Superman: Legacy First Look

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

That's the funniest thing about it. As someone who sees the current administration as an Onion parody come to life, I have no idea what the "political" issue is. 

I watched that trailer and just saw a bunch of standard Superman story tropes.

It’s just rumors being thrown about.  But Superman in cuffs was not the big complaint.

 

As I said in the FF thread - I don’t know if any are real or not, and will wait until the movie comes out to decide.

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

So, the first article concerns a pr firm's attempt to game rotten tomatoes over a film that hadn't even been picked up yet. And this example, which would've had a tiny sample size is extrapolated to all reviews.

 

The research article talks about strategies the reviewers take to not piss off studios--the key one being to delay unfavorable reviews by 1-3 days. That's it.

Additionally, the article talks about media outlets wanting to differentiate themselves. So reviews that come out later will tend to be more negative. 

Yes, and where there’s smoke - there’s fire.

Theres also the old adage that you are never caught the first time.

But the point was to show that yes, it can and has happened.

 

The second article was to just show how “sneaky” they can be with reviews - which I sort of alluded to before the link.

 

I do think only a small portion of a movies audience actually decides based on reviews.

I personally only read them after I’ve seen a movie, just to see what others think and to see if it aligns with my thought.

[TTRPGWhiz]

21 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

Our players have strong opinions on superhero movies.  It makes sense considering we're all playing a superhero game. 

 

But sometimes those strong opinions lead to heated personal arguments.  This is a preemptive request to be excellent to each other and also not get into politics before it's too late!  

 

Thanks!

How many comments like "blue-haired patriarchy hater", "DEI trash pile", and "woke garbage" need to be posted before it's considered "into politics"?

[TTRPGWhiz]

47 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Yes. The issue is that I want to watch a good Superman movie. Now, if there's also a little bit of a political story in there, as there was in Man of Steel, that's fine. One of the things that I liked about Man of Steel is that the authorities reacted realistically instead of just being non-existent like they have been in most Superman stories.

 

But if the dialog comes off like a blue-haired, patriarchy hater is condescendingly lecturing me about "Orange Man Bad". . .  Well, I don't plan on sitting in the theater for two hours listening to that garbage.

Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.

[PeregrineFalcon]

21 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.

Oh I do so love it when folks deliberately "misunderstand" that quote. 😄

 

I'm not offended by the possibility of a the new Superman movie having dialog as I described in my last post. I just wouldn't find it entertaining, and I wouldn't want to watch it, and I certainly wouldn't wany to pay for tickets. There's a huge difference between "OMG! I'm offended" and "Nah, I'm out thanks."

 

And you know that Whiz. You didn't misunderstand my quote, you're way smarter than that. You deliberately pretended to misunderstand it in an attempt to dunk on me. Well, all I have to say is, to quote another movie, "Try harder. Try again."

[TTRPGWhiz]

12 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Oh I do so love it when folks deliberately "misunderstand" that quote. 😄

 

I'm not offended by the possibility of a the new Superman movie having dialog as I described in my last post. I just wouldn't find it entertaining, and I wouldn't want to watch it, and I certainly wouldn't wany to pay for tickets. There's a huge difference between "OMG! I'm offended" and "Nah, I'm out thanks."

 

And you know that Whiz. You didn't misunderstand my quote, you're way smarter than that. You deliberately pretended to misunderstand it in an attempt to dunk on me. Well, all I have to say is, to quote another movie, "Try harder. Try again."

How will you know if it has dialogue you don't like until you buy a ticket and watch the movie? 

It's hilarious to me that people who claim to never be offended about anything are the *first* to come into any and every comic book movie thread with, "this better not be about the feminist agenda", or whatever is up your butt that day. Call if offended, triggered, whatever you want; you don't like the product and you don't have to watch it. But damn, you sure do like to complain about things that may or may not be in it.

[Techwright]

Back on the topic, namely the movie itself, I recognize several elements of the Superman and Justice League mythos, but I do not recognize the kaiju.  Any ideas?

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

But if the dialog comes off like a blue-haired, patriarchy hater is condescendingly lecturing me about "Orange Man Bad". . .  Well, I don't plan on sitting in the theater for two hours listening to that garbage.

 

Sounds offended to me. Particularly in relation to a trailer for a James Gunn Superman movie. Somebody watching that trailer and then being haunted by this caricature is bizarre to say the least.

[TTRPGWhiz]

40 minutes ago, Techwright said:

Back on the topic, namely the movie itself, I recognize several elements of the Superman and Justice League mythos, but I do not recognize the kaiju.  Any ideas?

Sean Gunn (I think it’s just a kaiju, none of the marketing—toys included, usually the biggest spoiler culprit—lists a name)

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

How will you know if it has dialogue you don't like until you buy a ticket and watch the movie?

