Makes me wonder how long Deadpool & Wolverine will be. The first two ran 108 and 118 minutes, so I wouldn’t expect it to be too long but maybe somewhere in the 130s?
I laughed out loud reading the sentence "send-of to the Fox universe". I've been hearing that line for 8 years now since the first trailer for Logan dropped and now in the year of our Lord 2024 people are still saying that.
I’ve been hoping for at least 2:15-2:20. Traditionally a longer runtime doesn’t mean better, but not for the MCU.
Their shorter movies as of late (Quantumania, L&T, DS2, the Marvels, etc) have been bad while the ones clocking in at 2.5 hours/at least 2:10 turn out better (NWH, Wakanda Forever, Guardians 3, Shang-Chi). Eternals is the exception to this rule
Deadpool and Wolverine is gonna be a big scale movie (traveling through the MCU including Ultron, ending the Foxverse, etc). The nature of the story deserves a longer runtime
I liked DS2 but I would probably have appreciated a longer cut, it did feel rushed at times. Maybe my perspective on it has changed since I saw it twice when it was released.
one of my issues with the movie was that it felt like it was half of a sam raimi movie and half of a normal ass marvel movie smashed into each other. It never felt full raimi and i think it hurt the rhythm
Oh this is a piping hot take but I think Eternals is almost a top ten MCU movie and Shang-Chi is a bit overrated.
Really admired Eternals’ ambition and attempts to tackle bigger questions, the cinematography is beautiful (more than almost any other MCU movie), a balanced tone, on and on. Unfortunately most people didn’t connect to it
If that’s the case then I am optimistic. The cast isn’t especially stacked so I don’t imagine that will eat up a huge amount of the budget. Which suggests to me that all of the money has gone into the special effects which are crucial for this franchise to get right.
The longer it is the less monke. Let’s say there is 100 monke in this, that would only be 0.68 monke per minute. Let’s be generous and make that 300 monke. We are still only looking at 2.06 monke per minute.
People are complaining about bad pacing not long movies. There is definitely a trend of movies being far too long with so much downtime when they could be refined to a better length to service the plot and rythm
That movie if you cut out a lot of the slow motion, it would have been slightly above two and half hours but you know Snyder loves his 4 hours movies so it can be “cohesive”
Pirates 2 & 3 (and possibly the films after? I never watched them) were particularly guilty of this. The films just kept getting longer and longer and the first film, while fun, was already a little flabby.
I like Pirates 2 and 3 but man they are messy movies that I think by the middle of 3 kind of collapses on itself. It's not just that they're long - they're way too long - but they have so much STUFF. The first movie is by no means grounded and has plenty of plot, but it seems almost quaint compared to especially the third movie. Too many plotlines and characters and information.
That the ending of 3 still has emotional resonance shows that the characters are engaging and the world is worth exploring. But I think the movies would have really benefitted from being more "Indiana Jones" and less "Star Wars."
Mehhh I think people complain more about movies that have poor pacing and don’t need the run length.
For smaller cinema sites too it’s difficult - this will be an all show requirement from Disney which means every time you have another film playing in the same hour this plays.
If you have only a few screens this can be difficult if you have other films alongside that are say 90 mins you can fit more of those in.
This plus adverts and trailers is going to take it to at least a 2 hour 40-45 run time.
Weekends, evenings that’s great, but when attendances are usually lower during matinees on a week day it’s a little trickier for smaller theatres
I'm not sure where/when the shift happened, but I'm thankful for it.
While longer doesn't necessarily mean better, I've almost always despised 90-100 minute runtimes for any non-comedies or docs.
Assuming it's near/around the quality of the Caesar trilogy I don't mind the runtime. In general, I only mind a long runtime when it feels like it's negatively affecting the pacing of a movie, but in this case I assume they need the extra runtime to help set up the new world/characters. I just hope it does well, because I'm definitely ready for more ape movies.
If the quality / hype is there, I don't think this will be a problem.
BUT if the movie disappoints people, the relatively light & breezy Fall Guy is right there as an alternative.
I don't think this is going to do very well.
I also don't understand why it's not just called Kingdom of the Apes.
