MCU's THE ETERNALS (11/6/20) 8 8

[Bosco685]

Now we get to hear "That's Rotten Tomatoes - we don't trust them NOW"

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Still gonna ignore the "critics" on this one, but the generic reviews seem to reflect the quality of the trailers. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2021 at 11:33 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Still gonna ignore the "critics" on this one, but the generic reviews seem to reflect the quality of the trailers. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Well, the clock must have wound backwards as I went back to check some of the critic comments and the score went down.

At this point if it was any other studio the comments here would be coated with smirking images.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/27/2021 at 11:26 AM, Bosco685 said:

Now we get to hear "That's Rotten Tomatoes - we don't trust them NOW"

 

I stopped trusting Rotten Tomatoes when I realized the flaws in their aggregation model going back to Lone Ranger, I believe. While not a great movie by any means, was it deserving of a 30% RT score? Shouldn't it get points for its all-out weirdness instead of being skewered for it?

I realized two things while studying the reviews for this particular movie.

First, national media critics seem to unionize and pile on in some cases, as if they all got the same briefing that morning. If a hyped movie starts getting some bad reputation during production or something, it's as if the critics smell blood in the water and attack like a swarm. This gets reflected in an overall poor review if you group all these seemingly biased reviews into one score, as opposed to actually reading a few reviews by critics you know and trust. This seemed to happen in the case of Lone Ranger. The mass of reviews just seemed like a relentless attack on a movie that didn't fit inside a particular box.

Second, Rotten Tomatoes itself can be biased in the way it gives a certain review a fresh or rotten designation. I remember reading a Lone Ranger review that was generally positive yet Rotten Tomatoes gave the review a "rotten" designation, negatively impacting the final score which is what people generally look at as opposed to actually reading the reviews.

I've never trusted Rotten Tomatoes since Lone Ranger. I have a few critics I pay attention to but mostly I make up my own mind whether a film is good or bad, and I let other factors decide whether I'm going to see the movie in the first place. Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed review aggregator that unfortunately the world has given too much power over the movie industry. A rotten or fresh designation from RT can sometimes decide the fate of a movie, and there's something wrong with that.

Edited October 27, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:17 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

I stopped trusting Rotten Tomatoes when I realized the flaws in their aggregation model going back to Lone Ranger, I believe. While not a great movie by any means, was it deserving of a 30% RT score? Shouldn't it get points for its all-out weirdness instead of being skewered for it?

I realized two things while studying the reviews for this particular movie.

First, national media critics seem to unionize and pile on in some cases, as if they all got the same briefing that morning. If a hyped movie starts getting some bad reputation during production or something, it's as if the critics smell blood in the water and attack like a swarm. This gets reflected in an overall poor review if you group all these seemingly biased reviews into one score, as opposed to actually reading a few reviews by critics you know and trust.

Second, Rotten Tomatoes itself can be biased in the way it gives a certain review a fresh or rotten designation. I remember reading a Lone Ranger review that was generally positive yet Rotten Tomatoes gave the review a "rotten" designation, negatively impacting the final score which is what people generally look at as opposed to actually reading the reviews.

I've never trusted Rotten Tomatoes since Lone Ranger. I have a few critics I pay attention but mostly I make up my own mind whether a film is good or bad, and I let other factors decide whether I'm going to see the movie in the first place. Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed review aggregator that unfortunately the world has given too much power over the movie industry. A rotten or fresh designation from RT can sometimes decide the fate of a movie, and there's something wrong with that.

The stories are quite frequent how RT can be manipulated by studios, moviegoers and even critics themselves.

But interesting how the deep reflection occurs when it goes counter than the narrative desired.

[TupennyConan]

I sat through BW & SC just to get to Eternals. I hope I like it.  

[Bosco685]

 

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:26 PM, Bosco685 said:

The stories are quite frequent how RT can be manipulated by studios, moviegoers and even critics themselves.

But interesting how the deep reflection occurs when it goes counter than the narrative desired.

And I'm saying RT itself can be an active manipulator of the final RT score as its criteria for giving a review a rotten or fresh designation seems to be all over the place. For instance, the LA Times Justin Chang Eternals review is actually generally positive despite the headline, but RT designated the review rotten.

I bring this up now because after reading some Eternals reviews on RT, some "negative" reviews of the film seem to be based more on what critics expect from either a Chloe Zhao movie or a MCU movie rather than some weird out-of-the-box hybrid, as if critics seem to not know what to make of comic book movies that look and act like an indie movie. Case in point, Joker's own 68% RT score.

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2021 at 3:29 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

And I'm saying RT itself can be an active manipulator of the final RT score as its criteria for giving a review a rotten or fresh designation seems to be all over the place. For instance, the LA Times Justin Chang Eternals review is actually generally positive despite the headline, but RT designated the review rotten.

I bring this up now because after reading some Eternals reviews on RT, some "negative" reviews of the film seem to be based more on what critics expect from either a Chloe Zhao movie or a MCU movie rather than some weird out-of-the-box hybrid, as if critics seem to not know what to make of comic book movies that look and act like an indie movie. Case in point, Joker's own 68% RT score.

Unfortunately rather than judging a production based on its own values Marvel Studios has set template for how all its films flow together in a fairly consistent fashion. And always about franchise building.

Train a dog what to expect then don't be surprised when it pees where you taught it to.

