MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
They've been trying a variation of this argument for years to deny the film ITSELF is flawed when it tanks at the box office.
For example, when Men of Steel underperformed a decade ago and immediately plummeted in ticket sales after the first two weeks (due to bad word of mouth), the Snyderites defending how "good" the movie was tried to come up with another scapegoat: it wasn't the MOVIE'S fault, it was merely "Superman fatigue" in general. "Gosh darn, guess the public just isn't interested in the CHARACTER of Superman anymore", they'd bemoan, trying to explain why the film quickly fell off the radar, while Superman the Movie was #1 at the box office for THIRTEEN straight weeks in a row back in 1978.
The reality is that if Zack Snyder had given us a GOOD Superman movie, it would have dominated the box office just like the 1978 film did, and broke records. Similar things happened during so-called "superhero fatigue" when Batman, Spider-Man and Avengers movies shattered box office records in the past decade, and each grossed over a billion dollars. People wanted to see a Superman movie in theaters, but they didn't want to see THAT Superman movie in theaters!
Similar spin when Alex Kurtzman's "Mummy" remake bombed at the box office: It was "Tom Cruise's fault" the movie crashed and burned. Tom Cruise turned away audiences in droves (nevermind the fact that OTHER Tom Cruise movies made during the SAME TIME PERIOD were huge hits). It couldn't possibly be that the movie ITSELF sucked!
I would have been first in line to see a REAL Mad Max movie at the cinemas. This movie ain't it!
>> Because of Deadpool's track record, that's become the film many are choosing to see in 2024. <<
And what about Mad Max's track record? People keep swearing up and down about how mind-boggling awesome Fury Road was, and one of the best action flicks ever made, blah blah blah. Shouldn't IT'S "track record" get people to flock to see "another installment" in THE SAGA? That's what George Miller certainly hoped when he subtitled this trash "A Mad Max Saga" hoping in the vain the words "Mad Max" would convince gullible people to buy tickets for it...
Joanne Samuel... Virginia Hey... Tina Turner... plenty of room for the LADIES in the Mad Max universe!
I actually LIKE Anya Taylor-Joy and Charlize Theron as actresses, they have been in plenty of GOOD movies. Shame they were given the "starring" role in Faux Max movies. Imagine in Anya Taylor-Joy had the "Starring" role" in PEACH: A Mario Bros. Saga where Mario himself had a 5 second non-speaking background cameo. Or imagine if Chalize Theron was in a film called "Fast 10: Furious Road", but they dumped Vin Diesel from the franchise and had the "Dominic Toretto" character played by Jim Parsons instead! Those films would have rightfully FLOPPED just like the Faux Max we're getting now.
In another universe, both ladies could have had some decent supporting roles in a REAL Mad Max movie with MEL GIBSON!
The propaganda is in full swing. They're trying HARD to convince us how "good" this movie is and how we should ignore the awful box office numbers and check it out for ourselves because we MUST be able to experience its "epicness" on the big screen.
I'm reminded when The Flash immediately crashed and burned at the box office, and try tried a round-the-clock propaganda campaign to convince us how "good" it was and how we MUST see Michael Keaton back in action as the caped crusader. Not one word about Ezra Miller, even though he was the freakin' TITLE character:
https://www.reddit.com/r/comicbookmovies/comments/148iq5p/the_flash_breaks_records_with_98_audience_score/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/05/23/deadpool-and-wolverine-has-set-an-all-time-pre-sales-ticket-record/?sh=4fc4ba615e24
"Fandango is reporting the R-rated record, which is obviously the best for the Deadpool franchise, and it’s also the best of 2024 in total. AMC reports 200,000 sales and estimates are $8-9 million from that even two months ahead of launch here. The previous two Deadpool movies did huge numbers with $132 and $126 million, the biggest R-rated openers at the time. Now, Deadpool and Wolverine seems poised to blow by that."
