Fant4stic Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - Part 38

[Marvolo]

Maybe. If somebody offered me free tickets, I'd pass.

I wouldnt turn down the opportunity to see this for free. Beats paying the price of a ticket or the price to rent it when it comes out on Blu-ray. Plus its only 90 minutes and if its really bad I could always walk out and I wouldnt have lost any money.

 

[lordofthenerds]

That not the point at all.

The point is that a movie people thought would be savaged by critics because of an embargo wasn't.

I'm not saying F4 will be great just that embargo doesn't mean it's definitely gonna be reviewed unfavourably

Trust me, I understand your point. It's a simple one. "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D."

The problem is, your point isn't reassuring. Read the "fresh" reviews for Piranha 3D. They're favorable because critics thought it was fun to laugh at. The studio embargoed it because they knew full well it was a bad movie by traditional standards; however, they didn't account for the fact that critics are often ironic hipsters who give B-style horror comedies good ratings. It's the same reason Sharknado has an 82%.

So when you say "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D", you're inadvertently indicating that even though the studio may have embargoed this thinking it's a bad movie, many critics might still enjoy it ironically.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Trust me, I understand you're point. It's a simple one. "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D."

The problem is, you're point isn't reassuring. Read the "fresh" reviews for Piranha 3D. They're favorable because critics thought it was fun to laugh at. The studio embargoed it because they knew full well it was a bad movie by traditional standards; however, they didn't account for the fact that critics are often ironic hipsters who give B-style horror comedies good ratings. It's the same reason Sharknado has an 82%.

So when you say "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D", you're inadvertently indicating that even though the studio may have embargoed this thinking it's a bad movie, many critics might still enjoy it ironically.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Trust me, I understand you're point. It's a simple one. "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D."

The problem is, you're point isn't reassuring. Read the "fresh" reviews for Piranha 3D. They're favorable because critics thought it was fun to laugh at. The studio embargoed it because they knew full well it was a bad movie by traditional standards; however, they didn't account for the fact that critics are often ironic hipsters who give B-style horror comedies good ratings. It's the same reason Sharknado has an 82%.

So when you say "Embargoes don't necessarily mean bad reviews. Look at Piranha 3D", you're inadvertently indicating that even though the studio may have embargoed this thinking it's a bad movie, many critics might still enjoy it ironically.

Also, it is very rare. Take a look at the list I posted last night. 1 of them had good reviews out of 20. While there is a chance that the studio was wrong about what the critics would think, it is an extremely small chance. The vast, vast majority of the time the studio was right to have no faith in the film.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Also, it is very rare. Take a look at the list I posted last night. 1 of them had good reviews out of 20. While there is a chance that the studio was wrong about what the critics would think, it is an extremely small chance. The vast, vast majority of the time the studio was right to have no faith in the film.

Yeah, that too. Piranha 3D is a well reviewd drip in an ocean of poorly reviewed embargoed movies.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If I eat 6 Taco Bell burrito supremes, will I be absoluely certain I will do terrible, terrible things to my bathroom? No. Nothing is absolutely certain, but it's much more likely than not.

And at this point, it's similarly likely that this film will be the cinematic equivalent of the after-effects if my Taco Bell feast.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Piranha 3D got reviews for being enjoyable in a "so bad its hilarious" B-movie kind of way. That's not the kind of reviews you want FFINO to get. (Although, if it does get that kind of reviews, I may actually go see it )

 

[Quasar]

I 100% expect FFINO to get the "so bad it's hilarious" reviews. The first time Thing opens his mouth and speaks, you know the entire theater will do a giant spit-take.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah, I don't really read reviews anyway. I prefer people's one liner reactions on twitter. Suits me. Let's see how it goes.

If a good portion of those tweets are positive then I will go check it out because I am usually on the positive side of things.

So a lack of substance suits you when it comes to film opinion?

 

[The Infernal]

That not the point at all.

I was talking about my point.

 

[RAE072]

I 100% expect FFINO to get the "so bad it's hilarious" reviews. The first time Thing opens his mouth and speaks, you know the entire theater will do a giant spit-take.

It's why they've been literally hiding one of the main characters of this movie SPEAKING.

THAT doesn't throw up any red flags for some folks?

 

[Kanon]

I don't expect "so bad it's hilarious". That's for movies that don't take themselves seriously, something like Sharknado. This one pretends to be serious, gritty. When that doesn't work, it's dull, not funny.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I expect some will like it, others won't. I expect there to be more negative reviews then positive. But I have been wrong before.

