John Carter flop to cost Walt Disney $200m

Moses said:
I just looked it up on IMDB and it's got a 7.1 rating - that's not too shabby!
Click to expand...

This is the problem though, where did some of that $100M get spent? ;)

You can never EVER trust a reviewer unless you know them and know they are impartial.
Reviews into e.g. computer hardware, films, TV series, holidays, cars (one of the worst) ie everything are always influenced by entertaining, backhanders and other "benefits"

Looks like a typical CGI fest film, if you like that sort of thing great you will probably love it. If you don't you will almost certainly quote that its a poor film. But films like that have a market and its fairly defined. Wooden acting, poor script etc are fine if you can overlook them but if you can't then you go "bah dross".

Is the $100m typical though thats my issue, if its normal then I can see why we get fewer truly different films, the cost of the film is only say 70% of a typical release. If its not typical I can only think they know what they have on their hands and realise they need to con some of the general population into going to see a film they are highly likely to consider poor.
 
At least it's not a remake :p

My brother wants to go see it, might go along tomorrow for a laugh, was this filmed in 3d or was it retro fitted?
 
Moses said:
I just looked it up on IMDB and it's got a 7.1 rating - that's not too shabby!
Click to expand...

Big risk using ratings from that site imo
some examples

Titanic 7.5, It was the second film to win eleven Academy Awards
Predator 7.8
Aliens 8.5, It won two awards

My perpective of that site has been its much more frequented and voted by younger and more sci orientated people.

Box office takings will be much better if you can get the general population interested (eg Titanic) than a smaller more targetted market.

Dont get me wrong I would watch Aliens and Perdator over Titanic any day, but I bet if you could poll the whole of the UK the result would be very different.
 
robskinner said:
Big risk using ratings from that site imo
some examples

Titanic 7.5, It was the second film to win eleven Academy Awards
Predator 7.8
Aliens 8.5, It won two awards

My perpective of that site has been its much more frequented and voted by younger and more sci orientated people.

Box office takings will be much better if you can get the general population interested (eg Titanic) than a smaller more targetted market.

Dont get me wrong I would watch Aliens and Perdator over Titanic any day, but I bet if you could poll the whole of the UK the result would be very different.
Click to expand...

^ The Dark Knight is their 8th greatest film of all time and Inception is their 13th. :D

But I don't care what professional film critics say let alone internet randoms.
 
Moses said:
Haha, I realise IMDB ratings aren't a flawless guide to films... but it's a reasonable indicator, generally speaking. Something 7+ will probably be alright, whilst something that polls less than 4 is probably going to be quite bad - that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I think Batman and Robin is very watchable. There, I said it!
 
lurkio said:
4/10 maybe , dont waste your time , watch mark Kermodes review of it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00pyvth
Click to expand...

Please don't mention that **** :mad:

Kermode - Lets review this movie straight from Iran

" 10/10 GREAT FILM, GO SEE IT, BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR "

How about this movie from from Afghanistan about a gay lover and his pet dog

" BRILLIANT MOVIE, MUST GO SEE NOW "

Now we have a movie with great special effects and great entertainment for the family.

" DIDN'T ENJOY IT, POOR PLOT, DIDN'T IMPRESS ME IF YOU WANT A GOOD MOVIE GO SEE THE GAY LOVER IN AFGHANISTAN "

My point is about kermode any movie that's not english or contains a story about gay or lesbian rights and he is all over it i'm also surprised his co-presenter isn't stroking his leg while talking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom