|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 17, 2019 18:58:37 GMT
Do you think movie critics have ever gone too easy on certain films and that these certain films should really have a lower IMDB rating, rottentomatoes score, shouldn't have as much critical acclaim as they should, etc.? Do you think that certain flaws of a certain film should have been brought to attention more in critical reviews but were either ignored or lightly dismissed? For instance, many say that The Force Awakens is a large retread/rehash of A New Hope. But when the movie first came out, a lot of critics either ignored this notion or dwelled on it for a bit but ultimately forgave it because they enjoyed the movie so much. But a lot of people feel that with the movie being a large retread/rehash of A New Hope, it's something that should have been more mentioned in reviews and shouldn't have been so ignored or lightly dismissed. www.vox.com/2015/12/26/10664834/star-force-awakens-derivative |
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Sept 17, 2019 19:11:16 GMT
We don't have pro movie critics anymore, just paid shills.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 17, 2019 19:17:41 GMT
It's all Sharknado's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 17, 2019 20:14:11 GMT
Yes
However it’s nit their fault really. They get caught up in hype and buzz like everyone else.
That is why the Star Wars prequels got good reviews despite being godawful.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 17, 2019 20:17:13 GMT
Yes However it’s nit their fault really. They get caught up in hype and buzz like everyone else. That is why the Star Wars prequels got good reviews despite being godawful. I remember a lot of critics giving praise to Phantom Menace when it first came out. I do wonder if part of the praise was due to the intense hype for the film. I know some critics now wouldn't rate the movie as highly as they initially did.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 17, 2019 20:42:02 GMT
Yes However it’s nit their fault really. They get caught up in hype and buzz like everyone else. That is why the Star Wars prequels got good reviews despite being godawful. I remember a lot of critics giving praise to Phantom Menace when it first came out. I do wonder if part of the praise was due to the intense hype for the film. I know some critics now wouldn't rate the movie as highly as they initially did. i never saw a review less than 3 stars at the time of release. However by the time the next one came out the flaws of the previous one were explained in detail meaning that people soured in it. The same thing happened with the last crop of Oscars. By the time the Oscars rolled a round a lot of movies that received praise were flat out despised including the Oscar winner Green Book. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 17, 2019 20:45:13 GMT
The first Spider-man film.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 17, 2019 21:53:42 GMT
Honestly, I think they've been too easy on the Marvel films. Not all of them are great (many of them are) and yet they get reviewed like all of them are fantastic.
Black Panther while very enjoyable was praised as if it came from heaven itself! Captain Marvel was very ok, but it too was praised like nobody's business. Spider Man Far From Home - again, just ok, but you wouldn't know it to hear from the critics. They too fall into the same mindset that they audience falls into. That's just one example I can think of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 17, 2019 22:04:23 GMT
Yes
And sometimes they go to easy on films.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 17, 2019 23:49:01 GMT
Didn't Avatar get this to an extent? If it did, then I'm sure it will happen for Avatar 2.
It seems most common for high profile films (Avatar) and especially for late-arriving films in a franchise (Force Awakens, Phantom Menace).
I think this also happened for late-arriving sequels such as Godfather III. That movie even got nominated for Best Picture, but I think that was mostly done due to the other Godfather films getting the same nomination in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 18, 2019 0:23:52 GMT
One thing I am confident has a effect on IMDb scores is if the Oscars nominate a movie for 'Best Picture' (or the like), it's like people feel obligated to give it a inflated score and has it not received the Oscar nom, I would not be surprised if the average score was noticeably lower.
but then again I feel far too many people are too generous with scoring movies on IMDb as most half way decent name movies should not be into the 7.x/10 and higher ranges for the average.
because if people scored movies more honestly (like score it on a 1-10 scale based on ALL movies they have seen as it makes no sense to score a movie higher because say critics claim it's good etc than a movie you truly like more etc) I feel the average ratings of movies on IMDb would decline as currently they are a bit too inflated in my estimations as if people based their scores on the 1-10 rating scale with 5/10 being average and then things went up and down fairly evenly from there (like in terms of their enjoyment of a movie not that you have to give out a even amount of ratings etc), there would be much less 7-8/10 range scores as I have a feeling many tend to mostly stick to 6-7/10's or higher for most movies which is simply a bit too high as a easy majority of half way decent name movies are not more than around a 6/10 at the most in my mind (like they might be decent-ish but no where near anything special etc). because when you cut through the BS... how many movies truly stand out to most people? (as in movies the viewer re-watches a fair amount as the years pass) ; it can't be all that many (hence, should not be scored more than around a 6/10 at the most). because I suspect there are a fair amount of voters on IMDb who see a movie and say something like, 'that movie was pretty good', then score it fairly high, then forget about it shortly after and move onto the next movie. that says a lot on what they truly feel about it in that it was pretty much around average (i.e. 5/10-ish) instead of some 7-8/10 type of score that they gave it.
