|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 25, 2018 22:17:50 GMT
I didn't say AWIT didn't receive media attention, I said it didn't receive as much as BP or WW. As for the critics, all you really need to do is read critics reviews and notice how often they'll mention social issues when they're tackled in the movie - and praise it for doing so. You'd have to be completely blind to not notice this. And if you still disagree with me, then so be it. I will not waste time trying to prove something to someone who continuously closes their eyes to facts. Critics mentioning a movie tackling “social issues” generally only applies if that’s what the movie seeks out to do. Simply starring women and black people isn’t going to “artificially boost” a movie’s score. Also, what facts am I closing my eyes to? Your whole argument is nothing more than an assumption. You must have been living under a rock this past year. Go read the reviews from BP. How many of them praised the movie for finally showcasing an African cast and highlighting African culture? Go read the reviews from WW. Count how many of them praised that movie for finally showcasing a strong female heroine. Read the reviews for IronFist. How many of them criticized the show for not hiring an Asian actor for Danny Rand? That's about as concrete a proof as you can get. These are not assumptions, these are facts. If you disregard this proof then that's on you. You're the one doing the assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 2:30:18 GMT
Critics mentioning a movie tackling “social issues” generally only applies if that’s what the movie seeks out to do. Simply starring women and black people isn’t going to “artificially boost” a movie’s score. Also, what facts am I closing my eyes to? Your whole argument is nothing more than an assumption. You must have been living under a rock this past year. Go read the reviews from BP. How many of them praised the movie for finally showcasing an African cast and highlighting African culture? Go read the reviews from WW. Count how many of them praised that movie for finally showcasing a strong female heroine. Read the reviews for IronFist. How many of them criticized the show for not hiring an Asian actor for Danny Rand? That's about as concrete a proof as you can get. These are not assumptions, these are facts. If you disregard this proof then that's on you. You're the one doing the assumptions. First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Apr 26, 2018 14:31:16 GMT
You must have been living under a rock this past year. Go read the reviews from BP. How many of them praised the movie for finally showcasing an African cast and highlighting African culture? Go read the reviews from WW. Count how many of them praised that movie for finally showcasing a strong female heroine. Read the reviews for IronFist. How many of them criticized the show for not hiring an Asian actor for Danny Rand? That's about as concrete a proof as you can get. These are not assumptions, these are facts. If you disregard this proof then that's on you. You're the one doing the assumptions. First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. Do you deny the existence of "boosters"?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 16:11:13 GMT
First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. Do you deny the existence of "boosters"? I believe that movies like WW and BP [/i]financially benefited from their perceived cultural significance, but I don’t buy that it contributed to the reviews.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 16:11:28 GMT
First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. Do you deny the existence of "boosters"? I believe that movies like WW and BP financially benefited from their perceived cultural significance, but I don’t buy that it contributed to the reviews.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Apr 26, 2018 16:19:36 GMT
Do you deny the existence of "boosters"? I believe that movies like WW and BP financially benefited from their perceived cultural significance, but I don’t buy that it contributed to the reviews. Aren't "boosters" supposed to be purely financial/box office related?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 17:20:35 GMT
I believe that movies like WW and BP financially benefited from their perceived cultural significance, but I don’t buy that it contributed to the reviews. Aren't "boosters" supposed to be purely financial/box office related? I wouldn't know. Skaathar claimed that movies with black/and or female leads supposedly get better reviews by default, and referred to this supposed phenomenon as "artificial boosters".