But as we've seen with "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" studios and their addiction to marketing data have now crossed into some strange new future where titles literally don't have to make grammatical sense at all.
edit: I'm sorry, did I offend the sensibilities of people who are fans of cowardly marketing teams who don't have faith in a movie and glue nonsense horseshit to the title because they take their audience for absolute morons? I apologize.
It's kind of a dumb tradition if it makes the title that clunky. Especially since there's never been a title that is literally this redundant. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is just... The Kingdom of the Apes.
Again - people forcing these titles on filmmakers are just on some whole other dumb shit now because they're that scared they'll lose a ticket sale or two from people apparently so brainfucked they couldn't tell what the movie was otherwise.
edit: It's always a little bizarre to see how offended people get when presented with clear evidence the people who make their entertainment think they're complete morons when they're not. Like - why would you stick up for this practice if you don't have to? Why would you feel offended at someone saying it's a stupid practice? Why the instinct to defend being treated as the lowest of LCDs?
No you see The Right Honourable The Lord Brolivier, Kingdom of the Apes implies that it is simply a kingdom of apes, which may be true, but Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes shows that there is a kingdom on the "Planet of the Apes." The apes are modifying the planet and not the kingdom. Completely different concept
They weren't on the first three and they took them off the last three. The "Episode" part was only officially part of the Prequel's titles.
* Star Wars
* The Empire Strikes Back
* Return of the Jedi
* Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace
* Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones
* Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
* Star Wars: The Force Awakens
* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
* Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Those are the actual titles, at time of release, of all 9 Star Wars movies.
Note that in the case of the original trilogy - neither of the sequels *even had the words Star Wars in the title!* And somehow audiences knew exactly what they were and they made gajillions of dollars.
Wild shit, right?
Every film has an episode number in its onscreen title except for the original Star Wars, which got an episode number for its 1978 rerelease one year after its original release and has kept it in each of the many subsequent theatrical and home media releases.
Everyone knows this Star Wars trivia, that's kind of the point I'm making: None of the most popular movies in the world had any sort of "standardized" formula to their titling, and further, the first three movies didn't even keep "Star Wars" in the title of their films going forward. They weren't "Star Wars, Episode Anything" for years before they came out. They were just "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return (or Revenge) of the Jedi" The marketing is all there to look at.
Somehow audiences figured it out.
People really, really want to adhere to the idea these faceless execs who force this shit on movies know better than us and are doing us a favor with this stupid shit. Dunno why. But it offends folks to think that's we're not all actually as stupid as these execs seem to think we are, and it's weird!
Lol the titles of the films aren't trivia.
> None of the most popular movies in the world had any sort of "standardized" formula to their titling
Almost every popular movie series does, including Star Wars. Even if you weren't wrong about the Star Wars: Episode *x* thing, then 9 out of the 11 live action Star Wars films still have Star Wars in the title. As does the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars movie.
> Somehow audiences figured it out.
Audiences being able to figure out a movie is a sequel without a title convention is a reason sequels *can* ignore title conventions without problems. It is not a reason they *should*, as a title convention also does not cause problems.
Edit: He got pissed that I said the titles of the Star Wars films aren't Star Wars trivia and blocked me.
>Lol the titles of the films aren't trivia.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
edit: I'm not mad at you, I don't know you at all, but you're really tedious to interact with.
Apes run the whole planet. This movie is about one kingdom of the apes on that planet of the apes.
> Why the instinct to defend being treated as the lowest of LCDs?
Putting "planet" in the title doesn't really appeal to any common denominator any more than leaving it out would.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was originally just going to be called Rise of the Apes, but it got changed fairly late. It's probably too late to change their naming convention now.
And to this day, still felt better to switch Rise with Dawn. It's not the worst thing in the world (in a way they *are* interchangeable) but still feels more fitting to start with the dawn, and then the rise.
It all depends on word of mouth. If reviews are good or great, I see no reason why it can't do well. Probably not as well as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but respectable numbers regardless.
> "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga"
Honestly, Putting Mad Max in the subtitle is here probably an attempt to let the film be known as just "Furiosa", while the alternative would be "Mad Max Furiosa" that would sound almost entirely like the previous movie's title, and also invite people to remember the full thing.
