Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: This year's masterpiece

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: This year's masterpiece Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 8:21:16 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18136
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ethanial

Thank goodness, after looking at what poor Helen had to review in the recent issue, she did get to talk Pilgrim, although saying it's target market is more late 20's is odd, I'm barely 20 and it resonated plenty with me.

Edgar knocked it out of the park, a glorious hive of activity, comedy, wit, insanity, amazing visuals.

You know what, I can't say much, I can just say this is a perfect movie.


quote:


Distributor Universal Pictures' research showed that 64 percent of the audience was male and 58 percent was under 25 years old.



_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 91
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 8:52:16 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
Three things have put me off seeing this film

1)It looks like shit

2)The trailer makes it look like shit

3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).


_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 92
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 8:55:01 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

Three things have put me off seeing this film

1)It looks like shit

2)The trailer makes it look like shit

3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).



Nine pages and the front cover does not equal falling over themselves.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 93
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:05:50 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

Three things have put me off seeing this film

1)It looks like shit

2)The trailer makes it look like shit

3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).



Nine pages and the front cover does not equal falling over themselves.


Add in the back cover,and the fact that i cant go to this site without being bombarded with Scott Pilgrim images,5 star reviews,and EXCLUSIVE web chats.

Im so glad The Expendables kicked this films ass at the box office.I wouldnt be surprised that Empires saturation coverage of this stupid looking Edgar Wright film put people OFF going to see it.


_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 94
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:08:57 PM   
Ethanial


Posts: 2923
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Perpendicular Universe London
Back page was a paid advertisment by Universal, reviews for big films always have their own page in the top 6 box, the web chat is timed for PR and getting the cast and director together, people want to hear from Edgar.

You'll be surprised, it's a genuinely entertaining slice of insane cinema.

_____________________________

Fresh update 2010
Original update 2005.

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 95
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:09:48 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

Three things have put me off seeing this film

1)It looks like shit

2)The trailer makes it look like shit

3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).



Nine pages and the front cover does not equal falling over themselves.


Add in the back cover,and the fact that i cant go to this site without being bombarded with Scott Pilgrim images,5 star reviews,and EXCLUSIVE web chats.

Im so glad The Expendables kicked this films ass at the box office.I wouldnt be surprised that Empires saturation coverage of this stupid looking Edgar Wright film put people OFF going to see it.



Hahaha - ok - and after those 20 people on the forum don't go?

And the back cover isn't them you know....

On the future films page -

Scott Pilgrim had 2 pages
Expendables is on 26

Hardly like the poor forum hasn't paid attention to the Expendables.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 96
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:11:08 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ethanial

Back page was a paid advertisment by Universal, reviews for big films always have their own page in the top 6 box, the web chat is timed for PR and getting the cast and director together, people want to hear from Edgar.

You'll be surprised, it's a genuinely entertaining slice of insane cinema.


And never mind the Expendables was on the cover and got just as much coverage in the magazine.

No, can't let facts get in the way of moaning.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Ethanial)
Post #: 97
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:12:51 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I am really starting to hate The Expendables, and it has little to do with the film or coverage or success......no, it is the nonsense brought by some of its fans. 

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 98
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:20:35 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14550
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas
3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).



Why on earth would Empire owe Edgar Wright a favour? Did he sub them all lunch?

God, this is becoming increasingly tedious/moronic.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 99
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:21:09 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18136
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
What is all this rubbish about Expendable v Scott Pilgrim anyway? I haven't seen either yet, they look very different films and I want to see them both.

Although I did see a new trailer on tv earlier for Scott Pilgrim which seemed to be taking a different approach to previous ones I have seen and seemed to be hastily cut together to focus on the romance aspect of the film.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 16/8/2010 9:23:15 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 100
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:23:11 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14550
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
I really have no idea why the two are being compared. At all.

Basically, I think fans of one are throwing their toys out of their prams about other people being interested in/liking the other one.

I think.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 101
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:23:28 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

What is all this rubbish about Expendable v Scott Pilgrim anyway?

Although I did see a new trailer on tv earlier for Scott Pilgrim which seemed to be taking a different approach to previous ones I have seen and seemed to be hastily cut together to focus on the romance aspect of the film.


Cause they were released in the same weekend in the States I think.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 102
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:23:57 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

What is all this rubbish about Expendable v Scott Pilgrim anyway?



