What do you think about trailer?

Hoping it doesn't turn out to be another Dragonball Evolution.

Pokemon there looks horrible and cute at the same time.

its either gonna be a great movie or absolutely horrible and painful to watch, and there is no in between. i cannot tell yet which one its gonna be.

Some of the designs are uncally valley-esque BUT I actually really find it super cute, especially things like pikachu's CGI model.

If anything, I think it'll be at the very least a guilty pleasure film if it turns out to not be too good.

oh hey, fun fact! arvalis worked as a designer on that movie. he got hired for his pokemon fanart

Far better so far then I was first expecting.

I'll just leave this here.

post #1707417

My hope: Aw, everything is so cute and funny and this is a great adventure!

My fear: Deadpool just cleaned up the timeline, and now Ryan Reynolds does this?!

Imo, Ryan Reynolds doesn't fit into that role. The pokemon are edging towards uncanny valley, and it looks very "meh" to me.

As a Hongkonger, I can say for certain that nobody would watch the Cantonese version.

This comes out basically on my niece's birthday. I wonder if she's "too big" to go see pokemon. She was WAY INTO IT for a few years a bit back, but now she's 11.... Of course, last I knew, she was a little baby furry and this looks like.. well, like pokemon for a slightly older audience.

AND this would be a great excuse to drag my husband out to go see it ;)

I don't know much about Pokemon, but I'm pretty sure Pikachu isn't meant to sound like that. Seems to me that it's just a more family friendly version of something like Ted.
I suppose I'd like to see it do well, but the history of video game movies isn't on it's side. I'm really just glad it isn't Sony Pictures or Illumination that are behind it.
Of course they had to shove a shitty pop artist in the cast for marketability. (Rita Ora. What's the point?) The animated films market has become so unbearably predictable.

Don't know much about it, but from what I could tell, people I knew like Geoff Thew seems to be hyped about it.

All I know about this film is that visually, it's like The Smurfs (2011) meets Blade Runner.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Hoping it doesn't turn out to be another Dragonball Evolution.

Thankfully they didn't pull a "Pokemon are just mutated humans" on us. I hated that in the Dragonball movie, give us our actual aliens.

TwistedLogik said:
I don't know much about Pokemon, but I'm pretty sure Pikachu isn't meant to sound like that. Seems to me that it's just a more family friendly version of something like Ted.
I suppose I'd like to see it do well, but the history of video game movies isn't on it's side. I'm really just glad it isn't Sony Pictures or Illumination that are behind it.
Of course they had to shove a shitty pop artist in the cast for marketability. (Rita Ora. What's the point?) The animated films market has become so unbearably predictable.

It actually seem to be following the game story pretty well, at least the set up seems to be the same. Pikachu in the original game actually has a more gruff deeper voice.
https://youtu.be/Vh3Lt1BQaQw?t=155

TwistedLogik said:
I don't know much about Pokemon, but I'm pretty sure Pikachu isn't meant to sound like that. Seems to me that it's just a more family friendly version of something like Ted.

Oh honey.

This... type of movie's been around for ages. I mean. The core concept between the two is that there is something that shoudlnt' be able to speak, but CAN speak and it is surprising to the person who understands it and deals with it.

Past that, uh... This feels a bit like saying that because Pet Cemetery has a dog, and Beethoven has a dog, that they're basically the same thing. c_c

Besides-- the core trope of an 'invisible/secret friend' or a secret power that allows you to understand something surprising is REALLY common. I believe the Babadook ALSO features that, and so has several Disney princesses, for that matter, lol

Heck, I am almost positive that my brother and I had games where we pretended that we had pokemon and could talk to them.

Pokemon is, in it's core, about kids making friends with pokemon, and learning to be the best. Pikachu is Ash's best friend. I know there were PLENTY of times I hugged my Doggo and wished he could talk to me.

The concept of a talking animal as a protagonist, is NOT uncommon at all. Or even non talking animals.

Those kinds of movies are kind of why most of us are here, y'know? We watched Air Bud, or Balto, or Lion King, Bolt or SOMETHING and said "huh." Or we grew up with Ducktales and Chip N Dale and Gummi Bears, Care Bears, my Little Pony, Gargoyles... or... or... or...

In 10 years, there's gonna be young furries saying that THIS movie was the moment that they realized that TALKING animals were really neat. This is gonna be some kid's Robin Hood.

and that's okay.

The only reason I said this seemed aimed towards a slightly older audience is that it's got some darker colors and a darker plot (looking for his lost dad or whatever) and it's live action so maybe those kids who are at that ages where they're "Too Cool" for cartoons will come back to see it.

[/quote]I suppose I'd like to see it do well, but the history of video game movies isn't on it's side.[/quote]

Oh? Well, maybe but you're also missing a few little details.

Pokemon has over 24 main stream titles in it's video game series and at least 30 spin off series or spin off one shot titles, and that's not even counting Pokemon Go.

