"Too Much Talking And Not Enough Smashing('Hulk(2003)')" - thejon93's Rant

[FrostBite]

As I've said before, I don't like it that people disagree with me...lol crazy I know, but I accept that they do. Unlike myself who loved them, you can hate the first two Spidey and Blade films but don't tell me that I shouldn't love them anymore than I should tell you what to like.

And I wasn't always like this, I was kinda a nut in the olden days, in real and virtual world. I've matured of the last few years. Like everyone I still have my "I shouldn't have said that moments" but I must say in my defense that I'm always sincere in my opinions.

I don't like it but I am too addicted to debates. So I guess some good comes out of it.

As for bolded part number 2, that's something you have to respect in everyone.

 

[FrostBite]

This doesn't make any sense. Use an analogy that works.



Even if a critic doesn't like Freddy vs. Jason, which not all do, a person by reading the review can still still if they want to see the movie or not, or if to them its worth seeing.

Uhm, actually the analogy works perfectly. If critics, whom, I disagree with plenty... (the failing child) got one thing right... (the A) why would I all of a sudden respect them?


Contrary to popular belief, most GA viewers, don't read reviews. They simply see a quote, or a clip on the radio, and believe whatever they hear first... sad but true.

 

[TheVileOne]

Uhm, actually the analogy works perfectly. If critics, whom, I disagree with plenty... (the failing child) got one thing right... (the A) why would I all of a sudden respect them?

In the real world it doesn't. You disagree the child being an idiot and not getting their homework and assignments right?

You don't make any sense. Are bad movies the failing child, or are the critics? It is not the job of film scholars and critics to not hurt your feelings about a movie you really like and respect it just because you think its Grade A worthy.

Contrary to popular belief, most GA viewers, don't read reviews. They simply see a quote, or a clip on the radio, and believe whatever they hear first... sad but true.

If they did, then they would believe that CATWOMAN is a great movie with the positive comment snippets.

 

[FrostBite]

In the real world it doesn't. You disagree the child being an idiot and not getting their homework and assignments right?

You don't make any sense. Are bad movies the failing child, or are the critics? It is not the job of film scholars and critics to not hurt your feelings about a movie you really like and respect it just because you think its Grade A worthy.



If they did, then they would believe that CATWOMAN is a great movie with the positive comment snippets.

It's... really not that hard of an analogy to understand. I'll go over it one more time... if I am disappointed with the failing child, of course the child is the critics, especially if only 1/10 times do they do something I would praise. Again why would I be proud of the child for his one good grade? Sure I'd congradulate him, it's not like I'd be like "But you still suck Timmy!" But if he goes right back to failing afterwards should I not be disappointed?

And, yes, I do agree with children not being idiots for a reflection of their grades. I don't even believe you can judge the amount of work they do by their grades either. But! If they were failing (and by that I mean, overall, not one class) then there is some sort of problem. Then again, this is coming from someone who thinks homework and grades should be abolished as they place far to much of a hinderance on learning (as does most of what our schools do but hey, that isn't the topic at hand.)

But, I digress, it was simply an analogy that you have taken way to far in order to understand and have detracted the conversation from it's original purpose: that I hate critics.

It's not that there are not critics out there that simply do their job, but if you think most of their reviews have not become pretensious with a side of "so far up their own ***" then I don't know what is.

There is a reason I cannot watch the Oscars anymore. The only thing I've agreed with in years is well, The Departed. I'd take an average joe critic online, just some schmuck in his basement, to a top dog any day.

Like I said earlier in the thread, take it from someone who knows, when you are assigned to be a critic you start tearing to shreds things you would otherwise love. (Not to mention it's easier to write a negative review than a bad.) Like the topic creator said, you do, sit there with a pen and paper and write down everything thats terrible about the film, and very little about what is good. Negative aspects stand out far more than the good.

And... no one, not even someone who was abducted as a child and brainwashed for years, would think Catwoman is a good movie. Besides, now you are the one with the flawed example, I highly doubt any if not an overwhelming minority of radio or tv show hosts said "Catwoman was spectacular!" Thus it would further prove my point that no one went due to what critics said, then again, the GA could tell right from a trailer that it would be a cinematic train wreck, not just in quality of film, but no entertainment value as well.

