Ironheart Trailer

[Glacier Peak]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think more people will watch Drinker's review of the show than the show itself.

 

The tweet format doesn't lend itself to much critical analysis, rather hot takes to generate clicks. So I won't put any weight in to this. After watching the premiere episode I have no idea who this character is or why I should care as an audience member. Is she Tony Stark replacement? Watching the show made me feel like she was a mcguffin that could do anything the show wanted her to do, but the manufactured drama made the character confusing to watch. She's made out to be the smartestest of all, yet she's challenged by youthful rebellion and poor decision making?

 

I come to this show knowing nothing about the character by the way. 

[Techwright]

1 minute ago, Glacier Peak said:

 Watching the show made me feel like she was a mcguffin that could do anything the show wanted her to do, but the manufactured drama made the character confusing to watch. 

 

By any chance, do you mean a "Mary Sue" rather than a "mcguffin"?   I've always understood "Mcguffin" to mean an object that affects the plot or subplot, like the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings or the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  (Okay, when double-checking myself, I learned the "object" could be a person, like Private Ryan in Saving Private Ryan.) 

[Glacier Peak]

2 hours ago, Techwright said:

By any chance, do you mean a "Mary Sue" rather than a "mcguffin"?   I've always understood "Mcguffin" to mean an object that affects the plot or subplot, like the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings or the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  (Okay, when double-checking myself, I learned the "object" could be a person, like Private Ryan in Saving Private Ryan.) 

Oh maybe you're right. Not 100% what the trope is called, but the point I'm trying to make is a character who is made to appear to the audience as a genius at the level of which few other characters that we've been introduced to could even compare, is challenged by life choices like who she should hang out with or family drama. If that's the attempt to ground the character in to someone relatable to the audience, I think its a cop out. It shows the character gets her genius turned off when it is convenient for the writers. 

 

Again, I'm not familiar with this super hero at all beyond the show, so maybe it's a rough character origin story and there's more to tell. 

Edited yesterday at 01:13 AM by Glacier Peak

[JKCarrier]

2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

a character who is made to appear to the audience as a genius at the level of which few other characters that we've been introduced to could even compare, is challenged by life choices like who she should hang out with or family drama.

"A genius who makes poor life choices" sounds like Tony Stark in a nutshell. 😆
I thought the first two episodes were kind of meh, but things pick up considerably in episode 3, and I'm interested enough to check out the rest. It's no WandaVision, but it looks like it's going to some interesting places.

[TTRPGWhiz]

13 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think more people will watch Drinker's review of the show than the show itself.

 

How much would you like to bet?

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

How much would you like to bet?

 

Edited yesterday at 01:14 PM by Ghost

[Glacier Peak]

10 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

"A genius who makes poor life choices" sounds like Tony Stark in a nutshell. 😆
I thought the first two episodes were kind of meh, but things pick up considerably in episode 3, and I'm interested enough to check out the rest. It's no WandaVision, but it looks like it's going to some interesting places.

I'd push back a little on that - the audience was introduced to genius, billionaire, playoy, philanthropist Tony Stark and went along his journey of self reflection and healing from losing his parents, being betrayed by his business partner, and having his company undermind by his government. Taking to drinking and pushing away those who care for him were human responses to those incredible life stressing events. The "Tony Stark has a heart" ultimately paid off for the audience after the saga concluded and it felt like it meant something. 

 

Introducing a character and then immediately taking away their intellectual capacity to forment drama seems disingenuous. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

35 minutes ago, Ghost said:

 

Oh please yourself. Posts like PF's are how we go down the rabbit hole. "Here's Critical Drinker doing his Critical Drinker thing, I bet most people agree with him". 

Another show that got review bombed before it was even released because there's a contingent of 'fandom' that just can't help itself. 
To avoid the binary assumption: pointing out that a show was review bombed isn't a statement about the show's merits; it's a statement about toxic 'fans'.

[ShardWarrior]

16 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think more people will watch Drinker's review of the show than the show itself.

