FIRST MAN | 10.12.18 | Universal | Damien Chazelle | Ryan Gosling | Neil Armstrong biopic

[antovolk]

 

[antovolk]

Best footage showcase yet.

[dudalb]

Universal is sure as hell buying a lot of time on CNN for this film. Seemed there was an ad every half hour last night.

[aabattery]

[Ithil]

13 hours ago, aabattery said:

One Giant Ryan Gosling Devours the Moon

[The Futurist]

Critics have lost the plot entirely and have become the biggest sheeps, uncapable of forming a personal opinion.

The reactions to the Tiff/Venice/Telluride films have been ridiculoous to the point of comical.

Everything gets a 80+ MC score now.

 

It s like a defense mecanism I guess, when a brand of movies is dying, you sympathize and try to defend the weak and wounded.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

The reactions to the Tiff/Venice/Telluride films have been ridiculoous to the point of comical.

Everything gets a 80+ MC score now.

Source ?, what percentage do you think of the hundreds of movies you are refering too will have an 80+ MC score by the end of those festivals ?

 

2016:

https://www.metacritic.com/feature/2016-fall-film-festival-reviews-tiff-venice-telluride

 

Tiff had many hundreds of movies showing, vast majority got mediocre reception.

 

Even from the official main gala presentation short list, a quick look show many under 8/10 reception:

 

Everybody knowns, 55% on RT / 6.1/10 score

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jeremiah_terminator_leroy/ (6.8/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_kindergarten_teacher_2018/ (7.1/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_land_of_steady_habits/ (6.5/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_itself_2018/ (4.7/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/outlaw_king/ (5.8/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shadow_2018/ (7/10)

What they Had 74 MC

 

I think you are victim a bit of a very non-random sample of awareness here, many thousand of movies try to get in those festival (if not 10 of thousands), they pick outside some Netflix/Studio title/big stars those they found to be the best, from the many many hundreds that play at those festival outside the exception of some giant name or studio title we hear only about those who get great buzz, possibly giving the impression that everything is well received.

 

The last Xavier Dolan for example:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_death_and_life_of_john_f_donovan

10% Rt score, with a 2.7/10 average.

 

Would it not be of the cast and director, we would have not heard of it like many other festival pick that get panned.

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

39 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Source ?, what percentage do you think of the hundreds of movies you are refering too will have an 80+ MC score by the end of those festivals ?

 

2016:

https://www.metacritic.com/feature/2016-fall-film-festival-reviews-tiff-venice-telluride

 

Tiff had many hundreds of movies showing, vast majority got mediocre reception.

 

Even from the official main gala presentation short list, a quick look show many under 8/10 reception:

 

Everybody knowns, 55% on RT / 6.1/10 score

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jeremiah_terminator_leroy/ (6.8/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_kindergarten_teacher_2018/ (7.1/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_land_of_steady_habits/ (6.5/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_itself_2018/ (4.7/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/outlaw_king/ (5.8/10)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shadow_2018/ (7/10)

What they Had 74 MC

 

I think you are victim a bit of a very non-random sample of awareness here, many thousand of movies try to get in those festival (if not 10 of thousands), they pick outside some Netflix/Studio title/big stars those they found to be the best, from the many many hundreds that play at those festival outside the exception of some giant name or studio title we hear only about those who get great buzz, possibly giving the impression that everything is well received.

 

The last Xavier Dolan for example:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_death_and_life_of_john_f_donovan

10% Rt score, with a 2.7/10 average.

 

Would it not be of the cast and director, we would have not heard of it like many other festival pick that get panned.

 

I was not talking about that at all, I wasn't specific enough, I was talking about the 20-30 movies everyone was expecting not ALL movies.

Most of them received almost unanimous praise, or at least great great reviews, 75 MC minimum.

 

But the most disturbing trend is how movies are being praised to the heavens, and you know what kind of movies I am talking about, the movies that are less and less seen, that are rarely in the TOP 20/30 of the year.

