Nearly every Supergirl review says the former House of the Dragon star is terrific and fun as Kara Zor-El (“effortlessly shifting between [being a] fiercely menacing cosmic force, a genuinely funny protagonist, and a deeply vulnerable young woman” as one critic put it). This is particularly gratifying given the absurd and cruel trolling the young actress received from the toxic corners of internet fandom leading up to the film’s release.
Yet the praise for Alcock feels like watching a plane crash and seeing just one person get miraculously thrown clear of the wreckage without a scratch. The film’s reviews range from negative to tepid praise (averaging a 58 percent Rotten Tomatoes score). Many point fingers at the film’s script, with Variety‘s line — “a comic-book movie with the worst script I can remember” — going viral. That’s surely hyperbolic (Madame Web, for starters, was Showgirls-level mockable). But the criticism is ironic given DC Studios’ co-chief James Gunn‘s famous pledge of taking a script-first approach to franchise management. Gunn knows precisely what strong writing looks like, so one wonders if his company’s eagerness to get Supergirl out one year after Superman resulted in some “we’ll fix it as we go” thinking without Kevin Feige‘s “we’ll fix it as we go” results. Box office tracking puts Supergirl at a $50 million opening weekend, and that’s the most optimistic projection.
Not to pile on, but there’s another recurring gripe from the reviews which stood out: Critics bashed the film as being murky, dark and gray, with poor VFX: “Muddy CG sludge” wrote one. Another said the film was full of “sludgy browns and grays” and “the visual murkiness of the settings makes it hard to follow the already unintelligible action sequences.” A third wrote the “VFX is so rough it makes The Flash look like Avatar.”
Moviegoers increasingly despise murky, dark visuals (often used to hide weak effects), along with obvious CGI, and incoherent action. They’ve seen it so many times they’ve become allergic. If there’s one piece of unsolicited advice I could give studio executives green-lighting action films, it’s this: If you cannot afford — or don’t have the time or talent available — to make your film’s sets and action look as realistic and amazing as possible, then rewrite your script. If Kara having wild space adventures with a bunch of aliens is going to look like slop, then ground her in Michigan with real sets and as many practical effects as possible. Remember how the first Thor movie was set in, like, a random town? Or how A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms won over Game of Thrones fans by going smaller and doing less?
Okay so this is still going on about Supergirl. You know those “first look” social media influencers that get early access to films and tend to skew extremely positive? The critic reviews of Supergirl didn’t wind up in the same galaxy as the overwhelming majority of the gushing first reaction crowd. That’s not unusual. But combined with Disney‘s embarrassing The Mandalorian and Grogu influencer stunt that backfired, a movie’s first reactions on social media are increasingly being met with equal amounts of fan skepticism. As I broke yesterday, Universal has decided to skip “word-of-mouth screenings” entirely for The Odyssey and go straight to critic screening, which is an interesting move. This could become a new show-of-strength standard for marketing films, while catering to influencers could increasingly look a bit desperate.
The season three return of the HBO fantasy drama was an improvement compared to season two on every level. The episode was more tightly written, had flashes of actual humor, and gave die-hard fans what they crave — some spectacular action with lots of dragon-on-dragon fighting. The result was the show’s second-best IMDb score of any episode. Premiere ratings were strong — 22 million viewers across three days, though that’s down eight percent from the season two opener. Critics who watched the first several episodes grade the season as the best one yet, and say the upcoming third and fourth episodes are standouts.
However … let’s be honest with each other: Did you actually care about the characters involved in the Battle of the Gullet? (Including a shouty antagonist, the axe-wielding Sharako Lohar, who was only introduced in the season two finale?) Were any of those characters as charismatic or interesting as minor figures from Game of Thrones, such as Gendry, Tormund or Olenna? Are the characters still having to remind you who they are three seasons into the show (“That’s my sister!” cries Rhaena)? Are Rhaenyra and Alicent still portrayed as sad victims of scheming men and misunderstandings rather than ruthless, flawed protagonists who help drive the story (like in George R.R. Martin’s book)? Can you imagine Cersei or Daenerys getting haplessly locked in their bedroom during a war by their own guard? House of the Dragon keeps feeling like “Oops all Sansas,” only without the empathy Sophie Turner generated for that character. But, you know, dragons burned a lot of boats.
The trend lately has been for streamers to focus on quality over quantity — or, at least, claiming to do so. “No consumer is asking for more content, but for better content” as Warner Bros. Discovery boss David Zaslav put it (which doesn’t explain The Franchise, Duster or Euphoria season three). This week, Apple senior executive Eddy Cue was all: To hell with that. “We want to keep getting better and more,” Cue told Reuters. Apple’s had serious success lately with F1, Silo, Pluribus, The Studio and Widow’s Bay (which was just renewed for season two), so it’s no surprise they’re feeling emboldened to ramp up while others tap the brakes. Plus, let’s face it, a TV show’s budget is a mere rounding error for a company worth $4 trillion, so does anybody over there really care if only a few nerds watch Foundation?
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。