Does anyone else think Matt Reeves is a boring director?

Jul 23, 2019 17:12:21 GMT thisguy4000 said:

Jul 23, 2019 17:00:57 GMT kuatorises said:

Good for you and those fans, but the facts outweigh your opinion.I'm not trying to appeal to anyone, I'm simply stating the facts.

It certainly sounds like you’re trying to argue that because critics say something about a movie, I’m not allowed to have my own thoughts on them. 

Just keep in mind that the title of this thread is “Does anyone else think Matt Reeves is a boring director”, as in, I personally do not think he’s anything special, and I’m wondering if anyone here agrees with me. 

I haven't seen any of his films, Cloverfeild & Apes don't interest me so I cannot say I find him boring, I do think he's overrated just based on his track record, he has 1 modest hit and one substantial hit, plus an outright bomb on his resume as a director goes where anyone thought he was a must have for Batman was beyond me, like literally his career has gone success fail success fail, where he got the stones to be like yeah fuck you WB you need me I don't need you I don't know, but respect that he played them like that, but why they let him I don't get it.

Plus I think he looks like a cunt, just saying.

Jul 24, 2019 14:42:02 GMT kuatorises said:

Jul 23, 2019 18:23:05 GMT dazz said:

Grossed more, but seen by less people, adjusted for inflation Rise kicks it's arse, and in terms or legs it kicks War's arse also, it's odd how the sequel to Rise does exponentially better than the sequel to Dawn, ticket was War is the worst performer of the bunch, and profit wise also as it cost almost $60m more than Rise did, so it actually made less money than Rise, it actually probably came close to losing money theatrically speaking.

How do you know less people saw it? Aside from how many theaters it was shown in, which was more than the other two, I don't see how you can know how many individuals actually saw it.You are throwing an awful lot of caveats in there. "It did worse if you count ___ and adjust ___".

Has more legs?! Get outta here. I will give you whatever caveat you want for money for the sake of the argument. Ok, War is the least successful financially. Rise, which still has a very good reviews, is almost entirely universally the lowest rated of the trilogy:

Rise
Metacritic: 68 and 7.8
Rotten Tomatoes: 82% and 77%.

IMDB: 7.6

Dawn
Metacritic: 79 and 8.2
Rotten Tomatoes: 90% and 88%.
IMDB: 7.6

War
Metacritic: 82 and 8.0
Rotten Tomatoes: 93% and 84%.
IMDB: 7.4

Has more legs..Stop it.People barely talk about the original anymore.

You don't know what legs refers to do you?

Legs refers to ongoing box office, War was heavily front loaded compared to Rise, Rise had an opening weekend in the US totalling 31% of it's total run, Dawn had 34.8% but it opened much higher that's to be expected really, War's was 38.3% almost 40% of it's total US gross was made in 3 days, Rise was barely 30% and it made almost the same money opening weekend, which says less people were inclined to see War when it opened or watch it whilst it was playing, despite it coming off the huge success of Dawn and being as hyped as any of the films in the series.

Also good job not using RT properly, the %'s mean shit that's a simple thumbs up or thumbs down ratio counter, Rise = 7.12/10, Dawn = 7.91/10, War = 8.18/10, same effect but this actually holds value unlike the %'s these are the actual average scores of the films used in tandem with the % they denote not only a increasing approval in terms or how many people liked the films but by how much more they liked each films quality, which btw has nothing to do with legs this has to do with critical consensus it's a completely different thing, horror movies for instance have terrible legs typically, horror franchises though have tremendous legs when modestly budgeted but are usually terribly received by the critics.

Also saying huh no one rarely talks about that 8 year old movie compared to the other movie that's only 2 years old, especially when 1 was made by the guy doing the next Batman film and the other guy isn't making any big franchise film, that's not evens apples to oranges that's comparing coconuts to banana's, it makes no damn sense.

You seem to be the one trying to make excuses, simply put despite Dawn's huge success which honestly could have been because of the success of Rise or simply the marketing for Dawn itself, when War came around less people saw it, less people were interested in it, cost more money and ultimately made less money as a result, whether you like the movie or not Matt Reeves made the least successful film in the series, which was coming off of his own movie, so you cannot blame someone else for that. where as Reeves should thank the other guy for setting him up to succeed atleast a little.