|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Aug 4, 2017 6:14:14 GMT
Doctor Strange debunks that argument. Dr Strange deals with random magic though, which has no basis in real life and is something all cultures have in their mythologies/legends. Iron Fist deals with Asian Martial Arts which are explicitly...Asian. You know I'm talking about the ancient one, right?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:02:49 GMT
The problem was that plenty of people just couldn't get over the "Blonde White Martial Artist" thing, they fight scenes weren't that good due to how rushed the production was, and the first episodes released early to critics weren't that good and had unanswered questions....unanswered until the second half of the show that they didn't get to see. So basically you voted for Trump. No.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 12:03:37 GMT
Dr Strange deals with random magic though, which has no basis in real life and is something all cultures have in their mythologies/legends. Iron Fist deals with Asian Martial Arts which are explicitly...Asian. You know I'm talking about the ancient one, right? Well, that was a no win scenario. It was either go for the stereotypical "Wise old Asian Master" cliche or not, either way someone complains about racism.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Aug 4, 2017 13:38:20 GMT
So basically you voted for Trump. No. So basically you voted for Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 4, 2017 16:47:42 GMT
Dr Strange deals with random magic though, which has no basis in real life and is something all cultures have in their mythologies/legends. Iron Fist deals with Asian Martial Arts which are explicitly...Asian. You know I'm talking about the ancient one, right? Yes, but the Ancient one controversy is 2-sided. Some consider it whitewashing but some considered it female empowerment. Then it boils down to whom you consider lower on the privilege scale: A white woman or an asian man? Plus Dr. Strange had a black Mordo and has been previously stated, Dr. Strange's origins don't sound as heavily "asian" as Ironfist's.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 4, 2017 16:54:54 GMT
Doctor Strange debunks that argument. How does Dr. Strange debunk that argument? DS also has the premise of a white man traveling to an Asian country to become enlightened in Asian arts and philosophies, and it was still well received. Also, Dunkirk is one of the whitest movies ever made, and that film has received all kinds of universal praise. Bottom line, trying to chalk up a shows' poor reception to "critics don't like white people" is frankly ridiculous. While I haven't seen Iron Fist myself, most of the complaints I've heard have come down to the lackluster fight scenes, an unlikeable protagonist, and a sluggish pacing.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 4, 2017 17:42:24 GMT
How does Dr. Strange debunk that argument? DS also has the premise of a white man traveling to an Asian country to become enlightened in Asian arts and philosophies, and it was still well received. Also, Dunkirk is one of the whitest movies ever made, and that film has received all kinds of universal praise. Bottom line, trying to chalk up a shows' poor reception to "critics don't like white people" is frankly ridiculous. While I haven't seen Iron Fist myself, most of the complaints I've heard have come down to the lackluster fight scenes, an unlikeable protagonist, and a sluggish pacing. The place and arts that Dr. Strange went to learn is not as stereotypical as what Danny Rand went and learned. I mean, magic is not as stereotypically asian as Kung-fu is. Plus Danny Rand ends up trying to teach martial arts to another Asian.... that's quite different from Dr. Strange. Then Dr. Strange has the added benefit of actually showing where he trained and showcasing how racially diverse it was. You don't get that same privilege as Ironfist. Now I'm not saying that the low ratings is specifically due to PC bias. I'm saying that PC bias is going to influence the rating. Ironfist is not as well done as Dr. Strange, so that's definitely going to get you low ratings. But how harsh the ratings are seem to be influenced a lot by PC bias, and it's not just for Ironfist.
