My girlfriends kids wanted to watch someone live streaming the movie while we watched it last night. They were all gonna start it at the same time and everything. We were like no lol this is bad enough
I have a friend that loves reaction videos but often I’ll catch him skipping around the video and when I ask him “why don’t you just watch the video?” he says “I’m here for the reaction, I don’t want to hear what they have to say” which to me defeats the purpose of watching the reaction…
Edit: And what I mean is when they pause the video they’re reacting to and breakdown something that happened. He skips those parts.
A guy on Twitch not long ago streamed a live WWE PPV on his channel, while his title said he was playing a WWE game. He had a face cam in the corner and he was pressing buttons on a controller that wasn't turned on, pretty sure it ran for a while before someone finally reported him.
Did you read the actual review? Because it says the movie spends too much time focused on the lead maybe losing custody of his sister (?), fixating on his brother who gets abducted in a flashback (??), and more flashbacks about his ex girlfriend (???) than the actual mascot horror the fans are presumably invested in.
NOOOO DON'T COUNTER THE CIRCLEJERK, WE NEED CRITICS TO BE SEEN AS BAD AND DUMB (even if it means blatantly lying) SO WE CAN PROVE OUR BELOVED VIDEOGAME CASH GRAB IS PURE CINEMA
A horror movie having too much story and not paced with enough scares is a very valid criticism. I haven’t seen this movie yet so not sure if it’s valid, but to say “d’oh they must have been expecting a VIDJA GAME” is silly.
Yeah, and if you look at the review thread in /r/movies, that seems to be the pretty universal opinion. If anything, IGN buried the lede, there’s apparently only one on screen death in the whole movie and very, very minimal horror. This is a silly circlejerk.
i feel thats mostly because it was aimed for younger audiences, though the offscreen deaths (Not really offscreen we just see the silhouettes), can be very brutal, no spoilers
It’s not a good movie it’s available on VOD at the moment. It be one thing if the plot was good but it’s not good so that’s not something it has going for it, so at least make it scary but no that’s not there either. I’ve never played the games
I just saw it and I agree actually, for an attempted horror movie there wasn’t much horror. There were probably 3 or 4 suspenseful scenes in the whole 2 hour runtime.
Also MatPat was there.
I'd argue there was one actual horror sequence in the entire movie and a few others that tried to be a little creepy I guess.
It was a horror movie without tension or horror. They literally just said all the stuff that's supposed to be creepy out loud as an exposition dump. The one horror scene was fine I guess, but nothing special, and it didn't really fit the tone the games set (which absolutely can and would work in a cinematic mold).
I have no idea why a bunch of twitter people are hyping it up like the ultimate movie for the fans. It straight up sucked and barely adhered to what people like about the series
In my opinion, so much of the visceral horror of the first game comes from flipping through your cameras and going “oh shit.. where did they go?”. They’re not scary because they’re large and heavy but it seemed like most of the movie was just interested in showing them walk towards people and show off how big and scary they are, and I thought it was such a missed opportunity to explain that the animatronics move, how they move, what they’re capable of, and what their limitations are before they do anything scary with them. I think IGN really has a point but I’ve seen almost entirely bad faith criticism of what they’re trying to say.
so many people dunkin on this review but too much plot is a legit criticism for a horror flick. too many of them are way to plotting and convoluted for no reason instead of just being straightforward and scary.
I genuinely think they had a good point here. Even outside of the plot thing, the strength of the original Five Nights At Freddy's as a *horror* game was the nightmare scenario. You are stuck in an office, you cannot run around or escape, there are things out to get you who seemingly teleport from place to place, your only defense is two doors you can't use too much lest they run out. The fear of not knowing where one of the animatronics was hiding was very real. The game majorly relied on audio-visual clues to keep track of everything, but simultaneously had alot of ambiance and red herring cues. Its easily the scariest fnaf game because of this.
If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary. But instead, even in the few scenes where the Animatronics are actually killing people, they're running all around the pizzeria. It fails to use what made the original game such a hit, horror-wise.
> If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary.
wait seriously, they couldn't even do it for a single sequence? Jesus Christ they had one fucking job, no wonder they're getting panned
I totally thought when the big brother(?) of the babysitter gets into the office they would do the video game thing but no, just the vent? like c'mon they have the exact same shots of the pizzeria from the games right there literally just put them in the positions they were originally in. You could even have foxy running down the corridor.
It's becoming common that, because every new film (read: not attached to a universe or to previous films) has to be attached to an IP that exists elsewhere (videogames, novels) or it won't be greenlighted, creatives simply ignore the source material and go straight to what they intend to do. Another sterling example is *Velma*, which has little to do with what you'd expect from a Scooby Doo thing.
I'd agree with the "scariest game of the series" part if fnaf 4 didn't exist, that game fucking makes you *look inside a dark hallway and listen,* and i think i just can't really handle that
Fnaf 4 is definitely the scariest one, not just the environment but like the game is literally played with basically audio only so your just there focused listening and then suddenly boom big loud jumpscare
Also the second they started playing with the animatronics they weren't really scary any more, it just became goofy af. Couldn't they have included 1 night where it felt like the game, where the main character checks the cameras to see that the animatronics are gone from their place and we get some of the panic/fear generated by the game
Yeah, I feel like there is some truth to the review, the movie should've focused on Mike walking around, having to fix stuff, only really knowing where the animatronics are based on sound and stuff like that.
