• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

fantastic_four

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    45,539

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by fantastic_four

  1. fantastic_four
    I never understood why that gets on so many people's nerves. I've also yet to hear a suggestion for how to do that better. If you're Wayne and you know you will encounter people as Batman who also know Bruce Wayne, how do you prevent them from recognizing your voice? I'm sure there's a decent solution to that, but I haven't heard what it is yet.
  2. fantastic_four
    Now I feel ripped off that I didn't get to see Peter humping a pie.
  3. fantastic_four
    Watchmen was always political by design, and since it was released in 1986 but was set in an alternate reality version of 1985 where Nixon was serving a fourth or fifth term in office you don't necessarily have to change that, it can still be set in that alternate 1985. And since they're converting the original comic the assumption should be that's exactly what they will do.
  4. fantastic_four
    Bale was good too, although probably not quite as good as his supporting cast. But since he's at the center of the best Batman films I do have to put Bale right up there with Affleck.
  5. fantastic_four
    No, but if anyone has a problem with that then don't go see them. I'm tired of non-fans person_without_enough_empathying about all the superhero films when the solution is simple--just don't go, and stop your whining. The volume of films is for us hardcore superhero fans who long for a world where comic book movies come out as often as comic books themselves used to come out. Mostly I see critics doing the person_without_enough_empathying, but I'm immune to it. All it means to me when I hear a critic make that complaint is that I shouldn't listen to any review your boss made you do for that movie.
  6. fantastic_four
    I kid you not, during that scene my GF turned to me and said, hey babe, can we make Sheppard's Pie next week? Maybe she's dating a lawyer hoping you'll help her out if her Dark Passenger ever gets caught.
  7. fantastic_four
    Samwell flaying Jorah alive was extraordinarily disturbing. I couldn't watch it.
  8. fantastic_four
    MUCH better. I'm very grateful we didn't get to see CGI full frontal on the unsullied guy.
  9. fantastic_four
    That was all total speculation that turned out to be clearly untrue that Feige also explicitly denied.
  10. fantastic_four
    Feige isn't saying Peter will develop spider-sense in your linked article, he's saying they may develop cinematic ways to communicate his use of spider-sense in later films. He explicitly says in your linked article that he has spider-sense in Homecoming.
  11. fantastic_four
    The same issue exists with Daredevil's radar sense...they show it in the origin, but not afterwards, and that's totally fine. They're passive abilities from our perspective anyway, but when you see them react to things not in their line of sight, you know their spidey or radar sense just kicked in. Why people keep feeling compelled to have a third origin is strange, particularly since a change in production or actors isn't that different than a change in authors or artists in the comics. When they did it in the first Garfield movie, it was done as a marketing gimmick to draw new interest to the film, not because you have to reboot every time there's a switch in production or acting. But I never expected a reboot when Ditko switched over to Romita, which itself is fairly close parallel to an acting change from Tobey to Garfield or Garfield to Holland.
  12. fantastic_four
    All they need is to have a cool sound when it clicks on and have him say "my spider-sense is tingling". Even Stan and Ditko knew that would be annoying. Maybe they need to edit in the spider-sense lines with CGI...yea, that wouldn't be unrealistic at all.
  13. fantastic_four
    I saw MANY instances where it was obvious his spider-sense was working, they just didn't explicitly call attention to it like they did in the previous origin films. How many times does that power have to be explicitly rendered on-screen before we just accept it's part of everything he does?
  14. fantastic_four
    Shall I spoil the ending of Birdman for everyone again? I'm more than willing!
  15. fantastic_four
    they wouldn't have known what movie I was referencing if you hadn't name checked it. Also, Tom Hanks gets off the island at the end of Castaway. And Wilson doesn't make it.
  16. fantastic_four
    The majority of GoT fans watch the show but never read the books, so citing info from the books is spoilery in a thread clearly geared towards the show and is an "F you" to the likely two-thirds of fans in that boat. The same protocol applies to Walking Dead--if you're going to describe something from the comic that relates to story elements that haven't appeared in the show yet, put it in a spoiler tag because there's a decent chance you just spoiled the show for people reading it. But everyone's got their own standard for what's rude and what isn't. I'm sure you just ruined The Usual Suspects for someone who's really pissed about it now.
  17. fantastic_four
    This is definitely very book-spoilery, but I'm fine with it myself. But I'll keep using spoiler quotes for it.
  18. fantastic_four
    What "priceless gift" does Euron have in mind to give Cersei? Daenerys Targaryen's head on a plate?
