Social Black Panther (War Room Discussion)

[MicroBrew]

That's a good point but IMO once you've seen like two or three of these films the rest feel far too familiar. I thought The Avengers and the first two Iron Man films were okay in the sense that despite their samey feel they executed their premise well. But those films have little to no replay value to me and furthermore the subsequent Marvel films feel far too familiar for me to even enjoy them on the first watch. I just find it odd that these movies get like an average rating 8< and have over 95% pretty consistently and if you read the consensus they often are glowing reviews of the film, not tepid endorsements because they barely passed the bar.

Saw 1st IronMan , and part of 2 and none of 3. It's corny , with its action and realism paralleling TV series like A-team and Knight Rider. I did love the A-Team and Knight Rider as a kid, but as an adult it looks silly, but it isn't meant for adults. IronMan comes across as the same, a movie meant for kids.

 

[Islam Imamate]

But you haven't explained why critics should agree with you for a reason that's not pretentious, that was what I was asking for. You clearly state your own opinion as fact here, and then judge other people's opinions based on that. Your opinions about films are neither right nor wrong, and it's the same with everyone else's, so why should they necessarily line up or be described as good or bad?

As an example, my reaction when critics think differently about a film than I do I just go "OK, we think differently about that" and move on. I don't see any need to try to make my opinion out to be the right one, I'm secure enough about them, and I don't see the reason to get annoyed that people like different things.

In the end they are just films. Not exactly of similar value to society as exploits in science, medicine, etc, nor a sign of intellectual worth in the viewer.

Its not that I necessarily want critics to agree with me, its that I used to like using RT as a shortcut in deciding whether or not to see a film. The point of critics is to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff but increasingly I feel RT is not really useful for that anymore because all of these big blockbusters get ridiculously high scores. To be fair when a movie is truly awful they will pick up on it but if its not Paul Blart bad and its a big blockbuster its almost guaranteed to get at least over 85%. As long as the movie isn't total garbage it can be hard to tell between the okay films and the truly great films even using the average rating with RT.

So my problem is that I feel these critics are sort of failing me in that they're not really useful in pointing me in the direction of quality films and just get swept up in the hype of these blockbusters. I understand that for the average film goer, enjoy BP or Civil War or whatever, but I expect critics to be a little more attentive to detail and a little bit pickier.

I think people forget that aspect of Rotten Tomatoes, that the score isn't a rating of the underlying film's quality. Only what percentage of critics gave it a positive rating, even if that rating is 6/10. So, a Boise Dime would get the same Rotten Tomato score as a supermodel.

Oh I know that which is why I often also peep the average rating, which for these movies is still pretty high (8<).

Thing is I still find it odd that so many enjoy these films when these critics seem harsher elsewhere. When I went to see Civil War almost no one I went to see it with liked it. And yet its got over a 90% on RT. BP has 100% with the top critics, is there really not a single top critic that didn't like this film?

Just seems to me a bit of a coincidence that these huge billion dollars movies pretty consistently get these very high scores when they're not very impressive technically, to the point of being boring to me.

Saw 1st IronMan , and part of 2 and none of 3. It's corny , with its action and realism paralleling TV series like A-team and Knight Rider. I did love the A-Team and Knight Rider as a kid, but as an adult it looks silly, but it isn't meant for adults. Iron Man comes across as the same, a movie meant for kids.

Personally I liked the villains in those films and RDJ's Iron Man was still sort of fresh. But I get what you mean and I see it too, which is why I said they were okay on the first watch but have little to no replay value.

Jurassic Park is a film I enjoyed watching as a kid numerous times and yet when I grew up and saw it again as an adult it was like a different experience and that's because the film is so impressive on many levels that I was able to pick up on more stuff that I couldn't as a kid. There isn't that kind of depth to these capeshit films, you see them once you basically see what there is to see in them.

 

[Bloodworth]

You said that Americans perfect everything, they Americanize it. Does that you that you dislike Americans perfecting everything? I know you're going to think I'm being a dick but I'm seriously just trying to understand the logic here.

Americans perfect everything. Americans Americanize things. American things are great. <--- All statements you made.

Followed by: You hate change.

I don't understand how you can hate change or enjoy tradition or whatever and then claim that the results of Americans changing things is great.

I was stating what Americans do, not my personal likes?

That's not clear

I didint say I like that Americans perfect everything ,,,,even though i do reap the benefits .

Sometimes commercializing things is not good

 

[panamaican]

Oh I know that which is why I often also peep the average rating, which for these movies is still pretty high (8<).

Thing is I still find it odd that so many enjoy these films when these critics seem harsher elsewhere. When I went to see Civil War almost no one I went to see it with liked it. And yet its got over a 90% on RT. BP has 100% with the top critics, is there really not a single top critic that didn't like this film?

Just seems to me a bit of a coincidence that these huge billion dollars movies pretty consistently get these very high scores when they're not very impressive technically, to the point of being boring to me.

I don't see how anyone could dislike the movie. As @Quipling also noted, there's a huge difference between disliking a movie and thinking it's just average.