[paperheart]

RT is garbage but there's no escaping Metacritic; although I'd argue that a 40 on Metacritic is 'mixed' is generous; 2 out of 5 stars is a dud in my book.

[Larryw7]

50% off sales on Chanel at Bloomingdale's.

[TupennyConan]

On 10/27/2021 at 3:29 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

Why aren't the Power Rangers wearing their helmets? Hollywood hates face masks. 

Wait. 

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/27/2021 at 3:32 PM, Bosco685 said:

Unfortunately rather than judging a production based on its own values Marvel Studios has set template for how all its films flow together in a fairly consistent fashion. And always about franchise building.

Train a dog what to expect then don't be surprised when it pees where you taught it to.

Even though a lot of folks here seem to think Disney is the root of all evil, I wouldn't exactly blame Marvel Studios for turning the poor innocent critics into trained monkeys. First of all, it's the nature of Western civilization to want to put everything in its little compartment and keep it there. We've been taught that since grade school. And critics have been shoehorning films since the dawn of film criticism. Look at Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 film Vertigo. It was a bit of a more psychological departure for Hitchcock and critics didn't know what to make of it so rather than try to understand it, they just blasted it with poor reviews which helped kill it at the box office. Now it's considered the greatest film of all time. Nowadays, any "blockbuster" movie try to get out of its action smaction lane and try and be weird or different and the cultural gatekeeping critics will be there to put it in its place. And then you gotta get through the Rotten Tomatoes filter, the final cultural arbiter of what's worth seeing and what's not.

[TupennyConan]

On 10/27/2021 at 5:33 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Even though a lot of folks here seem to think Disney is the root of all evil, I wouldn't exactly blame Marvel Studios for turning the poor innocent critics into trained monkeys. First of all, it's the nature of Western civilization to want to put everything in its little compartment and keep it there. We've been taught that since grade school. And critics have been shoehorning films since the dawn of film criticism. Look at Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 film Vertigo. It was a bit of a more psychological departure for Hitchcock and critics didn't know what to make of it so rather than try to understand it, they just blasted it with poor reviews which helped kill it at the box office. Now it's considered the greatest film of all time. Nowadays, any "blockbuster" movie try to get out of its action smaction lane and try and be weird or different and the cultural gatekeeping critics will be there to put it in its place. And then you gotta get through the Rotten Tomatoes filter, the final cultural arbiter of what's worth seeing and what's not.

I too blame Western Civilization for no Mar-Vell. 

[Larryw7]

I know Vertigo. Vertigo is a good friend of mine. And this is no Vertigo.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/27/2021 at 5:35 PM, TupennyConan said:

I too blame Western Civilization for no Mar-Vell. 

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the movie? Annette Bening played the role of Mar-Vell, a Marvel Comics character who has been dead and irrelevant since 1982.

[TupennyConan]

On 10/27/2021 at 5:40 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

 1982.

Peak Marvel. 

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2021 at 5:33 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Even though a lot of folks here seem to think Disney is the root of all evil, I wouldn't exactly blame Marvel Studios for turning the poor innocent critics into trained monkeys. First of all, it's the nature of Western civilization to want to put everything in its little compartment and keep it there. We've been taught that since grade school. And critics have been shoehorning films since the dawn of film criticism. Look at Alfred Hitchcock's 1959 film Vertigo. It was a bit of a more psychological departure for Hitchcock and critics didn't know what to make of it so rather than try to understand it, they just blasted it with poor reviews which helped kill it at the box office. Now it's considered the greatest film of all time. Nowadays, any "blockbuster" movie try to get out of its action smaction lane and try and be weird or different and the cultural gatekeeping critics will be there to put it in its place. And then you gotta get through the Rotten Tomatoes filter, the final cultural arbiter of what's worth seeing and what's not.

Actually, it isn't Disney completely. Though it has done things that are highly questionable in the way it used access and legal action to force critic and reporting positive responses at times.

It is the fanatical followers that are most troubling. Example is folks on here that go out of their way to attack anything not Marvel Studios, yet wearing the thickest of rosy glasses with everything they see from Disney and the MCU. And when folks go to movies mass-multiple times with their hard-earned money assuming they owe it to Disney and Marvel Studios to make them a huge success. It's not normal behavior.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Bosco685

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/27/2021 at 5:41 PM, TupennyConan said:

Peak Marvel. 

Actually I think it's argued, outside of the classic Lee-Kirby-Ditko years, that 1981 was Marvel Comics' peak year. 1981 gave us Chris Claremont and John Byrne's Days of Future Past storyline in X-Men, arguably the greatest Marvel Comics story of all time, again, outside the Stan Lee years. 1981 also gave us Frank Miller's Elektra Saga in Daredevil, David Michelinie and Bob Layton's Iron Man run (arguably the best Iron Man stories), the Bill Mantlo-Sal Buscema Incredible Hulk, the beginning of John Byrne's classic Fantastic Four run, the classic Michelinie and Romita Jr. Amazing Spider-Man run, the introduction of Rogue, Doug Moench and Bill Sienkewicz's early Moon Knight run, and others. It's stories from this year that we've probably seen the most turned into movies.

Similarly, 1986 is probably DC's peak year.

[Bosco685]

Now more than ever this will demonstrate how misleading Rotten Tomatoes can be as a bi-score aggregator (Rotten, Fresh). It has done more damage than good to film box office success.

Unfortunately, too many moviegoers rely on its content to make purchase decisions.