[Shin Densetsu]

From what I've heard from friends, the movie is great and turned out well. I'm not surprised that the opening sales may not be high, as advertising for this movie did not really pop up consistently until last month. Pretty late if you're trying to hype up a movie with a big budget.

[Den-O]

I'll be seeing it tomorrow morning so I'm ready to be wowed. All my friends have really enjoyed it, most of them loved it. Really excited now.

[Orange Ranger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin

Seems Rim is destined to join Dredd, Serenity, and Scott Pilgrim VS The World in the ranks of "awesome films that nobody saw."

A 40+ million opening with two other movies doing the same is hardly no one seeing it. Total box office is what will be important and it should do very well overseas. I can think of a few movies that did poorly here but got a sequel because the worldwide numbers were much better.

Dredd was pretty sad because they did so well with such a small budget and I would have loved to see more. I think the Stallone version put a lot of people off that franchise for good. Also, Dredd opened with like 5 million or something and was never going to be a big draw outside the US.

The real scary thing is that America is buying into "Grown Ups 2" and that will lead to garbage from Happy Madison.

[decepticusprime]

if any of you have actually seen grown ups you would know it was hilarious so why wouldnt they do a sequel? if it doesnt interest you than okay, you have ZERO grounds to comment if its good or bad. i think 2 looks pretty good. on the other hand pacific rim doesnt look like a theater movie, but is probably very rentable.

[Starscream Gaga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

It's genuinely a good movie if you're able to ignore Whedon knows nothing about the language of film, that the film had poor pacing, a lack of clear direction, flat characters and lack of any convincing arcs or that the film had no real villain and instead climaxed as soon as the Avengers sorted out their hierarchy but then included a tacked on, bloated and artificial action sequence (which included the closest thing to a focused villain being taken down in a gag) that if done by Michael Bay would currently be the target on the proverbial dartboard of the internet everywhere.

How did Avengers have poor pacing, a lack of clear direction or flat characters? The movie seemed rather well paced and had a diverse collection of characters that all were all given proper screen time and allowed to grow as well as had personalities that everyone enjoyed. I don't understand "no real villain" either. Loki was clearly the villain of the movie, considering he was the antagonist for the entire movie and the entire movie revolved around and was pushed along by his plans. Sure, it was a downward spiral for him once the Avengers assembled, but the main plot of the movie was about the Avengers assembling together, so I don't see how that was a bad thing. I also don't understand what an "artificial action sequence" is. The movie was leading up to the invasion, the invasion happened, the Avengers reacted in their own unique way in order to save the world and they saved the world each using their own unique skills. I don't see what was artificial about it? Should the invasion the movie has been leading up to not have happened? Should we have gone through the movie without seeing the super heroes do super hero things?

Maybe you don't like the movie, fine, although I personally think that's crazy because its the best comic book movie ever since X2, but having an opinion is fine, it's just I don't your reasons backed up by the movie proper. Also, the movie had excellent critical reception, I don't see why that has anything to do with nerds "accepting it" or whatever. It's just because it was a legitimately well done, fun movie all around with excellent characters and great action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MnemonicSyntax

He'd draw in a crowd because he's hilarious.

Oh, wow. I didn't know people who actually thought that current Sandler was even slightly funny actually existed. What was your opinion on such trash like "Chuck and Larry"? He's unfunny at best, offensive at worst.

Anyway, on the actual topic, I will be really sad if this movie flops, but in the end it's not surprising. Here in Australia I have not see a single TV ad for the film, my knowledge of its existence was just by seeing someone mention the first trailer on a forum. Not to mention here in Australia on opening night and every night afterwards we only have 2 sessions in 3D and 2 in 2D, which to me, is very disappointing.
It was a great film and I want to see it do well so badly, but they really slacked on the marketing for it.

[Paladin]

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/pacific...152638490.html

America, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.


Japan, please flood the international box office with your money so Guiliermo Del Toro can still work after this.

[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream Gaga

How did Avengers have poor pacing, a lack of clear direction or flat characters? The movie seemed rather well paced and had a diverse collection of characters that all were all given proper screen time and allowed to grow as well as had personalities that everyone enjoyed. I don't understand "no real villain" either. Loki was clearly the villain of the movie, considering he was the antagonist for the entire movie and the entire movie revolved around and was pushed along by his plans. Sure, it was a downward spiral for him once the Avengers assembled, but the main plot of the movie was about the Avengers assembling together, so I don't see how that was a bad thing. I also don't understand what an "artificial action sequence" is. The movie was leading up to the invasion, the invasion happened, the Avengers reacted in their own unique way in order to save the world and they saved the world each using their own unique skills. I don't see what was artificial about it? Should the invasion the movie has been leading up to not have happened? Should we have gone through the movie without seeing the super heroes do super hero things?

