Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

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.

right.

 

and I'm saying whether or not critics are bought can't be known from the data we have available, just speculated upon. The percentage bought can't be shown.

 

am I missing something here, maybe we think that lines means two different things??

[Rebeccas]

the idea that a trip to disneyland is somehow more power over someone than like idk giant internet companies that basically control 90% of your day is pretty hilarious

[IronJimbo]

3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Some big 2018 Disney Movies on RT

 

AWIT 42% Aud 28%

Nutcracker 34% Aud 37%

imagine compromising your integrity to give AWIT a fresh review. The state of critics!

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

right.

 

and I'm saying whether or not critics are bought can't be known from the data we have available, just speculated upon. The percentage bought can't be shown.

 

am I missing something here, maybe we think that lines means two different things??

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.

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Rebeccas said:

the idea that a trip to disneyland is somehow more power over someone than like idk giant internet companies that basically control 90% of your day is pretty hilarious

That was a play on words (to be funny) but it was missed on you Rebecca. Disney vacation in this context means vacation paid for by Disney, no Disneyland involved.

 

So giant internet companies own some of the studios. So what? They've got more important things to do than mess with critics, Hollywood is chump change compared to what they make.

 

It's quite simply really. Average Disney movies get great critic scores, that's all there is to it. Tune in sometime shortly for extensive data analysis of crappy movies (dr strange) with crazy high critic scores.

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

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.

ok then the line has different meanings for us, a failure in language it seems.

Edited December 12, 2018 by IronJimbo

[Rebeccas]

1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

That was a play on words (to be funny) but it was missed on you Rebecca. Disney vacation in this context means vacation paid for by Disney, no Disneyland involved.

 

So giant internet companies own some of the studios. So what? They've got more important things to do than mess with critics, Hollywood is chump change compared to what they make.

 

It's quite simply really. Average Disney movies get great critic scores, that's all there is to it. Tune in sometime shortly for extensive data analysis of crappy movies (dr strange) with crazy high critic scores.

take your pills sweaty

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

take your pills sweaty

The only sane person among crazies is perceived as crazy.

 

when Avatar 2 makes 4 billies in 2020 you'll see the light, that Jimbo guy.. knows his stuff! How could I have been so stupid to ignore his pearls of wisdom!!

[InVy]

14 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

imagine compromising your integrity to give AWIT a fresh review. The state of critics!

they mostly gave it because they like the director. It has nothing to do with Disney as shown by Nutcracker which was murdered by critics but audiences liked it more.

10 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It's quite simply really. Average Disney movies get great critic scores, that's all there is to it. Tune in sometime shortly for extensive data analysis of crappy movies (dr strange) with crazy high critic scores.

Doctor Strange has Average Rating: 7.3/10 by critics & 7,5 by audience on IMDB. so ..... audience & critics agree I guess which is bad?

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, InVy said:

they mostly gave it because they like the director. It has nothing to do with Disney as shown by Nutcracker which was murdered by critics but audiences liked it more.

Doctor Strange has Average Rating: 7.3/10 by critics & 7,5 by audience on IMDB. so ..... audience & critics agree I guess which is bad?

Oh, why would they like the Director?

[terrestrial]

6 minutes ago, InVy said:

Doctor Strange has Average Rating: 7.3/10 by critics & 7,5 by audience on IMDB. so ..... audience & critics agree I guess which is bad?

in addition:

Doctor Strange also has 4.1/ at RT (for a 10-system like IMDb or the reviewers get at RT that means 8.2/10). And audience score at RT can be brutal against Disney as TLJ shows too

 

Only bcs some users really do not like it doesn't mean all ppl agree to that

[robertman2]

imagine compromising your integrity to give avatar a fresh review

[Barnack]

16 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Oh, why would they like the Director?

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.

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Barnack

[terrestrial]

3 minutes ago, RobrtmanAStarWarsReference said:

imagine compromising your integrity to give avatar a fresh review

????

[Premium George]

Barnack destroyed iron jimbo with facts and logic. 