 

Having watched the first 15 minutes of this, I have no doubt you are right about that.     

[ShardWarrior]

10 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

To avoid the binary assumption: pointing out that a show was review bombed isn't a statement about the show's merits; it's a statement about toxic 'fans'.

 

So all of these fans who are not turning out to see the latest movie or watch the new streaming show are now "toxic" because they do not like badly written stories?  Automatically ascribing the label of "toxic" to anyone who simply does not like poorly written characters, poorly produced content and  poorly executed series or films is a statement too.  You had several people in this thread calling others all kinds of horrible names in posts that have since been removed simply because they do not like a badly written character.  That is toxic behavior.  

 

51 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

I'd push back a little on that - the audience was introduced to genius, billionaire, playoy, philanthropist Tony Stark and went along his journey of self reflection and healing from losing his parents, being betrayed by his business partner, and having his company undermind by his government. Taking to drinking and pushing away those who care for him were human responses to those incredible life stressing events. The "Tony Stark has a heart" ultimately paid off for the audience after the saga concluded and it felt like it meant something. 

 

Introducing a character and then immediately taking away their intellectual capacity to forment drama seems disingenuous. 

 

It reads to me that Glacier Peak did not care for how the character is portrayed.  I agree.  Does that mean we are toxic?  Of course not.  We are people who are intelligent enough to know a badly crafted story and badly developed, unrelatable character when we see it. 

 

The MCU is not doing as well as it used to and that is not because the content is getting better.  The fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.

[BrandX]

17 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think more people will watch Drinker's review of the show than the show itself.

 

 

This is wrong and just his way of getting people to like his posts.

 

Echo was WORSE.  Echo still maintains the honor of worst MCU show.

[Ghost]

48 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Oh please yourself. Posts like PF's are how we go down the rabbit hole. "Here's Critical Drinker doing his Critical Drinker thing, I bet most people agree with him". 

Another show that got review bombed before it was even released because there's a contingent of 'fandom' that just can't help itself. 
To avoid the binary assumption: pointing out that a show was review bombed isn't a statement about the show's merits; it's a statement about toxic 'fans'.

“Oh please” because you saw an obviously comedic post and couldn’t resist climbing onto your high horse, and charging in to protect the forums from anyone who might disparage a show I imagine you won’t even watch.

White Knighting at its best!

[Ghost]

7 minutes ago, BrandX said:

 

This is wrong and just his way of getting people to like his posts.

 

Echo was WORSE.  Echo still maintains the honor of worst MCU show.

I gotta be honest, I didn’t think Echo was horrible.

I thought it was watchable, although the final battle was a huge letdown.

 

[TTRPGWhiz]

33 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

So all of these fans who are not turning out to see the latest movie or watch the new streaming show are now "toxic"

No. People posting negative reviews *before even seeing the product* are toxic. 

[ShardWarrior]

14 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

No. People posting negative reviews *before even seeing the product* are toxic. 

 

Just so we are clear, does that include any trailers for said product?

[TTRPGWhiz]

8 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Just so we are clear, does that include any trailers for said product?

 

If someone wants to post a review of 3 hours of content based on the 10-15 minutes they've seen in trailers, that's certainly their prerogative. I'm not sure how much credibility that lends their review, but a lot of folks don't seem to care about credibility when it comes to reviews. They're much more focused on finding and sticking with the 'critics' who reinforce their preconceived notions. 

So just to be clear: it might not be toxic, but it sure is worthless.

Edited yesterday at 03:14 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[ShardWarrior]

17 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

If someone wants to post a review of 3 hours of content based on the 10-15 minutes they've seen in trailers, that's certainly their prerogative. I'm not sure how much credibility that lends their review, but a lot of folks don't seem to care about credibility when it comes to reviews. They're much more focused on finding and sticking with the 'critics' who reinforce their preconceived notions. 

So just to be clear: it might not be toxic, but it sure is worthless.

