I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
I'm kinda confused why they felt the need to reboot the series.
If they hadn't, the changes in concept and characters wouldn't have made any sense, and would have confused anybody who had seen the first two films. ("Why is Johnny Storm suddenly a black guy!?", etc.) Starting new, from the ground up, there's no need to ask those questions.
I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
I my experience in TV, especially local news outlets was a very "cut & paste" affair for lots of things. Frankly, entertainment news is something people like, but isn't really very important so very minimal effort goes into it.
I'm kinda confused why they felt the need to reboot the series.
If they hadn't, the changes in concept and characters wouldn't have made any sense, and would have confused anybody who had seen the first two films. ("Why is Johnny Storm suddenly a black guy!?", etc.) Starting new, from the ground up, there's no need to ask those questions.
...in theory, anyway...
Obviously Johnny would have not been able to be changed this way. But any change in tone, presentation I think would have been much easier to swallow. But, the movie still could have been terrible I guess.
I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
I my experience in TV, especially local news outlets was a very "cut & paste" affair for lots of things. Frankly, entertainment news is something people like, but isn't really very important so very minimal effort goes into it.
I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
I my experience in TV, especially local news outlets was a very "cut & paste" affair for lots of things. Frankly, entertainment news is something people like, but isn't really very important so very minimal effort goes into it.
Never worked in TV, just print. The local TV station tended to run a lot of the stories from the newspaper I worked at on their web site. Though they would never credit us, just our syndicate, to which they subscribed. In other words, I don't doubt local TV as being a lot of cut and paste.
But to get back on point, I weirdly find myself actually becoming more interested in seeing this movie, simply to see if it really is as bad as people are saying. I mean, so many people expect or even want this movie to be terrible, it's to the point I'm not sure I can trust the reviews, if that makes sense. The reviews I've read, and I've read a bunch, seem to be almost as cut and paste as a comic book news site, and I've only read one that offered any real analysis. It's obvious it's not a great film, but is it a 1-star film or a 2.5-star film? I'm kind of curious to find out for myself.
Can we now retire the term "Cronenbergian body horror"?
Please?
I cannot speak to the topic of this thread as I have not seen Fantastic Four nor intend to but....
Cronenbergian body horror is a valid adjective. He may not have invented the genre but he certainly mastered the "artform". Watch his earlier films and that is the medium he is creating in. Actually watch the majority of his films and you will see body horror done right. His directorial signature is as strong enough to deserve an adjective. Say Spielberg, Hitchcock and Lean to name a few and you can picture what their films look like. Cronenberg is on that list at least in the sense of his identifiable style.
I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
You apparently missed my intentional misspelling of the word journalist, and therefore missed my point.
I was wondering if it was just lazy writing, or if the studio was using it in their press releases to try and stir up interest. I feel like a lot of comic related sites just lift statements verbatim from what the publishers/studios send them.
This is EXACTLY what happens. I can tell you from my years of working in media outlets that most journolists are lazy, whether they work for FOX or ABC or the local paper. They copy and paste the press release and go from there.
In my years of working in and with media outlets, I’ve met very few lazy journalists. But web content is treated very differently than print or broadcast content. In general, the only way to make money with web content is volume, volume, volume. So when throwaway entertainment items come along, it is much more cost effective to simply copy, paste, and (sometimes) edit. And it's typically not a journalist doing that copying and pasting—they have better things to be doing with their time—it's a copy editor or intern, or someone who gets paid by the click, not by the hour.
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
You apparently missed my intentional misspelling of the word journalist, and therefore missed my point.
Yep, completely missed it without the capital letters. [Edit: I've removed the rest of this response in apology to @bralinator for an incorrect assumption on my part. Sorry, man.]
Going to see the movie now, mostly out of brand loyalty. I still love the FF despite its checkered publishing and film history. Maybe someday all of this will get straightened out.