  19. fantastic_four
    I think you are reading yourself into a corner. Please show me where I noted metascores isn't a good gauge of comparing films. I bet if I took the time to search, I can even point out I have made the same statement about looking at those point scales. You didn't explicitly say it, I was speculating as to why you're pointing out a weakness in comparing the average rating of two films versus tomatometer when the exact same weakness exists regardless of which of the two scores you're using to compare. Only you know why you went on that tangent.
  20. fantastic_four
    That's true whether you're looking at Tomatometer or average rating. So why point it out at all? You seem to be arguing against using metascores at all to compare two films.
  21. fantastic_four
    Yes, sample size is important, but whether you're using Tomatometer or average rating to compare two films, the issue in different sample sizes is going to exist either way. It's a tangent, and one that basically says "you can't compare two different films at all" when we were both doing exactly that. What's particularly confusing about why you're pointing out sample sizes is that for Homecoming and Spider-Man 2 they're virtually identical with 265 for Homecoming and 263 for SM2.
  22. fantastic_four
    And just to explicitly lay out what you're losing with the dumbed-down Tomatometer score, if a critic gives a film ten out of ten stars, that's exactly the same on the Tomatometer as if that critic had given it six out of ten stars. So even though the critic thought the film was an extraordinarily sublime film, that fact gets lost in simplifiying his score to a binary thumbs up/thumbs down scale. So the Tomatometer tends to lose information about critical reviews that judge a film to be exceptional. A vexing side effect of the Tomatometer scoring is you can have a film that gets 90% or higher that is really just a slightly-above average film. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. The Tomatometer makes these films look extraordinary when really they're just "meh." With any high Tomatometer score you can't be sure a film is particularly exceptional because those films get lost in the crowd of solid-but-not-spectacular films that get highish Tomatometer scores.
  23. fantastic_four
    I was indeed, and the average rating is the score to use when making those comparisons. If a reviewer gives a movie four out of five stars, that translates to 80%; if another reviewer gives it three out of four, that translates to 75%. The Rotten Tomatoes average rating--as well as the MRQE score, and the Metacritic score--use those 80% and 75% scores to average out their overall scores. The Tomatometer converts that four out of five stars to a simple "they liked it" thumbs-up positive, and if they give it two out of five stars that gets converted to a thumbs-down negative. The average rating tells you the overall quality of the film, but the Tomatometer is intended to guide us on whether or not reviewers liked a film to help inform us on whether or not it's worth our time to go see that film. The average rating gives us more information on the absolute quality of the film from the perspective of critics. Sample size for the two scores is identical, the Tomatometer is just a reinterpretation of a critic's review. Rotten Tomatoes decided to make the simplified Tomatometer score their primary score to differentiate itself from the competition, and it seems like a good idea to me when thinking of RT as the quickest check when making a "is this movie worth seeing" decision. But when you're going beyond that level of evaluation to comparative quality of films, the RT average rating, MRQE score, or Metacritic score are far better to use. I think the only difference in the RT, MRQE, and Metacritic scores are in the reviewers they each decide to factor into their sample set. Each site has different criteria for which critics they consider and which they don't. I haven't decided which of the three does the best job of picking their critics.
  24. fantastic_four
    You're missing the point of a statistical sample value, yet were making a good point of paying attention to the average score. If you are going to point to the Average Rating as a stronger gauge - but the sample is very small (let's say 12 critics) - then you are going to end up with a wide variance compared to one that has been fully reviewed prior to release - 175-200 critics. And what makes it worse with a very tiny sample is one bad review leads to a more sensitive average. Where a large sampling cuts down on that sensitivity. EX (12 critics): - 8 give it a 9.0, 4 give it an 8.0: 8.67 - 8 give it a 9.0, 3 give it an 8.0, 1 gives it a 5.0: 8.4 Ex (50 critics): - 40 give it a 9.0, 10 give it an 8.0: 8.8 - 40 give it a 9.0, 8 give it an 8.0, 2 give it a 5.0: 8.68 So a few folks that had a widely different critical review of a movie is going to have less of an impact on the average. That's why improvement measures like Six Sigma scores focus on sample size comparisons so much to ensure you are comparing items statistically accurate. The Tomatometer score and the average rating score sample sizes are identical. Why do you keep saying they're not?
  25. fantastic_four
    The sample size for the Tomatometer and average rating scores are identical, the Tomatometer score just simplifies the scoring to a thumbs up/thumbs down are-you-likely-to-enjoy-it-or-not indicator.