(51%? Well, um, I guess technically that means you're not "alone", but doesn't that suggest you're in the minority? I'm not sure of your angry point, here....)
Carter took a story NOBODY (except the book-fan faithful) had heard of, and treated it with serious fan-evangelism, whether it was the lame trailer that reminded too many people of Prince of Persia or not. Ranger, OTOH, takes a story it was nervously convinced everyone in the entire country has heard of already, and didn't know whether to "update" it with CGI foofarah or "parody" it with quirky humor, and according to most of the most of the early reviews, the schizophrenia shows.
Call it an abstract ingredient, but a little integrity will get you a long way. If a true Ranger fan had been writing the script, we'd have seen a lot fewer elephants and possessed outlaws.
It's like "Battlefield Earth". Sure, it was an abysmally shitty film and I would never forgive or attempt to excuse John Travolta for producing something so incredibly awful; however, on the flip side, there was something hilariously entertaining in watching Travolta go off the deep end with his acting, because the director was powerless to reign in Travolta's enormous ego. It was an education on what can result when a director loses or never has any control of his film.
As long as we're deconstructing "mysterious" big-budget flops, Battlefield: Earth was literally not technically any better or worse than any average made-for-SyFy epic the Asylum cranks out on an average week, with Travolta in the Eric Roberts role. (We showed it at an annual sci-fi festival one year; the entire audience was expecting an Ed Wood howler, they ended up showing "Galaxina" first, and....oh, how can you follow an act like that?)
What B:E did have was an audience laying traps for it, and dancing victory dances on the box office grave. Anyone here remember the kitsch cult-phrase "It's a popcorn movie!" or wonder where it came from?--The Scient*l*g*sts had made themselves particularly noisome in thinking that they could pull the wool over the audience's eyes with a lot of summer-movie marketing, and use a lot of really-kewl-spaceships to keep us from finding out we were being hit up for contributions at the airport--When they found out they couldn't, our sarcasm as a rebellious audience got a little...gleeful: Remember how we were all rather excessively beating up on Battleship last year, because Hasbro thought we'd all rush like sheep to a movie that looked like Transformers?--Yyyyeah. Kinda like that. Only more so.
seriously when it comes to a slow-paced film about the pitfalls and worries of parenting. FN wasn't about Nemo. It was about Marlin's growth as a parent, so why would a little kid find that as interesting some of Pixar's other films.
Or as my collection of movie terms puts it, "The Hook Factor":
Do little kids really want to see sentimental stories of bad-parent guilt as much as new-daddy screenwriters and directors want to write and direct them?
(That said, however, Dory speaking Whale will crack up any kid between the ages of 3-9. Anywhere. Anytime. Rather annoyingly so, in fact. )
Edited by Ejanss, July 01 2013 - 11:40 PM.