So people should just go blindly into films and part with their cash to see films that they may not like just so as to ensure that studios continue to make films that you like?
WB's Justice League 2017 movie pre-discussion thread
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
So people should just go blindly into films and part with their cash to see films that they may not like just so as to ensure that studios continue to make films that you like?
People should decide what they want to see based on multiple factors, not just on what a bunch of random schmoes thought.
Critic is seriously the most objectively useless job that has ever existed.
Critic is seriously the most objectively useless job that has ever existed.
No dumber than asking people to go see a movie based on nothing at all. And most people don't base their decision on 1 random shmoe, they base it on multiple differents shmoes and marketing materials.
^ Except I doubt very much that anyone is making their mind up on the basis of “some random schmoe.” Trailers, word of mouth, actors, the track record of the director; all sorts of factors come into play for most people. A good or bad review might push an undecided cinema-goer over the line but films like Transformers, the Star Wars prequels and others have pretty much proven to be critic-proof.
I do think it’s a little ironic that someone with “Writer” in their username is essentially advocating for banning a type of free speech.
I do think it’s a little ironic that someone with “Writer” in their username is essentially advocating for banning a type of free speech.
The fact that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people decided that Batman v Superman was a giant shitcicle based solely on its "Rotten Tomatoes" score argues against this idea.
^Or possibly they made that decision because, you know, they watched it and came to that conclusion. And I speak as someone who liked it!
It can be unequivocally proven that BvS' overall box office performance was negatively affected by its "Rotten Tomatoes" score; the film still turned a profit, ultimately, but there are absolutely hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who opted not to see it because of the critical response to it.
^ Leaving aside the “unequivocally proven” claim in respect of a purely anedoctal issue - you actually seem to genuinely believe that studios are entitled to the blind adherence - not to mention the money - of the movie-going public. We should go into a film with no idea of its merits; you don’t trust us to assess the merits of a review, bias of a critic etc. This is truly incredible stuff.
BvS' overall BO projections went down after the early reviews for the film came out.
Also, why is it so "incredible" to expect people to make up their own minds instead of beimg mindless sheep?
Also, why is it so "incredible" to expect people to make up their own minds instead of beimg mindless sheep?
I’d have thought it was more sheeplike to go and see a film just because a big studio tells you to, but hey...
That's how we did it before teh interwebz.
I'm not sure if you were being ironic or not but I'm pretty sure there were film reviews and critics before there was an internet.That's how we did it before teh interwebz.
And at the very least marketing materials DEFINITELY existed. People on here are telling people to ignore those as well...
Yes, but they weren't everywhere, staring you down and 'daring' you to have a different opinion. And there most definitely were not people from all corners of the globe challenging others' opinions about critcs' reviews.
Reviews were mostly in newspapers and magazines, with a couple on the morning news/talk shows. Siskel and Ebert was the gold standard of movie review shows, and they as often as not disagreed.
It was a simpler time.
Yes, but they weren't everywhere, staring you down and 'daring' you to have a different opinion. And there most definitely were not people from all corners of the globe challenging others' opinions about critcs' reviews.
Reviews were mostly in newspapers and magazines, with a couple on the morning news/talk shows. Siskel and Ebert was the gold standard of movie review shows, and they as often as not disagreed.
I used to read the reviews in whatever newspapers my dad would buy. I remember the local newspaper giving T2 a roasting and thinking “he’s full of it.” And right I was.
I would also go to my local large newsagent and read pretty much every film magazine they had. The reviews might sway me for or against films I was borderline on (as they still do) but if it was from a director I loved, an adaptation of a book I loved or had a trailer I liked, I’d probably have gone anyway. Those are still usually the criteria.
Edit - not forgetting the late great Barry Norman from BBC’s Film programme.
I don’t get this “daring you to disagree.” The thing about everyone being a critic - as they are here, on twitter or Facebook - is that there’s such a variety of opinion. I sometimes but not always agree with some critics and some friends. I’ll put more weight on some reviews or word of mouth than others but will still ultimately make my own mind up. As far as I can see, there is anything but uniformity of opinion these days.
Last edited:
I've just been reading these last few pages of this thread, ha I have to laugh at some of the (over)reactions in here.
Personally all I care with reviews is to see what score they get at the end, and then roughly guage from a few of them. I never like to actually read the reviews, as I find far too many give away much more information about the movie/plot than I'd like to know beforehand. I mean most of the trailers nowadays spoil and give away too much as it is (as to why I haven't watched the last JL or Last Jedi trailers at all)
At the end of the day this movie has Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman and the Flash and whoever else teamed up side by side. I wanna see this movie. The averagey reviews just mean I might not rush to the first available screening, but I'll definitely find time in the next week.
Personally all I care with reviews is to see what score they get at the end, and then roughly guage from a few of them. I never like to actually read the reviews, as I find far too many give away much more information about the movie/plot than I'd like to know beforehand. I mean most of the trailers nowadays spoil and give away too much as it is (as to why I haven't watched the last JL or Last Jedi trailers at all)
At the end of the day this movie has Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman and the Flash and whoever else teamed up side by side. I wanna see this movie. The averagey reviews just mean I might not rush to the first available screening, but I'll definitely find time in the next week.
When I researched films for my MA years ago, I consulted critical reviews from over 100 critics across seven decades. I saw patterns emerge re: critics and eventually identified a few I found reliable—for me. I define “reliable”, in this instance, as a strong correlation between films I like and they like. I never found a perfect match, of course, but the closest was Roger Ebert. I found there were very few films he liked that I didn’t (though there were a number he disliked that I enjoyed). Kenneth Turnan at the LA Times, though less reliable, has become my go to since Ebert died.
Best way to make use of critics is to test their likes against yours. A high degree of correlation points to a strong chance the guidance will be useful.
Best way to make use of critics is to test their likes against yours. A high degree of correlation points to a strong chance the guidance will be useful.