Excraft

Wait, so Riri Williams isn't the "right kind of person" to be a hero? That doesn't sound right. Again, if people are desperate for heroes to protect them, why doesn't anyone want to help her out if she's willing to step up and help? She's got the motivation, brains and the talent to dot it. Absolutely Tony Stark recognized talent. He can't be the one and only person in all the MCU to do so.

It's not exactly a set of fancy pajamas. It's vibranium that is bulletproof and grants the user near invulnerability to physical attacks. Sounds like armor to me. It also grants the wearer the option of storing and releasing kinetic energy, kind of like how Iron Man was able to absorb and redirect thunder blasts from Thor. They're not exact matches, but it is an armored suit. Killmonger also had a vibranium armor suit as well. That is certainly true. But why does Riri Williams build an Iron Man suit then if there's better tech out there? Especially since she'd already be familiar with it having worked in Wakanda and had access to their science and tech.

Very true and even more reason for her not having a sponsor a stretch. Exceptional students are offered all kinds of scholarship deals, internships and such. If she's this brilliant, she'd have some very interested parties wanting to work with her. How can you miss T'Challa running around in an indestructible nanotech vibranium suit that can harness and refocus kinetic energy or their robes that can project force fields? Stark didn't have any of that until Infinity War.

The story we're being presented with here is very odd and doesn't seem to make much sense. There are several things that contradict what we've already seen in the MCU. Riri Williams, super genius who designed and built a vibranium detector and suit of armor that rivals the best that Iron Man produced is somehow struggling to find a sponsor to fund her work. Didn't we see all sorts of people and/or governments trying to reproduce the Iron Man armor in Iron Man 2? Surely there is more than Justin Hammer who would be interested in funding her. I find it very hard to believe someone of her intellect and talent would be having problems finding investors. The Wakandans gave Sam Wilson brand new armor and wings gratis in FaTWS, but Riri Williams gets no help at all from Wakanda? The wrap-around armor has been done before in Avengers and Iron Man 3. This isn't anything new or innovative or "iconic". The Solo movie stunk.

I really very very much hope this is not the direction this series takes. I'd like to see a space based sci-fi series, not some police procedural set in rural small town America.

Wow. Is that really the direction they're going with the Lanterns series? I don't know that intergalactic cops hanging about in rural America solving a mystery as a setting appeals to me. I mean, they're the Lantern Corps. They're history and setting is the universe itself. There has to be plenty of stories for them to do in that setting. Wait and see I guess. I was just hoping for something more space/sci-fi.

I'm looking forward to these. Lanterns especially I think is a great setting for a sci-fi series.

You've misunderstood. This isn't what I was suggesting. The comment was regarding video titles and such of these YouTubers immediately being negative and "poisoning the well". This was just one example from another source including immediately negative words or sentences from a full review. That's all. There are plenty of others there for modern films as well. It was not meant to say modern internet critics are right and everything they say is true or to validate their cultural beliefs and other nonsense they promote. That's all.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post, the link to the Battlefield Earth review was just an example to show that even these "legitimate/major" outlets are doing the same thing as these "hacks" to get clicks. They could promote are more subtle and nuanced bad review right on the listing page, instead they went with a 1 word tagline from a "top critic". They're all doing the same thing.

Whatever. I understand. I don't disagree. I also don't see anyone else suggesting otherwise. No one suggested you can't comment on it.

I don't see anyone suggesting he's impartial. I certainly don't think he is. I don't think anyone offering up their opinion on any topic is impartial. Right. Just like Critical Drinker having "The Message" is Dead--Snow White was the Funeral" in his tagline and thumbnail imagery, and then has a longer full review in his video. Again, that's his schtick. You know it's his schtick. Pre-shitting on movies is his thing. Let him do it and don't watch his content. It doesn't prevent you from enjoying a movie. If people out there want to like his content, let them.

