Critiquing the Critics: Are they critiquing, criticizing, or just paid shills?

[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 May 17 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 May 17 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 May 17 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. 

 

 

 

 

[TTRPGWhiz]

47 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. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

Your own words. 

 

Lol yes, they are. What point do you think you’re making? 

[TTRPGWhiz]

17 minutes ago, battlewraith 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. 

This is not at all what’s being suggested. The point as it’s been expressed multiple titles has nothing, literally nothing to do with fake reviews. It has to do with whether or not REPUTABLE CRITICS writing for MAJOR OUTLETS have been bribed to write positive reviews. That is it. Everything else is a misreading of what has been written.

 

The entire reason this was even brought up was the suggestion that random internet critics aren’t great sources of information. The exact kind of random internet critics who did in fact receive bribes. These are not the same thing.

 

Some people have inferred that because a bunch of nobodies got paid for positive reviews, then the entire profession is suspect. But those people have not yet been able to produce any examples that prove their belief, so a belief is all it is. Then those people assume that if you don’t share that belief, you must believe that all critics are infallible. There is no in between; you can’t believe that internet randos and Owen Glieberman operate differently.

I can understand how it’s hard to follow the logic. Because there isn’t any.

Edited Saturday at 03:12 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

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.

 

So first, who cares if someone posts a picture and discusses their concerns about the film?  Who cares if Critical Drinker dumps on the movie?  How is that detracting from your enjoyment or not of a film?

 

Quote

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. 

 

As I read it, it was you kicking off the discussion berating Critical Drinker and other "shitty formulaic online grifters" as "hacks" because they don't like a film that you like.  All @ShardWarrior did was say that that there are shills on both sides of the fence, which is true.  It wasn't a defense of these "shitty formulaic online grifters".  Like it or not, there are critics charging for reviews.  Whether or not that means its being done with the express expectation of a favorable review I don't know, but at least to me, it does cast some doubt.  

 

Again, If you don't like the content online reviewers are posting, don't watch it.  It's that simple.  If other people want to listen to their garbage, let them go somewhere else.  As for the whole "legitimate sources" thing, what makes some media outlets "legitimate" and others not?  You and I may not like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic, but they've got millions of subscribers.  In some cases, they probably have a larger audience than some of these "legitimate" outlets.  I'm not sure what constitutes them being "illegitimate" other than you don't like them, and by you I mean people in general you, not you individually.  

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Lol yes, they are. What point do you think you’re making? 

 

That I didn't make anything up.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

This is not at all what’s being suggested. The point as it’s been expressed multiple titles has nothing, literally nothing to do with fake reviews. It has to do with whether or not REPUTABLE CRITICS writing for MAJOR OUTLETS have been bribed to write positive reviews. That is it. Everything else is a misreading of what has been written.

 

What makes some places "reputable" and "major outlets"?  Rottentomatoes is a "major outlet", and they've had issues in the past.  Whether those issues were about independent films or major studio releases is not really the point.  The point is stuff like what happened casts a shadow on them and the real "legitimate" people posting there.  

 

I'm curious, do you honestly believe that some of the writers for these "major outlets" aren't offered access to press junkets, exclusive actor interviews, advance screenings and such by the PR department of studios for a review?  Or is that just the normal flow of business?  I don't know that any of that is really a "bribe", but it does seem shady to me.  You may feel differently and that's ok too.

[TTRPGWhiz]

54 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

What makes some places "reputable" and "major outlets"?  Rottentomatoes is a "major outlet", and they've had issues in the past.  Whether those issues were about independent films or major studio releases is not really the point.  The point is stuff like what happened casts a shadow on them and the real "legitimate" people posting there.  

 

I'm curious, do you honestly believe that some of the writers for these "major outlets" aren't offered access to press junkets, exclusive actor interviews, advance screenings and such by the PR department of studios for a review?  Or is that just the normal flow of business?  I don't know that any of that is really a "bribe", but it does seem shady to me.  You may feel differently and that's ok too.

I've acknowledged multiple times that studios do shady stuff. What is the effect of early access, junkets, etc.? We can turn to one of the articles posted earlier. A ratings shift of half a star doesn’t scream “shining a turd” to me. And early access isn’t bribery to me, either. YMMV.

 

 

“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."

 

Edited Saturday at 06:01 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I've acknowledged multiple times that studios do shady stuff. What is the effect of early access, junkets, etc.? We can turn to one of the articles posted earlier. A ratings shift of half a star doesn’t scream “shining a turd” to me. And early access isn’t bribery to me, either. YMMV.

 

I agree and I don't know that what studios are doing to foster favorable reviews is moving the dial significantly in their favor.  Maybe it's just me, but I would think the risk of getting caught and the bad publicity would be enough of a deterrent.  With that said, I'll just say it wouldn't surprise me if shadier things are going on and while schmoozing critics may not be a "bribe", it does have a whiff of something not right.  Maybe it's just a cost of doing business in the industry.

