The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Critic bias towards this franchise?

[webhead731]

I think when a reviewer describes the main villian as a smurf and the previous films villian as gadzuki, we can assume he doesn't have much prowess in the ability to describe or critique a film effectively, or at least articulate his/her concerns.

Well they're not wrong...

 

[Drz]

Marvel sold the rights and noone questioned Sam Raimi's movies, why has this suddenly become a relevant argument? I'll tell you why: Comic book fans and Marvel Studio's success.

Noone questioned the scales of chance between quality and necessity abck when FOX began with X-Men and Sony with Spider-Man, these arguments only exist because of Marvel Studio's success. So people assume Spidey movies would be somehow better under Marvel.

 

[LizardMan07]

The difference is this isn't a Batman Begins and Iron Man project. A film that was allowed to come together, not forced. When a studio like WB or Marvel have the rights, they have the rights. They own the company, they don't have to fast track anything.

It tips the scales of chance between quality and necessity.

Why the scales of chance? Where was the chance in this exactly? Franchise seems pretty deliberately made to me, the movie didn't just come out of random chance or something.

Let's try to bring this back on topic though. If the critics are angry about the reboot, is that bias or a legitimate concern? (Imo, we have already had the origin story and this film now should be able to stand alone as a sequel without the comparisons.)

 

[LizardMan07]

Well they're not wrong...

I started typing up the objective differences between electro and a smurf and then I realised I was spending my time writing up the differences between electro and a smurf at 12am... My life has really gone down the drain

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Marvel sold the rights and noone questioned Sam Raimi's movies, why has this suddenly become a relevant argument? I'll tell you why: Comic book fans and Marvel Studio's success.

Noone questioned the scales of chance between quality and necessity abck when FOX began with X-Men and Sony with Spider-Man, these arguments only exist because of Marvel Studio's success. So people assume Spidey movies would be somehow better.

It is because these films are covering similar ground, while existing with one clear purpose. If these films were reeking in creative integrity for most, this wouldn't be an issue.

We are 15 years into the Superhero boom. There are plenty of films. Quality is becoming more and more important.

 

[LizardMan07]

We're going off topic. Simple question, regardless of how much you liked or disliked the film, let's just try to answer it.

Are the critics writing reviews with an amount of bias that effects the overall quality of the critique of the film?

 

[Drz]

And quality is determined by many factors, such as the audience/box office. Hey-ho Transformers is the Oscar winner of casuals!

I mean, Thor: the Dark World is the least critic succesful Marvel Studios movie, i hated it personally, but it has tons of fans. Iron Man 3 is a success both money and general audience wise, but you still hear people (such as myself) complain about it.

People are overreacting with FOX and Sony, because they want to fantasize about Marvel Studios owning these characters, that's the hard truth, these arguments about "oh they're only doing these movies because of rights!!!" is like saying "iron man 3 is a turd because they wanted money".

 

[GuestStar2004]

I started typing up the objective differences between electro and a smurf and then I realised I was spending my time writing up the differences between electro and a smurf at 12am... My life has really gone down the drain

its better not to bite the bait

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And quality is determined by many factors, such as the audience/box office. Hey-ho Transformers is the Oscar winner of casuals!

I mean, Thor: the Dark World is the least critic succesful Marvel Studios movie, i hated it personally, but it has tons of fans. Iron Man 3 is a success both money and general audience wise, but you still hear people (such as myself) complain about it.

People are overreacting with FOX and Sony, because they want to fantasize about Marvel Studios owning these characters, that's the hard truth, these arguments about "oh they're only doing these movies because of rights!!!" is like saying "iron man 3 is a turd because they wanted money".

TDW falling behind TWS in terms of box office is a fantastic example of the critics getting it 'right". Especially after what happened in Phase 1.

If TASM2 sells less tickets again, maybe the critics are on to something.

We're going off topic. Simple question, regardless of how much you liked or disliked the film, let's just try to answer it.

Are the critics writing reviews with an amount of bias that effects the overall quality of the critique of the film?

That is not quantifiable. Just like how much bias is produced by being a fan of the character.

 

[Micromind]

Some people feel that Critics' job is to find faults, but I think Critics are supposed to guide moviegoers about the quality of the movies, they have to write a movie review without any bias or preconceived notions, they should highlight movie's strengths as well as weaknesses, and most importantly the movie should be judged on it's own merits.. not by what the reviewer's opinions of the earlier iteration of the same franchise.

 

[webhead731]

I started typing up the objective differences between electro and a smurf and then I realised I was spending my time writing up the differences between electro and a smurf at 12am... My life has really gone down the drain

Just think of it like writing a school paper.

 

[spider-neil]

Some people feel that Critics' job is to find faults, but I think Critics are supposed to guide moviegoers about the quality of the movies, they have to write a movie review without any bias or preconceived notions, they should highlight movie's strengths as well as weaknesses, and most importantly the movie should be judged on it's own merits.. not by what the reviewer's opinions of the earlier iteration of the same franchise.