Released same day. Be happy we Eat Pray Love has not been added to the list.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 103
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:24:46 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18136
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
That got number two in the US charts

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 104
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:53:27 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
I've no doubt the love for Edgar Wright is partially down how Godawful the rest of the British film industry was (and still is) when Shaun and Hot Fuzz came out, but the guy's pretty good at what he does. 

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 105
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 9:59:22 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: hatebox

I've no doubt the love for Edgar Wright is partially down how Godawful the rest of the British film industry was (and still is)


No.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 106
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 11:59:09 PM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas


3)Empire falling over themselves to promote such an inconsequential film sounds suspiciously like they owe Edgar Wright a few favours(in my opinion).



I'm pretty sure we've gone over this before with you, darth silas, but don't insinuate that Empire has somehow been 'bought off'. That's libel, and it's illegal if you have nothing to back it up, so don't even suggest it and go back to cheering for those muscular he-men you so love.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 107
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 2:25:36 AM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

I'm not moaning about something I haven't seen, I'm annoyed at the sycophantic coverage that has gone beyond saturation point.

My point is that given all the hype Empire generated prior to the review, the review itself is unsurprising

As I said for the film itself, I'll probably give it ago on DVD.



What sycophanic coverage?


The movie is directed by a guy who has made some of the more successful films from the UK in recent years, not to mention one of the great comedy series of the last decade. It is based on a comic book which will likely appeal to the Empire readership, and at the same time isn't a huge blockbuster. You don;t think the readership would or should be excited for this? And everyone leave aside their own personal "overrated" views. Just because YOU don't like Wright, doesn't detract from the fact he has made some very popular stuff.



You must have missed where I said

quote:

I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.


quote:


So now we are complaining that a non-blockbuster movie is getting attention in the magazine, when most months people are falling over themselves to say that Empire only puts movies which cost 100 million + on the front cover.



Non-blockbuster? Hollywood Reporter puts the budget at close to $90million and it's released at the height of blockbuster season - let's not pretend this is a small indie film


quote:


Lets look at this months issue shall we?

Fifteen Pages to upcoming genre films
Nine Pages to Scott Pilgirm
Eight Pages to a Henry Hill interview
Seven Pages about the Godfather Production
Five Pages to a interview with the Fox studio
Four Pages to Africa United
Four pages to Tyler Perry
Four pages to Burke and Hare
Four Pages to Dinner for Schmucks

Pilgrim didn't even get the biggest article this month, and pretty much had the standard number of pages devoted to the big release of the month.


It got the largest for any one film, plus the reviews of the tie-ins

quote:


And again, Empire has a strong relationship with Lucasfilm, and devoted EIGHTY SIX pages to the Phantom Meance. That still wasn't enough to give the movie five stars in the magazine.

But I'm sure you are right....


And the rest? The months leading up to the release?

It's funny how people who don't go with the Empire/fanboy consensus are slammed for not getting caught up in the hype around a movie. The people who so vehemently defend a movie they havent seen but like it on the basis of the trailer/coverage somehow fail to see the irony in criticising those who disagree with them having made their mind up based on the same evidence.

< Message edited by Joe -- 17/8/2010 2:26:27 AM >


_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 108
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:31:52 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

Non-blockbuster? Hollywood Reporter puts the budget at close to $90million and it's released at the height of blockbuster season - let's not pretend this is a small indie film


Is that confirmed? Because all I have seen is sources saying it cost 60 to 90 million, and I am not sure if it includes marketing. And I would call it a medium-budget film like Eat Pray Love (which around the same amount of money), and is hardly on the cost of Inception.

quote:



It got the largest for any one film, plus the reviews of the tie-ins



It was still modest coverage and it was treated the same way most films were.

quote:



It's funny how people who don't go with the Empire/fanboy consensus are slammed for not getting caught up in the hype around a movie. The people who so vehemently defend a movie they havent seen but like it on the basis of the trailer/coverage somehow fail to see the irony in criticising those who disagree with them having made their mind up based on the same evidence.



Where did we say we like it? In this thread, on this discussion about Empire's coverage on the film and the review and not the film itself, where? Where did we say we like it and the problem was you not liking it? Where? Could you point this out?


