by jellydonut25 » Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:20 am
I'm not implying any sort of CONSPIRACY or anything, I'm just saying (based on not having seen the movie by the way), that if you as a reviewer dislike the director due to his personality and actions of late, then if there are elements that sort of toe the line of working and maybe only kinda sorta work or anything that could go either way for you, you're much less likely to give the movie the benefit of the doubt. Like, if any character motivation seems a little out of place, you're much more likely to be think "That's stupidity" than you are to just shrug it off as a minor mistake or even an editing/directorial decision to aid the pace of the film.
So, like take any given movie that's about a 2.5/5 for you...if you don't know the director at all, you're probably pretty likely to call it that 2.5. If you really like the director, like, he's your FAVORITE, you might be inclined to give it a 3. And if you think the director is an idiot, you might lean 2/5.
The movie has a TERRIBLE tomatometer score, but if you actually read the reviews, and the tone, it's a much more "ho-hum" thing than a "THIS IS TERRIBLE!" outrage. I can't tell you how many reviews I've seen say it's got a lot of potential but fumbles in the final act, but it's gotta be about 80% of the reviews I've read.
This is where Rotten Tomatoes becomes a problem....likewise with movies that have a GREAT score, too, honestly...a Rotten Tomatoes score really doesn't mean anything other than the percentage of critics that did/did not like the movie. RT is much more a pass/fail thing than a qualitative grade of the film itself, but people treat it like it's the absolute quality of the movie "How did this movie get a 95%? It's not THAT good! Granted, it's good, but not 95% good!" is a phrase thrown at Rotten Tomatoes ALL. THE. TIME. The thing is, if you give a movie a "good" then you would be counting towards that 95% on RT...you might even be shifting it up towards a 96%.
So, when Fantastic Four gets a 9% (and dropping) score on RT, everyone is eventually gonna see it and go "Hm. It wasn't THAT bad." but if you look at the QUALITATIVE score, it seems like most people are giving it something like a 2/5...which is "bad" but not TERRIBLE.
Pretty much everything I'm reading says that the movie is actually not a bad setup for potential sequels, but everyone is just sick of seeing this origin without it going anywhere. Who knows if sequels will ever happen though?
And as for Fox selling FF back to Disney (which everyone just assumes is on the table because Sony did it with Spider-Man), I VERY much doubt it:
Fox isn't in the creative crisis that Sony was/is.
Fox is in a MUCH less amicable relationship with Disney/Marvel than Sony was/is.
Disney/Marvel doesn't really want FF...they want X-Men.
Disney/Marvel has done something with FF that they weren't willing to do for Spider-Man, namely, cancelling the book.
Fox has teased plans for a crossover with their X-Men franchise.
It's not going back to Disney any time soon.