Brad Bird Directing Tomorrowland

[WC Avengers]

First Friday!

John Carter - $9,811,935

Tomorrowland - $9,737,000


I am really sad this is going this way, was hoping for much more.

 

[terry78]

Yeah I think it deserves more. It has Bird's trademark all over it.

 

[Quasimod0]

It definitely deserves more. I have seen movies waaaaay worse than this. At least this movie had an interesting story to tell, good performances all around, a neat sci-fi world, a nice score, and an actual message.
I mean there is a looot of positive here. Its not the best movie of all time, but definitely better than most junk out there.

 

[TheVileOne]

It wasn't terrible. I just expected more out of Brad Bird.

Not like the critics hate the dude and had an agenda. Not like Bird was not trying to deliver his own agenda with this film.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yes Tomorrowland has it's moments but that's not enough to make up a whole movie. And the message is interesting but it's naive and should have been more subtle. The female characters are written and performed well though, which is a huge positive. I just don't think Bird and Lindy cracked a good enough story/plot to make an interesting enough movie unfortunately. I don't see why I should recommend people spend 8-15 dollars to see this film on the big screen. Movies need more than interesting ideas to succeed on an artistic level.

 

[TheVileOne]

Not naive so much as bonkers.

Spoiler

"A giant doom and gloom ball is leading the Earth to an apocalypse. It's driving people nuts...let's turn it off!" Gee you think.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Not naive so much as bonkers.

Spoiler

"A giant doom and gloom ball is leading the Earth to an apocalypse. It's driving people nuts...let's turn it off!" Gee you think.

First Friday!

John Carter - $9,811,935

Tomorrowland - $9,737,000


I am really sad this is going this way, was hoping for much more.

Less than Prince of Persia as well. Disney continues to not be great at live action films not based on fairytales.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Oh lord, the "critics have an agenda" conspiracy theory.

That has to be it. I mean they gave Mad Max, a film with a bleak vision of the future nearly brilliant marks, so the only conclusion to be arrived is their anti-optimist agenda.

It really isn't anything new. And not to be readily dismissed just because you personally don't agree with it. Do you really think every single film critic has journalistic integrity with no prejudices or biases of any kind when judging a film? You mean people besides that may actually exist in the media? Whoa! It's as abused as any system can be, especially when you have the internet. And I'm not just talking about Tomorrowland which could very well suck if I see it.

I haven't seen it, but it sounds that Bird didn't execute his ideas very well and are pretty on the nose. So I would hope that's what they're being counted against instead of just the notions themselves.

 

[Sithborg]

Yet, it is only a conspiracy when the critics disagree with you.

I have enjoyed various movies that critics have panned, and also have hated some with a positive critic reception.

 

[danoyse]

Yes Tomorrowland has it's moments but that's not enough to make up a whole movie. And the message is interesting but it's naive and should have been more subtle. The female characters are written and performed well though, which is a huge positive. I just don't think Bird and Lindy cracked a good enough story/plot to make an interesting enough movie unfortunately. I don't see why I should recommend people spend 8-15 dollars to see this film on the big screen. Movies need more than interesting ideas to succeed on an artistic level.

That's my problem with it too. It's just kind of...there. It looks beautiful, the kids did a good job, Clooney looked like he was having fun, but it just felt like there should have been more adventurous and magical.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's my problem with it too. It's just kind of...there. It looks beautiful, the kids did a good job, Clooney looked like he was having fun, but it just felt like there should have been more adventurous and magical.

It's a meandering film, I think meandering is the right word.

 

[danoyse]

It's a meandering film, I think meandering is the right word.

Exactly. There didn't seem like there was a pulse behind it.

 

[The Apocalypse]

Could care less about the reviews or how much it makes. I really enjoyed the film.

 

[TheVileOne]

It really isn't anything new. And not to be readily dismissed just because you personally don't agree with it. Do you really think every single film critic has journalistic integrity with no prejudices or biases of any kind when judging a film? You mean people besides that may actually exist in the media? Whoa! It's as abused as any system can be, especially when you have the internet. And I'm not just talking about Tomorrowland which could very well suck if I see it.

I haven't seen it, but it sounds that Bird didn't execute his ideas very well and are pretty on the nose. So I would hope that's what they're being counted against instead of just the notions themselves.

So what were the personal biases or prejudices here Doctor Jones? If anything, critics should've been biased to LOVE this film. Look at Brad Bird's track record.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_giant/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ratatouille/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_impossible_ghost_protocol/?search=Mission Imposs

A two-time Academy Award winning filmmaker. All of his films rated well above 90 percent. He is one of the most beloved and acclaimed directors on the planet. Where was the personal bias to hate the film?


