Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Muppet fan 123]

Truth is: Rotten Tomatoes hasn't exactly been the best reviews in the past few years. 2008 and older would probably be reliable.

But anyway, I think they're right on this one.

 

[BobThePizzaBoy]

Truth is: Rotten Tomatoes hasn't exactly been the best reviews in the past few years. 2008 and older would probably be reliable.

But anyway, I think they're right on this one.

I say if a movie has over 100 reviews recorded, you are getting a good score. Most films of the 2000s are safe in that regard. Older films tend to be a bit less reliable score-wise.

 

[Drtooth]

RT's general consensus: Fresh

"Superman's return to the big screen is mostly successful, as Man of Steel provides enough exhilarating action and spectacle to overcome its occasional detours into generic blockbuster territory."

I don't really see any bad in that. They've already greenlit the sequel and JLA with the same team. I think most people are gonna like this take.

I'm guessing those reviews I saw today were basically sourpusses that were expecting too much. It looks solid, and a second film can only be better without exposition in the way.

I really hope to see a GOOD Brainiac story used theatrically in the cards some day. One where he doesn't have a "Gay R2-D2 with attitude" as a sidekick. Yeah. They considered that word for word.

 

[CensoredAlso]

But overall, it HAS to be done. All these Super Hero movies are the beginnings of the story where we have to discover the character before they become something. I'd love to see a super hero movie start off in the middle of the action, but that's something they can only get away with in a sequel.

The thing is other movies have proven you don't always need a huge origin story that takes up half the movie. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring got the prologue out of the way quickly and pretty much jumped into the story. And it was hugely successful, even with people who had never read the books.

Wrath of Khan was the most popular Trek film with non-Trekkies and it definitely doesn't have an origin story. Bottom line it comes down to the writing and how quickly you can set up a situation and get people interested.

 

[jvcarroll]

Truth is: Rotten Tomatoes hasn't exactly been the best reviews in the past few years. 2008 and older would probably be reliable.

But anyway, I think they're right on this one.

Confused by this statement. RT is an average of critical reviews. It's not one person or one source. Your beef would be with critics in general. I could support that. It's just not a tomatometer issue. Maybe critics these days are awful.

 

[Drtooth]

The thing is other movies have proven you don't always need a huge origin story that takes up half the movie. Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring got the prologue out of the way quickly and pretty much jumped into the story. And it was hugely successful, even with people who had never read the books.

Wrath of Khan was the most popular Trek film with non-Trekkies and it definitely doesn't have an origin story. Bottom line it comes down to the writing and how quickly you can set up a situation and get people interested.

Yeah, but those aren't Super Hero films. The origin of Star Trek everyone knows, even non-Trekkies, because it was the opening narration of the old series, and that's been referenced and parodies to death.

There will, some day, be a Super Hero movie that isn't a sequel that takes you right into the action. I'm not sure if I should count The Avengers, since it did have the origins of them coming together as a group... and, uh... I didn't get to see Thor before hand, so I was slightly confused, but not totally lost. Even the first TMNT movie had the origin, but told the right way, a brief flashback narrated by Splinter. Even in the last film, that was taken care of with a quick narration as well.

But, if done right, there are dramatic character establishing and building moments in the origin story. That's what I liked about both Spider-Man film series. Sure, they had the info dump everyone knows, but they added much needed character build up with Peter Parker.

But I repeat... I would rather see an origin of something told a million times than lengthy sequences of the hero screwing around with his newly discovered powers. That's getting old faster.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Even the first TMNT movie had the origin, but told the right way, a brief flashback narrated by Splinter.

Exactly, that was the done the right way. Get the origin out of the way quickly, and into the action. You don't need the hour long origin story to get people to fall in love with the characters. You like the Turtles for who they are now, not for their origins.

 

[Drtooth]

To be fair with TMNT, they keep changing the origin. AS long as they don't make them aliens, I'm fine with it. They can be mutated by aliens (everything but the movies has that, and only due to budget concerns), but they ain't Alien Turtles.

Of course, there are those films (like Batman 1990) where the origin comes in very important to the story overall and they change a couple things to fit that.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Of course, there are those films (like Batman 1990) where the origin comes in very important to the story overall and they change a couple things to fit that.

Well it's like any good idea. It works very well initially but when every, single movie starts to do it to death, you get sick of it.

 

[Muppet fan 123]

Confused by this statement. RT is an average of critical reviews. It's not one person or one source. Your beef would be with critics in general. I could support that. It's just not a tomatometer issue. Maybe critics these days are awful.

I feel that RT isn't really reviewing movies lately. Most of the ratings are based on reviews written by fans and other commentators, not usually actually reviewed by any of the critics.
Most of the critics are so great there anymore either. There are few good critics, but I don't check RT for new releases.