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 26, 2018 18:54:32 GMT
You must have been living under a rock this past year. Go read the reviews from BP. How many of them praised the movie for finally showcasing an African cast and highlighting African culture? Go read the reviews from WW. Count how many of them praised that movie for finally showcasing a strong female heroine. Read the reviews for IronFist. How many of them criticized the show for not hiring an Asian actor for Danny Rand? That's about as concrete a proof as you can get. These are not assumptions, these are facts. If you disregard this proof then that's on you. You're the one doing the assumptions. First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. First off, if you're going to debate with me then at least do me the favor of not misrepresenting my words. I never blamed political correctness solely for why IF failed or for why BP and WW got such high scores. These things help the score but don't MAKE the score. I've been saying the same thing since the start and I don't know how many more times I need to say it for you to understand. Now to your main point... critics didn't just "mention" the fact that BP stars black people or that WW stars a woman. They didn't just go, "Oh hey, just want to mention that BP had a mostly black cast" or "By the way, it's kinda cool that WW stars a woman". What they did was actively PRAISE these movies for casting either a black or female cast. Overwhelmingly praise in some cases. Look at this top critic review for BP - at least half of it is centered on how great BP is for representing African culture: www.salon.com/2018/02/18/black-panther-is-a-film-about-history-that-makes-history/Here is a critic review of Wonder Woman where the critic specifically says "And, yet, as a chick critic, I feel honor-bound to support this female-driven-and-directed blockbuster."- observer.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-review-gal-gadot/ - clearly the critic put a lot of weight on how the lead character was female. And these are just 2 examples. Go over the critic reviews of these 2 films and you'll see that quite a number of reviews mention things in the same vein. Now let me explain to you how critic reviews work. A critic will write down what they like and dislike about a movie, and depending on these things that they liked and disliked they will then give it an overall score. Sometimes it's the other way, they'll give it an overall score then write down things they liked and disliked as a justification of why they gave it that score. Regardless, the fact is that the overall score they give this is dependent on things they liked and disliked about it. And if "political correctness" or "tackling a social issue" is one of the things they overwhelmingly praise then it's quite obvious it's something about the movie they really liked, then obviously their final score will be affected by this. This is flat out common sense. And deciding whether a movie is fresh or rotten usually only has a difference of one star, sometimes half a star, and just adding one more thing that you like can contribute to a movie being fresh or rotten in a critic's eye.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 19:02:35 GMT
First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. First off, if you're going to debate with me then at least do me the favor of not misrepresenting my words. I never blamed political correctness solely for why IF failed or for why BP and WW got such high scores. These things help the score but don't MAKE the score. I've been saying the same thing since the start and I don't know how many more times I need to say it for you to understand. Now... critics didn't just "mention" the fact that BP starts black people or that WW stars a woman. They didn't just go, "Oh hey, just want to mention that BP had a mostly black cast" or "By the way, it's kinda cool that WW stars a woman". What they did was actively PRAISE these movies for casting either a black or female cast. Overwhelmingly praise in some cases. Look at this top critic review for BP, at least half of it is centered on how great BP is for tackling African culture: www.salon.com/2018/02/18/black-panther-is-a-film-about-history-that-makes-history/Here is a review of Wonder Woman where the summary is "Wonder Woman embraces issues of female power and the need to turn from hate to love, war to peace in a mainstream delivery system. And the female lead is not solely a mother, sister, girlfriend or hooker, however gold her heart: wonder of wonders!" - observer.