Avatar, Transformers 2, Rush Hour 3, Spider-Man 3, Pirates 4, Phantom Menace, Crystal Skull, Grown Ups... and yes, Iron Man 3 and Thor 2. All sh!tty movies that made a lot of money and were considered a success based on how much money they made.
While I agree with some on your list (Transformers 2, Rush Hour 3, Spider-Man 3, Phantom Menace, Crystal Skull, Grown Ups), I can't agree that Avatar, IM3 and Thor 2 are "sh!tty" movies.
Avatar, although it had a thin plot pretty much lifted from "Dances with Wolves", had gorgeous scenery (can I still call it that when it's mostly CGI?) and characters that were fairly engaging. And I might have been willing to watch it again just for the incredible technical aspects of the film. So, not a "sh!tty" film.
IM3 wasn't a brilliant film, but it wasn't bad. You just have your nose out of joint because of Trevor-the-faux-Mandarin. There are actually people who appreciated the twist and its subversion of both fan expectations and of Western prejudices. The villains were a bit generic and meh (a problem with a number of Marvel films, though not exclusive to Marvel), but overall it was a competently-made film that happened to do very well with general (non-fan) audiences and critics.
Thor: The Dark World was not exactly a brilliant film either - I think it really needed tighter editing - but it was relatively well-made, had a straightforward story told in a competent fashion, and it got relatively decent reviews from both critics and audiences.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was frustrating, in the same way that Van Helsing was frustrating: there were the bones of a good story in there somewhere, but the studios ignored them to go haring off in the wrong direction. What I really wanted out of PotC4 was to see the story of the priest and the mermaid, mostly because I'm tired of watching Johnny Depp overact his way through increasingly convoluted plots that advance the characters not at all. I'd have seriously been far happier if Disney had NOT done straight sequels, and instead opted for all-new (pirate) characters for each film or something... So, maybe PotC4 was sh!tty, but it could have been a decent film if not for Disney's desire to service the franchise...
reply
share
tedkord1
8 years ago
Hey, man, that's just like, you're opinion. And that's cool. I'm glad you liked them. I did not. It seems like most people did not like them but a lot of people did. And that's cool.
But I will say I think the reason I think they were bad movies isn't because of the faux-mandarin (although that is a huge reason) it's because they were a step back from previous films. If those were the first in the series they would have been better received. The mandarin thing still would have pissed off a bunch of people - it would have been like if in the very first batman movie ever the Joker was a drunken failed accountant who was paid to dress up like a clown to create a diversion while some other no name guy was pulling the real heist.
People loved Iron Man 1 - I personally dislike origin stories, I think they're slow moving and boring, but I understand why they exist and I can live with them. I actually liked Iron Man 1 quite a bit the first time I saw it. It's not the kind of movie I can watch over and over again but they did a good job.
I'm definitely in the minority but I preferred IM2. No origin. More action. I liked it a lot. They kind of shirked the demon in a bottle story line but overall it was good. A nice step up.
IM 3 was a big step back. The villain was some guy he was a dick to in an elevator one time. It was more of a spy movie (specifically their intention - even the end credits, seemed like a different movie entirely). Pepper saved the day. Stark blew up all his suits but then had more in other movies. They phased Pepper out of the movies almost entirely. There was the whole middle sub plot about a poor kid. There was way more Tony Stark than Iron Man. It just wasn't very good. It was a sharp turn away from where Iron Man and the mcu was headed. They knew where they were going - doctor strange, guardians, thor had been out and was fairly "magical" - this whooooole thing is leading up to the Infinity Wars - how could they not have mandarin in this movie and have him have at least 1 infinity stone? Maybe not a full strength Mandarin - he's searching for his stones, building power, maybe he has other alien tech, etc. I don't know. But then to hype up the movie and show Mandarin over and over like the scariest man to ever exist. This ultra terrorist who puts the joker to shame (he was genuinely scary before the big reveal) and then have him running around comically sounding like Ringo Starr.... that was pitiful. It didn't add anything to the mcu (and it could have) and it just didn't feel like an Iron Man movie. Come on, they retconned the mandarin thing almost immediately in a dvd bonus feature! And the events of this movie have all been forgotten. They literally ripped the heart out of Iron Man in this movie. It was bad. If you disagree and you like it that's cool. I see it as a big step back and because of that think it was a bad movie.
