Barnack

Yes that a good point, freak short legs is not uncommon at all in China.

The average level of production quality/budget/talent involved is quite higher in the superhero movies than YA movies. Not every YA movies is the same, Love Simon/Perk of being a wallflower are really different than say Ready Players One or this, not less different than SH that are quite different like an Aquaman, Logan, Venom and Ant-Man. But the Distopian post apocalypse sci-fi subgenre of YA, can feel like sharing quite a lot of similarities.... then again Ready Players One felt really different than Hunger Games.... so it can be confirmation bias.

What was the last one after Fast and Furious ? A yeah POTC in 2003. The Kingsman ? Avatar 2 could obviously reboot the counter to 0 if it ever get out. It is really hard because you have to compete with non-original franchise entry 200+m budgets and budget that can be kept down with people accepting to work with little infront money being certain of the success, elements and technologies already made from other entry of the series, etc... a bit like a chain production type. That the possible beauty of the Marvel MCU model, you can have higher safety net by being attached to it and make it possible to have people ready to spend 200m on a Guardian of the Galaxy even more for a Black Panther, it give a lot of latitude on some aspect at those price even if in some other aspect the box is really limited.

I will fully admit I am not well verse in the crazy fan wars and conspiracy stuff, the statement I quoted clearly literally said Disney, took the word for it (and at a quick look Pixar was the biggest culprit of having high critics MC score vs MC audience rating vs other studios average among Disney release).

We will enter and era when you stop speaking and judging so much movies (and the critics reviewing them) you have not even seen ?

From what I understand he is saying Cavill will not step away from the roles, saying nothing about what WB will do.

But that an important part, even people with some experience say a Nolan leave a lot of the details to the stunts, SFX/VFX experts, how much of the details Marvel take care of is important. Do you enter a project, 3 set piece are already decided and pre-production on them in route with most of the decisions taken and do a movie around them that connect those event as a director level ? Or the director make is movies, sit with artist/pro to do the pre-viz with them with the writer/director describing what they want and the technical specialist telling them in a feedback if it is possible, what is possible, what it mean cost wise and take charge of executing it ?

Would have been such a different movie a bit like a Beyonce version the I was not accepted by the industry because of how I look would have needed quite the makeup jobs.

Flopping as little to do with how well a particular another movie is doing in one specific market and that other movie budget.

Even on non-giant movie, if your have horse/cars/etc... involved you get serious help to keep it safe and actually do it. Main SFX guy often also act as the director. But there is a difference between directing them or not and not actively participating in there design, goal and so on.

Bay is quite good at putting a lot on the screen by dollars and rely very little on CGI, this is probably still quite expensive, they spent a bit over 100m below the line in California.

What the hell ? Someone say: Disney movie have higher review from critics relative to their audience score. I present has data the last 100 or so movie reviewed on metacritic for each studio ratio between their MC score and MC audience score, how that not relevant to the point. And I am really 100% certain I understood very well everything people said are you didn't. When someone say: That show that the higher critical score isn't 100%from buying bougth, see disney movie have an higher average score, that does not mean they are not bought, that mean that some of the delta can be explained otherwise. this is simple logic.

Very generous with the media and interact with many of them directly (in person and twitter), her track record: https://www.metacritic.com/person/ava-duvernay Everything she directed before was in the green on MC and quite high in the green. Filmmaker interacting with critics/reviewer is always a big issue, but it is probably bigger nowaday than the jobs of critics always come up with doing more than just critic for a big newspapers but now at your own count that want content with junket/interview type, you should probably never interact on twitter and even worst on person with the people you critics their movies and today it is quite common. The point was a really good one there is many giant Disney fantasy live action that get quite the harsh reception from the media, here the subject matter/director was probably the reason they were gentle when they still said it was a bad movie, not Disney.

The line mean to me: Disney having better reviews does not seem to be explaining at 100% because they buy critics, at least when looking at the audience score for those movies, they are also higher than for every other studio, higher average quality probably explain at least in part the higher average critical score. To which you responded that it was not at all the case.

Nice, so we would not have 7 post of sarcastic "and they say people want knew things" when referring to a yet again YA post-apocalyptic dystopia SCI-FI when the terrible box office numbers will roll out for it ?

That standard no ? Liongates party after the premiere could get quite impressive apparently. And Marvel before Ike Perlmutter was kicked out had the reputation to be really cheap both on award spending and critics, giving them sandwich and stuff like that.

That was not the point you responded too: that it is not all 100% bought like way too many formulate. That was the quoted sentence.

Well yes it does, Disney has the best audience score also their average release is bigger, better budget and thus tend to be better in average, that would explain at least in part why they have in average better reviews.

What would be the point of that comment in the context of the conversation about the gap between critics and audience score ? Are you getting into the elitist black path discourses that critics are better than audience at evaluating movies ?

Pixar was the other way around, it was an example of movies not loved more by people than by the critics, that could explain why Disney studio seem to have inflated critical score versus audience score, versus the other studio. Dr Strange not sure how too high it is, 7.2/10... Thor had nothing to do with Disney it was a Marvel/Paramount movie, if you find it overrated that would be a sign that Disney isn't necessarily a relevant factor here in that sensation.

Don't you already have all of this, you did seem to imply you (or saw) a plot of the audience score vs critics score by studio ?

I think it is somewhat well known that MC score went up over time (between 2010 and now), would need to do it because it is bound to be the case for all studio if voters didn't change. Well the number at first look do show that it could be true (Has Sony average audience score relative to the critics score could be significantly bigger than Disney), it would need to be adjusted for the release date of the movie, type of movie, MPAA rating, amount of vote/reviews, etc... And even if the audience score / reviews does not match up, that would not automatically tell us about bias and the random sample would always be a bit low.

It was rapidly and lazy made without a web creeper/script or anything, just copy pasted the 100 last entry on MC by studio (the max you can easily by having metacrtiic in 100 by page mode) So it depend of the release volume and how studio division is handled by the website. For Disney it was from 2007 to now, Paramount was from Iron Man 3 in 2013 to now, WB Blind Side in 2009 to now, etc... Studio release between 12 to 20 movie a year.

Can I have your excel sheet/link, sound possible: Disney Average MC score: 61 Average audience score: 6.64 Audience gave 108.8% the average critic score Universal Average MC score: 52.87 Average Audience score: 5.96 Audience gave 112.7% the average critic score Paramount Average MC score: 54.61 Average Audience score: 6.18 Audience gave 113% the average critic score Fox Average MC score: 52.88 Average Audience score: 6.1 Correlation: .75 Audience gave 115% the average critic score Warner Average MC score: 52.73 Average Audience score: 6.39 Audience gave 121% the average critic score Sony Average MC score: 47.72 Average Audience score: 5.911 Audience gave 124% the average critic score Would like to adjust for pg-13 vs R and Animation vs Live action (pixar 80.5 average MC score is one reason Disney Score is so high and one were the audience average score isn't higher than that), also has critical score goes up it is maybe bound to happen, the MC/Audience score seem to get higher has the MC score goes now, Sony having the highest with the worst MC average, Disney the worst with the best MC average.

The guys is a regular on a popular film podcast (filmspotting) I listened in the past and I would be quite surprised if he care about DC vs Marvel type of stuff. When you watch 300-400 new movies every year and not in the pundit game, there is way less obsession creeping up and he is quite old for that. Look at it, I am not surprised that he gave a positive review to Man of Steel and a bad one to the last Avengers movie.