|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 12, 2017 12:25:56 GMT
This is a joke right?
DCEU kids will be gloating for decades after the multi-billion dollar success that is Justice League.
You have Zack Snyder's visual sensibility (that all DCEU kids worship) mixed with Whedon's firm grip on contemporary themes and natural language.
Anyone who doesn't think this is going to be hit is going to end up grabbing their ankles.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 12, 2017 13:09:18 GMT
You needn't listen to the pig's squeals, skaathar. Its just noise pollution. well you do all the time, comment even when not asked. Or were you just referring to yourself?
On the internet nobody hears you squeal...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 16:24:03 GMT
You needn't listen to the pig's squeals, skaathar. Its just noise pollution. well you do all the time, comment even when not asked. Or were you just referring to yourself?
On the internet nobody hears you squeal...
The butcher doesn't need to justify himself to the pig. So keep squealing before the cleaver, swine.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 12, 2017 16:42:19 GMT
So you're using the tomatometer? Then that simply means it's the 3rd freshest superhero movie of all time (and that's only if you used their adjusted bayesan scoring system). I hope you understand how Rotten Tomatoes does their fresh/rotten scoring, it's not actually a number that says how good a movie is, merely what percentage of critics gave it a pass. A better metric would be the average rating because that actually takes into account the quality of the movie, in which case I don't think WW comes in at 3rd place. A brief check put on tied with a lot of other superhero movies. And that's only RT scores. If you want to keep brandishing that "3rd best superhero movie" flag of yours you'd need to consider other metrics like IMDB and metacritic, as well as the biggest metric of all: box office numbers. So yeah, unless you want to consider all these other variables, lay off on your exaggerated praise.
Skathaar: Calling Donald Trump the American President may be exaggerated praise too, he lost the popular vote, did he not? But in the end he is the President under the applicable voting system. It may not be in line with our personal views and taste, but it is a fact and reality we must face as grown ups. Whining and special pleading will not help. Same with ratings published by the worlds biggest review site, if that - damn overrated, but universally accepted - adjusted Tomatometer spits out these results, we must live by them, even if we think to know better. So stating facts is considered whining? Fact 1: The tomatometer measures how many critical reviewers consider a movie passable. It does not measure the actual quality of the movie. Fact 2: The average rating is what measures the quality of the movie, at least as far as the critics are concerned Fact 3: RT is not the only metric available. It's the most used, yes, but to claim "3rd best superhero movie ever" you'd assume that other metrics should be taken into consideration. Now, tell me my facts are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 12, 2017 16:45:53 GMT
DC needs a likeable Superman for any of this to work. Period.
If JL is in fact Superman's 'return' to, you know, being Superman, then look out. Otherwise, meh.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Jun 12, 2017 19:08:53 GMT
Skathaar: Calling Donald Trump the American President may be exaggerated praise too, he lost the popular vote, did he not? But in the end he is the President under the applicable voting system. It may not be in line with our personal views and taste, but it is a fact and reality we must face as grown ups. Whining and special pleading will not help. Same with ratings published by the worlds biggest review site, if that - damn overrated, but universally accepted - adjusted Tomatometer spits out these results, we must live by them, even if we think to know better. So stating facts is considered whining? Fact 1: The tomatometer measures how many critical reviewers consider a movie passable. It does not measure the actual quality of the movie. Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/34520/question-jl-good-wonder-woman?page=2#ixzz4joW5rZADFact 2: The average rating is what measures the quality of the movie, at least as far as the critics are concerned Fact 3: RT is not the only metric available. It's the most used, yes, but to claim "3rd best superhero movie ever" you'd assume that other metrics should be taken into consideration. Now, tell me my facts are wrong. Skathaar, you did not understand the point: Your "facts" as well as the way you misconstrue such "facts", and your logically flawed methods of connecting them (aka "fallacies"), render your assessment invalid. As an attorney I must tell you there is a significant risk that you will lose this case before any court and/or authority. Where to begin? 1. Your conclusions do not flow from your premise (non sequitur). You already fail at understanding what a "fact" entails, and you are seemingly unable to distinguish that from the concepts of "assessment" and mere "opinion". Your assumption is not a fact, it's an personal opinion. This opinion includes a fallacy: of course will the qualification "passable" state something about the quality of a product, and even measure quality to a degree (depending on the definitions). "Passable" is usually defined as 6/10, which says it is not rotten. So the TM tells you about the quality of a picture by showing how many professional critics found it passable. The TM will just not tell you the average rating, but that is not the point, average ratings are just another way of measuring quality. Equally, your additional facts (count 2 and 3) are per se flawed and baseless. 