 

Help me understand you here.  On one hand, you are suggesting it is toxic to post a negative review "before even seeing the product".  That means anyone who has seen a trailer, but not the actual product in its entirety, who then posts a negative review is being toxic.  Now, in your follow up, you are suggesting it is not toxic.  What exactly can be "review bombed" if there is not even a trailer released to be reviewed or bombed?  How do you know that these YouTubers you are so focused on have not already seen the product, or have seen enough of it to know that it is not good?

 

I saw the trailer for Ironheart.  I did not care for it and did not like it.  I posted my observations and suggested that the story did not makes sense and I found the main character unrelatable.  I did not care for her in Wakanda Forever either as I felt she was poorly written and developed.  Am I toxic?  Or should I have given the trailer a 4 star rating and a thumbs up because that is the nice thing to do?  

 

I can completely understand not liking a particular reviewer or their given modus operandi.  Those people are very easily ignored.  

[TTRPGWhiz]

22 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Help me understand you here.  On one hand, you are suggesting it is toxic to post a negative review "before even seeing the product".  That means anyone who has seen a trailer, but not the actual product in its entirety, who then posts a negative review is being toxic.  Now, in your follow up, you are suggesting it is not toxic.  What exactly can be "review bombed" if there is not even a trailer released to be reviewed or bombed?  How do you know that these YouTubers you are so focused on have not already seen the product, or have seen enough of it to know that it is not good?

 

I saw the trailer for Ironheart.  I did not care for it and did not like it.  I posted my observations and suggested that the story did not makes sense and I found the main character unrelatable.  I did not care for her in Wakanda Forever either as I felt she was poorly written and developed.  Am I toxic?  Or should I have given the trailer a 4 star rating and a thumbs up because that is the nice thing to do?  

 

I can completely understand not liking a particular reviewer or their given modus operandi.  Those people are very easily ignored.  

Nobody should be giving any trailer any rating! lol. They are commercials. When the hell did we start "reviewing" trailers? And who is talking about reviewing trailers anyway? And review bombing isn't the explicit province of YouTubers. 

Even if that was a 'normal' practice: trailers aren't the same thing as the thing they're an advertisement for. Is it fair to say "yeah I saw the trailer and it didn't make me want to watch the thing"? Sure. Is it then also fair to say "yeah I saw the trailer and didn't like it, therefore the thing it's a commercial for is bad"? No, that's not fair.

Have you never in your life seen a movie that had a misleading or badly produced trailer? 

This is a line of reasoning that I'm unable to really interact with, so I'll go ahead and stop before The Mods decide for me.

Edited yesterday at 04:04 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[ShardWarrior]

19 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Have you never in your life seen a movie that had a misleading or badly produced trailer? 

 

For me personally, once.  The trailer for the Shawshank Redemption comes to mind.  It did not do the actual film justice  With that said, it was a singular extremely rare edge case, and believe me, Ironheart is no Shawshank Redemption.  

 

22 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Is it then also fair to say "yeah I saw the trailer and didn't like it, therefore the thing it's a commercial for is bad"? No, that's not fair.

 

I take it you never read product labels to see what is in the foods you buy or read the ingredients on menus at restaurants?  If we see ingredients we know we do not like or cannot even pronounce, it is unfair that we do not buy the product and eat it?

[battlewraith]

41 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

So all of these fans who are not turning out to see the latest movie or watch the new streaming show are now "toxic" because they do not like badly written stories? 

 

41 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

The fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.

 

 

Movies and shows fail for a variety of reasons. But you literally have to be living in denial to ignore the fact that there is a dynamic of culture war bullshit that pervades the reception of Marvel properties right now. A big tipoff is when you have people going around telling you what "the fans" think, or what they know. Or that something failed because the "the fans" do not like badly written stories. 

 

I don't have a crystal ball showing me the heart of the fans. I can clearly see, again, a reactionary social media influencer whose business model is hating on woke industry product signaling to his audience: Wow guys this one is real shite. It's even more shite than the last thing I said was shite. And then a certain percentage of this moron's audience is going to take that as gospel that is indicative of how "the fans' feel about it. Before they argue with you that they are an individual and make up their own mind etc. etc.