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-review-gal-gadot/And these are just 2 examples. Go over the critic reviews of these 2 films and you'll see that quite a number of reviews mention things in the same vein. Now let me explain to you how critic reviews work. A critic will write down what they like and dislike about a movie, and depending on these things that they liked and disliked they will then give it an overall score. Sometimes it's the other way, they'll give it an overall score then write down things they liked and disliked as a justification of why they gave it that score. Regardless, the fact is that the overall score they give this is dependent on things they liked and disliked about it. And if "political correctness" or "tackling a social issue" is one of the things they overwhelmingly praise then it's quite obvious it's something about the movie they really liked, then obviously their final score will be affected by this. And deciding whether a movie is fresh or rotten usually only has a difference of one star, sometimes half a star, and just adding one more thing that you like can contribute to a movie being fresh or rotten in a critic's eye. First off, I wasn’t misrepresenting what you said. I’m aware of what your nonsensical conspiracy theory of an argument is. I was simply pointing out that you have no basis for your argument. Bringing up some reviews that mention these movies being “historically significant” is not proof of “artificial boosters”. If critics like a movie, they will praise it regardless of any political aspects to it. The political aspects are just a side thing. You have no idea what critics are thinking deep down, so stop pretending that you do. Your argument that critics go easy on movies starring black people is frankly racist and condescending as all hell. Why did you even argue that point to begin with? Because you’re salty that IW doesn’t have a 500%? Get over yourself. Also, you seem to have NO IDEA how Rotten Tomatoes works, do you? Critics are the ones who decide whether or not their reviews will be counted as “fresh” or “rotten”. It has nothing to do with any numerical rating. A movie can have an 8/10 on RT, and it could still be deemed “rotten” if the critic who reviewed it doesn’t like the movie. Also, not every critic gives movies a numerical score.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 26, 2018 19:09:16 GMT
First off, if you're going to debate with me then at least do me the favor of not misrepresenting my words. I never blamed political correctness solely for why IF failed or for why BP and WW got such high scores. These things help the score but don't MAKE the score. I've been saying the same thing since the start and I don't know how many more times I need to say it for you to understand. Now... critics didn't just "mention" the fact that BP starts black people or that WW stars a woman. They didn't just go, "Oh hey, just want to mention that BP had a mostly black cast" or "By the way, it's kinda cool that WW stars a woman". What they did was actively PRAISE these movies for casting either a black or female cast. Overwhelmingly praise in some cases. Look at this top critic review for BP, at least half of it is centered on how great BP is for tackling African culture: www.salon.com/2018/02/18/black-panther-is-a-film-about-history-that-makes-history/Here is a review of Wonder Woman where the summary is "Wonder Woman embraces issues of female power and the need to turn from hate to love, war to peace in a mainstream delivery system. And the female lead is not solely a mother, sister, girlfriend or hooker, however gold her heart: wonder of wonders!" - observer.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-review-gal-gadot/And these are just 2 examples. Go over the critic reviews of these 2 films and you'll see that quite a number of reviews mention things in the same vein. Now let me explain to you how critic reviews work. A critic will write down what they like and dislike about a movie, and depending on these things that they liked and disliked they will then give it an overall score. Sometimes it's the other way, they'll give it an overall score then write down things they liked and disliked as a justification of why they gave it that score. Regardless, the fact is that the overall score they give this is dependent on things they liked and disliked about it. And if "political correctness" or "tackling a social issue" is one of the things they overwhelmingly praise then it's quite obvious it's something about the movie they really liked, then obviously their final score will be affected by this. And deciding whether a movie is fresh or rotten usually only has a difference of one star, sometimes half a star, and just adding one more thing that you like can contribute to a movie being fresh or rotten in a critic's eye. First off, I wasn’t misrepresenting what you said. I’m aware of what your nonsensical conspiracy theory of an argument is. I was simply pointing out that you have no basis for your argument. Bringing up some reviews that mention these movies being “historically significant” is not proof of “artificial boosters”. If critics like a movie, they will praise it regardless of any political aspects to it. The political aspects are just a side thing. Your argument that critics go easy on movies starring black people is frankly racist and condescending as all hell. Why did you even argue that idiotic point to begin with? Because you’re salty that IW doesn’t have a 180%? Get over yourself. Also, you seem to have NO IDEA how Rotten Tomatoes works, do you? Critics are the ones who decide whether or not their reviews will be counted as “fresh” or “rotten”. It has nothing to do with any numerical rating. A movie can have an 8/10 on RT, and it could still be deemed “rotten” if the critic who reviewed it doesn’t like the movie. Did you even bother reading the reviews I posted? One of them specifically said this: "And, yet, as a chick critic, I feel honor-bound to support this female-driven-and-directed blockbuster."- and yet you still refuse to acknowledge that a critics opinions are affected by a movie's social/political flavor? Also, nothing I said is racist or sexist, as my comments were not directed at black people or women. My comment is directed at critics, who are of mixed race and gender/sex. Now, I've given you hard, solid proof (if you bothered to read it that is). What have you given me other than your own biased opinions on the matter?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 19:17:37 GMT
