Superman: Legacy First Look

[Ghost]

6 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

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.

You’re right.  
Studios are honest.

Critics are infallible.

We are all just conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks for pointing out the error of our ways.

🙄🙄🙄

Edited Friday at 08:28 PM by Ghost

[TTRPGWhiz]

9 minutes ago, Ghost said:

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/
 

 

Cool stories! What outlets were his reviews published in?

...oh, none? They were just blurbs in local newspapers? And as soon as someone at an actual publication (Newsweek) smelled a rat, the whole thing came apart? Crazy.
So right now we're looking at: two incidents, one in 2000, the other in 2018, neither of which involve a reputable film critic or outlet. 

As for the ostrich: ask them if while they've got their head down there, they might look for a single scrap of evidence that a real (not fake) movie critic working for a publication got paid money by a studio to write a review.

If you guys want to move the goalposts to "movie studios do shady stuff to promote their movies", then go for it. No disagreement there. If you want to stick to trying to prove that studios pay legitimate critics for fake reviews, you're gonna have to...what was it..."try again, try harder".

Edited Friday at 08:30 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[Ghost]

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

You asked for instances.  
One was provided.  
You wanted another involving a major studio - you got that.

 

Accept or deny.  That’s your choice.

 

 

Edited Friday at 08:40 PM by Ghost

[battlewraith]

4 minutes ago, Ghost said:

You’re right.  
Studios are honest.

Critics are infallible.

We are all just conspiracy theorists.

 

Thanks for pointing out the error of our ways.

🙄🙄🙄

 

The truth of the matter is that critics vary, as do studios--or any group of people.

It's not this categorical, black or white thing. Pointing to a fake critic or bad business is not an indictment of all critics or businesses. 

And yeah--if you're just willing to assume sweeping generalizations like this you are more likely to buy into conspiracy theories. 

Do better. You're welcome.

[battlewraith]

Just now, Ghost said:

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

 

Sony was sued over that incident and settled. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

2 minutes ago, Ghost said:

How would they involve a reputable critic when Sony made up a fake critic???????

 

 

 

...uh, yes, exactly. The question isn't "do movie studios do shady stuff". It is specifically, "is there evidence of movie studios paying reputable critics for positive reviews". That is the conversation we are having. 

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

The truth of the matter is that critics vary, as do studios--or any group of people.

It's not this categorical, black or white thing. Pointing to a fake critic or bad business is not an indictment of all critics or businesses. 

And yeah--if you're just willing to assume sweeping generalizations like this you are more likely to buy into conspiracy theories. 

Do better. You're welcome.

The point was that critics have lied.

Someone, maybe not you unequivocally denied that it has ever happened.  2 instances were shown.

At no time did I say ALL critics lie.  Nor did I ever say ALL critics were paid off.  My contention is that it has happened.

 

So if anyone is making a sweeping generalized statement, it’s you.

Now how about you take your own advice, and DO BETTER

[Ghost]

4 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 

...uh, yes, exactly. The question isn't "do movie studios do shady stuff". It is specifically, "is there evidence of movie studios paying reputable critics for positive reviews". That is the conversation we are having. 

In my book, making up a fake critic to write fake reviews is worse, but whatever.

You live in your world and I’ll live in mine.

[TTRPGWhiz]

5 minutes ago, Ghost said:

The point was that critics have lied.

Someone, maybe not you unequivocally denied that it has ever happened.  2 instances were shown.

At no time did I say ALL critics lie.  Nor did I ever say ALL critics were paid off.  My contention is that it has happened.

 

So if anyone is making a sweeping generalized statement, it’s you.

Now how about you take your own advice, and DO BETTER

lol, not one person has written, "no critic has ever lied". Good lord.

The world of absolutes some of y'all live in would make a Sith blush.

[Ghost]

10 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

lol, not one person has written, "no critic has ever lied". Good lord.

The world of absolutes some of y'all live in would make a Sith blush.

Coming from someone who refuses to believe that a critic could/would lie

🤭

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a movie critic

[TTRPGWhiz]

6 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Coming from someone who refuses to believe that a critic could/would lie

🤭

 

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a movie critic

See this is the issue, maybe: you think asking for one example is the same thing as denying that it's possible.

Someone wrote, "movie studios pay critics for positive reviews all the time". 
I wrote, "do you have any examples of this occurring with reputable critics/outlets?"
Then you came in with, "oh, so critics NEVER LIE?".
It's not even the same conversation.