 

AW members discussed this, they keep tracks of these things, MC numbers are going up, up, up and UP !

 

 Originally Posted by Brazilianmovies 

It's more a matter of critics being lame than the movies being good though. I dunno if it's some corporate game or they just like everything now but it's ridiculous to compare the metascores from 5 years ago to now. The further we go back, the worse it gets.

Julia had the graphic. Scores jumped up in 2012, since then everything was inflated. An 87 of 2009 or 2007 is much bigger than a 95 nowadays.

 

 

 

 Originally Posted by Brazilianmovies 

It's more a matter of critics being lame than the movies being good though. I dunno if it's some corporate game or they just like everything now but it's ridiculous to compare the metascores from 5 years ago to now. The further we go back, the worse it gets.

Ugh yes. I remember back in the day it was impressive that something like Brokeback Mountain, the most raved film of the year, could hit 87 on MC. These days that same score would basically be looked at as the benchmark to not be considered a disappointment, and something as nondescript as Boyhood gets 100? LMAO. In the famous words of The Incredibles; "when everyone's super... noone will be".

Edited September 16, 2018 by The Futurist

[dxmatrixdt]

Annabelle 2 got a good RT score but the budget low, and I thought maybe the production behind the film storied it out to get wonderful reviews.

then The Nun comes along with a supposedly supreme art-direction look and gets the C cinemascore and terrible reviews.  Did they just let the good reviews on The Nun pass?

I feel like Annabelle 2 could be made fun of, or be scary, but it did seem like the movie was set up for a 75%+ RT score.

[The Futurist]

What s the difference between Annapurna, A24 and their ilk and Disney ?

 

Not much, they both deliver quality product that cater to their audiences.

 

Of yes there s a difference, Dinsey audience is way more picky and way more difficult to please than the self proclaimed  elite crowds (cinephiles and critics mainly) who somehow convinced themselves we re living a golden age of cinema ( a notion QT would probably barf at).

Hence the stupid number of 80-90+ MC scores for movies this year.

 

[dxmatrixdt]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

What s the difference between Annapurna, A24 and their ilk and Disney ?

 

Not much, they both deliver quality product that cater to their audiences.

 

Of yes there s a difference, Dinsey audience is way more picky and way more difficult to please than the self proclaimed  elite crowds (cinephiles and critics mainly) who somehow convinced themselves we re living a golden age of cinema ( a notion QT would probably barf at).

Hence the stupid number of 80-90+ MC scores for movies this year.

 

Disney can probably afford to sit down and watch the final movie and scrap stuff if necessary to come out with a masterful version of the vision.  It seem like more of an enjoyable movie product and less of a film festival fest.

[Barnack]

44 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

I was talking about the 20-30 movies everyone was expecting not ALL movies.

Most of them received almost unanimous praise, or at least great great reviews, 75 MC minimum.

The fact they got in the festival (depending which) often mean something too

 

If the latest Dolan would have got a good reception we would mentally include it in that list of title, because it was destroyed by the critics we mentally in hindsight remove it, making it possible for you to say Most of them got great reviews. If you are getting in the main competition branch of some festival you were pre-vetted by a selection committee, a high success rate is to be expected. Other missed that mark like Beautiful Boy (63 on MC), Suspira (76 MC), White Boy Rick (60 on MC, Telluride), Colette (74 on MC), The sisther brother (78 on MC), 22 july (venice, 76 on MC), Peterloo (venice, telluiride, tiff with 69 on MC), all featured in list like those (the expected movies that decided to skip the festival season or were refused will make the acclaim success rate appear quite high if those are not counted)

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/08/2018-fall-movie-preview-awards-contenders-roma-the-favourite-first-man-1201994415/2/

 

Has for the metacritic of movies going up, you are right for the movies achieving to score 90s:

 

 

If was always 6 or less (often 4 or below) between 2000 and 2012, then exploded

2013: 8

2014: 5

2015: 11

2016: 12

2017: 11

 

Looking a the sudden jumped suddenly a year, maybe it is metacritic that changed the way it calculate it score during that time and not critics becoming more sheepish because of social media becoming big in 2013 or something of the sort (it was big for year's).