That said, there are also over 1000 episodes of the TV show, spread out over 21 seasons, which first aired in 1997. The show's never stopped airing. The longest gap between the 'last aired' episode of one season and the 'first aired' episode of another is about 2 or 3 weeks. If that. Let me put this a different way. If the Pokemon anime was a person, they could legally browse e621. If you watched one episode a week, you'd be watching for like 20 years. If you assume every episode is 20 minutes (and that there are no hour long specials or whatever), that's 345 hours of pokemon. If you started a pokemon marathon on Twitch, it would be airing for over 2 weeks. Again, not counting any special episodes that have longer runtimes.

And then there are the films that have already been produced. There are 21 animated films already released in both Japan *and* america.

Pokemon is a safe franchise.
Detective Pikachu's a bit different because it's live action and Hollywood... but I really doubt that Nintendo would let them release a movie that's going to be anything less than "good."

Will we, adults, enjoy it? Maybe not.

This movie's for kids.

We are not the intended audience.

So it doesn't have to be for us. But we can enjoy it anyway, if we want to.

Oh right, also, The Super Mario Brothers Movie is precious gold and I will fight anyone to the death who argues otherwise. (seriously, I loved it as a kid. Blew my mind. I LOVED it.)

I'm really just glad it isn't Sony Pictures or Illumination that are behind it.

Oh man, I don't think you realize how interconnected these things are...

Illumination films has 5 of the 50 highest grossing animated films. You don't do that without doing something right.

Again, consider the fact that you are not necessarily the target audience for these films. That doesn't make them bad films.

Illumination's mostly Despicable me, and Minions, but they're also producing Dr Seuss films like The Lorax and The Grinch. They also made Sing, which is criminally under appreciated. They're owned by Universal Pictures.

So is Legendary Entertainment. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but Legendary's stuff is distributed by Universal. They've sure made some good stuff though: Jurassic World, The Dark Knight, Intersteller... and Warcraft, Steve Jobs, Black Hat, and Ninja Assassin.

Companys don't mean much these days. There's only like 6 of them, in the end. Pay more attention to the writers and the directors.

Of course they had to shove a shitty pop artist in the cast for marketability. (Rita Ora. What's the point?)

What? o_o Rita Ora's been acting since the age of 13. She was in 50 Shades of Gray. She's released several number one singles in the UK, and a chart-topping album as well. I mean, I don't know what else you want? Also I don't really think 10 year olds are gonna go see this movie just because a "shitty popstar" is in it. c_c

The animated films market has become so unbearably predictable.

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but that's media in general. Live action, animated, horror, family friendly.

And that's not a bad thing you know? Tropes work. we have comfortable and familiar rhythms to movies. You have excitement mixed in with relaxation, the action rises to a climax and then you have resolution. Because it works. It changes slowly over time, as does the cinematography, the topics and so forth. but honey, it's ALL the same.

Everything you love... is basically just like something else. And that's okay.

As you get older, you'll recognize more of it. And you'll hate parts of it more, and love others.

Just remember: You're not the intended audience. It doesn't' have to be about you. <3

SnowWolf said: Irrelevant Essay

Seems like you just put a lot words in my mouth. At what point did I say that it was about me and that adult, long-time fans were the audience? I'm fully aware that tropes are used for a reason and that they work. I know they'll do everything possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make money simply because that's what companies do. I just don't want to have to accept mediocrity in film.

Just for the record, Sing is an asset reusing waste of time that uses every stereotypical character trait in the book simply so everyone has a representative and the reason Illumination are successful is a result of their business model. Make movies as cheaply as possible, but still so they are at the acceptable quality. In addition, kids will definitely see something because someone famous is in it. They're immature. It's what they do. In fact it's the only reason some of the time.

"It doesn't have to be about you." Where did you get the notion this was personal?

Another thing. All this "Oh honey and <3" stuff really rubs me the wrong way while you're being this condescending.

TwistedLogik said:
Seems like you just put a lot words in my mouth. At what point did I say that it was about me and that adult, long-time fans were the audience? I'm fully aware that tropes are used for a reason and that they work. I know they'll do everything possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make money simply because that's what companies do. I just don't want to have to accept mediocrity in film.

Just for the record, Sing is an asset reusing, stereotypical movie and the reason Illumination are successful is a result of their business model. Make movies as cheaply as possible, but still so they are at the acceptable quality. In addition, kids will definitely see something because someone famous is in it. They're immature. It's what they do. In fact it's the only reason some of the time.

"It doesn't have to be about you." Where did you get the notion this was personal?

Another thing. All this "Oh honey and <3" stuff really rubs me the wrong way while you're being this condescending.

You seems pretty cynical about it.

I used to watch movies that I liked as a kid, not realizing that some were considered bad for a good reason. Now that I've matured and had seen some people discussing about it, I decided to be more careful about it.

By the way, here's something to read for you guys:

https://www.deviantart.com/marwangreencritter/journal/The-degradation-of-cinema-as-we-know-it-697797894
https://www.deviantart.com/marwangreencritter/journal/The-degradation-of-cinema-as-we-know-it-part-2-755443497

cerberusmod_3 said:
You seems pretty cynical about it.