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 109
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:55:33 AM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Non-blockbuster? Hollywood Reporter puts the budget at close to $90million and it's released at the height of blockbuster season - let's not pretend this is a small indie film


The figures quoted are generally around $60-90mil, which is expensive, yes, but not necessarily blockbuster. Both Eat Pray Love and The Expendables had roughly the same budget. It's not "small" or "indie", but it's not massive, either.


quote:


It got the largest for any one film, plus the reviews of the tie-ins


Oh yes, how dare they review other products released this month that happen to be affiliated with this product. The nerve of these people.

quote:


It's funny how people who don't go with the Empire/fanboy consensus are slammed for not getting caught up in the hype around a movie. The people who so vehemently defend a movie they havent seen but like it on the basis of the trailer/coverage somehow fail to see the irony in criticising those who disagree with them having made their mind up based on the same evidence.


I've seen it (already out here in NZ) and like it a hell of a lot, so I think I'm well placed to defend it. And I don't think anyone else calling you out is saying the movie is good - they're calling you out for saying the Empire review is wrong and that it was influenced by hype, when that's just a patently stupid thing to say. A reviewer's welcome to their own opinion, which is what a review is. By calling their credibility into account by saying that they're viewing it with hype-coloured glasses, the onus is on you to show that the reviewer's being disingenuous - but other than saying they've given it good coverage this issue and insinuating that they've done it for set-access or whatever, you've pointed to nothing that supports your claim.

Furthermore, it's hilarious that you can suggest we're all Empire fanboys caught up in the hype when the last two films Empire hyped - Avatar and Kick-Ass - garnered fairly mixed reception throughout this board. And funnily enough, we had people just like before Kick-Ass came out, bitching about how Empire was 'telling' them to like the film and how Empire's review was all 'hype'. Don't look forward to the film if you wish - but Empire has no obligation to you as a reader to cover what you want. They could run a fifty-page retrospective on Bela Tarr if they wanted.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 110
RE: RE: - 17/8/2010 10:20:57 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 571
Joined: 30/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt



Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.


Thanks for the reply, Chris. I’m glad to see that you noticed I WASN’T questioning Empire’s integrity. I’m sure that if the finished product was, in the writer’s opinion, no good, the review would’ve reflected that. Would you be able to comment, if only in general terms, on whether there’s consensus among your colleagues about if it’s a 5* film or not?

In simple terms, my basic point was that I personally didn’t like being forcefed endless features on a film that isn’t going to appeal to a massive amount of the magazine’s readership. Then on the website, there’s the Scott pilgrim webchat, the Scott Pilgrim Geek Guide, as well as the actual review. In my personal opinion this is total saturation. (But hey, I’m not on the editorial staff, and I’m not going to cancel my subscription. Bygones, etc…) While I understand why Empire staffers may well find the US box office returns disappointing / frustrating, even the story discussing this on the main website page has a “There there, Edgar, it’ll be all be OK” feel to it:

“But there was bad news to be found elsewhere as Edgar Wright’s adaptation of Bryan Lee O’Malley’s comic book series, Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, sadly failed to find much love with audiences, getting punched down to fifth place with $10.5 million. The movie didn’t even manage to scrape together the cash to reach the low figure that many had been estimating. Still, we take heart from the fact that Scott Pilgrim will be thought about and talked about long after the world has forgotten either of the two box office champs. It’ll have to go some to make back its $60 million budget and promotional costs, but we’d guess the DVD sales will help - and word of mouth might yet pick it up in weekend two.”

If, for example, The Expendables had opened at number 4 with $10million, would the same have been said? I find it hard to see how a paragraph like the above can possibly be considered ‘objective’.

(in reply to Chris Hewitt)
Post #: 111
RE: RE: - 17/8/2010 10:25:31 AM   
BOHEMIANBOB


Posts: 1884
Joined: 31/1/2010
From: Dublin
I think the comment about the other 2 "box office champs" was an unfortunate choice of words-it certainly gives the reader the impression the write is favoured to this film,while seemingly having a subtle pop at the other 2.

_____________________________

Misunderstood.
Don't care.
Have you seen my stolen signature?!

