It's produced by someone who has made some of the worst rotten tomato films consistently for over a decade. Adam Sandler isn't just an actor, he created and runs the studio that makes his films. All his films make a lot of money even when they're awful and it's speculated that hes happy making money and enjoying life without worrying about the quality of his films
^just to explain why people have low expectations of his films and why it's not just about some actor starring in them. I haven't seen pixels
Q*Bert rapes a guy... how is that worth a 7?
No, regardless of what people are randomly saying about what happened near the end, Q*Bert did no such thing. Q*Bert pulled a Gender Bender, turning into a humanoid girl character. The guy knew that it used to be Q*Bert and had no problem with that fact. Then the two got married and lived (strangely) happily ever after. Both of them entered into the union by their own free will and understanding exactly what was happening, so there was no "rape" involved. It was weird, but not "rape."
Then the problem becomes "Q*Bert turns into a trophy wife for the protagonist that never grows up."
You know, Tom, if the thing is just bad, you can't make money with it. The thing is, like with the Twilight, in those films having large fanbases, as in groups of people who genuinely enjoy them. Twilight is for females, Sandler is supposedly for males, and as long as people continue liking his new films, it's all right. Well, you won't watch them. Many people won't watch them. Viewers wil praise them for being light and humorous. Critics won't praise them for originality. It all balances out.
And, overall, imagine yourself, not just an actor, but a producer of your own films, who's successfully making money by writing what you know.
Would you then accuse yourself of being happy and enjoying life?
(Isn't that the thing called ad hominem?)
Xenos Hg, you've clearly not seen Jack and Jill :p
An ad hominem is when you're having a logical debate about something and then, instead of responding to the arguments with reasons, you attack the person making the arguments. However, when you're talking about the quality of the products a creator made, then the ability of the creator is the argument so it's not an ad hominem to discuss their skills, its what the debate is about. For example, in the reverse, if we were talking about why Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings were so good and I talked about how skilled Leonardo Da Vinci was as a painter - that wouldn't be irrelevant would it?
If I told you that Pixels was absolute trash just because Adam Sandler made it, then you're absolutely right that would be an ad hominem attack. But that's not what I'm saying at all, I haven't seen Pixels and I don't know whether it was bad or good at all. I was just explaining to the reviewer, why people tend to expect Adam Sandler films to be bad - it's not because on actor is in a film, but because it's the same production studio creating the script, choosing the director, greenlighting the idea etc. People have had bad experiences with Happy Madison in the past, and that's why they don't have high expectations for the latest films and are apprehensive about seeing them.
Also you misunderstand me if you think I was criticising Adam Sandler. I very much take your opinion on this, I admire a man who has found a way to make himself happy and chooses to enjoy his happiness rather than chasing after ever greater success/acclaim. We're surrounded by a society that says we should push ourselves to our limits, if we having something we should work harder to get even more - if you're not being pushed right to the edge then you're not doing it 'properly'. And it's all BS, and I respect someone whose realised there's no point in running the rat race if you already have what you need, and there's no point working your life away if you're not going to take the time to enjoy it. To me Adam Sandler is someone whose seen behind the curtain and I kind of love that. It's not his fault if people keep giving him money and his films continue to profit.
I just wouldn't choose to go see his films.
I do disagree to some extent though, that because his films make money they must be okay. You're absolutely right that people have different tastes and just because critics don't like things doesn't mean it doesn't serve an audience. But it's also an argument that can reduce every discussion of quality to "Did it make money?". And moreover it underestimates the power of good marketing. A lot of these films make their money on the opening weekend - before word of mouth has had a chance to work. And their user review ratings on sites tend to be atrocious too. Also, every now and then Adam Sandler makes a film that's not just critically unappealing but terrible in other ways too - The Cobbler gets really uncomfortable in its views on sex.
And finally, Adam Sandler can make really good films. Even stuff like Dont Mess With The Zohan can be really entertaining and that wasn't too long ago. So I think everyone remembers an Adam Sandler film that they enjoyed and they tend to hope that this one might just be one of the good ones.
Anyway, I hope I've made my position a little clearer now. And as I've said before, I have no opinion on the quality of Pixels either way. I just haven't seen it.
I actually enjoyed Pixels more than Wreck-It Ralph. As for which is better, I tend to not go that route with animated movies and live-action because of how different the mediums are. Just doesn't seem fair if you ask me.
@The Real Yuma Uhh, you can answer what you think is better, especially since both films deals with arcade games with differing levels on seriousness and maturity (as in the Disney movie is the more mature movie OOOOOHHH! *cough cough* sorry, didn't mean to come off as a total ass-hat).
And sure they're different mediums, but they're both films, not like a tv series vs a film vs an animated web series vs a theater production.
@Tomwithnonumbers I forgot to do this months ago, but... well *applause* that is, no joke, a fantastic comment and explanation to why people don't like to see Adam Sandler in films.
Leave a Comment:
Not the best video game film, but also not the worst
I don't get why people want to bash Pixels - except for the fact that it stars someone who had been in some poor movies. And while I'll admit that the visual effects are not as great as some, and some of the games featured doesn't get so much meaning, I must admit that the Pac-Man sequence is what really sold me, by showcasing how each of the three Arcaders worked.
It might had been a tie at the end (Three wins, although one called out as a cheat, for us, and two wins and no cheats for the aliens) but at least this film, while not the best example of how to make a film based on video games, at least is much better, in my opinion, than the Super Mario Bros Movie. And I would give it at least a 7/10, maybe a bit higher.