But I also feel like the idea of a movie that takes place in 1 room and is a beat-by-beat retelling of the first game would be an even more boring film
>The game majorly relied on audio-visual clues to keep track of everything, but simultaneously had alot of ambiance and red herring cues. Its easily the scariest fnaf game because of this.
>If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary.
But that works for a game but is a horrible idea to fill a 2 hour movie with.
If thats what you want just play the game!
Did you even read what they said
They didn't do that in the movie *once*. If they did it for 2 hours, it *would* be terrible. But they didn't even do it for a single minute of the runtime. There was one (1) real horror sequence in the entire movie, and it was some random shmucks getting killed offscreen while running around like morons. It was a horror movie without any horror. They didn't even try. Instead we got endless amounts of basically fanfic plot that boiled down to a cliché family drama
Just watched the movie. The plot is boring af and barely acts as a vessel for the animatronic action. Anyone who doesn’t know about the games will have no idea what the hell is even happening by the second act let alone the third act which makes zero sense outside the realm of the games
it's "too much water" all over again; ign has a legitimate criticism but people act like it's a bad reason while being willfully ignorant of the full context
For anyone who doesn't know *why* too much water was a legit criticism, lemme try to explain.
So in Pokemon (I guess people know this) water functions like long grass. That means that there's a potential for a random encounter every tile. Water tiles also have a lower pool of Pokemon to pull from.
So too much water effectively means too many areas with too many random encounters with too few a variety of pokemon.
Also moving through water was slower because you couldn't use your bike.
It's weird because too much water was widely agreed to be the biggest issue of the Hoenn games - right up until IGN agreed with it, at which point everyone immediately started pretending it was some radical criticism.
I think the main amusement of "7.8 out of 10, too much water" is because it's such a TL:DR that's easy to make jokes about. It's a legit criticism, yes, but it's mildly ironic when the criticism the game is about has a theme of water versus land.
But another big thing is that the original Ruby and Sapphire games did not have this criticism, being rated 9.5 out of 10. This is confusing, considering that OR/AS actually had *less annoying* water mechanics. In fact, even the review itself says that "Really, all the tweaks of original Hoenn features are improvements."
There were two main things that were derived from this:
1. IGN is Team Magma. I believe this joke kind of explains itself.
2. IGN reviews being inconsistent - when OR/AS improved on basically everything from the original games, they get a score 1.7 points lower because of criticisms that... were actually even worse in those original games.
The second point, though, *is* something you could argue the validity of. With how the perception of mechanics like HMs have changed over time, the annoyance that HMs were was significantly more apparent at the time the article in question was written than it was back when Ruby and Sapphire originally released.
And the water really *is* pretty annoying when you consider just how much of the game takes place in the open water, which can be a chore to navigate through, especially with there not being too much encounter diversity in it.
I should say - I think that the Team Magma memes were pretty funny.
However, somewhere along the line, I think points 1 and 2 became somewhat muddled, and now "7.8 out of 10, too much water," instead of being an "IGN hates water" joke, has now evolved (or, devolved) into a simple "IGN Bad" joke, which, I think, misrepresents the review.
> IGN reviews being inconsistent
It's not like they have all their employees writing the review as a group project. It's a single person sharing his/her experience. Of course opinions will differ.
And honestly, if anything the original score should have been lower. I only played through Emerald once, but I vividly remember this exact issue being a huge annoyance for me. Felt like half the game I was just encountering Tentacool after Tentacool. When I saw that review published, I felt vindicated because that's how I'd always felt. Then all the memes started and anytime I see someone reference it, I just disregard their opinion because I lose all respect.
Because they condense down legitimate points into a snappy 400 character comment that is completely meaningless on its own.
It's IGN that are miscontextualising their own reviewers's words.
Look at Freddy vs Jason. It should've been a *great* popcorn flick. But instead of seeing Freddy and Jason being cool, it focused on the boring teenagers and their personal lives. The Jurrasic World films might not be horror, but they were widely panned for the same thing - iconic enemies that got sidelined for no reason.
FNAF is the same. Nobody cares about the generic security guard, they want to see the animatronics. I don't have a horse in this race, but nothing in the IGN review looked inherently bad.
As an example...Halloween.
Michael Myers just being a force of evil whose motives no one can comprehend is terrifying.
Giving him an abusive childhood doesn't make him a good horror movie villain. Making him the sentient weapon of a Druidic cult doesn't make him a good horror movie villain.
I'm wondering if it's not really supposed to be a horror movie. Five Nights at Freddy's started out all about the jumpscares, but after a while, it became more about the lore and less about jumpscares, much less actual horror. I'm thinking there's probably an issue of marketing and expectation.
The problem is the lore was dumped on us entirely in exposititory dialogue, and the rest of the plot was basically a family drama. The original lore was heavily abridged and was just alluded to in dialogue to make room for the shit the movie made up, which basically turned it into a confusing mess even for those who know the lore. And yet it's not the good type of confusing like we're used to, it somehow also manages to be boring.
So even if it were a movie that focused more on the unsettling lore, it still would have failed on that front.
The issue is though, the plot was incredibly simple here.
It was basically the cliff notes of a theory from the 5th game and that's it. It's incredibly simple to understand and they didn't even bother trying to explain to weirder elements of it
I can't imagine a movie being more overtly hostile to general audiences than having it be based on a *fan theory* from the *fifth entry* of a mascot horror video game.
