Were The Critics Looking For Revenge?

[Bishop2]

I don't think the critics care about the audience/critic gap anymore. It's old news. More importantly, I don't think they care about this franchise one iota. They see Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon running around and they probably dismiss it before ever seeing the film because it's "a bunch of TV actors." They see a franchise with a heavy comedic bent and no angst from any secret identities and they feel that everything that COULD be interesting about superheroes (for them) is inherently missing in this one. Sound crazy? Critics are snobs and always have been. I don't think it's as crazy as it might seem.

I don't think they want revenge. I think they just dismiss these movies outright and don't give a damn.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I don't think the critics care about the audience/critic gap anymore. It's old news. More importantly, I don't think they care about this franchise one iota. They see Jessica Alba, Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon running around and they probably dismiss it before ever seeing the film because it's "a bunch of TV actors." They see a franchise with a heavy comedic bent and no angst from any secret identities and they feel that everything that COULD be interesting about superheroes (for them) is inherently missing in this one. Sound crazy? Critics are snobs and always have been. I don't think it's as crazy as it might seem.

I don't think they want revenge. I think they just dismiss these movies outright and don't give a damn.

It depends on the individuals, but generally, they sem to give a fair deal, and Michael Chiklis is considered talented by the critic community, although his performances in the F4 films detract from what he has accomplished.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Barely anyone even give's a damn about critic's opinions. Most people don't go to rotten tomatoes or yahoo to see what the critics have given the film.

What purpose to critics really serve? Have they ever influenced people by the masses to see a film or not?

 

[Bishop2]

Barely anyone even give's a damn about critic's opinions. Most people don't go to rotten tomatoes or yahoo to see what the critics have given the film.

What purpose to critics really serve? Have they ever influenced people by the masses to see a film or not?

Possibly. When they all jump on hating something, usually it influences the box office. The question is... did people already decide those movies looked lousy anyway?

 

[NQ-B]

Yes I saw the movie! Ahab.
guess what theres this thing called an opinion and people are allowed to have one. opinions on the film may differ. Yes you thought that is was bad others thought it was good, wow different opinions, just because you thought it was bad does it mean everybody else has too!
Maybe your the one who is "too stupid" to realise anything

 

[greenlantern530]

Unless you want to start calling FF a "special" franchise that needs their own critics. Heck... you could even make a Special Oscars... for those movies that were born different but still want to compete.

LOL that's great.

 

[Gilpesh]

LOL that's great.

And the truth! t:

 

[DieSmiling]

Barely anyone even give's a damn about critic's opinions. Most people don't go to rotten tomatoes or yahoo to see what the critics have given the film.

What purpose to critics really serve? Have they ever influenced people by the masses to see a film or not?

Agreed. The vast majority of people I know view critic reviews as essentially worthless. The only time a critic's review will tell you accurately if you'll like a movie is if the critic is you (or a friend who you know has very similar taste to you).

 

[TheVileOne]

Were The Critics Looking For Revenge?​

An Essay By Lightning Strykez​

As I perused the reviews at RT, one of the things that kept catching my eye were the number of critics that mentioned how unfair, 'depressed' and 'disguested' they personally were over 2005's Fantastic Four box office explosion. Quite a few reviewers--both then and now--felt that such a triumph was somehow the ultimate cinematic slap in the face. And it's interesting to note that the critics who were disgusted by that back in 2005 proceeded to go on to rip this year's FF2 to shreds.

Now, I'll tell you something: 05's FF1 was a mess--I won't even lie. Prior to its release I defended it in hopes that I would be vindicated. Not. Granted, I still liked the movie for strictly loyalistic reasons (I'm a fanboy), but not because it was a good film. In fact, deep down, part of me is very glad that this sequel didn't come in with $70 or $80 million last weekend--because it's what FOX & Co. deserve for burning the public with all that 2005 marketing overload and hype...for such a poor film. Hopefully they've learned a lesson.

Not.

Yet at the time you were so sure the critics were just conspiring against the movie and everything was going absolutely right with it.

However, I genuinely enjoyed the hell outta this sequel--I thought it was a very solid, enjoyable film. And I'm not alone--obviously millions of others thought it was great too (despite its flaws, it has gained a 62% FRESH user rating at RT). Yet, I can't help but wonder if some of these critics already had their minds made up to hate FF2 before they even saw it. Why? Well, quite frankly some of these reviews don't have even an OUNCE of positivity in them, which I find very hard to believe. Surely unbiased critics should be able to locate at least 1 or 2 redeeming qualities in a film, no? I mean, they sure as hell have no problem pulling positives out of thin air for certain other...ahem...high profile comic book movie blockbusters (that sucked worst than this one).

Are some of these critics bent out of shape because audiences have ignored them twice now and continue to support this franchise? Does the continued success of films like this show that the critics' influence on the mainstream moviegoers has waned? Do you believe that critics are simply burned out on CBMs in general since they've become mainstay summer fanfare?

I'd say the pretty low opening for FF2 (yes low for this kind of movie), and the humongous dropoff shows there is some merit to the reviews and if the reviews weren't as bad the first 2 weekends would've been a lot higher.

These shows IMHO, are not a big success. And as a critic, I really don't feel there is much merit to what you say either.

I do feel disappointed when you act like the perfect cheerleader and give us propaganda like "ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING RIGHT WITH FF2" and virtually everything you talked about in that report just like X-men 3 ended up being false.

I dunno, it just seems like some of these critical minds were predisposed to hate this film--whether it deserved it or not.

On the other hand, I feel some naive minds refused to see the truth and were ready to get fooled by 20th Century Fox ONCE AGAIN.

 

[TheVileOne]

Did the critics lash out at Catwoman for not being Spider-man 2?