Peace be with ya, Ghost. I'm not super interested in continuing a conversation with someone who values beliefs over evidence and who can't figure out what the actual conversation is.

Edited Friday at 09:10 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

6 hours 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?

 

He's on pre-order from McFarlane already, and is just a bit-part, workaday Kaiju. Not even a named part. He should call his agent.

Probably be sitting forlornly in a booth in London Comic Con in a couple years trying to tell people he's worked with James Gunn.

 

Then again, McFarlane might be better at not spoilering than Lego or some of the other toymakers.

https://mcfarlane.com/toys/kaiju-superman-movie-mega-figure

 

Again, I'm wondering how he fits in the movie alongside Lex, The Engineer, The Hammer Of Boravia (?) and The Floating Eye Of Death.

(Hey, team-up?)

 

Wonder if the prevalence of such beasts attacking Metropolis is a plot point - might people start thinking they're all coming to town to challenge him or get him out of the way? And do they have worse insurance premiums than Paragon by now?

Edited Friday at 10:40 PM by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[Techwright]

9 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

 

He's on pre-order from McFarlane already, and is just a bit-part, workaday Kaiju. Not even a named part. He should call his agent.

Probably be sitting forlornly in a booth in London Comic Con in a couple years trying to tell people he's worked with James Gunn.

 

Then again, McFarlane might be better at not spoilering than Lego or some of the other toymakers.

https://mcfarlane.com/toys/kaiju-superman-movie-mega-figure

McFarlane, though, is labeling the box with terms like "DC Multiverse" and "DC Universe Infinite".  Has Gunn or DC come out and said that his films version will be a multiverse version of the DC comics?

 

[Ulysses Dare]

7 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:

 

He's on pre-order from McFarlane already, and is just a bit-part, workaday Kaiju. Not even a named part. He should call his agent.

Probably be sitting forlornly in a booth in London Comic Con in a couple years trying to tell people he's worked with James Gunn.

Yeah, it looked to me like a just-legally-distinct-enough version of not-Godzilla. Which makes sense for a bit part. Show the kaiju, show the city, and the audience immediately knows the stakes.

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

Had a look through the other toys on offer and forgot they've thrown Metamorpho into this too, though he's a good guy.

 

Having looked at some more offerings on the site, Multiverse might just be the branding for the toy/merch line. There's a whole range of stuff under that name, including JL Red Supes, the Keaton-Bat from The Flash, the classic animation Supes, various Harleys, Arthur and Murray from Joker... 

 

Speaking of which, They've already said that Matt Reeves The Batman and the Penguin series exist in a seperate Elseworld, and if the Bat shows up in this on top of everybody else it'll be a new Bat.

 

As for Multiversing the movie - please, no - I don't think so, unless the Black Noir lookin' dude behind Supes with a U on his chest when he's being arrested is an emo version of Ultraman. Or is that one of Lex's suits?

 

Edited Saturday at 08:52 AM by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[ShardWarrior]

5 hours 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.

 

If you honestly believe that source like the NYT or other sources as you mentioned have never been sued for posting false information, I do not know what to tell you.  Again, you can choose to believe whatever you like.  Being in the entertainment industry, I have seen and heard firsthand how "friendly" outlets are favored over others, and those same "friendly" are incentivized with all kinds of compensation (not necessarily money) for their favorable reviews.  Take that with however many grains of salt you like and believe whatever you like.  I will stick with what I know.  Feel free to disagree. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

If you honestly believe that source like the NYT or other sources as you mentioned have never been sued for posting false information, I do not know what to tell you.  Again, you can choose to believe whatever you like.  Being in the entertainment industry, I have seen and heard firsthand how "friendly" outlets are favored over others, and those same "friendly" are incentivized with all kinds of compensation (not necessarily money) for their favorable reviews.  Take that with however many grains of salt you like and believe whatever you like.  I will stick with what I know.  Feel free to disagree. 

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about movie studios paying for positive reviews. At no point was this about the general concept of “posting false information”.

 

I don’t understand why it’s easier to shift the goal posts than just say, “well I don’t have any evidence other than what I’ve already posted, you’ll just have to take my word for it”.

Edited Saturday at 02:07 AM by TTRPGWhiz

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about movie studios paying for positive reviews. At no point was this about the general concept of “posting false information”.

