All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 27

[ConnorKon-El]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I know who the critic is, and it's an actual person who writes for a major film site who Pony Boy is referring to. That being said, who cares? Why does it bother anybody either way?

I hope that the section of the SHH that I moderate doesn't lower themselves to the actions I find in other sections of The Hype where every negative review is just "wrong" and the writers are "stupid". On the other side every positive review is "right on the money" and the writers should "win an award".

There are going to be negative reviews and there are going to be positive reviews. It's not going to score 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. There will be posters that will love it and some will hate it, why does that mean either side of the fence is right or wrong?

Henry Cavill isn't an Academy Award winner automatically just because he is putting on a Superman suit, and he doesn't have to be. He just has to be Superman to whomever the individual is watching him in the role.

It would be nice if we could find the middle between the "No Way, Cavill Is The Best!" and the "Cavill Is Awful!". I'm not saying you can't actually have those opinions, but you could also try to understand why "the opposition" feels that way and accept it.

Spill the details NOW !!!

Lol jk

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by king666

"This movie is grim and jammed together. The narrative isn't shaped coherently to bring out contrasts and build toward a satisfying climax. The Dark Knight is constant climax; it's always in a frenzy, and it goes on forever." Pro critic talking about The Dark Knight.

"The light, amusing bits cannot overcome the grinding, hectic emptiness, the bloated cynicism that is less a shortcoming of this particular film than a feature of the genre." Pro critic talking about The Avengers.

"The movie's first half is talky bordering on tiresome -- endlessly rehashing the same mix of frustrated puppy love, survivor guilt, and identity crisis." Pro critic talking about Spider-Man 2.

I'm no pro-critic but this is what I said about The Amazing Spider-Man, a movie I didn't hate.

Andrew Garfield is more than solid as Peter Parker bringing an edge to the character even though his skateboarding shenanigans scream more 90's Bart Simpson than modern superhero in the making.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by HankTheTurtle

That really doesn't mean much. I'm actually more likely to write it off because of that. "Professional" critics can be pretty snooty at times. She could have been being overly critical. Some critics go into certain movies just looking to pick them apart.

Exactly. Who cares what the critic says either way. Thank you.

Instead of spending page after page finding ways to discredit Pony Boy, who runs a website and actually has sources, just chalk it up to one critics opinion? That makes more sense to me.

[sup101]

Pacific Rim screening was 2weeks ago and everybody that went to the screening jump on twitter and gave their reactions to the movie.
MOS, one of the most anticipated flims of the year gets a screening and nobody can't come out and say a word.Do this critic have a twitter or a facebook page.We need to find out if this tru.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by sup101

Pacific Rim screening was 2weeks ago and everybody that went to the screening jump on twitter and gave their reactions to the movie.MOS, one of the most anticipated flims of the year gets a screening and nobody can't come out and say a word.Do this critic have a twitter or a facebook page.We need to find out if this tru.

There is an embargo on Man Of Steel until day before or day of at the moment. Not the case at the time with Pacific Rim, I believe they encouraged the buzz.

[STARMAN]

Usually they tweet stuff like: I just saw MOS last night and it was awesome, etc. Cavill is amazing, etc. That hasn't happened yet.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by STARMAN

Usually they tweet stuff like: I just saw MOS last night and it was awesome, etc. Cavill is amazing, etc. That hasn't happened yet.

Right. Embargo.

I've received screening invitations from publicists/studios where it specifically says "Do not discuss film on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook." This is a week or two before the film, nevermind 4 months.

[Glassjaw]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Yes. That happens sometimes depending on the critic and who they know within the studio or production.

Ahh okay, I was just intrigued about that part, as surely showing a film to critics so far in advance runs the risk of having a negative effect on the films publicity or word of mouth on the run up to release should that particular film be a stinker.

Does the fact that WB are screening it to critics like this suggest they're really confident in this film? Or is it really standard practice regardless of quality.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Glassjaw

Ahh okay, I was just intrigued about that part, as surely showing a film to critics so far in advance runs the risk of having a negative effect on the films publicity or word of mouth on the run up to release should that particular film be a stinker.

Does the fact that WB are screening it to critics like this suggest they're really confident in this film? Or is it really standard practice regardless of quality.

I'm betting that wasn't the ONLY critic there.

Depends, sometimes it means they are really geeked up about it and they want to create an industry buzz and other times they are nervous and want to see what the reactions are so they can prepare the marketing for the general public.

[STARMAN]

It sounds like there was only one critic there. I don't know what type of screening this is. There are test screenings. There are advance screenings. We know they had a screening on Feb 13 because a guy from Double Negative tweeted about it.

[STARMAN]

Yeah. Come to think of it. There may have only been one critic this guy talk to but several other critics there.

