Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[jaguarr]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/p/1048166-shawn_levy/

jag

 

[Weadazoid]

Next up Adam Shankman director of The Pacifer and Cheeper by the Dozen 2 and the Wedding Planner will be directing.....

Wonder Woman...oh yeah know it's coming...LOL


lord I hope not

 

[dnno1]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/p/1048166-shawn_levy/

jag

This is totally misleading. If you look at some of the reviews they leave you with the impression that the films are bad but once you read the full review it says another thing. I think Rottentomatoes should be taken for entertainment value only (as much as reading a horrorscope) and nothing much more than that.

 

[SilentType]

I have seen all his movies (some of them I just saw the part I could sit through), and they were, without exception, terrible. He's made bad kids movies, a bad comedy, a bad remake of a bad comedy, a bad remake of a good comedy, and produced a terrible sequel to one of his bad comedies.
He has one of the least impressive records of anyone to head up a superhero project.

 

[Dark Knight]

Ugggh. I don't really know what to even say at this point. I was beyond excited when I heard not only was Goyer going to write and direct...but he was also lobbying for Ryan Reynolds to be the Flash. David was even researching time travel and the elements of lightspeed with quantum physicists! It all seemed too good to be true. What's even worse is that not only did they change directions, they hired the guy behind Cheaper By The Dozen?!? OH, CRAP!

Yeah....It looks like WB's is taking a step back....unless this guy proposed something that really impressed them or he had an affair with an exec! LOL....

 

[dnno1]

I have seen all his movies (some of them I just saw the part I could sit through), and they were, without exception, terrible. He's made bad kids movies, a bad comedy, a bad remake of a bad comedy, a bad remake of a good comedy, and produced a terrible sequel to one of his bad comedies.
He has one of the least impressive records of anyone to head up a superhero project.

Here is the break-down on the Shawn Levy films you are trying to put down:

Film:......."Big Fat Liar"
Budget:............$15M
Gross:............$53M
Attendance........8M

Film:......."Cheaper by the Dozen"
Budget:............$40M
Gross:............$190M
Attendance........29M

Film:......."Night at the Museumr"
Budget:............$110M
Gross:............$447M (and counting)
Attendance........70M (and counting)

Film:......."The Pink Pantherr"
Budget:............$80M
Gross:............$158M
Attendance........25M

The source of my data comes from both BoxofficeMojo and IMDb. The attendance figures are based on an average admission price of about $6.41, which is the average price published by the MPAA for 2005. The film "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" was directed by Adam Shankman so I didn't list it here. I could give a rip if you don't like his movies (that's a personal problem you have to deal with). The handwriting on the wall says that they were profitable. More so than anything else, a significant number of people went out to see his pictures and hence were popular among moviegoers. Who are you to foolishly say (and to mislead others with your false information) that his films were bad when the numbers show just the opposite?

 

[Savage]

...Those are some pretty impressive numbers. I'll give him that

 

[Lighthouse]

Who are you to foolishly say (and to mislead others with your false information) that his films were bad when the numbers show just the opposite?

Yes, because box office is a determination of a good film. Hell, Batman & Robin had decent box office. And I really don't see how the RottenTomatoes link is misleading.

 

[terry78]

The box office argument is flawed, as a movie you think is good can score huge numbers as well. Point blank, people have different tastes, that's all it is. You don't think it's good, somebody obviously did.

 

[dnno1]

Yes, because box office is a determination of a good film. Hell, Batman & Robin had decent box office...

The box office argument is flawed, as a movie you think is good can score huge numbers as well. Point blank, people have different tastes, that's all it is. You don't think it's good, somebody obviously did.

That's right, box office is one way to determine if a film was successful as well as good from the perspective of the audience. Let's not get it twisted, the dollars translate into attendance and the higer the revenue, the higher the attendance. You can also compare those numbers to other films made in that timeframe to tell how popular the film was. For example with a worldwide gross of $447 million, "Night at the Museum" is now the 65th highest grossing film since they started making them. This figure places them ahead of films like the 2001 version of "Oceans 11", "Die Another Day", "The Mummy Returns", "Terminator 3", and "Men in Black 2", which means that it is pretty popular to me. On the other hand, although "Batman and Robin" did make money, if you compare it to the other films in the franchise, it was not as popular among moviegoers since it didn't gross as much. That's how you have to look at it, both with money made and with popularity among other films.

