Excraft

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!!

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 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

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.

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.

No one has said anything of the sort and you know it.

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.

If you haven't seen an epidemic of poorly written, poorly received girl bosses in movies and television over the last several years, then you aren't watching many movies or television. As far as the MCU is concerned, see the M-She U. Sue has always had more to do in the comics than just "being the mom". That's just one minor aspect of her character. So you feel that characters like Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were "weak", "shallow" and the writing for their motivations was "pandering"? No doubt Hollywood studios are facing increased pressure from streaming as one of the contributing factors for the decline in business. The thing is, they have to do something to compete if they want to keep customers coming to movie theaters. If they don't produce films that people prefer to see in the theater instead of staying at home and streaming, that part of the industry is going to wither away. It could be that Hollywood may just shift to making streaming only content from here on out and let the movie theater industry die. Nobody really knows. Fact is, right now the industry is declining and they aren't producing a product that's getting people back into movie theater seats. Yes she was, briefly. For the overwhelming majority of the last 60 years, Reed has been the leader. The Ant-Man, She-Hulk, Spider-Man, Namor, Black Panther among several others have been members of the Fantastic Four in the comics, but we don't see any of them being included.

Bizarre response. If movie studios were producing content that people wanted to see and pay for, then they wouldn't be facing a decline. Why is the market moving toward streaming? Better product with better content that people are favoring over what they can get at movie theaters. Bizarre response. How's "diverging from the source material because its 2025" working out for them? Is the MCU getting more popular or less? Bizarre response. When did I say I was? Bizarre response. Ripley had a daughter in the sequel, which means she had that child in the first film. It's the "changing and evolving" characters and stories that you're on about. Newt wasn't Ripley's biological child and everyone knows that. Ripley's motivations for protecting Newt are obvious. Newt represented the child that Ripley lost. Bizarre response. Adults don't need matriarchs to help with the family and the matriarch of the family doesn't have a vital role in the family? What do you think someone like Queen Elizabeth was to the Windsor family? If you need something to help you understand what a matriarch is and how important they are to a family, watch The Crown. Bizarre response. Being "motherly" and a matriarch doesn't make a woman any less than any man. It's you who seems to have trouble understanding how this is a source of strength for a female character. It's you who has said that Sue being the mother/matriarch of the FF family is "shallow". You're the one having the difficulty here. Bizarre response. Once again, how is what Reed does in the comics any more unbelievable than Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining super powers? How is it any less believable than Bruce Banner surviving a full on nuclear blast? How is it any less believable than Lex Luthor building all kinds of technology to defeat Superman, who is for all intents and purposes a god who can do anything? How is it less believable than a warrior goddess being sculpted out of clay and her mother using magic to bring her to life? All of those things - not ridiculous, but Reed building a space ship and taking his girlfriend and pals on a space flight - ridiculous. That's truly bizarre. Rockets that can shoot into orbit have been around since the 1960s. World leaders and governments can have them produced. So can wealthy billionaires who are doing just that right now in real life. Again, truly bizarre.

Bizarre response. Try putting some thought into this - in the real world, Jeff Bezos (billionaire) launched William Shatner (92 year old actor), Katy Perry (singer) and his own girlfriend into space. Who gives a shit if he didn't design the rocket? He still did it and that's real life. You've got Elon Musk designing ships capable of sending real life people to Mars. But a super genius doing it is somehow not believable.

Bizarre response. If "modern audiences" were getting what they want from Hollywood and buying what movie studios are selling, then Hollywood and box office receipts wouldn't be in decline. Bizarre response. No one other than you is suggesting that Sue Storm is June Cleaver sitting around the house baking cookies, making Reed dinner and doing the laundry. That's not her character. Neither is her character being the leader of the FF and the boss lady, which she is rumored to be in this film. If that's the case, then that's diverging from the source material and the character that the built in fan base is familiar with. This isn't rocket science to understand. Bizarre response. Yes, Ellen Ripley was a mother in the first film. Watch Aliens again. Nice attempt to deflect though. No question Sarah Connor became a bad ass to protect her son. Bizarre response. That's complete bullshit. I've no issue with strong female characters. You seem to have a real disdain for anything feminine about the maternal instinct. That just shows you're very shallow and narrow minded and can't grasp that female characters asserting their maternal instincts doesn't make them "weak", "shallow", "boring", a "shit show" or whatever other bullshit you want to call them.

Where's the guy on fire and the guy made of rocks?

Bizarre response. Jeff Bezos launched William Shatner, Katy Perry and his girlfriend into space. That's real life. But some super intelligent guy bringing his girlfriend and her brother and his best friend into space isn't believable.

Bullshit. Let's see whose responses are "bizarre" here... Bizarre response. It's a film based on a comic that started in the 1960's and has had a loyal following since then. Look at the setting and set design in the trailer. They're quite clearly going for something of a 1960's retro period piece. The Fantastic Four has had a loyal following ever since their creation. It's absolutely about what happened in the comics throughout their 60+ year history. That's what the fan base is familiar with. The last FF film changed the characters radically. It failed. Miserably. Bizarre response. Sue not being the "mother type" figure she's always been is "unreasonable" and "unbelievable" and "shallow", but characters being literal invincible gods, getting bitten by radioactive spiders and gaining super powers, surviving full on nuclear blasts and turning into unstoppable green rage monsters, having magical powers are all "reasonable" and "believable". Bullshit. Bizarre response. They've already "lost the viewers". Changing the characters and the plots people are familiar with that drew them to the characters and have held their interest for decades is what the built in fan base is looking for, not "re-imaginings" for "modern audiences". See the previous FF film. How's changing characters people have adored for decades working out for Disney with their princess flicks? Superhero films and films in general are unquestionably on the decline. Box office receipts prove that. "Modern audiences" aren't buying what they're selling. Bizarre responses. These show a severe lack of understanding on your part on what a mother type figure is. Why is being a mother "shallow" and "disappointing"? WTF do you think Sarah Connor is? What was she doing in T2? Anything and everything she possibly could to protect her fucking child. That's a strong mother type character. WTF was Ellen Ripley doing in Aliens protecting Newt? That's a strong motherly instinct kicking in for a strong mother type figure. Sue looking after her family and doing what she can to protect them isn't "shallow" or "weak" or "boring" or "disappointing". Not in the least.