Sucker Punch: The worst movie I've seen in the last five years!

[jiggawho85]

It's ridiculous and often incoherent, but also oddly fun in the sheer overkill of pulp and fantasy imagery.

:thumbsdownI did not really care for this movie, it was made for young teens, only reason I saw it was because I was forced to watch it by hot chicks!!!, the entire movie they were like: oh my god, this movie is awesome, oh she's so pretty, aww, how sad....blah blah blah... but I did not mind the company:love

 

[Jeyl]

The film was doomed no matter what because it was made for the geek demographic - and it's been proven the comic con crowd has the lowest attention span than any other.

Yes, let's take a stab at the comic con folks for no good reason. And it's been proven? Where? Have you ever attended the San Diego Comic Con? Does this person qualify for your lowest standards of not being able to focus on a task? I bet some attendees didn't like what they saw in Sucker Punch when it was hyped there.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Yes, let's take a stab at the comic con folks for no good reason. And it's been proven? Where? Have you ever attended the San Diego Comic Con?

The numbers do not lie, man. Sucker Punch, Scott Pilgrim, both were "hits" with the comic con set, but failed horribly at the box office. I can't speak to what JB was saying, but I did not take it as a slam against geeks, or the comic con crowd. Just reads like "They are not a good thing to base the success of your movie on".

 

[Jeyl]

The numbers do not lie, man. Sucker Punch, Scott Pilgrim, both were "hits" with the comic con set, but failed horribly at the box office.

What does that have to do with the attention span of those who attended the convention?

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

What does that have to do with the attention span of those who attended the convention?

That maybe they forgot to "back" the movie. OR that something bigger and better caught their eye. Could be any number of reasons why the numbers weren't there.

Hell, it could just be the comic con set is a very tiny minority of the movie going audience and that studios should stop catering to them.

 

[Nwerke]

I was forced to watch it by hot chicks!!!

I hate it when I get forced to do stuff by hot chicks. Sucks, man.

Does this person qualify for your lowest standards of not being able to focus on a task?

Thanks, that was a great read.

The numbers do not lie, man. ... I can't speak to what JB was saying, but I did not take it as a slam against geeks, or the comic con crowd.

And TRON, and any number of other things. JB's remarks didn't read as a slam to me either, just the reality. Even movie studios think so, this year they downgraded the amount of hype and premiere/exclusive stuff, didn't they? In favour of things like D23?

What does that have to do with the attention span of those who attended the convention?

Studios started to think, for a while, that the success of a movie could be predicted by the reaction of an SDCC crowd, or that the success of a movie could be influenced by quite significant expense outlaid towards entertaining SDCC attendees. TRON in particular disproved this.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

What's D23?

 

[Jeyl]

What's D23?

DIS IS D23!

 

[Jeyl]

I can't speak to what JB was saying, but I did not take it as a slam against geeks, or the comic con crowd. Just reads like "They are not a good thing to base the success of your movie on".

Again, what does that have to do with the attendees' attention span? My friend who is a huge Scott Pilgrim fan went to the comic con convention last year and he did everything from seeing the movie to meeting all the folks involved. He also got bonus points for getting me the Tron figurine and Batman(89) soundtrack. I would hardly label him a person who can't focus on a particular task and is easily distracted.

If everyone at Comic Con had the lowest attention span compared to any other person, they wouldn't get anything done. Lots of things at Comic Con that involves participating in a panel, getting in line for exclusive merchandise or celebrity signatures, or even attending a world wide premier of a movie requires a lot of attention and focus if that person plans on getting anything done.

Lowest attention span.

 

[Nwerke]

Because studios had obtained a mistaken idea of the likely success of their projects from a rapturous geek reception, and had neglected the fact that we're rapturous about ALL genre projects and unlikely to generate repeat business in an environment where there's more than one geek-interest film in release, i.e. summer, or Christmas.

Hence, 'fickle', or 'short attention span'. It's just shorthand, not saying 'every SDCC attendee is a literal ADHD victim', which seems to be how you're insisting on taking it.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Again, what does that have to do with the attendees' attention span? My friend who is a huge Scott Pilgrim fan went to the comic con convention last year and he did everything from seeing the movie to meeting all the folks involved. He also got bonus points for getting me the Tron figurine and Batman(89) soundtrack. I would hardly label him a person who can't focus on a particular task and is easily distracted.

As Nwerke said, it is what it is and I doubt JB meant offense. So, if you are taking offense, then that is your cross to bear, not JB's. It has been explained to death and JB is a FELLOW geek. I was a huge comic nerd and can tell you the avalanche of movies this summer has had me exactly like Nwerke has said. It's hard to focus on one, but I am going back to see Cap!

 

[StevenRogers84]

(, but I am going back to see Cap![/QUOTE]

Heck ya, Thats the spirit!