etc etc. I am sure you get the gist. but that's not likely to change anytime soon though since I suspect many don't use the rating scale more properly in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Sept 18, 2019 0:27:23 GMT
Probably. Back then they were definitely more hard-going.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Sept 18, 2019 0:30:47 GMT
I believe it goes both ways... Some people actually love/hate films that most people don't. Some people praise/trash films, even if they don't, for their own screwed up agendas. I also agree with much of what paulslaugh had to say: Movie reviewers are just like anybody else. They can have a bad day, or just be tired, and that can reflect on the review given at that time. I’m sure there’s some snarky ones who like nitpicking every film apart. Then there’s some who judge different films using different standards. Like, a review for a comic book movie or comedy will be based on whether it is good entertainment, delivers the goods, etc. For other films, they use more serious film analysis. And more on "Different Standards"... Yeah, I have heard younger people questioning why "blockbuster" films from over 30 years ago are so highly rated... when they thought it was just "OK"... Well, you had to be there. Many of those films, were all that we knew about, at that time... WE DIDN'T HAVE MODERN FILMS, WITH CGI AND OTHER MOVIE MAKING TECHNIQUES TO COMPARE THEM TO... For Example: 1930S Monster & Horror Films, can seem "OK" to people that watched them, AFTER, they saw more modern versions... But for people living in the 1930s, that is all that there was... And for them, they were fucking scary!... It people like them, that rate older movies higher... "Over-rated"? No, Not for THEM. Actually, Your Opinion, "Under-Rates" how THEY view these films! If you don't like it, that's perfectly OK. Just accept that you view it differently than they do. "Differently?"Yeah, this is where I also agree with paulslaugh ... I always take film aggregate review sites with grain alcohol. If it seems like a movie that you might like... Don't worry about what Critics say... Go see the movie, and decide for yourself! It usually works for me. There have been many movies that I enjoyed, that the critics didn't... and sadly, Vice-versa too. Those Critics? Well, just remember, that they are NOT YOU! |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 0:32:18 GMT
Roger Ebert once quoted an older film critic that he agreed with.
"If I come out of a movie and I enjoyed it, I can't pretend that I didn't."
The only time I won't stand by a critic is either if I suspect they are being paid to give a movie a good review or if they are giving mediocre movies good review because of an agenda.
I can't fully blame them for this, especially after Richard Roeper got blasted for daring to say that Ghostbusters (2016) is crap. It makes me wonder how many critics are rating certain movies good because they are worried about what will happen to their career if they don't.
Two people can watch the same movie and have the exact opposite opinion in such a way that it feels like they aren't even watching the same movie. Is either of their opinion wrong or do they just experience the movie differently and have different criteria by which they like or dislike a movie? In most cases it is the latter imo. The fact that so many people care about what other people think about movies is baffling to me. Movies are about personal fulfillment and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 1:02:05 GMT
I believe it goes both ways... Some people actually love/hate films that most people don't. Some people praise/trash films, even if they don't, for their own screwed up agendas. I also agree with much of what paulslaugh had to say: And more on "Different Standards"... Yeah, I have heard younger people questioning why "blockbuster" films from over 30 years ago are so highly rated... when they thought it was just "OK"... Well, you had to be there. Many of those films, were all that we knew about, at that time... WE DIDN'T HAVE MODERN FILMS, WITH CGI AND OTHER MOVIE MAKING TECHNIQUES TO COMPARE THEM TO... For Example: 1930S Monster & Horror Films, can seem "OK" to people that watched them, AFTER, they saw more modern versions... But for people living in the 1930s, that is all that there was... And for them, they were fucking scary!... It people like them, that rate older movies higher... "Over-rated"? No, Not for THEM. Actually, Your Opinion, "Under-Rates" how THEY view these films! If you don't like it, that's perfectly OK. Just accept that you view it differently than they do. "Differently?"Yeah, this is where I also agree with paulslaugh ... If it seems like a movie that you might like... Don't worry about what Critics say... Go see the movie, and decide for yourself! It usually works for me. There have been many movies that I enjoyed, that the critics didn't... and sadly, Vice-versa too. Those Critics? Well, just remember, that they are NOT YOU! Thanks, MC. Another thing that’s so now is trying to quantify everything. It’s all ratings and box office that some believe validates the quality of a film. Some of Hitchcock’s greatest worked, such as Vertigo and The Birds, were panned or got mixed reviews by the critics at the time. Perhaps the negative critics were not as ahead of the curve as the Master. I have no problem with folks who fight against negative views they believe are unfairly given in these chat sites. But, please don’t go blame RT or Disney for “rigging the game.” Without solid proof, it isn’t true. Something can be true whether it is provable or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Sept 18, 2019 1:49:25 GMT
Many Marvel movies
Indiana Jones 4
New Star Wars movies
Come to mind
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 3:08:22 GMT
Something can be true whether it is provable or not. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Until then, there is no rigging. Do you know that it isn't rigged? If you do than I'd be interested to have the information that you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 3:26:16 GMT
Do you know that it isn't rigged? If you do than I'd be interested to have the information that you have. I don’t know, but I don’t have to prove a negative. You claim positive that it is rigged, therefore you should have the data to prove your claim. You can cite it now. Just saying something is rigged does not make it so. You are about truthiness or feeling something must be true. I work in facts. I never claimed it was rigged you fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 3:28:29 GMT
I never claimed it was rigged you fool.
Then why did you ask this question? Because I don't know if it is or isn't and neither do you. That is what I am saying. If you said it is true that it isn't rigged than you would need to be the one to prove it. I suspect it is, but that doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 18, 2019 3:41:05 GMT
Something can be true whether it is provable or not. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Until then, there is no rigging. Okay. I see what you meant now. You aren't saying that it is a fact that there is no rigging, you are saying that it isn't a FACT until it can be proven true. Yeah, I agree with that.
|
|