I watch plenty of average movies that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. I see very few movies that I actually dislike and think "Why the hell would anyone greenlight that garbage and why didn't it go straight to dvd?" And big budget movies might be average and not original and uninspiring but they're rarely "bad". The point of spending all of that money is to specifically avoid "bad".

 

[panamaican]

I was stating what Americans do, not my personal likes?

That's not clear

I didint say I like that Americans perfect everything ,,,,even though i do reap the benefits .

Sometimes commercializing things is not good

So "Same reason why American food, drugs, music and women are so great." isn't your personal opinion on those things?

 

[Bloodworth]

So "Same reason why American food, drugs, music and women are so great." isn't your personal opinion on those things?

It's a fact , best music, movies, drugs, food, sports, Medicine , technology.

 

[panamaican]

It's a fact , best music, movies, drugs, food, sports, Medicine , technology.

Oh, I see.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't see how anyone could dislike the movie. As @Quipling also noted, there's a huge difference between disliking a movie and thinking it's just average.

I watch plenty of average movies that I wouldn't recommend to anyone. I see very few movies that I actually dislike and think "Why the hell would anyone greenlight that garbage and why didn't it go straight to dvd?" And big budget movies might be average and not original and uninspiring but they're rarely "bad". The point of spending all of that money is to specifically avoid "bad".

That's fine for you, you're the average film goer I was talking about. But I'd expect critics to be less impressed with films based almost entirely on basic shot, reverse shot dialogue and muddied action scenes regardless of how expensive the explosions are.

 

[Bloodworth]

Oh, I see.

Why do you think everyone in the world tries to get there ?

 

[panamaican]

That's fine for you, you're the average film goer I was talking about. But I'd expect critics to be less impressed with films based almost entirely on basic shot, reverse shot dialogue and muddied action scenes regardless of how expensive the explosions are.

But critics are writing to the average film goer. That's their audience - will the average film goer dislike this film.

And I'm not your average filmgoer, I pay attention to the cinematography, the story, the lighting, the pacing, etc. I simply recognize the difference between caring about the technical details of great film vs. the entertainment value of something. Things can entertain without being great. And things can be great without being entertaining.

If you're reading reviews aimed at the general audience but expecting reviews aimed at film majors, you're reading the wrong reviews. You definitely shouldn't be on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[panamaican]

Why do you think everyone in the world tries to get there ?

I don't think everyone in the world tries to get there. But I recognize that you confuse opinion for fact and so a conversation predicated on holding conflicting opinions isn't really going to go anywhere.

 

[irish_thug]

I agree, the biker gang subculture is definitely very toxic and that lifestyle should not be glorified

I agree.
Too many weekend warrior wannabes as it is.

 

[Islam Imamate]

But critics are writing to the average film goer. That's their audience - will the average film goer dislike this film.

And I'm not your average filmgoer, I pay attention to the cinematography, the story, the lighting, the pacing, etc. I simply recognize the difference between caring about the technical details of great film vs. the entertainment value of something. Things can entertain without being great. And things can be great without being entertaining.

If you're reading reviews aimed at the general audience but expecting reviews aimed at film majors, you're reading the wrong reviews. You definitely shouldn't be on Rotten Tomatoes.

For me, the technical details of the film are highly correlated with the entertainment value.And when I look for reviews I'd like to see the technical aspect given more weight. But as long as the movie isn't compelte garbage it gets a 95% which, as I said earlier, makes it harder for me to sue RT as a resource to seperate the wehat from the chaff.

But yes, RT is for the general public. Still, the reviews of these films, or at least the consensus, still seem to hype up these movies more than they deserve IMO. Let's take the Civil War consensus

Captain America: Civil War begins the next wave of Marvel movies with an action-packed superhero blockbuster boasting a decidedly non-cartoonish plot and the courage to explore thought-provoking themes.

The themes were dealt with in such a heavy handed way and the characters felt so thin. I was actually hyped to see the film based off the review and then was so disappointed.

 

[panamaican]

For me, the technical details of the film are highly correlated with the entertainment value.And when I look for reviews I'd like to see the technical aspect given more weight. But as long as the movie isn't compelte garbage it gets a 95% which, as I said earlier, makes it harder for me to sue RT as a resource to seperate the wehat from the chaff.

But yes, RT is for the general public. Still, the reviews of these films, or at least the consensus, still seem to hype up these movies more than they deserve IMO. Let's take the Civil War consensus



The themes were dealt with in such a heavy handed way and the characters felt so thin. I was actually hyped to see the film based off the review and then was so disappointed.

Maybe you're just a movie snob. No insult intended.

Like those people who won't drink coffee unless the beans were sourced from some exotic locale and prepared just the right way, etc. And when you say "I'm going to Starbucks", they look at you like you shitted in their mouth. Those people simply don't enjoy the same level of enjoyment as the masses.

Which is perfectly fine...as long as they remember that they are the exception, not the masses.

 

[Squarechoke]

Its not that I necessarily want critics to agree with me, its that I used to like using RT as a shortcut in deciding whether or not to see a film. The point of critics is to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff but increasingly I feel RT is not really useful for that anymore because all of these big blockbusters get ridiculously high scores. To be fair when a movie is truly awful they will pick up on it but if its not Paul Blart bad and its a big blockbuster its almost guaranteed to get at least over 85%. As long as the movie isn't total garbage it can be hard to tell between the okay films and the truly great films even using the average rating with RT.