 

2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz 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."

 

As I'm understanding it, this is what others have been saying.  Not that studios are engaged in widespread "bribes for good reviews" to distort "the truth", rather that people should exercise caution when reading online reviews.

 

You didn't answer - what makes one place a "major outlet" and others not? 

[battlewraith]

 

5 hours ago, Excraft said:

As for the whole "legitimate sources" thing, what makes some media outlets "legitimate" and others not?  You and I may not like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic, but they've got millions of subscribers.  In some cases, they probably have a larger audience than some of these "legitimate" outlets.  I'm not sure what constitutes them being "illegitimate" other than you don't like them, and by you I mean people in general you, not you individually.  

 

A legitimate critic brings a number of things to the table. They should have an understanding of filmmaking and film history. They should provide the reader or viewer with some basic information that informs the review (eg who is the director, what are they know for, etc.) They should try to be impartial--the point of a review is to evaluate a film, not unload the reviewer's baggage. They should offer an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad. Moreover, a critic should be upfront if they do actually have some kind of strong bias. For example, someone who hates slasher films should state that upfront, and try to get past that, if tasked with reviewing a slasher movie. 

 

If a reviewer's content is actively poisoning the well and situating things within a framework of established grievances--it's not criticism. It's propaganda. It may be pandering to a specific audience (ie a grift) or actually part of a political movement. 

[Excraft]

52 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

A legitimate critic brings a number of things to the table. They should have an understanding of filmmaking and film history. They should provide the reader or viewer with some basic information that informs the review (eg who is the director, what are they know for, etc.) They should try to be impartial--the point of a review is to evaluate a film, not unload the reviewer's baggage. They should offer an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad. Moreover, a critic should be upfront if they do actually have some kind of strong bias. For example, someone who hates slasher films should state that upfront, and try to get past that, if tasked with reviewing a slasher movie. 

 

Admittedly I haven't watched every single review Critical Drinker has given, but from what I've seen he's got an understanding of the film industry.  He also provides basic information that informs his review.  He certainly knows who directors/screenwriters/producers/studios are and what they're know for.  He does offer his critiques of films and discusses both the positive and negatives, at least in the few I've seen.  Whether he's impartial or not I guess is an opinion.  I don't watch enough of his content to say one way or the other.  He may not like certain filmmakers or studios or types of films, but that's nothing out of the ordinary.  Other "famous" critics didn't like certain kinds of films either.  Roger Ebert generally disliking sci-fi comes to mind.

 

58 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

If a reviewer's content is actively poisoning the well and situating things within a framework of established grievances--it's not criticism. It's propaganda. It may be pandering to a specific audience (ie a grift) or actually part of a political movement. 

 

What "well" is being poisoned?  I really don't think these handful of YouTubers have that much of an influence on movies that have flopped.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

What "well" is being poisoned?  I really don't think these handful of YouTubers have that much of an influence on movies that have flopped.

 

"Poisoning the well" in the philosophical or rhetorical sense of smearing something to discredit it prior to making an actual case for something. I keep defaulting to Thunderbolts because I've actually seen it recently. In the first 40 seconds of CD's review, for instance, he talks about feeling nothing about the film because its a bunch of C and D-list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc. He then asks "but is it really as bad as we expected?"

 

He can then spend the rest of the video pointing out "stupid things", mention a couple things he actually liked and then explain ultimately why it's another Marvel failure--posturing as reasonably disappointed after dismissing it completely in the opening of the video. That's a hack that's pandering, though judging by the comments for that video his followers didn't agree with him. 

 

I don't know if he and his cohort bear much responsibility for the failure of movies, but you were the one that pointed out that they have millions of subscribers. 

[Excraft]

20 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

In the first 40 seconds of CD's review, for instance, he talks about feeling nothing about the film because its a bunch of C and D-list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc.

 

Ok but the characters that are in the movie aren't "A-List" characters in the comics, nor were they "A-List" characters in the MCU films or series they appeared in either.  So for him to say that isn't inaccurate.

 

22 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

He can then spend the rest of the video pointing out "stupid things", mention a couple things he actually liked and then explain ultimately why it's another Marvel failure--posturing as reasonably disappointed after dismissing it completely in the opening of the video.

 

Going by your own criteria, this is what a film critic does.  He's pointing out things that worked for him and things that didn't.  He's offering an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad points. 

 

24 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

That's a hack that's pandering

 

Again, going by your own stated criteria, it sounds like a film critic doing what they do.  You can disagree with his opinion and that's perfectly fine.  I don't agree with a lot of what he says either and movies he's panned I've thought were ok. 

 

26 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I don't know if he and his cohort bear much responsibility for the failure of movies, but you were the one that pointed out that they have millions of subscribers. 