[IronJimbo]

6 hours ago, Premium George said:

Barnack destroyed iron jimbo with facts and logic. 

Very confused, is this another language barrier thing? So far he showed data from a dataset that isn't relavent to the point and was unable to understand what terrortrail was able to say. Then does 3 paragraphs above without answering the question.

 

Anyone can ramble.

 

[TomCruiseTop]

6 hours ago, Premium George said:

Barnack destroyed iron jimbo with facts and logic. 

 

9 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Very confused, is this another language barrier thing? So far he showed data from a dataset that isn't relavent to the point and was unable to understand what terrortrail was able to say. Then does 3 paragraphs above without answering the question.

 

Anyone can ramble.

 

If anyone can translate Barnack/Jimbo's 'argument' that'd be really useful for me to try and parse this entire thing. 

 

It seems quite obvious that 'critics' do get pressured in certain ways, that's been the case for years. Although the actual tangible evidence for it is sparse it's hard not to say that a critic will not be influenced by factors outside of their control (fear of repercussions is a rather obvious one). 

 

Although, I wouldn't expect Jimbo to argue over mere speculation in the first place - the only facts that matter are concrete ones e.g. The money that a movie measurably makes at the box office. 

 

This also ignores the fact that Barnack has shown in the past his inability to understand some rather basic logical arguments (see our discussion around Logical Positivism and Eliminative Materialism). 

Edited December 13, 2018 by JamesCameronScholar

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

I have muddled through the last few pages on here as a movie fan - not as someone who has a particular dog in the fight when it comes to these properties. 

 

I will point out the following though as they seem to pertain to the Disney argument:

 

- Rotten Tomatoes has for better or worse become the go-to indication for how critics feel about movies.

 

 - Rotten Tomatoes works on a binary system of fresh and rotten. That's it.

 

- Any nuance a critic has worked into their material is removed. 

 

This means that, to give a hyperbolic example, movies that a hundred critics consider 6/10 is rated 100% Fresh, while a movie that 50 critics rated 10/10 and 50 critics rated 1/10 is rated rotten.

 

This is where arguably-falsely high results for movies such as (to use one I've heard bandied around on here and elsewhere) Ant Man and the Wasp. Because nobody considers AM&TW a 10/10, or even 8 or 9/10 movie. But almost everyone being objective would call it a 6 or 7/10 movie because it knows what it is, has a clear rationale, executes that rationale and does so in an efficient manner. That is what a 6-7/10 movie is. 

 

And MOST movies Disney makes are like this. Disney operates on low risk. You can like that, you can not like it. But it isn't about the critics favouritising Disney as it is Disney working the way the system currently works to get maximum apparent critical favour on their side. Because the final score on their AM&TW is high, and ignores that many of the critics rating it 'fresh' do indeed mark the safeness/lack of ambition and flair in the movie - they just rate it as pretty decent because it really understands what it wants to be (which is what almost all the MCU has going in its favour) and works towards this.

 

Only occasionally does Disney go against this, with the Nutcracker being a great example. That movie DOES take risks, has a rationale but not an obvious one (because it is sensory and visceral rather than aiming for a precise genre), and is incredibly bold in everything it does. As a result it allows for the possibility that some critics might really love it, but it removes the barrier of that 6/10 for those who find flaws. And mixed bags/high ups and low downs are far more prone to being negatively felt upon than something that it safe - and certainly for the critics who DO look around and want to make sure their opinion doesn't stand out (and there aren't loads of those but there are enough) they will almost always go with the negative overall route when it comes to the risk-taking film unless there's a strong reason not to. 

 

That isn't a Disney thing, it's a critics thing. And it always has been. It has just been hugely exacerbated by the Rotten Tomatoes Fresh/Rotten binary prioritising safer films that are incredibly firm in their rationale, over risk-taking, potentially self-contradictory films that may have much better ideas than the first batch but in doing so probably have problems as well. 

 

I hope I've communicated that clearly.

[chasmmi]

Rotten Tomatoes makes me sad

[Napoleon]

I actually really liked Ant Man and the Wasp.