So expendables sucks in comparison to Rodriguez's 2nd movie this year(after predators), because Machete does everything else better than the expendables, I can live with that
Machete vs. The Expendables
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hmm, I guess warning of spoliers in reviews is fine, general opinion a movie should be said before them though. But this article kinda bugs the hell out of me, every other time I don't read them cause it says there's spoilers...wouldn't it be good to write the article but publish it a week later?
We usually get movies rather late in cinemas in my country (unless there's a world wide premiere or similar), so it wouldn't help me much, but at least in USA, people usually don't get to see a movie right away, am I right to assume that? Why not move the articles that are connected to a movie a week later for example. After all, it is my understanding that reviews are basically recommendations (or warnings) before you see the film, but articles are more discussion based and pressume you saw it already.
We usually get movies rather late in cinemas in my country (unless there's a world wide premiere or similar), so it wouldn't help me much, but at least in USA, people usually don't get to see a movie right away, am I right to assume that? Why not move the articles that are connected to a movie a week later for example. After all, it is my understanding that reviews are basically recommendations (or warnings) before you see the film, but articles are more discussion based and pressume you saw it already.
I know The Expendables was bad, but I enjoyed nonetheless. At least it was better than Predators...
In case no one had noticed, "the world" wasn't too fond of The Expendables either.DiscoAtThePanic said:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/
And no, I am not trying to say, "Moar ppl agree with me there4 i m rite!"
I'm just saying, Bob is not the only one in the fucking world that hated The Expendables.
Too bad that was not my point. My point was that Bob is never going to be able to come on here and get the last word on the subject because the readers will always post a response. He cannot force peopel to agree with him and there will always be more than one person here willing to argue with him.reiem531 said:
Wait, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the whole world? Someone should tell them!Sicamat said:Quite the opposite, the movie made $177,228,000 worldwide, so yeah, the world was fond of the Expendables.reiem531 said:
Scott Pilgrim? Not so much.
You have to admit, though, Scott Pilgrim was a good action comedy. And widely beloved movies like Office Space and Fight Club did poorly in the box office, too. I hope it makes up for it on DVD and Blu-Ray, it deserves it.DiscoAtThePanic said:Wait, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the whole world? Someone should tell them!Sicamat said:Quite the opposite, the movie made $177,228,000 worldwide, so yeah, the world was fond of the Expendables.reiem531 said:
Scott Pilgrim? Not so much.
In contrast, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace made megabucks. Like The Expendables, it did so by riding a tsunami of popular hype. Surely, if the box office is a reliable measure of quality, then Episode I must be at least three times better The Expendables.
I think he's avoiding explaining why because he did say why.DiscoAtThePanic said:
It's... not that tough. I'm actually quite confused each time I see someone posting "Explain to us why you didn't like the expendables instead of attacking us!"
Because... Quite honestly, if you can get over the fact that he's attacking the fans, why he didn't like the movie is pretty clear, especially now after this article and his triad of revies of Machete, Scott Pilgrim and The Expendables.
Also, the whole deal about telling people they're wrong? Sometimes, sometimes (let me stress this again. Sometimes.) it's a good idea. In this day and age of information where the idea that all opinions are right being reinforced despite it's many flaws and it's troubles it brings us as a society and in politics... It wouldn't be bad to drive people into the proper path, even if we gotta do it with a freaking hammer to their heads.
People aren't always fully aware of what's best for them, or of the consequences of their actions. Not many people see beyond their immediate profit, and even then, some misjudge exactly what is a profit for them. Now, ignorance is bliss, but even in ignorance you can suffer and many people suffer ignorantly (See the US. If you don't know what I'm talking about... well. Um... don't bother replying or reading my post?).
Of course, there are certain compromises to values and ideals going on at work here. It's like the fine line between dictatorship and democracy... Actually, it's finding a third path. One were the ideals of democracy are upheld, but with a dictatorial touch of sort, where the ones qualified for the tasks would be counted in. (of course, I think my ideas here are moving more towards politics here then personal opinions, but can still be applied on various subjects. Though the answer, as always, tends to be, educate the masses and they will grow and learn, to which case, they will then become fitting for what was stated prior to this little add-on.)
PS. It's 2:15AM, anyone else here mentally tired yet for some reason can't seem to fall asleep?
I have the odd feeling that if you ask a lot of people, you're going to get a lot of positive "Yes, it was"...Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:You have to admit, though, Scott Pilgrim was a good action comedy. And widely beloved movies like Office Space and Fight Club did poorly in the box office, too. I hope it makes up for it on DVD and Blu-Ray, it deserves it.DiscoAtThePanic said:Wait, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the whole world? Someone should tell them!Sicamat said:Quite the opposite, the movie made $177,228,000 worldwide, so yeah, the world was fond of the Expendables.reiem531 said:
Scott Pilgrim? Not so much.