First off, I wasn’t misrepresenting what you said. I’m aware of what your nonsensical conspiracy theory of an argument is. I was simply pointing out that you have no basis for your argument. Bringing up some reviews that mention these movies being “historically significant” is not proof of “artificial boosters”. If critics like a movie, they will praise it regardless of any political aspects to it. The political aspects are just a side thing. Your argument that critics go easy on movies starring black people is frankly racist and condescending as all hell. Why did you even argue that idiotic point to begin with? Because you’re salty that IW doesn’t have a 180%? Get over yourself. Also, you seem to have NO IDEA how Rotten Tomatoes works, do you? Critics are the ones who decide whether or not their reviews will be counted as “fresh” or “rotten”. It has nothing to do with any numerical rating. A movie can have an 8/10 on RT, and it could still be deemed “rotten” if the critic who reviewed it doesn’t like the movie. Did you even bother reading the reviews I posted? One of them specifically said this: "And, yet, as a chick critic, I feel honor-bound to support this female-driven-and-directed blockbuster."- and yet you still refuse to acknowledge that a critics opinions are affected by a movie's social/political flavor? Also, nothing I said is racist or sexist, as my comments were not directed at black people or women. My comment is directed at critics, who are of mixed race and gender/sex. Now, I've given you hard, solid proof (if you bothered to read it that is). What have you given me other than your own biased opinions on the matter? A critic saying that she will “support” a movie, doesn’t mean that will have any impact on whether or not she gives it a good review. Also, what you’re saying definitely sounds racist. In fact, you just made yourself sound even more racist. You’re directing your comment specifically at critics who aren’t white? So you think that only white men can judge a movie fairly? And no, you haven’t given me proof that’s anymore solid than my proof about AWIT, which is a female oriented movie that’s directed by a black woman. Also, I will once again stress that going by your argument, the percentage scores for movies like WW and BP have NOTHING to do with political correctness. Here’s how RT works; critics decide whether or not their review for a movie is “fresh” or “rotten”. Your argument was that critics liked these movies, but inflated their scores for them specifically because they were about women and black people. Again, that would have no effect on what the overall Tomatometer scores are for these films. When a movie has a 96% on RT, it doesn’t mean that the movie is considered a 96/100. It means that 96% of critics liked the movie enough to recommend it. In other words, going by your argument, IW would NOT have a “way higher” percentage score on RT, because all the critics who disliked it would’ve disliked it regardless. Seriously, if anyone is bias, it’s you. Why were you even upset over the IW score to begin with? It’s not like it has a bad score by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 26, 2018 19:34:23 GMT
Question: Did you even bother reading the reviews I posted? It seems you didn't, otherwise you'd know those were not the only words mentioned praising the movies. The BP one specifically mentioned, over and over, how great the movie was for representing African culture.
You know how I know I'm winning this argument? It's because you're now making stuff up just to divert attention. Nowhere did I say that the critics are unfair in their judgement nor did I mention anything about white men.
Oh I gave you proof, you just didn't bother reading it. You mentioning AWIT having a low score is not proof that social issues do not affect a movie's score/RT rating, all it shows is the AWIT received a low score... which can be attributed to a whole bunch of other issues.
So basically you're saying that a movies fresh/rotten score is dependent on a critic's opinion instead of a mathematical formula. Glad to know that a critic's opinion is definitely not affected by any form of subjectivity whatsoever.
Read my above answer. An RT score basically shows how many critics the movie was able to sway to give it a positive mark instead of a negative mark. If you bothered to read the reviews, you'd know that the critics' opinions on BP and WW were definitely affected by their tackling of african/female representation. Hint: Don't bother replying to this until you've actually read the reviews.
Like I said earlier, I know you're losing this argument because you're resorting to making stuff up instead of intelligently rebutting my arguments. Where did I ever post that I was upset by IW's score? I just made an observation, you're the one who got upset by that observation (as this conversation clearly shows).
