Reasons for the disappointing numbers-Discussion

[X-Maniac]

It has to do with having faith in the story material.

You use the word "tepid" to describe the reviews when it should be closer to "panned".

You really want to blame the industry for FF's disappointing numbers and not the movie itself?

How many critics' reviews (from mainstream sources) mentioned the Galactus cloud as being terrible or disappointing or a reason the movie is bad?

While the climax was a little short, I don't think the mainstream is that bothered about the cloud vs giant argument. Likewise, I didn't see X3 reviews screaming about the horror of a lack of a Phoenix firebird image.

But, having said that, NOT including the Galactus being in full form has pissed off fans and led to them not bothering to go to see the movie again.

Pleasing the fans of the original material is definitely a factor for filmmakers to bear in mind. But making a good standalone movie is a much bigger priority. FF failed to satisfy fans (no Galactus figure, Doom too campy), and it also failed to satisfy the mainstream. And, to cap it all, there is so much other competition around that what little interest there was in the movie was quick to be drowned out by interest in other movies.

 

[Tony Stark]

It has to do with having faith in the story material.

You use the word "tepid" to describe the reviews when it should be closer to "panned".

You really want to blame the industry for FF's disappointing numbers and not the movie itself?

No Evan Almighty was "panned", FF's reviews were tepid.

I don't blame the industry or anyone. In fact no one is to "blame". Most agree the movie is better than the first yet will make approx 25 million less than the first.

Market conditions do have alot to do with that.

 

[Erzengel]

*shrug*

On RT, a score of 13% seperates FF and Evan Almighty.

On Metacritic, it's 8 points that seperate the 2.

 

[Tony Stark]

13% is significant.

 

[Erzengel]

I think that's arguing semantics.

24% vs. 37%?

I mean if you want to use "tepid" instead of bad reviews, that's your perogative.

 

[Supreme Power]

How many critics' reviews (from mainstream sources) mentioned the Galactus cloud as being terrible or disappointing or a reason the movie is bad?

While the climax was a little short, I don't think the mainstream is that bothered about the cloud vs giant argument. Likewise, I didn't see X3 reviews screaming about the horror of a lack of a Phoenix firebird image.

But, having said that, NOT including the Galactus being in full form has pissed off fans and led to them not bothering to go to see the movie again.

Pleasing the fans of the original material is definitely a factor for filmmakers to bear in mind. But making a good standalone movie is a much bigger priority. FF failed to satisfy fans (no Galactus figure, Doom too campy), and it also failed to satisfy the mainstream. And, to cap it all, there is so much other competition around that what little interest there was in the movie was quick to be drowned out by interest in other movies.

I completely agree with your summation. I do believe it was better than the first, but just didn't hold interest.

 

[Sardaukar]

Maybe Cloud Galactus didn't make the movie fail among general audiences and critics. But it did little to make it succeed.

This is because it was too pedestrian. People may say it was "safer" to show such a thing instead of humanoid Galactus; with him being too corny.

Okay, let's say those people are right for argument's sake...but I don't buy that general audiences thought the cloud thing worked any better because it wasn't the show stopper it should have been. It's not like people were coming out of the theatre saying WOW THAT WAS REALLY COOL....I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON FILM AND I'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

One of the reasons being that we've seen the cloud thing done before and arguably done better, oh, almost 30 frickin' years ago in a little movie called Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Or maybe it's just because it was a giant space cloud...I mean what's exciting about that, really? Whatever the reason, I think humanoid G would definitely have had a bigger wow factor, even if it was riskier.

 

[Kelly]

Maybe Cloud Galactus didn't make the movie fail among general audiences and critics. But it did little to make it succeed.

This is because it was too pedestrian. People may say it was "safer" to show such a thing instead of humanoid Galactus; with him being too corny.

Okay, let's say those people are right for argument's sake...but I don't buy that general audiences thought the cloud thing worked any better because it wasn't the show stopper it should have been. It's not like people were coming out of the theatre saying WOW THAT WAS REALLY COOL....I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON FILM AND I'VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

One of the reasons being that we've seen it done before and arguably done better, oh, almost 30 frickin' years ago in a little movie called Star Trek: the Motion Picture. Or not. Whatever the reason, I think humanoid G would definitely have had a bigger wow factor, even if it was riskier.

