Ironheart Trailer

[battlewraith]

37 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

Well, he has around 2 million subscribers on youtube. "People like him" probably range from similar youtube commentators to something like the entertainment wing of the Daily Wire. So is that enough to have an impact on a film's performance? Maybe? I think the effect is actually more corrosive on production. Studios don't know which "fans" they should be listening to. So they ignore fans in general or invest in directors/producers/etc. that they think have nerd clout like James Gunn, Zack Snyder, etc. which can pose it's own set of problems. 

 

Regardless, increasingly people are not turning out to see movies. It might be a good film. It might be an ok film. It might be a bad film. But rest assured the outrage peddlers will be there with there litany of complaints about the industry and why "the fans" knew the film was garbage.

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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?

 

Lol no I don't think it's people trying to do it for laughs. These are people that are aggrieved that studies are not catering to them. 

Do I know that for a fact? No, but it compellingly explains the bizarre behavior of negatively rating ads for properties in which you have no interest. 

[ShardWarrior]

So allow me to be clear, I do not care for YouTubers like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic either.  I find their schtick formulaic.  Having watched films that they completely pandered,  I personally find them not to be as bad as they claim they are.  Having recently watch CA:  BNW, I did not find it to be a very good movie and it is very clear it suffered from extensive story edits, but I did not find it to be anywhere near as bad as critics like Critical Drinker made it out to be.  They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but I disagree with the degree of it.  I certainly will not allow them to be the arbiter of whether or not I will watch a film or TV show.

[Ghost]

18 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

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

How do you view people posting positive reviews *before even seeing the product*.

Would that be considered toxic?

 

For every Critical Drinker going on and on about how bad everything Marvel is, there’s a ComicBookCast going on and on about how great everything Marvel is.

Are they not one in the same?

[Mopery]

This seems less like a discussion than it is an advertisement for a certain YT creator...

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Ghost said:

For every Critical Drinker going on and on about how bad everything Marvel is, there’s a ComicBookCast going on and on about how great everything Marvel is.

Are they not one in the same?

 

Nope. Not even close. 

A shill is supporting the industry, trying to get as many people as possible to watch a film. As flawed as the industry is, it's a platform for a multitude of creative endeavors--writing, acting, directing, art, music, etc. Even a bad film is likely to shine in some respect and others may get a reappraisal after they have failed at the box office. Regardless of motivation, a shill is generally pro art. 

 

A grifter follows an ideological script to crap on things for clicks. 

 

[Ghost]

24 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

Nope. Not even close. 

A shill is supporting the industry, trying to get as many people as possible to watch a film. As flawed as the industry is, it's a platform for a multitude of creative endeavors--writing, acting, directing, art, music, etc. Even a bad film is likely to shine in some respect and others may get a reappraisal after they have failed at the box office. Regardless of motivation, a shill is generally pro art. 

 

A grifter follows an ideological script to crap on things for clicks. 

 

It really sounds like an “I agree with it, therefore it’s good” argument.

 

Both are giving phony or preconceived reviews/opinions based on how they can get the most clicks/views/money.

 

I don’t know how you could justify one, and complain about the other.

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

It really sounds like an “I agree with it, therefore it’s good” argument.

 

Both are giving phony or preconceived reviews/opinions based on how they can get the most clicks/views/money.

 

That's exactly what it is.  

 

There's a specific thread to talk about this stuff, so maybe you all could move this conversation there?  Leave this thread for the discussion of Ironheart as we were asked to do.

[Ghost]

26 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

That's exactly what it is.  

 

There's a specific thread to talk about this stuff, so maybe you all could move this conversation there?  Leave this thread for the discussion of Ironheart as we were asked to do.

 

[TTRPGWhiz]

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

 

That's exactly what it is.  

 

There's a specific thread to talk about this stuff, so maybe you all could move this conversation there?  Leave this thread for the discussion of Ironheart as we were asked to do.

Yeah folks should go over there and read just the first and last post.  😂

[El D]

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

 

That's exactly what it is.  

 

There's a specific thread to talk about this stuff, so maybe you all could move this conversation there?  Leave this thread for the discussion of Ironheart as we were asked to do.