...And I really don't see how the RottenTomatoes link is misleading.

As far as Rottentomatoes goes, you have to look beyond what you see on the surface. Take for instance the film "Night at the Museum". The first review (supposedly rotten) is by Derek Adams of Time Out Magazine. Although it is listed as rotten, if you read the full review you will see tha it is dubious as to whether the writer was calling the film a (riotous) mess or if he was refering to what went on in the film. Secondly if you read the user reviews, all but one (out of 16) said that they either liked the film or thought that the film would be good. You can find similar results for the other reviews. Rottentomatoes uses a search engine to find key words in the articles of about a hundered or so review on films. The then use what they find to rate these films. A lot of times films have rotten reviews but turn out to be very popular films and vice-versa. Rottentomatoes is not accurate because it is not good statistical science. If you want to know how good a film will be you should be polling the audience or a potential moviegoer, not a paid critic. Thirdly you shouldn't trust anything that comes from the makers of Fox News at face value.

Anyway, don't let me get everbody off track here, this thread is about Shawn Levy directing "The Flash". Let's stay on topic here.

 

[Lighthouse]

Well my own personal opinion is that Shawn Levy's films are terrible, and while it isn't impossible that the Flash movie will be good, based on his track record I can't say I'm excited for it. I mean Paul Anderson's films do pretty well too.

 

[Odin's Fury]

I personally think this is a good move, simply because I did not feel Goyer was right for the project. Maybe he would have surprised me, but he tends to be dark, and I feel quite too dark for a Flash movie. ESPECIALLY if it's centered around Wally, which this one seemed to be. I very much agree with his choice for Ryan Reynolds, and I'm hoping he stays on the project.

A dark flash may work at some point, but not at the introduction of the character. Flash loves being a hero, loves life, and has a great time. That's my two cents.

If this first film is a sucess, and is followed by a sequel, maybe Goyer can direct an adaptation of the Terminal Velocity storyline. Or the Quick and the Dead. that seems more like his style.

 

[terry78]

You have to remember first and foremost, directing is a job. Like the job you go to everyday. The people that you want to direct have been doing it for decades and have some pull in the industry. Levy doesn't have that yet, but this movie may be his chance to do something different. He was hired for all those movies he directed, he didn't write them.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't really care that the movie is going to be lighter. With Flash it probably should. I just haven't seen one bit of creativity from any of Levy's films. And I'm surprised by all this talk of Wally vs. Barry. This is a film company not the comic books. For all we know They could have it be Barry Allen, but give him Wally's personality, or vice versa. They might not even include the speed force or multiple Flashes. Hell, they might make up their own s**t like what was done with Catwoman. Its not a good idea at all, but we've all seen it happen.

 

[jaguarr]

Yes, because box office is a determination of a good film. Hell, Batman & Robin had decent box office. And I really don't see how the RottenTomatoes link is misleading.

Saying Rotten Tomatoes is an invalid reference point and then referencing IMDB in your next post is sort of humorous, though, isn't it?

jag

 

[Lighthouse]

Saying Rotten Tomatoes is an invalid reference point and then referencing IMDB in your next post is sort of humorous, though, isn't it?

jag

Hadn't thought about that. IMDB is legendary in its unreliability.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

For example with a worldwide gross of $447 million, "Night at the Museum" is now the 65th highest grossing film since they started making them. This figure places them ahead of films like the 2001 version of "Oceans 11", "Die Another Day", "The Mummy Returns", "Terminator 3", and "Men in Black 2", which means that it is pretty popular to me. On the other hand, although "Batman and Robin" did make money, if you compare it to the other films in the franchise, it was not as popular among moviegoers since it didn't gross as much. That's how you have to look at it, both with money made and with popularity among other films.

Night at the Museum came out in the middle of December, which is probably the choice time for releasing a movie outside of summer. It featured Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, big name comedic talent and box office draws. And it was also a kiddie movie with lots of visual effects, meaning that parents would be dragged to the movie because their pack of screaming kids wanted to see it. So yeah, this guy managed to make a popular kids movie with a lot of things helping him at the box office.

And just look at the competition. It's no wonder that Museum is showing legs at the box office, with weak competitors like that. Look down several dozen movies. There are a lot of smaller artistic movies that obviously wouldn't have wide appeal despite critical acclaim. Big hits like Casino Royale and Happy Feet were released more than a month before Museum was, so they weren't a threat. And January is a famous dumping ground for crappy movies which the studios have no faith in. So of course the safe, light-hearted kiddie movie with the pretty effects is going to remain successful.