Clearly I won't, and I never said otherwise. However, there are certain signs. Patterns if you will that I've noticed with other movies that ended up being bad that I'm seeing with this movie. And I hope that I'm wrong, because I actually want it to be a good movie.

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

you don't like the product and you don't have to watch it.

You are correct.

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

But damn, you sure do like to complain about things that may or may not be in it.

Once again, you are correct.

 

And, fortunately for me, you do not get to control what I am allowed to say. Feel free to go into my post history and down vote a bunch of my posts like you used to do. In any case I'm done responding to you. Take care and have a great Friday!

[El D]

40 minutes ago, Techwright said:

Back on the topic, namely the movie itself, I recognize several elements of the Superman and Justice League mythos, but I do not recognize the kaiju.  Any ideas?

 

It looks like a wholly new giant monster, though the fight itself could be a reference to this.

 

 

Not that Supes hasn't fought lots of giant monsters across his history, but a modern take on stuff from the classic Fleischer cartoons absolutely seems like a thing Gunn would include.

[TTRPGWhiz]

3 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Clearly I won't, and I never said otherwise. However, there are certain signs. Patterns if you will that I've noticed with other movies that ended up being bad that I'm seeing with this movie. And I hope that I'm wrong, because I actually want it to be a good movie.

 

You are correct.

 

Once again, you are correct.

 

And, fortunately for me, you do not get to control what I am allowed to say. Feel free to go into my post history and down vote a bunch of my posts like you used to do. In any case I'm done responding to you. Take care and have a great Friday!

Yep. And other people, myself included, are free to point out that your opinions exhibit signs of ComicsGatey/alt-righty/DOGEy rhetoric. Freedom is fun!

[ShardWarrior]

6 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

As for the rest, again, if people are getting their movie quality tips from junk sources, that’s on them. I’ve never once seen any of the reviews that I’ve read engaging in that kind of verbatim text copying.

 

Whether you have seen it firsthand is irrelevant.  Astroturfing is a real issue.  It undermines credibility and erodes public trust in reviews. 

 

6 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Fake accounts writing undermining posts isn’t the same thing as paying an actual critic to write a favorable review. That’s a wild comparison.

 

See above regarding undermining credibility and trust.  You are certainly more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that there are no incentives - financial or otherwise - for "professional critics" to write favorable reviews of a film or music album or book.

[TTRPGWhiz]

27 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Whether you have seen it firsthand is irrelevant.  Astroturfing is a real issue.  It undermines credibility and erodes public trust in reviews. 

 

 

See above regarding undermining credibility and trust.  You are certainly more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that there are no incentives - financial or otherwise - for "professional critics" to write favorable reviews of a film or music album or book.

 

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is. Even ScreenRant wouldn't stoop that low. You're talking about nobodies. Does it undermine credibility and trust in something like Rotten Tomatoes? Yeah probably. But again: trust junk sources, get junk info.

[Ghost]

6 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is. Even ScreenRant wouldn't stoop that low. 

Oh, so naive.

[TTRPGWhiz]

11 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Oh, so naive.

Burden of proof is on the people making accusations.

If y'all can point to a single instance of someone working at an outlet, and not out of their second bedroom, being directly paid for positive reviews, then spill that tea. Every google search I've done so far points to the same article about paying absolute nobodies about $50 a piece to elevate the profile (not the box office; not that that's the larger point, but it's still a point) of one--literally one--independent movie. One movie.

[Ghost]

11 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Burden of proof is on the people making accusations.

If y'all can point to a single instance of someone working at an outlet, and not out of their second bedroom, being directly paid for positive reviews, then spill that tea. Every google search I've done so far points to the same article about paying absolute nobodies about $50 a piece to elevate the profile (not the box office; not that that's the larger point, but it's still a point) of one--literally one--independent movie. One movie.

So, you think some of the publications you listed have no issues with distorting the truth, or outright lying and yet draw the line when it come to movie reviews????

Thats your stance?

“We’ll sign off on umpteen fake stories from Jayson Blair, but by god our movie reviews better be real!!!”

🤭🤭🤭

 

Most likely movie reviews are such a non story, that no one cares enough to look into them.

However, I will leave you with this excerpt from a leaked email from Entertainment Weekly…just to illustrate what their own employees think of their movie reviews….

 

“But people are eventually going to tune out if articles are poorly written. The out of context clickbait titles, posting out of context quotes… and film reviews that sound like paid-for PR pieces from studios completely make a joke of our magazine and entertainment journalism.” 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:04 PM by Ghost

[TTRPGWhiz]

2 minutes ago, Ghost said:

So, you think some of the publications you listed have no issues with distorting the truth, or outright lying and yet draw the line when it come to movie reviews????

Thats your stance?

“We’ll sign off on umpteen fake stories from Jayson Blair, but by god our movie reviews better be real!!!”