So I'm back. Frankly, I enjoyed it as a piece of superhero entertainment. It's obviously missing something in the pacing, but its not the worst thing I've seen and in spots it seemed to have the seeds of a much better movie that just didn't jell. I think it's better than the Jessica Alba FF films, better than your typical Transformers film, better than a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, maybe even better than Amazing Spider-Man 2. In other words, I see a lot of not-great popcorn movies, so I'm not sure why this one is getting blistered.
You're not alone. At least 13 other critics have deemed the movie worth going to see, so everyone should probably just judge it for themselves.
13/149 (Rotten Tomatoes). That's an 8.7% approval rating. Go ahead, judge it for yourselves, but with those odds, you'd be prudent to do so from the comfort of home.
13/149 (Rotten Tomatoes). That's an 8.7% approval rating. Go ahead, judge it for yourselves, but with those odds, you'd be prudent to do so from the comfort of home.
I really find it hard to believe that this movie is worse than Catwoman. There's just no way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that RT critic percentage number just indicating that a huge majority of reviews were on the negative side? And therefore none of them might be saying that it is this god awful movie that it is being made out to be?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that RT critic percentage number just indicating that a huge majority of reviews were on the negative side? And therefore none of them might be saying that it is this god awful movie that it is being made out to be?
Okay, so the critic average rating is 3.4/10 and the audience average rating is 2.2/5, basically a point higher. For Catwoman (Halle Barry) the ratings are 3.1/10 and 2.2/5. The critics like FF slightly more than Catwoman, and for the audience it's a wash. Still not buying it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that RT critic percentage number just indicating that a huge majority of reviews were on the negative side? And therefore none of them might be saying that it is this god awful movie that it is being made out to be?
You're correct. But, it's average rating is a 3.4 out of 10. It's audience score is 26% and its average audience rating is 2.2 stars out of 5. That's terrible.
As a point of comparison, the much divided Man Of Steel has an average critics score of 6.2 out of 10 and an average audience score of 3.9 out of 5. Although with many many more reviews.
A movie failing to meet expectations (40 million) is bad. A movie failing to meet the adjusted lower expectations (30 million) is DOOM.
Indeed. This could a flop of legendary proportions. I'm sure international will save Fox from losing all hope.
Honestly, if I was Fox I'd just keep on with the program. They want a shared universe with X Men. Keep going for it. Just hire a better director. Isn't Joss available now?
Comments
But perhaps my definition of journalist is a bit stricter than yours.
...in theory, anyway...
Abbreviating a bunch of one-syllable words seems rather silly.
But to get back on point, I weirdly find myself actually becoming more interested in seeing this movie, simply to see if it really is as bad as people are saying. I mean, so many people expect or even want this movie to be terrible, it's to the point I'm not sure I can trust the reviews, if that makes sense. The reviews I've read, and I've read a bunch, seem to be almost as cut and paste as a comic book news site, and I've only read one that offered any real analysis. It's obvious it's not a great film, but is it a 1-star film or a 2.5-star film? I'm kind of curious to find out for myself.
I'm not sure how it fit into the plot, but supposedly it was a highlight with a Michael Caine cameo.
M
Cronenbergian body horror is a valid adjective. He may not have invented the genre but he certainly mastered the "artform". Watch his earlier films and that is the medium he is creating in. Actually watch the majority of his films and you will see body horror done right. His directorial signature is as strong enough to deserve an adjective. Say Spielberg, Hitchcock and Lean to name a few and you can picture what their films look like. Cronenberg is on that list at least in the sense of his identifiable style.
As a point of comparison, the much divided Man Of Steel has an average critics score of 6.2 out of 10 and an average audience score of 3.9 out of 5. Although with many many more reviews.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/08/fantastic-four-marvel-fox-review/400850/
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/07/fantastic-four-josh-trank-tweet?hootPostID=36c4b5673109ad39166250595a6d6a1a
A movie failing to meet expectations (40 million) is bad. A movie failing to meet the adjusted lower expectations (30 million) is DOOM.
Honestly, if I was Fox I'd just keep on with the program. They want a shared universe with X Men. Keep going for it. Just hire a better director. Isn't Joss available now?