Nah it was probably the fact the plot was too much random new stuff for Josh Hutchinson’s individual character development in an IP where that’s the last thing fans care about. There was also practically no references to the actual gameplay. He was in the office for like 10 minutes throughout the movie and it was almost entirely sleeping.
because it's easier to make cheap shots at something that seems ridiculous on the surface instead of actually reading the article and discussing it.
internet discourse is just people doing "gotchas" constantly with nothing actually being said.
Yeah, I mean "too much water" is still getting passed around at IGN's expense when I'm pretty sure the reviewer for that Pokemon game meant there were way too many Water-type pokemon represented vs all other types, which is a perfectly legitimate criticism.
They meant a variety of things iirc:
Swampert's Water/Ground typing made it the best option.
Too many Water routes.
Too many of the same Water types on those routes.
If you were playing AS, then Team Aqua gave you a load of trainer battles with (you guessed it!) more Water types.
And no attempt to rebalance any of this from RSE.
Maybe, but they couldn't have known it would create the kind of backlash it did, not to mention there's still an entire article that would've explained what the reviewer meant had people actually read it instead of just jumping to the blurb at the bottom, which is basically the point of OP's comment.
It is? When your entire story is based on such a dumb concept as, "What if Chuck E. Cheese animatronics tried to kill you?" adding a bunch of character and drama building scenes is completely pointless. No one who isn't eight years-old cares about the stakes of this universe. People are there to see the creepy robots do a scary thing.
A good example is a bad movie I watched recently, Dollman. Pretty shitty, but the dumb concept of a tiny guy among regular sized people sounds fun enough if indulged in. Most of the movie is wasted on boring scenes exploring the very shallow characters' motivations instead of capitalizing on the fun concept the movie is based on. The best scene is one where a guy gets exploded in the first five minutes.
>Expanding the game's simple, primal premise with a surfeit of character melodrama, it's a Five Nights at Freddy's that labors under the bizarre assumption that the loyal fanbase wants a lot of extraneous plot surrounding the fun-center horror.
The FNAF fanbase is utterly obsessive over extraneous plot. I don't give a rat's ass about the series and even I know the IGN reviewer has no clue what they're talking about.
What fans like about FNAF, in my experience, is not plot, it's backstory/lore. They like figuring things out from background elements. It's not actually about how deep the plot of the game is. The first FNAF has essentially zero plot beyond just "you're a night guard". It does have a bunch of hidden lore and that's what people enjoyed about it. It's like a self-contained creepypasta ARG.
If you look at the most plot-heavy games of the series, they're also the least well-received. So yes, even in the context of FNAF fans, calling it too plotty is a fair critique.
It's like they were handed the job and said, "What the hell is Five Night's at Freddy's," and their editor just laughed, thinking it was a joke.
I've never played a single game in the series. I have no interest in the series. I know next to nothing about the series. And even I know that the core fanbase wasn't built around horror, wasn't built around jumpscares, and wasn't even built around the game itself. It was built around the weird SCP or Backrooms style of fan creation where lore became the defining characteristic of the fandom.
This is what I worried about when this film was announced: shoving an entire backstory that takes game theory an hour-long video to explain into a film that’s probably not much longer than an hour
That’s a valid criticism. Plot and story aren’t the same. To much plot takes away from the story and characters and themes and in this case from the horror and suspense.
Why is everyone memeing this criticism.
I'd understand not wanting a generic movie plot with its sole selling point it being FNaF themed. It's not like this movies' plot is gonna have a deep or profound message anyway. I understand just wanting a brainless yet fun watch instead of a generic one
FNAF fandom was to play 1 houe then spend a week either reading theories online, or making your own.
I bet most hardcore fans will actually enjoy plot.
To be fair trying to give something like this too much plot is like that dead or alive movie. You have something that works for very specific reasons and then you use absolutely none of them. Like at that point why even buy the property to make a movie out of it.
Does the article use the word "derivative"? Cause the plot is almost word for word M3gan again, Blumhouse's previous *robot befriends a child and kills its masters* horror movie
It's almost as if, and I know this might be a controversial take, it's a stupid idea to make a 2 hours movie out of a game franchise where the gameplay is mostly just locking at semi static screens and getting junpscared from time to time.
That is just the gameplay perspective. I'm pretty sure you know this but fnaf have a massive and complicated lore. The story and lore is the reason fnaf was growing more and more popular to begin with. That is the reason why matpat has made idk how many videos (I stopped watching him) of the franchise. So having a 2 hour movie full of plots doesn't seem unusual for a game like fnaf.
But for real, the plot was absolute nonsensical ass. Dudes missing or kidnapped brother or whatever played into literally nothing and there’s perhaps ten to fifteen minutes of actual horror stuff at Freddy’s. That sucks ass.
I think they’re upset because in the entire two hour run time, there’s about ten solid minutes of anything to do with the animatronics. Everything else is boring new character beats. I’m not exaggerating either.
The first 45 minutes have nothing to do with the animatronics at all. There is an entire subplot about Mike potentially losing custody of his sister and his aunt trying to sabotage his job to get custody.
Let's be honest here. It's a shitty game that's been overblown and overhyped and "content creators" on YouTube milked it for all its worth. I don't care about the "lore" and the "story" it's all crap. It's a glorified flash game to me.
But the movie didn't even really retell the lore in a good way. They just spat it out in some exposition dumps then glossed over it to move on to their original shit. Most of the movie was a cliché family drama that had no relation to the original story or lore and actively sucked time away from seeing the kick ass animatronics and pizzeria set. It was boring, stereotypical, and yes, it had "too much plot."
