*sigh*
Embargoes aren't bad. Unless they are post release. Post release embargoes only apply to movies or games that are outright awful or an absolute mess. People who only look at a score are in the wrong, but the review scores being that low is for a reason. People CHECKED the reviews and boom! Turns out the movie is almost entirely product placement for phone apps, turns out the writing is bad! The movie got flak when it was first announced because of the ridiculous concept. Emojis are just emoticons. How do you make a good story with that? It's like if I made a movie about moldy bread. People would go "How do you make an interesting movie with something that has nothing you can go on?" The Emoji movie's criticisms for being too similar to other movies applies as it's not just Wreck it Ralph or Inside Out, but also the Lego movie to the point on of the characters in the Emoji movie has a WAY too similar design to a character from the Lego movie. The movies are rather recent and were all positively received due to their charm and writing.
If the movie needed to do well, you know what SPA should have done? Made a good movie. The studio had a stupid idea people questioned if it would work, the movie kept looking to be outright bad by having Patrick Stewart play as ****, the movie's concept was stupid when we got a plot synopsis, the movie's blatantly just trying to go "HEY KIDS YALL LIKE THIS ONE THING? GO WATCH THE MOVIE!", the rumour that they want to make a Netflix thing based off of the eggplant emoji and how the writers don't understand emonjis. One of the trailers had a corner of "underused emojis" with the eggplant emoji. That emoji's VERY common due to it being phallic. There's also the gimmicky trailers shot in angles that only work if you have a smartphone when watching and only move your head. The movie was DOA because it looked terrible and the marketing team didn't change opinions. Now that it's out, it turns out the movie is just awful
You're still trying to use a pattern with this embargo thing? Let it go. No, I refuse to believe embargoes mean jack at all because they don't. Also, correction, the movie is mediocre when you actually pay attention to those who try to remove it while not being influenced by the 100% unjustified hatred.
SPA didn't "Make the movie". They only greenlit it. The director made it because he had multiple influences.
The one correct point you are making is that it wasn't going to do well because the subject matter had no way to give us a good movie. Also, there is a line between good and bad. Movie isn't actually bad anyway. It's meh. No pun intended. And yeah, I agree the product placement is cringeworthy as an idea. Not worth hating on, but worth facepalming on.
Now, another point being made is it's very clear that a character was influenced by Wyldstyle. This doesn't mean the movie was influenced in itself by anything but Toy Story, but a character =/= movie anyway.
Inside Out doesn't have a similar premise to Toy Story, what?
Toy Story is "things we believe are unliving are actually living and do things when we're not looking"
There's no "secret life" aspect in Inside Out.
And The Emoji Movie doesn't have the "secret life" aspect from what we've seen, which would be the only similar thing to Toy Story outside of "unliving things being living" which isn't something Toy Story created, personifying objects is standard for animation.
The Emoji Movie does, however, copy the same plot structure from Wreck-It Ralph, as Opo has already explained.
Also, another problem with the Emoji Movie is that it doesn't seem to want to do more than just what the emojis themselves already are
Joy wasn't all about happiness and Ralph wasn't just a Bowser-type villain
Inside Out proved you can make a movie out of something that's literally one-note(in this case a personification of an emotion) but Emoji Movie isn't even trying.
No. It's the same concept. Taking fictional stuff people made up and trying to make them actually real and fun to look at. The real difference is the execution. They don't have different main concepts at all. That's why Inside Out and Wreck-It Ralph succeeded, however. It was the execution, and people not judging it for using the same base concept as another movie. They never had actually severely different premises whatsoever.
So excuse me if I refuse to blame a movie for copying a concept when other movies did it already. I will blame it for a poor execution, not doing the same thing others did. At least that's justified.
You also just proved my point about The Emoji Movie's issue. They weren't able to execute the idea well. Emojis are no different from the emotions. Of course, we don't know if there's more behind the scene issues than what's already said.
It's not really the fact that it copies Toy Story or Wreck-it Ralph or Inside Out. It's that they did it in the most lazy way possible.
They are banking on young teens and kids to come watch the movie for the sole sake of it being based off of something that's in their everyday lives. It doesn't matter if it was a good idea or not because you can tell from the commercials alone that there is absolutely no passion or TLC put into this movie because all it is is advertisement for other products.
Reviews are a good thing. Someone who is trying to decide on going to see a movie this weekend will go see what they want, and that's fine, but if there's two movies that someone wants to see it's always a good idea to look at the reviews and if the movie is releasing the day you want to go see it and there's no reviews for it it is, indeed, suspect. I always check reviews before I watch a movie. Always.
However, I absolutely do agree, if you get the chance to make your own opinion on a movie do so. I love The Mummy. Everyone else hated it. Does that mean it's a good movie? Not necessarily. Does it deserve the hate it gets? Probably. But I enjoyed it and that's all that matters.
Oh, no, I agree here. There was no way trying to appeal to teenagers like that was going to work(although that falls heavily under execution too). SPA did awful advertising. That's not the director's fault, mind you. Guy actually tried. However, let's remember that even a Director has to adhere to the company that greenlit it. It's clear that behind the scenes stuff also hurt the movie.
And it's not a "fact" it copied Wreck-It Ralph or Inside Out. It didn't even do that. I don't know why keeps flying over people's heads. It only at best copied Toy Story, and only the very basic concept. The director was trying to make a fairly specific message, which is why it has similarities to two movies who wanted to give off the same message. It was an inevitable coincidence.
If Sony is banking on this movie doing well so their company can stay afloat, they cannot let reviews influence it. And to be fair, embargoes guarantee people will judge it on their own merits. There's clearly good reasons to not like the movie. Nobody will deny that. It's just annoying that many of these legitimate reasons are ignored for make up bull****(like that it removed two movies from being produced at the time), or that the director was influenced by unrelated movies. There's definite issues, but a lot of that is clearly ones that are behind the scenes. The Director doesn't even deserve the flak he gets, since he at least cared about the movie. Those also there and working on it, as well as SPA? Sure as hell didn't.
Anyway, got to go to work.