|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||Pass The Popcorn|
|Topic subject||and you all thought F4 Silver Surfer was gonna be good...|
291374, and you all thought F4 Silver Surfer was gonna be good...|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 11:15 AM
291375, not me.|
Posted by DawgEatah, Fri Jun-15-07 11:17 AM
R.I.P. 3rd i
291387, ...it's only 87 minutes long? What is this, a Disney movie??|
Posted by Nukkapedia, Fri Jun-15-07 11:51 AM
291392, Who thought it was gonna be good?|
Posted by Marauder21, Fri Jun-15-07 12:01 PM
291393, you didnt see everyone holding their collective jism in the trailer post?|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 12:02 PM
291395, But we all know how bad the first one was, right?|
Posted by Marauder21, Fri Jun-15-07 12:04 PM
I mean, the Surfer looked impressive visually, but you had to know it would suck if you saw the first one.
291432, thats what i tried to say|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 01:13 PM
everyone was gettin all hyped up even though the first one was ass. this looks to be no different.
291441, Its okay to get excited over that trailer. It's a good trailer.|
Posted by buckshot defunct, Fri Jun-15-07 01:23 PM
291444, that doesnt make sense to me|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 01:31 PM
if you're getting excited by a trailer, then clearly you have interest in the film and good expectations....
291446, normally yes. absolutely.|
Posted by buckshot defunct, Fri Jun-15-07 01:41 PM
This was a weird case where I was able to say "Wow, I really liked that trailer", yet still had zero desire to see the film itself. (Which I guess brings into question the effectiveness of the trailer, but I digress)Probably has something to do with the first movie being complete ass. Although, the trailers for FF1 were mostly terrible as I recall.
But yeah, Silver Surfer flying mach speed all over New York City for 30 seconds? I can appreciate that. Who couldn't?
291480, Yeah, there's "That movie looks good" and "That was a good trailer"|
Posted by SoulHonky, Fri Jun-15-07 02:59 PM
There are at least a handful of trailers every year that come out and are pretty interesting yet I still have no interest in seeing the film whatsoever. I thought the At World's End trailer looked pretty cool but there was no way I was going to sit through another 2.5 hours of that nonsense.
291612, RE: normally yes. absolutely.|
Posted by K. Dot, Fri Jun-15-07 09:26 PM
> This was a weird case where I was able to say "Wow, I really liked that trailer", yet still had zero desire to see the film itself.
Same here. I came to this realization not too long ago.
291400, i still do. hitting it in 51 minutes|
Posted by bshelly, Fri Jun-15-07 12:09 PM
291436, if by good you mean mildly entertaining then yes|
Posted by YaBoy...Holla@ME, Fri Jun-15-07 01:15 PM
I know it;s going to be cringeworthy at best but there should be some good action (especially the Sufer-related action)
291454, yeah because noone likes movies that get bad ratings on RT|
Posted by Esco, Fri Jun-15-07 02:00 PM
unless that shit got 0% theres a grip of people that liked it. I don't listen to negative reviews alone. And I also do this thing that some of you should try. I think for myself and for my own opinions.
291458, well lucky for you....|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 02:14 PM
>I don't listen to negative reviews alone.
RT isnt just one persons review, its the consensus of many reviewers. And 70 ppl saw it and only 20 liked it.
you can make that arguement for a SINGLE review, but not for a website that compiles tons of reviews from across the country.
291460, if you were at a party, and 50/70 people told you|
Posted by buckshot defunct, Fri Jun-15-07 02:20 PM
that the cheese dip tasted like dog shit
291476, Critics' opinions don't always match the public's taste|
Posted by SoulHonky, Fri Jun-15-07 02:53 PM
Dead Man's Chest and At World's End got slaughtered (rightfully so IMO) but a lot of people loved those films. People won't stop going to see Wild Hogs but that shit go 105 negative reviews out of 125 reviews.
While Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic compile a lot of reviews, they are all from a specific group, film critics. It's not like they took a cross-section of America and got their opinion.
291495, okay, good point, BUT|
Posted by buckshot defunct, Fri Jun-15-07 03:31 PM
These sites post reviews from a wide range of critics who write for a wide range of audiences. If the Village Voice or Roger Ebert hate on a popcorn flick, I'm not really sweating it. But if everybody from Entertainment Weekly to AICN to Onion AV Club to Better Homes and Gardens etc etc is boo-ing, it just might be a red flag.
I'm all for free will, but let's not pretend that reviews are completely useless.
291524, I'm not saying it's completely useless|
Posted by SoulHonky, Fri Jun-15-07 04:23 PM
More often than not, the reviews will help people avoid bad movies but the mainstream audience is far more forgiving than movie critics.
On Metacritic, FF4 is a 47
In this year's box office
#3: At World's End =50
#4: 300 = 51
#5: Wild Hogs = 27
#7: Ghost Rider = 35
Technically, this was in last year's box office but:
Night at the Museum = 48
I can't fault someone who doesn't agree with film critics. They might just have a lower standards than your typical film critic.
291535, dude you cant equate box office sales to the quality of the movie|
Posted by HighVoltage, Fri Jun-15-07 05:00 PM
we live in a country full of fucking morons... people PAID MONEY to see Date Movie... so much so that they made a fucking SEQUEL!
Its just like the music industry, you cant tell me the top selling artists are the best artists.
291572, I didn't say that. We're talking about mainstream America's taste|
Posted by SoulHonky, Fri Jun-15-07 06:20 PM
Most Americans like music that is, at best, disposable. They like films that most critics would say is stupid.