I used to watch movies that I liked as a kid, not realizing that some were considered bad for a good reason. Now that I've matured and had seen some people discussing about it, I decided to be more careful about it.

Well, you're right about that. I'm cynical about most things. It just seems to me that this movie is going to end up being the same thing as say: The Alvin & The Chipmunks or The Smurfs films, all of which were made the same way as this are widely considered awful and have stained their respective franchises. My immediate dislike of this Pikachu announcement comes from a place of evident failure to please a community in the past, regardless of target audience.

TwistedLogik said:
Well, you're right about that. I'm cynical about most things. It just seems to me that this movie is going to end up being the same thing as say: The Alvin & The Chipmunks or The Smurfs films, all of which were made the same way as this are widely considered awful and have stained their respective franchises. My immediate dislike of this Pikachu announcement comes from a place of evident failure to please a community in the past, regardless of target audience.

I agree with that. Even as a child, I still had no desire to watch those movies.

It's hard to find any movies that are considered good, even in the old days. Guess that we had no choice but to wait until we die anyway.

TwistedLogik said:
Seems like you just put a lot words in my mouth. At what point did I say that it was about me and that adult, long-time fans were the audience? I'm fully aware that tropes are used for a reason and that they work. I know they'll do everything possible to cater to the lowest common denominator and make money simply because that's what companies do. I just don't want to have to accept mediocrity in film.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what something is going to be based off of a very brief trailer. I see a lot of people do that and they generally make up their minds to hate it even before they experience it, and I think that's pretty sad. We know very little about the overall movie, and I definitely don't think we have enough to determine if it'll be mediocre or not.

But, again, you're talking about how're not saying that it's about adult fans, yet at the same time, talking about how you don't have to accept mediocrity in films. Mediocrity you're deciding based off of not liking Pikachu's voice actor and the presence of a pop star somewhere in the cast. o_o it just seems a little bit knee jerky in the way I described.

Just for the record, Sing is an asset reusing waste of time that uses every stereotypical character trait in the book simply so everyone has a representative

See prior statement: Tropes are used for a reason. To clarify. We use a trope to describe a character so that we don't have to spend 20 minutes detailing a complex backstory for one of 10 characters. We use a trope so we can understand what someone's core character is, then we find variations on that trope so that people can still be surprised and enjoy character growth and development.

Also there's nothing wrong with representation, thank you.

and the reason Illumination are successful is a result of their business model. Make movies as cheaply as possible, but still so they are at the acceptable quality. In addition, kids will definitely see something because someone famous is in it. They're immature. It's what they do. In fact it's the only reason some of the time.

I mean, I dunno. the kids wanted to see Zootopia because it was the fox and rabbit movie. Not because of the Shakira, which is what I heard some of the adults saying.

I mean, when I was that age, I didn't care about who was in a movie. Unless it was Robin Williams or Jim Carrey. I liked them.

Also, there are thousands of better popstars to use if you wanted a popstar. It's Nintendo and Legendary pictures. They could get basically anyone they wanted, and anyone under 35 would probably say HELL YEAH! I love pokemon!"

"It doesn't have to be about you." Where did you get the notion this was personal?

Its.... a very common refrain used whenever adult fans of a franchise aimed at children start getting critical about said franchise? Like, I'm kind of surprised you haven't encountered it before? So I will apologize for aiming it at you.

See, There is a big issue with adults getting "into" stuff aimed at children. The problem isn't that they're enjoying it, no. That's fine, the problem is that a subset of people get really pissy when the kid's show doesn't match up with their adult expectations.

I saw this a lot in the MLP franchise -- There were some people who got frustrated because the results of episodes were frequently predictable. Because the show was aimed at small children. Just like they got upset about, say, toys being cheap (you know, so a 5 year old can drag it around and leave it outside in the sandbox for a few weeks, and get a new one without breaking the bank). Or they get upset because the show doesn't deal with, say, why a character doesn't have PTSD, or why they're not focusing on a romance subplot, or all sorts of other things that are out of place in a kid's cartoon. I can remember seeing disappointment because a MLP game didn't have a lot of depth to it. It's aimed at kids who are 8, not 25 year old adults, y'know?

It seems like it should be obvious that a kids show is for kids, but this happened a lot in the MLP fandom. It's happened a lot in several other fandoms as well. It's important to remember that kids are the intended audience, not adults. Don't go in expecting to get your mind blown by a vast and original plot. It's for kids. They can't write stories that are too complicated, or some kids might get lost. They can't get too dark, because it's for kids. They have to deal with trauma kids can understand, and kid-like fears. I could really go on for a while about the differences between kids movies and adult movies--I studied Cinematography--but that's neither here nor there, Just, the intended audience changes a whole lot.

and it's really sad, because these people pump out a lot of hate and dislike because they feel 'betrayed' by their fandom, because it's not catering to them. and I can get that. I read a fanfic once that was basically a realistic depiction of one character's journey to be a pokemon master. Injury, politics, betrayal, a lot of heart and determination, etc. Good stuff. I want this movie to be that.... but I know it won't be. It's not for me. I'm not a kid and this is for kids. If I remember this, I won't be disappointed when it's for kids, and not for adults.