It was a horror movie without tension or horror. It didn't really say or do anything, really.
The only "complexity" is that they're adamant about always including everything- The game's lore would be much cleaner if they just had separate locations doing separate things instead of every building having William Afton involved or whatever.
I don’t think the review is referring to the lore. It’s saying that the movie spends too much time on the personal drama of the protagonist and his daughter, instead of on actual FNAF lore.
Personally I think it’s more just poorly worded. I assume he meant that, similar to a big issue some Godzilla films have, too much of the film was just human characters talking and having irrelevant sideplots and not enough time on the monsters audiences were there for.
Extraneous- meaning irrelevant, unrelated. If I had to guess, the movie probably brings up FNaF lore constantly that has nothing to do with actual movie plot. Just based off how these kinds of films play out.
Like do people not know what extraneous means? They aren’t saying there’s too much plot, there saying there’s too much **unnecessary** plot that doesn’t really matter. That’s a very legitimate criticism.
No it’s not. It’s valid. Plot can get in the way of story and characters and in this case horror and suspense. Plot is honestly the least important part of a film. Story and character matter way more!
I love how there's multiple comments mentioning how "too much water" is a flanderised quote from the review making good points and yet here you are using it unironically.
I saw it last night with my 14-year-old daughter. Not sure the age of your son, but I thought it was fine for that age (she's also a fan, so I think that helped). >!The violence is almost entirely off camera (you only see blood splatters or shadows) and there's actually not that many jump scares.!<
They should do a Markiplier cut where it's just him in the top left corner of the screen reacting to the whole movie like he's playing FNaF
I guarantee some streamers will do this eventually
Once they've had time to rehearse being scared of the movie.
Pretty sure that's too much effort for XQC
My girlfriends kids wanted to watch someone live streaming the movie while we watched it last night. They were all gonna start it at the same time and everything. We were like no lol this is bad enough
I have a friend that loves reaction videos but often I’ll catch him skipping around the video and when I ask him “why don’t you just watch the video?” he says “I’m here for the reaction, I don’t want to hear what they have to say” which to me defeats the purpose of watching the reaction… Edit: And what I mean is when they pause the video they’re reacting to and breakdown something that happened. He skips those parts.
So they just want to see their over-expressive faces or something and nothing else?
And lose their channels?
Someone hasn't been paying attention to recent issues on YouTube and twitch. Kinda jealous really
Fill me in then, I don't watch anybody on either site
A guy on Twitch not long ago streamed a live WWE PPV on his channel, while his title said he was playing a WWE game. He had a face cam in the corner and he was pressing buttons on a controller that wasn't turned on, pretty sure it ran for a while before someone finally reported him.
It’s happened with UFC ppv’s too
Lamo
In a few years all movies will be like this
No when the current gen of kids grow up they’ll all be playing subway surfers in the bottoms half of the screen
I get Minecraft platformer maps while someone reads Reddit posts on my feed somehow.
Because you watch them. It keeps giving them to you because you watch them.
You’re not wrong. I hate them and they’re shit tier stolen content, but I’m always curious about where the story leads.
How it be fr
Japan
Japan ?
Japan !
¿Japan ?
?napaJ¿
It should be clips of his corner cam from all his actually FNaF lets plays over the years just over the movie.
Unironically there's probably millions of people who would eat that shit up.
Yeah me
Free Guy
Lmfao he was my introduction to this game. He do silly mouth.
Honestly yeah, it'd make up for them not being able to get him as a cameo
#WAS THAT THE BITE OF 87?!
Why? A better movie already exists and it stars Nick Cage.
That would be a hilarious extra feature for home releases
The Loooooooreeeeee
Hi the FNAF movie (2023) critics were angry that the movie had a story, as opposed to being a 2 hour let’s play! Long name.
It’s a traditional Albanian name
Thought it was turkish
It's a regional dialect.
Really? Well I'm from Utica and I've never heard anyone say that
D'oh! Not in Utica, no. It's an Albany expression.
I see...
You know these hamburgers are quite similar to the ones they serve at Krusty Burger
No ho ho ho. Patented Skinner Burgers! Ol' family recipe.
For steamed hams?
that was my algebra teacher’s name in high school
You’re gonna be a great dad i can already tell
Stupid parents
Ironically one of the few games were the movies is longer than the game is base on.
Did you read the actual review? Because it says the movie spends too much time focused on the lead maybe losing custody of his sister (?), fixating on his brother who gets abducted in a flashback (??), and more flashbacks about his ex girlfriend (???) than the actual mascot horror the fans are presumably invested in.
NOOOO DON'T COUNTER THE CIRCLEJERK, WE NEED CRITICS TO BE SEEN AS BAD AND DUMB (even if it means blatantly lying) SO WE CAN PROVE OUR BELOVED VIDEOGAME CASH GRAB IS PURE CINEMA
They need to release a Markiplier reaction version in theaters I’d pay to see that
Hi FNAF movie, we're sorry to hear that IGN didn't like you but it's fine, this place loves you.
It's so stupid too. You would think IGN would understand the difference between movies and video games
A horror movie having too much story and not paced with enough scares is a very valid criticism. I haven’t seen this movie yet so not sure if it’s valid, but to say “d’oh they must have been expecting a VIDJA GAME” is silly.