[HankTheTurtle]

Originally Posted by Glassjaw

Ahh okay, I was just intrigued about that part, as surely showing a film to critics so far in advance runs the risk of having a negative effect on the films publicity or word of mouth on the run up to release should that particular film be a stinker.

Does the fact that WB are screening it to critics like this suggest they're really confident in this film? Or is it really standard practice regardless of quality.

They weren't screening for critics. It sounds like it was a screening mostly for people who worked on the film in some capacity and their friends and family. The one critic mentioned just happened to have a connection.

[DKDetective]

Originally Posted by Kal-El.9859

I've been saying for the longest time the WB and DC need to distance themselves from one another. DC needs to have their own studio and make their own films and not let WB run them into the ground any more

I don't think that would fix anything. What do comic book people know about making movies? I believe Geoff Johns was heavily involved in the making of Green Lantern. Also, I think going the Marvel route would discourage the making of truly great films like Nolan's better efforts with Batman. As big as the Avengers was, in my opinion, it was just a comic book movie, it didn't transcend the genre or have great depth to it. It was an unabashed popcorn thrill ride that embraced its genre status and was highly enjoyable as a result. But it wasn't much more than that. Sure, giving people who know the characters executive overall control over all DC Comics-based movies might standardize the quality of the product, but it will probably discourage risky, original takes on the mythology and, as such, prevent the making of truly great as well as truly horrible films. Nolan's Batman films were as good as they were because him and his creative team were given free reign. Replacing one board of executives with another won't solve WB/DC's problems.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by STARMAN

It sounds like there was only one critic there. I don't know what type of screening this is. There are test screenings. There are advance screenings. We know they had a screening on Feb 13 because a guy from Double Negative tweeted about it.

Pretty sure there was more than one critic there, that comment was just from one particular critic.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by HankTheTurtle

They weren't screening for critics. It sounds like it was a screening mostly for people who worked on the film in some capacity and their friends and family. The one critic mentioned just happened to have a connection.

What makes you think that only one critic might have had links to the studio?

[STARMAN]

I agree. May have been more than one critic there. That's why I added to my post saying he may have only talked to one critic. Who knows how large of sample size his response of people were.

[HankTheTurtle]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I'm betting that wasn't the ONLY critic there.

Depends, sometimes it means they are really geeked up about it and they want to create an industry buzz and other times they are nervous and want to see what the reactions are so they can prepare the marketing for the general public.

OK. Where were you when said screening was happening?

[king666]

Ewoud84 (VFX artist, worked on MOS):

"Without spoiling anything, I'm probbably the biggest #Superman fan inside the walls of @dneg and I'm real happy with #MoS"

[HankTheTurtle]

Originally Posted by Showtime

What makes you think that only one critic might have had links to the studio?

Nothing. I just meant it seemed like it wasn't a screening meant expressly for critics. And that the one critic mentioned may not have been there because they were a critic.

[Showtime]

Whether there was one critic or multiple, whether you want to call it a "Friends & Family" or a put it under another title, I can tell you it isn't made up. Discrediting isn't going to change it. Just taking for what it is, one individuals opinion and moving on makes more sense to me. I feel like it's something fun to talk about if you ask me, and this ISN'T really directed at either of you two fellas above, just a generic statement to all.

For me, other people don't have to like a film for me to like it. I'm all that matters, but it's probably because I am pompous.

[HankTheTurtle]

Originally Posted by Showtime

Whether there was one critic or multiple, whether you want to call it a "Friends & Family" or a put it under another title, I can tell you it isn't made up. Discrediting isn't going to change it. Just taking for what it is, one individuals opinion and moving on makes more sense to me.

For me, other people don't have to like a film for me to like it. I'm all that matters, but it's probably because I am pompous.

I'm fine with that. I'm just anxious to hear anything about the film while I'm waiting. Personally, I'm more likely to see what critics think of a movie after I've seen it.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by HankTheTurtle

I'm fine with that. I'm just anxious to hear anything about the film while I'm waiting. Personally, I'm more likely to see what critics think of a movie after I've seen it.

Right I agree. You seem to have your head on straight.

I just have seen other forums where posters wait for every negative review and then spend so much time trying to discredit the writer that it becomes so sickening. I'm hoping we're all better than that, including myself.

[STARMAN]

We're desperate for news so we analyze everything. I do it. I'm wasting time figuring out how many people this guy talked to from the screening.

[ConnorKon-El]

Originally Posted by HankTheTurtle

I'm fine with that. I'm just anxious to hear anything about the film while I'm waiting. Personally, I'm more likely to see what critics think of a movie after I've seen it.

As do I as well.

[STARMAN]

It's a good thing I didn't go to a screening. I'd be on here revealing everything.