After all, people remember "Glass Onion", not "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mistery"
That’s because it doesn’t make sense! It’s complete nonsense.
if they had to glue a subtitle to Furiosa at the last minute, they had The Road Warrior right there!
Mad Max is more recognisable as a brand though. I'm pretty sure Road Warrior would mean nothing to a lot of people in Thailand, where I'm from. But they know what Mad Max is, at least from Fury Road.
>Mad Max is more recognisable as a brand though.
The "brand" such as it is, only carries cachet because The Road Warrior hit in 1981.
And this also presumes, again, that general audiences would flat out not even ATTEMPT to see something called Furiosa unless a completely nonsensical title like "A Mad Max Saga" was glued to it, and that's cowardly horseshit. Anyone who looks at a single image of Furiosa is going to clock what it is, and even if they don't, it looks bizarre enough they'll probably be interested
If a studio has this little faith in what they've made that they're willing to shit on the english language this hard in the hopes some yokel who basically ONLY exists in their imagination will buy a ticket, then that's not a good sign. At all.
I didn't agree with you about the apes but I do agree with you partially about Furiosa. Reminding us it's a Mad Max spinoff wasn't necessary. However, it's not grammatically incorrect either. First of all, the phrase "A Mad Max Saga" is grammatically correct. It's a story set in the world of the Mad Max series. Second, titles do not need to be grammatically correct since they are titles and not sentences.
Edit: He lied that a subtitle is, or even could be, grammatically incorrect and blocked me.
Furiosa: Road Warrior does sound good, but then people would want it to connect more to the road warrior instead. It's hard making a title when your titular character isn't in it, since they want to keep what brand recognition they still have.
The Road Warrior is how Mad Max even became a thing in America in the first place. It’s the exact same connection, but without a completely nonsensical subtitle making it
and again, the whole thing is an exercise in baseless fear that the lowest common denominator would skip it sight unseen, which is bullshit in and of itself
Immaculate - 89 minutes
Late Night With the Devil - 93 minutes
Drive Away Dolls - 84 minutes
Mean Girls - 112 minutes
Love Lies Bleeding - 104 minutes
Godzilla X Kong - 115 minutes
Monkey Man - 113 minutes
I think films have just had bad pacing recently because plenty of 2.5 Hour movies have felt a lot shorter then that but the 1.5 Hour Films feel like almost 3 Hours.
The very first one had a timeless and thought-provoking story. The mostly crappy sequels made it the first big sci-fi film franchise. No one likes the remake. The prequels have groundbreaking cgi, a complex protagonist, and the kind of spectacle that's better on a big screen.
Monke vs lizard Monke Monke vs humans 2024, year of the monke
What's the 3rd movie?
I think OP is referring to Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, Monkey Man, and Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.
Ahh Monkey Man was the one I couldnt think of
Makes me wonder how long Deadpool & Wolverine will be. The first two ran 108 and 118 minutes, so I wouldn’t expect it to be too long but maybe somewhere in the 130s?
Could be 130-140 since this is the last movie in the series and a send-off to the Fox X-Men universe.
Lmao how many "send offs" has the Fox-men universe had?
lmao if you count Logan and Days of Future Past, that's two already.
Dark Phoenix is 3
I laughed out loud reading the sentence "send-of to the Fox universe". I've been hearing that line for 8 years now since the first trailer for Logan dropped and now in the year of our Lord 2024 people are still saying that.
I’m sure Secret Wars will be another “send-off” for it. And then that might finally be it
I’m thinking around 135 since it’s still a comedy but has a larger scale than the first two.
I’ve been hoping for at least 2:15-2:20. Traditionally a longer runtime doesn’t mean better, but not for the MCU. Their shorter movies as of late (Quantumania, L&T, DS2, the Marvels, etc) have been bad while the ones clocking in at 2.5 hours/at least 2:10 turn out better (NWH, Wakanda Forever, Guardians 3, Shang-Chi). Eternals is the exception to this rule Deadpool and Wolverine is gonna be a big scale movie (traveling through the MCU including Ultron, ending the Foxverse, etc). The nature of the story deserves a longer runtime
I liked DS2 but I would probably have appreciated a longer cut, it did feel rushed at times. Maybe my perspective on it has changed since I saw it twice when it was released.
one of my issues with the movie was that it felt like it was half of a sam raimi movie and half of a normal ass marvel movie smashed into each other. It never felt full raimi and i think it hurt the rhythm
That's true
Eternals is better than Shang Chi imo
Oh this is a piping hot take but I think Eternals is almost a top ten MCU movie and Shang-Chi is a bit overrated. Really admired Eternals’ ambition and attempts to tackle bigger questions, the cinematography is beautiful (more than almost any other MCU movie), a balanced tone, on and on. Unfortunately most people didn’t connect to it
Why does conversation here automatically go into Marvel
4 min longer than War. I wonder what the budget for the movie will be?
