I don't know, I think there's room for all types of fans across the spectrum of casual to obsessed. As long as a fan doesn't go out of their way to piss on another's parade as it were - live and let live.
), ect. It gets so utterly boring when that's all fans of this film bring to the table. Fresh tomatometers and huge box office results aren't gonna convince me that ATTACK OF THE CLONES isn't a bad film.
YEA!!! BOX OFFICE GROSSING!!! FRESH TOMATOMETER!!!
I think these discussions would be infinitely more interesting if we didn't have to have so many posters bring up box office receipts, tomatometers, the fan polls that ranked STID as the worst ever (it isn't, as bad as it tried to be
YEA!!! BOX OFFICE GROSSING!!! FRESH TOMATOMETER!!!
I think these discussions would be infinitely more interesting if we didn't have to have so many posters bring up box office receipts, tomatometers, the fan polls that ranked STID as the worst ever (it isn't, as bad as it tried to be
Um, even by Rotten Tomatoes site standards, AoTC DOES come across as a bad film:
Attack of the Clones: Critics: 67% / General Audience: 60%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_ii_attack_of_the_clones_3d/
STiD: Critics: 87% / General Audiance: 90%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
Just saying...
My main point is that bringing up box office results and tomatometers are becoming such a cliche in these forums, even you resort to it by measuring CLONES and STID, missing the point I was trying to make!
Yeah, that stuff in the Klingon scenes had me wondering if the Klingon version of Ewoks were about to jump out from behind the buildings.
(I used to love the Street Fighter games myself...always played as Chun Li, God love her leggy goodness. )
YEA!!! BOX OFFICE GROSSING!!! FRESH TOMATOMETER!!!
I think these discussions would be infinitely more interesting if we didn't have to have so many posters bring up box office receipts, tomatometers, the fan polls that ranked STID as the worst ever (it isn't, as bad as it tried to be
Um, even by Rotten Tomatoes site standards, AoTC DOES come across as a bad film:
Attack of the Clones: Critics: 67% / General Audience: 60%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_ii_attack_of_the_clones_3d/
STiD: Critics: 87% / General Audiance: 90%
source:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
Just saying...
The results say "fresh".
I don't think there needs to be any reminding that it's popular and those who are critical of it are in the minority. Everyone is well aware of that (well, almost). What makes it annoying is that it shifts the discussion away from the film and onto the "people like it" topic. It's what BigJake calls a diversion. It feels like a cheat. How much more interesting would a discussion of the film be if you were to just talk about the film itself and its own merits without factoring how popular it is? If you want to talk about it's popularity, I'm sure there's a thread about it. Like... This one! Strange as that sounds. But I'm sure there are plenty of ways to talk about what makes it good or bad and how both can be perfectly valid.
You're falling victim to it too by bringing DAYS OF THUNDER now. What was the point of that? To prove that critics like STID more? I know that Tony Scott flick is a terrible movie, I watch it because it's unintentionally hilariously bad ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMhmoyKdziU ). Same with TOP GUN, especially. Heck, I think 67% is extremely generous for CLONES.
I don't think there needs to be any reminding that it's popular and those who are critical of it are in the minority. Everyone is well aware of that (well, almost). What makes it annoying is that it shifts the discussion away from the film and onto the "people like it" topic. It's what BigJake calls a diversion. It feels like a cheat. How much more interesting would a discussion of the film be if you were to just talk about the film itself and its own merits without factoring how popular it is? If you want to talk about it's popularity, I'm sure there's a thread about it. Like... This one! Strange as that sounds. But I'm sure there are plenty of ways to talk about what makes it good or bad and how both can be perfectly valid.
My point is that often when someone brings up tomatometer or box office in almost any thread here, it's usually done as a way of ending the discussion over something like whether the script is actually any good or not, or at least comes off as such (especially with a smarmy smilie face just to rub it in). Is it totally off base to say that a film can have a bad script actually come out good in spite of that said script? Orci and Kurtzman's other films get heavily criticized and of all the films only the three films (that were directed by Abrams) have a "fresh" rating. What is it that makes these three films stand out from all the other ones they're credited to? I always point to Abrams and the cast. The high marks I will give the films is that Abrams brings energy into his flicks (contrasting the utter bore that is NEMESIS) and that he brings a cast together that has great chemistry. I can believe that people enjoy these films mainly because of those aspects and I can't blame them. I like them too, I just think the scripts are very underwhelming, but not everybody is critical over things like insane plot contrivances, because in the end they're swept by Abrams' direction and the camaraderie of the cast.
Or you could just dismiss my entire post with snark, smilie faces, box office results and tomatometers. Do it. DO IT!