I agree.....

 

[TheVileOne]

What's more puzzling to me is that no one saw the cloud coming until it was right next to the earth.

 

[alfmartinez]

the disappointing numbers are because galactus didn't appear.

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

What disappointing numbers?

 

[Kelly]

What disappointing numbers?

Box Office numbers....

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Box Office numbers....

What did you expect??? FF1 made 150. FF2 did 130... you expected higher numbers??

 

[Kelly]

Yes, sure did.....people always expect sequels to do better than the first....thats kind of how the next movie gets a bigger budget.

 

[Mr. Socko]

*shrug*

On RT, a score of 13% seperates FF and Evan Almighty.

On Metacritic, it's 8 points that seperate the 2.

They were both panned hard.

I think the critics may have been a little to harsh on Rise of the Surfer. They probably went in expecting and wanting it to be terrible.

 

[jrd550]

I always thought sequels were expected to not make as much or be as good as the originals...

 

[Kelly]

I always thought sequels were expected to not make as much or be as good as the originals...

In this genre of movies, the sequel has been better, and made more money...for the most part....

 

[ReallyCoolGuy]

My point was that the two movies' revenues are in the same ballpark. It could have made more than the original but I think it's all in the release date. '07 is/was a huge summer for movies.... FF kicked it off but got covered up quickly by bigger blockbusters. Why would the PG rating hurt it? Do anybody but parents actually look at the rating?? ...and for a family-friendly comic book franchise like this I doubt even parents bothered looking at the rating.

 

[jrd550]

In this genre of movies, the sequel has been better, and made more money...for the most part....

true, there are exceptions, but I'd agree with that. The only sequel that truly surpasses the original really is Spidey 2 (and Blade 2)... besides that I think the originals hold their own.

 

[Sardaukar]

In this genre of movies, the sequel has been better, and made more money...for the most part....

It's my turn to agree...

X2 was better than X-Men. Spidey 2 was better than 1. I think both sequels made more money. Edit: Spidey 2 actually made a little less...but not much less. It was a huge hit as well.

Blade II made more money, and wass arguably as good or better than the first.

FF2 was better than FF, but probably won't make more.

 

[Erzengel]

I think Blade 2 was better than the original.

I agree with X-2 and Spider-Man 2 being superior.

In terms of FF and it's sequel and which I prefer?

That's like asking which ugly stepsister you wanna bang.

 

[jrd550]

Spidey 2 was better than 1
Blade 2 was better than 1
X2 was better than 1
FF2 was better than 1

Superman 1 was better than 2
Batman was better than BR
Darkman was better than 2

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think Blade 2 was better than the original.

I agree with X-2 and Spider-Man 2 being superior.

In terms of FF and it's sequel and which I prefer?

That's like asking which ugly stepsister you wanna bang.

Put a bag over your own head and have a threesome. yeah!!!t:

 

[Figs]

Main reason the numbers were worse was because of the first movie. Don't necessarily think it was because of Galactus being inside of a cloud and not fully being shown. I truly believe that it was because of the kiddy factor. If they took the source material more seriously I think more of adults would have enjoyed it better. I know in the comic they are known for joking around with each other, but the movie I felt went just alittle too far to where it conflicted with scenes that should have been taken a little more serious. Since around the late 90's or so sequels have been doing better then compared to the 80's. This one just didn't do well because part of the hype behind a succesful sequel comes from the first film. Although I did enjoy the first film.....let's just say I'm easily pleased at times and don't want the little kid in me to die. In other words, the first film was pretty weak.

 

[Dragon]

The disappointing numbers had nothing to do with the first movie. If the opening Box Office was lower then one could point to the first film as having been a factor. But FF2 made a million or two more in its opening weekend than FF1. So the same numbers of people were seeing it initially. They were giving it a chance, despite the first film. If indeed they enjoyed the movie more than the first, they would have kept seeing it and spreading good word-of-mouth. The problem is the movie was underwhelming and no one cared to see it multiple times.

Fox failed, plain and simple. Instead of more of the same, they should have been shooting for a great movie, and perhaps at least done a good movie. Instead they figured the same old same old with a little gimmickiness would be enough to make a profit. And it wasn't.