DCEU: The Hare's Regret

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Is this the same Metacritic that Ranks WW84 and Birds of Prey higher than Joker?

While I haven't seen the first two Joker sucked pretty hard anyway.

[Gronzag]

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The extended cut of LOTR: Return of the King is 4h 12m. Two Towers: 3h 46m.

Is this the same Metacritic that Ranks WW84 and Birds of Prey higher than Joker? The Last Jedi higher than Rogue One? Here's the reality: a large portion of "certified" film critics are plain useless. They can give a film a good or bad review for reasons other than what's up on that screen. Maybe they're reviewing the production history. Maybe they're reviewing what they deem as hostile treatment by the director or producer of a film. Maybe they don't want to jeopardize their access by pissing off a studio with a bad review. Aggregating that noise doesn't make it better.

Here's an idea:

Why not do this the way that Amazon does customer reviews? A bar chart that shows you all the rankings from one to five stars, with no attempt to combobulate anything into a percentage, pass/fail, "fresh", or whatnot. The chart is hyperlinked so an average so-and-so can click on the one star reviews and quickly navigate to that section. For example, they say to themselves, "Self, these people are all assholes. I might just go see this thing."

For an additional trick: You have 4 graphs: one for critics and audience that gets locked the moment a film ends its theatrical run, and a second set that starts there and is perpetually live. This way, if you cared, you could gauge how well the film ages, which is something none of the current review sites do to my knowledge. It's still not great but it could have a hell of a lot more utility than any of the current systems. Might be too complicated for the Blu Ray packaging though.

...in German. The english dub loses something IMO.

You are right about the critics, their reviews and scores are completely arbitrary in nature. That is why everyone should find a critic(s) whose taste is similar to theirs.

What I meant was that, the way I understand it, Metacritic takes into account the actual score that a critic gave to a movie, whereas RT is only interested was it 'positive' or 'negative'. In other words, for Metacritic 6/10 and 10/10 are two different scores, but for RT both are simply 'positive'.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 hours ago, Gronzag said:

You are right about the critics, their reviews and scores are completely arbitrary in nature. That is why everyone should find a critic(s) whose taste is similar to theirs.

What I meant was that, the way I understand it, Metacritic takes into account the actual score that a critic gave to a movie, whereas RT is only interested was it 'positive' or 'negative'. In other words, for Metacritic 6/10 and 10/10 are two different scores, but for RT both are simply 'positive'.

If not a critic you agree with; one you respect. Either way, just ignore them half the time.

I get what Metacritic is trying to do, but doing some fancy cyphering to yield a "percentage" only gives it a notion of precision that it just can't have.

It can be interesting to watch in real time but I just think the whole aggregation model is wrong. There have been plenty of films that got absolutely hammered when they were first released only to be recognized later. In the age of aggregators that just doesn't seem to happen anymore. You will sometimes see people invoke an RT or Metacritic score for a film that's a decade old; like it's chiseled in stone. I'm sure I've fallen into that trap myself from time to time.

Oof. This is embarrassing.

Word of advice: If you're going to invoke the phrase, "it's far superior", you might want to check your math before publishing.

 

[polishgenius]

While embarrassing, it's not uncommong for reviewers to change their views on films like that as time goes on - she shouldn't give a dishonest review of this one just coz the first one went down in her estimation. She prolly should have mentioned it in the review mind, dunno if she did.

Empire magazine infamously gave Attack of the Clones five stars once and have spent the years since ripping the piss out of themselves for it. Hype and goodwill can skew an on-the-day review.

[Jace, Extat]

IT'S ABOUT ETHICS IN TWEET REVIEWERISM

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

Hype and goodwill can skew an on-the-day review.

This should be a disclaimer plastered at the top of every review aggregator site.

And it's a totally fair point. To say, "I rewatched the 2017 film in preparation for this and it has fallen significantly in my estimation. If I were to review it today I'd give it a 2/5." Unfortunately nothing like that appears in the review on screenrant.

Here's another weird one: Kaitlyn Booth at Bleeding Cool reviewed the film and her review is listed on RT. She's quite critical and gave the film a 6/10. However, RT lists it as "rotten" with a green splotch next to it. I could be wrong, but I thought a 6/10, while not good, was a mildly positive review. She also gave New Mutants a 6/10 fresh and Hero 6.5/10 rotten. Curious.

Mark Kermode is watching it now. I'm waiting for the part of his review where he says, "It's X minutes longer than 2001, a film that starts at the beginning of mankind and ends with the birth of a new species..." I long for it.

[Ran]

I suspect RT has decided that the scale at Bleeding Cool is that anything under a 7 is a negative due to the content of the reviews. 6 of 10 would then be more like getting a "D" than getting a "C".

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Except her 6/10 for New Mutants is classified as "fresh" By RT, along with several other "6/10" or "3/5" reviews.

I don't think the authors of the reviews control that. They submit it and RT filters them into one category or another.

[RumHam]

Over the last few days I watched Man of Steel and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice to refresh my memory. The first one was fine, but Batman V. Superman is an aggressively stupid movie. Before it even starts. like what is the title even saying? There was no justice until two dudes in capes were manipulated into fighting each other but then became friends? 

Eisenberg's version of Luthor is weak. Also he puts a jar of urine on a senator's desk. To make a point, I guess? Then he makes one of the trolls from the Lord of the Rings movies for the final battle. I hate how he calls it "your Doomsday!" though that's a pet peeve of mine. When someone awkwardly says the character's comic name to check a box. Marvel movies do it all the time. (see also: Vision and Valkeryie's names being stupid) But in this case it was extra bad because you'd just say "your doom." 

Anyway I'm looking forward to watching maybe the first hour and a half of this tomorrow!

 

[Jace, Extat]

Jessie Eisenberg is the single best thing about 'ZACK! SNYDER'S!! Batman v Superman'

[RumHam]

5 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

Jessie Eisenberg is the single best thing about 'ZACK! SNYDER'S!! Batman v Superman'

Jeremy's Iron

[Corvinus85]

9 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

Jessie Eisenberg is the single best thing about 'ZACK! SNYDER'S!! Batman v Superman'

It's my turn to say, this is where you messed up.

[Jace, Extat]

15 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Jeremy's Iron

Watch the Dungeons and Dragons movie, then tell me he put forth any effort in 'ZSBvS'.

[RumHam]

3 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

Watch the Dungeons and Dragons movie, then tell me he put forth any effort in 'ZSBvS'.

....ok! I didn't know that was a thing but ok. 

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, RumHam said:

....ok! I didn't know that was a thing but ok. 

 

[RumHam]

1 minute ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

 

 

I will have to check that out. 

Have you seen HBO's Watchmen? Dude hangs dong. 

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, RumHam said:

 

I will have to check that out. 

Have you seen HBO's Watchmen? Dude hangs dong. 

I'd rather watch the guillotine blade dropping towards me than another connery production from Lindeloff. 

[RumHam]

13 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

I'd rather watch the guillotine blade dropping towards me than another connery production from Lindeloff. 

After LOST and Prometheus I felt the same way. 

The Leftovers changed my mind. It takes a bit to get going but it's great. The second season is universally acclaimed. Watchmen was also quite good. I think the quality probably depends on who else is in the writers room with him. 

 

[Gronzag]

Dan Murrell, formerly of Screen Junkies, whose taste is quite different than mine, but whose opinion I respect, gave it a very positive review. He was shocked how much he liked it.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Holy Shit.

Apparently Snyder went on a Geeks + Gamers charity livestream and mudded them on their own fucking channel.