Why do critics hate all the Pokemon movies so much? I mean, they're

>>32519561

They're not really good as movies. They're fine as extra-long Pokémon anime episodes, but by the standards of actual movies as judged by people who aren't necessary rabid fans of the series, they're pretty bad.

>>32519593
Even for movies based on an animated show, these blow.

>>32519608

Agreed. Critics are writing for general audiences, not Pokémon fans. And to someone who's not familiar with the series, they'd sit through 20 minutes of it, be like "what the fuck is this garbage," and leave.

>>32519625
Nah, it's only 4chan that believes you "have" to be stupid.

>>32519625

This. My parents took me to see the first Pokemon movie as a kid and they were confused the whole time and hated it.

>>32519646

I'm speaking from personal experience. When the second movie came out in theaters, I hadn't gotten into the series yet (and wouldn't for a while after). I was forced to take some kids to see it, and wanted to kill myself. For someone unfamiliar with the series, 90 minutes of Japanese animals screaming their own names is not a pleasant experience.

>>32519561
They're pretty fucking bad dude. The only merit they have is for people in the fandom to maybe see the monsters that they like drawn on a bigger animation budget. On all levels that a movie is judged as a movie--the acting, pacing, story and action--they're garbage.

>>32519680
So only kids can be fans now. You know what that means, don't you?

>>32519561
Firstly, they shit as movies and a lot of critics typically grade based on merit/actual structure, which is why a lot of the "boring" (read:literary or documentative) movies receive great ratings.
Secondly, many raters and institutions HATE movies that exist to promote a product or product franchise, to the point that even highly rated ones such as The Lego Movie are outright refused consideration at all for any type of award or movie based praise by film institutes.

This always happens with movies based of TV shows. The movies are aimed at fans of the show and just assumes the viewer knows who all the characters are and what has happened in the show, and if the critic isn't familiar with the show, they'll just be confused by the fact that the movie doesn't explain things and call it "bad writing". Of course, they don't do that if they ARE familiar with the show, since that particular flaw won't even register with them.

>>32519561
That's because they're shit as movies.

My mom took me to all the first three movies when they came out. She was bored through the first two, but she said she liked the third movie, and that it "felt more like an actual movie".

>>32519703

What? He said to someone unfamiliar to the series, the movies are a retarded clusterfuck that make no sense at all. When did they say only kids can be fans?

>>32519746
That's the case with all such movies based on TV shows. They're made for existing fans, not random people that have never heard of the series.

It's the same reason why episode 43 of some random show takes it for granted you've seen the show before and isn't going to introduce every character and plot point from scratch, yet you never see people that review individual episodes of TV shows complain about that.

>>32519703

That's... not even close to what I said. I'm a fan now, and I'm not a kid. But I wasn't at the time, and for a non-fan, the Pokémon movies are terrible.

>>32519808
All movies based on TV shows are terrible for non-fans. The writers know non-fans aren't going to pay money to go see a movie based on a show they've never seen unless they have to accompany actual fans, so they don't bother catering to them. There's no money in that.

>>32519782

>yet you never see people that review individual episodes of TV shows complain about that.

You might be retarded.
First of all, when has any critic ever reviewed an individual episode of serial show without being familiar of the rest of the series?

Films should be able to stand alone on their own.

>>32519821

You're not wrong. But that doesn't mean that movie critics shouldn't review them from the perspective of a non-fan. Their job is to review the movie on its own merits for a general audience.

>>32519836
>First of all, when has any critic ever reviewed an individual episode of serial show without being familiar of the rest of the series?
Never, because they know how retarded it is. But that's not the point. The point is that movie critics will criticize movies based on TV shows for being hard to follow unless you're familiar with the TV show, but TV show critics won't criticize individual episodes for being hard to follow unless you're familiar with the TV show, even though BOTH are not meant to be easy to follow for such people.

>Films should be able to stand alone on their own.
Why? They don't need to because the audience that would benefit from that aren't going to willingly watch anyway.

>>32519821

Except there are plenty of show based movies that don't require you to watch the show to understand or enjoy them.

>>32519853
Sure, but it's a pretty pointless review. Who is it for? The general audience isn't going to watch it anyway and the fans won't care because the "not approachable to a general audience" issue won't affect them.

I bet those are the same people that give Hotel Transylvania bad scores Becuase Adam sandler is in it

File: 1491869336083.png (437KB, 498x492px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 498x492px

>>32519561
because they're unwatchable to an outsider and painfully mediocre to a fan

>>32519898
>The general audience isn't going to watch it anyway

I'm not sure that's as true as you think. I mean, there's a reason they advertise those movies at other times besides during the show it's based on. They want new people to see it. So a critic is providing a valuable service by saying "if you're not a fan of this series, you'll probably hate this movie."

>>32519884
Yeah, and there are plenty of random individual episodes of random shows that don't require you to watch the show to understand or enjoy them.

>>32519919
How many times have you gone to the theater to watch a movie based on a TV show you were completely unfamiliar with? How many of those times did you accompany people that WERE familiar with it?

>>32519561
They're only good if you're familiar with the show.