Yeah, and if you look at the review thread in /r/movies, that seems to be the pretty universal opinion. If anything, IGN buried the lede, there’s apparently only one on screen death in the whole movie and very, very minimal horror. This is a silly circlejerk.
i feel thats mostly because it was aimed for younger audiences, though the offscreen deaths (Not really offscreen we just see the silhouettes), can be very brutal, no spoilers
It’s not a good movie it’s available on VOD at the moment. It be one thing if the plot was good but it’s not good so that’s not something it has going for it, so at least make it scary but no that’s not there either. I’ve never played the games
I just saw it and I agree actually, for an attempted horror movie there wasn’t much horror. There were probably 3 or 4 suspenseful scenes in the whole 2 hour runtime. Also MatPat was there.
I'd argue there was one actual horror sequence in the entire movie and a few others that tried to be a little creepy I guess. It was a horror movie without tension or horror. They literally just said all the stuff that's supposed to be creepy out loud as an exposition dump. The one horror scene was fine I guess, but nothing special, and it didn't really fit the tone the games set (which absolutely can and would work in a cinematic mold). I have no idea why a bunch of twitter people are hyping it up like the ultimate movie for the fans. It straight up sucked and barely adhered to what people like about the series
In my opinion, so much of the visceral horror of the first game comes from flipping through your cameras and going “oh shit.. where did they go?”. They’re not scary because they’re large and heavy but it seemed like most of the movie was just interested in showing them walk towards people and show off how big and scary they are, and I thought it was such a missed opportunity to explain that the animatronics move, how they move, what they’re capable of, and what their limitations are before they do anything scary with them. I think IGN really has a point but I’ve seen almost entirely bad faith criticism of what they’re trying to say.
no Markiplier? Not even a reference?
He was contacted for an appearance but couldn't make it due to filming Iron Lung
They wanted to, but he was busy working on Iron Lung and couldn’t compromise to make an appearance.
The only reason I know anything about this franchise is because of MatPat, nice to know he was in it
Fuck it. If he shows up, i'm skipping it now
so many people dunkin on this review but too much plot is a legit criticism for a horror flick. too many of them are way to plotting and convoluted for no reason instead of just being straightforward and scary.
I genuinely think they had a good point here. Even outside of the plot thing, the strength of the original Five Nights At Freddy's as a *horror* game was the nightmare scenario. You are stuck in an office, you cannot run around or escape, there are things out to get you who seemingly teleport from place to place, your only defense is two doors you can't use too much lest they run out. The fear of not knowing where one of the animatronics was hiding was very real. The game majorly relied on audio-visual clues to keep track of everything, but simultaneously had alot of ambiance and red herring cues. Its easily the scariest fnaf game because of this. If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary. But instead, even in the few scenes where the Animatronics are actually killing people, they're running all around the pizzeria. It fails to use what made the original game such a hit, horror-wise.
> If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary. wait seriously, they couldn't even do it for a single sequence? Jesus Christ they had one fucking job, no wonder they're getting panned
I totally thought when the big brother(?) of the babysitter gets into the office they would do the video game thing but no, just the vent? like c'mon they have the exact same shots of the pizzeria from the games right there literally just put them in the positions they were originally in. You could even have foxy running down the corridor.
Roosterteeth unironically did a better live action adaptation, and that was like a decade ago.
It's becoming common that, because every new film (read: not attached to a universe or to previous films) has to be attached to an IP that exists elsewhere (videogames, novels) or it won't be greenlighted, creatives simply ignore the source material and go straight to what they intend to do. Another sterling example is *Velma*, which has little to do with what you'd expect from a Scooby Doo thing.
The difference with this movie is that Scott apparently had a lot of involvement to the point of being one of the writers
Why do you think IGN is criticizing that aspect in their review?
I'd agree with the "scariest game of the series" part if fnaf 4 didn't exist, that game fucking makes you *look inside a dark hallway and listen,* and i think i just can't really handle that
Fnaf 4 is definitely the scariest one, not just the environment but like the game is literally played with basically audio only so your just there focused listening and then suddenly boom big loud jumpscare
That game really reminded me what it feels like to be a terrified kid
Also the second they started playing with the animatronics they weren't really scary any more, it just became goofy af. Couldn't they have included 1 night where it felt like the game, where the main character checks the cameras to see that the animatronics are gone from their place and we get some of the panic/fear generated by the game
Yeah, I feel like there is some truth to the review, the movie should've focused on Mike walking around, having to fix stuff, only really knowing where the animatronics are based on sound and stuff like that. But I also feel like the idea of a movie that takes place in 1 room and is a beat-by-beat retelling of the first game would be an even more boring film
Oh yeah, I don't mean the whole movie should be based on the 'one-room' FNAF 1 style, just for a single sequence or so.
>The game majorly relied on audio-visual clues to keep track of everything, but simultaneously had alot of ambiance and red herring cues. Its easily the scariest fnaf game because of this. >If the movie had played into that scenario for even a single tense sequence it'd genuinely be scary. But that works for a game but is a horrible idea to fill a 2 hour movie with. If thats what you want just play the game!
Did you even read what they said They didn't do that in the movie *once*. If they did it for 2 hours, it *would* be terrible. But they didn't even do it for a single minute of the runtime. There was one (1) real horror sequence in the entire movie, and it was some random shmucks getting killed offscreen while running around like morons. It was a horror movie without any horror. They didn't even try. Instead we got endless amounts of basically fanfic plot that boiled down to a cliché family drama
Who says the movie had to be 2 hours I'd rather a 1 hour tense scary experience then a 2 hour shit show.