🤭🤭🤭

 

Most likely movie reviews are such a non story, that no one cares enough to look into them.

However, I will leave you with this excerpt from a leaked email from Entertainment Weekly…just to illustrate what their own employees think of their movie reviews….

 

“But people are eventually going to tune out if articles are poorly written. The out of context clickbait titles, posting out of context quotes… and film reviews that sound like paid-for PR pieces from studios completely make a joke of our magazine and entertainment journalism.” 

 

 

Not appearing in this post: one shred of evidence

Anyway, back on topic: maybe an ace reporter from a fictional world has uncovered this kind of widespread yet completely undocumented corruption!

[battlewraith]

All of this talk about credibility and trust in critics is because I called out the Critical Drinker. 

Why did I do this--because people keep referencing his garbage takes in these threads. 

 

The Thunderbolts review was a great example. In the first minute, he's disparaging Yelena as an embodiment of modern feminism. 

In actuality, the film as far as I could tell had nothing to with feminism unless you think fictional female superheroes fighting alongside male fictional superheroes counts as feminism. 

The fact that he's pandering in these reviews is made clear when he puts out a short film that features the same "girlbossy" depictions that he routinely slams big studios for doing (except executed very poorly). This to me demonstrates the gap between his grifting and his aspirations as a serious filmmaker. 

 

It's whataboutism. It would be like if you identified a specific doctor as a quack and in response someone called out controversies with Big Pharma. 

It's a deflection. Both can be true and it wouldn't change anything.  And if f a bunch of shills from the big studios show up here, $50 in hand and start hyping up movies--that complaint would be relevant. But in reality, it's just Critical Drinker fans here pre-shitting on movies because their cohort squeezes everything through the same ideological lens. 

[ShardWarrior]

56 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Credibility and trust *in whom*? You won't find the kinds of things you're talking about in reviews at Collider, The Onion, NYT, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, whatever your actual organization of choice is.

 

This is demonstrably false, but as I said earlier, you go right on believing whatever you like.

[TTRPGWhiz]

10 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

This is demonstrably false, but as I said earlier, you go right on believing whatever you like.

So demonstrate it! I am legitimately interested in this topic, which is why I keep referring to searching for stories. All I've found is a bunch of references to the one Vulture article about one PR firm paying for reviews for one movie. People repeating, "no, but it's really happening" isn't very convincing.

[Ghost]

22 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

So demonstrate it! I am legitimately interested in this topic, which is why I keep referring to searching for stories. All I've found is a bunch of references to the one Vulture article about one PR firm paying for reviews for one movie. People repeating, "no, but it's really happening" isn't very convincing.

 

[Ghost]

53 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

All of this talk about credibility and trust in critics is because I called out the Critical Drinker. 

Why did I do this--because people keep referencing his garbage takes in these threads. 

 

The Thunderbolts review was a great example. In the first minute, he's disparaging Yelena as an embodiment of modern feminism. 

In actuality, the film as far as I could tell had nothing to with feminism unless you think fictional female superheroes fighting alongside male fictional superheroes counts as feminism. 

The fact that he's pandering in these reviews is made clear when he puts out a short film that features the same "girlbossy" depictions that he routinely slams big studios for doing (except executed very poorly). This to me demonstrates the gap between his grifting and his aspirations as a serious filmmaker. 

 

It's whataboutism. It would be like if you identified a specific doctor as a quack and in response someone called out controversies with Big Pharma. 

It's a deflection. Both can be true and it wouldn't change anything.  And if f a bunch of shills from the big studios show up here, $50 in hand and start hyping up movies--that complaint would be relevant. But in reality, it's just Critical Drinker fans here pre-shitting on movies because their cohort squeezes everything through the same ideological lens. 

What Critical Drinker fans?

I’ve personally never watched one of his videos.

 

I think one person referenced him, and you’ve somehow equated that to you defending the Alamo against hoards of invaders.

 

We’ve gone through this in multiple threads, and I still for the life of me cannot figure out why it bothers you so much when someone talks about having concerns - real or imaginary.  
Why do you feel the need to swoop in and rescue the rest of the forum from someone posting their concerns?

 

They will eventually be proven correct or incorrect, so why not let it play out?

Edited yesterday at 08:11 PM by Ghost

[Ghost]

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/645297/david-manning-sony-fake-film-critic
 

https://filmstories.co.uk/features/columbia-pictures-and-the-fake-movie-critic-of-the-early-2000s/
 

 

[battlewraith]

4 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I think one person referenced him, and you’ve somehow equated that to you defending the Alamo against hoards of invaders.

Lol oh really? Where did I equate that?

PI mostly posts this stuff, but obviously people get bent if you criticize something like that. Surely this august assembly would not spend pages roasting the notion of criticism itself over nothing right? These zesty insinuations of industry wrongdoing had to come from somewhere.