 

Well, you were the one who suggested "hacks" like him are "poisoning the well".  I only mentioned he has millions of subscribers in relation to asking what makes one source "legitimate/major" and others not.  Like I said earlier, he may have a larger audience than other "legitimate/major" outlets.  I don't think he can move the dial on the success or failure of a film with his reviews, so no amount of well poisoning on his end will affect anything. 

 

Why do you keep watching his content anyway if you dislike him?  Best thing you can do is stop watching his content and stop supporting his channel. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

13 hours ago, Excraft said:

You didn't answer - what makes one place a "major outlet" and others not? 

I don’t have a hard and fast definition for it. On one end of the spectrum, there’s legacy outlets like THR, Empire, EW, NYT, Chicago Sun-Times, Rolling Stone, etc. On the other end, there’s some random people with no press passes and a laptop. I’m sure you can see the difference. And I’m talking about the first cohort when I talk about “major outlets”.

The…I guess follower count? and readership of varying platforms and critics doesn’t particularly mean anything to me, and I don’t think that’s a very useful metric for deciding if something or someone is a legitimate source of critique. 
 

Metacritic has a whole methodology to its scoring that includes more heavily weighting the reviews of certain critics. Not sure what their formula is, but it is an indication that there are varying levels of credibility in the world.

 

Edited Sunday at 10:42 AM by TTRPGWhiz

[battlewraith]

7 hours ago, Excraft said:

Ok but the characters that are in the movie aren't "A-List" characters in the comics, nor were they "A-List" characters in the MCU films or series they appeared in either.  So for him to say that isn't inaccurate.

 

You glossed over the whole point of what I wrote. He poisons the well. It's not that he's wrong about C list characters being in the film. It's that he, right at the outset, explains how he has no enthusiasm for the film because if features C list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc. Before asking if it will be as bad as we expect.

 

He's pandering to his audience. He's reassuring them that he will crap on it for their entertainment. An actual critic won't do that because they are generally try to be as impartial as possible, so that the review will be useful to some general reader/viewer who does not have an axe to grind. For that kind of person, there's really no reason to watch the review past that first 40 seconds because he's clearly heavily biased. 

 

Why do I watch his content? I don't. But if he, and people like him, keep getting referenced in discussions like this I think some basic familiarity and pushback is warranted. Before this thread, I think the only review of his that I had seen all the way through was the Thor Ragnarok review where he described the film as "Thor getting his ass beat twice by girlbosses". That one seems to be gone now.

[TTRPGWhiz]

To put a finer point on it: there is an entire cottage industry of “movie critics” who review films through an “anti-woke” lens, and it is neither subtle nor unintentional. That is who they are, who they make content for, and how they market themselves. They aren’t here to critique movies just for quality; they’re also here to critique them for traces of “the agenda”, which is of course never really defined. Peppering reviews of superhero movies with phrases like “modern feminism” and “girl bosses” is just whistling for dogs.

[Excraft]

18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You glossed over the whole point of what I wrote. He poisons the well. It's not that he's wrong about C list characters being in the film. It's that he, right at the outset, explains how he has no enthusiasm for the film because if features C list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc. Before asking if it will be as bad as we expect.

 

Again, what well is being poisoned?  He's not spreading any misinformation by stating the Thunderbolts are C-List characters.  That's true.  As for him being negative in his opening line, you can go on any review site right now and look at tag lines from "legitimate" film critics that trash a movie they didn't like.  Just as an example, take a look here at Battlefield Earth on Rottentomatoes.  Alexander Walker of the London Standard - a "top critic" - has a one word review - "Appalling".  Aren't critics like him poisoning the well for this movie?

 

27 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

He's pandering to his audience. He's reassuring them that he will crap on it for their entertainment. An actual critic won't do that because they are generally try to be as impartial as possible, so that the review will be useful to some general reader/viewer who does not have an axe to grind. For that kind of person, there's really no reason to watch the review past that first 40 seconds because he's clearly heavily biased. 

 

According to you, comments on his videos reflect his viewers disagree with him, so it would seem his viewers don't have axes to grind.  Has Critical Drinker "crapped" on every single film or TV show he's ever done?  I'm guessing no.

 

29 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Why do I watch his content? I don't. But if he, and people like him, keep getting referenced in discussions like this I think some basic familiarity and pushback is warranted. Before this thread, I think the only review of his that I had seen all the way through was the Thor Ragnarok review where he described the film as "Thor getting his ass beat twice by girlbosses". That one seems to be gone now.

 

You say you don't watch his content, but you seem to know quite a lot about what he says in several reviews he's posted.  Seems to me you're watching his content.  Again, if you don't like him, don't support him by watching his content.  I've no objection to you providing your opinion on him.  I don't necessarily disagree with you that he's got his schtick, but that's his thing.  I do think you're holding him to a different standard than other critics.