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: Five stars, What a surpise

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Five stars, What a surpise Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:18:47 PM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
Avatar and The Dark Knight have a much much broader appeal than Scott Pilgrim (and this is coming from someone who thought Avatar was overrated) - people here are at pains to point out it's 'medium' budget and will acknowledge that it's a niche film - so why go on about it ad nauseum?

And The Hooded Man - Empire has been doing that 'Scott Pilgrim vs The Expendables' thing in earlier issues too - they said you could go see 'veiny necked potato shaped' warriors 'or drop the 80s nostalgia and embrace the future' back in the July issue

_____________________________

"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 #: 121
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:27:42 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
Did they actually say that Joe?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 122
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:28:19 PM   
shool


Posts: 10059
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe
And given Empire's extensive coverage of the film, and obvious ties with the director, it's not surprising it got 5 stars


I'm saying these two things arent related. As has been pointed plenty of films with massive coverage have not picked up 5 star reviews so on what do you base this?

Also you imply that their is preferential treatment going on here which is borderline libel.


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 123
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:28:39 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7914
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria
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?


Your argument is null and void for using a daft nutter like Donald (McKinney) as an example... 

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 124
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:32:49 PM   
Joe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"

_____________________________

"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 The Hooded Man)
Post #: 125
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:34:11 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Joe

Avatar and The Dark Knight have a much much broader appeal than Scott Pilgrim (and this is coming from someone who thought Avatar was overrated) - people here are at pains to point out it's 'medium' budget and will acknowledge that it's a niche film - so why go on about it ad nauseum?

And The Hooded Man - Empire has been doing that 'Scott Pilgrim vs The Expendables' thing in earlier issues too - they said you could go see 'veiny necked potato shaped' warriors 'or drop the 80s nostalgia and embrace the future' back in the July issue


Ok, then Kick Ass also got a lot of coverage. So did Hellboy 2 (which also cost 60 millionish)

Surely we should welcome a focus on a smalller budgeted film? Yes it isn't an indie flick, but neither is it a blockbuster.

What is annoying is that these arguments are breaking out nearly every time a movie is reviewed on here. Either Empire have been sucked into the hype or they don't realise how great a film is and omg how can it get the same number of stars as movie x,y,z?!?. Then there are the ones criticisng the reviews, then the ones like this - TOO MUCH HYPE.

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  

_____________________________

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 #: 126
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:35:20 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Whats wrong with that?

_____________________________

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 #: 127
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:37:56 PM   
tftrman


Posts: 3192
Joined: 15/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

What is annoying is that these arguments are breaking out nearly every time a movie is reviewed on here. Either Empire have been sucked into the hype or they don't realise how great a film is and omg how can it get the same number of stars as movie x,y,z?!?. Then there are the ones criticisng the reviews, then the ones like this - TOO MUCH HYPE.


It is strange how the film reviews section of this forum seems to attract a higher number of whiners than others.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 128
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:38:40 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14549
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
Yeah, isn't that EXACTLY what The Expendables is and EXACTLY what people love about it?

EDIT: Oops - backing up Rgirvan's point.

< Message edited by matty_b -- 17/8/2010 12:39:26 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

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


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 129
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:38:52 PM   
Joe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Whats wrong with that?


"veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies"

"drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future"


_____________________________

"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 #: 130
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:38:58 PM   
Pigeon Army


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

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.


_____________________________

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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 131
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:40:13 PM   
Pigeon Army


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

ORIGINAL: tftrman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

What is annoying is that these arguments are breaking out nearly every time a movie is reviewed on here. Either Empire have been sucked into the hype or they don't realise how great a film is and omg how can it get the same number of stars as movie x,y,z?!?. Then there are the ones criticisng the reviews, then the ones like this - TOO MUCH HYPE.


It is strange how the film reviews section of this forum seems to attract a higher number of whiners than others.


The benefit of Lists and Top 10s looking like a bunch of smug foreign film-watching nobheads from the outside - no whining about Empire's coverage of the flavour of the month.


