Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[Lobster Charlie]

^^^ brilliant

 

[dnno1]

Subjective opinions and discussions are no longer viable here. We will start a ledger and accounting system for all comments made in this forum. Using a scientific model based on the mean gross of a director’s previous efforts, past merchandising proceeds brought in by the comic character in question, and a random poll of 4 to 16 individuals, we will accurately predict the worthiness of a director. All further discussions must be based on this system and require backup documentation. As soon as we perfect double-entry arguments on an accrual basis we will have the perfect tool of objective discussion, free of the random errors of “opinion” and “ideas”.

Would you be willing to chair this proposal?

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Once again going off of what paid critics opinions on a film is not a good indication of how an audience will feel of felt about a film.

Did you not read my point about how even normal people on IMDB (which I believe is STILL populated by fans and people already inclined to praise certain movies) don't think Levy's films are all that great?

Big Fat Liar: 5.3
Just Married: 5.0
Cheaper By the Dozen: 5.7
The Pink Panther: 4.9
Night at the Museum: 6.4

These are people, not professional critics. Each of these movies has thousands of ratings, which make them a lot more meaningful than your 16 people example. Shawn Levy's movies seem to hover around 5 according to the people. Yeah, we really want the mediocre comedy director helming a big budget action adventure movie.

To find that out in advance, you will need to spend some money and get some real market research data. I spoke with a woman who worked for AMC Theaters at the supermarket just the other day. I asked her if NATM was any good and she (an adult female about the age of 23) said that she loved it. She said that she loved it so much that she had to go back and take her son to see it too. She also said that for the 9 weeks or so the film has been out the the theater has been packed every night. I don't think that it is always the case (if at all) that children are draging their parents to see this pic, but the other way around.

That's market research? Asking one person? And 23 isn't very old. That's a year removed from college, or even straight out of college (seeing as how most people these days don't graduate in 4 years). What was even her job at AMC Theatres? Supervising the minimum wage workers or even managing several theaters does not make you a market expert.

My aunt loved Battlefield Earth and tried to convince me to go watch it, but that doesn't mean anything either.

I don't think you understood what I said. Let me explain this again. According to the MPAA a Nielsen Entertainment report found that 81% of movie goers who saw at least one movie in 2005 believed that their experience was that of time and money well spent. This study is taken every year (not every 10 years like the US Census, which was what I was trying to allude in my previous post). There is no report out for 2006 yet, but I am quite certain that the movie goers for that year are the same people that were going to the movies in 2005 and would more than likely have the same opinion. Thus if 81% of movie goers thought that the films they saw were time and money well spent, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think or infer that most of those who saw "Night at the Museum" thought that this film was the same way.

Do you even COMPREHEND how ludicrous this is? Believing that your movie experience was worth it encompasses a WIDE range of opinions, ranging from "That was awesome!" down to "That was alright." Furthermore, saying that because people were generally satisfied with movies in one year, and therefore they must like Night at the Museum is ridiculous. You can use that to justify ANY movie. What you're doing is taking one irrelevant poll and trying to say that the results are saying something completely different.

More than 75 million people went to see this film. That's a lot of people. I find it hard to believe what a few paid critics and some ordinary people say when the bottom line is 75 million people went to see it and more are still going.

I've said this NUMEROUS times:

-The normal person doesn't think Museum was horrible. However, the common opinion based on sites like IMDB is that it's an "ok" comedy movie that will appeal to your kids.
-The movie had a big name actor.
-It was safe for kids, and would thus do better than other movies that didn't cater to children and families as much.
-It had an excellent release date, more than a month after serious competitors like Casino Royale and Happy Feet, and just before the usual horrible movies dumped out in January.
-It had weak competition.

The standard grading scale is usually A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69) and F (59 or below). A 45% grade will always be considered an F under that system. 45% would translate into a 4.5 in a 1-10 grading scale (close to the middle but still failing) and would be a 1.8 in a 0-4 scale (all failing grades). I still stand by my point here.

God, you REALLY don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you? If you want to twist around 1-10 scale ratings into school grades, something which is DIFFERENT, then accept that the thousands of people at IMDB gave the movie a D (6.4 out of 10, that's horrible right?).

Yes. Just check around on the Internet. Also keep in mind that he is the Villian and is not expected to be liked by many.

WRONG. Most people are smart enough to know that a villain is the villain for the purpose of the story, to provide conflict for the hero. People "like" a villain who is effective and entertaining. Hannibal Lector and Darth Vader were bad guys, but they're also popular characters and icons.


I'm done debating with you. Based on many parts of your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand most of the stuff you're talking about. This debate is going in circles with us saying the same things over and over again. Anybody reading this would have already come to a conclusion on who they think had the better arguments already.

 

[dnno1]

Did you not read my point about how even normal people on IMDB (which I believe is STILL populated by fans and people already inclined to praise certain movies) don't think Levy's films are all that great?

Big Fat Liar: 5.3
Just Married: 5.0
Cheaper By the Dozen: 5.7
The Pink Panther: 4.9
Night at the Museum: 6.4

These are people, not professional critics. Each of these movies has thousands of ratings, which make them a lot more meaningful than your 16 people example. Shawn Levy's movies seem to hover around 5 according to the people. Yeah, we really want the mediocre comedy director helming a big budget action adventure movie.