The popular opinion among critics was that in 2004 we got not only the best comic book superhero movie of all time, but also the worst.

 

[Fantastic-Boy]

Well...

 

[englishtrebor]

This movie was terribly written and terribly acted. That's why critics hate it. Yeah, it was better than the first one but it's not hard to beat. Johnny was the only character that was well-developed. Ioan Gruffudd didn't sound smart at all, with, "Your encounter with the Surfer has affected your molecules." Oh, I didn't know that. Michael Chiklis' acting ability is wasted completly, while Jessica Alba has too much screentime. Not only is she a terrible actress, but her character was incredibly self-centered to the end. The only reason this movie wasn't complete and total trash was because of the special effects and Chris Evans playing his character (the only good one) with some self-respect. The movie didn't take itself seriously and with a running time of 82 minutes, it obviously wasn't trying to accomplish a deep plot or thought-out characters.

All they have to do to make 3 better is fire Jessica Alba, fire Tim Story (he obviously doesn't know how to make movies) and hire a writer who specializes in five-minute, oversimplified, shallow cartoons.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Yet at the time you were so sure the critics were just conspiring against the movie and everything was going absolutely right with it.



I'd say the pretty low opening for FF2 (yes low for this kind of movie), and the humongous dropoff shows there is some merit to the reviews and if the reviews weren't as bad the first 2 weekends would've been a lot higher.

These shows IMHO, are not a big success. And as a critic, I really don't feel there is much merit to what you say either.

I do feel disappointed when you act like the perfect cheerleader and give us propaganda like "ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING RIGHT WITH FF2" and virtually everything you talked about in that report just like X-men 3 ended up being false.



On the other hand, I feel some naive minds refused to see the truth and were ready to get fooled by 20th Century Fox ONCE AGAIN.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor next time: When you post on a topic, address the issue at hand without personalizing your verbiage as a swipe against the thread's author or other readers. Trust me when I say, when you do the latter it makes you look stupid and petty.

It also dumps out whatever remaining water your original point could have carried.

 

[Bishop2]

Ioan Gruffudd didn't sound smart at all, with, "Your encounter with the Surfer has affected your molecules." Oh, I didn't know that.

Yeah, you didn't. How exactly WOULD you know that without an electron microscope?

 

[Eros]

but the critics were right about FF2, it was fun movie, but lacked anything other then that really.

 

[Kelly]

Yet at the time you were so sure the critics were just conspiring against the movie and everything was going absolutely right with it.



I'd say the pretty low opening for FF2 (yes low for this kind of movie), and the humongous dropoff shows there is some merit to the reviews and if the reviews weren't as bad the first 2 weekends would've been a lot higher.

These shows IMHO, are not a big success. And as a critic, I really don't feel there is much merit to what you say either.

I do feel disappointed when you act like the perfect cheerleader and give us propaganda like "ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING RIGHT WITH FF2" and virtually everything you talked about in that report just like X-men 3 ended up being false.



On the other hand, I feel some naive minds refused to see the truth and were ready to get fooled by 20th Century Fox ONCE AGAIN.

How about allowing people to just........enjoy the movie. I have "far" from a naive mind, and I enjoyed the hell out of the movie.....

The only truth I see is that, you enjoy reading your own bloviating....

The truth is in the mind of the person watching the movie....if they enjoyed it, that is their truth......if they didn't enjoy it, that is their truth.

You are what gives critics a bad name in this business....when you begin to see your views as more valuable, you've lost the game...IMHO.

 

[Bishop2]

Jessica Alba has too much screentime. Not only is she a terrible actress, but her character was incredibly self-centered to the end.

Yeah, her worrying about Johnny's well-being after his chase with the surfer, her fears of what the military was doing to Norrin and faith in his good intentions, her telling Reed that he was right to build the sensor for the government, and her ongoing concern about the lives of their children were all really self-centered.

 

[TheVileOne]

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor next time: When you post on a topic, address the issue at hand without personalizing your verbiage as a swipe against the thread's author or other readers. Trust me when I say, when you do the latter it makes you look stupid and petty.

It also dumps out whatever remaining water your original point could have carried.

Like you don't personalize your verbiage?

You asked for our thoughts. I gave them to you.

Nice cartoon by the way.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Like you don't personalize your verbiage?

You asked for our thoughts. I gave them to you.

Nice cartoon by the way.

You're out of line.

Reread your posts. You'll find that you "gave" me nothing in terms of the topic at hand, but rather a slew of personalized knocks that had nothing to do with the topic.

Now, I'm going to be nice this morning and say this one final time: Drop the personal crap, stay on topic--or stay off the thread. The request is quite simple. Don't complicate it.

 

[Cyrusbales]

This movie was terribly written and terribly acted. That's why critics hate it. Yeah, it was better than the first one but it's not hard to beat. Johnny was the only character that was well-developed. Ioan Gruffudd didn't sound smart at all, with, "Your encounter with the Surfer has affected your molecules." Oh, I didn't know that. Michael Chiklis' acting ability is wasted completly, while Jessica Alba has too much screentime. Not only is she a terrible actress, but her character was incredibly self-centered to the end. The only reason this movie wasn't complete and total trash was because of the special effects and Chris Evans playing his character (the only good one) with some self-respect. The movie didn't take itself seriously and with a running time of 82 minutes, it obviously wasn't trying to accomplish a deep plot or thought-out characters.

All they have to do to make 3 better is fire Jessica Alba, fire Tim Story (he obviously doesn't know how to make movies) and hire a writer who specializes in five-minute, oversimplified, shallow cartoons.

Pretty much all correct here, although I'd still say Chris Evans wasn't that good either.