_____________________________

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 tftrman)
Post #: 132
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:41:37 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Whats wrong with that?


"veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies"

"drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future"



But it is a 80s nostalgia fest with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies - thats why I liked it!

As to the future comment, in comparison to Expenables, SP is a lot more modern in how it deals with its action. In line with movies like Crank, Crank 2 and next years Sucker Punch in fact. Hyper surreal.

_____________________________

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 #: 133
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:44:46 PM   
Joe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.

_____________________________

"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 Pigeon Army)
Post #: 134
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:46:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?

_____________________________

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 #: 135
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:51:03 PM   
Joe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?


Scott Pilgrim has gotten, by a rough count, 20+ pages in the last 6 months. Half of that is plenty and could free up more of the magazine to give ample exposure to other films that didn't have Pilgrim's coverage or advertising budget

_____________________________

"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 #: 136
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:51:59 PM   
Pigeon Army


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

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


Except this isn't about formatting issues or bad writers or outright terrible print or whatever. This is about them looking forward to and liking a film you have no interest in, and you being annoyed that they choose to give that film coverage over films you're interested in. Well, yes, if it comes to that, tough shit - they don't always cover the films we want them to. I was no fan of Avatar, and the blanket coverage annoyed me - but I accepted that there was an audience out there that did and that it would be gone soon anyway. This is the same with Kick-Ass, with The Dark Knight, with The Expendables, with The Phantom Menace, with Scott Pilgrim. There have always been complainers, but there shouldn't be, because the magazine's audience isn't just a handful of people beating their chests on the forums - it's a wider community, and I wouldn't think I'd be amiss in saying that the majority either share their enthusiasm or just don't care that it's getting coverage akin to a blockbuster.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe
So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?


Scott Pilgrim has gotten, by a rough count, 20+ pages in the last 6 months. Half of that is plenty and could free up more of the magazine to give ample exposure to other films that didn't have Pilgrim's coverage or advertising budget


Wouldn't this equally apply to any film of medium-to-large budget, though, applying your logic? Avatar shouldn't have gotten any coverage outside of a review, applying your logic of magazine coverage versus marketing budget.

< Message edited by Pigeon Army -- 17/8/2010 12:55:25 PM >


_____________________________

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 #: 137
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:53:58 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
Screw you Empire, it's Impact magazine for me from now on.
That's providing, of course, said magazine still exists.

< Message edited by The Hooded Man -- 17/8/2010 12:54:43 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 138
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 12:58:14 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?


Scott Pilgrim has gotten, by a rough count, 20+ pages in the last 6 months. Half of that is plenty and could free up more of the magazine to give ample exposure to other films that didn't have Pilgrim's coverage or advertising budget


What does the advertising budget have to do with this?

_____________________________

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 #: 139
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 1:01:50 PM   
Joe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?


Scott Pilgrim has gotten, by a rough count, 20+ pages in the last 6 months. Half of that is plenty and could free up more of the magazine to give ample exposure to other films that didn't have Pilgrim's coverage or advertising budget


What does the advertising budget have to do with this?


It's all about coverage - I know bigger films will get bigger coverage and bigger ad space, but scott pilgrim has had a big marketing campaign for a niche film - I already know plenty about it. I'd like to read about other films that might get lost in the hype too.

I'm leaving it at this, we'll clearly have to agree to disagree.

_____________________________

"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 #: 140
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 1:04:33 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Just in case anyone is interested Empire had 118 pages where The Phantom Meance was mentioned over a six month period.

_____________________________

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 #: 141
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 1:13:37 PM   
theieuan


Posts: 282
Joined: 1/9/2006
From: Llanelli
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No one is saying not to be critical at Empire (the period they went through a few years ago where every month had a new list or top ten drove me barmy for instance) it is just that these threads always seem to go the same way before a movie is released.  