Again, what well is being poisoned? He's not spreading any misinformation by stating the Thunderbolts are C-List characters. That's true. As for him being negative in his opening line, you can go on any review site right now and look at tag lines from "legitimate" film critics that trash a movie they didn't like. Just as an example, take a look here at Battlefield Earth on Rottentomatoes. Alexander Walker of the London Standard - a "top critic" - has a one word review - "Appalling". Aren't critics like him poisoning the well for this movie? According to you, comments on his videos reflect his viewers disagree with him, so it would seem his viewers don't have axes to grind. Has Critical Drinker "crapped" on every single film or TV show he's ever done? I'm guessing no. You say you don't watch his content, but you seem to know quite a lot about what he says in several reviews he's posted. Seems to me you're watching his content. Again, if you don't like him, don't support him by watching his content. I've no objection to you providing your opinion on him. I don't necessarily disagree with you that he's got his schtick, but that's his thing. I do think you're holding him to a different standard than other critics.

Ok but the characters that are in the movie aren't "A-List" characters in the comics, nor were they "A-List" characters in the MCU films or series they appeared in either. So for him to say that isn't inaccurate. Going by your own criteria, this is what a film critic does. He's pointing out things that worked for him and things that didn't. He's offering an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad points. Again, going by your own stated criteria, it sounds like a film critic doing what they do. You can disagree with his opinion and that's perfectly fine. I don't agree with a lot of what he says either and movies he's panned I've thought were ok. Well, you were the one who suggested "hacks" like him are "poisoning the well". I only mentioned he has millions of subscribers in relation to asking what makes one source "legitimate/major" and others not. Like I said earlier, he may have a larger audience than other "legitimate/major" outlets. I don't think he can move the dial on the success or failure of a film with his reviews, so no amount of well poisoning on his end will affect anything. Why do you keep watching his content anyway if you dislike him? Best thing you can do is stop watching his content and stop supporting his channel.

Admittedly I haven't watched every single review Critical Drinker has given, but from what I've seen he's got an understanding of the film industry. He also provides basic information that informs his review. He certainly knows who directors/screenwriters/producers/studios are and what they're know for. He does offer his critiques of films and discusses both the positive and negatives, at least in the few I've seen. Whether he's impartial or not I guess is an opinion. I don't watch enough of his content to say one way or the other. He may not like certain filmmakers or studios or types of films, but that's nothing out of the ordinary. Other "famous" critics didn't like certain kinds of films either. Roger Ebert generally disliking sci-fi comes to mind. What "well" is being poisoned? I really don't think these handful of YouTubers have that much of an influence on movies that have flopped.

I agree and I don't know that what studios are doing to foster favorable reviews is moving the dial significantly in their favor. Maybe it's just me, but I would think the risk of getting caught and the bad publicity would be enough of a deterrent. With that said, I'll just say it wouldn't surprise me if shadier things are going on and while schmoozing critics may not be a "bribe", it does have a whiff of something not right. Maybe it's just a cost of doing business in the industry. As I'm understanding it, this is what others have been saying. Not that studios are engaged in widespread "bribes for good reviews" to distort "the truth", rather that people should exercise caution when reading online reviews. You didn't answer - what makes one place a "major outlet" and others not?

What makes some places "reputable" and "major outlets"? Rottentomatoes is a "major outlet", and they've had issues in the past. Whether those issues were about independent films or major studio releases is not really the point. The point is stuff like what happened casts a shadow on them and the real "legitimate" people posting there. I'm curious, do you honestly believe that some of the writers for these "major outlets" aren't offered access to press junkets, exclusive actor interviews, advance screenings and such by the PR department of studios for a review? Or is that just the normal flow of business? I don't know that any of that is really a "bribe", but it does seem shady to me. You may feel differently and that's ok too.

That I didn't make anything up.

So first, who cares if someone posts a picture and discusses their concerns about the film? Who cares if Critical Drinker dumps on the movie? How is that detracting from your enjoyment or not of a film? As I read it, it was you kicking off the discussion berating Critical Drinker and other "shitty formulaic online grifters" as "hacks" because they don't like a film that you like. All @ShardWarrior did was say that that there are shills on both sides of the fence, which is true. It wasn't a defense of these "shitty formulaic online grifters". Like it or not, there are critics charging for reviews. Whether or not that means its being done with the express expectation of a favorable review I don't know, but at least to me, it does cast some doubt. Again, If you don't like the content online reviewers are posting, don't watch it. It's that simple. If other people want to listen to their garbage, let them go somewhere else. As for the whole "legitimate sources" thing, what makes some media outlets "legitimate" and others not? You and I may not like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic, but they've got millions of subscribers. In some cases, they probably have a larger audience than some of these "legitimate" outlets. I'm not sure what constitutes them being "illegitimate" other than you don't like them, and by you I mean people in general you, not you individually.

