Is Internet fandom creating a double standart to Modern Blockbuster sequels?

[Sundancer]

Gotta agree with OP. If the internet was out in the 80's, Return of the Jedi would have been blasted for the annoying Ewoks, and Luke and Leia being brother and sister--they had an open mouth kiss in ESB! but when I mention the kiss, it doesn't bother many people who grew up with the movies.

They really think Jar-Jar is the worst thing written?

The Nostalgia Critic touches on this well in his review of Temple of Doom.

I think the internet allows us to be aware of flaws other people have seen that we originally didn't so we become more critical.

 

[Erzengel]

As someone who has blasted the Pirates movies in the past and who grew up on the Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Back to the Future let me add my $0.02.

We do live in a different time than the 80s and everyone with a keyboard an internet connection can post their review of a movie which allows for more differences of opinions than just the standard newspaper/tv show people who would review a film.

Let's also look at how many movies were released back then to now. We had movies that were #1 in the box office not for 3 weeks tops but for months. Return of the Jedi was on top of the box office for 7 weeks. Today we are bombarded by 2-3 releases a week. Not to mention, how many TV channels, video game systems. It is much tougher to have something to leave an impression on someone.

Lord brought up how Empire Strikes Back is better received today and he has a point. I think the darker turn it took probably didn't sit well with people wanting a happy ending and not expecting the twist. However, some people came around on it that didn't maybe appreciate it at first. Can the same be said about Matrix Reloaded or Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest? It's been 10 and 8 years respectively since both, are general opinions and I don't see at least on here too many people changing their minds in the affirmative? I've actually seen the opposite.

I think the other thing we have to take into account is the opposite side of the spectrum. You have many fanboys probably overhyping, overpraising movies.

When Pirates came out, I had posters debating me on how deep and multi layer the movies were. And I was like how? And they really couldn't give me an answer. The other thing was how Pirates was our Star Wars, and I jokingly said, "Wow, I'm so sorry." It's that overzealousness that hurts movies these days especially on the internet. The same can be said about Nolan's Batman Trilogy, however, I think most people will generally agree on the quality of the films regardless of the fanboys who overhype it.

You can look at a film's success based on a bunch of different angles. How much it made, how well reviewed it was, and overall public consensus of a film. If you look at Top 20 movies of all time, you know how movies that aren't necessarily praised that do well.

Star Wars Episode 1 considered by many to be the worst Star Wars film made more than the Original one which is iconic.

Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen is #18 and that was severely panned.

Finally, Pirates: Dead Man's Chest wasn't necessarily praised. It seemed like enough people liked and disliked it. Followed by sequels that most reviewers felt got worse as it goes along.

I'm going to leave the whole, if you enjoy something why do you care what other people think just so we can debate this topic. But to finish up, I think there's a usually consensus about a film that's a mixture of success, general opinion, and lasting power. In other words, creme usually rises to the top.

 

[Steyin]

Is Internet fandom creating a double standard to Modern Blockbuster sequels?

I'd have to say no.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

It seems like it, years ago, when Indiana Jones 2 and 3 came out their reception was relativelly mixed, most of it was in magazines, the same happened with the sequels to Back to the Future. However, many kids grew up with those movies, as they grew up, opinion on these films started to change and they are all relativelly well received today. Places like Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist back in the day, so the scores there are mostly from modern or updated reviews.

The Empire Strikes Back also became much better received today, and even films that are still not considered great like Ghostbusters II have a certain following and rarelly appear in "Worst Sequels" lists.

Now let's go to modern days, the kids that watched those films are now adults, are are themselves more critical, and the films they grew up with inspire them now.

And nowadays you have new franchises, the ones i want to discuss are Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean, you get The Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, neither one of them was exactly hated by critics when they came out, their reception wasn't all that different from the one the Indiana Jones and Back to the Future sequels received.

The difference between then and now is internet, when you have articles on the net constantly listing both on "Worst Sequel" lists or trashing on them it's difficult for different opinions to be easily accepted. Imagine if internet was around for the critics of the 80s, i really doubt that these now classic films would have been so easily accepted, as you would have gotten the critics and adults of the time dictating what is good and what is bad.

It's become popular to talk about double standarts or critics being "wrong", but i honestly don't think they're the problem, i think that it's the general atitude in fandom. I mean, you can say "First film was great, but all the sequels sucked" enough times before it becomes "true", when you get down to it in Indiana Jones and Back to the Future, the first films of each are also usually considered the best, with the other ones being entertaining and enjoyable, not that different from Matrix and PotC, difference being that those don't have 30+ years of nostalgia, and those who grew up with those films will just get shut down when they come to the internet.

This is just something i've been thinking for a while, Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest aren't masterpieces, but i think the fandom in the internet vastly underrates them as movies, and in my opinion, that may not be letting the more positive opinions grow.

I'm not sure if the movies you using as examples are good movies to use. Indiana Jones and Back to the Future both seemed to really change their premise for the second movies. Indy no longer dealt with Nazis and Christian artifacts, but with some crazy cult in India, it also wasn't as much of a grand adventure. With Back to the Future, it went back and forth into the past, present and future, much different from the first which mainly dealt with the past.

However, with Matrix Reloaded and Pirates it felt like the first movie just much bigger. For me, I felt a bit ripped off by the Matrix, the end of the first movie got me really excited because Neo is telling the system how he's going to wake people up, but that "promise" was never delivered on. Pirates just turned into the wacky adventures of Johnny Depp. Both movies also had sequels greenlit and shot back to back and it was mainly just to double dip the box office, neither needed 2 movies to tell the story, they needed two movies to spend the over inflated budget the studio gave them.