As far as Rottentomatoes goes, you have to look beyond what you see on the surface. Take for instance the film "Night at the Museum". The first review (supposedly rotten) is by Derek Adams of Time Out Magazine. Although it is listed as rotten, if you read the full review you will see tha it is dubious as to whether the writer was calling the film a (riotous) mess or if he was refering to what went on in the film.

So? It goes both ways. A number of the "fresh" reviews say that it's a fine film for kids, or something to take the kids to but not to go yourself. They seemed to be giving the movie slack for being able to entertain children, who are not very demanding.

Secondly if you read the user reviews, all but one (out of 16) said that they either liked the film or thought that the film would be good.

User reviews are worthless when there's such a small collection of reviews. When few people rate the movie, usually the few that do are its fans.

Rottentomatoes is not accurate because it is not good statistical science.

It at least gives a general idea of how critics reacted to the film.

If you want to know how good a film will be you should be polling the audience or a potential moviegoer, not a paid critic.

Audience polls show how well the movie appealed to the general audience, which contains many children, people who don't like to think, or flat out morons. So it's not perfect either. Lots of movies make big money on the backs of bratty kids or stupid teenagers, but are horrible to more mature audiences. So using box office to measure the quality of a film is wrong.

Thirdly you shouldn't trust anything that comes from the makers of Fox News at face value.

Because Rotten Tomatoes is driven by a right-wing bias, right?

Anyway, don't let me get everbody off track here, this thread is about Shawn Levy directing "The Flash". Let's stay on topic here.

Yes, let's stay on topic. I don't know Levy. I don't know whether he's capable of rising above what he's done before and delivering a high-quality superhero adventure movie. So I won't make sure judgments on his qualifications at this point in time. However, I'd just like to point out that making a few profitable, but poorly-reviewed comedy movies does not prove that he IS capable of making a good Flash film.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

This is totally misleading. If you look at some of the reviews they leave you with the impression that the films are bad but once you read the full review it says another thing.

Read "some" of the reviews? Sure, in any collection of information, there are some which are different. But the whole point is to look at the WHOLE thing and see what the general consensus is.

I think Rottentomatoes should be taken for entertainment value only (as much as reading a horrorscope) and nothing much more than that.

IMO, that's not the case at all. There is a difference between what film critics and film students think is a good movie, and what the public at large thinks is a good (entertaining) movie. Critics are also sometimes prone to jumping on a bandwagon, whether it's to say a film is good or bad. Artistic dramas that extremely boring often recieve critical acclaim. And reading a single critic's reviews is often worthless, because you have no idea whether that guy's review is abnormal without looking at the others.

However, from my experience I have seen that the critical consensus is often not THAT different from what the common moviegoer thinks. Movies that people see and say are "ok" or mediocre often get by with mediocre RT ratings in the 40s to 50s. Movies that are considered good but not great get slightly fresh scores in the 60s and 70s. Movies that are generally regarded as good (for example, ROTS or Batman Begins) get strong ratings in the 80s. Crap like CINO gets crappy scores. Maybe your opinions on movies vary greatly from what the critics say, but I don't see such a huge gap between them and the public. Certainly not on the level where you can look at RT and just dismiss it as "LOL look at what the crazy critics are saying."

 

[dnno1]

Night at the Museum came out in the middle of December, which is probably the choice time for releasing a movie outside of summer. It featured Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, big name comedic talent and box office draws. And it was also a kiddie movie with lots of visual effects, meaning that parents would be dragged to the movie because their pack of screaming kids wanted to see it. So yeah, this guy managed to make a popular kids movie with a lot of things helping him at the box office.

And just look at the competition. It's no wonder that Museum is showing legs at the box office, with weak competitors like that. Look down several dozen movies. There are a lot of smaller artistic movies that obviously wouldn't have wide appeal despite critical acclaim. Big hits like Casino Royale and Happy Feet were released more than a month before Museum was, so they weren't a threat. And January is a famous dumping ground for crappy movies which the studios have no faith in. So of course the safe, light-hearted kiddie movie with the pretty effects is going to remain successful.

