Damn! You already said that only thing I thought was worth to add to this thread...
Captain Marvel and the ethics of film criticism.
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
- Status
Not a fair comparison, Clara Paget is stunning in anything....
Unless you are an artschool asshole you can only tell that spfx is bad in retrospect.
Tell me how bad you think Black Panther is in 5 years.
Does it hold up?
Is it embarrassing?
How ever could we have been so foolish as to believe in those rhinos.
black panther will look even more worse in 5 years. see part of the reason I compared it to spiderman 2 was the movie came out 14 years ago and looked better than black panther that came out a year ago
no I dont believe in rhinos however when I saw Jurassic park for a moment it felt like dinosaurs existed again because the VFX and artistic direction of Spielberg was absolutely fantastic.
again it is art, their are ways you can truthfully get better. Jurassic park made films better with the ground breaking effects at 1993. black panther made films look bad. that is an objective criticism critics should have called out more like they did with Justice league, based on the evidence of both films.
You know that if these were "hard facts", the Oscars would be assigned by a simple measurement and without the need of a vote by a group of people, right? Like in, I don't know, a track meet where we can measure with precise instruments who arrived first..?
Last edited:
I don't see anything objective here, I see your opinion. While I wasn't a huge fan of Black Panther, it wasn't because of the special effects. The effects were mostly fantastic, in my opinion.
Just like I think The Orville has better special effects than Star Trek: Discovery. But, I can guarantee there's a good portion of folks out there that think exactly the reverse.
Which did you attend? School attendance and scores in exams have little or nothing to do with the artistic merit of a body of work. If we are gong to look at this from the perspective of an art school education then the entire genre of superhero media is with a few exceptions pretty vacuous. It's light entertainment which may or may not carry some measure of allegory or intellectual insight. But mostly just people in Lycra shooting death rays at each other.
Nope:
Not worked with many doctors then?
What are critics doing with Captain Marvel exactly?
You've not watched the film yet to know, so why the controversy? You might love it.
Oh, by the way, this might help you frame and structure arguments, it's amazing what a difference a little focus on syntax, phrasing and grammatical structure can make.
I think it's scary that there are a lot of people who do not know the difference between "objective" and "subjective". The other day I was discussing the effectiveness of the vaccines with a not-very-convinced colleague, talking about all scientific studies which demonstrate that there is no connection between autism and vaccines , and finally he said something like "Oh well, this is your opinion, mine is different ..."
WTF?!?!
WTF?!?!
Some folks would still claim to hate it even if they secretly loved it.
Bookmarked!
What's interesting is the fact I've literally posted the definitions for @Dales and (s)he's still apparently confused, referring to opinions as "objective" which is one of several reasons I suspect they're not a native English speaker. It would frankly explain a lot about this thread.
Last edited:
Not english speaker here, and unless his/her first language isn't a Romance language or West Germanic language, I can't see how he can be confused about these terms, because they are almost identical in a lot of languages. And even if this was the case, well, s/he could consult a dictionary.
I didn't know what RT controversy you were referring to so I googled it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...l-review-ratings-system-online-trolls/584032/
The first paragraph ...
In the world of film criticism, there’s one inviolable rule: You can’t offer an opinion on a movie you haven’t seen. But on Rotten Tomatoes, the review-aggregating website that wields serious influence over many theatergoers, that rule was broken all the time. Until last week, any site user could leave a review and rating for a film before its release date, something that would affect the movie’s “audience score” (though not the official critical score that determines whether a film is labeled “fresh” or “rotten”). Then, on February 25, Rotten Tomatoes announced a series of changes, the most significant of which is that fans can only rate or review a movie once it’s come out.
and the last paragraph are quite telling...
The site has made several strides in the past year to improve its rating experience; in 2018, it attempted to broaden and diversify its list of approved critics, who were largely white and male. But if it sincerely wants to convey with greater accuracy how most viewers feel about a film, more thorough changes are needed. Until then, the audience score will be open to exploitation by a narrow, outraged corner of the internet.
I did not know about "review bombing" until this article and quite understand why RT has made changes in its policies over the last two years.
https://www.cnet.com/news/captain-m...op-marvels-latest-from-being-certified-fresh/
As for those "not so smart" comments the actress made against white men... I decided to look at them for myself. From her Marie Claire interview.
(Interviewer) I was thrilled you requested me to interview you. I thought, ‘This is game-changing’. It’s the biggest opportunity I’ve had. Nobody usually wants to take a chance on a disabled journalist.