I'm betting the studios putting out awful films and punting the blame with "gosh, its not our fault, nobody is seeing movies in theaters anymore" will be strangely silent when Deadpool & Wolverine is SOLD OUT to packed theater rooms in a few months. It's ALREADY making huge $$$ on pre-release sales. People want to see it IN THEATERS, not "wait a few weeks to stream it at home". Funny how that works when they give audiences a product they WANT...
>> waaaaay better than Dune 2. <<
Dune 2 is a freakin' masterpiece, and the second installment in what will be a LEGENDARY trilogy decades from now. It is the Godfather II of the modern age. Flopiosa is not fit to shine its shoes! Smack yourself for that heresy!
>> Not as good as Fury Road, though, but i really recommend supporting this one. <<
This Flopiosa film is a spinoff/loose prequel to a reboot/loose sequel that had NONE of the original cast. Therefore its in the same category as pathetic direct-to-video schlock like "The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior" and "American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile"
>> Streaming has murdered the cinemas, the same way it killed the record store. <<
Yeah...yeah...yeah... this is actually an old argument being recycled from over FORTY years ago, where the Hollywood studios were screaming bloody murder at VCRs becoming a commonplace item in every household, and predicting it would very quickly KILL cinemas if it were allowed to continue. Why would people BOTHER to drive all the way to a theater anymore, when they could NOW very easily see the film in the convenience of their OWN home, literally ANY time they wanted to. It's KILLING theaters! Just look at the terrible box office numbers for Jaws 3, having to compete with VHS, compared to the HUGE numbers that Jaws 1 grossed during the pre-VHS era! It's OBVIOUSLY the fault of VCRs! It can't POSSIBLY be because Jaws 3 sucks!
"'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage".
Studio shills pointing the finger at everyone else and REFUSING to accept responsibility when THEY put out an inferior product is part of the reason why stuff like this fails, regardless of how many "good" reviews it gets.
Remember, The Flash had absolutely glowing reviews on opening weekend, too.
We are tired of the one-sided propaganda.
Sorta. I suggested better subtitles for this turkey, like "A Mad Maxless Saga" and "A Faux Max Saga"
Hollywood has apparently learned their "Mad Max movies don't need Mad Max anymore" talking point was wrong. What's next, a James Bond movie with no James Bond in it?
George Miller seems to have gone to the dark side. it's like he read up about Russell T Davies ruining his OWN legacy by destroying Doctor Who, James Cameron ruining his OWN legacy by destroying the Terminator franchise, and George Lucas & Steven Spielberg ruining their OWN legacy by destroying Indiana Jones.
Miller quipped, "Man, I gotta disgrace my Hollywood career like that! How can I make the Mad Max franchise SUCK?"
There was a Razzie Award about a decade ago called "Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie (All Concept, No Content)"
They definitely need to revive that category for this year's Razzie Awards, and name the Memorial Day flops (Faux Max & CGI Garfield) as joint "winners".
Well, I can't speak for "everyone", but I know for a fact that *I* was determined to hate this film the moment it was announced. I am delighted to see that Faux Max is flopping. I have been vindicated now! I tried to warn 'em....
I will admit that a lot of people who hate Faux Max are Johnny-come-lately types. It's odd, most of the reasons they cite for disliking THIS movie (Chalize Theron not being asked back to return and being replaced with non-look-alike Anya Taylor Joy, who is in no way believable as the same character, and film uses the words "Mad Max" in the title for marketing purposes but is REALLY about this useless 'Furiosa' character) are EQUALLY true of the LAST movie (Mel Gibson not being asked back to return and being replaced with non-look-alike Tom Hardy, who is in no way believable as the same character, and film uses the words "Mad Max" in the title for marketing purposes but is REALLY about this useless 'Furiosa' character)
In any case, I'm glad to see them join the bandwagon, even if it took them nine years to "get it" and realize the Mad Max universe is dead. Better late than never!
>> with a 'no girls allowed' sign <<
Last time I checked, Joanne Samuel and Tina Turner are girls, and they can most definitely stay in the arena and play with the big boys! They were in REAL Mad Max movies!