Anyway, if you're not going to read the links I've provided then don't bother replying to me. There's no use arguing with you about this if you're completely close minded about the issue, especially when you're getting to the point where you're making stuff up and resorting to name calling.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 20:01:25 GMT
Question: Did you even bother reading the reviews I posted? It seems you didn't, otherwise you'd know those were not the only words mentioned praising the movies. The BP one specifically mentioned, over and over, how great the movie was for representing African culture. You know how I know I'm winning this argument? It's because you're now making stuff up just to divert attention. Nowhere did I say that the critics are unfair in their judgement nor did I mention anything about white men. Oh I gave you proof, you just didn't bother reading it. You mentioning AWIT having a low score is not proof that social issues do not affect a movie's score/RT rating, all it shows is the AWIT received a low score... which can be attributed to a whole bunch of other issues. So basically you're saying that a movies fresh/rotten score is dependent on a critic's opinion instead of a mathematical formula. Glad to know that a critic's opinion is definitely not affected by any form of subjectivity whatsoever. Read my above answer. An RT score basically shows how many critics the movie was able to sway to give it a positive mark instead of a negative mark. If you bothered to read the reviews, you'd know that the critics' opinions on BP and WW were definitely affected by their tackling of african/female representation. Hint: Don't bother replying to this until you've actually read the reviews. Like I said earlier, I know you're losing this argument because you're resorting to making stuff up instead of intelligently rebutting my arguments. Where did I ever post that I was upset by IW's score? I just made an observation, you're the one who got upset by that observation (as this conversation clearly shows). Anyway, if you're not going to read the links I've provided then don't bother replying to me. There's no use arguing with you about this if you're completely close minded about the issue, especially when you're getting to the point where you're making stuff up and resorting to name calling. This review involves an interview with someone else. Your whole argument has been that the reviews for these kinds of movies are inflated on the count of political correctness, but all you’ve cited have been articles where people talk about these movies being historically significant, which isn’t proof of anything. Also, you’re not winning any argument. You haven’t been “intelligently” rebutting my arguments anymore than I have for yours.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 26, 2018 20:16:03 GMT
Question: Did you even bother reading the reviews I posted? It seems you didn't, otherwise you'd know those were not the only words mentioned praising the movies. The BP one specifically mentioned, over and over, how great the movie was for representing African culture. You know how I know I'm winning this argument? It's because you're now making stuff up just to divert attention. Nowhere did I say that the critics are unfair in their judgement nor did I mention anything about white men. Oh I gave you proof, you just didn't bother reading it. You mentioning AWIT having a low score is not proof that social issues do not affect a movie's score/RT rating, all it shows is the AWIT received a low score... which can be attributed to a whole bunch of other issues. So basically you're saying that a movies fresh/rotten score is dependent on a critic's opinion instead of a mathematical formula. Glad to know that a critic's opinion is definitely not affected by any form of subjectivity whatsoever. Read my above answer. An RT score basically shows how many critics the movie was able to sway to give it a positive mark instead of a negative mark. If you bothered to read the reviews, you'd know that the critics' opinions on BP and WW were definitely affected by their tackling of african/female representation. Hint: Don't bother replying to this until you've actually read the reviews. Like I said earlier, I know you're losing this argument because you're resorting to making stuff up instead of intelligently rebutting my arguments. Where did I ever post that I was upset by IW's score? I just made an observation, you're the one who got upset by that observation (as this conversation clearly shows). Anyway, if you're not going to read the links I've provided then don't bother replying to me. There's no use arguing with you about this if you're completely close minded about the issue, especially when you're getting to the point where you're making stuff up and resorting to name calling. This isn’t even a review. You’re whole argument has been that the reviews for these kinds of movies are inflated on the count of political correctness, but all you’ve cited have been articles where people talk about these movies being historically significant, which isn’t proof of anything. Also, you’re not winning any argument. You haven’t been “intelligently” rebutting my arguments anymore than I have for yours. And yet that review is listed in RT's top critic reviews for BP and has a "Fresh" rating with a 4/4 score. In fact it's the very first review you'll see on the site when you select top critics. See, this is what I'm talking about. I go through the trouble of actually finding you a top critic review to prove my point and all you reply with is "This isn't even a review". Seriously?? The reason our conversation has gone nowhere is because of this kind of obnoxious close-mindedness on your part. You: "Apples don't exist." Me: shows you an apple You: "That's not an apple." Anyway, I'm done here. You can go ahead and close your eyes and keep believing in whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 20:27:11 GMT
