FTFY
So if I say I think Black Panthers' CGI is better than Spidermans', can you definitively prove me wrong?
Captain Marvel and the ethics of film criticism.
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
- Status
FTFY
So if I say I think Black Panthers' CGI is better than Spidermans', can you definitively prove me wrong?
Well said and this is the truth, I honestly cant believe some were trying to argue what professional actually meant even saying it is about just opinions or saying I made no sense.
for instance a critic gave captain marvel a pass and admitted only the 3rd arc is great. so basically only 1 of 3 arcs is great , professionally that is a fail but the critics still gave it a fresh on rt, this is why i made the thread because I saw too many reviews that felt very unethical.
from an objective stand point if a critic thinks only 1/3 of the film is good that is still overall still a bad movie that should get a rotten score. since 1/3 is below even 1/2 talk of 3/4.
its the opinion of the critics who is supposed to come to that opinion honestly and object.
AH, and now we can move to a place that will be more about being a fan or being a professional critic. the objective and subjective.
MCU fans are likely to say black panther looks better but the truth is it doesn't if this was film school , black panther will get an f in effects.
black panther effects factually look like play station games. which makes it worse from a film making stand point, spiderman 2 used a better type of effects. practical effects. black panther used generic cgi. VFX have advanced and any film maker from james cameron, to chris nolan to alfanso cauron will tell you they favour practical effects to basic cgi that black panther was. so subjectivity you can say black panther is better, objectively that is not the case as proven by backed up film making analysis and referenced by many people who have made some of the best vfx film like Cameron and Cauron
infact I used SM2 and black panther to show how bad black panther looks to a movie that came out 14 years ago.
if black panther tech improved the movie wont look like a ps 2 game that came out in 2001 to SM2 that came out in 2004.
this does not look better, any professional critic who is honest will agree. this looks worse. a movie should not look like a game.
Goodness me, film is art but somehow like science and maths, people who go to film art school still go through the same process of science and maths to come out with a good or bad grade for the credibility if their profession like doctors and mathematicians..
You liking TDK more means a lot. you see batman and robin was so bad that it killed the comic book genre in 1997 and batman took a break for 8 years. TDK elevated the genre. any future batman film will want to avoid another batman and roibin and get more inline with TDK. so it means a lot. for batman and the directors, actors, writers of the next batman films.
it about context and even timing as we see with the gender wars of captain marvel where some critics are saying the movie is good because it has a girl lead.
the birth of a nation was considered good in its day because America at that time was openly racist. the movie will be a big joke now and will never make it to cinema today.
however the sound of music was a classic and seen as great in 1965 and is a classic and still considered great in 2019. the movie can easily make it to cinema again for a 60th anniversary special.
if birth of a nation makes it to cinema again , it wont be for warmth and sing alongs like sound of music. it will only make people cringe and make many white Americans offer a sincere apology to African Americans for what their grand parents did to their own grand parents
so please they are not comparable in any way when it comes to criticism and it is just weird to me that you chose to use such an example.
You do realise he was disagreeing with you? Saying a critic is supposed to be well informed about the film making process is not the same as saying their role is objective in nature or there are definitive measures of "good" and "bad"
I'm afraid you're still getting confused over that word "objective". If a person thinks something then by definition it is subjective, it's an opinion. Objectivity is about measurable facts. One can objectively state the length of a film, or the name of the producer, not whether it was any good.
Again no. Maths has clear, well defined, correct answers to questions which can be verified from first principles. Science relies on observable phenomena which can be measured and mapped.
Film criticism is about personal judgement, which is itself open to criticism and debate much as the content of the film is.
Well saying a movie is decent even if it only works really well in the third act doesn't seem like a big issue. I mean I like "The Godfather" movie but I kind of get bored during the Italy stuff. Some movies are liked mostly because they have a few highlights but those highlights are really good. I mean I like "Terminator 3" and to be honest I sometimes think it's only because robots fighting each other never gets old and it has a great ending. All the stuff with John Connor and Claire Danes is hardly compelling stuff.
Jason
Jason
What critics are you reading? Me I tend to lean more on MovieBob,ScreenJunkies,Collider,Merk Kenodoe?(don't know the spelling. He's a British critic). I also like to check out on Kevin Smith more after I see the movie than before. Then you have Lindsey Ellis and few other places like that but she is more about essay reviews I guess you can call them than just individual reviews. I also use to check out "What the Flick" before that got shutdown.
Jason
So why was the film criticsm of TDK good and batman and robin bad, why is captian marvel criticsm reminding me more of justice league mixed at best
Same for films and in all honesty you seem more like saying art is inferior to maths and science. there is a reason why LOTR can win best picture on merit at the Oscars and transformers can't, LOTR has a clear compelling story that is part of a verified principle of good film making. transformers has none.