(The interviewer has cerebral palsy)
I’d love to know what your particular reasons were.
(Brie Larsen) ‘About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male. So, I spoke to Dr Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of colour, it sounded like across the board they weren’t getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren’t providing it, they all had different excuses.’
Read more at https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/tv-and-film/brie-larson-641750#TOHQdtOqdhROPSjc.99
Well, I'm looking forward to the movie, and the young lady leading it sounds like a winner.
Just for fun, I used an Universal Translator to, well, translate "objective or subjective" in a lot of languages. It's quite interesting that the words are similar even in languages that aren't strict relatives of Europeans languages... (I mean, Javanese?!?!)
Afrikaans: objektief of subjektief
Bosnian: objektivan ili subjektivan
Catalan: objectius o subjectius
Czech: objektivní nebo subjektivní
Welsh: gwrthrychol neu oddrychol
Danish: objektivt eller subjektivt
German: objektiv oder subjektiv
English: objective or subjective
Esperanto: objective or subjective
Spanish: objetivo o subjetivo
Estonian: objektiivne või subjektiivne
Basque: helburu edo subjektiboa
Finnish: objektiivinen tai subjektiivinen
French: objectif ou subjectif
Irish: cuspóir nó suibiachtúil
Galician: obxectiva ou subjetiva
Hmong: objective or subjective
Croatian: objektivna ili subjektivna
Haitian Creole: objektif oswa subjectif
Hungarian: objektív vagy szubjektív
Indonesian: obyektif atau subyektif
Icelandic: hlutlæg eða huglæg
Italian: oggettivo o soggettivo
Javanese: obyektif utawa subyektif
Latin: objective or subjective
Lithuanian: objektyvus ar subjektyvus
Latvian: objektīvu vai subjektīvu
Malagasy: tanjona na subjective
Malay: objektif atau subjektif
Maltese: oġġettiv jew suġġettiv
Dutch: objectief of subjectief
Norwegian: objektiv eller subjektiv
Polish: obiektywny lub subiektywny
Portuguese: objective o soggettivo
Romanian: obiectiv sau subiectiv
Russian: объективный или субъективный
Slovak: objektívne alebo subjektívne
Slovenian: objektivno ali subjektivno
Albanian: objektiv ose subjektiv
Serbian: објективна или субјективна
Sesotho: sepheo kapa se ikhethang
Sundanese: Tujuan atawa subjektif
Swedish: objektivt eller subjektivt
Filipino: layunin o subjective
Zulu: inhloso noma i-subjective
Oh dear, I feel what's really starting a problem here, like many have said before me, is you really don't seem at all to understand what "objective" and "subjective" mean. From everything I've read you post, your personal definition of objective appears to be "What I agree with," and that's something I sadly see very often by people trying to say my arguments are just opinions and his are facts.
And you have many mistakes with your analogies, like for example when you compare to writing papers for school. What kind of papers are you talking about, and at what grade level? Yes, if you're doing a science report, you're going to be marked for your accuracy and on objective, measurable criteria, and your paper would probably get similar results from different teachers. But other subjects, like Literature, History, Philosophy, and so on? Well yes in elementary school you're marked just on your technique, while you're learning how you're supposed to construct essays. But as you go up in your education, you're being marked on how strong your arguments are, and that's your teacher's opinion. Haven't you ever heard of "grade curves"? That's where your papers are marked based on how your teacher perceives your work's quality compared to your peers, and that's totally subjective.
And special effects being inferior to practical effects is your opinion too. Oh it's an "objective" statement that Black Panther uses computer animation for large parts, you're just stating facts there. But saying Spiderman 2's effects are "better" than Black Panther's isn't a fact, that's your subjective opinion. That's what I mean about how your definition of objective seems to be what you agree with. There's no such thing as an objectively better movie, if you're really thinking that then I'd recommend you really go back and think about what you feel objective means and what you're even trying to say.
Also you totally can have two of a movie's three acts be average, with a good final act, and you can overall have a good movie. You're making logical errors when you think something is so simple as "2 mediocre thirds and one great third must mean a mediocre whole," because things don't work that way .. like you know about weightings? You could have say your first two thirds each being a 5 out of 10, which is basically average, but your final act can be so spectacular your whole experience is brought up, you know what I mean?