2. More importantly: Even if your "facts" (ie assumptions) were correct, you misconstrue and misrepresent them. Examples: You say a poster (Thundercat) is not entitled to claim that film X the third best reviewed film. And when presented with irrefutable evidence based on the biggest aggregator website and most common quality measure (adjusted TM!), you then begin to shift goalposts (special pleading): By essentially saying: No, that commonly accepted and published approach and statistical method is not acceptable, my personal approach would be better as it leads to my desired result (opinion), thus you must lay off your claim (circular reasoning, begging the question, personal incredulity). Apart from that, your personal approach entails several ad absurdum arguments: Misconceptions: 1. " the biggest metric of all: box office numbers": You seriously think that commercial success has something to do with the review of quality when discussing the best reviewed film? That's another fallacy (bandwagon, argument popularity, ad absurdum). Transformers is artistically better that Citizen Cane, Godfather or Shawshank...? 2. You shift goalposts again, and misrepresent facts by quoting falsely: the discussion is not about "3rd best superhero movie", its about the third best reviewed superhero movie. 3. Metacritc critics are usually covered by RT too, RT is just the bigger pool. Thus, you cease and desist order filed against Thundercat would beyond a reasonable doubt be dismissed because your facts are not only wrong, they are not even facts to begin with. You have been served.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 12, 2017 19:23:13 GMT
So you're using the tomatometer? Then that simply means it's the 3rd freshest superhero movie of all time (and that's only if you used their adjusted bayesan scoring system). I hope you understand how Rotten Tomatoes does their fresh/rotten scoring, it's not actually a number that says how good a movie is, merely what percentage of critics gave it a pass. A better metric would be the average rating because that actually takes into account the quality of the movie, in which case I don't think WW comes in at 3rd place. A brief check put on tied with a lot of other superhero movies. And that's only RT scores. If you want to keep brandishing that "3rd best superhero movie" flag of yours you'd need to consider other metrics like IMDB and metacritic, as well as the biggest metric of all: box office numbers. So yeah, unless you want to consider all these other variables, lay off on your exaggerated praise. aww, facts suck, especially when published by the world's biggest review aggregator, huh? But there are always the ways of shifting goalposts, personal incredulity and no true Scotsman to accomodate personal bias, isn't there?
I honestly think you are better than that, dude. So unless you wish to further dwell in the butthurt fanboy pool with the raptor and his lowbrow ilk, lay off the fallacies, gentlemen agree on fact.
Wait... So let me get this straight. RT is a good site to go by when the percentage of the movie they want to like is good? If JL gets a pad score, would the site go back to being trash?
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 12, 2017 19:24:31 GMT
DC needs a likeable Superman for any of this to work. Period. If JL is in fact Superman's 'return' to, you know, being Superman, then look out. Otherwise, meh. DC needs someone that can make Superman likeable. It's the direction of the movie/story that needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 12, 2017 19:53:01 GMT
aww, facts suck, especially when published by the world's biggest review aggregator, huh? But there are always the ways of shifting goalposts, personal incredulity and no true Scotsman to accomodate personal bias, isn't there?
I honestly think you are better than that, dude. So unless you wish to further dwell in the butthurt fanboy pool with the raptor and his lowbrow ilk, lay off the fallacies, gentlemen agree on fact.
Wait... So let me get this straight. RT is a good site to go by when the percentage of the movie they want to like is good? If JL gets a pad score, would the site go back to being trash? I don't know what you are straightening out there, dude, but it's certainly not facts. Show me where I said anything remotely like that, you just can't, 'cause it's a lie! Apart from that, I am just stating rating facts from the RT site, i did not say whether I agree with the critic percentage or not. I often don't. Eg I would put Watchmen above every MCU and DCU movie (incl WW), yet the adjusted score just places it at 50 (!) - one of the few original and inspired stories sporting characters like Rohrschach or Manhattan, and in which heroes actually die, and stay dead unlike in all the formula kiddy movies ("he's deeead, cry me a river boys, no kiddies: not really, was just a joke, he is just keeewl hahahahahaha"). 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 19:55:34 GMT
DC needs a likeable Superman for any of this to work. Period. If JL is in fact Superman's 'return' to, you know, being Superman, then look out. Otherwise, meh. DC needs someone that can make Superman likeable. It's the direction of the movie/story that needs to change. Bruce Timm's been doing it for 20 years now.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 12, 2017 20:08:47 GMT
Wait... So let me get this straight. RT is a good site to go by when the percentage of the movie they want to like is good? If JL gets a pad score, would the site go back to being trash? I don't know what you are straightening out there, dude, but it's certainly not facts. Show me where I said anything remotely like that, you just can't, 'cause it's a lie! Apart from that, I am just stating rating facts from the RT site, i did not say whether I agree with the critic percentage or not. I often don't. Eg I would put Watchmen above every MCU and DCU movie (incl WW), yet the adjusted score just places it at 50 (!) - one of the few original and inspired stories sporting characters like Rohrschach or Manhattan, and in which heroes actually die, and stay dead unlike in all the formula kiddy movies ("he's deeead, cry me a river boys, no kiddies: not really, was just a joke, he is just keeewl hahahahahaha"). 2 I never said you. Notice I said "they". Was talking in general. But you are seeming a little guilty there. Oh and I meant "If JL gets a bad score." Watchmen? Original? It's a parody on comic books. The creator admits this. Rorschach is a parody of Batman. They die and stay dead because the story is a mini series one-shot. It wasn't created to be an ongoing series. He wouldn't continuously create new heroes to fill the dead ones shoes to keep the series going.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 12, 2017 20:10:49 GMT