Star Wars is another recent victim of this, actually...

So, again, I'm sorry if this is inappropriately aimed, but it seemed like you were saying a lot of the things that those sorts of people say, so I assumed it was a lesson you needed reminding of. But again, Sorry. It is not my intention to make anyone feel attacked.

Another thing. All this "Oh honey and <3" stuff really rubs me the wrong way while you're being this condescending.

Er... now you're putting words in my mouth. I"m a middle aged southern woman. If I was being condescending, I would be saying things like bless your heart.

If you search the forums for <3, I'm pretty sure that I post anywhere from a quarter to half of all <3's used on the forums. It's part of how I speak, much like "oh honey" and "dear" and "hun" and other things like that.

I am statistically older than most people here, and, having spent time with a large number of real life people who default to pet names for everyone around them, this is also how I speak. I'm sorry if you feel I was condescending, because it was not my intention to do so. Correct, perhaps, or inform.. but not condescend. So I'm sorry if that was the case.

cerberusmod_3 said:
You seems pretty cynical about it.

I used to watch movies that I liked as a kid, not realizing that some were considered bad for a good reason. Now that I've matured and had seen some people discussing about it, I decided to be more careful about it.

By the way, here's something to read for you guys:

https://www.deviantart.com/marwangreencritter/journal/The-degradation-of-cinema-as-we-know-it-697797894
https://www.deviantart.com/marwangreencritter/journal/The-degradation-of-cinema-as-we-know-it-part-2-755443497

Personally, I've come to accept that movie reviews are awful things. They probably will not reflect how i will feel about the movie. Further: a movie doesn't have to be good to be enjoyable... and a good movie isn't always enjoyable either. :)

I really liked those Deviantart journals you linked :) I love how he came back to the topic a year later with fresh thoughts and he sums it up pretty well. There's another thing he doesn't touch on though: There are a lot of movies. There are dozens of movies released every month, and by and large, in a year or two, most of those movies will be forgotten, and it's been that way for decades.

if you have a look at 1996 in film you can see that there were like a hundred movies released that year. There are maybe even a few you've heard of! But, especially if you were not alive at the time--or very young-- most of the 'familiar names' are going to be just that. Familiar, but you haven't thought of them in years. There are exceptions -- this was the year that Space Jam came out, and Scream, Matilda and Independence day, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Dragonheart ... (among others!) but I promise, that most people haven't thought about "Bed of Roses" in decades.

Even if you jump forward to 2007, it's the same: a few classic movies (TMNT, 28 weeks later, a 'Pirates of the Caribbean', a 'Harry Potter', the Simpsons movie, Stardust, A 'Resident Evil', I am Legend, Sweeney Todd...) and a whole lot of vague half remembered movie trailers and forgotten titles. ... Even if you look at last year, there's a huge pile of movies that are basically... forgotten almost right away.

It does seem that there are MORE movies now -- comparing 1996, to 2007 to 2017, but that's not really a bad thing, I think..

But it can really lead to the perception that a lot of movies are crap.

Yet! There are still wonderful films each year that capture our hearts. :)

SnowWolf said:
I really liked those Deviantart journals you linked :) I love how he came back to the topic a year later with fresh thoughts and he sums it up pretty well. There's another thing he doesn't touch on though: There are a lot of movies. There are dozens of movies released every month, and by and large, in a year or two, most of those movies will be forgotten, and it's been that way for decades.

if you have a look at 1996 in film you can see that there were like a hundred movies released that year. There are maybe even a few you've heard of! But, especially if you were not alive at the time--or very young-- most of the 'familiar names' are going to be just that. Familiar, but you haven't thought of them in years. There are exceptions -- this was the year that Space Jam came out, and Scream, Matilda and Independence day, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Dragonheart ... (among others!) but I promise, that most people haven't thought about "Bed of Roses" in decades.

Even if you jump forward to 2007, it's the same: a few classic movies (TMNT, 28 weeks later, a 'Pirates of the Caribbean', a 'Harry Potter', the Simpsons movie, Stardust, A 'Resident Evil', I am Legend, Sweeney Todd...) and a whole lot of vague half remembered movie trailers and forgotten titles. ... Even if you look at last year, there's a huge pile of movies that are basically... forgotten almost right away.

It does seem that there are MORE movies now -- comparing 1996, to 2007 to 2017, but that's not really a bad thing, I think..

But it can really lead to the perception that a lot of movies are crap.

Yet! There are still wonderful films each year that capture our hearts. :)

Wait, a lot of movies? Never expected that, but not surprised.

A lot of these movies are the ones I've never heard of. I've do seen some of these movies, but yeah, forgettable you say.

And speaking of forgettable, here's a video about forgettable movies.

Also, why did you think movie reviews are an awful thing? I personally read reviews most of the time, especially if said reviewers are trustworthy.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Wait, a lot of movies? Never expected that, but not surprised.