And as a mod, it's fucking tedious dealing with them. Empire's not any less of a magazine because it's championing a film you're not interested in, and at the end of the day, that's all it usually comes down to. It's not forcing a film down your throat - it's enthusiasm, and while it can cross into being a mad little fanboy in the previews, I wouldn't for a second question the abilities of the writers of Empire to divorce the hype from the finished product when they review it. They're professionals, not Harry Knowles (who they despised in 2000, something I learned thanks to your magical retrospective thread, Rgirvan ). That you don't share the enthusiasm is no reason to start bitching about how they're 'buying into the hype' and 'doing favours' and 'championing niche films when they shouldn't'. Just accept you don't share their enthusiasm and move on.



Or as a loyal customer for 12 years I can give feedback on the magazine? Your last line sums up a lot - if you dont like something about the magazine, tough shit, move on.

This is a forum where people can express their views, agree or disagree and debate - sorry if you find that 'tedious'. There are a number of us here who buy the magazine every month and were disappointed with, what we perceived to be, an unwarranted amount of exposure to a niche film.


So only blockbusters should be given more than a couple of pages in the magazine?


Scott Pilgrim has gotten, by a rough count, 20+ pages in the last 6 months. Half of that is plenty and could free up more of the magazine to give ample exposure to other films that didn't have Pilgrim's coverage or advertising budget


What does the advertising budget have to do with this?


It's all about coverage - I know bigger films will get bigger coverage and bigger ad space, but scott pilgrim has had a big marketing campaign for a niche film - I already know plenty about it. I'd like to read about other films that might get lost in the hype too.

I'm leaving it at this, we'll clearly have to agree to disagree.


Scott Pilgrim doesn't appeal to me but I can't complain about the coverage it got. In fact it was no different to any other big film that's been released lately. It's true Empire have had several features on the website and in the magazine, but I don't tend to read them. It's not as if they're forcing you to read everything about this film. You do so becuase you chose to. Also, I would argue that it's not really a niche film, it's pretty much a blockbuster given the actors that star in it and the amount of money spent on making the film.

_____________________________

You know, this place makes me wonder...Which would be worse, to live as a monster or die as a good man?

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 142
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 1:42:23 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 568
Joined: 30/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Apparently the US public, so far at least, seem to be preferring '80s nostalgia...(Also, the quote itself is a bit contradictory in that surely Scott Pilgrim is wallowing in a bit of nostalgia itself, given the nods to classic video games? This is the future I'm supposed to embrace? No thanks.)

By the way, I freely admit that I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim and have no intention of doing so. I haven't seen The Expendables either, for what it's worth. I just feel a bit of sympathy for the latter because of the occasional but unneccessary snide remarks aimed in its direction from Empire. Also, I accept that this thread is supposed to be based on the review, and has become somewhat sidetracked by debates on the amount of coverage devoted to the film in the magazine. I actually started a thread in the specific magazine forum but nobody commented there and a mod suggested that I post elsewhere.

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 143
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 2:06:07 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Apparently the US public, so far at least, seem to be preferring '80s nostalgia...(Also, the quote itself is a bit contradictory in that surely Scott Pilgrim is wallowing in a bit of nostalgia itself, given the nods to classic video games? This is the future I'm supposed to embrace? No thanks.)

By the way, I freely admit that I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim and have no intention of doing so. I haven't seen The Expendables either, for what it's worth. I just feel a bit of sympathy for the latter because of the occasional but unneccessary snide remarks aimed in its direction from Empire. Also, I accept that this thread is supposed to be based on the review, and has become somewhat sidetracked by debates on the amount of coverage devoted to the film in the magazine. I actually started a thread in the specific magazine forum but nobody commented there and a mod suggested that I post elsewhere.


The Expenables got a front cover and large article. Indeed the poster has quotes from Empire, and even today the offical Expendables Facebook page said

Do you think you have what it takes to be Expendable? We have extended the closing date of our competition, so post your Expendables movie poster quote to rival Empire Magazine's, "The most awesome action cast ever assembled", and you could walk away with a limited edition pair of POLICE sunglasses!
 
