vectorA3 wrote: cotss never said that the movies were hated by a "majority". .
Actually he did. IN another thread, then tried to post up link from roten tomatoes, only prove that the majority of the general audience did in fact aprove of all three TF movies.
vectorA3 wrote:5150 - if all of the first movie actors have left, save for Tatum, and there's a new director who is just known for "Never say never" justin bieber --then I don't have high hopes. Couple this with the fact that a crew member already died on set when a lift collapsed - not lookin good. I love G.I. Joe too, so what a shame..
Ya, while i'll hold off final judgment intill i see something, this doesn't look good. Thing is i had such hi hpes for the first movie. And while it wasn't a bad movie, it just didn't feel like a G.I. Joe movie to me.
vectorA3 wrote:Star trek will be good if Abrams is steering the ship. Have higher hopes for it. ..
As do I. I think he did a great job with the first movie. NO matter what the Trekkies say.
vectorA3 wrote:If contracts were in place for TF -then why weren't the movies made as a trilogy, stories linked?? Seems to me that the studio only greenlit TF2 after they saw the opening box office for TF1 - didn't have a trilogy in mind per se. It is what it is. Imho, the first film was the best overall, then DOTM, then ROTF.
Well contracts are for less for the actors and those invloved in the movie to keep them obligated in the event the studio decides to green light a sequel of any kind. Your right. TF2 was only green lite as a result of TF1's succsess. BUt one of the reasons they were able to get things moving as quickly as they were was because many were already on board. BUt if the movie doesn't do well, then the actors and production teams part ways. Perfect example was the movie "Doom".
All the actors signed on to do a second, if the first did well enough to warrant a second movie. The movie was a completel and utter disaster, there fore a second movie was never even concidered.
vectorA3 wrote:With that being said, just because a movie grosses obscene amounts of money doesn't mean its a great high quality movie.
Thing is were not aurgueing that point.
1.- The aurgument is that a movie doesn't make large profits like the TF movie have, and people not enjoy what they saw. People went to see the movies (multiple times) , passed the word on to there friends, they saw it and so forth.
2.- What is "good" is going to be completely subjective. While you may not like Alice in Wonderland, (I'm not much of a fan of it either) someone else might think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. BUt based on the box office results
it saeems that most approved of what they saw.