Fans tend to be, are sometimes made fun of for being, hostile to a new sequel or adaptation coming out, expect that it will be really bad, and the producers and others fans beg give it a chance, you always hate something before it's released and then are won over. But how often does that really happen? I think actually very few times. The only times that that has happened on a large scale are The Wrath of Khan, The Next Generation (kind of, actually more love it or hate than widely loved and with its early years still widely disliked) and Batman '89 (probably) and maybe Casino Royale. Otherwise when there is a lot of pre-release hostility that usually leads to a lot more post-release disappointment.
When those kinds of fans are right, it's only out of a statistical imperative. Even when they're right they're wrong to make up their minds before they see something. And to apply a prescriptive view of what the franchise MUST be. Most of them turn out to be bad because, well, most movies and TV shows are bad.
I never thought of any of those productions as been widely criticized by fans prior to release. I remember huge anticipation for Khan and TNG. Most of the pre-film hate for Batman '89 was around Keaton being cast as Batman and then from fans of the 60's Batman. I was never won over by Burton's Batman, but it was what we had at the time. As for Casino Royale, most of my crowd had been waiting for Pierce Brosnan to leave the role for years and were highly anticipating Craig's take on the character. I am curious what your examples of movies that people expect to hate and end up not being very good are? In recent years, the biggest examples of fans pre-judging movies have been around putting non-white actors in traditional white roles; having female leads, and perhaps switching genders of main characters. And under any of those categories the movies have had the same quality range as anything else, from the awful (2015's Fantastic Four) to the mediocre (2016's Ghostbusters) to the truly excellent (Wonder Woman).
The fans are always right when they're being made to pay to see what your studio is offering. That makes them not just fans but customers. Fans have every right to judge a project before seeing it. Even if they aren't paying for it, they are devoting time and effort to being part of the audience. If your project's press releases and trailers give them no incentive to make that effort, they're not wrong for not making the effort. I don't know who first had the notion that it's some sort of immutable law that you're not allowed to judge a show without sitting through one, two, five episodes of it, the notion is patent nonsense. You don't "have to" try anything you judge as not worth trying.
And the truth is we always judge something before we see it. Nobody pays to see every movie or sample every series. My Netflix profile is much different than my wife's profile. Her Netflix looks like an entirely different streaming service than mine filled with shows that I never knew existed and most of which I do not have any desire to watch.
Yes. At least Nemesis, Catwoman, Batman & Robin, X-Men 3, Gigli, Enterprise, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four and Fantastic Four 2.
I'm always right in any predictions, because I'm the most awesome sort of fan there is. Yep, totally. I also sell bridges on the side.
That's funny because I think that six of those have an unfairly earned bad rap. They are from an era when expectations for super-hero films were lower. I don't see Daredevil as being any better than the first Fantastic Four movie, but somehow it is more highly regarded. Two of them I've never seen, and Batman & Robin was embarrassingly bad when I first saw it but I judge it less harshly these days. There are also those films like Green Lantern or Batman V. Superman that are highly anticipated prior to release and then turn out to be disappointments.
What is right or wrong and who gets to decide that? Movie/TV show making is considered an art form and thus highly subjective - there is no scientific way to accurately measure quality of art. For example i love the movie Armageddon by Michael Bay. Movie experts would now start a rant about all its flaws but i don't care because i love it for its flaws and that Bay didn't care a bit and just wanted to make an entertaining movie full of 'splosions, one liners and "America Fuck Yeah" moments. He succeeded, i am immensely entertained so the movie did what it was supposed to do. The same with Star Trek - Original universe and Kelvinverse. I love both for what they are - the one for being a humanistic show with some really great stories that can make you think and the other because it's awesome popcorn movies with beloved but reimagined characters ( just try to ignore the lens flares) - why should i ready the pitchforks and torches?
I think there's a qualifier there. It depends on the medium and how large the existing fanbase is. If the existing fandom for the new product is not anywhere near large enough to offer VALUE/PROFIT to create the new product then you definitely do need to EXPAND THE INTEREST beyond the existing fandom. If the existing fandom of a product is actually making up the bulk of the audience for the product and expected to be the bulk of the audience for that product and their disinterest by a specific change/alteration is going to remove their $$$ from the earnings that's a pretty big thing to consider.
No, but with knowledge of moviegoing prices, streaming prices, pay-per-view prices, cable and satellite prices, etc., you have plenty of qualitative data to help you decide whether or not to patronize that art. It's a cost-benefit analysis. The decision you make based on that analysis is just as subjective as your opinion of a film, but waiting till you've patronized the art before you render an opinion incurs a cost, every time, whereas forming your opinion based on preliminary materials has a 50-50 chance of not costing you dime. Who decides what's right or wrong? Everyone who has to open a wallet or purse to pay for all these works of art.
Well, to be fair, most sequels and new adaptions ARE bad. Studios seem to think they can just hire any director and cast any actor for an established franchise and voila! Instant hit. It doesn't work like that. The Batman movies from the 90s are the perfect example of this. WB seemed to be under the impression that they could recast anyone in that role as long they cast established names for the heroes and villains. Didn't work . I'm hoping Marvel is smart and allows Steve Rogers and Tony Stark to remain dead. The audience will never accept another actor in those roles. Allowing other characters to take up their mantles is the right way to go. There was no social media in the 80s, so I didn't know about Spock's death until I saw it in theaters. I knew of the Batman backlash, but numbers show that the majority didn't care. It was a great movie and the backlash was quickly forgotten. Ghostbusters (2016) failed because it was bad and the trailer did a horrible job of selling it. It wasn't funny and the characters looked like idiots instead of scientists. Most blowback I've seen from "fans" are from franchises that feel studios aren't respecting the source material and only cashing in on the name. Do they go overboard sometimes? Well....yeah. Fan is short for fanatic so that is to be expected. I loved Casino Royale, but when you have a 50 year old franchise like James Bond and you cast an actor that is nothing like he has been portrayed in either the movies or novels, blowback is going to happen. If you don't want blowback and aren't going to respect the source material, make a movie without the franchise tie in and cast whomever you want.
I think the hardcore fans who throw a fit over ever little change are wrong most of the time. Changes are always going to happen when something is adapted, and while sometimes those changes don't work, they often do.
As we've reached the "It's my opinion and I'm sticking to it" part of today's thread, here's mine. I'm sick and tired of the fans that act like just because they're disappointed in something new, it therefore sucks. Disappointing does not mean it's bad, just that it doesn't live up to your expectations. Other fans often disagree.
I'm sorry, but where do you get that from? Craig (and Dalton before him) played the character closest to the novels (minus the racism and other antiquated attitudes) and the promotional material leading up to the film played that up. Moore started off trying to be more like Connery and then fell into a style that many people associate with Bond in the same way people used to associate Adam West with Batman. Brosnan played the character in a style similar to Moore. Connery, of course, defined the character for the screen.
Izzat so? So, are you so confident that changes to valued properties work so often you'd pay the admission for one of those unreasonable hardcore fans to demonstrate to them how wrong they are? Just checking, cause the way I see it, you have no idea what changes "work" for someone else, and you have no right to make that assessment for that someone else if you incur no risk for that assessment being mistaken. Bottom line, there is no law against hardcore fans throwing fits to protest changes to favorite properties. Your perfectly welcome to be the reasonable one, but none of us fit-throwers are required to join you.
So are you of the opinion that I should pay for something that doesn't live up to my expectations just because other people think I'm wrong?