|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 17, 2023 14:19:23 GMT
Hell yes. It’s not as good as Dr Strange 2…the bellwether for Phase Four…but it’s a cohesive whole and entertaining enough that sticks to old fashioned Marvel tropes, not Disneyfied ones. Any theories on why critics seem to be giving it such a dismal score compared to the first two Antman movies? It's now sitting at 48%. I said it already, but I think sometimes it becomes fashionable to do something. It works for both good and bad reviews. I can't speak to this one yet, but the fact that Ant-Man 2 has an 87% blows my mind. It's one of the few MCU movies I don't like at all. It's totally forgettable. I think that's an example of it in the opposite direction.
Sometimes I think critics like things audiences don't (and vice versa). This seems to be an example of that based on the RT score. The difference between critic and audience skills for The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker is another. Critics actually kinda waged war on audiences with those two. Collider and other sites took shots at audiences for not liking TLJ. It died down only to pop up again when TROS came out. They hated it and reminded audiences TLJ was superior and the audience was stupid for not liking it. It was bizarre, but interesting to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2023 17:24:36 GMT
Any theories on why critics seem to be giving it such a dismal score compared to the first two Antman movies? It's now sitting at 48%. I said it already, but I think sometimes it becomes fashionable to do something. It works for both good and bad reviews. I can't speak to this one yet, but the fact that Ant-Man 2 has an 87% blows my mind. It's one of the few MCU movies I don't like at all. It's totally forgettable. I think that's an example of it in the opposite direction.
Sometimes I think critics like things audiences don't (and vice versa). This seems to be an example of that based on the RT score. The difference between critic and audience skills for The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker is another. Critics actually kinda waged war on audiences with those two. Collider and other sites took shots at audiences for not liking TLJ. It died down only to pop up again when TROS came out. They hated it and reminded audiences TLJ was superior and the audience was stupid for not liking it. It was bizarre, but interesting to watch.
I think you’re right here. I can imagine critics in the past not wanting to be the one person that hated Marvel when they were so popular. I think with movies like Ant Man 2 a lot of them were just “eh, it’s fun. I’ll give it a pass.” But now they see how divisive Marvel is becoming even amongst fans so it’s more acceptable to be negative. I only see this getting worse for them in the future so I hope they can pull off some better movies with next year’s slate.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 17, 2023 23:21:21 GMT
Bill Murray's in this!
What does that say about this movie, if nothing else?!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 3:23:24 GMT
The film had reshoots to add more humor into the movie. Iger didn't think the existing film was on-brand enough for Ant-Man and wanted more jokes to feel in-line with the last two entries and the other recent output by Marvel Studios, instead of letting a serious story be told with an otherwise outlandish character. How do you know it was even good before the re-shoots? Directors writers, and actors are not infallible. I did not say that the movie was better initially, but from what I have heard the last minute reshoots lessened the dramatic impact of some scenes.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Feb 18, 2023 3:51:14 GMT
It was better than the last Antman
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 18, 2023 12:55:09 GMT
How do you know it was even good before the re-shoots? Directors writers, and actors are not infallible. I did not say that the movie was better initially, but from what I have heard the last minute reshoots lessened the dramatic impact of some scenes.
You just blankly stated Iger interfered (if that even happened) and assumed what he wanted made the movie worse. You have no idea what influence his ideas had if he even did that. Blaming "studio interference" is just scapegoating.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 21:15:16 GMT
I did not say that the movie was better initially, but from what I have heard the last minute reshoots lessened the dramatic impact of some scenes.
You just blankly stated Iger interfered (if that even happened) and assumed what he wanted made the movie worse. You have no idea what influence his ideas had if he even did that. Blaming "studio interference" is just scapegoating.
Looking back on my initial post, I admit that you are not wrong, as it essentially, and in addition to my response, reads as fallacy. I should have worded it better and made things clear. My apologies. And, you are right, for all we know the movie may have been worse if not Iger's supposed interference.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 18, 2023 23:05:40 GMT
How do you know it was even good before the re-shoots? Directors writers, and actors are not infallible. I did not say that the movie was better initially, but from what I have heard the last minute reshoots lessened the dramatic impact of some scenes. This last minute re-editing is what’s killing the franchise. That and the test marketing.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 18, 2023 23:09:11 GMT
You just blankly stated Iger interfered (if that even happened) and assumed what he wanted made the movie worse. You have no idea what influence his ideas had if he even did that. Blaming "studio interference" is just scapegoating.
Looking back on my initial post, I admit that you are not wrong, as it essentially, and in addition to my response, reads as fallacy. I should have worded it better and made things clear. My apologies. And, you are right, for all we know the movie may have been worse if not Iger's supposed interference. I doubt Iger had much input in a movie in well into post production. The cost of the reshoots need to be considered, yet Right believes it is all ideologically driven via left wing social causes, as if Disney isn’t one of the biggest capitalist organizations on the planet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2023 23:14:28 GMT
I did not say that the movie was better initially, but from what I have heard the last minute reshoots lessened the dramatic impact of some scenes. This last minute re-editing is what’s killing the franchise. That and the test marketing. This! Absolutely. It’s so obvious the reshoots are responsible for making Dr Strange MoM as uneven as it was. Obviously I can’t say how good the original cut was, but as is it feels like two visions competing with themselves. And it’s also clearly cut to be exactly two hours. The pacing is way off.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 19, 2023 1:36:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Feb 19, 2023 13:48:13 GMT
You just blankly stated Iger interfered (if that even happened) and assumed what he wanted made the movie worse. You have no idea what influence his ideas had if he even did that. Blaming "studio interference" is just scapegoating.
Looking back on my initial post, I admit that you are not wrong, as it essentially, and in addition to my response, reads as fallacy. I should have worded it better and made things clear. My apologies. And, you are right, for all we know the movie may have been worse if not Iger's supposed interference. No worries here. Conversation is a good thing.
Star Wars is a perfect example of how "interference" in of itself isn't bad. George Lucas' ideas were changed, other people directed 2 of the 3 original movies, etc., and it made movie history. He was in charge of everything while making the prequels and we all know how that turned out.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Feb 20, 2023 0:02:18 GMT
Looking back on my initial post, I admit that you are not wrong, as it essentially, and in addition to my response, reads as fallacy. I should have worded it better and made things clear. My apologies. And, you are right, for all we know the movie may have been worse if not Iger's supposed interference. No worries here. Conversation is a good thing.
Star Wars is a perfect example of how "interference" in of itself isn't bad. George Lucas' ideas were changed, other people directed 2 of the 3 original movies, etc., and it made movie history. He was in charge of everything while making the prequels and we all know how that turned out.
He was also in charge of Episodes V and VI. Unlike Episode IV and Episodes VII, VIII, and IX, Episodes V, VI, I, II, and III were not at all Hollywood movies. They were in fact independent movies all produced and bankrolled by George Lucas out of his own pocket at his San Francisco Lucasfilm headquarters, with some filming at Pinewood Studios in England. Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand were hired guns, hired exclusively by George Lucas. George Lucas called the shots on Episodes V and VI. Kershner and Marquand were working for George Lucas.
|
|