Top 5 most disappointing movies of the year.

[amazingfantasy15]

One thing that I was hoping for in Agents of Shield and Iron Man 3 to an extent was an adequate chance of exploring the consequences of the events of the Avengers, we only got small glimpses and I felt that wasn't enough in my opinion. Heck it looked like everybody else moved on too quickly.

If people here and everywhere else are ******** that Goyer/Snyder want to have the freedom in going in their own direction rather than be constrained to some silly unwritten rules laid down, then maybe you should just suck it up and move on.

With Iron Man 3, you couldn't have too much Avengers fall out otherwise it'd get the criticism of Iron Man 2, too much Avengers, kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think they did it well though, it focused on the fall out for Tony.

With Agents of SHIELD, the whole premise is containing superheroics, plus we've only had 4 episodes. With Joss Whedon involved, the plots will grow and we'll get bigger ideas. I think what they're doing is really good, it's a slow burn, but it has to be since this is movies and TV, not comics.

t: I blame my cineworld unlimited card . Its funny though because there were a group of die hard fans walking out infront of me after the movie finished. One had his hand on his head trying to figure out wtf just happened and the others looked in total disbelief of trying to figure out what happened aswell. Obviously you had your casual swearing etc but everyone was deeply dissapointed. Mind you i heard the U.S got a different version to the U.K still that wouldn't of saved this trainwreck.

It was a Die Hard movie released on Valentine's Day, that told me all I needed to know, I love the franchise, but I knew the studio didn't believe in the film giving it that release date. They probably thought great! Another Die Hard! Then saw it and were like Crap! We gotta bury this!

 

[Lord]

I fixed 'you' to 'they'. I wasn't one of the ones that complained about the route they took Superman. Personally, it seemed like a good number of people/critics didn't like it because it simply wasn't like the Donner films.

We've had the do gooder/goody two-shoes boyscout for a long ass time, this version was a nice change.

Not at all, criticism from top critics always has the film working as a film as its focus, they're far from superman, i mean, look also to nostalgia critic's and Red Letter media's reviews of Superman, they don't have any love for the film yet found it just bad.

They may not have died on screen, but come on, there's was some massive damage done to New York in that final battle in the Avengers and like someone else said they did show memorials set up in that news footage montage.

Yeah, i know there was destruction, but not even close to the scale of Man of Steel's, there a part of the city just became dead, while with the Avengers you had some destruction here and there, while serious it wouldn't be the giant greiveyard we saw in Metropolis, i don't even remember a building colapsing.

There was even an estimate down by professions, that while not completelly true, gives a good insight on the major difference, according to them the Manhattan battle would cost 60-70 billion in physical damage, know how much Metropolis's would? 700 billion.

And it does bother me when the comics or cartoons (particularly the Doomsday movie where Superman Basically blew up with the center of Metropolis) when Superman lets colateral damage happen like that, when he tries hard to stop it it's fine, but when in thins film he just jumps at the enemy, not minding the damage he causes and where he throws the oponentes, with explosions everywhere and people crashing into the concrete while he doesn't even look back, then yeah, it bothers me.