Hotmail and Outlook are blocking most of our emails at the moment. Please use an alternative provider when registering if possible until the issue is resolved.

Excraft
Members-
Posts
954 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Everything posted by Excraft
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think this movie is going to follow the latter and drop off a cliff. Seconded! Great film.
-
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
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!! -
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
-
That's what I meant with regard to the film bombing in China. Hollywood has been banking on the Chinese market for a while now. Losing that doesn't bode well for the profitability of these movies. Although that might not necessarily be a bad thing if the studios become more choosy on what projects to do. I don't think you're wrong at all.
-
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
-
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
-
The Thunderbolts* is bombing in China, marking the “lowest launch for an MCU film in 14 years” in China. Not a good sign. https://www.superherohype.com/movies/599163-marvel-thunderbolts-bombing-china-box-office-numbers-revealed
-
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
What bias? I didn't say she can't be a mother and have a leadership position. I've said that she's not the leader of the team in the comics, Reed is. If that's what Disney/Marvel is doing for this movie, ok but I personally don't see the necessity for it, especially if they're going to ruin her character by turning her into the cliche mary sue/girl boss they're known for creating. Sue can be a strong, powerful and valued member of the team without being the leader of it, same as Ben Grimm and Jonny Storm. I don't think she'd be a bad choice at all. I never said she would be a bad choice for a leader. -
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
No, I have not. That's what you would like people to be saying to continue arguing with them, but it isn't. The only person insulting Sue Storm and saying she is shallow, boring and weak has been you. Again, being the "maternal" figure to the team is part of who she is. It's not a weakness, it doesn't make her shallow or boring. It's part of her character in the comics and what has endeared fans to her character for the last 60 years. Read the linked article above, I'm not the only one who says this, and anyone with a basic knowledge of her character understands this much about her. She's not a pushover. She's a valued member of the team. Changing that is changing a core part of who she is as a person and a character. That doesn't work for me, same as it wouldn't work for me if they made Black Panther a Chinese midget living in Australia or The Thing the "smart one" and Reed the brute, or Tony Stark a destitute moron who wears rags instead of a suit of armor. It doesn't work. See the last Fantastic Four film. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being a leader or in a position of authority. No one has said otherwise. See the aforementioned Captain Janeway, Elizabeth Weir, Samantha Carter et al. All of them well loved, well written characters. There is an enormous difference between a well written, well fleshed out character and a poorly written mary sue/girlboss. This is no different than than a well written male heroic figure and a badly written one. Given the recent track record of Disney and Hollywood in general, it's a safe bet that when you hear words like "modern audiences" and "modern sensibilities" used to describe "updates" to the characters, more often than not, it means they're falling on the poorly written side of the equation. See the most recent Snow White film, Rey in the new Star Wars films, Terminator: Dark Fate etc. There are (sadly) many examples that proof this out, and that is a legitimate concern to have, no matter how much you want to argue. -
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
No one has said anything of the sort and you know it. -
The Fantastic Four: First Steps
Excraft replied to Glacier Peak's topic in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Sue isn't some lightweight. She hasn't been for decades and anyone thinking that's she's some milquetoast hasn't read FF comics. Even Dr. Doom has often referred to her as the most powerful member of the Fantastic Four on more than one occasion. She's in no way "weak", "shallow", "cliche" or anything of the sort for being a woman. As for Sue Storm's cultural relevance and her being "motherly", "maternal" and those qualities being "shallow" and "boring" ... She's become one of the most well loved, enduring and powerful female comic book heroes of all time, all without needing to be "leader" of the FF. This is the character people are familiar with and want to see, not a re-imagined girl boss for "modern audiences". She hasn't been the stereotypical "damsel in distress" for a long, long time.