|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 29, 2018 16:41:38 GMT
Uhh... 30% rotten
92% fresh
Sure, let's bring him back to the studio that brought you Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 3 has a fresh rating, dude. He's referring to Venom. If you follow the link it links to Venom's RT page where it has currently a 30% Edit: Unless you were just stating that generally. Spider-man 3 can have a fresh rating.If God existed came down and told me it's the best movie ever made then I would go to hell to tell him it's an Abortion of Cinema. I won't own it. I won't watch it again. I saw it twice in Theater like most movies I see, but I hate that movie with a passion. TASM which was passable, but blah and TASM 2 which is bad in the mediocre sense. Other than Gwen's death I barely remember the movie. Which is bad, but I own it, but honestly that movie forgettable in the worst way. And I would take that 1000x over Spiderman 3. It is 1 of the worst movies I've ever seen. Not comic book movies any movie and that includes B-Movies that I've seen a ton of. I would say Kazaam is a better movie than Spiderman 3 or any movie from Tyler Perry.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 29, 2018 17:02:15 GMT
coldenhaulfield I can never tell when you are being subversive, genuine, or both. Seems like the vast majority of the viewing public likes MCU Spider-Man. I trust Cinema Score more than IMDB to gauge the general population's view of a movie. They have been polling movie goers for 40 years. Instead of relying on people to have an IMDB account, log in, and rate it Cinema Score goes to the movie goers. This causes IMDB to be more of a specific demographic than Cinema Score. We also could go off of Grosses to gauge popularity, but that can be ambiguous. Also using that metric Spider-man 3 would be more popular than Spider-man 1 or 2. Cinema Score Venom B+ Homecoming A Amazing Spider-man 2 B+ Amazing Spider-man A- Spider-man 3 B+ Spider-man 2 A- Spider-man 1 A- IMDB Venom: 7.0 Homecoming 7.5 Amazing Spider-man 2 6.6 Amazing Spider-man 7.0 Spider-man 3 6.2 Spider-man 2 7.3 Spider-man 1 7.3 This is no reason for you to like them, just a metric on how popular each movie is with the public. Sony pulling Spider-man out of the MCU would be bad business. The vocal minority on here and on the internet as a whole isn't strong enough for them to cut-their own throat from the backlash from pulling Spidey from the MCU. "You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?" The one making the accusation has to provide the proof or their accusation is hollow and baseless. Why doesn't Disney spend money to get all of their movies good reviews I wonder. Why just pay to get the MCU movies a good score? Why risk the government intervention? The FTC is pretty tough on non-disclosure for paid endorsement. Which this would be a form of. The closest I've ever seen to a studio paying for reviews was in the early 00's. That was when Sony, 20th Century Fox, Artisan Entertainment and Universal Pictures used employees to review movies in commercials, and not disclosing it. One company used a fake film critic. That was Sony. They made up a film critic for Connecticut's Ridgefield Press named David Manning. He gave positive "reviews" for A Knight's Tale and The Animal. Sony used his "reviews" in advertisements and Newsweek found them out. Wouldn't you think other studios would dig for information if Disney was buying reviews? I mean At&t owns Warner Brothers and CNN. If they thought that Disney was buying reviews their journalistic wing in CNN would jump all over that. One it would be a huge story to break. Two it would stop a rival Studio from buying reviews. Three it would lower another huge media conglomerate down while raising yours up. I'd rather Disney/Marvel Studios have Spider-man why would you want him to be controlled by the Company/Studio who has been proven (and had to pay fines) for using paid reviews and a fake critic? Popularity online doesn't mean anything, and if it's popularity you want, merely compare the adjusted box office; the Raimi movies were far more impressive in the context of their own time both creatively and commercially. Saying, "well, in the context of 2018... people think it's a 7.3/10." Okay, well in 2002 people thought it was 11/10; there is no comparison between the cultural phenomenon of 2002/04 and Tom Holland. . also the statistical fallacy is strong with this one: it's not comparable data, based on voting numbers alone. Venom has roughly 100k votes, Homecoming 300k and Spiderman over 600k. This makes a huge difference and this is why RT makes a Bayesian adjusted lists when review numbers differ.
Also, time factor, when the hype dies down popular reception usually changes (regularily downwards - see currently Infnity War falling from rank 9 to below 50). It's pretty normal.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 29, 2018 17:34:10 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs? Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit? Depends on your definition of great. They already squandered Venom. Sure, Tom Hardy was great, but everything else was just forgettable.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 29, 2018 17:47:01 GMT
Spider-Man: Blue, now—that was really great.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 29, 2018 17:55:05 GMT
Popularity online doesn't mean anything, and if it's popularity you want, merely compare the adjusted box office; the Raimi movies were far more impressive in the context of their own time both creatively and commercially. Saying, "well, in the context of 2018... people think it's a 7.3/10." Okay, well in 2002 people thought it was 11/10; there is no comparison between the cultural phenomenon of 2002/04 and Tom Holland. . also the statistical fallacy is strong with this one: it's not comparable data, based on voting numbers alone. Venom has roughly 100k votes, Homecoming 300k and Spiderman over 600k. This makes a huge difference and this is why RT makes a Bayesian adjusted lists when review numbers differ.