In contrast, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace made megabucks. Like The Expendables, it did so by riding a tsunami of popular hype. Surely, if the box office is a reliable measure of quality, then Episode I must be at least three times better The Expendables.
But, you can't forget the hold recent impressions holds. After all, many people often temporarily discard their old-time favorites for the passion-du-jour.
This. But to be fair, he was right about the Expendables, just like he was right about the sparkly vampire movies (which I saw no one defend when he panned it). Hell, all of the complainers I categorize as part of Team Retard from Yahtzee's Mailbag Showdown. No offense.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Why does it matter to you about how many times Movie Bob talks about The Expendables film? If you do not like that he talks about it so much than don't read what he writes about it. Just because he has talked about The Expendables three times does not mean you can insult him.heamrh said:
Whether he was right or not on Expendables is irrelevant when understanding why all of the "Mailbag Showdown" -- as you call it -- occurred. Yahtzee was not fond of the game itself, and people went on the offensive for not liking the game. Most of the comments that I have found on the "MB vs Expendables" subject are NOT referring to him having an unfavorable opinion of Expendables, but instead are for insulting the audience and not properly reviewing in his normal style.romxxii said:
I hold the opinion that MB has done his job proper with this article. And I think that your analogy, that people that complained about Yahtzee hating SSBB and those that were responding to a vitriolic hate of an audience are equal, is invalid.
In short, I believe that you are a part of the Team Retard for responding to a thread you know nothing about. No offense.
I wanna know what the Hell Bob's problem is with Steven Segal and Dolph Lundren? I liked both movies, however I think Machete was one of he best movies of the year. I think The Expendables wasnt supposed to have much depth. Now I will say reducing Jet Li to a bit part...when he can take apart these guys without blinking...is absurd.
But still Steven Segal and Dolph lundren are badass i'd lke to see them in more movies.
But still Steven Segal and Dolph lundren are badass i'd lke to see them in more movies.
Question, why did so many people give a shit when MovieBob blasted the Expendables and ridiculed those who saw it, yet when he did the almost EXACT thing for Transformers 2, no one said a word.
You know, Expendables is the kind of movie you'll forget about as time passes. The real difference between it and Machete is that Machete will be the movie that you talk about 6 months from now.
You know, Expendables is the kind of movie you'll forget about as time passes. The real difference between it and Machete is that Machete will be the movie that you talk about 6 months from now.
Big names in The Expendables, no pre-set status (Transformers already had a wide fanbase to which they'd be adamant to the story or subject, etc. So there were expectations to be had), Transformers was a romance movie first before an action movie due to the protagonist libido, clear inconsistencies between Transformers 1 and 2 were present as well (so it was a sequel as opposed to being the first original, which gives you more leeway as expectations aren't as high).VanityGirl said:
Both are guilty pleasures, but the Expendables has more going for it, so there's less to annoy the fanbase and more to protect.
Personally, I'd think this movie would've probably been less irritable if it had maybe half the amount of star members featured. Too many big stars on screen and you end up having to share those 2 hours through all that many more people, which leaves little time for exposition or for kickassery per cast member.
Actually, if they'd stick to just two or three star members, they'd still have been able to kick a whole lots of wholesome ass and do it far more righteously.
Nah people are idiots because they went to see a mediocre action flick over an awesome action flick solely because Michael Cera was in the latter. Everyone knows that Kieran Culkin's performance is reason enough to see Scott Pilgrim.Irridium said:
When you say everybody, did you really look through all of the posts for the Expendables? Your analogy is still terrible because as I said before most were offended at his stereotyping, and not because he hated the film. Unfortunately, if you would've done any research you would've known that the Eclipse review is entirely different than the Expendables. Expendables starts off by mentioning what it earned in the box office, and not talking about the film itself. Eclipse did not have him cursing out the audience saying it was "sheep" this or "just when you thought the human race couldn't prove itself any more f*cking worthless." He measured the film's worth based off of his affection for another. Do you believe the review would've been different had something else reached #1 in the box office? I do. That is what I mean by a review not done in his usual style. Typically his reviews are very thorough and are only on the movie in focus, and it never mattered what reached #1 at the box office. And as you can see, it's not a defense but reality.romxxii said:
The reason that the sheep comment bothers people is that it seems he wants to become a shepherd. His problem isn't that there are sheep, it's that they aren't being led in the direction he desires. Brainless entertainment is one thing, but trying to tell people you know what's best for them is a tad presumptuous.
Lastly, calling me retarded outright with full offense intended shows your character. I was only doing so in a tongue-in-cheek fashion in the same way you implied. Just because someone disagrees with you, and can prove your points invalid, shouldn't result in name-calling. Your lack of civility is proof enough that you have no class or substantial evidence to back your claims. Please stop antagonizing me if you have no credibility. Thank you, and good day.