PDA

View Full Version : Crystal Skeleton Review & "Movie Critics Vs. Toy Reviewers"



Engineernerd
08-09-2009, 10:16 AM
It was a pleasant surprise to find my mail away Crystal Skeleton in the mail this week. It was very cool to have a "new" Indiana Jones figure in my hands, and I couldn't wait to share it with you, my fine readers.

So without further ado..

http://tvandfilmtoys.com/index.php/2009/08/indiana-jones-crystal-skeleton/

This week I also posted a rant after reading a movie critics comments over the new GI Joe film and Toy Critics.

Check it out here:

http://tvandfilmtoys.com/index.php/2009/08/movie-critics-vs-toy-reviewers/

Enjoy!
Engineernerd

Ji'dai
08-09-2009, 06:53 PM
I was pleasantly surprised at how nice this figure was when I first got mine, both in terms of overall quality and articulation. I don't see too many skeleton figures in this scale that are this good. And the throne is nice and heavy and well sculpted too.

I ended up getting 11 of these guys; just two shy of the number in the movie.

wawe1
08-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Atleast you got 11 of them... I had to wait forever for mine and when it came, it was crushed.

plasticfetish
08-10-2009, 01:27 AM
This week I also posted a rant after reading a movie critics comments over the new GI Joe film and Toy Critics.Nice commentary there...


“I am no more qualified to judge the details of these toy-based monstrosities than a toy critic — there are toy critics, aren’t there? — would be qualified to review Casablanca.”

You know... I'd bet that a few of us "toy critics" and toy collectors in general, have actually worked in the film/TV industry, which makes us sort of qualified to offer up our opinions on a film. At least from a technical standpoint.

I've only ever written about toys for fun, so I'm not about to put myself on a par with someone that writes about them, or movies for that matter, "professionally." As far as I'm concerned the only real qualification that most critics seem to have, is that they have fingers, or at least a pointy stick attached to their forehead, in order to type out a review.

The guy sounds like a weasel. If he's trying to say that he thinks the film is cr*p, then that's one thing, but to belittle the genre and make fun of GI Joe fans is something totally different.

For the record, I have zero interest in the film for just about a million reasons. I've seen the current toy line, and think it's very well done, and I definitely appreciate the vintage 3-3/4-inch Joe line, but it's just not something that I've ever been a fan of.

Still though... if or when I get around to seeing this film (and I'll probably see it, because my 11 year old son wants to see it), I think I can muster up enough objectivity to where I could probably type out a pretty fair review. And heck... I don't even write for the Wall Street Journal.

Ji'dai
08-10-2009, 08:51 AM
Atleast you got 11 of them... I had to wait forever for mine and when it came, it was crushed. Did you wait forever before you sent away for one? The toy was crushed or just the box? Most of my boxes were in pretty bad shape by the time they arrived, but all the figures were fine and well-protected by their plastic tray.

I can't complain about how Hasbro handled the mail-away offers for the Indy line. I received my first Crystal Skeletons August 30, 2008, just three months after the toys were released on May 1. Then they extended the offer through the end of the year, so I was able to order more. And when they ran out, Hasbro didn't cancel the outstanding orders but produced more figures to fill demand. Sure, it took a little longer than they originally said orders would be fulfilled, but they did follow through in the end. To me, that's good business.

Engineernerd
08-10-2009, 06:16 PM
Nice commentary there...

Still though... if or when I get around to seeing this film (and I'll probably see it, because my 11 year old son wants to see it), I think I can muster up enough objectivity to where I could probably type out a pretty fair review. And heck... I don't even write for the Wall Street Journal.

Well said.

I really like the title of this related article:

http://thepasswordisswordfish.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/how-joe-morgensterns-non-review-of-gi-joe-hastens-the-death-of-film-criticism/

plasticfetish
08-11-2009, 05:26 AM
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that film critics are becoming obsolete, but his point is well made. I agree that their role in swaying public opinion has been greatly diminished in recent years by the internet, and by the fact that people can now more easily debate the strengths and weaknesses of a film on their own publicly. But I still visit Rotten Tomatoes regularly, and have always been a fan of Roger Ebert, so I almost religiously visit his site at the Chicago Sun-Times to read his reviews. If I'm on the fence about whether or not I'm going to spend nearly $50 to take the family to a movie and feed them a bunch of over-priced concessions cr*p, his take on a film can make or break the deal.

Besides, I think he has the right attitude and approach when it comes to reviewing films. He tends to look at them based on how they represent their particular genre, and not necessarily how one random film (G.I. Joe vs. Casablanca for instance) compares to another. I can respect that, and don't think his kind of intelligent reviewing could ever be obsolete.

El Chuxter
08-11-2009, 10:39 AM
I can't help but wonder something. There have to be professional film critics who realize from movies like X-Men and Dark Knight that having "kiddie" source material doesn't completely destroy a film's worth. And there have to be professional film critics who grew up reading the GIJoe comic and know it can be something more than the fluff from the cartoon.

So where are these guys?

I don't care if every critic hates GIJoe, but it bugs me that so many are saying, "This is a bad movie, but it's based on a toy, so it's to be expected." Or, almost worse, "This is based on a toy, so it should be a stupid action movie, and it succeeds remarkably at that."

JediTricks
08-20-2009, 10:02 PM
Making a toy movie and then expecting it to be critically reviewed by a movie reviewer is a bold challenge in general, and one fraught with failure in the past because, let's face it, toy movies are generally crap. Granted, audiences seem more adept at eating up junk films lately, and studios are becoming more adept at producing them, but at the end of the day the films are not about telling that story, they're about selling products.

A toy critic may indeed be qualified to review Casablanca, but only if that person is somewhat familiar cinema, which is a SEPARATE qualification. Cinema has a greater reach than toy lines, so it's no surprise that most of us are going to be more familiar with a film than movie reviewers are with a toy line. Just because one can speak French doesn't mean they are qualified to every foreign language. Morgenstern's comments may have been offensive and perhaps a little snide towards our little corner of the world, but that doesn't make them inaccurate or untrue.

And by the way, when an article says that a movie isn't even as good as The Mummy, but it's somehow still good, they are talking out their wazoo and proving that the level of expectations of quality on popcorn films is slipping. The Mummy should be the benchmark for fun popcorn films, it and ID4 are pretty much the bottom of the scale, if a film cannot reach their competency, they should be deemed as suck. And the 13k+ voters of IMDB say the film is a 6.1, RottenTomatoes gives it a 37% with their community giving it a 57% and critics giving it a 26%, so it's not like the film is made to be good cinema or even quality popcorn cinema, it's meant to sell stuff.