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 112
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 10:27:31 AM   
Companero


Posts: 626
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: London Violenta, UK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Non-blockbuster? Hollywood Reporter puts the budget at close to $90million and it's released at the height of blockbuster season - let's not pretend this is a small indie film


The figures quoted are generally around $60-90mil, which is expensive, yes, but not necessarily blockbuster. Both Eat Pray Love and The Expendables had roughly the same budget. It's not "small" or "indie", but it's not massive, either.


quote:



I have a lot of time for Edgar Wright and will definitely see this film – I just thought I’d throw in my tuppenceworth because I thought your argument was a little ill-judged. $90m may not be a lot in your eyes but it's a colossal amount to everyone else. Sure it’s not in the league of the huge “event” films of recent years but it’s a massive amount, especially when you consider that it doesn’t feature a star that would require an extortionate salary like Julia Roberts or the topliners from The Expendables. So, in the grand scheme of things it is a BIG budget film, no?

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 113
RE: RE: - 17/8/2010 10:32:19 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt



Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.


Thanks for the reply, Chris. I'm glad to see that you noticed I WASN'T questioning Empire's integrity. I'm sure that if the finished product was, in the writer's opinion, no good, the review would've reflected that. Would you be able to comment, if only in general terms, on whether there's consensus among your colleagues about if it's a 5* film or not?

In simple terms, my basic point was that I personally didn't like being forcefed endless features on a film that isn't going to appeal to a massive amount of the magazine's readership. Then on the website, there's the Scott pilgrim webchat, the Scott Pilgrim Geek Guide, as well as the actual review. In my personal opinion this is total saturation. (But hey, I'm not on the editorial staff, and I'm not going to cancel my subscription. Bygones, etc…) While I understand why Empire staffers may well find the US box office returns disappointing / frustrating, even the story discussing this on the main website page has a "There there, Edgar, it'll be all be OK” feel to it:

"But there was bad news to be found elsewhere as Edgar Wright's adaptation of Bryan Lee O'Malley's comic book series, Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, sadly failed to find much love with audiences, getting punched down to fifth place with $10.5 million. The movie didn't even manage to scrape together the cash to reach the low figure that many had been estimating. Still, we take heart from the fact that Scott Pilgrim will be thought about and talked about long after the world has forgotten either of the two box office champs. It'll have to go some to make back its $60 million budget and promotional costs, but we'd guess the DVD sales will help - and word of mouth might yet pick it up in weekend two.”

If, for example, The Expendables had opened at number 4 with $10million, would the same have been said? I find it hard to see how a paragraph like the above can possibly be considered 'objective'.



Endless features?

Nine pages in the magazine is not endless. That is the standard amount that a movie on the front cover (that isn't a summer/winter/year preview) would get.

The online stuff - Empire does webchats on a pretty regular basis. Are you saying that they should have turned down this oppertunity? And again, it is hardly being forcefed. You don't need to go into the webchat. In fact many people on the forums don't even realise when they are on.

The Scott Pilgirm Guide - the Expendables also got a guide thing. They also got front cover, and an article in the magazine. And it has been mentioned just as much as Pilgirm on the forums. Again, the Future Film threads show that SP has 2 pages, and the Expenadables is on page 20 something.

This is hardly the definition of endless features. I would add that other UK magazines have done big Pilgrim splashes - not just Total Film, but SFX and Sci Fi Now. Why? Because it is a movie which does appeal to some of the readership, and is directed by someone who has made some very popular films. There is no bias here, just plan good old excitement for a movie that is coming out.



_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 114
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 10:34:35 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Companero


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Non-blockbuster? Hollywood Reporter puts the budget at close to $90million and it's released at the height of blockbuster season - let's not pretend this is a small indie film


The figures quoted are generally around $60-90mil, which is expensive, yes, but not necessarily blockbuster. Both Eat Pray Love and The Expendables had roughly the same budget. It's not "small" or "indie", but it's not massive, either.


quote:



I have a lot of time for Edgar Wright and will definitely see this film – I just thought I'd throw in my tuppenceworth because I thought your argument was a little ill-judged. $90m may not be a lot in your eyes but it's a colossal amount to everyone else. Sure it's not in the league of the huge "event” films of recent years but it's a massive amount, especially when you consider that it doesn't feature a star that would require an extortionate salary like Julia Roberts or the topliners from The Expendables. So, in the grand scheme of things it is a BIG budget film, no?