 

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. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

First post on page six of this thread. And nobody has disagreed that studios do shady things, or that sites like Rotten Tomatoes are full of sketchy people. The disagreement is about legitimate film critics being bribed, and the complete lack of evidence of this ever happening. That is all. Nobody has said critics are uncompromisable saints. 
 

When someone says “X happens all the time” but can’t produce one example, that’s a belief. I’m not questioning anyone’s belief system, but I’m also not going to take it at face value. 

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

And nobody has disagreed that studios do shady things, or that sites like Rotten Tomatoes are full of sketchy people.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

The disagreement is about legitimate film critics being bribed, and the complete lack of evidence of this ever happening.

 

Actually some evidence has been provided, you've just chosen to ignore it.

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I’m not questioning anyone’s belief system, but I’m also not going to take it at face value. 

 

I don't see anyone saying you should.  Quite the opposite from what I can see.

  

18 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

16 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

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

 

11 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Take that with however many grains of salt you like and believe whatever you like.

 

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. 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 12:23 PM by Excraft

[TTRPGWhiz]

22 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

lol I’m not going to take the time to point out how much stuff you just made up; anyone who can read can see it.  Enjoy your bubble of assumed truths.

 

EDIT: removed some stuff because there’s no point responding to someone who either cannot read or who lives in a different reality. Ta.

Edited Saturday at 12:45 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[battlewraith]

The bad logic here is evident if you simply swap terms. Some doctors have committed malpractice, therefore it's safe to assume all doctors commit malpractice. Some cops are paid off, ergo all cops are assumed to be dirty. And so on. There was one research article posted in this exchange that studied studio bias with regard to reviewers. That study acknowledged there was influence and concluded that the result was typically a small rating shift, maybe half a star and/or a delay of 1-3 days for a negative review to be released. The conclusions of that article stated this:

 

“The implication is not that the reviews are grossly inaccurate, on average, but I think as a consumer, you should probably rely on more than one reviewing outlet if you’re making a consumption decision,” says Waguespack."

 

 

[TTRPGWhiz]

6 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The bad logic here is evident if you simply swap terms. Some doctors have committed malpractice, therefore it's safe to assume all doctors commit malpractice. Some cops are paid off, ergo all cops are assumed to be dirty. And so on. There was one research article posted in this exchange that studied studio bias with regard to reviewers. That study acknowledged there was influence and concluded that the result was typically a small rating shift, maybe half a star and/or a delay of 1-3 days for a negative review to be released. The conclusions of that article stated this:

 

“The implication is not that the reviews are grossly inaccurate, on average, but I think as a consumer, you should probably rely on more than one reviewing outlet if you’re making a consumption decision,” says Waguespack."

 

 

It’s not even that deep, it’s basic reading comprehension.

 

”Can you show me one time that a film critic at a major outlet was bribed?”

 

”Yes, here is a fake film critic who sent blurbs to a local newspaper, and here is a bunch of unknown Rotten Tomatoes critics being paid off for $50 each.”

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

The bad logic here is evident if you simply swap terms. Some doctors have committed malpractice, therefore it's safe to assume all doctors commit malpractice. Some cops are paid off, ergo all cops are assumed to be dirty. And so on.

 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

“The implication is not that the reviews are grossly inaccurate, on average, but I think as a consumer, you should probably rely on more than one reviewing outlet if you’re making a consumption decision,” says Waguespack."

 

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. 

 

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

lol I’m not going to take the time to point out how much stuff you just made up; anyone who can read can see it.  

 

Your own words. 

 

3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

And nobody has disagreed that studios do shady things, or that sites like Rotten Tomatoes are full of sketchy people. The disagreement is about legitimate film critics being bribed, and the complete lack of evidence of this ever happening. That is all. Nobody has said critics are uncompromisable saints.

[battlewraith]

2 minutes ago, Excraft said:

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. 

 

PI posted a still from the trailer and said that he was worried the film would be a hamfisted lecture about the current administration (presumably in the US). This was linked to a reddit post by the Critical Drinker, who I criticized as a formulaic online grifter. Shardwarrior then kicked off this discussion of critics in general, saying that the industry incentivizes critics to heap lavish praise on their films.

 

This was a non sequitur. Even if it were blatantly obvious that all professional film critics are paid to hype movies, that would not be a defense of online grifters. It is also a false equivalence to view people that may exaggerate the positive qualities of a film in a review with people who denigrate these films along predictable ideological lines often based on a short snippet from a trailer before a film is even released.