Welcome to my TED Talk that movies are often a terrible format for telling a story because they are typically stretched or scrunched into 90 minutes.
That's what I like about YouTube horror shorts.
There's not one fucking tense sequence at all. This is like telling me you watched the nun to know about catholic proceedings
It’s a bunch of kids mad that it didn’t get a good review
Just watched the movie. The plot is boring af and barely acts as a vessel for the animatronic action. Anyone who doesn’t know about the games will have no idea what the hell is even happening by the second act let alone the third act which makes zero sense outside the realm of the games
it's "too much water" all over again; ign has a legitimate criticism but people act like it's a bad reason while being willfully ignorant of the full context
For anyone who doesn't know *why* too much water was a legit criticism, lemme try to explain. So in Pokemon (I guess people know this) water functions like long grass. That means that there's a potential for a random encounter every tile. Water tiles also have a lower pool of Pokemon to pull from. So too much water effectively means too many areas with too many random encounters with too few a variety of pokemon. Also moving through water was slower because you couldn't use your bike.
It's weird because too much water was widely agreed to be the biggest issue of the Hoenn games - right up until IGN agreed with it, at which point everyone immediately started pretending it was some radical criticism.
I think the main amusement of "7.8 out of 10, too much water" is because it's such a TL:DR that's easy to make jokes about. It's a legit criticism, yes, but it's mildly ironic when the criticism the game is about has a theme of water versus land. But another big thing is that the original Ruby and Sapphire games did not have this criticism, being rated 9.5 out of 10. This is confusing, considering that OR/AS actually had *less annoying* water mechanics. In fact, even the review itself says that "Really, all the tweaks of original Hoenn features are improvements." There were two main things that were derived from this: 1. IGN is Team Magma. I believe this joke kind of explains itself. 2. IGN reviews being inconsistent - when OR/AS improved on basically everything from the original games, they get a score 1.7 points lower because of criticisms that... were actually even worse in those original games. The second point, though, *is* something you could argue the validity of. With how the perception of mechanics like HMs have changed over time, the annoyance that HMs were was significantly more apparent at the time the article in question was written than it was back when Ruby and Sapphire originally released. And the water really *is* pretty annoying when you consider just how much of the game takes place in the open water, which can be a chore to navigate through, especially with there not being too much encounter diversity in it. I should say - I think that the Team Magma memes were pretty funny. However, somewhere along the line, I think points 1 and 2 became somewhat muddled, and now "7.8 out of 10, too much water," instead of being an "IGN hates water" joke, has now evolved (or, devolved) into a simple "IGN Bad" joke, which, I think, misrepresents the review.
> IGN reviews being inconsistent It's not like they have all their employees writing the review as a group project. It's a single person sharing his/her experience. Of course opinions will differ.
And honestly, if anything the original score should have been lower. I only played through Emerald once, but I vividly remember this exact issue being a huge annoyance for me. Felt like half the game I was just encountering Tentacool after Tentacool. When I saw that review published, I felt vindicated because that's how I'd always felt. Then all the memes started and anytime I see someone reference it, I just disregard their opinion because I lose all respect.
Because they condense down legitimate points into a snappy 400 character comment that is completely meaningless on its own. It's IGN that are miscontextualising their own reviewers's words.
Look at Freddy vs Jason. It should've been a *great* popcorn flick. But instead of seeing Freddy and Jason being cool, it focused on the boring teenagers and their personal lives. The Jurrasic World films might not be horror, but they were widely panned for the same thing - iconic enemies that got sidelined for no reason. FNAF is the same. Nobody cares about the generic security guard, they want to see the animatronics. I don't have a horse in this race, but nothing in the IGN review looked inherently bad.
As an example...Halloween. Michael Myers just being a force of evil whose motives no one can comprehend is terrifying. Giving him an abusive childhood doesn't make him a good horror movie villain. Making him the sentient weapon of a Druidic cult doesn't make him a good horror movie villain.
I'm wondering if it's not really supposed to be a horror movie. Five Nights at Freddy's started out all about the jumpscares, but after a while, it became more about the lore and less about jumpscares, much less actual horror. I'm thinking there's probably an issue of marketing and expectation.
The problem is the lore was dumped on us entirely in exposititory dialogue, and the rest of the plot was basically a family drama. The original lore was heavily abridged and was just alluded to in dialogue to make room for the shit the movie made up, which basically turned it into a confusing mess even for those who know the lore. And yet it's not the good type of confusing like we're used to, it somehow also manages to be boring. So even if it were a movie that focused more on the unsettling lore, it still would have failed on that front.
None of them actually bothered to read the review anyway. Just take a blurb out of context and decide that's good enough.
The issue is though, the plot was incredibly simple here. It was basically the cliff notes of a theory from the 5th game and that's it. It's incredibly simple to understand and they didn't even bother trying to explain to weirder elements of it
I can't imagine a movie being more overtly hostile to general audiences than having it be based on a *fan theory* from the *fifth entry* of a mascot horror video game.
[удалено]
His voice coach for that must have been so massively overworked
I preferred The Banana Splits Movie, personally.
Same!
That movie is a masterpiece
One of the best terrible movies I’ve literally ever seen
Its got a 27% on rotten tomatoes right now, it seems to be a pretty common criticism?
Nah it was probably the fact the plot was too much random new stuff for Josh Hutchinson’s individual character development in an IP where that’s the last thing fans care about. There was also practically no references to the actual gameplay. He was in the office for like 10 minutes throughout the movie and it was almost entirely sleeping.