[/QUOTE]Science relies on observable phenomena which can be measured and mapped.[/QUOTE]
film is also about observing phenomenas, this are two examples. the car chase of tdk and black panther.
one looks better than the other thanks to the phenomena process of practical effects (tdk) that is better than cgi game looking effects (black panther)
[/QUOTE]Film criticism is about personal judgement, which is itself open to criticism and debate much as the content of the film is[/QUOTE]
Have you ever read this article that martin Scoresese gave about why RT sucks and film criticism is a joke today?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...why-mother-was-misjudged-guest-column-1047286
its everything I am saying.
what it means is all movies are flawed but when only 1 arc is good of the 3. that means the movie has more bad than good and the negative and more than the positives.
if you are bored with the scene in Italy that could be 1/4 of the movie is bad for you. still more good than bad. that critic thinks 2/3 of captain marvel was bad. so that is still a failing grade objectively.
ever seen American idol? if there are 3 judges and only 1 thinks you are a good singer in the first round you dont movie to the next stage. that is what is is to be objective and professional either as a judge judging singer or judge judging movies.
those reviews I posted where from RT. they all read pretty bad but re rated fresh. wont happen with any other film. some of the reviews seem worse than what they gave alita, only thing is alita got rotten.
Last edited:
No, you are, as ever, wrong.
I am not wrong. its maths afterall
The maths shows 1/3 is less than half of a whole.
Visual and technical science shows movies have had a bigger break through with the use of practical effects in films to game cgi looking effects used in films.
I don't know, you tell me, it's you being reminded (despite not having seen the film). If I'm not reminded of Justice League am I somehow wrong or does that balance out as it being 50% reminiscent of JL?
So consensus makes TDK "good" and B+R "bad"? Does that make me wrong if I prefer B+R? If so and consensus is truth why then do you feel you are in such a special position to dispute the consensus of reviews thus far on a film you haven't even watched?
What units are used for measuring the quality of a film by the way?
I'm saying one is subjective and one is objective. "Inferior" is a meaningless concept because the two are so completely unrelated. One does not watch a film and form hypotheses to test under controlled conditions. One does not report in a journal on the emotional impact of an experiment on the experimenter.
Science is not art and art is not science.
One deals in measures of objective fact about the universe, the other in subjective interpretations of expressive forms.
You do know the Oscars are essentially about the culture and politics of Hollywood right? You do realise the most critically and intellectually acclaimed films rarely if ever get nominated or even mentioned at the Oscars?
No it doesn't.
Prove me wrong. Mathematically or scientifically demonstrate to any scientifically valid measure of statistical significance that I'm wrong in a way that would hold up in a publishable academic paper.
You can't because the moment I disagree with you there are two dissenting opinions, neither of which is inherently more valid or objective than the other. You say one looks better than the other, I say it doesn't. Where does that leave us?
You aren't thinking this through clearly. You've just given someones' opinion in defense of a case for absolute truth. That's pretty much the definition of a self defeating argument from the word go.
No, opinions are not math. The rest is even more nonsensical.I am not wrong. its maths afterall
The maths shows 1/3 is less than half of a whole.
Visual and technical science shows movies have had a bigger break through with the use of practical effects in films to game cgi looking effects used in films.
Math isn't everything. I mean if I wanted to make a cheeseburger and got all the stuff I need to make a good cheeseburger but then used paper plates instead of buns chances are the cheeseburger will taste really bad. It doesn't matter if all the stuff is perfect from the meat to the cheese to the lettuce etc. On the other hand if made a second tier cheseburger where none of the stuff was all that great such as using bread instead of buns and the vegan meat instead of real meat and I forget the lettuce and my tomato simply doesn't taste great it's still going to be better than the paper plate cheeseburger even if that one had most of the better ingridents.
Jason
Jason
Some vegan meats are actually pretty nice.
I can prove it too. I've liked 100% of the vegan meats I've liked therefore they are 100% objectively nice until someone disagrees.
By @Dales logic at least.
But in purple, I'm stunning.
Well I was not the person that brought up maths but it can work in my favour.
Nonsensical? I dont think it is nonsensical that a movie that looks like a video game is seen worse to a movie that looks more real even with the same amount of effects. it is called better film making style. if you go to film school they will tell you as they did me.
this is not in the same context as film criticism.
The only way is ethics.
Certainly is.
I like one more than the other, ergo it is better.
Is that not your argument summed up?
What if realism isn't what they were going for with the special effects? I think the last thing on the mind of Robert Rodriquez when he made "Machette" was realism. Also if you doing something like say "Men in Black" which is a comedy you want your aliens to look kind of cartoonish yet if do "Alien" you want that thing to look gritty and real and scary. . Not to mention that special effects themselves can be subjective. Some of us out here still think models and the stuff Stan Winston did works better than some of the CGI you see.
I haven't seen "Captain Marvel" yet but I am guessing just form her outfit that gritty and realistic wasn't what they were aiming for with the special effects except with maybe the De-aging stuff with Samuel Jackson.
Jason
- Status