Just who is responsible for the casting again? I was pretty sure it was the director. Also if the film was bad, it would have made $447 million. I don't care what time of the year it releases or who the competition might be. If it was truly bad, then people would not have spent their money to see it. There were lots of people who saw the film said that they liked it. Your excuses for why it was good only tries to under-rate the film and this film is not under-rated.

So? It goes both ways. A number of the "fresh" reviews say that it's a fine film for kids, or something to take the kids to but not to go yourself. They seemed to be giving the movie slack for being able to entertain children, who are not very demanding.

But yet adults did go to see the film and said that they liked it (and in some instances loved it). I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the film is bad or it is good, or fine as you put it.

User reviews are worthless when there's such a small collection of reviews. When few people rate the movie, usually the few that do are its fans.

Look, man, polling a sample of movie critics is not an accurate way of finding out if the audience will like a film or not. "Night at the Museum" proves it. The user reviews that I used in my example just debunked the rating that Rottentomatoes gave for that particular critic. Like I have posted before, if you want to get an accurate statistic, sample people from the movie going public, not paid critics.

It at least gives a general idea of how critics reacted to the film.

And that is all it's going to give you. The bad thing is that people take this as an indication of how the general public will perceive a film and that is what is misleading. Even the movie studios and production companies don't base their estimates on film critics because they more than likely have gotten their information from legitimate statistical data made from sample audiences. Rottentomatoes should be taken for its entertainment value and nothing more.

Audience polls show how well the movie appealed to the general audience, which contains many children, people who don't like to think, or flat out morons. So it's not perfect either. Lots of movies make big money on the backs of bratty kids or stupid teenagers, but are horrible to more mature audiences. So using box office to measure the quality of a film is wrong.

Excuse me. If that is the make-up of the general audience, then that is what the studios are marketing to. This is not an authoritarian system here. You just don't make money that way.

Because Rotten Tomatoes is driven by a right-wing bias, right?

You never know .

Yes, let's stay on topic. I don't know Levy. I don't know whether he's capable of rising above what he's done before and delivering a high-quality superhero adventure movie. So I won't make sure judgments on his qualifications at this point in time. However, I'd just like to point out that making a few profitable, but poorly-reviewed comedy movies does not prove that he IS capable of making a good Flash film.

I don't know Levy (personally) either, but what I do know is that he's a pretty smart guy (graduated with honors from Yale) and that the last four films that he directed made more than twice what it cost to produce (or close to it). He also has some experience with Action/Adventure/Drama from his work with TV shows like "The Famous Jett Jackson" and "Birds of Prey". Seeing that the man is on a streak right now I have no reason to believe that he will or has any intention to make his next film a flop.

 

[dnno1]

Read "some" of the reviews? Sure, in any collection of information, there are some which are different. But the whole point is to look at the WHOLE thing and see what the general consensus is.

From the way people cite Rottentomatoes at this board it would seem that they don't read all the reviews. It least it's good to know that you do (don't you?).

IMO, that's not the case at all. There is a difference between what film critics and film students think is a good movie, and what the public at large thinks is a good (entertaining) movie. Critics are also sometimes prone to jumping on a bandwagon, whether it's to say a film is good or bad. Artistic dramas that extremely boring often recieve critical acclaim. And reading a single critic's reviews is often worthless, because you have no idea whether that guy's review is abnormal without looking at the others.

I don't think that Hollywood writes and produces films solely to please film critics and film students. I think you are trying to imply that they know better that what the general public. The truth of the matter is that only you know what is good for you (and I am talking to everybody here), not some film critic. Look at the last four films that Levy directed. They all made money even though Rottentomatoes said they were all rotten. That tells me that they don't really know what they are talking about and should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, from my experience I have seen that the critical consensus is often not THAT different from what the common moviegoer thinks. Movies that people see and say are "ok" or mediocre often get by with mediocre RT ratings in the 40s to 50s. Movies that are considered good but not great get slightly fresh scores in the 60s and 70s. Movies that are generally regarded as good (for example, ROTS or Batman Begins) get strong ratings in the 80s. Crap like CINO gets crappy scores. Maybe your opinions on movies vary greatly from what the critics say, but I don't see such a huge gap between them and the public. Certainly not on the level where you can look at RT and just dismiss it as "LOL look at what the crazy critics are saying."

Hey look some times they are right, but not always (they are definitely wrong with Levy). I still say they are for entertainment purposes only. If you really want to know if a film is going to be good or not go pay some market research firm to take some statistics from the general movie going public. That's what the studios do and it has been working for them for almost a century now.