Hardly being picked on. And btw - that movie is sitting on 42% - so Empire gave it an above average rating.

_____________________________

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 #: 144
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 2:34:01 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8221
Joined: 31/7/2008
I don't understand what any of this is all about. Are people really moaning that Scott Pilgrim seemed to them to get more coverage than the Expendables? Really? Or is it the wording - would it have been better if they had written "If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins. Or you could drop the future and embrace '80s nostalgia; The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies."?

Honestly, this seems so petty it beggars belief, as though the amount or coverage a film receives (or even it's review) should actually anger people or influence whether they watch a film or not. I'll watch a movie's trailers. If I like the look of it I'll go and see it. If I don't, I probably won't.

The increasing number of people who bitch about the reviews before the films are released every month is getting beyond boring. It might be better if Empire just stopped comments; the few reviews from posters that are worth reading are struggling to justify this kind of tiresome garbage.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 145
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:13:50 PM   
TrendMeUp


Posts: 984
Joined: 11/10/2005
Scott Pilgrim appeals to me, and I still feel like it has been overexposed in Empire, personally. The fact it was being used as the main draw to MovieCon this year meant I really wasn't surprised when it got a 5 star review, something Empire tends to be pretty conservative with handing out. And I don't think there's anything wrong having an opinion on something that hasn't been released yet. I intend to see it, and I'll happily change my opinion if the film turns out different than I'm expecting. But yeah, sick of hearing about it now really. Perhaps its excessive coverage is indicative of a diabolical summer of cinema, perhaps Empire decided to give it a push for whatever reason, or perhaps they really think it's a masterpiece. Who knows.

Also, people calling each other libellous in this thread made me lol. Twice.


_____________________________

http://thatgumyoulikeblog.wordpress.com - a film blog

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 146
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:24:27 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Apparently the US public, so far at least, seem to be preferring '80s nostalgia...(Also, the quote itself is a bit contradictory in that surely Scott Pilgrim is wallowing in a bit of nostalgia itself, given the nods to classic video games? This is the future I'm supposed to embrace? No thanks.)

By the way, I freely admit that I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim and have no intention of doing so. I haven't seen The Expendables either, for what it's worth. I just feel a bit of sympathy for the latter because of the occasional but unneccessary snide remarks aimed in its direction from Empire. Also, I accept that this thread is supposed to be based on the review, and has become somewhat sidetracked by debates on the amount of coverage devoted to the film in the magazine. I actually started a thread in the specific magazine forum but nobody commented there and a mod suggested that I post elsewhere.


The Expenables got a front cover and large article. Indeed the poster has quotes from Empire, and even today the offical Expendables Facebook page said

Do you think you have what it takes to be Expendable? We have extended the closing date of our competition, so post your Expendables movie poster quote to rival Empire Magazine's, "The most awesome action cast ever assembled", and you could walk away with a limited edition pair of POLICE sunglasses!
 
Hardly being picked on. And btw - that movie is sitting on 42% - so Empire gave it an above average rating.


42 per cent? Is that in terms of fan ratings on Facebook?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 147
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:26:29 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: TrendMeUp

Scott Pilgrim appeals to me, and I still feel like it has been overexposed in Empire, personally. The fact it was being used as the main draw to MovieCon this year meant I really wasn't surprised when it got a 5 star review, something Empire tends to be pretty conservative with handing out.


Back in the 90s Empire were conservative about the giving 5 stars, but not anymore. I don't personally think movies have got that much better, but there you go.

< Message edited by hatebox -- 17/8/2010 3:27:09 PM >

(in reply to TrendMeUp)
Post #: 148
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:37:25 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Apparently the US public, so far at least, seem to be preferring '80s nostalgia...(Also, the quote itself is a bit contradictory in that surely Scott Pilgrim is wallowing in a bit of nostalgia itself, given the nods to classic video games? This is the future I'm supposed to embrace? No thanks.)