 

[Sleiek]

So a lack of substance suits you when it comes to film opinion?

I said I prefer reading a 2 line summary over a review essay. Overall opinion matters to me more than reading into details about what was right and what was wrong. I am not a hard critic when it comes to movies, I tend to enjoy it more than the next guy. This is why I prefer reading Rotten Tomatoes critic summary over reading individual reviews.

 

[Erzengel]

Prior to this hubbub, I thought this would be like MOS and TASM2 in the 50s and the arguments would continue. Now I'm guessing in the 40s would be a small achievement.

 

[Dasher10]

The only films with a serious tone to ever fall into, "so bad, it's good" are Manos: The Hands of Fate and The Room. After three months of reshoots, it won't be THAT bad. It'll be just regular bad, which means somewhere between passable and forgettable. This is going to be one of those films which you don't actively despise because you don't bother thinking about it and other people have to remind you that you saw it just to make you remember actually watching it.

 

[starscream22]

Maybe. If somebody offered me free tickets, I'd pass.

Paying to watch Pixel feels more rewarding at this point

 

[Link]

The only films with a serious tone to ever fall into, "so bad, it's good" are Manos: The Hands of Fate and The Room. After three months of reshoots, it won't be THAT bad. It'll be just regular bad, which means somewhere between passable and forgettable. This is going to be one of those films which you don't actively despise because you don't bother thinking about it and other people have to remind you that you saw it just to make you remember actually watching it.

That's exactly what i'm afraid of. That empty feeling of "meh" after you see a film, and the complete forgetting of it a week later. Jupiter Ascending and Second Son both had that effect on me and this might easily fit in with those movies. Still hoping it's good because of the cast.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I don't expect "so bad it's hilarious". That's for movies that don't take themselves seriously, something like Sharknado. This one pretends to be serious, gritty. When that doesn't work, it's dull, not funny.

IF they keep the Thing's voice the way it sounds in the brief clips we've seen (and I suspect they'll fix at least that component), I think that's going to be a laugh-out-loud moment the first time the audience hears that tiny voice coming out of that huge creature.

But based on what we've seen, I do think it's generally going to skate a line of being bad, unrealistic, awkward, and cliche' without crossing over into being so terribly bad it's funny and entertaining.

 

[Tymminator]

Maybe. If somebody offered me free tickets, I'd pass.

I hear you. I'm offered free tickets and I'm passing.

(I'm part of a costuming/cosplay group and there are a few theaters around here that love us and if we show up at these superhero movies for kids and adults to take pics with us, we can see the movie free. There are others in the group going, but I just can't bring myself to do it)

 

[metaphysician]

Reshoots doesn't only mean "adding new stuff to the existing footage". After primary filming is completed and the footage is put together in a rough draft....then you can see if it is going together smoothly, or if there are problems. There have been movies in the past that were extensively reworked with major new scenes shot to replace things that didn't work. In the case of an EXORCIST prequel a few years back....after the movie was finished and looked at, they scrapped the entire movie and shot a new one with mostly different actors and a different director. And ironically, when that movie failed at the boxoffice, the studio then paid to release the original movie they shot (which also bombed) and went to quick video release.

I suspect, in that case, they would have been better off just releasing the original terrible movie. Sure, it would have bombed, but they wouldn't have spent the extra money, so the losses would have been less. Of course, making that kind of call requires that one be able to say "This movie is a lost cause", and I bet the people at Fox aren't capable of that. . .

 

[metaphysician]

It really is.

So much for the "science and exploration" stuff.

You know, just one of these days, I'd like to see a relevant movie where the military's reaction to superhumans is to view them as having great potential. . . as soldiers, rather than as weapons.

 

[Tymminator]

I dunno...I heard reshoots and I just imagined them trying to make it better, I couldn't imagine them making it worse.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I dunno...I heard reshoots and I just imagined them trying to make it better, I couldn't imagine them making it worse.

Reshoots are a double edged sword.. they are indeed done to make a film better, but more often than not call for re-scripting, actors getting back into character, and when this is done sometime after principal photography, it can be difficult to make those changed scenes flow as smoothly as the original... thus Kate Mara's terrible wig.

 

[Krystal]

Yep. A whole day.

Such confidence.

Not even a whole day---22 hours. LOL

So now folks on east coast go to bed with no reviews and next day go to work and then straight to movie early 7pm without checking online reviews. That's all they want people going Thursday without seeing any reviews. It's all they've got.

Big deal.

Really no difference.