However, the WEAK sisters gotta go!
>> THAT MADE ME SAD...YOU ARE SAD. <<
Your comment seems to be aimed at George Miller, but he doesn't post on this board. I'll relay your message to him. Most fans certainly agree with your take on his career lately.
>> Pathetic loser triggered by reality! <<
Mad Max 1 cost only $350,000 to make, yet it grossed over $100+ million
Flopiosa: A Faux Max Saga COST $168 million to make, and hasn't even grossed $68 million yet, so its $100 million BEHIND breaking even.
Sounds YOU are the pathetic loser triggered by the reality.
The weak sisters GOTTA go! Five films enter, THREE films leave!
Dominion getting absolutely scathing reviews when it was BY FAR the best Jurassic Park sequel was indeed bizarre, but stranger things have happened.... the now iconic cult classic The Chronicles of Riddick has an absolutely terrible 29% "Certified Rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes, the now beloved Christmas classic It's a Wonderful Life completely flopped at the box office in 1946 and got "meh" reviews, and the Stanley Kubrick masterpiece horror film The Shining was ridiculed when it was first released in 1980 and even got nominated for some Razzie Awards.
I agree with you on Jurassic Park 2 & 3 being so lame that it completely turned me off from future sequels, and I was skeptical that Jurassic World (made decades later when Michael Crichton was long dead) would be anything but a soulless cash crab. I refused to see it in theaters, FINALLY watched it a year later on video out of morbid curiosity to see if it was actually watchable, and I was surprised that the flick was actually better done than any of the original sequels. So, of course, I decided to check out the sequels to THOSE films. Both were decent, and Dominion was FREAKIN' AWESOME and the kind of Jurassic Park sequel we SHOULD have gotten in '97. They actually managed to come up with the kind of story Michael Crichton WOULD have done IF he was alive (not sure if that was intentional or not, but either, way, they NAILED it), and they managed to get both the original cast AND the new cast from Jurassic World integrated into the story TOGETHER in a way that felt organic and NOT forced. Again... freakin' EPIC.
George Miller has lost his touch, just like a lot of great 80s filmmakers like John Carpenter, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, etc. He should sit down and watch kick ass flicks like Rise of the Planet of the Apes and Jurassic World Dominion to learn how to do a PROPER new installment of an iconic franchise that was popular decades earlier.
>> Cobra Kai was really embarrassing. <<
Cobra Kai has been a huge hit that lasted six seasons and has spawned a NEW upcoming Karate Kid movie with Ralph Macchio and Jackie Chan (from the less successful remake). Your argument is invalid.
>> Creed was fine but you forgot how the previous balboa flick was pretty lame. <<
Rocky Balboa was ALSO very successful and 10X better received than the failed Rocky V, which everyone had assumed killed the franchise in '89. From Wikipedia: "Rocky Balboa exceeded studio expectations grossing over three times the opening night estimates of (at best) $2,000,000 and doing so despite a harsh spell of winter weather." More time passed between Rocky V and Rocky Balboa than between the original film and Rocky V, but Stallone STILL pulled it off anyway. Again, your argument is invalid.
>> the ratio is closer to a 1 out of 5 being okay. <<
Only in your own mind. With both professional critics AND the general public, the ratio is more like 50-50. It would be like claiming "only 1 out of 5 Planet of the Apes movies are successful" and "only 1 out of 5 Star Trek movies get good reviews", when in reality about half of them have been popular and successful.
Too bad. "Cubby" Broccoli was the producer of the James Bond film series since the very beginning in 1962. 20 years later, in 1983, he had ZERO interest in bringing back Sean Connery to play Bond again after a hiatus of 12 years. He had moved on long ago with Roger Moore as the "current" face of Bond.
So Kevin McClory and Irvin Kershner got the legal rights to make a Bond movie, simply went around him, and did it anyway.
And THEIR Bond movie ended up making more money!
I would LOVE to see the look on George Miller's face if an "unofficial" Mad Max movie STARRING Mel kicked Furiosa's butt at the box office!