Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that’s an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.
I’ll go first: I think “Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows” was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.
I agree that backstory is non-essential, but are critics criticizing the lack of backstory or the lack of fully fleshed out characters? Because imo one of the reasons the first Suicide Squad was bad was because it didn’t have adequately fleshed out characters. Any movie that relies on outside material to fill in essential blanks is not doing one of the major things a movie is supposed to do: tell a full story with its characters. Or at least it’s not doing it well
I went into this with a friend of mine when it came out. If you watched a Pacific theater WW2 movie and wrote an article about why it is not explained why we are supposed to hate the Japanese how should people react?
I wasnt really into the Marvel comics growing up and yet thanks to my glowing rectangle it was pretty easy to figure out who that Thanos guy was.
Don’t assume your audience is dumb. Even if you have to assume that you can at least assume that they have glowing rectangles.
So yeah they didn’t spend a lot of time on each and everyone’s backstory. Did you really need it? Was it so very difficult to figure out that lady clearly working for the US government did in fact work for the US government? How about all the backstory shown for Deadshot and Harley? Did you need more? Because if so you got wikipedia.
Sorry to be rude I don’t mean to be. Still bothers me that all these professional movie critics couldn’t bother to spend the slightest amount of time reading up on this stuff. I liked the movie, I loved the comics when I was a kid.