 

[Jeyl]

Because studios had obtained a mistaken idea of the likely success of their projects from a rapturous geek reception, and had neglected the fact that we're rapturous about ALL genre projects and unlikely to generate repeat business in an environment where there's more than one geek-interest film in release, i.e. summer, or Christmas.

Hence, 'fickle', or 'short attention span'. It's just shorthand, not saying 'every SDCC attendee is a literal ADHD victim', which seems to be how you're insisting on taking it.

No, what I'm getting at is blaming the attendees doesn't make a lick of sense. You think Comic Con was the only time Universal tried doing something different to push the film? Comic Book stores were practically giving free passes away to anyone who wanted to see Scott Pilgrim on the opening day. I know because I was one of them. Unfortunately, I didn't like the movie so I didn't go see it again. That's not short attention span, it's a total lack of interest in seeing something that I don't want to see again. On the other hand, my friend who saw it at Comic Con did end up paying to see it more than three times because he loves the comic and the movie that much. He's crazy.

As Nwerke said, it is what it is and I doubt JB meant offense. So, if you are taking offense, then that is your cross to bear, not JB's.

So I shouldn't be offended that he called my friends unfocused geeks when they supported this film both during and after comic-con?

 

[IndyFanChuck]

Sucker Punch was the ONLY movie I've seen that was WORSE than all three of the Star Wars Prequels.



Wait, it probably wasn't worse than Attack of the Clones.

 

[Nwerke]

Jeyl, what part of "it was made for the geek demographic" rings untrue to you? It absolutely was made for the geek demographic, well, the geek male 15-25 demographic anyway. Or it sure looks like it. It's not a case of blaming CC attendees, it's a case of blaming HOLLYWOOD for thinking that CC-attendee-TYPES are a big enough audience to sell an entire movie to.

Superhero movies work because they don't RELY on US alone to repay their costs. They appeal to the much broader audience who have a CASUAL interest in comics and superheroes. Trying to sell a movie with a depressing theme and no pre-existing name recognition solely on its appeal to geek culture was doomed to failure. There aren't enough of us in the first place, and even if there were, we'd still be out there trying to see EVERYTHING, not one thing ten times, which is where the real money starts happening.

So I shouldn't be offended that he called my friends unfocused geeks when they supported this film both during and after comic-con?

You've quoted Qui there, not me. My answer would be it's a free country, so go right ahead and be as butthurt as you want over whatever you like. But I can think of ten better things to be upset over than somebody's offhand shorthand that wasn't intended as an insult and wasn't taken as one by very many people, as far as we can tell. You know. Bashar's actions against the protesters in Syria, maybe.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

So I shouldn't be offended that he called my friends unfocused geeks when they supported this film both during and after comic-con?

That is reaching. Did he say "Hey Jeyl, that dude you know who attends Comic Con is an unfocused geek!"? No...no one did. Again, you are just looking for what ain't there. Facts are that movie studios thought Comic Con attendees happiness with a product was a sure bet that it would do gang busters. That has proven false since...like Serenity...or earlier.

We're ALL geeks here. Ease off on the butthurt.

 

[StevenRogers84]

I am getting ready to watch Sucker Punch! I will comment when done. That is all for now.

 

[Jeyl]

Jeyl, what part of "it was made for the geek demographic" rings untrue to you?

Nothing. I didn't say Sucker Punch wasn't made for the geek demographic. I don't even like Sucker Punch. That movie didn't do anything for me, or for movies with strong leading women. I wanted to see it not because someone at Comic-Con said it was cool, I went to see it because it was taking a risk. A risk that I felt was worthy of my attention since it involved five unknown actresses playing the leads in what I hoped would be a very strange yet clever action/adventure movie that I was seeing in the advertisements. It wasn't that. At all. The risk failed, and I'm not afraid to say why.

Did he say "Hey Jeyl, that dude you know who attends Comic Con is an unfocused geek!"? No...no one did. Again, you are just looking for what ain't there.

One last time. JB said that the comic con crowd has the "lowest attention span of any other". Low attention span means you are unfocussed, easily distracted and pretty much unreliable. I don't find that to be accurate or true. My friend and his friends were a part of the comic con crowd and they've been going to comic con for years. They don't have short attention spans, they are very dependable, and they support what they like at Comic-Con even after the convention is over. I'm sure they'll say the same thing about the other attendees who were there as well.

 

[Nwerke]

I guess we need to just leave it there, then? You're a literalist, we're not, we'll never see it the same way.

BTW Emily Browning isn't exactly unknown!

 

[StevenRogers84]

Wow! Awesome! Great! Inventive! Refreshing! These are all words that I would describe sucker punch one of the best movies made in the last five years. Seriously this flick is fun as heck. I love it.