This isn’t even a review. You’re whole argument has been that the reviews for these kinds of movies are inflated on the count of political correctness, but all you’ve cited have been articles where people talk about these movies being historically significant, which isn’t proof of anything. Also, you’re not winning any argument. You haven’t been “intelligently” rebutting my arguments anymore than I have for yours. And yet that review is listed in RT's top critic reviews for BP and has a "Fresh" rating with a 4/4 score. In fact it's the very first review you'll see on the site when you select top critics. See, this is what I'm talking about. I go through the trouble of actually finding you a top critic review to prove my point and all you reply with is "This isn't even a review". Seriously?? The reason our conversation has gone nowhere is because of this kind of obnoxious close-mindedness on your part. You: "Apples don't exist." Me: shows you an apple You: "That's not an apple." Anyway, I'm done here. You can go ahead and close your eyes and keep believing in whatever you want. I quickly realized the error when I made that post. That’s my mistake, and I’ll admit to it. Ive since corrected it. Still, that doesn’t prove what you think it does. That review doesn’t specifically say that the movie is great because it features black people. They praised the movie specifically because of how it tackled its social and political themes, not just because it is about black people. If a critic brings up how well a movie about the Civil Rights movement tackles its social issues, would that count as an “artificial booster” as well?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 26, 2018 20:33:28 GMT
^ Thank you for admitting your mistake. Still won't matter though. I can give you dozens of reviews about BP or WW that gushingly praises their African and female representation respectively and you'd still be of the opinion that something the critics clearly liked about the movie does not impact their overall opinion/rating of the movie.
So like I said, no sense in continuing this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 20:52:15 GMT
^ Thank you for admitting your mistake. Still won't matter though. I can give you dozens of reviews about BP or WW that gushingly praises their African and female representation respectively and you'd still be of the opinion that something the critics clearly liked about the movie does not impact their overall opinion/rating of the movie. So like I said, no sense in continuing this conversation. Until you find a review that specifically says “this movie is great because of diversity”, you’re not going to prove your point. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. You’re operating under an assumption, not an unquestionable fact.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Apr 26, 2018 21:51:03 GMT
So basically when the dust settled, at the end of the day, the REIGNING, DEFENDING, UNDISPUTED, UNIVERSAL greatest superhero movie of all time is still... BLLLLLLLLLLAAAACCCKKKKKK PANNNNNNNNNNNNTHHHEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!1
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Apr 26, 2018 23:29:10 GMT
First off, don’t blame Iron Fist’s bad reviews on political correctness. That’s pathetic, especially when one of the most popular shows on TV right now is a show about a Trump supporter. Second, so what if critics mentioned the fact that BP stars black people, or that WW stars a woman? Did critics have some kind of agenda when they mentioned how The Godfather is a film about the mafia? Thats not proof of “artificial boosters”. All that suggests is that critics are happy to have good films starring women and black people. It doesn’t mean they inflated the scores for these movies because of that. That doesn’t even make sense. You are aware that the tomatometer scores for these movies don’t reflect how much critics liked the films, but simply the amount of critics that liked them? No, it isn’t concrete proof at the slightest. If that’s “concrete proof” in your eyes, then I would say that the bad reviews for AWIT are “concrete proof” of the contrary. First off, if you're going to debate with me then at least do me the favor of not misrepresenting my words. I never blamed political correctness solely for why IF failed or for why BP and WW got such high scores. These things help the score but don't MAKE the score. I've been saying the same thing since the start and I don't know how many more times I need to say it for you to understand. Now to your main point... critics didn't just "mention" the fact that BP stars black people or that WW stars a woman. They didn't just go, "Oh hey, just want to mention that BP had a mostly black cast" or "By the way, it's kinda cool that WW stars a woman". What they did was actively PRAISE these movies for casting either a black or female cast. Overwhelmingly praise in some cases. Look at this top critic review for BP - at least half of it is centered on how great BP is for representing African culture: www.salon.com/2018/02/18/black-panther-is-a-film-about-history-that-makes-history/Here is a critic review of Wonder Woman where the critic specifically says "And, yet, as a chick critic, I feel honor-bound to support this female-driven-and-directed blockbuster."