A lot of these movies are the ones I've never heard of. I've do seen some of these movies, but yeah, forgettable you say.

It's like... you probably eat at least twice a day, but most of those meals you forget about. They weren't important. they were just food. Maybe you remember some of the events AROUND the meal (for example, having an important conversation during a meal) but most of the time, you don't actually remember the actual food you ate and how it was unless it was significant to you. A really good meal, a really bad meal, maybe a special meal with someone special or somewhere special or unusual--those are worth remembering. Or maybe specific foods -- like grandma's apple pie or whatever. But a tuna sandwich on a usual day.... nah. You'll forget. It won't make it into your long term memory.

Those movies are kinda like that. They're not important. Maybe they entertained you, maybe you even enjoyed them at the time, but you mostly forgot about them, as time moved on, unless you had a significant experience with 'em. (there are a few of these that I remember going and seeing with friends, or I remember the ads for, but the actual content? ehh... not so much.

And speaking of forgettable, here's a video about forgettable movies.]

Also a neat video! I think he touches on a lot of the traits that make a movie forgettable. And a forgettable movie isn't always bad... it's just a tuna sandwich on tuesday. No big deal.

His channel looks neat, I'mma have to watch more of it! thank you :)

Also, why did you think movie reviews are an awful thing? I personally read reviews most of the time, especially if said reviewers are trustworthy.

More... awful for me. a lot of people are very eager to say that this movie is awful, boring and forgettable, or whatever, but they're not me. They can't tell me how *I* will feel, only how *they* feel... and a lot of the time, they are comparing these things to the glorious classics you'll come back to time and time again, but that's not really fair in most cases. Some movies are just made to be junk food that you eat, enjoy and then never think about again.

I read something a few ... years ago, I think, about how the Rom Com died. The jist of it that there were many reasons for it, but they plots became predictable, they generally spoke down to women, and, especially after the 2008 recession... they just felt painfully unrealistic. Audiences didn't want it any more -- or at least, not for 15 bucks. I dunno, made me think of that.

But most reviewers are jsut a dude with an opinion. They don't know me. They don't know what gets me going. Jupiter Ascending generally did poorly in the box office, reviews were generally negative, but I loved it. It was a delicious sandwhich. It was fresh and... well, good. Some parts of it were silly, and there is a section or two that drags a bit, but I walked away with the feeling that I would have delighted in this moving as a teenager. That i'd have been writing fanfic, and putting posters on my wall about it.

Interestingly, the fans of this movie are generally female sci fi fans, and reviewers in general tend to be very harsh on media made for women. Like... Twilight. Which is bad for a lot of reasons, but no where does it deserve the depths of loathing it's received. There's a lot of... >:C devoted to anything that teenage girls are 'into' and..

actually this video sums it up pretty well, though the main focus is that twilight isn't as awful as people made it out to be: https://youtu.be/8O06tMbIKh0

The tl;dr is kinda that we make a lot of 'dumb cheese movies" that might be described as "an exciting ride with little plot" but when those are aimed at girls -- teenagers in particular, we tend to get REALLY upset about it. recomend giving that a watch honestly, it's given me a lot to think about over the years--something I'm very glad of as my little niece starts growing into a little teenager, far more girly than I ever was...

Anyway, back on topic. Reviews are jsut people with opinions. My best friend and I regularly disagree on what good movies are, so i find trusting a random reviewer to share my thoughts and feelings to be .... unsatisfying. And reading reviews about a film is likely to color my own perception of the film and make me pay more attention what they pointed out as flaws... and I don't really know why I'd want to walk into a film expecting to dislike parts of it... it seems like setitng myself up for disappointment, which is just silly, when you get down to it.

They CAN be useful to help define expectations, but ... honestly, that's kind of been ruined for me by the people I mentioned WAY UP THERE who decide they're gonna hate something and find reasons to hate it, regardless of the content.

Anyway.... and in the end... I've watched a lot of movies that I loved.. then looked and they got lack luster reviews. They're just not writing reviews for me. And that's okay. I'm not hte intended audience. But for me, they're awful.

SnowWolf said:
Also a neat video! I think he touches on a lot of the traits that make a movie forgettable. And a forgettable movie isn't always bad... it's just a tuna sandwich on tuesday. No big deal.

His channel looks neat, I'mma have to watch more of it! thank you :)

You're welcome, I guess.

After watching this video, I honestly don't know if I decide not to watch MCU movies anymore. Don't get me wrong, I do quite enjoyed some of them and so does my family, but...

I went to IMDb just to see how some viewers think about some of MCU movies based on their helpfulness and from the looks of it, they seemed disappointed, especially with such movies like the highly anticipated Black Panther.

SnowWolf said:
More... awful for me. a lot of people are very eager to say that this movie is awful, boring and forgettable, or whatever, but they're not me. They can't tell me how *I* will feel, only how *they* feel... and a lot of the time, they are comparing these things to the glorious classics you'll come back to time and time again, but that's not really fair in most cases. Some movies are just made to be junk food that you eat, enjoy and then never think about again.