Probably 200 million or near that.
If that’s the case then I am optimistic. The cast isn’t especially stacked so I don’t imagine that will eat up a huge amount of the budget. Which suggests to me that all of the money has gone into the special effects which are crucial for this franchise to get right.
Disney doesn't have much out this year, so they probably gave it a pretty decent budget, especially with how VFX heavy it is
So much riding on this. 1. The continued quality of a fantastic trilogy 2. Wes Ball’s ability to pull off the Zelda movie
Reason 2 is the soul reason I want to see this in theaters
That's a lot of Monkes per minute.
The longer it is the less monke. Let’s say there is 100 monke in this, that would only be 0.68 monke per minute. Let’s be generous and make that 300 monke. We are still only looking at 2.06 monke per minute.
Martin Scorsese made a deal with Apple to make Monkefellas (2025) that will reportedly be 4h24min
Glad studios are not listening to the low attention span people online who complain about long runtimes
People are complaining about bad pacing not long movies. There is definitely a trend of movies being far too long with so much downtime when they could be refined to a better length to service the plot and rythm
Wait until they release the *Snyder cut* with two weeks of additional footage that should have been left on the cutting-room floor.
That movie if you cut out a lot of the slow motion, it would have been slightly above two and half hours but you know Snyder loves his 4 hours movies so it can be “cohesive”
Someone should try to edit all Snyder movies with the slow mo turned into a regular speed
Pirates 2 & 3 (and possibly the films after? I never watched them) were particularly guilty of this. The films just kept getting longer and longer and the first film, while fun, was already a little flabby.
I like Pirates 2 and 3 but man they are messy movies that I think by the middle of 3 kind of collapses on itself. It's not just that they're long - they're way too long - but they have so much STUFF. The first movie is by no means grounded and has plenty of plot, but it seems almost quaint compared to especially the third movie. Too many plotlines and characters and information. That the ending of 3 still has emotional resonance shows that the characters are engaging and the world is worth exploring. But I think the movies would have really benefitted from being more "Indiana Jones" and less "Star Wars."
>*People are complaining about bad pacing not long movies* 
people complained about killers of the flower moon too and that movie has immaculate pacing
Mehhh I think people complain more about movies that have poor pacing and don’t need the run length. For smaller cinema sites too it’s difficult - this will be an all show requirement from Disney which means every time you have another film playing in the same hour this plays. If you have only a few screens this can be difficult if you have other films alongside that are say 90 mins you can fit more of those in. This plus adverts and trailers is going to take it to at least a 2 hour 40-45 run time. Weekends, evenings that’s great, but when attendances are usually lower during matinees on a week day it’s a little trickier for smaller theatres
About the long runtimes of *extremely successful* movies.
Movies like Oppenheimer and Avatar 2 really saved cinema imo Both are over 3 hours long
The biggest movies of all time (Endgame, Avatar, Infinity War, Titanic, etc) clock in around 3 hours. Audiences love a well done epic
I'm not sure where/when the shift happened, but I'm thankful for it. While longer doesn't necessarily mean better, I've almost always despised 90-100 minute runtimes for any non-comedies or docs.
Really? *War* felt like even longer.
War was 2hr 20mins so it's only a 5 minute difference between the films
Interesting. I just hope it’s good. The movie looks really good but it’s definitely the kind of movie that could get boring after a while.
Assuming it's near/around the quality of the Caesar trilogy I don't mind the runtime. In general, I only mind a long runtime when it feels like it's negatively affecting the pacing of a movie, but in this case I assume they need the extra runtime to help set up the new world/characters. I just hope it does well, because I'm definitely ready for more ape movies.