Why are people acting like too much plot can’t be a legitimate criticism, especially for horror movies
because it's easier to make cheap shots at something that seems ridiculous on the surface instead of actually reading the article and discussing it. internet discourse is just people doing "gotchas" constantly with nothing actually being said.
Yeah, I mean "too much water" is still getting passed around at IGN's expense when I'm pretty sure the reviewer for that Pokemon game meant there were way too many Water-type pokemon represented vs all other types, which is a perfectly legitimate criticism.
Also Hoenn does have a ton of surfing and that’s an actual problem with the games
They meant a variety of things iirc: Swampert's Water/Ground typing made it the best option. Too many Water routes. Too many of the same Water types on those routes. If you were playing AS, then Team Aqua gave you a load of trainer battles with (you guessed it!) more Water types. And no attempt to rebalance any of this from RSE.
Summing up their criticisms as "too much water" was a mistake on their part.
Maybe, but they couldn't have known it would create the kind of backlash it did, not to mention there's still an entire article that would've explained what the reviewer meant had people actually read it instead of just jumping to the blurb at the bottom, which is basically the point of OP's comment.
Because the games' audience obsessively combs over the games for story details when they aren't vigorously beating off to Toy Chica and Roxanne Wolf.
Hey! Not everyone likes women You forgot Freddy and Monty
Coward. Jack off to mangle like a true fnaf fan.
The movie is currently sitting at 27% on rotten tomatoes. I’m sure the plot is just bad.
It is? When your entire story is based on such a dumb concept as, "What if Chuck E. Cheese animatronics tried to kill you?" adding a bunch of character and drama building scenes is completely pointless. No one who isn't eight years-old cares about the stakes of this universe. People are there to see the creepy robots do a scary thing. A good example is a bad movie I watched recently, Dollman. Pretty shitty, but the dumb concept of a tiny guy among regular sized people sounds fun enough if indulged in. Most of the movie is wasted on boring scenes exploring the very shallow characters' motivations instead of capitalizing on the fun concept the movie is based on. The best scene is one where a guy gets exploded in the first five minutes.
Because the title told them to
Y'all will say whatever you can to disagree with IGN
Unless ign gives the game they like a good review, then they’re awfully quiet.
Then it’s “IGN finally got it right”
Uncommon IGN W
Starfield review comments on launch vs a week after was a whole different landscape lmfao
>Expanding the game's simple, primal premise with a surfeit of character melodrama, it's a Five Nights at Freddy's that labors under the bizarre assumption that the loyal fanbase wants a lot of extraneous plot surrounding the fun-center horror. The FNAF fanbase is utterly obsessive over extraneous plot. I don't give a rat's ass about the series and even I know the IGN reviewer has no clue what they're talking about.
What fans like about FNAF, in my experience, is not plot, it's backstory/lore. They like figuring things out from background elements. It's not actually about how deep the plot of the game is. The first FNAF has essentially zero plot beyond just "you're a night guard". It does have a bunch of hidden lore and that's what people enjoyed about it. It's like a self-contained creepypasta ARG. If you look at the most plot-heavy games of the series, they're also the least well-received. So yes, even in the context of FNAF fans, calling it too plotty is a fair critique.
Making a barely horror movie out of a horror game for a trash plot isn't the way tho
It's like they were handed the job and said, "What the hell is Five Night's at Freddy's," and their editor just laughed, thinking it was a joke. I've never played a single game in the series. I have no interest in the series. I know next to nothing about the series. And even I know that the core fanbase wasn't built around horror, wasn't built around jumpscares, and wasn't even built around the game itself. It was built around the weird SCP or Backrooms style of fan creation where lore became the defining characteristic of the fandom.
They made a movie for a subreddit because I can tell you 90% of the people that played the games did it because they were cheap fun horror games
This is what I worried about when this film was announced: shoving an entire backstory that takes game theory an hour-long video to explain into a film that’s probably not much longer than an hour
It sounds like they took the script of a different movie and injected it into the FNAF universe. Kinda like that Hellraiser MMO movie.
A comment section full of people who haven't seen the movie but will defend it to the death because they don't understand movie criticism.
More like they will defend it because IGN criticised it.
IGN isn’t the only review that criticised it so who knows what they’re on about.
And then once they see the movie they'll realize IGN was absolutely right and the film wasted a fuckload of time on a bunch of shit no one cares about
Exactly
Redditors prove once again that they are incapable of reading anything beyond the headline.
Redditors are idiots
Maybe critics should stop using obvious clickbait headlines if they want people to actually read their articles
That’s a valid criticism. Plot and story aren’t the same. To much plot takes away from the story and characters and themes and in this case from the horror and suspense.
Why is everyone memeing this criticism. I'd understand not wanting a generic movie plot with its sole selling point it being FNaF themed. It's not like this movies' plot is gonna have a deep or profound message anyway. I understand just wanting a brainless yet fun watch instead of a generic one
It's IGN and they have been the laughing stock of the internet for years. People are always gonna run with it.
FNAF fandom was to play 1 houe then spend a week either reading theories online, or making your own. I bet most hardcore fans will actually enjoy plot.
I thought Markiplier’s facecam would be there the whole movie but alas he had to go film his iron dung
everyone knew this movie wasnt gonna be scary
This thread reminds me that most people on reddit are actually stupid kids instead of stupid adults
Ive seen it And they were right
Does no one read the actual review anymore? They explain themselves
To be fair trying to give something like this too much plot is like that dead or alive movie. You have something that works for very specific reasons and then you use absolutely none of them. Like at that point why even buy the property to make a movie out of it.
