Here is an article about why the movie Mars Needs Moms did poorly at the box office, despite being a movie and being advertised. A lot of people are scratching their heads about why this didn’t make a gazillion dollars immediately, and I’m sure some animator somewhere who used the wrong shade of purple in a scene will be fingered as the cause and fired.
But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is what “AirDave” says in the comments to this article. Behold:
The only time I check a review is for a movie I already know I’m going to see. Not for one second do I believe that a reviewer, like, say Roger Ebert as an example, who watches movies professionally has the same taste in movies as I do. Please don’t take this as a slam. First, a reviewer sees probably ten times more movies than I will in a year. I go to see a movie for the full, complete experience, from the ticket window, to the popcorn and soda, to what shows up on the screen.
What drives my choices is finances. Pure and simple. This year, I may see maybe FIVE movies. Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, Harry Potter and Twilight. As much as I might WANT to see more movies…as GOOD as those movies might be…I just might have to wait for eveything else to hit DVD or Netflix. That’s my reality.
There’s one other thing you touched on: Mars Needs Moms is an adaptation. It is very rare that an adaptation is done the justice it deserves. Whether live action or animated. Toy Story – and The Incredibles – were pretty original stories. Of the number of super-hero or comic book properties that have been made into film, how many of them have been successful as well as true to the original source material?
That right there is like the Platonic ideal of nerd moviegoers. Seriously, if I was going to parody one of these people I couldn’t do a better job.