 

[Katsuro]

If it was truly bad, then people would not have spent their money to see it.

How does that work, exactly? I mean, you are aware people pay for their tickets BEFORE they've seen the film, right?

Besides, as pointed out the majority of tickets bought for this film were screaming kids and their parents. Is that the kind of audience you want The Flash pandering to?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

How does that work, exactly? I mean, you are aware people pay for their tickets BEFORE they've seen the film, right?

Besides, as pointed out the majority of tickets bought for this film were screaming kids and their parents. Is that the kind of audience you want The Flash pandering to?

Maybe we don't want crowds of kids and parents in the movie theatre, but Warner would be more than happy to have them.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Norbit is yet another movie that puts a frown on my face. Godawful reviews and quality yet it is raking in.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Just who is responsible for the casting again? I was pretty sure it was the director.

So give the man props for knowing how to make money. That's not proof that he's a good director. And when you're making a big budget comedy, it's pretty OBVIOUS to cast names like Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.

Also if the film was bad, it would have made $447 million.

I assume you mean it "wouldn't" have made so much money. But there are a LOT of factors that go into how much a movie makes besides quality:

-advertising
-big name stars
-weak competition
-date of release
-whether kids will drag their parents into seeing it

There were lots of people who saw the film said that they liked it.

The same is true for ANY movie. What's important is what the general consensus is. And that consensus is that the movie is an ok (leaning good or bad depending on who you are) comedy that's light on plot, but should appeal to kids.

Look, man, polling a sample of movie critics is not an accurate way of finding out if the audience will like a film or not.

No, it's not. It's also not as inaccurate as you try to make it out to be (dismissing it as about as relevant as the horoscope). Still, what are we tallking about? Appealing to wide audiences, or quality? Fantastic Four made money, but many fans say it was mediocre, forgettable fluff. But being a big budge summer superhero movie that's lighthearted (safe for kids) made it a financial success.

"Night at the Museum" proves it. The user reviews that I used in my example just debunked the rating that Rottentomatoes gave for that particular critic.

WOW. The reviews of a mere 16 fans who were actually inclined to make a vote refutes over a hundred big name critics. Even IMDB, which is nothing but user reviews (only an actual meaningful sample of them, currently 9,930), only gives the movie a fair 6.4 rating. I would say from my experience that even IMDB is slanted by fans of the movie being more inclined to vote than everyone else, but it shows that people didn't think the movie is that great.

I don't know Levy (personally) either, but what I do know is that he's a pretty smart guy (graduated with honors from Yale)

Weren't the guys who wrote Beavis and Butthead Princeton graduates?

and that the last four films that he directed made more than twice what it cost to produce (or close to it).

All of which were comedies that don't prove he has what it takes to direct a superhero adventure film.

He also has some experience with Action/Adventure/Drama from his work with TV shows like "The Famous Jett Jackson"

The Disney Channel kids show?

and "Birds of Prey".

Which sucked and was canceled after one short season.

Seeing that the man is on a streak right now I have no reason to believe that he will or has any intention to make his next film a flop.

I don't think he'll direct a flop. But I think it is possible that he'll turn out a mediocre, safe-for-the-kiddies, piece of fluff like Fantastic Four.

Again, I have nothing to prove that he will suck, so I won't say he will at this point. But on the other hand, there is also no evidence that he'll be good, just because his movies make money.

 

[GL1]

Here is the break-down on the Shawn Levy films you are trying to put down:

Film:......."Big Fat Liar"
Budget:............$15M
Gross:............$53M
Attendance........8M

Film:......."Cheaper by the Dozen"
Budget:............$40M
Gross:............$190M
Attendance........29M

Film:......."Night at the Museumr"
Budget:............$110M
Gross:............$447M (and counting)
Attendance........70M (and counting)

Film:......."The Pink Pantherr"
Budget:............$80M
Gross:............$158M
Attendance........25M

I gotta back dnno1 on this one. A single movie's box office cannot be an arguement, casting, budget, production, hype and other flukes could explain a single movie's success... but when the successes outweigh the flops, or worse, there's just a single string of successes, one has to wonder: If he's not making good movies, what is it that he's always doing right then? Or is he just the luckiest man alive and he'll make a crappy Flash movie that will make a load of money?