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 12 hours ago 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 12 hours ago 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 11 hours ago 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 11 hours ago 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 9 hours ago 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' the dude behind Supes with the U on his chest when he's being arrested is an emo version of Ultraman. Or is that one of Lex's suits?

 

Edited 9 hours ago 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 6 hours ago 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.