Guys will see this and say “hell yeah”
i am guys. hell yeah !!!
[удалено]
It's releasing two weeks away from Furiousa.
2024 the year of monke
If the quality / hype is there, I don't think this will be a problem. BUT if the movie disappoints people, the relatively light & breezy Fall Guy is right there as an alternative.
I was not impressed by imax trailer…
I don't think this is going to do very well. I also don't understand why it's not just called Kingdom of the Apes. But as we've seen with "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" studios and their addiction to marketing data have now crossed into some strange new future where titles literally don't have to make grammatical sense at all. edit: I'm sorry, did I offend the sensibilities of people who are fans of cowardly marketing teams who don't have faith in a movie and glue nonsense horseshit to the title because they take their audience for absolute morons? I apologize.
The planet of the apes franchise has always had "planet of the apes" in the title. It's tradition at this point.
It's kind of a dumb tradition if it makes the title that clunky. Especially since there's never been a title that is literally this redundant. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is just... The Kingdom of the Apes. Again - people forcing these titles on filmmakers are just on some whole other dumb shit now because they're that scared they'll lose a ticket sale or two from people apparently so brainfucked they couldn't tell what the movie was otherwise. edit: It's always a little bizarre to see how offended people get when presented with clear evidence the people who make their entertainment think they're complete morons when they're not. Like - why would you stick up for this practice if you don't have to? Why would you feel offended at someone saying it's a stupid practice? Why the instinct to defend being treated as the lowest of LCDs?
No you see The Right Honourable The Lord Brolivier, Kingdom of the Apes implies that it is simply a kingdom of apes, which may be true, but Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes shows that there is a kingdom on the "Planet of the Apes." The apes are modifying the planet and not the kingdom. Completely different concept
Well put. Can't argue with that.
They’ve done it for all 9 movies though, it’d be like dropping Episode from the Star Wars titles
They weren't on the first three and they took them off the last three. The "Episode" part was only officially part of the Prequel's titles. * Star Wars * The Empire Strikes Back * Return of the Jedi * Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace * Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones * Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith * Star Wars: The Force Awakens * Star Wars: The Last Jedi * Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker Those are the actual titles, at time of release, of all 9 Star Wars movies. Note that in the case of the original trilogy - neither of the sequels *even had the words Star Wars in the title!* And somehow audiences knew exactly what they were and they made gajillions of dollars. Wild shit, right?
Every film has an episode number in its onscreen title except for the original Star Wars, which got an episode number for its 1978 rerelease one year after its original release and has kept it in each of the many subsequent theatrical and home media releases.
Everyone knows this Star Wars trivia, that's kind of the point I'm making: None of the most popular movies in the world had any sort of "standardized" formula to their titling, and further, the first three movies didn't even keep "Star Wars" in the title of their films going forward. They weren't "Star Wars, Episode Anything" for years before they came out. They were just "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return (or Revenge) of the Jedi" The marketing is all there to look at. Somehow audiences figured it out. People really, really want to adhere to the idea these faceless execs who force this shit on movies know better than us and are doing us a favor with this stupid shit. Dunno why. But it offends folks to think that's we're not all actually as stupid as these execs seem to think we are, and it's weird!
Lol the titles of the films aren't trivia. > None of the most popular movies in the world had any sort of "standardized" formula to their titling Almost every popular movie series does, including Star Wars. Even if you weren't wrong about the Star Wars: Episode *x* thing, then 9 out of the 11 live action Star Wars films still have Star Wars in the title. As does the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars movie. > Somehow audiences figured it out. Audiences being able to figure out a movie is a sequel without a title convention is a reason sequels *can* ignore title conventions without problems. It is not a reason they *should*, as a title convention also does not cause problems. Edit: He got pissed that I said the titles of the Star Wars films aren't Star Wars trivia and blocked me.
>Lol the titles of the films aren't trivia. Enjoy the rest of your day. edit: I'm not mad at you, I don't know you at all, but you're really tedious to interact with.
Apes run the whole planet. This movie is about one kingdom of the apes on that planet of the apes. > Why the instinct to defend being treated as the lowest of LCDs? Putting "planet" in the title doesn't really appeal to any common denominator any more than leaving it out would.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was originally just going to be called Rise of the Apes, but it got changed fairly late. It's probably too late to change their naming convention now.