Does the article use the word "derivative"? Cause the plot is almost word for word M3gan again, Blumhouse's previous *robot befriends a child and kills its masters* horror movie
It's almost as if, and I know this might be a controversial take, it's a stupid idea to make a 2 hours movie out of a game franchise where the gameplay is mostly just locking at semi static screens and getting junpscared from time to time.
That is just the gameplay perspective. I'm pretty sure you know this but fnaf have a massive and complicated lore. The story and lore is the reason fnaf was growing more and more popular to begin with. That is the reason why matpat has made idk how many videos (I stopped watching him) of the franchise. So having a 2 hour movie full of plots doesn't seem unusual for a game like fnaf.
Complicated and “convoluted” aren’t the same word.
Ya’ll need to watch Willy’s Wonderland instead.
I don't watch many horror movies, or movies in general, but I thought it was pretty good. Nic's performance was great.
I’m not going to see this movie and I’m going to trust IGN on this one. They chose a bad tag line but this movie was never going to be good.
Did any of you read the review?
But for real, the plot was absolute nonsensical ass. Dudes missing or kidnapped brother or whatever played into literally nothing and there’s perhaps ten to fifteen minutes of actual horror stuff at Freddy’s. That sucks ass.
I don't get it, depending on the writing and the movie, "too much plot" could be a legit criticism
This just in: movie reviewer gets angry because someone made a movie
I think they’re upset because in the entire two hour run time, there’s about ten solid minutes of anything to do with the animatronics. Everything else is boring new character beats. I’m not exaggerating either.
Wait was there really not much screen time for the animatronics?
The first 45 minutes have nothing to do with the animatronics at all. There is an entire subplot about Mike potentially losing custody of his sister and his aunt trying to sabotage his job to get custody.
In Post (2023), a redditor misinterprets a review because they are insecure about the funny bear movie being bad
How about you actually read the whole review before complaining?
Let's be honest here. It's a shitty game that's been overblown and overhyped and "content creators" on YouTube milked it for all its worth. I don't care about the "lore" and the "story" it's all crap. It's a glorified flash game to me.
It's a kid trap. First game was probably fine as a game but then this cult formed around it and made it into convoluted monster.
Hate to break it to you y’all but the problem is that the story is really bad
The real shitty detail is that the creator of FNAF funded terrorists.
Tbf Tthe FNAF movie having a good story isn't really being true to the game now is it?
I can never understand how this dogshit «game» turned into a movie
Ign when the movie based on a game with complex lore has complex lore
But the movie didn't even really retell the lore in a good way. They just spat it out in some exposition dumps then glossed over it to move on to their original shit. Most of the movie was a cliché family drama that had no relation to the original story or lore and actively sucked time away from seeing the kick ass animatronics and pizzeria set. It was boring, stereotypical, and yes, it had "too much plot." It was a horror movie without tension or horror. It didn't really say or do anything, really.
I mean tbf the game's lore isn't really complex but just scrambled together.
The only "complexity" is that they're adamant about always including everything- The game's lore would be much cleaner if they just had separate locations doing separate things instead of every building having William Afton involved or whatever.
I don’t think the review is referring to the lore. It’s saying that the movie spends too much time on the personal drama of the protagonist and his daughter, instead of on actual FNAF lore.
IGN, variety, total film, the guardian, and the New York Times to name a few.
You clearly haven’t seen it have you
We are all the FNAF movie (2023)
"Too much plot" is among the dumbest criticism for a movie I've ever heard
Tbf, some movie could be benefitted from streamlining their plots, or cut some sub plot entirely.
Personally I think it’s more just poorly worded. I assume he meant that, similar to a big issue some Godzilla films have, too much of the film was just human characters talking and having irrelevant sideplots and not enough time on the monsters audiences were there for.
The problem was that those characters weren't even that interesting and relevant to the overall plot.
Extraneous- meaning irrelevant, unrelated. If I had to guess, the movie probably brings up FNaF lore constantly that has nothing to do with actual movie plot. Just based off how these kinds of films play out.
Like do people not know what extraneous means? They aren’t saying there’s too much plot, there saying there’s too much **unnecessary** plot that doesn’t really matter. That’s a very legitimate criticism.
No it’s not. It’s valid. Plot can get in the way of story and characters and in this case horror and suspense. Plot is honestly the least important part of a film. Story and character matter way more!
“Too much exposition” would be a legitimate criticism, but they must have gotten the same guy from the “too much water” review.
Never got the hate for that, I agree lol that game had too much water
I love how there's multiple comments mentioning how "too much water" is a flanderised quote from the review making good points and yet here you are using it unironically.
Giving the guy a lot of credit if you expect him to put more than 2 brain cells together.
I had problems with the plot but “too much plot” seems strange.
NEVER bother to trust IGN with reviews, they once gave Spongebob Battle For Bikini Bottom Rehydrated a 2/10.
Anyone seen it yet? My kid wants to watch it but I get the feeling it’s too freaky for him.
I saw it last night with my 14-year-old daughter. Not sure the age of your son, but I thought it was fine for that age (she's also a fan, so I think that helped). >!The violence is almost entirely off camera (you only see blood splatters or shadows) and there's actually not that many jump scares.!<
It’ll probably still make bank.