I don't know that's what's being suggested. The point as I read it is that some reviews are fake for one reason or another, so take that into consideration when reading them. That's it. A few people here have utterly lost their minds over that possibility that's true for some bizarre reason. Yes, that's exactly the point. I don't know why some individuals are conflating that into some widespread conspiracy that every single review everywhere ever is tainted. Your own words.

This is comical. You're accepting that film studios do sketchy things, but offering stuff in exchange for favorable reviews is too much. That's a line studios that do sketchy things just won't cross. You're accepting review sites are full of sketchy people, but it's impossible that any film critics there are the sketchyones. They're all ok. It's everyone else doing the fake stuff. Actually some evidence has been provided, you've just chosen to ignore it. I don't see anyone saying you should. Quite the opposite from what I can see. Anyway, you go right on with your tantrum over the virtues of film critics and put all your faith in them. I wish you well there. Back to the topic of the thread - trailer was decent. I hope this film does well.

Good question. As for the trailer, eh. I agree - no thank you. Nothing against the actress herself though

I didn't see anyone expressly saying studios are handing over cash in exchange for a good review. I think it very naive to believe studios aren't greasing the palms of critics in some fashion for positive reviews. Whether that means those critics are getting cash (probably not) or studios allowing them exclusive access to celebrities or high profile events or exclusive story scoops in exchange for their positive review, it's all essentially the same thing. That kind of thing has been going on from the get go. I also think it naive to believe that media outlets that are notorious for and have been caught multiple times promoting false news stories somehow miraculously have film critics that are immune from all of that. I agree, not all film critics are liars or taking bribes, but I also don't think they're all saints that are above reproach. The aforementioned astroturfing is a real thing. I was just watching this video a couple of days ago where he talks about scammers using AI to create fake imagery and paying actors to post fake customer testimonials and positive reviews. This astroturfing shit is rampant on Amazon. With the amount of money at stake on these movies, I don't doubt for a minute studios are hiring people or entire PR firms to flood social media with positive reviews. No, they may not be "major" film critics doing it, but that can and does erode trust in them. I think it naive to put blind faith in anything on the internet really. I personally don't use sites like Rottentomatoes. I'll go with people I personally know. Back to the topic at hand, I thought the trailer looked pretty good. I'm curious to see Nicholas Hoult's take on Luthor. I'm kind of hoping they don't dive too deep into the "he's an alien so what right does he have to interfere" thing. That was already done in MoS and BvS. I can understand the reservations some may have about the political messaging. The Americans do love throwing that into everything, but hopefully it's not hamfisted.

Eh, I'm still going to wait and see. There's definitely people putting stuff out there that isn't true to get clicks on their TikTok on Instagram. James Gunn did well with GoTG, he may do well with Superman too.

I think this movie is going to follow the latter and drop off a cliff. Seconded! Great film.

You left out - 10. The parts where you went on and on and on about how female characters written with any inkling of maternal instinct or being a mother as a motivation makes those characters cliche, shallow, weak gimmicks. 11. The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material is SUPER BAD BAD!! (see Ripley not being a mom in Alien, but made a mom in Aliens). Changing a female character to be a mom/have maternal instincts is SUPER TERRIBLE BAD BAD!!! and ruins the character by turning them into a gimmicky cliche and is pandering. 12. The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material who IS a mom and IS a motherly/maternal figure as part of her character (see Sue Storm) while still being well respected, very powerful and a valued team member is NOT SUPER BAD BAD!! because bizarre reasons. She should be made the leader and the boss lady because MEN BAD!!! WOMAN MOM GIMMICK!!