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on Aug 4, 2017 17:49:40 GMT
With STrange people think and see Magic,but with Iron Fist they think and see White Savior that revolves around Asian culture
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 4, 2017 18:04:05 GMT
DS also has the premise of a white man traveling to an Asian country to become enlightened in Asian arts and philosophies, and it was still well received. Also, Dunkirk is one of the whitest movies ever made, and that film has received all kinds of universal praise. Bottom line, trying to chalk up a shows' poor reception to "critics don't like white people" is frankly ridiculous. While I haven't seen Iron Fist myself, most of the complaints I've heard have come down to the lackluster fight scenes, an unlikeable protagonist, and a sluggish pacing. The place and arts that Dr. Strange went to learn is not as stereotypical as what Danny Rand went and learned. I mean, magic is not as stereotypically asian as Kung-fu is. Plus Danny Rand ends up trying to teach martial arts to another Asian.... that's quite different from Dr. Strange. Then Dr. Strange has the added benefit of actually showing where he trained and showcasing how racially diverse it was. You don't get that same privilege as Ironfist. Now I'm not saying that the low ratings is specifically due to PC bias. I'm saying that PC bias is going to influence the rating. Ironfist is not as well done as Dr. Strange, so that's definitely going to get you low ratings. But how harsh the ratings are seem to be influenced a lot by PC bias, and it's not just for Ironfist. I think the reviews for IF being as poor as they were can be explained by the fact that television shows tend to be put on a different pedestal compared to movies. If a TV show is considered poorly done and badly paced, critics will tend to be much harsher towards it than they would be towards a movie that's poorly made. I think it boils down to the fact that television shows require a degree of commitment that movies don't necessarily require, so if a television show doesn't deliver, critics won't be as lenient.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 4, 2017 18:45:24 GMT
The place and arts that Dr. Strange went to learn is not as stereotypical as what Danny Rand went and learned. I mean, magic is not as stereotypically asian as Kung-fu is. Plus Danny Rand ends up trying to teach martial arts to another Asian.... that's quite different from Dr. Strange. Then Dr. Strange has the added benefit of actually showing where he trained and showcasing how racially diverse it was. You don't get that same privilege as Ironfist. Now I'm not saying that the low ratings is specifically due to PC bias. I'm saying that PC bias is going to influence the rating. Ironfist is not as well done as Dr. Strange, so that's definitely going to get you low ratings. But how harsh the ratings are seem to be influenced a lot by PC bias, and it's not just for Ironfist. I think the reviews for IF being as poor as they were can be explained by the fact that television shows tend to be put on a different pedestal compared to movies. If a TV show is considered poorly done and badly paced, critics will tend to be much harsher towards it than they would be towards a movie that's poorly made. I think it boils down to the fact that television shows require a degree of commitment that movies don't necessarily require, so if a television show doesn't deliver, critics won't be as lenient. I actually think critics are more generous with TV shows than movies. It's very common for TV shows to hit high 90's in RT whereas that's almost impossible for a movie. The problem with TV shows is that critics will mostly rate it based on it's first few shows. If they're lucky they'll be judged by their first season. So if a series starts off very strong, for example Arrow, then it gets a high rating even if it becomes a lot worse as the show goes on. Arrow is currently at 97% in RT, way higher than pretty much any comicbook movie. In comparison, when a series starts off bad then critics will base it on those first few episodes, as is the case with Ironfist. Agents of SHIELD currently is way better than Arrow, in fact has been better for the last few seasons, yet Arrow will always enjoy a higher rating because it started off stronger. At least with a movie, people can watch it, finish it, then form an opinion about the complete product. Whereas with TV shows it's mostly first impressions that matter.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 4, 2017 19:02:09 GMT
I think the reviews for IF being as poor as they were can be explained by the fact that television shows tend to be put on a different pedestal compared to movies. If a TV show is considered poorly done and badly paced, critics will tend to be much harsher towards it than they would be towards a movie that's poorly made. I think it boils down to the fact that television shows require a degree of commitment that movies don't necessarily require, so if a television show doesn't deliver, critics won't be as lenient. I actually think critics are more generous with TV shows than movies. It's very common for TV shows to hit high 90's in RT whereas that's almost impossible for a movie. The problem with TV shows is that critics will mostly rate it based on it's first few shows. If they're lucky they'll be judged by their first season. So if a series starts off very strong, for example Arrow, then it gets a high rating even if it becomes a lot worse as the show goes on. Arrow is currently at 97% in RT, way higher than pretty much any comicbook movie. In comparison, when a series starts off bad then critics will base it on those first few episodes, as is the case with Ironfist. Agents of SHIELD currently is way better than Arrow, in fact has been better for the last few seasons, yet Arrow will always enjoy a higher rating because it started off stronger. At least with a movie, people can watch it, finish it, then form an opinion about the complete product. Whereas with TV shows it's mostly first impressions that matter. It goes both ways I suppose. If a show is well done, critics will reward it more, and if it's poorly done (in their eyes) it gets blasted more. In regards to Arrow, its 5th season was considered its best one yet by many.