Spoilers Suicide Squad - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
That's just as dumb as the people who think Marvel paid Rotten Tomatoes for bad reviews.
They didn't? Well that's depressing.
Well seeing as most of them are super villains, I file that under no shit Sherlock.
I would have thought Brexit actually happening and Donald Trump being a presidential candidate would have made that clear.
Listening to someone's opinion is not the same as "blindly following" it. You have no basis for assuming that. If you weigh someone's opinion against other factors and make a choice that converges with that opinion, that is not blind. And pre-emptively rejecting all opinions from others is exactly as blind as reflexively following them. An informed choice is an informed choice, regardless of whether or not it's the same choice you would have made.
There are always extreme-minded people like that when dealing with any issue. But it is inappropriate to insinuate that all people who have criticisms or concerns about a movie are members of that irrational extremist fringe.
I think that some people just have difficulties with people NOT wanting to see a movie anymore that they were going to see otherwise, simply because some people they don't know have said it sucks. Honestly, I would also call that blindly following instead of informed opinion.
Honestly? There are people who, based on several trailers, made a informed opinion to watch this movie. Then, some people say it sucks, and they quickly decide to not watch it anymore, because 'others said it sucked'. Informed opinions are based on that, information. Most people don't even read reviews, just the headlines. That's their 'informed opinion'.
And no, I don't think it is inapproprate to insinuate this at all. The movie isn't released yet. The only opinions we have are of a few reviewers. A truly informed opinion could be made when all kinds of people have seen this movie and given their opinion, from payed critics, to hardcore comicbookfans, casual movie lovers, action filmfans, you name it.
The only way you could form an informed opinion based on reviewers, is if you have found their judgement reliable in the past. That is informed opinion based on a reviewer. If you simply say, a few reviewers say it sucks without you agreeing with them in the past, that is not an informed opinion. It is simply following the popular opinion.
I don't see why. I mean, I was interested in seeing the movie based on the trailers and the advance buzz. Now I'm less interested in seeing the movie based on the specific information about the movie given in the reviews. Both were based on incomplete knowledge and secondhand information, but the latter decision is based on more information, because it's based on the descriptions given by people who've actually seen the final film and are able to provide specifics about it, rather than just on "buzz" from people who hadn't yet seen the film.
You're overlooking something very important there. Those encouraging trailers were made by people who were being paid to make the film look as good as possible, while the reviews are coming from people who have no dog in the fight. It should be self-evident that the trailers are biased, that they're skewed in favor of making you like the movie. All advertising should be automatically mistrusted, because no advertiser is ever going to be honest about the faults in the product they're selling. That's the whole reason we have reviews -- to provide a more objective, or at least disinterested, counterbalance to the intrinsic bias of advertising. (Just to be clear, "disinterested" does not mean "uninterested," it means having no personal stake in a decision, nothing to gain or lose by favoring either side of the question.) Of course reviewers can be biased in various ways, but advertisers are always biased in favor of their product. At least different reviewers can have different biases that cancel each other out, so you can read multiple reviews and weigh them against each other. I wouldn't have made my decision based on just one review, but there are things that multiple reviewers have agreed are in the film, and that is worth taking into account. (And no, for your information, I did not just read the headlines.)
An informed opinion is, literally, an opinion based on information. How can you possibly get information about a film if you refuse to listen to people who've actually seen it and are not being paid to say exclusively good things about it? Reviews are information, just as trailers and commercials and studio buzz are information. You consider them all and give them the weight you think they deserve. That's the very definition of an informed decision.
I do get what your saying there. I do. Personally, I can no longer take the opinion of reviewers or interviewers as unbiased. The sole purpose of newspapers, magazines and websites is making money. And media has learned that horrible headlines sell better. When these newspapers/magazines/websites are aware that people are buzzed about a certain thing, being negative about said thing sells.
I'm saying this out of personal experience. I work for a chain of stores that, for the first in more then a 100 years, is dealing with some lesser sales figures. The newspapers and news are talking about horrible figures and the near end of this chain, while it isn't nearly this bad. However, the big bad headlines sell.
You are working on the assumption reviewers are unbiased, mostly. I don't. I don't know if you've seen BvS, but Perry White himself is seen doing this. Coming up with exaggerated headlines to sell news that is not nearly as bad as the actual news.
Also, I'm very happy you clearly state that you read more than headlines. Again, from personal experience, I can say most people don't. I can't even begint to count how often I've heard people saying 'have you heard the news?'. They tell me the broad strokes, but when I ask for details, they will say 'I just read the headline'. It's good that you are trying to be as informed as possible. Sadly, I think you are working on the assumption that the entire world is as seeking of true information as you are. However, that is the biggest fiction there is. People don't care for details, only broad strokes. This has been my personal experience, perhaps this is a matter of 'your milage my vary'.
There is a showing at my local theater at 6:00 (one hour from now), and I may just go see it. Just to rid myself of the anxiety of hearing about the mixed review this film is getting. I work overnight, so continuing to see the movie talked about while not having seen it myself will be a longer process if I don't.
No, I'm not. It's a given that everyone has a bias. That was the first thing drilled into me as a history major in college. Every source has a bias, but that doesn't make it valueless. It just means you have to be aware of the bias and assess the work accordingly. And it means you should never take any single source as authoritative, but should seek out multiple sources -- ideally from people with different biases -- and weigh them against each other.
As I said already: All advertisements for a film will be biased in its favor. But different critics can have different biases. Yes, some are biased in favor of negative opinions, but others are wined and dined by the studios to give positive reviews (which is why even the worst movies can garner positive quotes) and, logically, others will be more objective, or at least will be biased only by their own preferences and expectations. The key, again, is to weigh all these sources of information against each other in making your decision.
Besides, it's not just about reducing it to "this is good" or "this is bad." Learning specifics about what happens in the film, factual information that's relatively unaffected by bias, can influence your choices -- as filtered through your own biases. For instance, I have a bias against movies that glorify guns and gunplay, and multiple reviewers agree that this film is loaded with gun-fetish imagery. That tells me that, at the very least, I'll want to wait to see it until it comes out on home video and I can turn down the volume on the noisy bits.
And I've explained to you why you're incorrect in jumping to that very, very condescending conclusion.
Well that's probably the most underwhelming thing in this thread so far.
And you 'explaining' to me isn't condescending? Hm....
Anyway, I have a different experience with how people work. Like I said in my previous post, your milage may vary. You have your way of looking at things, I have mine.
I'll probably go check this out at the drive in so I can get in a double feature. It's getting even more bad reviews. I think all the hype will make it a financial success though. Teenagers and young adults mostly don't care about Rotten Tomatoes reviews.
The difference is, I was explaining to you how I think, and you were explaining to me how I think.
Well, this is one reason why Rotten Tomatoes sucks on toast: it's filled with dozens upon dozens of random, no-name reviewers, whereas the far superior Metacritic only includes scores from serious publications. (Not even IGN makes their cut!) Why so many people cite and pay attention to RT when Metacritic is around is beyond me; most reviewers quoted by Metacritic I've at least heard of, and I respect many of them. (And their score for Squad is currently 42.)
So...Metacritic is automatically better than RT because it doesn't include youtubers and bloggers?
How does that help SS when even strict professionalism doesn't get it above fifty percent?
Yes, absolutely.
And also because I vastly prefer their rating system to RT's (overall percentage average vice average of binary yes/nos).
My preference for Metacritic has nothing to do with Suicide Squad.