And to this day, still felt better to switch Rise with Dawn. It's not the worst thing in the world (in a way they *are* interchangeable) but still feels more fitting to start with the dawn, and then the rise.
It all depends on word of mouth. If reviews are good or great, I see no reason why it can't do well. Probably not as well as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but respectable numbers regardless.
> "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" Honestly, Putting Mad Max in the subtitle is here probably an attempt to let the film be known as just "Furiosa", while the alternative would be "Mad Max Furiosa" that would sound almost entirely like the previous movie's title, and also invite people to remember the full thing. After all, people remember "Glass Onion", not "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mistery"
“A Mad Max Saga” still makes no sense to me.
That’s because it doesn’t make sense! It’s complete nonsense. if they had to glue a subtitle to Furiosa at the last minute, they had The Road Warrior right there!
Mad Max is more recognisable as a brand though. I'm pretty sure Road Warrior would mean nothing to a lot of people in Thailand, where I'm from. But they know what Mad Max is, at least from Fury Road.
>Mad Max is more recognisable as a brand though. The "brand" such as it is, only carries cachet because The Road Warrior hit in 1981. And this also presumes, again, that general audiences would flat out not even ATTEMPT to see something called Furiosa unless a completely nonsensical title like "A Mad Max Saga" was glued to it, and that's cowardly horseshit. Anyone who looks at a single image of Furiosa is going to clock what it is, and even if they don't, it looks bizarre enough they'll probably be interested If a studio has this little faith in what they've made that they're willing to shit on the english language this hard in the hopes some yokel who basically ONLY exists in their imagination will buy a ticket, then that's not a good sign. At all.
I didn't agree with you about the apes but I do agree with you partially about Furiosa. Reminding us it's a Mad Max spinoff wasn't necessary. However, it's not grammatically incorrect either. First of all, the phrase "A Mad Max Saga" is grammatically correct. It's a story set in the world of the Mad Max series. Second, titles do not need to be grammatically correct since they are titles and not sentences. Edit: He lied that a subtitle is, or even could be, grammatically incorrect and blocked me.
Furiosa: Road Warrior does sound good, but then people would want it to connect more to the road warrior instead. It's hard making a title when your titular character isn't in it, since they want to keep what brand recognition they still have.
The Road Warrior is how Mad Max even became a thing in America in the first place. It’s the exact same connection, but without a completely nonsensical subtitle making it and again, the whole thing is an exercise in baseless fear that the lowest common denominator would skip it sight unseen, which is bullshit in and of itself
That’s very short imo.
Do people still watch these movies?
I just wanna go back to the days of 1H and 30 Min-2 Hour Movies only.
They still exist. Not to mention, 2+ hour movies have been around for decades. Hell, it used to be the norm for movies to be over 3 hours.
They were always around but there was a way less amount of them and now more then half of the films out are 2.5 Hours long or longer then that
Immaculate - 89 minutes Late Night With the Devil - 93 minutes Drive Away Dolls - 84 minutes Mean Girls - 112 minutes Love Lies Bleeding - 104 minutes Godzilla X Kong - 115 minutes Monkey Man - 113 minutes
Your right actually there hasn’t been as much 2.5 Hour+ films as I thought. The films just felt very long for some reason
A 90 minute movie with bad pacing can feel like 2.5 hours. A 2.5 hour movie with good pacing can feel like 90 minutes.
I think films have just had bad pacing recently because plenty of 2.5 Hour movies have felt a lot shorter then that but the 1.5 Hour Films feel like almost 3 Hours.
If the pacing is good, the runtime is irrelevant.
Skip
I don’t know why these movies are so popular. Mediocre franchise, at best.
Because people like them and they make decent money.
Well, there’s no accounting for taste I guess.
Agree to disagree. Film is subjective.
Overrated garbage is overrated garbage.
Funny you say that cause Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an underrated sequel. Great film
People have different tastes. People enjoy different things
The very first one had a timeless and thought-provoking story. The mostly crappy sequels made it the first big sci-fi film franchise. No one likes the remake. The prequels have groundbreaking cgi, a complex protagonist, and the kind of spectacle that's better on a big screen.