That's funny. I just looked at the site today and these are the numbers I found:

Big Fat Liar: 5.7
Just Married: 5.4
Cheaper By the Dozen: 6.1
The Pink Panther: 5.6
Night at the Museum: 7.1

The numbers seemed to have gone up since you last posted. I think you should be careful using this poll since it is on going and only represents the opinion of the registered users at the site. It is not necessarily a true representation of the true audience that went to see the films and their opinions on it. In any case the way I interpet the data after a closer inspection is that the majority of the voters did not find the films in question awful (bad). They did not find them to necessarily be the best films in the world (which is not what what I am trying to say either) but most of them (actually more than 80%) did not say they were not awful. I think it is more important to the studios that a film be run of the mill and be a financial success than be exceptionally good and marginal at the box office. That's what they see in a director like Levy (or even Tim Story) and is more than likely why the hired him for the job.

That's market research? Asking one person? And 23 isn't very old. That's a year removed from college, or even straight out of college (seeing as how most people these days don't graduate in 4 years). What was even her job at AMC Theatres? Supervising the minimum wage workers or even managing several theaters does not make you a market expert.

I didn't say that that particular incident was. All I was trying to convey there was that I was able to find someone who worked at a theater at random and the said they loved the film so much they had to drag their kid to see it as well. What was most important wast the fact that she said that every night for the nine weeks that the film ran in her theater the auditorium was packed. I think that how many years out of college she was or what her job was at the theaters is irrelvant and there is not need to down play her for that. "Night at the Museum" is a popular film and nothing you can say is going to change that fact.

Do you even COMPREHEND how ludicrous this is? Believing that your movie experience was worth it encompasses a WIDE range of opinions, ranging from "That was awesome!" down to "That was alright." Furthermore, saying that because people were generally satisfied with movies in one year, and therefore they must like Night at the Museum is ridiculous. You can use that to justify ANY movie. What you're doing is taking one irrelevant poll and trying to say that the results are saying something completely different.

No. I don't think it is ludicrous. If Most people didn't think their experience was enjoyable, people would stop going to the movies and I don't think that happend with NATM.

I've said this NUMEROUS times:

-The normal person doesn't think Museum was horrible. However, the common opinion based on sites like IMDB is that it's an "ok" comedy movie that will appeal to your kids.
-The movie had a big name actor.
-It was safe for kids, and would thus do better than other movies that didn't cater to children and families as much.
-It had an excellent release date, more than a month after serious competitors like Casino Royale and Happy Feet, and just before the usual horrible movies dumped out in January.
-It had weak competition.

So what does this have to do with "The Flash" being a bad film and Shaw Levy being a bad choice for its helmer?

God, you REALLY don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you? If you want to twist around 1-10 scale ratings into school grades, something which is DIFFERENT, then accept that the thousands of people at IMDB gave the movie a D (6.4 out of 10, that's horrible right?).

I am not twisting around anything. I was just presenting the equivalent score in each rating system. People have this preception that a 45% rating is bad (a failing grade if you will and, BTW, you seem to be falling for it with the IMDb data as well) and I think it is irresponsible for people organizations like RottenTomatoes to lead people on with misrepresented data and it seems that you fall into that category.

WRONG. Most people are smart enough to know that a villain is the villain for the purpose of the story, to provide conflict for the hero. People "like" a villain who is effective and entertaining. Hannibal Lector and Darth Vader were bad guys, but they're also popular characters and icons.

Like I said before in another post Dr. Doom will allegedly be in the sequel. If there were enough people who felt that strongly about the character he wouldn't be in it. So your point is moot.

I'm done debating with you. Based on many parts of your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you don't understand most of the stuff you're talking about. This debate is going in circles with us saying the same things over and over again. Anybody reading this would have already come to a conclusion on who they think had the better arguments already.

Oh, I understand what I'm talking about and I am sure that others agree with me as well. Thanks for the parting shot anyway, but next time be a man and cite where you got those quotes from next time. Posting the way you did makes it look like you were trying to slip in a punch with out a rebuttal. That's pretty sad. You are excused.

 

[Katsuro]

No. I don't think it is ludicrous. If Most people didn't think their experience was enjoyable, people would stop going to the movies and I don't think that happend with NATM.

Most people go to the movies a lot mroe than once a year. I see a decent amount of movies in theaters, most of which I liked. However, i also saw Ghost Rider in theaters, which I did not like, at all. I'm not going to stop seeing movies because of it, and if I were asked rate my overall movie-going experience over the past year, i'd say it was quite good.

 

[hotrider12]

Its a movie about a dude who runs fast, why is this so hard of a concept. He gets his powers, and uses them to protect central or Keystone city. Serously why is a Flash movie so hard to do?????

imo I beleive so many people critize this movie so much and it might be so hard to do. is becuz most of the guys on here have read flash comic book and as a child or teen wishing there was a flash movie. actually see him on big screen runing 1,000 miles an hour in all his glory, seeing super speed the blaze of lighting behind him. flash vibrating thru walls, doing things in nano sec. and with slow mo action camera everyone want to see this preticular movie done right very right. Im sure if it is we all can say ah!! snap! that was sweet!!! I know for myself thats what I would like to see in a flash movie. if levy can produce that kind of movie I'll tip my hat off to him. (doubt it)