 

Not too hard to look by ourself before concluding anything about critics, for example brokeback mountain got 87 MC score by having an average of 87 in the reviews score:

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/brokeback-mountain/critic-reviews

 

Up got an Metascore 88 with an review average score of 88.7

 

Florida project got 92 with an average of 90.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-florida-project/critic-reviews

 

Foxtrot got 90 metascore with an 87.93 average review score.

 

I think they started a weight system giving a bigger value to some publication and a less to other around that time ? Leading to more extreme result (if you get good score among those bigger reward) but about the same average. Up and Brokeback would probably get an 90+ MC with today algorithm.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Barnack

[RichWS]

My excitement for this must mean I've officially reached Dad Age.

[The Futurist]

15 minutes ago, RichWS said:

My excitement for this must mean I've officially reached Dad Age.

Be strong.

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, RichWS said:

My excitement for this must mean I've officially reached Dad Age.

It's called "Growing Up". it happens to everybody.

[tonytr87]

Not everything off of the festival circuit got great reviews. Front Runner, Destroyer, Beautiful Boy, Halloween, Boy Erased, Suspiria, Peterloo, Outlaw King, Ben is Back, Life of Donovan were all polarizing. And as others have mentioned, probably a slew of lesser known films that were panned or barely reviewed because they didn't make an impact on any critics or pundits. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by tonytr87

[tonytr87]

On 9/15/2018 at 9:04 PM, The Futurist said:

What s the difference between Annapurna, A24 and their ilk and Disney ?

 

Not much, they both deliver quality product that cater to their audiences.

 

Of yes there s a difference, Dinsey audience is way more picky and way more difficult to please than the self proclaimed  elite crowds (cinephiles and critics mainly) who somehow convinced themselves we re living a golden age of cinema ( a notion QT would probably barf at).

Hence the stupid number of 80-90+ MC scores for movies this year.

 

 

You're out of your goddamned mind. Disney's audience (and hell, the critics too) are waaay too soft on their product. Hence an average Marvel movie like Black Panther getting praise up and down for having an "ok" villain and cool costumes. 

[Barnack]

On 9/15/2018 at 10:04 PM, The Futurist said:

Of yes there s a difference, Dinsey audience is way more picky and way more difficult to please than the self proclaimed  elite crowds (cinephiles and critics mainly) who somehow convinced themselves we re living a golden age of cinema

In a way yes, Disney audience need 9 figures production, lovable character to root for, some comedy relief-sidekick, lot of emotions, big songs, very plot driven, goal setup with clear obstacle beaten, the hero journey with a low point and the arc, etc....

 

In an other way if you do have the money for those and the properties, your success rate at pleasing them will be much higher, you will do 5-6 movies and they will like almost all of them. They will accept already proven convention, concept, no new cinematic language in any way used, give them an nice classic told in a classic way with a nice execution like Cinderella and you will please me, is it harder to come up and pull off than Tree of Life ?

 

Thousand of people in the mid/high 90s tried to do their pulp fiction, they all ended in a pile of vhs in the Sundance curator's garbage.

 

Elite crowds/critics watch 400-450 small movie every year and will find great 10-30 of them and achieving to be seen by them will already be a big step, most of the 10,000+ movies made will never be seen by almost all of them.

[The Futurist]

None of the current auteurs favourites of the elites would be able to pull off Avengers Infinity War.

And I am not talking about having different subjective tastes in art here, I am talking raw skills.

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

None of the current auteurs favourites of the elites would be able to pull off Avengers Infinity War.

And I am not talking about having different subjective tastes in art here, I am talking raw skills.

Not sure how it got to be again about Marvel movies in the First Man movie thread, but because of the number of storyline/characters going on ? PTA pulled of Magnolia, Tarantino Pulp Fiction, etc...

 

And here they would have access to team of writers.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Barnack