By the way, I freely admit that I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim and have no intention of doing so. I haven't seen The Expendables either, for what it's worth. I just feel a bit of sympathy for the latter because of the occasional but unneccessary snide remarks aimed in its direction from Empire. Also, I accept that this thread is supposed to be based on the review, and has become somewhat sidetracked by debates on the amount of coverage devoted to the film in the magazine. I actually started a thread in the specific magazine forum but nobody commented there and a mod suggested that I post elsewhere.


The Expenables got a front cover and large article. Indeed the poster has quotes from Empire, and even today the offical Expendables Facebook page said

Do you think you have what it takes to be Expendable? We have extended the closing date of our competition, so post your Expendables movie poster quote to rival Empire Magazine's, "The most awesome action cast ever assembled", and you could walk away with a limited edition pair of POLICE sunglasses!
 
Hardly being picked on. And btw - that movie is sitting on 42% - so Empire gave it an above average rating.


42 per cent? Is that in terms of fan ratings on Facebook?


No, sorry - RT ratings, so Empire is above average in comparison to other critics.

_____________________________

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 The Hooded Man)
Post #: 149
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 17/8/2010 3:38:07 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 568
Joined: 30/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Hooded Man

Did they actually say that Joe?


have the issue in question here and will quote verbatim

"If you're looking for action this summer, you could plump for The Expendables, that cadre of grizzled, quippy warriors with veiny necks and potato-shaped bodies. Or you could drop the '80s nostalgia and embrace the future; Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's mind expanding collection of wushu hipsters, laser-eyed psychics and mystical-creature-summoning Japanese Twins"


Apparently the US public, so far at least, seem to be preferring '80s nostalgia...(Also, the quote itself is a bit contradictory in that surely Scott Pilgrim is wallowing in a bit of nostalgia itself, given the nods to classic video games? This is the future I'm supposed to embrace? No thanks.)

By the way, I freely admit that I haven't seen Scott Pilgrim and have no intention of doing so. I haven't seen The Expendables either, for what it's worth. I just feel a bit of sympathy for the latter because of the occasional but unneccessary snide remarks aimed in its direction from Empire. Also, I accept that this thread is supposed to be based on the review, and has become somewhat sidetracked by debates on the amount of coverage devoted to the film in the magazine. I actually started a thread in the specific magazine forum but nobody commented there and a mod suggested that I post elsewhere.


The Expenables got a front cover and large article. Indeed the poster has quotes from Empire, and even today the offical Expendables Facebook page said

Do you think you have what it takes to be Expendable? We have extended the closing date of our competition, so post your Expendables movie poster quote to rival Empire Magazine's, "The most awesome action cast ever assembled", and you could walk away with a limited edition pair of POLICE sunglasses!
 
Hardly being picked on. And btw - that movie is sitting on 42% - so Empire gave it an above average rating.


Look, the point of a forum is to disagree or agree. I've said my piece and I accept my thoughts were probably better placed somewhere else. I also don't give a flying fuck about The Expendables as a film - I've got no more interest in watching it than watching Scott Pilgrim. I only used it for comparison because of the story on the website yesterday about US box office returns, where it was if Empire was saying to the US public: "What are you playing at, for fucks sake? Why won't you go and see Scott Pilgrim instead of the films you actually want to see? What's wrong with you people?"

I do however stand by my contention that Scott Pilgrim has received red carpet treatment from Empire in the sense that 'they' (a horribly nebulous term for the staff, sorry) decided a long time ago that it would be something special, and are now bemused that the US public clearly disagree and would rather watch The Expendables, Eat Pray Love, The Other Guys and Inception instead. Fair enough, but I still keep on returning to this particular quote: "...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." Who by, and who is that writer to decide such matters? As BohemiamBob suggested in an earlier post, it was certainly an unfortunate choice of words.

However, I'll leave it at that, and hopefully people who've actually seen the film can return this topic back to what it should be!

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Five stars, What a surpise Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.187