Boxofficemojo has the budget at $60 million, and that is the price I have seen elsewhere. So it is a mid range budgeted movie.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Companero)
Post #: 115
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 11:51:40 AM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:



It's funny how people who don't go with the Empire/fanboy consensus are slammed for not getting caught up in the hype around a movie. The people who so vehemently defend a movie they havent seen but like it on the basis of the trailer/coverage somehow fail to see the irony in criticising those who disagree with them having made their mind up based on the same evidence.




Where did we say we like it? In this thread, on this discussion about Empire's coverage on the film and the review and not the film itself, where? Where did we say we like it and the problem was you not liking it? Where? Could you point this out?


Not explicitly but those of us who feel the film's gotten an unmerited amount of coverage have been slated in this thread for not having seen it and therefore aren't in a place to comment. A lot of people seem particularly defensive about it - it reminds me of a past forummer (think DonaldMcKinnay was the name or something like that) getting pissed off that people didnt like the looks of the Brothers Grimm.

Where in this thread did I say it is a bad film? Can you point that out to me? I said that personally, I feel that based on the trailer, it looks shallow. Evidently the critics in the US are giving it solid reviews but aren't falling over it the way Empire is. And given Empire's extensive coverage of the film, and obvious ties with the director, it's not surprising it got 5 stars

Seeing as others seem to want to count pages, I did a quick look over past issues - 4 in the February issue, 2 in the March issue, another 4 in the July issue.

My point, and the point of many others here, is that the coverage for this film has been OTT

But how dare we give Empire feedback on their forum, eh?

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 116
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 11:54:56 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:



It's funny how people who don't go with the Empire/fanboy consensus are slammed for not getting caught up in the hype around a movie. The people who so vehemently defend a movie they havent seen but like it on the basis of the trailer/coverage somehow fail to see the irony in criticising those who disagree with them having made their mind up based on the same evidence.




Where did we say we like it? In this thread, on this discussion about Empire's coverage on the film and the review and not the film itself, where? Where did we say we like it and the problem was you not liking it? Where? Could you point this out?


Not explicitly but those of us who feel the film's gotten an unmerited amount of coverage have been slated in this thread for not having seen it and therefore aren't in a place to comment. A lot of people seem particularly defensive about it - it reminds me of a past forummer (think DonaldMcKinnay was the name or something like that) getting pissed off that people didnt like the looks of the Brothers Grimm.

Where in this thread did I say it is a bad film? Can you point that out to me? I said that personally, I feel that based on the trailer, it looks shallow. Evidently the critics in the US are giving it solid reviews but aren't falling over it the way Empire is. And given Empire's extensive coverage of the film, and obvious ties with the director, it's not surprising it got 5 stars

Seeing as others seem to want to count pages, I did a quick look over past issues - 4 in the February issue, 2 in the March issue, another 4 in the July issue.

My point, and the point of many others here, is that the coverage for this film has been OTT

But how dare we give Empire feedback on their forum, eh?


Ok, Joe. How many pages for every film released would you feel is ok?

Pilgrim is currently on 81% on RT. Total Film gave it 4 stars. SFX gave it 5 stars. 

And it isn't about giving feedback. You said it yourself, YOU think the film is shallow based off the trailer and therefore YOU think that the magazine shouldn't cover it. But already in this thread we have had two reviews from forumites who have also given it massive praise, so it isn't just Empire saying it is great.

And yeah, I'm excited for a movie based on a comic book series I really like, and director whose work I love. Heaven forbid people don't look forward to it. Is it likely I will love this film? Yes. But the questions being raised are in regard to Empires coverage. What I am saying is that it is isn't that inconsistant with other releases.

I recently did a review of old Empire issues from 1999, and really, not much has changed in regard to the coverage some films get.



< Message edited by Rgirvan44 -- 17/8/2010 12:03:54 PM >


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 117
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 11:59:41 AM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
I think an onset preview followed by a feature on release is sufficient.

I take it by your reply that you don't feel it's been excessive?

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 118
RE: RE: - 17/8/2010 12:03:51 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
It was that line which I found a little condescending, as a fan of The Expendables to be honest, which set me off on my usual daft rants yesterday.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to BOHEMIANBOB)
Post #: 119
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:05:28 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

I think an onset preview followed by a feature on release is sufficient.

I take it by your reply that you don't feel it's been excessive?


Not really. You look at things like Avatar, or The Dark Knight and you will see a lot more coverage months in, months out. Its part and parcel of what happens.

The Expendables for instance got decent coverage as well.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: This year's masterpiece Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172