Ghost Rider-What Went Wrong

[antonydavanzo]

I have seen the movie and posted my opinions in the review thread. But where did it all go **** up? IMO it was a mix of a bad directing, editing and script.. what do you guys think,

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I have seen the movie and posted my opinions in the review thread. But where did it all go **** up? IMO it was a mix of a bad directing, editing and script.. what do you guys think,

The only thing that let the movie down for me was the final fight. The whole movie seemed to build upto that and it was a big dissapointment for me. I enjoyed the rest of the movie though.

 

[DorkyFresh]

it all went wrong once they put MSJ in charge of it. i don't care how it's doing in the box office...this movie could've been sooo much more than a mindless, popcorn flick.

 

[antonydavanzo]

Yeah I can believe its doing so well at the box offfice. The thing is with origin movies they normally do it justice.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think the origin movie formula is just getting boring to us as we have had so many of them. I have a feeling if GR had been released in 2002 or 2003 it would have been recieved well by critics and fans.

 

[DarkMajin]

I personally thought there just needed some tweaking when it came to the fight scenes and some parts of the story.

Before I'd seen the movie, I had believed it was going to be really campy, but I was surprised to see that the humor wasn't overbearing on the film. It fit pretty nicely.

If the sequel ups the fight scenes and darkens things up a bit more, things will be quite nice.

 

[Canadian Rider]

IMO it didn't. Three times I have watched it and enjoyed it.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

From what i have seen 2 out of 3 people were dissapointed with Ghost Rider.I would say everything was wrong,actors,script,but mostly advertising.

 

[RED_Rider]

Nothing is wrong with the film. It may be cheesy but MSJ is the best thing that has happend to GR. What do you mean 2 out of 3 were disappointed? Only 1 out of 10 didn't like the film and was disappointed. Alsmot everyone enjoyed the film, look around the streets and ask people or go online and check forums, people LOVED the film (As I did) And if you didn't like it, it doesn't mean everyone else also disliked it. Just look at the BO and how it exceeded analyst projections.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Nothing is wrong with the film. It may be cheesy but MSJ is the best thing that has happend to GR. What do you mean 2 out of 3 were disappointed? Only 1 out of 10 didn't like the film and was disappointed. Alsmot everyone enjoyed the film, look around the streets and ask people or go online and check forums, people LOVED the film (As I did) And if you didn't like it, it doesn't mean everyone else also disliked it. Just look at the BO and how it exceeded analyst projections.

BO really doesn't indicate if a film is good. The Lost World outgrossed Jurassic Park, and I have yet to meet someone which thinks the second film is better, it just gained off the hype from the first.

Now, I don't think GR was horrible. In fact, it wasn't really bad, it just wasn't good. In my opinion, the biggest failing (apart from plot holes and such) had to be the action.

I mean, GR basically sold itself on looking cool. Heck, Nic Cage said it himself, GR the character has survived pretty much because he "looks cool." So, if you have a visualy stunning character such as Ghost Rider, you have to put him in some visualy stunning fights, and we didn't get that.

I mean, I was hoping for action sequences that would make my jaw drop like the Doc Ock train fight in SM2, or the aerial fight in the preview for SM3, or any of the Matrix battles. Heck, I would have even been happy with fights that were as good as X3 (which I thought were mediocre). But we only got Ghost Rider killing guys with extreme ease. Even Blackheart was a pushover. It was a big let down.

 

[crazy sock]

From what i have seen 2 out of 3 people were dissapointed with Ghost Rider.I would say everything was wrong,actors,script,but mostly advertising.

i think the advertising is actually better than the movie itself. some of the first trailers looked WAY better than the movie. they made it look like the movie's tone was gunnah be a bit darker than it actually was (which is not dark at all). the trailers were definitely edited better too, fooled me into thinkng GR wasnt going to disappoint me.

 

[DorkyFresh]

I mean, I was hoping for action sequences that would make my jaw drop like the Doc Ock train fight in SM2, or the aerial fight in the preview for SM3, or any of the Matrix battles. Heck, I would have even been happy with fights that were as good as X3 (which I thought were mediocre). But we only got Ghost Rider killing guys with extreme ease. Even Blackheart was a pushover. It was a big let down.

exactly, there was practically no thought put into the fights. it was basically Ghost Rider encountering the bad guy, the bad guy showing off his powers, then GR figuring out how to dispose of him and doing it within 5 minutes. the only redeeming quality the movie has is special effects which are becoming easier and easier to do now-a-days.

 

[Episode29]

BO really doesn't indicate if a film is good. The Lost World outgrossed Jurassic Park, and I have yet to meet someone which thinks the second film is better, it just gained off the hype from the first.

Now, I don't think GR was horrible. In fact, it wasn't really bad, it just wasn't good. In my opinion, the biggest failing (apart from plot holes and such) had to be the action.

I mean, GR basically sold itself on looking cool. Heck, Nic Cage said it himself, GR the character has survived pretty much because he "looks cool." So, if you have a visualy stunning character such as Ghost Rider, you have to put him in some visualy stunning fights, and we didn't get that.

I mean, I was hoping for action sequences that would make my jaw drop like the Doc Ock train fight in SM2, or the aerial fight in the preview for SM3, or any of the Matrix battles. Heck, I would have even been happy with fights that were as good as X3 (which I thought were mediocre). But we only got Ghost Rider killing guys with extreme ease. Even Blackheart was a pushover. It was a big let down.

No, Lost World did not outgross Jurassic Park. You would have been better saying that Matrix Reloaded outgrossed The Matrix, or Star Wars: Episode 1 outgrossed Empire.