Like consider your example with the Dark Knight movie. In my opinion, it's a very mediocre movie overall, except with Heath Ledger's performance. If you take him out of the movie, I feel you've got a very average and often boring film, with a lot of silly and ridiculous parts (ugh, that whole thing with Harvey Dent at the end, right?), but because of Heath and hype created because of his tragic death, I feel that movie gets elevated quite a bit. And there are so many examples of like a single performance or decision in movies and other artworks that really just make something very average into something great, if I'm making sense?
Basically I guess what I'm saying is you're totally entitled to your opinions, just please don't try saying your feelings are facts.
And you have many mistakes with your analogies, like for example when you compare to writing papers for school. What kind of papers are you talking about, and at what grade level? Yes, if you're doing a science report, you're going to be marked for your accuracy and on objective, measurable criteria, and your paper would probably get similar results from different teachers. But other subjects, like Literature, History, Philosophy, and so on? Well yes in elementary school you're marked just on your technique, while you're learning how you're supposed to construct essays. But as you go up in your education, you're being marked on how strong your arguments are, and that's your teacher's opinion. Haven't you ever heard of "grade curves"? That's where your papers are marked based on how your teacher perceives your work's quality compared to your peers, and that's totally subjective.
And special effects being inferior to practical effects is your opinion too. Oh it's an "objective" statement that Black Panther uses computer animation for large parts, you're just stating facts there. But saying Spiderman 2's effects are "better" than Black Panther's isn't a fact, that's your subjective opinion. That's what I mean about how your definition of objective seems to be what you agree with. There's no such thing as an objectively better movie, if you're really thinking that then I'd recommend you really go back and think about what you feel objective means and what you're even trying to say.
Also you totally can have two of a movie's three acts be average, with a good final act, and you can overall have a good movie. You're making logical errors when you think something is so simple as "2 mediocre thirds and one great third must mean a mediocre whole," because things don't work that way .. like you know about weightings? You could have say your first two thirds each being a 5 out of 10, which is basically average, but your final act can be so spectacular your whole experience is brought up, you know what I mean?
Like consider your example with the Dark Knight movie. In my opinion, it's a very mediocre movie overall, except with Heath Ledger's performance. If you take him out of the movie, I feel you've got a very average and often boring film, with a lot of silly and ridiculous parts (ugh, that whole thing with Harvey Dent at the end, right?), but because of Heath and hype created because of his tragic death, I feel that movie gets elevated quite a bit. And there are so many examples of like a single performance or decision in movies and other artworks that really just make something very average into something great, if I'm making sense?
Basically I guess what I'm saying is you're totally entitled to your opinions, just please don't try saying your feelings are facts.
It doesn't, SM2 looks worse and more artificial than BP in every way.
Nope, BP looked spectacular when they showed us Wakanda.
true but we all know many films even this past year for example was nominated for Oscars because of politics or to stress the importance of diversity not for merit.
Oscars are political but at times many get recognised that we know its deserving eg Lord of the rings, Gravity, Schindler's list, Avatar in the technical categories
oscars can be sometimes credible but in the few years ever since oscr so white controversy they have struggled and felt caught between the politics and merit of movies and for that they have lost credibility and it seems ratings.
its strange, the last Oscars I ever enjoyed was in 2014 . 12 years a salve won best picture , adapted screenplay and supporting actress. well deserved in major categories. gravity won for best director which was huge for a sci film to win in a big category. 2014 was a year artistic merit was measured. 43 million people watched.
2019 films like bo-rap and black panther won for loads for diversity been the most importance reason and only 29 million watched because people have gotten tired with politics overruling artistic merit at the oscars that is first and foremost to celebrate artistic merit.
nothing against black panther and bo-rap but them getting nominations like best picture when first man and mission impossible fallout were denied would have been impossible in 2014 a time where merit not politics mattered at the oscars.
It's never 100% clear to me, in reading the reviews linked to over at RT, how some of them are sorted into "fresh" or "rotten" categories. If a review is somewhat mixed rather than a rave or a pan, the subjective element seems to play a greater part. One would expect this. I don't think there's probably a systemic or consensus bias.
There has been some criticism on this point. Critics themselves sometimes aren't happy how they are sorted in "fresh or rotten".
First Man and Mission Impossible simply weren't that good, easy.
Please, you were one of the ones going on about how Hugh Jackman deserved an award for Logan when he was just playing a Generic Western Gunslinger type.
- Status