Edit: And with another thought coming to mind, if you don't grasp the analogy, and/or don't like it, think it doesn't work or any variation of negativity towards it let's please drop it for the sake of the conversation. Even if you address it, I will not further. I am hear to say, I hate critics, not to say "let's play semantics because I have to prove to you my analogy works." I'd rather not have to keep going back and fourth over something that -- well, you know, doesn't apply to our conversation and is just turning to a petty **** flinging contest to prove who is right on comparing critics to children.

 

[Doc Samson]

I've said before, and I really believe, that critics are only receptive to a comic book inspired film if it has a lighter tone. Of course Batman Begins and X2 can be considered exceptions, but by and large, critics seem to look at films based on comics as "kid" stuff, no matter the book its based on and its subsequent tone in its actual medium. Just look at Rotten Tomatoes at some of the negative reviews for Batman Begins and almost across the board, the only real problem they had with the film was that it wasn't "funny" enough.

On the other hand, films like Ironman (which I did really love, let's be clear on that) and the Spidey films are lauded for "not taking themselves too seriously" even though those traits are inherent to their original characters. Batman, at its core, isn't funny at all. Reading some of those classic stories, I fail to see where all the jokes reside, it was all very adult and contemporary and I feel the same way about the Hulk. Ang Lee made the mistake of pounding the melodrama down the throats of moviegoers who were expecting a huge action flick from the commercials and trailers. But the core story of the Hulk deals with pain, rage, repressed memories, aggression, heartbreak, alienation.......nothing too terribly jovial. Now I'm not saying its Raging Bull or Godfather, but it's also not a comedy.

Now Marvel and co. are in the impossible position of being forced to ratchet up the action so much to distance this film from Ang's effort, while also trying to retain some of the elements that makes the character interesting in the first place, a horrible balancing act few films have accomplished, no matter the material its based on. I fully expect this to get less than stellar reviews, but at the same time, making more money than Ang's movie. After all, this is what everyone wanted right?

 

[Superark]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hulk/
"Too much talking and not enough smashing" as summarized by 'Rotten Tomatoes' for the June 20th, 2003 release of 'Hulk'. I don't know about you guys, but I'm really looking forward to what they think of this one. I can bet you that 'The Incredible Hulk' will be spilt down the middle by the critics, 50/50. Just a bunch of arrogant critics sitting in the theatre right before opening day watching the movie while taking notes on everything that's flawed with it, give me a break. You give them smash, and they complain, you give them talk, they complain, what the hell do you really want? 50/50, well I guarentee you this film will be 50/50 on both accounts; the reviews and the material itself.

So, if anybody else wants to rant on about this subject, be my guest, this is now officially a rant thread on 'The Incredible Hulk', what's your rant?

I don't think you should worry about what the critics think or have to say. Go and see it for yourself and then form your opinion.

Sometimes I agree with the critics, sometimes I dont. I watch something and go from there.

 

[Superark]

Doc Sampson, I dont think the critics necessarly care if the comic inspired films are lighter in tone or not, just as long as they think its good.

Just look at Sin City, Superman Returns, Batman, 300, The Crow, and the first two X-Men. They all were generally liked by the critics

 

[Doc Samson]

Doc Sampson, I dont think the critics necessarly care if the comic inspired films are lighter in tone or not, just as long as they think its good.

Just look at Sin City, Superman Returns, Batman, 300, The Crow, and the first two X-Men. They all were generally liked by the critics

Thats not really what I was saying, I mean those movies that you mentioned, most of the negative reviews about them were the fact that they were too dark, not anything based on the actual movie itself, rather its tone. For instance:

Rob Gonsalves on The Crow: "Stylistically akin to Highlander and dozens of tedious direct-to-video movies, thematically identical to such pop standards as Batman, Darkman, Swamp Thing, and all the others that invite us to applaud a loner's revenge on the scum who took everything away from him, this is every inch a comic-book movie. Hardly a shock, since it's based on a comic book. And like a lot of superhero comics of the '90s, The Crow is angry, anguished, saturnine, "complex" -- in a word, pretentious."

Basically his problem with the film is that its dark, but thats the Crow character, he gives it a negative review just because of its tone basically, but how could you change that and be faithful?

Joe Williams on Batman Begins: "But because a joker never pops out of this deck, this game of revisionism is about as much fun to watch as solitaire."

He gives a pretty good review to the film too, but simply because there aren't enough "jokes" he didn't like it?