 

Easier said than done when some posters' ideas of engagement in these discussion threads is to quote the same odious critic's repetitive talking points. Seemingly every time there's a comic book thread made. Makes it a bit hard to have discussion about a piece of media when some participants' only contribution is to dismiss said media entirely via a second-hand opinion from someone whose commentary they know is incredibly polarizing.

 

Regarding Ironheart - having now seen the first three episodes (thank you, day off from work), I think they have a solid start. The show gets the plot moving and motivations going pretty quickly, the practical effects are great (and emphasize the differences in the Ironheart suit vs Tony's), and Riri having to McGuyver the high-tech results from less than ideal resources is a fun way to showcase her intelligence/capabilities as well as her circumstances. It hits on a lot of the ideas from the Iron Man films and also has a sort of Sam Rami Spider-Man/Spider-Man: Homecoming vibe to it as well. The young prodigy hero wants to do good and accomplish great things but life - both superheroic and social - just keeps throwing curve balls. The idea of succession & plagiarism is actually present as a theme of the show too, with some characters saying Riri 'isn't living up to the legacy of Tony Stark' so the set-up for her forging her own identity via inspiration from him is pretty front and center. Other characters delve into that too, though I won't get into spoilers. Also Eric Andre is as funny as I expected him to be, which is always a plus.

 

I understand why this show might not be some fans' particular cup of tea, but it was enjoyable and snappy enough to keep me entertained. Also we've finally gotten to the point where the MCU is fully embracing its own overarching, interconnected setting (which they could have done a lot more with the prior phase) so it feels a bit like catch-up/reminders at times, but also they're making something new with it at the same time. I'm curious to see where it goes, and at minimum wherever that is can't possibly be worse than Thor: Love & Thunder.

Edited 7 hours ago by El D

[BrandX]

5 hours ago, El D said:

 

Easier said than done when some posters' ideas of engagement in these discussion threads is to quote the same odious critic's repetitive talking points. Seemingly every time there's a comic book thread made. Makes it a bit hard to have discussion about a piece of media when some participants' only contribution is to dismiss said media entirely via a second-hand opinion from someone whose commentary they know is incredibly polarizing.

 

Regarding Ironheart - having now seen the first three episodes (thank you, day off from work), I think they have a solid start. The show gets the plot moving and motivations going pretty quickly, the practical effects are great (and emphasize the differences in the Ironheart suit vs Tony's), and Riri having to McGuyver the high-tech results from less than ideal resources is a fun way to showcase her intelligence/capabilities as well as her circumstances. It hits on a lot of the ideas from the Iron Man films and also has a sort of Sam Rami Spider-Man/Spider-Man: Homecoming vibe to it as well. The young prodigy hero wants to do good and accomplish great things but life - both superheroic and social - just keeps throwing curve balls. The idea of succession & plagiarism is actually present as a theme of the show too, with some characters saying Riri 'isn't living up to the legacy of Tony Stark' so the set-up for her forging her own identity via inspiration from him is pretty front and center. Other characters delve into that too, though I won't get into spoilers. Also Eric Andre is as funny as I expected him to be, which is always a plus.

 

I understand why this show might not be some fans' particular cup of tea, but it was enjoyable and snappy enough to keep me entertained. Also we've finally gotten to the point where the MCU is fully embracing its own overarching, interconnected setting (which they could have done a lot more with the prior phase) so it feels a bit like catch-up/reminders at times, but also they're making something new with it at the same time. I'm curious to see where it goes, and at minimum wherever that is can't possibly be worse than Thor: Love & Thunder.

 

And that's the part I gotta disagree with.  Social issues is not thrown in her way.  She's thrown in her way.  She tries to make it about money, but she's a genius, who any company would hire and give her exactly what she needs to build what she says she wants to build.  Her social issues of not being a billionaire to fund her projects, is on her.  She'd get the grants to build those armors easily.  It's a false "Oh...but I grew up the way I did!" issue.  

 

She doesn't even say, "Well, I want to own it all and not share it with anyone."  Her whole thing was "I want to give this armor to the world!"  Which, you know, genius Tony Stark knew was a bad idea.  And her way to deal with it...become a criminal.

 

It might make for interesting character, but someone needs to call her out on it.  😛