DC needs someone that can make Superman likeable. It's the direction of the movie/story that needs to change. Bruce Timm's been doing it for 20 years now. Exactly. That's why they need to get someone besides David "Let's make Superman like Blade and Batman" Goyer and Zach "We going to make this grounded like a documentary, but not really" Snyder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 20:15:10 GMT
Bruce Timm's been doing it for 20 years now. Exactly. That's why they need to get someone besides David "Let's make Superman like Blade and Batman" Goyer and Zach "We going to make this grounded like a documentary, but not really" Snyder. Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 12, 2017 20:21:54 GMT
I don't know what you are straightening out there, dude, but it's certainly not facts. Show me where I said anything remotely like that, you just can't, 'cause it's a lie! Apart from that, I am just stating rating facts from the RT site, i did not say whether I agree with the critic percentage or not. I often don't. Eg I would put Watchmen above every MCU and DCU movie (incl WW), yet the adjusted score just places it at 50 (!) - one of the few original and inspired stories sporting characters like Rohrschach or Manhattan, and in which heroes actually die, and stay dead unlike in all the formula kiddy movies ("he's deeead, cry me a river boys, no kiddies: not really, was just a joke, he is just keeewl hahahahahaha"). 2 Watchmen? Original? It's a parody on comic books. The creator admits this. Rorschach is a parody of Batman. They die and stay dead because the story is a mini series one-shot. It wasn't created to be an ongoing series. He wouldn't continuously create new heroes to fill the dead ones shoes to keep the series going.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 13, 2017 7:02:00 GMT
So stating facts is considered whining? Fact 1: The tomatometer measures how many critical reviewers consider a movie passable. It does not measure the actual quality of the movie. Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/34520/question-jl-good-wonder-woman?page=2#ixzz4joW5rZADFact 2: The average rating is what measures the quality of the movie, at least as far as the critics are concerned Fact 3: RT is not the only metric available. It's the most used, yes, but to claim "3rd best superhero movie ever" you'd assume that other metrics should be taken into consideration. Now, tell me my facts are wrong. Skathaar, you did not understand the point: Your "facts" as well as the way you misconstrue such "facts", and your logically flawed methods of connecting them (aka "fallacies"), render your assessment invalid. As an attorney I must tell you there is a significant risk that you will lose this case before any court and/or authority. Where to begin? 1. Your conclusions do not flow from your premise (non sequitur). You already fail at understanding what a "fact" entails, and you are seemingly unable to distinguish that from the concepts of "assessment" and mere "opinion". Your assumption is not a fact, it's an personal opinion. This opinion includes a fallacy: of course will the qualification "passable" state something about the quality of a product, and even measure quality to a degree (depending on the definitions). "Passable" is usually defined as 6/10, which says it is not rotten. So the TM tells you about the quality of a picture by showing how many professional critics found it passable. The TM will just not tell you the average rating, but that is not the point, average ratings are just another way of measuring quality. Equally, your additional facts (count 2 and 3) are per se flawed and baseless. 2. More importantly: Even if your "facts" (ie assumptions) were correct, you misconstrue and misrepresent them. Examples: You say a poster (Thundercat) is not entitled to claim that film X the third best reviewed film. And when presented with irrefutable evidence based on the biggest aggregator website and most common quality measure (adjusted TM!), you then begin to shift goalposts (special pleading): By essentially saying: No, that commonly accepted and published approach and statistical method is not acceptable, my personal approach would be better as it leads to my desired result (opinion), thus you must lay off your claim (circular reasoning, begging the question, personal incredulity). Apart from that, your personal approach entails several ad absurdum arguments: Misconceptions: 1. " the biggest metric of all: box office numbers": You seriously think that commercial success has something to do with the review of quality when discussing the best reviewed film? That's another fallacy (bandwagon, argument popularity, ad absurdum). Transformers is artistically better that Citizen Cane, Godfather or Shawshank...? 2. You shift goalposts again, and misrepresent facts by quoting falsely: the discussion is not about "3rd best superhero movie", its about the third best reviewed superhero movie. 3. Metacritc critics are usually covered by RT too, RT is just the bigger pool. Thus, you cease and desist order filed against Thundercat would beyond a reasonable doubt be dismissed because your facts are not only wrong, they are not even facts to begin with. You have been served. skaathar just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 13, 2017 7:06:00 GMT
WW is a weak movie, so JL could be better, but going by trailer i'm doubtful it will be more than ok.
|
|