 

4 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I take it you never read product labels to see what is in the foods you buy or read the ingredients on menus at restaurants?

 

I don't eat mushrooms. I'll look at a menu and avoid ordering food that has mushrooms in it. I don't then get online and put the restaurant on blast for selling food with mushrooms in it.

Review bombing done based on a trailer is an effort to tank a film. It's laughable to me that people can't or won't take it for what it is. 

[El D]

Hey, let's give Critical Drinker the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding content no one engages with. I expect he's plenty familiar with media nobody likes, considering his alcoholic rantings are far more popular than the novels or comic books he's written under his actual name.

 

Regarding Ironheart, haven't had time to sit down and watch yet but the clips I have seen looked pretty fun. Also the fact that the suit isn't nanotech and is actually a mech suit alone has me more interested than the final iterations of MCU Iron Man. Love ya Tony, but nanotech is still boring to watch. Practical & props > CGI.

Edited yesterday at 04:54 PM by El D

[JKCarrier]

3 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Introducing a character and then immediately taking away their intellectual capacity to forment drama seems disingenuous. 

Well, she IS still a teenager. Arrogance and short-sightedness kind of come with the territory.
Riri's obsession with building her suit reminds me a lot of Tony creating Ultron. Tony wanted a "suit of armor around the world" that would prevent another Chitauri-style invasion. And Riri wants the kind of "first responder suit" that might've saved her loved ones. And both of them do some really stupid things in the pursuit of their goals.
When you think about it, heroes who FAFO are kind of Marvel's whole brand...

[Glacier Peak]

7 minutes ago, JKCarrier said:

Well, she IS still a teenager. Arrogance and short-sightedness kind of come with the territory.
Riri's obsession with building her suit reminds me a lot of Tony creating Ultron. Tony wanted a "suit of armor around the world" that would prevent another Chitauri-style invasion. And Riri wants the kind of "first responder suit" that might've saved her loved ones. And both of them do some really stupid things in the pursuit of their goals.
When you think about it, heroes who FAFO are kind of Marvel's whole brand...

Maybe my comparison to Tony Stark was a reach - but Dr. Banner wasn't delved in to much after Ultron and Dr. Richards is still pending. Good point about being a kid - I guess I misunderstood that just because she's in (was) college, she was an adult. 

[BrandX]

5 hours ago, JKCarrier said:

Well, she IS still a teenager. Arrogance and short-sightedness kind of come with the territory.
Riri's obsession with building her suit reminds me a lot of Tony creating Ultron. Tony wanted a "suit of armor around the world" that would prevent another Chitauri-style invasion. And Riri wants the kind of "first responder suit" that might've saved her loved ones. And both of them do some really stupid things in the pursuit of their goals.
When you think about it, heroes who FAFO are kind of Marvel's whole brand...

 

Yes, but her's is stupid in the fact that any company would hire her easily and she didn't learn from Tony...you don't give the armor to the world.  The world WILL turn it into a weapon to use on everyone.  There's a reason Tony didn't give the armor to everyone.

[ShardWarrior]

6 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I can clearly see, again, a reactionary social media influencer whose business model is hating on woke industry product signaling to his audience: Wow guys this one is real shite. It's even more shite than the last thing I said was shite. And then a certain percentage of this moron's audience is going to take that as gospel that is indicative of how "the fans' feel about it. Before they argue with you that they are an individual and make up their own mind etc. etc.

 

This is giving people like Critical Drinker far more agency and credit than they deserve.  He simply does not have the power or influence to sink a film on his own.  At some point, a bad film is just a bad film and if people are not turning out to see it, it is not because Critical Drinker told them not to.

 

6 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Review bombing done based on a trailer is an effort to tank a film. It's laughable to me that people can't or won't take it for what it is. 

 

And you know this as fact?  Every thumbs down on a movie trailer is from someone deliberately trying to tank a film just for the laughs?  None of them cannot possibly be from anyone who just did not like the content?