Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 0:49:08 GMT
Feb 27, 2019 20:19:20 GMT @cat said:
Welcome to my world, or at least part of it. Nothing about Marvel or the MCU is the straw that broke the camel's back, but I've been on about Rotten Tomatoes for years. Probably since the first time I saw a movie rated 100%. That's impossible, goddammit. Every bit as unrealistic as being rated 0.
I understand the algorithm makes it work, but it does not work for me to see unreasonably high ratings for regular movies. High and low ratings tell me something. 0 and 100 tell me nothing.
Last month I recommended my friend a movie to download, so he did, then before we watched it he mentioned apparently it's at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, which bodes well for it. I recommended it and even thought ugh, that's stupid.
I guess that's why there's a critic score and audience score and even though I don't like the algorithm, the gap between them sometimes is more telling than either rating alone.
IMDb I generally find is more accurate, but not inscrutable either.
IMDB is not accurate either because of socks. one person can have 20 accounts and rate a film a 10 or a 1.
nothing is reliable, the only thing reliable is if a person can talk in full extent on the content of a movie or if there is a pattern about many complaints from other people that hate movies that also make movies.
for instance how do I know Interstellar is better than GOTG? Because Interstellar had some brains to it, it was directed by a person who had creative freedom to tell his story even with all the flaws. GOTG is just fun dumb down nonsense shited out by the disney cooperate factory and those darm jokes to make the movie goofy for kids? interstellar used a more serious approach , a better approach. that is why it is better. these are solid reasons.
why it is a better film. I dont give a darm what rotten tomatoes says. the substance had to speak for itself.
MCU fans were a funny bunch. they never listened to many film makers who have said or implied mcu movies are trash, they never listened to long tome marvel comic fans who spoke about how marvel was getting too silly and childish under disney but they chose to listen to critics who they cant even name.lol. at least we know who john landis, james cameron, ridley scott are.
That's no small feat to unpack. I agree with you about IMDb. I don't lose sleep over it, but I've seen the ratings tampered with maliciously as well. I also appreciate you don't give a damn what Rotten Tomatoes says, especially if if leans the way you don't.
Our agreements don't end there but they do split. I'm not going to subscribe to your non-stop interpretation of the Marvel movies, or its fans. Although, I will say I'm not always sure what you like. You don't dislike Marvel, do you? Just the MCU you don't like? Because I've seen you heap kind words on the X-Men movies.
Anyways, believe it or not, I actually agree with at least one criticism of Marvel's direction. I also think their universe lacks a director's individuality. It's why I put Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy over the Russo Brother's (loosely defined) Captain America/Avengers trilogy. The MCU has a refined and distinct aesthetic; it's cinematography and palette are different from the other superhero/comic book movies. I will however say I don't recognize their directors for who and what they are. Christopher Nolan has an identifiable stamp he puts on everything. A lot of directors do; they employ certain tropes, visual techniques, deal with certain themes that make their work uniquely theirs. It's an observation that exists independent of the quality of the movie. David Lynch often uses vast, elaborate networks of impossibly well-connected and shady underground players in his films; Quentin Tarantino often has characters with unconventional opinions, gratuitous violence/swearing; Christopher Nolan himself usually uses characters that are strong, proud, masculine, stoic, and if they're not his creations (like Batman), he'll turn them into a character he can relate to (it's why I think his next most successful movie after The Dark Knight is a film where emotions are literally human viruses the brain sends out to defend itself via Inception).
The MCU mostly has directors who either don't employ their own identifiable branding on the movie or they're not allowed. The MCU films, though I enjoy them (and keeping in mind you don't, I guess), I often find their achievements very technical. The MCU movies occur in different situations and settings but are reigned in similarly enough to pass for the same movie universe instantly. The Russo brothers also did a lot of Community. I don't see any traces of uniqueness linking Community and the Captain America movies. Iron Man 3 stands out for me because I know Shane Black anywhere; he did the Lethal Weapon movies, The Nice Guys, and seems to specialize in witty banter between unsavory ne'er do well characters. James Gunn's two movies are like each others but unlike his other works that I've seen.
I'm meeting you half-way (take a picture) because I definitely like the MCU movies, but I've thought for a while they often look similar. It's par for the course that they have to, and I'm not saying they have no individuality; it's just not always allowed on the surface because it's a billion dollar box office operation now. Stakes are too high for experimental directing and anything remotely resembling auteur. So yeah, I disagree with 9 and a half out of 10 things you say, but you got a bit of a point.