press is more concerned with telling everyone what they want to hear instead of the truth.  It's easier to paint this thing up as good instead of terrible so they went that route. I imagine if the US sites managed to get in their reviews at the same time we would've seen critics and websites be a tad more honest as they would've had less to gain and less to lose.

 

But if the goal is to grab attention and more clicks on the website, shouldn't they follow the Armond White approach? Call it the worst movie ever and you'll get way more attention than calling it a "good, not great" movie (which is what a lot of the British reviewers did with it).

[ddddeeee]

QoS is better than Spectre because it's shorter.

 

[CJohn]

Quantum of Solace is dull as fuck.

Skyfall is insane and goes off the rails so badly it probably broke through the atmosphere and has attained orbit.

Casino Royale is Jesus.

 

I am curious about Spectre.

[Ozymandias]

56 minutes ago, DAJK said:

Yikes. This may end up rotten!

 

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

[Hatebox]

Still haven't seen it, but it's been wildly divisive amongst friends. One thing they all agree on is that it doesn't need to be that long. Sounds like Mendes didn't have enough time to edit it properly. That tiny post production window always looked ominous.

 

At any rate, I sure as shit don't believe it's worse than Jurassic World, as the RT currently suggests.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Hatebox

[AJG]

8 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

But if the goal is to grab attention and more clicks on the website, shouldn't they follow the Armond White approach? Call it the worst movie ever and you'll get way more attention than calling it a "good, not great" movie (which is what a lot of the British reviewers did with it).

 

Because it's a flat out lie. Attacking a big blockbuster movie that most wont find terrible makes you appear to be pretentious as well as out of touch due to the flood of more positive reactions that would be coming in from the public. It reflects poorly on you as well as the site. People dont like negativity, coming across as somebody that has the ability to enjoy a mediocre movie is more appealing than being the guy that hates everything because it's not perfect. In the long run being positive is more beneficial then being negative. 

[Jonwo]

Bond would benefit from a longer production window, why they insist on shooting from December/January to June with a October release date is beyond me. 

[bapi]

Just now, Jonwo said:

Bond would benefit from a longer production window, why they insist on shooting from December/January to June with a October release date is beyond me. 

Honestly they just were waiting for Mendes. Casino Royale had similar schedule and that movie is in my Top4 of 007.

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, AJG said:

 

Because it's a flat out lie. Attacking a big blockbuster movie that most wont find terrible makes you appear to be pretentious as well as out of touch due to the flood of more positive reactions that would be coming in from the public. It reflects poorly on you as well as the site. People dont like negativity, coming across as somebody that has the ability to enjoy a mediocre movie is more appealing than being the guy that hates everything because it's not perfect. In the long run being positive is more beneficial then being negative. 

 

But pretending to like something when you don't is just as much of a lie. It's a disservice to the public too.

[bapi]

So press screening here today and first reactions seem really, really weak - 4-6/10 and the worst Craig-Bond movie so far. Guess I'll check it anyway but after 3 movies: Brosnan > Craig and I'm not a huge fan of Pierce's Bond.

Edited November 3, 2015 by bapi

[Hatebox]

Just now, redfirebird2008 said:

 

But pretending to like something when you don't is just as much of a lie. It's a disservice to the public too.

 

In the case of the British press, I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy: the vast majority genuinely dig Bond and unless the film is really bad they'll probably be favourable. From what I've heard there's quite a bit to like about this movie even if it doesn't add up to a great whole.

[Emirazza]

I think reviews gonna end up like MoS. 

[misafeco]

First review in Hungary from one of the biggest news site:

The new Bond movie is long and terribly boring

http://www.origo.hu/filmklub/20151103-spectre-kritika-james-bond-daniel-craig-lea-seydoux-monica-bellucci-sam-mendes.html

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, AJG said:

 

No. There's just a difference between how business is conducted over here. Bond is big here and sites knew it, sites also knew that they were basically the only sources for Spectre reviews for a week which meant they had the oppurtunity to gain attention from more people than usual. The reviews for this movie was the top link for most news sites over here, a couple of critics got their reviews out about an hour after the screening had finished. They ran with the reviews for the movie for days. It's one of those deals where a review praising the movie or bashing the movie would gain more attention then just calling it mediocre, and the press is more concerned with telling everyone what they want to hear instead of the truth.  It's easier to paint this thing up as good instead of terrible so they went that route. I imagine if the US sites managed to get in their reviews at the same time we would've seen critics and websites be a tad more honest as they would've had less to gain and less to lose.

 

Or maybe they just like it. They like the concept of a legendary British spy, they like Sam Mendes, and they like the visual elegance that the last several Bonds have had. Much simpler than assuming some nefarious quasi-cabal.

[theultimatebiu]

 

Having seen the movie on Saturday, this is not a shock. The movie is just mediocre. Its not bad just half assed. It is also...WAAAAY to long.

[Emirazza]

1 minute ago, theultimatebiu said:

 

Having seen the movie on Saturday, this is not a shock. The movie is just mediocre. Its not bad just half assed. It is also...WAAAAY to long.

150 mins, right?