David Edelstein on X2: "Singer, who directed The Usual Suspects (1995), packs a mean comic-book frame, but he's not a comic-book director: The tone is stately, deliberate, "adult." He makes major strides in the action scenes, but he's still a little cerebral for my taste."

Basically my point here is that critics don't anticipate, or seemingly want, a comic film that is "too intelligent" or serious, even though some of these characters are that way in their respective books. Even those good reviewed films still get points taken for too much intelligence, which is why a critic review shouldn't matter to any comic fan, anywhere

 

[ironwez20]

most critics like talking movies like titanic

 

[Superark]

I definitely see what you're saying Doc, but I just felt its not the critics as a whole who think that, only a minority. I think it also depends on the character. As you obviously mentioned, The Crow is one you cannot turn into a lighter movie without dramatically changing it from its source.

But you said it best in the end, a critic review shouldnt matter to us, just ours

 

[TheVileOne]

It's... really not that hard of an analogy to understand. I'll go over it one more time... if I am disappointed with the failing child, of course the child is the critics, especially if only 1/10 times do they do something I would praise. Again why would I be proud of the child for his one good grade? Sure I'd congradulate him, it's not like I'd be like "But you still suck Timmy!" But if he goes right back to failing afterwards should I not be disappointed?

This is still one of the stupidest analogies I've ever heard. It's pretty petty that bad reviews for movies you apparently like hurt your feelings.

And, yes, I do agree with children not being idiots for a reflection of their grades. I don't even believe you can judge the amount of work they do by their grades either. But! If they were failing (and by that I mean, overall, not one class) then there is some sort of problem. Then again, this is coming from someone who thinks homework and grades should be abolished as they place far to much of a hinderance on learning (as does most of what our schools do but hey, that isn't the topic at hand.)

You disagreeing with critical reviews is not failing on the critics' parts. It's called a difference of opinion. A child failing at their grades is NOT a difference of opinion.

I still don't get what critical reviews hurt your feelings so much.

But, I digress, it was simply an analogy that you have taken way to far in order to understand and have detracted the conversation from it's original purpose: that I hate critics.

Why?

It's not that there are not critics out there that simply do their job, but if you think most of their reviews have not become pretensious with a side of "so far up their own ***" then I don't know what is.

This is a gross generalization.

There is a reason I cannot watch the Oscars anymore. The only thing I've agreed with in years is well, The Departed. I'd take an average joe critic online, just some schmuck in his basement, to a top dog any day.

That's still a critic. And you said you unbashedly hate all critics.

Like I said earlier in the thread, take it from someone who knows, when you are assigned to be a critic you start tearing to shreds things you would otherwise love. (Not to mention it's easier to write a negative review than a bad.) Like the topic creator said, you do, sit there with a pen and paper and write down everything thats terrible about the film, and very little about what is good. Negative aspects stand out far more than the good.

Things like what you would otherwise love? 6 years on this message board, I've seen plenty of people tear things to shreds and write negative comment after negative comment as well as some offensive garbage. Does that make the posters here better than critics? It's not about listing negative aspects, its about writing a coherent thesis.

Should critics have given a free pass to garbage like The Pacifier and Alvin and The Chipmunks because they made money?

Is it because a movie like Spider-man won't win best picture instead of something like Crash?

And... no one, not even someone who was abducted as a child and brainwashed for years, would think Catwoman is a good movie. Besides, now you are the one with the flawed example, I highly doubt any if not an overwhelming minority of radio or tv show hosts said "Catwoman was spectacular!" Thus it would further prove my point that no one went due to what critics said, then again, the GA could tell right from a trailer that it would be a cinematic train wreck, not just in quality of film, but no entertainment value as well.

Then when do audiences give good movies a pass because of what critics said?

Edit: And with another thought coming to mind, if you don't grasp the analogy, and/or don't like it, think it doesn't work or any variation of negativity towards it let's please drop it for the sake of the conversation. Even if you address it, I will not further. I am hear to say, I hate critics, not to say "let's play semantics because I have to prove to you my analogy works." I'd rather not have to keep going back and fourth over something that -- well, you know, doesn't apply to our conversation and is just turning to a petty **** flinging contest to prove who is right on comparing critics to children.

It's stupid to say crap like that because you are essentially saying you are hating me and I don't appreciate it. You are the one who brought children into the argument that makes no sense.