[ SECRET POST #3231 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3231 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ninety6tears]

I have a lot of issues with that movie now, but it was genuinely fun as fuck and actually hit the Star Trek mark closer than I expected it to. Also, Star Trek is not the mainstream cultural behemoth that Star Wars is; most critics had an average knowledge probably gleaned from the movies which as much as you can't get Trek fans to admit it have almost always had more fast-paced and less philosophical plots than the series. Critics in general don't take action blockbusters that seriously as anything other than the weak compliment of "Take your kids and they'll be happy" and I find the idea that they would go easy on an Avengers movie "just for being an Avengers movie" a little out of touch with the difference between fan reaction and critical reception.

[(Anonymous)]

>the difference between fan reaction and critical reception

Except Phantom Menace is 57% and 60% respectively, which is very very close.

And, you can't at once argue that fan reactions to Phantom not being OT colored the critic reviews, while at the same time saying fan reactions to Trek or Avengers wouldn't color the reviews. It's either both or neither.

As someone who isn't a fan of the Star Wars OT - they were decent movies but I'm not a fan - who didn't like the prequels, this thread is making me think the prequel defenders are way too defensive about how bad the overall movie was for the majority of people who are not Star Wars fans nor OT fanatics. Because we exist too, and a lot of us didn't care for the movies standing alone.

[(Anonymous)]

"this thread is making me think the prequel defenders are way too defensive about how bad the overall movie was for the majority of people who are not Star Wars fans nor OT fanatics"

I don't think any prequel defenders would deny that lots of people had sizable issues with the PT. We're beaten over the head with reminders every day.

I think it's more that a lot in the media try to act as though everyone hated them. Which isn't true. There were lots of people disappointed. There were lots of people who hated them. But there were also lots of people who enjoyed them as popcorn flicks and they have fans as well, including some dedicated ones like myself.

[ninety6tears]

I didn't say fan reactions affected the PM reviews? I was just disagreeing with the whole idea that critics were easy on it? And anyway this so-called double standard applies to two very different ways of coloring the reviews though. Failing to live up to a legacy is a constricting but much more fair assessment than giving something a pass for being any attempt at continuing it. Unless you just are reiteratingt that all of these fandoms are apples and apples, which they're not. I'm saying that on the whole I think it's neither, but since you seemingly ignored the "if anything" completely, I just find it hard to believe many critics are gonna fawn over a Star Wars movie just for being a Star Wars movie especially since sequel and reboot exhaustion has been around for a long while now. But gosh, since I don't have some random anecdotal statistic from RT to back me up I must be way off.