- observer.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-review-gal-gadot/ - clearly the critic put a lot of weight on how the lead character was female. And these are just 2 examples. Go over the critic reviews of these 2 films and you'll see that quite a number of reviews mention things in the same vein. Now let me explain to you how critic reviews work. A critic will write down what they like and dislike about a movie, and depending on these things that they liked and disliked they will then give it an overall score. Sometimes it's the other way, they'll give it an overall score then write down things they liked and disliked as a justification of why they gave it that score. Regardless, the fact is that the overall score they give this is dependent on things they liked and disliked about it. And if "political correctness" or "tackling a social issue" is one of the things they overwhelmingly praise then it's quite obvious it's something about the movie they really liked, then obviously their final score will be affected by this. This is flat out common sense. And deciding whether a movie is fresh or rotten usually only has a difference of one star, sometimes half a star, and just adding one more thing that you like can contribute to a movie being fresh or rotten in a critic's eye. Well that's what I was going to say. If something as irrelevant as the gender or race of the cast causes the reviewer to increase their score, that's an artificial booster. It's not actually about the movie itself. And if the reviewer praises the gender or the race, it was obviously a positive aspect of the movie in their eyes...thus it increased their score.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 26, 2018 23:31:48 GMT
First off, if you're going to debate with me then at least do me the favor of not misrepresenting my words. I never blamed political correctness solely for why IF failed or for why BP and WW got such high scores. These things help the score but don't MAKE the score. I've been saying the same thing since the start and I don't know how many more times I need to say it for you to understand. Now to your main point... critics didn't just "mention" the fact that BP stars black people or that WW stars a woman. They didn't just go, "Oh hey, just want to mention that BP had a mostly black cast" or "By the way, it's kinda cool that WW stars a woman". What they did was actively PRAISE these movies for casting either a black or female cast. Overwhelmingly praise in some cases. Look at this top critic review for BP - at least half of it is centered on how great BP is for representing African culture: www.salon.com/2018/02/18/black-panther-is-a-film-about-history-that-makes-history/Here is a critic review of Wonder Woman where the critic specifically says "And, yet, as a chick critic, I feel honor-bound to support this female-driven-and-directed blockbuster."- observer.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-movie-review-gal-gadot/ - clearly the critic put a lot of weight on how the lead character was female. And these are just 2 examples. Go over the critic reviews of these 2 films and you'll see that quite a number of reviews mention things in the same vein. Now let me explain to you how critic reviews work. A critic will write down what they like and dislike about a movie, and depending on these things that they liked and disliked they will then give it an overall score. Sometimes it's the other way, they'll give it an overall score then write down things they liked and disliked as a justification of why they gave it that score. Regardless, the fact is that the overall score they give this is dependent on things they liked and disliked about it. And if "political correctness" or "tackling a social issue" is one of the things they overwhelmingly praise then it's quite obvious it's something about the movie they really liked, then obviously their final score will be affected by this. This is flat out common sense. And deciding whether a movie is fresh or rotten usually only has a difference of one star, sometimes half a star, and just adding one more thing that you like can contribute to a movie being fresh or rotten in a critic's eye. Well that's what I was going to say. If something as irrelevant as the gender or race of the cast causes the reviewer to increase their score, that's an artificial booster. It's not actually about the movie itself. And if the reviewer praises the gender or the race, it was obviously a positive aspect of the movie in their eyes...thus it increased their score. Again, there’s been no indication that critics will just suddenly inflate a movie’s score just because of the race or gender of the people involved. It didn’t help AWIT, so why would it help any other movie?
|
|