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 4, 2017 19:11:30 GMT
I actually think critics are more generous with TV shows than movies. It's very common for TV shows to hit high 90's in RT whereas that's almost impossible for a movie. The problem with TV shows is that critics will mostly rate it based on it's first few shows. If they're lucky they'll be judged by their first season. So if a series starts off very strong, for example Arrow, then it gets a high rating even if it becomes a lot worse as the show goes on. Arrow is currently at 97% in RT, way higher than pretty much any comicbook movie. In comparison, when a series starts off bad then critics will base it on those first few episodes, as is the case with Ironfist. Agents of SHIELD currently is way better than Arrow, in fact has been better for the last few seasons, yet Arrow will always enjoy a higher rating because it started off stronger. At least with a movie, people can watch it, finish it, then form an opinion about the complete product. Whereas with TV shows it's mostly first impressions that matter. It goes both ways I suppose. If a show is well done, critics will reward it more, and if it's poorly done (in their eyes) it gets blasted more. In regards to Arrow, its 5th season was considered its best one yet by many. Nah, majority of viewers considered Arrow's 5th season better than its 4th, probably better than its 3rd, but most don't consider it better than the 1st two seasons. Anyway, in regards to Ironfist, this was a series that started very slow, had a lead that was pretty bad with action scenes and was front loaded with the whole white savior controversy. It's really no surprise that it got such low reviews even if it did get better later on.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Aug 4, 2017 19:15:39 GMT
It goes both ways I suppose. If a show is well done, critics will reward it more, and if it's poorly done (in their eyes) it gets blasted more. In regards to Arrow, its 5th season was considered its best one yet by many. Nah, majority of viewers considered Arrow's 5th season better than its 4th, probably better than its 3rd, but most don't consider it better than the 1st two seasons. Anyway, in regards to Ironfist, this was a series that started very slow, had a lead that was pretty bad with action scenes and was front loaded with the whole white savior controversy. It's really no surprise that it got such low reviews even if it did get better later on. Most of the reviews I've seen for season 5 have placed it far above seasons 3 and 4, and on par with season 2 at the very least. The finale in particular seems to have been considered exceptionally good by virtually everyone. I haven't seen it myself, but most everyone seems to have considered the season to be a great return to form.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 4, 2017 21:37:26 GMT
So basically you voted for Hillary. No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 23:16:07 GMT
So basically you voted for Hillary. No. So you didn't vote for Trump or Hillary? Ditto to that, brother. On the topic of Doctor Strange: as others have said, The Ancient One was a lose-lose from the very beginning, so Marvel took one of two "lose" option and then somehow still managed to win.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 5, 2017 0:06:21 GMT
Nah, majority of viewers considered Arrow's 5th season better than its 4th, probably better than its 3rd, but most don't consider it better than the 1st two seasons. Anyway, in regards to Ironfist, this was a series that started very slow, had a lead that was pretty bad with action scenes and was front loaded with the whole white savior controversy. It's really no surprise that it got such low reviews even if it did get better later on. Most of the reviews I've seen for season 5 have placed it far above seasons 3 and 4, and on par with season 2 at the very least. The finale in particular seems to have been considered exceptionally good by virtually everyone. I haven't seen it myself, but most everyone seems to have considered the season to be a great return to form. Meh, that's pretty close to what I said.
|
|
|
Post by azzajones on Aug 5, 2017 5:28:28 GMT
I'm somewhat surprised by how high a pedestal reviewers put the other Marvel Netflix shows on, I think each show has had its share of issues, and that IF wasn't nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Aug 5, 2017 5:30:18 GMT
I'm somewhat surprised by how high a pedestal reviewers put the other Marvel Netflix shows on, I think each show has had its share of issues, and that IF wasn't nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be. cause they compare them to ABC's awful Marvel shows. I only thought Daredevil season one was better than average.
|
|