I read something a few ... years ago, I think, about how the Rom Com died. The jist of it that there were many reasons for it, but they plots became predictable, they generally spoke down to women, and, especially after the 2008 recession... they just felt painfully unrealistic. Audiences didn't want it any more -- or at least, not for 15 bucks. I dunno, made me think of that.

But most reviewers are jsut a dude with an opinion. They don't know me. They don't know what gets me going. Jupiter Ascending generally did poorly in the box office, reviews were generally negative, but I loved it. It was a delicious sandwhich. It was fresh and... well, good. Some parts of it were silly, and there is a section or two that drags a bit, but I walked away with the feeling that I would have delighted in this moving as a teenager. That i'd have been writing fanfic, and putting posters on my wall about it.

Interestingly, the fans of this movie are generally female sci fi fans, and reviewers in general tend to be very harsh on media made for women. Like... Twilight. Which is bad for a lot of reasons, but no where does it deserve the depths of loathing it's received. There's a lot of... >:C devoted to anything that teenage girls are 'into' and..

actually this video sums it up pretty well, though the main focus is that twilight isn't as awful as people made it out to be: https://youtu.be/8O06tMbIKh0

The tl;dr is kinda that we make a lot of 'dumb cheese movies" that might be described as "an exciting ride with little plot" but when those are aimed at girls -- teenagers in particular, we tend to get REALLY upset about it. recomend giving that a watch honestly, it's given me a lot to think about over the years--something I'm very glad of as my little niece starts growing into a little teenager, far more girly than I ever was...

Anyway, back on topic. Reviews are jsut people with opinions. My best friend and I regularly disagree on what good movies are, so i find trusting a random reviewer to share my thoughts and feelings to be .... unsatisfying. And reading reviews about a film is likely to color my own perception of the film and make me pay more attention what they pointed out as flaws... and I don't really know why I'd want to walk into a film expecting to dislike parts of it... it seems like setitng myself up for disappointment, which is just silly, when you get down to it.

They CAN be useful to help define expectations, but ... honestly, that's kind of been ruined for me by the people I mentioned WAY UP THERE who decide they're gonna hate something and find reasons to hate it, regardless of the content.

Anyway.... and in the end... I've watched a lot of movies that I loved.. then looked and they got lack luster reviews. They're just not writing reviews for me. And that's okay. I'm not hte intended audience. But for me, they're awful.

Well, I don't know if I can agree with your opinions, but then again, that's your opinion. I don't care about Twilight. That's all I can say.

And by the way, If there is one thing I could say is that I prefer something that is obscure.

cerberusmod_3 said:
You're welcome, I guess.

After watching this video, I honestly don't know if I decide not to watch MCU movies anymore. Don't get me wrong, I do quite enjoyed some of them and so does my family, but...

I went to IMDb just to see how some viewers think about some of MCU movies based on their helpfulness and from the looks of it, they seemed dissapointed by them, especially the highly anticipated Black Panther.

Wait... so... you and your family enjoyed the movies... but you think you don't want to watch them anymore because someone else said that they were bad?

Honey, ignore them. THat was my whole point with all of this. If watching a movie makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, then go for it! (I mean, within reason.) ... a movie isn't always supposed to be about having a good time that you'll cherish in 10 years. sometimes it's jsut about having fun tonight, you know?

I'm gonna go see the Rocky movie in the next few weeks. It might be good, it might not be good, but I don't care. I wouldn't call any of the rocky movies "great" (especially coming at them from a modern opinion) but I enjoyed all of them and had fun watching them. And that's good enough for me!

Don't let people tell you how to think, man. Think for yourself.

Well, I don't know if I can agree with your opinions, but then again, that's your opinion. I don't care about Twilight. That's all I can say.

I... I think you missed the point of the video. The point is that we have all kinds of movies that are mindless action films--the fast and the furious, for example, and we don't look down on them, even though they are basically the same thing as "twilight" was, but for a male target audience. We have a lot of irrational hate towards "girly things." This isn't about Twilight so much as a symptom of a bigger problem.

I don't even like twilight o_o

But the point is, if I read reviews about a film, I might decide that a movie is bad without ever seeing it. And if I do watch it, maybe all i can see is the flaws, rather than enjoying it like I would have otherwise.

I prefer making my own opinions, rather than letting someone else tell me how to feel.

That's my point. It's not about Twilight or the fast and the furious o_o Don't let other people tell you how to think.

SnowWolf said:
Wait... so... you and your family enjoyed the movies... but you think you don't want to watch them anymore because someone else said that they were bad?

Honey, ignore them. THat was my whole point with all of this. If watching a movie makes you happy and doesn't harm anyone else, then go for it! (I mean, within reason.) ... a movie isn't always supposed to be about having a good time that you'll cherish in 10 years. sometimes it's jsut about having fun tonight, you know?

I'm gonna go see the Rocky movie in the next few weeks. It might be good, it might not be good, but I don't care. I wouldn't call any of the rocky movies "great" (especially coming at them from a modern opinion) but I enjoyed all of them and had fun watching them. And that's good enough for me!