Thor wasn't as insulting so this won't be as long. It was just dull. I don't even remember who the villain was. It didn't add anything to the mcu. The only thing it "added" was Loki's take over at the end and we're still left hanging as to where that's going. But again the first movie was SO much better! Again, I don't like origin stories, but I enjoyed Thor 1 the first time I saw it. Branagh did a great job directing. Asgard was memorable as were all the characters. The film introduced Thor, Loki, and even Hawkeye. What happened in Thor 2? There were teleporting elves and some black stuff? I don't even remember. I feel that if a movie is a step back - if it doesn't live up to preceding films, i doesn't necessarily have to be better (but it should be), but it has to at least be as good as films to come before it. If it doesn't then what's the point? Anyone could have made a worse thor movie. I could have made a truly terrible thor movie. Much worse than the first. I'm sure you could have too. But why?
I don't really have anything to say about pirates. Again, it just wasn't as good as other films to come before it so why bother? I'm sick of Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp. I think the only time he actually acted well was in 21 Jump Street. I could watch that and not see Johnny Depp; I'd see Tom Hansen. I'm not seeing a goofy quirky guy playing a goofy quirky character with a goofy quirky accent. Depp is super overrated but this movie was unnecessary. Another step back.
I didn't like any of them. Nobody's really going to change my mind on it. I'm not trying to change yours. Just a difference of opinion. You liked them. That's awesome. More movies for you to like is always a good thing.
reply
share
grrzelda
8 years ago
Nobody said you had to *like* any of these films (IM3, Thor2), but they really would have to be a lot worse to qualify as bad films. Just as it's OK to like bad films, it's OK to NOT like a film that is not-bad.
Your complaints about IM3 are essentially comics fan complaints - the Mandarin twist, too much Tony Stark and too little Iron Man, etc. It was more a character exploration with some spy thriller thrown in, but it did what it was aiming for fairly well. (They really needed to develop Tony Stark's character to make Age Of Ultron and Civil War make sense.) Critical rating on RT for IM3 is 79% and 7/10, while audience ratings were 79% and 4/5, so clearly the more general movie fans thought it was a good film.
(FWIW, I didn't see "All Hail the King" as a retcon, but as a reassurance from Marvel Studios that the real Mandarin was still out there and fair game for future films... if they can find a way to present him as something other than a blatant xenophobic stereotype, I say go for it.)
The Dark World introduced and gave us a glimpse of the nine realms, shook up Asgard and put a disguised Loki on the throne (still not sure if Odin is gone or just trapped somewhere) thereby setting up Ragnarok, and brought an Infinity Stone into play (and introduced the concept to anyone who wasn't a comics reader), and allowed Marvel to set up The Collector and by extension GotG in the mid-credits scene. Granted, the Svartalf were uninspired, but again, that's a weakness in a lot of blockbusters.
I'm sick of Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp.
Me too, though I'm not sure it's even Johnny Depp that he's playing - it's more a caricature than a character. I've sworn off any and all Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaborations in the future, since it's always the same damn caricature he's playing.
Again, I'm not trying to change your mind about what you enjoy or don't - if I could do that, I'd make a pile of cash in Marketing! - but you shouldn't call a film bad just because you personally didn't like it. I think we can agree that our tastes are different, and it's no biggie - de gustibus non est disputandum!
reply
share
wingnut9
8 years ago
People that enjoyed this mess of a movie are few and far between and have an IQ lower than their shoe size. You can't just label that as "taste" and move on.
reply
share
grrzelda
8 years ago
Well, since you're never going to change their minds no matter how you rail and argue, I sometimes find it less taxing to roll my eyes at the inexplicable taste of some people and move along.
reply
share
mh-newressistance
8 years ago
IM3 wasn't a brilliant film, but it wasn't bad. You just have your nose out of joint because of Trevor-the-faux-Mandarin.
He did not specify what are his gripes against the movie are. So why are you trying to determine what he didn't like about movie? Isn't that ignorant to decide for others what is their opinion? You said it yourself, "IM3 wasn't a brilliant film". So I guess it's safe to say that people would have other complaints about the movie that are not related to the butchering of the Mandarin.
For all these three years that Iron Man 3 has been considered to be a giant piece of shіt, the Mandarin thing has never been the only gripe that people had with the film. Heck, I think people had more problem with the fact that Tony Stark acts like an idiot in the film. Or that his suits are crap and they can't function proper. Or overabundance of humor that ruins the tone.
Thor: The Dark World was not exactly a brilliant film either
It was a piece of shіt. Let's end with that.
but it was relatively well-made
God no.
had a straightforward story told in a competent fashion
https://youtu.be/NIgfiSzCy1oand it got relatively decent reviews from both critics and audiences.
It has like 40% on RT from Top Critics.
reply
share