Maybe you don't like the movie, fine, although I personally think that's crazy because its the best comic book movie ever since X2, but having an opinion is fine, it's just I don't your reasons backed up by the movie proper. Also, the movie had excellent critical reception, I don't see why that has anything to do with nerds "accepting it" or whatever. It's just because it was a legitimately well done, fun movie all around with excellent characters and great action.

Because the film peaked almost half way through and then they bloated and padded the movie with what was nearly an hour long putty patroller battle at the end?

Anything enjoyable about the characters came from the existing characters, Whedon nor any of the actors added anything to them. Not to mention that Whedon could never find any kind of balance for the heroes, making Hawkeye evil so 'the human ones' get a fight scene before Hulk and Thor make everyone else on the team not worth having, even Cap didn't really get a chance to shine, who always ordinarily would in the comics. Also the fact that Loki was taken down in a gag like an hour before the end of the movie, means I don't count him as a main villain.

The in fighting with the Avengers was enjoyable and that is what the film should have been built around because as soon as they found their status quo the film was basically done...but then kept going for about another hour and a half, and it was all downhill from there...

Also for the record the aggregate score of Avengers was around 6/10, which I guess proves the bullshit.

[Starscream Gaga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Anything enjoyable about the characters came from the existing characters, Whedon nor any of the actors added anything to them.

So the movie working with a great group of characters is a bad thing? I think the develeplmont of a group of solo heroes becoming a team brought enough new to the characters for a first Avengers film.

Quote:

Not to mention that Whedon could never find any kind of balance for the heroes, making Hawkeye evil so 'the human ones' get a fight scene before Hulk and Thor make everyone else on the team not worth having, even Cap didn't really get a chance to shine, who always ordinarily would in the comics.

-Captain America saved a room full of a great many citizens, as a hero would, as well as led the team.
-Black Widow stopped the portal
-Iron Man destroyed the base of the Chitauri
-Hawkeye guided all the other heroes throughout the final battle and was the real reason Loki was taken down (he knocked him off the chariot).

They all had roles and a chance to shine.

Quote:

Also the fact that Loki was taken down in a gag like an hour before the end of the movie, means I don't count him as a main villain.

You mean about 10 minutes from the end, with those last 10 minutes spent stopping the army that he was leading and brought to earth. That's a really bad reason not to treat the main villain as the main villain.

The in fighting with the Avengers was enjoyable and that is what the film should have been built around because as soon as they found their status quo the film was basically done...but then kept going for about another hour and a half, and it was all downhill from there...

Quote:

Also for the record the aggregate score of Avengers was around 6/10, which I guess proves the bullshit.

Where are you getting that? Rotten Tomatoes has it down at 92% all critics with the average 8/10, 85% Top Critics, average 7.6/10 and an Audience rating of 92%, average 4.6/5. On Metacritics, it's Metascore is 69/100 and it's User Score is 7.9/10.
The film was well received, critically.

[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starscream Gaga

So the movie working with a great group of characters is a bad thing? I think the develeplmont of a group of solo heroes becoming a team brought enough new to the characters for a first Avengers film.
-Captain America saved a room full of a great many citizens, as a hero would, as well as led the team.
-Black Widow stopped the portal
-Iron Man destroyed the base of the Chitauri
-Hawkeye guided all the other heroes throughout the final battle and was the real reason Loki was taken down (he knocked him off the chariot).

They all had roles and a chance to shine.

You mean about 10 minutes from the end, with those last 10 minutes spent stopping the army that he was leading and brought to earth. That's a really bad reason not to treat the main villain as the main villain.

The in fighting with the Avengers was enjoyable and that is what the film should have been built around because as soon as they found their status quo the film was basically done...but then kept going for about another hour and a half, and it was all downhill from there...


Where are you getting that? Rotten Tomatoes has it down at 92% all critics, 85% Top Critics and an Audience rating of 92%. On Metacritics, it's Metascore is 69/100 and it's User Score is 7.9/10.
The film was well received, critically.

No, I enjoyed the characters, but people acting like the film needs to be praised for its characters are just wrong. As the film added nothing to the characters and merely copy and pasted them out of the comics.

I'd go into finer details about how those scenes don't count like you think they do but I can't be bothered to go into this debate again. Yes I know the internet gargles on the films dick and great for you but that doesn't mean I have to like your opinion, see your opinion or agree with it. Which I don't. I'm just glad over the months of the films release more and more people have taken a step back from the film and been much more critical of its big flaws, that first month of mindless 'BEST FILM EV0R' was really annoying.

Also my bad, still 6.9 is hardly 'the best comicbook movie ever'.

[xSkullheartx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/pacific...152638490.html

America, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.


Japan, please flood the international box office with your money so Guiliermo Del Toro can still work after this.

Couldn't agree more with the first line.I'm glad to see Warner Bros. isn't giving up on it though,and if they do make a sequel I think they would learn from whatever problems this one had.