So my problem is that I feel these critics are sort of failing me in that they're not really useful in pointing me in the direction of quality films and just get swept up in the hype of these blockbusters. I understand that for the average film goer, enjoy BP or Civil War or whatever, but I expect critics to be a little more attentive to detail and a little bit pickier.

From my point of view I think it's better to look at some individual critics if you want that level of detail. A high tomato score after all only means that it's a widely pleasing film among critics, RT isn't really good at saying anything about specific qualities. For that no score or rating will be very good, I think you need to go to text for those aspects.

I don't tend to think that critics should be anything special either, the worth of them as guides has always been about first establishing how your tastes align with theirs. Personally I think the good superhero films generally stack up decently well in the action genre and what that does, but my taste in comedy tend to differ a bit from RT critics instead as most American comedies don't fit me very well (although the Cohen brothers have made a couple of my favorites). I don't think they should be pickier regarding that though, I just think we have different tastes and I take that into account if I look at a review.

 

[Bay Area]

I actually had a feeling this would happen and i do think it's good but i hope this gives a sense of pride to the african-american community more because i think they could use a good dose of pride in their culture.

Or real history can be taught in schools, instead of this white washed garbage and lies that black history began with slavery and ends with Barack Obama...and prior to this we were in the jungles. Lol at getting pride from a comic book

 

[Islam Imamate]

Maybe you're just a movie snob. No insult intended.

Like those people who won't drink coffee unless the beans were sourced from some exotic locale and prepared just the right way, etc. And when you say "I'm going to Starbucks", they look at you like you shitted in their mouth. Those people simply don't enjoy the same level of enjoyment as the masses.

Which is perfectly fine...as long as they remember that they are the exception, not the masses.

Maybe I am a bit of a snob but in my defense I'm not entirely above enjoying a blockbuster film. I did like The Avengers. The fact that Marvel was able to tie in all these different heroes who each had their own film into a huge team film was something that hadn't been done before and I had to admit I was impressed by it. But as a film on its own its not that technically impressive so its not really a case of good film-making as much as a case of excellent studio management.

All that said, I understand that film getting the hype it got. But don't people get bored of this shit after a while? If I'm going to shell out a dozen bucks to see a film I really don't want to see a slight variation on a film experience I've already seen multiple times.

From my point of view I think it's better to look at some individual critics if you want that level of detail. A high tomato score after all only means that it's a widely pleasing film among critics, RT isn't really good at saying anything about specific qualities. For that no score or rating will be very good, I think you need to go to text for those aspects.

I don't tend to think that critics should be anything special either, the worth of them as guides has always been about first establishing how your tastes align with theirs. Personally I think the good superhero films generally stack up decently well in the action genre and what that does, but my taste in comedy tend to differ a bit from RT critics instead as most American comedies don't fit me very well (although the Cohen brothers have made a couple of my favorites). I don't think they should be pickier regarding that though, I just think we have different tastes and I take that into account if I look at a review.

You're right that I should listen to specific critics and that is what I do nowadays. I used to use RT as a good guide but over the last few years its failed me. One thing I do to vet a critic is look up their reviews for films I really liked and films I didn't like at all and see if their taste aligns with mine. If so then I feel I can rely on them.

I like Half in the Bag for instance, @hillelslovak87 knows what I'm talking about.

 

[panamaican]

Maybe I am a bit of a snob but in my defense I'm not entirely above enjoying a blockbuster film. I did like The Avengers. The fact that Marvel was able to tie in all these different heroes who each had their own film into a huge team film was something that hadn't been done before and I had to admit I was impressed by it. But as a film on its own its not that technically impressive so its not really a case of good film-making as much as a case of excellent studio management.

All that said, I understand that film getting the hype it got. But don't people get bored of this shit after a while? If I'm going to shell out a dozen bucks to see a film I really don't want to see a slight variation on a film experience I've already seen multiple times.

No. Black Panther the character has been around since 1960-something. Same with the Avengers and the X-Men. If people grew tired of these characters and these types of stories, comic books as a medium would have ended them already.

My brother made a salient point when we were talking about music. I was bitching about rehashed musical themes in pop music. He pointed out that it's always new for someone else. Why would they bored of something, just because you are.

Fleming debuted James Bond decades ago - people still like James Bond movies.

Here's the kicker - while you're fixated on the technical details of the film making, you're disregarding all of the other aspects of film that might draw people to it. For some, they are fascinated by the various types of superhero comparing and contrasting the powers and abilities of the figures. For others, they are drawn to the nostalgic elements. For some, they are interested in the film representation of a print medium.

And so the presentation of Black Panther is actually extremely different from the presentation of Thor. Different characters, different histories and the interest in seeing their film representation wouldn't be diminished because the technical crafting of the film is poor so long as the representations strike the right tone, rekindle the right nostalgia, retell the correct stories.

 

[cincymma79]

Yup. That's why I find RT almost useless.

Usually critics acclaim means it sucks

 

[Byron Carter]