Your explanation is invalid an illegitimate. Purely not true.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yeah, I'm not buying the argument that the vast majority of critics are biased against light optimistic films and one's directed by Brad Bird. Also Cinderella was bright, optimistic and starring two women and the critics liked that film. The critics are constantly *****ing about all of these virtually non existent dark and gritty films, not optimistic ones.

 

[flickchick85]

Neither am I.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Yeah, I'm not buying the arguement that the vast majority of critics are biased against light optimistic films and one's directed by Brad Bird.

They love Bird, Lindeof on the other hand im not so sure, they probably not. But i dont think there are conspiracy involved, that sounds too stupid.

But its another nail in the coffin for riskier Disney movies not based in established franchises. JC, lone ranger now TOmmorowland, things look pretty grim for the future

 

[dark_b]

the hate could be because of Lindelof. as always the same problem.

 

[TheVileOne]

They love Bird, Lindeof on the other hand im not so sure, they probably not. But i dont think there are conspiracy involved, that sounds too stupid.

But its another nail in the coffin for riskier Disney movies not based in established franchises. JC, lone ranger now TOmmorowland, things look pretty grim for the future

C'mon man. Some of these things are not like the other. Even Tomorrowland is not completely original, it's named after a subsection of Disneyland. It's almost like a theme park advertisement.

Lone Ranger is a classic, iconic franchise, but it hasn't had relevancy or mainstream appeal in a long time. It's not like though that Gore Verbinski was trying to make this bold, original and risky film. You make it sound like it was risky in a good way.

 

[TheVileOne]

the hate could be because of Lindelof. as always the same problem.

IMHO largely unfounded. But Lindelof's track record in bigger films speaks for itself. That's not bias. It's just the reality of his record.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

C'mon man. Some of these things are not like the other. Even Tomorrowland is not completely original, it's named after a subsection of Disneyland. It's almost like a theme park advertisement.

Lone Ranger is a classic, iconic franchise, but it hasn't had relevancy or mainstream appeal in a long time. It's not like though that Gore Verbinski was trying to make this bold, original and risky film. You make it sound like it was risky in a good way.

I know nothing is original 100 percent, not even this flick of course. I don't mean the property's are original , LR wasnt, JC wasnt for sure. Its just if you are a producer and you have to bank a movie that its a little bit riskier than the average. After seeing this track record you are going to play it more and more safe. Why do you think Disney bought all those property's and is remaking every ****ing animated classic they made? they want to play as safe as possible and bank as much as they can, is good business.

Even though why don't they actually invest in a good 2D movie its just something that pisses me off daily (as an animator). They aren't as expensive as CG movies and you can take more risks there for less money, i don't know why they even try it once

 

[flickchick85]

I'm not seeing a bunch of "hate" from the critics so much as "we wish this were better." It seems like most of them were rooting for the film, actually.

 

[TheVileOne]

flickchick85 basically just described my review.

I was totally rooting for this film since D23. Honestly, I was glad Bird was doing this instead of Star Wars because I wanted to see him do something different instead of another sequel.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yet, it is only a conspiracy when the critics disagree with you.

I have enjoyed various movies that critics have panned, and also have hated some with a positive critic reception.

I've said this movie could just very well suck too and critics are just judging it based on that. I should have worded myself better in my first statement. But I'm not trying to make an argument that critics have an agenda against this film in particular. Merely something to consider. Harmless really. But outside of this film, I'm also stating if you think critics aren't biased or prejudiced against certain films at all, then that's just delusional.

So what were the personal biases or prejudices here Doctor Jones? If anything, critics should've been biased to LOVE this film. Look at Brad Bird's track record.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/iron_giant/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ratatouille/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_impossible_ghost_protocol/?search=Mission Imposs

A two-time Academy Award winning filmmaker. All of his films rated well above 90 percent. He is one of the most beloved and acclaimed directors on the planet. Where was the personal bias to hate the film?


Your explanation is invalid an illegitimate. Purely not true.

Indeed. But if you read my alternative idea, I was actually open to it being conceivable that this is not that good of a movie. Your statement doesn't shock me. Again, I should have thought that out more as it shouldn't have been my main argument.

I'm just really taken aback by the response which is so atypical of Bird. Hence my agenda notion. Again, merely a consideration because this is so odd.

Yeah, I'm not buying the argument that the vast majority of critics are biased against light optimistic films and one's directed by Brad Bird. Also Cinderella was bright, optimistic and starring two women and the critics liked that film. The critics are constantly *****ing about all of these virtually non existent dark and gritty films, not optimistic ones.

So it could just be... this film just isn't all that? As unfortunate as that sounds.

 

[danoyse]

I'm not seeing a bunch of "hate" from the critics so much as "we wish this were better." It seems like most of them were rooting for the film, actually.

That's what I've been seeing as well. No agendas, just general disappointment.