Don't let people tell you how to think, man. Think for yourself.

Well, not necessarily bad, just mediocre. I'm afraid that MCU will eventually become yet another cash-grab franchise. Still, I might watch these kinds of movies, but I'm feeling skeptical about it. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse looks promising, but I'll just wait and see. What do you think about this movie?

Speaking of cash-grab, here's what this guy had said about live-action remakes and how he criticize them for being nothing but cash-grab.

SnowWolf said:
I... I think you missed the point of the video. The point is that we have all kinds of movies that are mindless action films--the fast and the furious, for example, and we don't look down on them, even though they are basically the same thing as "twilight" was, but for a male target audience. We have a lot of irrational hate towards "girly things." This isn't about Twilight so much as a symptom of a bigger problem.

I don't even like twilight o_o

But the point is, if I read reviews about a film, I might decide that a movie is bad without ever seeing it. And if I do watch it, maybe all i can see is the flaws, rather than enjoying it like I would have otherwise.

I prefer making my own opinions, rather than letting someone else tell me how to feel.

That's my point. It's not about Twilight or the fast and the furious o_o Don't let other people tell you how to think.

Maybe because I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing?

The Fast and the Furious? Hardly remember the movie series. I only saw one part of one of the movies, but that's all I can say. I do watch the entire Twilight movie series, but forgot the final part.

As for the reviews, I disagree on what you had said. I just had to read what any trustworthy reviewers thinks about the film. If they say if it's good, then I'll might give it a watch. If it's bad, then I'll not going to.

As to the trailer, I kind of grew out of Pokemon roughly a decade ago. I'm glad it's still a cultural phenomenon, but... eh? I'll reserve my judgment. (But there better be a Meowth who talks like a human.)

cerberusmod_3 said:
Maybe because you just talk too much?

And what's with the unnecessary rudeness?

MissChu said:
What's with the unnecessary rudeness?

Sorry. I didn't meant to sound rude. It's just that I'm not good with words or something.

Looks like a trashy cashgrab.

It looks fun and that's really all I asked for. I'll go see it.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Well, not necessarily bad, just mediocre. I'm afraid that MCU will eventually become yet another cash-grab franchise. Still, I might watch these kinds of movies, but I'm feeling skeptical about it.

Here's the thing: The point of many things--TV shows, books, movies, video games-- is to make money. "Being profitable" is highly desirable. For a movie like Infinity war, they cost a LOT to make. Infinity war probably cost 300-400 million dollars! You want to make all that back, you know? (most movies cost a lot less than that though) ... If a movie doesn't pay for itself, then more movies don't get made.

A lot of people see any attempt at money making to be bad, but the truth is, your project has to make money if you want to see more like it. From MCU down to small obscure indie films that no one has ever heard of.

Some people make movies for the love of it (actually I imagine most people DO love it)... but movies are expensive.

MCU *is* a big series like it is because it *is* successful at making money.

It may one day become a cash grab -- movies made for no reason other than to put a film in the theaters--but I don't think it's likely right now. We, as an audience, don't want to waste money on bad sequels. But we like fun romps, with explosions and superheros.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse looks promising, but I'll just wait and see. What do you think about this movie?

Looks fun! I'll probably watch it at my dollar theater, if I get the chance. (I have to drive an hour to get to a movie theater)

Speaking of cash-grab, here's what this guy had said about live-action remakes and how he criticize them for being nothing but cash-grab.]

That is one person's opinion. And he's offering an opinion about *every* live action reboot and I think that's a mistake. It's hard to say that *every* instance of something is a certain way. You could say that most live action reboots are a certain way, or that many are, but if you say "most" I don't think I want to hear more, because you are putting everything in one basket.

It's like saying that every animated movie is for kids.
or that all superhero films are for men
Or that all (racial group) are (racist statement).

You're not including the context of the tweet he posted RIGHT BEFORE that one, which talks about how a really popular anime is getting a live action adaptation. At which point, that tweet you posted becomes about that, not *all* live action remakes ever.

MHA? Probably a cash grab-- but it could be good too! Go back to what I said before: People want their movies to be financially successful. Part of this is following what people like.

Maybe because I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing?

Why are you trying to have a discussion if you don't want to read what someone else has to say then? :/

The Fast and the Furious? Hardly remember the movie series. I only saw one part of one of the movies, but that's all I can say. I do watch the entire Twilight movie series, but forgot the final part.

.... it's not about twilight, or the fast and the furious, like I said.

As for the reviews, I disagree on what you had said. I just had to read what any trustworthy reviewers thinks about the film. If they say if it's good, then I'll might give it a watch. If it's bad, then I'll not going to.

As I said: I don't know of any trustworthy reviewers, because I do not trust strangers to know how I think. If you have some reviewers who's ideas you agree with, then that's great for you :) But for me, I don't have anyone I trust, and I would rather form my own opinion.

Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu is bizarre for me, it doesn't fit at all.