Also, time factor, when the hype dies down popular reception usually changes (regularily downwards - see currently Infnity War falling from rank 9 to below 50). It's pretty normal.
TRue, that's another reason why IMDB ratings are iffy until comparable numbers of votes are equal. It's not my main reason for not liking IMDB for getting the general populations rating of a movie. (it's in there though) The main reason for me is the narrow demographic. I have an IMDB account and rate movies I can't say I know more than 1 other person who does in normal life. There are others like it's open for users to have multiple accounts. Also in the past groups of users got together to push ratings up and down. Also there is no stopping people to rate a movie they've never seen. Who remembers the second a genre movie especially a Comic Book Movie opened up for voting and 10000 ratings would pop up. Even before general audience has had a chance to see it. (I know IMDB has methods to try and curtail those problems) Cinema Score negates some of those problems. You know they have seen the movie. You have physical people collecting the data so it's harder to game the system. They use 25 largest markets in the country. They use randomization to help give a more even playing field. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems. The sample size is smaller if not more general in demographics. The margin of error is 6% by the companies own admission. The company also admits that their scores are generally more positive. This comes from a few factors. (the people who go to movies opening weekends tend to be the people who want to see the specific movie, it's done right after the movie is over so usually people are still amped up from seeing it, people tend to feel guilty scoring a movie in general in public, etc) That's why if a Cinema Score is low it's saying something. That's why I said I would go with CS more than IMDB. I tend to adjust my ideas of grading though. Instead of the bell curve where C is the average score you have to move it more to the right where B is an average score. All rating systems have problems though. You just have to pick the one you like.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 29, 2018 18:04:49 GMT
also the statistical fallacy is strong with this one: it's not comparable data, based on voting numbers alone. Venom has roughly 100k votes, Homecoming 300k and Spiderman over 600k. This makes a huge difference and this is why RT makes a Bayesian adjusted lists when review numbers differ.
Also, time factor, when the hype dies down popular reception usually changes (regularily downwards - see currently Infnity War falling from rank 9 to below 50). It's pretty normal.
TRue, that's another reason why IMDB ratings are iffy until comparable numbers of votes are equal. It's not my main reason for not liking IMDB for getting the general populations rating of a movie. (it's in there though) The main reason for me is the narrow demographic. I have an IMDB account and rate movies I can't say I know more than 1 other person who does in normal life. There are others like it's open for users to have multiple accounts. Also in the past groups of users got together to push ratings up and down. Also there is no stopping people to rate a movie they've never seen. Who remembers the second a genre movie especially a Comic Book Movie opened up for voting and 10000 ratings would pop up. Even before general audience has had a chance to see it. (I know IMDB has methods to try and curtail those problems) Cinema Score negates some of those problems. You know they have seen the movie. You have physical people collecting the data so it's harder to game the system. They use 25 largest markets in the country. They use randomization to help give a more even playing field. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems. The sample size is smaller if not more general in demographics. The margin of error is 6% by the companies own admission. The company also admits that their scores are generally more positive. This comes from a few factors. (the people who go to movies opening weekends tend to be the people who want to see the specific movie, it's done right after the movie is over so usually people are still amped up from seeing it, people tend to feel guilty scoring a movie in general in public, etc) That's why if a Cinema Score is low it's saying something. That's why I said I would go with CS more than IMDB. I tend to adjust my ideas of grading though. Instead of the bell curve where C is the average score you have to move it more to the right where B is an average score. All rating systems have problems though. You just have to pick the one you like. What do you think about metacritic user scores? They always seem far more tethered to reality and less susceptible to "wave" voting, at least to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 29, 2018 18:19:33 GMT
TRue, that's another reason why IMDB ratings are iffy until comparable numbers of votes are equal. It's not my main reason for not liking IMDB for getting the general populations rating of a movie. (it's in there though) The main reason for me is the narrow demographic. I have an IMDB account and rate movies I can't say I know more than 1 other person who does in normal life. There are others like it's open for users to have multiple accounts. Also in the past groups of users got together to push ratings up and down. Also there is no stopping people to rate a movie they've never seen. Who remembers the second a genre movie especially a Comic Book Movie opened up for voting and 10000 ratings would pop up. Even before general audience has had a chance to see it. (I know IMDB has methods to try and curtail those problems) Cinema Score negates some of those problems. You know they have seen the movie. You have physical people collecting the data so it's harder to game the system. They use 25 largest markets in the country. They use randomization to help give a more even playing field. This doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems. The sample size is smaller if not more general in demographics. The margin of error is 6% by the companies own admission. The company also admits that their scores are generally more