The Sub 10% Club

19 reviews, and zero positive.

WOW.

I knew it wouldn't be acclaimed but this is like Norm of the North levels.

It's even worse than that. Norm at least reached double digits on Metacritic.

...Is it wrong that part of me is actually slightly (very very slightly) disappointed that it's not surprisingly good? This was the predicted result and while I still wouldn't see it, it would have been like a real-life plot twist.

edited 27th Jul '17 5:55:05 PM by LordVatek

It would have certainly caught me off-guard, that's for sure.

The real-life plot twist was The LEGO Movie being good.

Is this going to be the animated film equivalent of Fantastic Four (2015)?

It's up to 3% now. Common Sense Media gave it a 3.5 on account of its "positive messages". (And even they still acknowledge that the story has a ton of problems.)

I respect CSM's primary mission for families, but they're absolute shit for actual reviews (e.g. giving Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland a better rating than Baby Driver).

edited 28th Jul '17 10:19:19 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Surging to 6% now. The checks must have cleared.

A Family Man made it to 14%. Pity.

edited 28th Jul '17 4:58:04 PM by AnotherGuy

Emoji has picked up another positive (apparently, RT considers "wait for DVD" to be positive) review, bringing it to 8%.

Should be noted it's still 0% with the Top Critics filter.

"What happened?" Popeye is a decades-old cartoon without much current day relevance while Emojis are a hugely popular flavor of the week.

It was a stupid fucking idea for a movie but I can see why they thought that would be more profitable than an adaptation of a cartoon from the 20's.

edited 30th Jul '17 8:26:47 AM by comicwriter

Yeah, basically that.

Some executive showed a pie chart with numbers and showed Emojis got way bigger numbers than Popeye in polls and social media. That's all they cared about.

Uh, the interview shows zero evidence why Popeye was cancelled. All we know is "they said no" and that was it.

Emoji has nothing to do with it. At least with the actual evidence we have.

And yeah, it makes sense on their part. An irrelevant series to a business is less likely to sell than something that is severely relevant and well known. People know what Emojis are. The majority do. Popeye is a notable thing, but it's not anywhere in the same ballpark. Even if Emoji caused it to be temporarily put on the back burner, the decision was very logical. Business comes first. Do note that neither of those movies were "canned", just temporarily stopped, anyway. For a business, they want to appeal to the most people, so that's what they did.

There's other issues, like the rumor of banking on this movie succeeding(although it's already making back over half its sales and it barely has been out) to keep the company open. The issue is they gave zero reasons why they stopped the production of the Popeye movie. Literally. They just said "no". That was it. Why? Nobody knows. No statements were released. It's silly to blame Emoji on something with no real evidence. Coincidental timing is not evidence. Also, the Medusa movie being stopped was due to creative differences, so it's even more silly to blame Emoji for that when there was a legitimate reason. When making a movie under another studio, you still have to follow their rules. It's just how life is. If they say no to certain stuff, you follow it or leave. You don't have entire creative control, after all.

@Another Guy: Okay, could you actually summarize more of it? People can't sit through 10 minutes to find the actual facts of how these two movies are connected. So far, what I've found, that is, through something that is easy to read to find details for, that Popeye was put on the backburner "just because". Is this even a credible person, or is just a theory? I've seen the interviews mentioned in there(while scrolling through the video to find relevant information), and nothing is suggesting that this theory is correct beyond coincidental timing. If it's just a fan, and not somebody who actually works at Sony, it's a pretty bad theory that is hard to back up. And even if it's true, it's ridiculous to hate on SPA for only wanting to allow a movie that has extremely relevant stuff, since business can't take risks for the hell of it. Relevant stuff is simply less risky to make a movie out of for them. It doesn't matter how much passion or good ideas for other movies exist. Relevance plays a key role.

edited 30th Jul '17 3:22:49 PM by Irene

Can we be careful, here? We don't want another (technically completely unrelated) thread to be locked like the Sony Pictures Animation thread on the Western Animation forum just did.

Only 8 reviews are in so far, but The Layover is starting off with a promising 0%.

Tulip Fever is only at six percent so far. It does have one positive review.

edited 1st Sep '17 12:38:17 PM by BearyScary

The Layover still at 0% after 13 reviews.

Tulip Fever dancing nearby at 12%.

Woodshock at 0% after 6 reviews.

"Woodshock is the sort of thing that gives dilettantism a bad name."

Ooh... a pretentious art house horror film? :D

The Nut Job 2 escapes with an 11%.

Welcome back, Tulip Fever, back in the club with 10%.

edited 5th Sep '17 9:17:09 AM by AnotherGuy

Does a TV show count if it's at 0% with 12 reviews? (The reviews seem to be from the theatrical run of the first two episodes.)

The Inhumans.

edited 6th Sep '17 4:10:23 PM by AnotherGuy

Eesh. So much for the teaser hype.

It's a bad year for Marvel Television.

The Runaways is getting critical praise.

That's already out? I must've missed it.