MovieChat Forums > WilloughbyStain > Replies
WilloughbyStain's Replies
Basically, while not as well done, these fill the role Warner Bros and Tom & Jerry etc. cartoons used to have in our society.
Beyond that;
1) These are hardly the only movies in history, or even right now (e.g. the Jurassic Worlds) to be more popular with audiences than critics.
2) Because the primary appeal is visual humour, it travels really well to other countries. They're also unlikely to offend many people
3) Huge brand recognition and public awareness, due to all the merchandising
4) Huge and inescapable marketing campaigns. My understanding is that Illumination spend much less than other studios on the animation but spend more on marketing.
5) This might sound ridiculous given 3 and 4, but they have showed enough restraint with spin-offs and cash-ins to make the films still feel like events. Dreamworks tarnished some of their brands by doing TV series and specials, so when the later Kung-Fu Pandas and Dragon films came out, kids could get a similar experience for free at home. Illumination and/or Universal have avoided doing a Minions TV series even though it seems like the obvious thing to do, so kids (and adults) who are into these characters will be more excited when a new film comes out.
This is very 80s merchandising, but there was a lot of merchandise for kids from at least Goldfinger on (Corgi Cars etc). Kids (boys in particular) were recognised as a core part of the Bond audience until at least Licence to Kill, it's why several of the films were cut to ensure a PG rating in the UK.
Always liked him, especially as Don "No Soul" Simmons in Amazon Women on the Moon; I can't even tell you why it's funny, it just is. Even his bit in the pretty lame American Carol is funny.
That's an interesting comparison. I sometimes think people overegg the "chicken" thing, it is possible someone could have a quirk like that which doesn't happen to show up for a while, but I admit it is jarring and something I noticed even as a kid.
I love II & III and consider them to be among the if not the best sequels of all time, and in *some ways* I prefer the second to the first, but I've got to admit they do have some elements that are clunkier than anything in the first. Similar to "chicken" Doc suddenly picks up a catchphrase about "Thinking forth dimensionally" in the third film. Mostly some of the foreshadowing is kind of clunky; showing Marty ace that gunslinger arcade game is a nice touch that pays off well, as is having Biff watch Clint Eastwood, but why would a glossy puff-piece Documentary about Biff talk about his wild west ancestor? And 1955 Doc has a fairly jarring mini-speech about his love of Jules Verne at the start of III, even though it comes up pretty naturally later in the film.
I've always found it weird that Crichton straight up used the Doyle title, I get that it was meant as a tribute, but it seemed an odd way to pay homage, and now when the majority of people hear Lost World they think of this movie rather than Doyle. Some tribute!
Glad to know I'm not alone!
I thought that Muppets movie was very overrated at the time, a lot of coasting on nostalgia by recycling scenes from earlier better projects I could have been watching instead, and what was new either wasn't particularly good or just felt kind of "off".
Yeah, I think they thought it would go on indefinitely in much the same way the Bond films had up to that point; Arnie said that he hoped people would look back and think of Mr Freeze as one of the most memorable films in the series "by the time Batman 10 comes out".
The occult shop Ray was working in comes from the second movie. That aside, the film makes more sense if the second film is taken out of the equation, even though they've specified that the second film is still "cannon".
I agree; I was a little sceptical if this would add enough new to be worth the fuss, but it did.
It might be more that he's one of the main actors, in a majority of scenes, and thus the movie cannot keep going without his participation. Though if that is the case, that doesn't mean the allegation could not turn out to be very serious.
It does seem like this would be a very Gene-driven project.
Same story as most other one-hit wonders; the hit was really distinctive, nothing else they ever did caught people's attention the same way, and perhaps (due to playlisting etc) wasn't really given the chance to.
No worries.
I agree the WiiU was pretty good; I have one, I don't have a Switch yet. If nothing else it's enabled me to get several games that have since been released on Switch at a half to a third of the price.
I have only posted that one thing in this thread, I think you have me mistaken with someone else!
But interesting that WiiU actually turned a profit, I did not realise that. I did not think Nintendo would be *completely* destroyed but it's failure, that was an exaggeration/simplification, but my understanding was that if the Switch had similarly failed it was likely they would have gone 3rd party.
Even the near company-destroying flop the WiiU sold 13.5million units.
You *might*. I can see how some scenes almost feel like scenes from the show. However, the tone, visual style, feel and plotting don't have much in common.
For what it's worth I'm a fan of the series, and I didn't really like this film, but I'm sure there are plenty who did.
It seems the "Geek" websites, are saying it's a masterpiece, groundbreaking etc like they usually do for these movies. Doing this basically;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsag-nG9lUE
Whereas the more mainstream\traditional critics are largely saying it's solid entertainment but no more. A 7/10 kind of movie.
I'm glad it's not getting a somewhat moderate response actually, films like this getting OTT praise turns me against them a little bit. Not sure if I'll see this in the theatre (it's not especially convenient for me at the moment), but I'll certainly see it some day.
While disturbing and unpleasant at a number of points, it's relatively tame compared to A Serbian Film. But I agree that both films seem to portray their relatively small-scale stories as a microcosm of the wider society the characters inhibit, it's an interesting parallel you've drawn here. I found Cargo 200 to be a much stronger film, though I can't deny A Serbian Film is certainly memorable.
I agree but just to be *super* generous...
IIRC Rigg in Saw IV was the only cop who was the subject of a Jigsaw "game" (as opposed to a single trap), and as that was at the same time Hoffman entered into the picture, so the story on that might have been obfuscated by Hoffman and unknown to the police. The other cops might have been considered collateral damage rather than anyone Jigsaw "targeted" per say
But that's an extremely generous interpretation..
Not really; this was the most commercially successful of Brosnan's films*, the reviews at the time were pretty much the same as they were for most post-Connery pre-Craig films, and the feedback from general audiences (e.g. A- from Cinemascore) didn't suggest there was any huge problem. I think it's because the next film is a reboot this now looks like it nearly killed the franchise; if the next had been another Brosnan film, whether in the vein of Die Another Day or something that took things down a notch a la For Your Eyes Only, I think it would be perceived quite differently.
*I think adjusted for inflation Goldeneye slightly tops it, but that's by the by.