positive. This comes from a few factors. (the people who go to movies opening weekends tend to be the people who want to see the specific movie, it's done right after the movie is over so usually people are still amped up from seeing it, people tend to feel guilty scoring a movie in general in public, etc) That's why if a Cinema Score is low it's saying something. That's why I said I would go with CS more than IMDB. I tend to adjust my ideas of grading though. Instead of the bell curve where C is the average score you have to move it more to the right where B is an average score. All rating systems have problems though. You just have to pick the one you like. What do you think about metacritic user scores? They always seem far more tethered to reality and less susceptible to "wave" voting, at least to me. Generally, it's more of I guess restrained is the word. I don't know what safe guards they use or the type of people who sign up to rate there. I say because it's probably the least accessed for rating (between it, RT, and IMDB) it doesn't have the problem of people trying to have an agenda with their rating. You have the same problem with anonymity and smaller sample size, but in general I would say if it doesn't reflect my personal opinion then it reflects what I think the general pop would think of it. I don't have to do the mental gymnastics that I do with IMDB and RT to try and filter their ratings.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 29, 2018 19:34:52 GMT
What do you think about metacritic user scores? They always seem far more tethered to reality and less susceptible to "wave" voting, at least to me. Generally, it's more of I guess restrained is the word. I don't know what safe guards they use or the type of people who sign up to rate there. I say because it's probably the least accessed for rating (between it, RT, and IMDB) it doesn't have the problem of people trying to have an agenda with their rating. You have the same problem with anonymity and smaller sample size, but in general I would say if it doesn't reflect my personal opinion then it reflects what I think the general pop would think of it. I don't have to do the mental gymnastics that I do with IMDB and RT to try and filter their ratings. Agreed. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 29, 2018 21:26:27 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs? Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit? I personally disagree with this on essentially every level.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 29, 2018 21:28:05 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs? Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit? I personally disagree with this on essentially every level. But Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale are damn good storytellers. And that Anita Louise was a looker, no?
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 29, 2018 21:30:30 GMT
I personally disagree with this on essentially every level. But Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale are damn good storytellers. And that Anita Louise was a looker, no? No idea what this has to do with my post...but... Sure.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 29, 2018 22:01:52 GMT
But Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale are damn good storytellers. And that Anita Louise was a looker, no? No idea what this has to do with my post...but... Sure. I admit I may be embracing my coldenhaulfield side a bit…
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Oct 29, 2018 22:08:56 GMT
Whorecrutches!!!!!D
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Oct 29, 2018 22:39:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 29, 2018 22:41:33 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs? Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit? I personally disagree with this on essentially every level. Fair enough. I respect your opinion, mang. It's a subjective art form. Incidentally, how would you rank the Spider-Man movies Sony has produced (even if you greatly prefer Homecoming/Holland)?
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Oct 29, 2018 23:25:52 GMT
I personally disagree with this on essentially every level. Fair enough. I respect your opinion, mang. It's a subjective art form. Incidentally, how would you rank the Spider-Man movies Sony has produced (even if you greatly prefer Homecoming/Holland)? 1. Spider-man 2 2. Spider-man 3. Amazing Spider Man 4. Amazing Spider Man 2 5. Spider-man 3 Haven't seen Venom because it honestly looks terrible to me...but I'm sure I'll see it someday.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Oct 30, 2018 1:00:29 GMT
Hopefully soon. Sony wants to have him in their sonyverse which i support
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 1:07:37 GMT
Whorecrutches!!!!!D THATS THE ONEZ!!!!!@!&!!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 30, 2018 6:24:47 GMT
And free to be in great Sony movies with Venom, Carnage, et. al., where he belongs? Anybody know? Holland is hot garbage, and the MCU will never get Peter right, so here's hoping we get a return to form once Sony rightly yanks him away from Disney. Innit? Depends on your definition of great. They already squandered Venom. Sure, Tom Hardy was great, but everything else was just forgettable. He hasn't seen Venom yet, and he's already calling it great.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 30, 2018 6:35:35 GMT
Hopefully soon. Sony wants to have him in their sonyverse which i support Nexus you do realize that Sony wants the average consumer to be under the impression that their Sonyverse is part of the MCU, right? (I've told you many times before, but don't recall you ever acknowledging it) That's why Venom was so vague with its world establishment, and honestly how many people went to the theater to see Venom thinking it was an MCU movie? A lot more than you think. Even if Spider-Man is free of Marvel Studios and Disney and under Sony's total control they're still going to try to milk every cent out of Tom Holland being Peter Parker as they can, he'd be the glue to tie the two universes together and not make the average movie goer question if it is or isn't connected to the larger MCU.
|
|