All Things Wonder Woman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 21

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are a T-Mobile customer, check the T-Mobile Tuesdays app. You can buy Wonder Woman tickets for this weekend for 4$ only via Atom Tickets.
 
If you are a T-Mobile customer, check the T-Mobile Tuesdays app. You can buy Wonder Woman tickets for this weekend for 4$ only via Atom Tickets.

Considering how much non matinee tix are, that's a hell of a deal.
 
Is it just me or the DC movies judged to a higher standard, even when they are well received ?

Its not just you who thinks this, but no, they aren't. Its just an impression created by a bunch of movies trying to ape the Nolan films and doing it badly. Critics condemning those movies for being pretentious isn't some kind of Higher DC Standard, its just critics pointing out one of the biggest flaws in them: the effort to fake having depth.

Or, critics don't hold DC movies to a higher standard. They *do* hold movies that position themselves as "Inheritors of The Dark Knight" to the standard that such movies are allegedly holding themselves to.
 
Is this the real life? Or is this just fanta-see?

On a side note, I think MCU fans reached the point where they no longer have to worry about MCU movies being fresh or rotten. It's just a question of how fresh. :argh:

Pretty much. There's also generally a lot more willingness to accept that the score any given movie gets is what it earned based on its quality. "Avengers 2 only gets a 75? Well, it has a bunch of flaws and weaknesses that the first didn't, and it lacks the newness. Sure, that seems fair enough." That kind of thing.

All largely based on the hope and expectation that, hey, if the current movie isn't undiluted awesome? There have been plenty of great movies before, and there'll be more again in the future. Don't like the current one? Wait six months.
 
Because more reviewers liked them. That's their prerogative.

Also, just possibly, because they were better movies, with better writing, superior characterization, and/or a more coherent narrative. A few artistic screenshots and some CGI city destruction do not a good movie make.
 
Pretty much. There's also generally a lot more willingness to accept that the score any given movie gets is what it earned based on its quality. "Avengers 2 only gets a 75? Well, it has a bunch of flaws and weaknesses that the first didn't, and it lacks the newness. Sure, that seems fair enough." That kind of thing.

All largely based on the hope and expectation that, hey, if the current movie isn't undiluted awesome? There have been plenty of great movies before, and there'll be more again in the future. Don't like the current one? Wait six months.

I think we can thank Feige for that. Him being there to make sure s*** makes sense is good. Hopefully DC has their Feige now in whatshisname. Jenkins and Whedon are also huge boosters of my confidence in DC's future.
 
I think we can thank Feige for that. Him being there to make sure s*** makes sense is good. Hopefully DC has their Feige now in whatshisname.

Geoff Johns and John Berg?
 
No you are not. I am not one who shares your opinion, but I know plenty who do. :up:

I don't *love* Thor 2, but I appreciate it for what it did right, while acknowledging that there's a lot it did not. Which is to say, its saved from being actually terrible by a bunch of really strong character scenes, individually and in groups. Makes it worth slogging through the bad pacing and editing.
 
Still 96% ?

ipRzAid.gif
 
One thing I find interesting about these ratings is that an individual reviewer's score means almost nothing to me.

Even an aggregate score on something like meta-critic is not really meaningful. A particular film may get a 7.9 or and 8.6, or a 9.1, I don't really care.

Within a certain range, I become much more interested in discussion, analysis and commentary.

But the fresh/rotten idea captures something important about one function of criticism, which is simply to answer the question: should I spend my money and time on this or not?

A lot of detailed analysis doesn't mean that much to me when I am making the decision about whether to buy those tickets or not.

So, it's a cleverly-designed feature, a bit like Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/thumbs down, but on a larger scale.

I'm glad WW is getting such a high score, obviously, as that will generate more enthusiasm, especially for opening week-end.

But I think, once that phase of things is over, word-of-mouth starts to take over, and that is a bit different from critical praise.
 
You guys can breathe now. Travers gave it a fresh rating.

97% after 59 reviews
 
Yeah I was afraid to ask that too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"