SnowWolf said:
Here's the thing: The point of many things--TV shows, books, movies, video games-- is to make money. "Being profitable" is highly desirable. For a movie like Infinity war, they cost a LOT to make. Infinity war probably cost 300-400 million dollars! You want to make all that back, you know? (most movies cost a lot less than that though) ... If a movie doesn't pay for itself, then more movies don't get made.

A lot of people see any attempt at money making to be bad, but the truth is, your project has to make money if you want to see more like it. From MCU down to small obscure indie films that no one has ever heard of.

Some people make movies for the love of it (actually I imagine most people DO love it)... but movies are expensive.

MCU *is* a big series like it is because it *is* successful at making money.

It may one day become a cash grab -- movies made for no reason other than to put a film in the theaters--but I don't think it's likely right now. We, as an audience, don't want to waste money on bad sequels. But we like fun romps, with explosions and superheros.

Hmm... I see. If movies like Iron Man was a box-office bomb, then no more sequels to be made, right?

Still, I'll rather save money than watch movies, no matter how good or bad they are, unless of course if any trustworthy reviewers give one a positive score.

SnowWolf said:
That is one person's opinion. And he's offering an opinion about *every* live action reboot and I think that's a mistake. It's hard to say that *every* instance of something is a certain way. You could say that most live action reboots are a certain way, or that many are, but if you say "most" I don't think I want to hear more, because you are putting everything in one basket.

It's like saying that every animated movie is for kids.
or that all superhero films are for men
Or that all (racial group) are (racist statement).

You're not including the context of the tweet he posted RIGHT BEFORE that one, which talks about how a really popular anime is getting a live action adaptation. At which point, that tweet you posted becomes about that, not *all* live action remakes ever.

I just posted it because I thought it would be helpful.

SnowWolf said:
MHA? Probably a cash grab-- but it could be good too! Go back to what I said before: People want their movies to be financially successful. Part of this is following what people like.

Only saw the first season, at least until the final episode. Used to be intriguing, but after its rising popularity to the point of becoming mainstream, not so much. Having similar feelings with Overwatch.

Like I said before, I'm not usually a fan of something mainstream. I only liked a few.

Maybe I had to watch it sometimes, but so far, definitely had to put a "no" on my watch list.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Hmm... I see. If movies like Iron Man was a box-office bomb, then no more sequels to be made, right?

It gets a bit tricky with something so big -- chances are they'd look at it and try to figure out WHY it bombed. Then try not to repeat the same mistakes. Maybe Iron man wouldn't get another movie. Maybe he'd get a better movie that solves some of the problems. It depends on what the problem was. "bad movie" is a different problem then "people don't care about iron man" which is a different problem than "I thought the story was bad"

Still, I'll rather save money than watch movies, no matter how good or bad they are, unless of course if any trustworthy reviewers give one a positive score.

Like I said, if that's what makes you happy, then go for it.

I only go see a few movies a year-- mostly at the dollar theater. But I see the ones I think look good. It's fine, no worries. do what makes you happy. My sharing my opinion doens't mean you have to do what I do lol. :)

Maybe you have a dollar theater near you -- My family has been much happier since discovering ours.

SnowWolf said:
I only go see a few movies a year-- mostly at the dollar theater. But I see the ones I think look good. It's fine, no worries. do what makes you happy. My sharing my opinion doens't mean you have to do what I do lol. :)

Maybe you have a dollar theater near you -- My family has been much happier since discovering ours.

Just a regular theater.

HarleyCS said:
Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu is bizarre for me, it doesn't fit at all.

Someone should use AI to seamlessly replace it with Danny DeVito's voice.

siikaprinssi said:
its either gonna be a great movie or absolutely horrible and painful to watch, and there is no in between. i cannot tell yet which one its gonna be.

Judging from the trailer, I have pegged this movie a little higher than Pixels. It's more likely a 20-30% critic approval movie than 70-80%.

Every pokemon movie should convince its viewers that "pokemon are cool", and that's not really a focus of the trailer. The trailer gives me the impression that comedic value has too much influence over the movie. For instance, the Mr. Mime skit was both cliche and not well thought out, yet that scene got a whole 25 seconds of trailer time... a bad sign.

Also, the trailer seems to de-emphasize the human main character (and he doesn't have much of a presence anyway), which is a big red flag. It's a bad sign when the trailer isn't trying to sell you on good acting, story, emotions, and so on. I mean, the movie is called Detective Pikachu for crying out loud, but the actual investigation and detective aspect of the trailer was highly forgettable. If you only watched the trailer without paying close attention, do you even remember what they're investigating? What do you think that means for the movie? Hint:"...because if you want to find your pops, I'm your best bet."

As always, there's no way of knowing until the movie comes out, but trailers give a lot of clues. I can tell you Aquaman is trying sell audiences on vibrant and some impressive visuals, which almost never excuses a weak base. On the other hand, anyone could tell within seconds that Dunkirk's many trailers were excellently composed and promised a solid movie with strong sound design (e.g., the stopwatch and heartbeat metronome was executed well).

Huh, the QR code on the ticket is legit, though it's simply "buy now".