 

[Nathan]

The only thing that let the movie down for me was the final fight. The whole movie seemed to build upto that and it was a big dissapointment for me. I enjoyed the rest of the movie though.

Why? Were the acting and plot standars so low 5 years ago?

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

I don't know. But spelling standards have certainly dipped lately. That's for sure.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why? Were the acting and plot standars so low 5 years ago?

No, but i didnt mind the plot or acting in GR, it was no worse than the acting in X3, FF, or even DD and Spidey 1 IMO.

 

[antonydavanzo]

No worse??????????? It was dreadful compared to DD X3 and Spidey

 

[Canadian Rider]

If the acting is true to the character then the acting is not actually BAD. It is accurate to the character.

Johnny B. has always been portrayed as a grim but goofy character. Nic hit that well.

Roxanne was always sweet and pure and loved Johnny even though he was the monster. Eva hit that.

Sam was just great.

The rest? X3 was perhaps the worst of the X movies and Daredevil's Director's cut was about the same as the Director was the same.

So really the comparable would be spidey and although the first two had bright spots ... there was some terrible acting in those movies too ...

 

[Canadian Rider]

The acting is a question of the actor being true to the character as they were written.

Johnny B. has always been a bit goofy -- Nic got that perfect.

Roxanne has always been innocent and pure and loved Johnny even though she knew he was a monster -- Eva nailed that.

DD was the same director so the script would be the question. The Director's cut was great, but the studio release was terrible when you consider the acting compared to the Character ... it was off. That is where the Director's cut redeemed the movie for me.

X3 was so overacted and the plot was bizarre ... the whole thing was a mess so whatever.

Spiderman did have bright spots in both movies ... but again they both had some terrible acting.

It seems people are saying the bad guys were the weakest part and perhaps the acting there could be called into question ... ? Still. They were scared of the Rider as they should be ... as in the comics they know what he is and what he can do ... IMO.

 

[antonydavanzo]

So how do you think they could have made it into a better movie.......I think it should have been an A class movie but instead it was like a C+

 

[Canadian Rider]

Areas to improve? the villains.

The problem is that as the Devil's bounty Hunter, GR is such a powerful character that the badguys shouldn't be too hard to handle.

Blackheart did kick his @$$ but apparently not enough for people so ...

The Spiderman movie set up the sequel well. Introduced the story and then more action in the second.

I would say that if this was to be a franchise (which I don't think it ever was) they had to give us lots of backstory.

He had as much or more ground to cover than spidey when you realize that this character has been around as long as batman (almost -- Phantom Rider '49) but in a bunch of different versions.

He had to bring us his vision of the Rider.

The sequel could be better or be more pleasing to the worst critics if they had more action / fight sequences and a more intimidating "Badguy/Boss" for him to face ...

IMO

 

[antonydavanzo]

Agreed......I do wish in some ways the film was longer.....it did feel that some of the scenes could have been fleshed out a bit more.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Areas to improve? the villains.

The problem is that as the Devil's bounty Hunter, GR is such a powerful character that the badguys shouldn't be too hard to handle.

Blackheart did kick his @$$ but apparently not enough for people so ...

The Spiderman movie set up the sequel well. Introduced the story and then more action in the second.

I would say that if this was to be a franchise (which I don't think it ever was) they had to give us lots of backstory.

He had as much or more ground to cover than spidey when you realize that this character has been around as long as batman (almost -- Phantom Rider '49) but in a bunch of different versions.

He had to bring us his vision of the Rider.

The sequel could be better or be more pleasing to the worst critics if they had more action / fight sequences and a more intimidating "Badguy/Boss" for him to face ...

IMO

That fight was the big let down of the movie for me, i thoroughly enjoyed the movie up until that point. It just wasnt intense enough, i mean this is the devil's son, powered up by the contract, versus the devil's bounty hunter, that whole town should have been decimated, buildings should have been crushed and GR should have been on his knees and close to being 'retired' as Blackheart put it.

Agreed......I do wish in some ways the film was longer.....it did feel that some of the scenes could have been fleshed out a bit more.

Yeah, a lot of the movie did feel rushed, but MSJ had to fit practically ALL of GR's history in one movie because he may never get the chance to do one again. With Spiderman, i think they kinda knew it would at least make enough money for a sequel to be greenlit.

 

[DorkyFresh]

If the acting is true to the character then the acting is not actually BAD. It is accurate to the character.

you're right the acting was true to the character....the acting in GR was about as flat as the comic books' pages are.

and no...that's not a good thing.

So how do you think they could have made it into a better movie.......I think it should have been an A class movie but instead it was like a C+

first off...get a director who actually knows how to make a good movie. DD and GR are both mediocre and judging from rottentomatoes, Simon Birch was as well. MSJ needs to stay away from comic films.

second...less camp, more dark. i know people said they liked the lightheartedness of the flick, but it was TOO lighthearted. dark lighting, dark settings doesn't necessarily equal a dark film. Hellboy is a dark film, yet many people enjoy it's lighthearted parts.

third...of course, MORE ACTION. i wouldn't call it a stretch to say GR has less action than 90% of the comic films out there. even MIB had more action and that was a damn comedy.



if they make a sequel...those 3 things need to be done in order to give GR what i feel is a movie worthy of his name.

 

[C. Lee]

I personally don't feel like it went wrong. It was enjoyable. No comic adaptation will please everyone (no adaptation of anything will please everyone).....so there will be detractors of it as well as people who like it.