 

[Lord]

The thing is that now that the schtick of back-to-back films has become popular, more recent films like Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows and Hobbit 2 don't get as blasted for doing the same, with Harry, the idea of dividing was actually received very positivelly by fandom, while in the Hobbit thread i see constantly excuses for why Smaug wasn't killed and how the climax of that story will now be the beginning of the next film, which i frankly think was a worse division than what Pirates and Matrix did.

Another infamous opinion in the internet is Titanic and Avatar, both greatly apreciated by the general public, but came out in the right time to be blasted by the Internet, due to that the opinion around the net is still very mixed, when they're not worse than many of the past cinematic phenomenons.

As i stated before, you can state as many time that a film or sequel is the "worst thing" or "unecessary sequels" until it becomes "true". As for Pirates 2, i found it quite different from the first film, with the Kraken and Davy Jones making them very distinct films.

 

[Erzengel]

It's because Harry Potter movies with differences from their books are considered good movies.

I feel Hobbit is different because it feels like a studios attempt to make something that could have been one movie or at least two at most into 3.

In regards to Titanic and Avatar, you can use the Empire Strikes Back scenario, underappreciated movie gets appreciated while you can say overappreciated movies get humbled a bit. Or the fact that $$$ doesn't equal quality lasting power. Let's look at the Transformers movies over $1 billion domestically yet are critically panned with the exception of the first one getting mixed reviews. But because of all the money they made, does it make it good?

In the end I don't think anyone is saying Matrix or Pirates are not popular or even not successful, just the quality of the sequels is easily debatable. I think most people can dislike movies but understand quality. See TDK. Personally I don't like Woody Allen movies but I see how brilliant some of them are.

Pirates while making a lot of money are just not seen in the same level as some of the better trilogies. And there are trilogies that have come out around the same time as Pirates and Matrix in the time of the internet that are considered quality trilogies and aren't typically ripped apart on the internet. Borne, Toy Story, Oceans.

 

[Lord]

I know about enjoyment and quality being different things, but i think that much of the internet is putting some bad double standards on modern blockbuster films, Avatar for example, didn't even rip off as much as Star Wars did, yet it's hated for that due to more information being more easily accessible and 30 years of it being considered great. Titanic is similar, people on the net pick it apart when it's a very strong blockbuster.

I mainly talked about Matrix and Pirates because just like Indiana Jones and Back to the Future, the first films are actually the ones that are better received, yet, the older franchises get a pass due to the fandom having grown with them, back then kids didn't have to worry about posting their love of that in the internet, only to get shut down by multiple posts of older people who didn't think the same.

And Ocean's Trilogy is considered of quality? I see many mentioning Ocean's 12 as one of the worst sequels there.

 

[Erzengel]

Every trilogy is going to have a weak or weaker link.

If you want to question Temple of Doom or Back to the Future 2 that's debatable. Last Crusade and Back to the Future 3 are seen as good films.

Ocean's was better reviewed than most other trilogies. Ocean's 12 is considered the weak link. But I think overall it's seen as a solid trilogy. I can think of worst sequels just in the comic book movies than Ocean's 12.

While I do agree that the internet has given any idiot with a computer a voice, maybe Pirates and Matrix would have been received better or not ripped apart if they had at least two solid movies instead of just the 1st one being good. If Matrix Revolutions and At World's End were actually decent and not bloated, forced or lazy or bad storytelling, people would be able to overlook their "Ocean's 12" second movie.

That seems more like a viable explanation than the "internet" hates Pirates and Matrix sequels.

 

[Lord]

Back to the Future 3 isn't seen all that great either? It's almost on par with the 2nd film, and nowadays is even considered the weak link, with Back to the Future only the 1nd is commonly known as good, when the sequels came out they were received like Batrix Reloaded/ Revolutions and Pirates 2/ 3

 

[Erzengel]

Really?

You don't have to go that far online to find polls, Top Trilogies of all time pages to see BttF up there. I seen it as high as 3 on some lists.

It does seem that if Matrix had a better 3rd movie it would have brought up the 2nd movie instead of the other way around.

You also have movies like Pirates and Matrix with much bigger budgets and better technology then some of the older movies. So if you're going to keep bringing up, well if Indiana Jones or BttF came out today, they'd be panned. They might have actually been better with today's technologies. Who knows.

There was a poster years ago who thought if Pirates came out in 1977, it'd have the effect that Star Wars did.

But Indy and BttF came out at different times, and if you look at rotten tomatoes, their scores are still pretty fresh even for the weaker sequels.

Unfortunately, Pirates and Matrix aren't although more so for Pirates. I feel Matrix gets rated higher due to the quality of the first one.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I think many movies get trashed needlessly these days. They aren't the best movies ever but neither are they the worst, but they are thought of as closer to the worst.

For an example I enjoyed Man of Steel,. It ran a bit too long and there was action fatigue in the third act but other than that I thought it was a solid movie. But it is hated on the internet and the sequel just as much (even though it's not even made yet).

 

[Erzengel]

There's always going to be haters of every single thing in every single medium.

But I think there's usually a general consensus about most things. It's when you get things that's almost love it or hate it category. Man of Steel got mixed reviews, I liked it but I think you're usually going to find as many supporters as well as detractors.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I suppose detractors are more vocal perhaps