Remember how this began, someone above said that they don't listen to reviews. People said he was wrong for doing that but actually, that just makes him more like the average moviegoer. They'll take Fantastic Four or Pirates over Babel or The Queen.
I despised Dead Man's Chest, as did most viewers, but most average moviegoers LOVED that movie. You don't make a billion dollars with everyone walking out saying, Yeah I should have listened to the reviews.
291620, very flawed logic|
Posted by will_5198, Fri Jun-15-07 10:30 PM
291468, here's how I new it would be awful|
Posted by BigWorm, Fri Jun-15-07 02:41 PM
For me this was the litmus test, like Venom was for Spiderman 3. If they found a cool way to work Galactus into the movie without making it helplessly corny, the movie would be good.
But according to the reviews, they wuss out.
No purple, planet eating giant.
291491, AHAHA IT'S GOOD!!|
Posted by bshelly, Fri Jun-15-07 03:16 PM
More in the official.
291498, ^^^SEEN IT & BOUT 2 TALK BOUT IT!!!...elsewhere tho|
Posted by jigga, Fri Jun-15-07 03:41 PM
291511, Galactus (spoilers)|
Posted by Allah, Fri Jun-15-07 03:56 PM
post spoilers to this reply with spoiler space
291512, RE: Galactus (spoilers)|
Posted by Ceej, Fri Jun-15-07 03:57 PM
Posted by Allah, Fri Jun-15-07 11:49 PM
it wasn't even right relativistically even.
291521, i'm surprised it's even at 35%|
Posted by theprofessional, Fri Jun-15-07 04:20 PM
cause it's easily in the bottom ten of movies released this year. i mean, it's really, really, laughably bad, and not in a campy comic book way. the usa today critic who said the ending was more satisfying than spiderman 3 should be fired. i haven't seen spiderman 3, but if it had an ending, it couldn't possibly have been worse than the cheesefest that is the last 20 minutes of f4:rss.
291536, this was a hundred times better than spiderman 3|
Posted by bshelly, Fri Jun-15-07 05:00 PM
291607, ^Damning with faint praise|
Posted by Call It Anything, Fri Jun-15-07 09:01 PM
291774, Spiderman 3 blew ass chunks.|
Posted by ansomble, Sat Jun-16-07 08:41 PM
291802, thats not saying much though|
Posted by HighVoltage, Sat Jun-16-07 11:41 PM
291566, I don't know how good of an FF film you can expect.|
Posted by JusticeSabre, Fri Jun-15-07 06:01 PM
It's not X-Men.
It's not Spider-Man.
It's not Batman.
It's not Superman.
It's basically a sitcom with superheroes.
That said, aside from Jessica Alba being all wrong for the role and their hesitance to utilize Doom properly, it was a solid, fun film.
An even B.
291605, big shock.|
Posted by The_Orange_Ninja_Turtle, Fri Jun-15-07 08:58 PM
291621, I doubt it's that good|
Posted by will_5198, Fri Jun-15-07 10:31 PM
(although I semi-enjoyed the first)
but are you just basing this on website reviews? or did you see it?
291658, susan storm+alicia masters=a threesome i would pay to have|
Posted by Cold Truth, Sat Jun-16-07 03:53 AM
and i would feel zero shame in telling people i paid for it.
291665, Still seeing it. I've heard that it's entertaining.|
Posted by Frank Longo, Sat Jun-16-07 09:39 AM
291679, There's nothing wrong with the movie .....|
Posted by da_illest_one, Sat Jun-16-07 11:08 AM
ok Galactus wasn't as he should seem but check it...
Galactus has many forms, he is a sub-God and one of the Celestials, if he chooses a human form then he will look like the classic form in the comics, if you a little research on the character you'll realize he also took the form of a cloud, a storm, a collection of bug like ships, or a moving planet....
Also, what we may have seen was just a form of his ship, not the big guy himself...
What did everyone expect for action?
The Silver Surfer was perfectly done, he pimp smacked Dr. Doom and made short work out of dozens of military missile convoys, and he looked straight when he wasn't on his surf board, that wasn't CGI and I was impressed on how they pulled it off..
Ok now Jessica Alba doesn't fit Sue Storm's appearance and yes someone like Scarlett Johannson could have pulled it off better but you know what? The movie focused on Reed Richards and Victor Von Doom more than the other characters, thats why I enjoyed it...
I would not put this on the list of bad Marvel films because it was close to the comic book as it could be, even Doom has his classic comic book outfit...
some complain about it being PG, so what? Do the Fantastic Four kill people? nope.., Do the FF curse and have sex? Nope..., so there, thats a good reason for it not to have nudity and graphic death scenes...
And guess what, its leaving the table open for Silver Surfer movie which will of course feature Galactus...
So yes ya'll go see this joint, its a family film and its fun to watch...
291722, RE: There's nothing wrong with the movie .....|
Posted by xbenzive, Sat Jun-16-07 04:24 PM
this is exactly how I feel about the movie.
it was fun to watch.
291834, I liked the movie, but not the Galactus portrayal ..... (spoilers)|
Posted by Allah, Sun Jun-17-07 07:54 AM
There's no way Galactus OR the Silver Surfer went out like that. COME ON!!!!!
292008, I didn't think it was that bad...|
Posted by phenompyrus, Sun Jun-17-07 08:32 PM
In fact, I left with a better taste in my mouth than when I first saw Spider-Man 3.