Hypocrisy and tokenism at its best
5 years ago by blahzzz · 217 Likes · 22 comments · Trending
Report
Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 5 years ago
· FIRST
I’m going to call shenanigans on that. Firstly- it isn’t uncommon for superhero or fantasy flicks to score high with audiences and low with critics. Venom being one recent example, but there are many more. It isn’t even that uncommon for critically acclaimed movies- ESPECIALLY smaller releases to score low marks with critics- and high grossing films to score low with critics. Even with the Cohen bros who audiences and critics aren’t that far off on their scores wether they love or hate their films- with the exception of a handful including “Hail Caesar” which critics love and audience hate. Even “bright” which was crammed with “PC” messages and such- critic and audience scores vary greatly with critics generally hating it.
3
·
Edited 5 years ago
guest_
· 5 years ago
Now- here is a fact many seem not to know. Many critics don’t review a film based on how much they think you might enjoy it, how fun it is etc. They tend to be educated in film. They tend to have watched many works spanning many generations, foreign films and indie films and films you can’t even see online or in physical media.
2
·
Edited 5 years ago
guest_
· 5 years ago
However exciting or good XYZ film might be- a major factor in critics reviews are how original a film is. Now- many people love joker. Many will take offense to this. But it’s taxi driver. It’s a million films already done. It has some different plot points, great actors and a budget. It’s new to many who didn’t already see those other movies. It’s a new take on the joker character but not a new character archetype. The themes and everything else may be placed in big budget hands and polished, updated for modern tastes and audiences and relevance- but “sad man with tough life beaten by society and slipping into antisocial rage” is not anything new.
4
Show All
guest_
· 5 years ago
The problem with “new” is that well- there is a reason that we see certain styles, writing, cinematography, symbolism, camera angles and tricks and shots and wipes or transitions and trends on sound tracks and sound effects, blocking, choreography, cliches, tropes, conventions etc.
guest_
· 5 years ago
Firstly- they work. They are good. Anyone can cook a dish most people have never tasted- but will it be GOOD? Usually there are reasons people don’t put certain things together etc with food right? So sometimes a Cook figures out ways to do that well- other times it is gross or confusing, and usually a cook in the comfort zone will stick to what is known to work. Mc Donald’s sells more burgers than whatever the best burger you’ve ever had is. They hit the boxes the most people will like. They stick to the familiar- and many people don’t want to be “challenged” or struggle through an experience. They want maybe a surprise or two and lots of the familiar.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
They want the story and details a certain way. When a franchise defies fan expectations it usually ends badly. Taking away Superman’s cape or the x men without their costumes is enough to seriously hurt a movie. We are trained in film for certain pacing and certain cues and structure etc. the more “block buster” a movie is usually meant to be- the more we can usually compare it shot for shot to other films like it.
guest_
· 5 years ago
So is the Joker targeted by some hypocritical conspiracy? Is Batwoman or whatever being artificially boosted? Where money is concerned maybe. But the more reasonable and likely explanation is that critics liked one more than the other because it was more technically enjoyable and interesting for people who can predict where “softball” “easily digested” writing is going.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
Perhaps the “freshness” of the property helps too. If you notice a pattern of certain movies that use “PC” casting getting higher critic scores- did you stop to think about the fact by default those movies and those characters have been seen far less and hence would inherently bring something new?
guest_
· 5 years ago
How many MCU movies are there? Ok. How many of them are dedicated films to a female hero? Ok. How many have the central plot line of the film, the primary drama and heroics- centered on a female character? How may marvel movies or marvel character movies have been made ever? How many of those... you get the point.
guest_
· 5 years ago
We’ve seen Spider-Man get big screen reboots or variants at least 4 times in the last couple decades. We finally got a big screen lady spider as a supporting character in Spiderverse- but no one said between the films and cartoons that maybe instead of seeing uncle Ben for again or a dude get bit by a spider AGAIN maybe the female character with the near same powers in the same city could get a swing?
guest_
· 5 years ago
Both main female characters in guardians are... sexy assassins/body guards? And the main female through the entire main MCU is a... sexy assassin/body guard? Ok. Well guardians does have the emotionally vulnerable psionic power female. Oh. The other main female in the MCU is an emotionally vulnerable woman with psionic powers? Huh. Then there’s... Tony Starks Mother/Secretary/Love interest who shows up when needed... ummm... The wasp, who... does the same thing with ant man. And... a series of female warrior bad asses who pop in and out of Thor’s sphere without much ado.
guest_
· 5 years ago
Oh! And of course Black Panthers sexy female assassin/body- oh. Well anyway.... so far asides from Wonder-woman- DC has managed to do pretty terribly in that department too. More so even. So I mean- maybe critics do give just a little higher rating when they see a film that has a main character that is something out of the norm... like.. a woman who can’t be interchanged for a male character with almost no notice- or a a mop. I dunnoh.
thatguyyouknow
· 5 years ago
So much writing
6
guest_
· 5 years ago
Yeah. I do that.
guest_
· 5 years ago
Tl:dr- critics and audiences often disagree by great amounts on many films. A lot has to do with the way critics who are often educated and experienced experts view films vs. someone else. A world class chef isn’t likely to give McDonald’s a 5 star rating compared to the best restaurant they’ve ever tried even if McDonald’s serves more food. It’s less likely some conspiracy against joker and more likely the bat movie had things they hadn’t seen, and or was more technically done. The themes and overall plot of the joker has been done a bunch of times.
guest_
· 5 years ago
*that doesn’t mean it is a bad movie. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t freshen some stuff up or have some fine work in it. That just means it isn’t something critics might feel need seen again if you’ve seen any of the 100 similar movies. If you like this movie that’s good for you. It has a good audience score. Many average people liked it. Critics say it isn’t particularly novel or some great achievement in film history.
cryoenthusiast
· 5 years ago
all i know is that critics don't rate the same way an audience does, and i don't watch movies with a critical eye
1
pripyatplatypus
· 5 years ago
Also, metacritic weighs different critics and publications differently. The New York Times and Roger Ebert website will get more weight than the Podunk Times of Possum Ridge, Arkansas. And, ya know, weird fan boys review bomb websites all the time.
1
jokur_and_batmon
· 5 years ago
Has anyone seen batwoman yet? I wonder if it was actually terrible or that thing where the internet downvotes every female superhero is happening
▼
thatguyyouknow
· 5 years ago
For a start, batwoman isn't a superhero
▼
jokur_and_batmon
· 5 years ago
You know what I mean. Like 80% of female leads in comic based movies get massive loads of shit for the littlest things
▼
meeptacular
· 5 years ago
Regardless of what side people come down on this, are we really gonna bitch and moan over a four points difference that's decided by a real human person with individual thoughts and opinions? Don't like a critics opinion, find a different critic
·
Edited 5 years ago