 

[Drz]

I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic, since you don't have people crying about a reboot.

Let's put it this way, let's say Iron Man 4 won't have Robert Downey Junior starring, or if that's too far fatched how about Iron Man 5 in 2020.

How do you think critics will take it when there's a new Iron Man in town? How do you think the rotten tomato will be if the new Iron Man isn't as charismatic as RDJ? How will comic fans react to the tomato meter? Should Disney sell the rights away, because otherwise they'd keep the franchise going because of money!!!!!

 

[spider-neil]

Some people feel that Critics' job is to find faults, but I think Critics are supposed to guide moviegoers about the quality of the movies, they have to write a movie review without any bias or preconceived notions, they should highlight movie's strengths as well as weaknesses, and most importantly the movie should be judged on it's own merits.. not by what the reviewer's opinions of the earlier iteration of the same franchise.

I think the reason Ebert was held in such high esteem is he always did this. His reviews were a pleasure to read, even when I disagreed with his opinion (which wasnt often).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Some people feel that Critics' job is to find faults, but I think Critics are supposed to guide moviegoers about the quality of the movies, they have to write a movie review without any bias or preconceived notions, they should highlight movie's strengths as well as weaknesses, and most importantly the movie should be judged on it's own merits.. not by what the reviewer's opinions of the earlier iteration of the same franchise.

People literally read critics because of their "bias". How Roger Ebert looked at films is why I read his reviews. It is why I don't read Harry Knowles or Devin Farcai.

If a woman reads a woman's publication looking for whether they should watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2, they are doing so because they expect a like-minded perspective.

 

[Zantera]

While critics are people just like the rest of us, and they have opinions like the rest of us, I do feel like it's necessary for them to go into movies unbiased. With the case of TASM especially, some critics still bring up the "Why did they reboot this?" topic. No matter if you approve or disapprove of the reboot-thing, you SHOULD watch the movie on its own and just ignore that ****. You see people making up their mind before they even see the movie, and the review is 50% written before they even enter the cinema.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think the reason Ebert was held in such high esteem is he always did this. His reviews were a pleasure to read, even when I disagreed with his opinion (which wasnt often).

Roger Ebert did the exact opposite. He said it was about how the film made him feel. His life experience was just as important as the content on screen.

 

[LizardMan07]

If I started my review of the winter solider like this would any of you read OR respect it?

'I've never liked the idea of Captain America. He's always been sordid and boring, like a patriotic superman. Somewhere in this film we get to see some more lovely American references, but to its core, this movie just reminds me of the smurfs? Have you seen the blokes costume? It's like we're watching American Propaganda on screen. Captain America is just simply a rehash of superman and spiderman, I never really clicked with him.

The Winter Soldier is clearly a cash grab, based off the reboot "The first avenger", which tried to kick off the series after 1990's "Captain America", a reboot of 1979's "Captain America". America. Consitution. Freedom. Booooring!! Captain America, The Winter Solider seems like a cashgrab from the get go, and clearly just fodder to set up for the next avengers movie.

Also, I found the destruction scenes offensive as the reminded me of offensive historical events of the past. But it was ok in the Avengers"

Remember, you've already argued that reviews akin to this about TASM2 are ok...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If I started my review of the winter solider like this would any of you read OR respect it?

'I've never liked the idea of Captain America. He's always been sordid and boring, like a patriotic superman. Somewhere in this film we get to see some more lovely American references, but to its core, this movie just reminds me of the smurfs? Have you seen the blokes costume? It's like we're watching American Propaganda on screen. Captain America is just simply a rehash of superman and spiderman, I never really clicked with him.

The Winter Soldier is clearly a cash grab, based off the reboot "The first avenger", which tried to kick off the series after 1990's "Captain America", a reboot of 1979's "Captain America". America. Consitution. Freedom. Booooring!! Captain America, The Winter Solider seems like a cashgrab from the get go, and clearly just fodder to set up for the next avengers movie.

Also, I found the destruction scenes offensive as the reminded me of offensive historical events of the past. But it was ok in the Avengers"

Remember, you've already argued that reviews akin to this about TASM2 are ok...

First, Superman is patriotic. He grew up in Kansas and believes in Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Also, the rest of your review has no basis in reality, so nah, probably wouldn't read it. Your attempt at a parody review should at least be grounded in reality. It would need to to be compared.

 

[LizardMan07]

Is that your final answer?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is that your final answer?

Are you going to attempt another "review" if I say no?

 

[LizardMan07]

I wouldn't subject anyone to more of that rubbish

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...tenance-spidey-a-bit-dull-20140415-36pes.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/movies/3...-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-3D-12A-gets-unstuck

Those are the reviews I based it off, how close did I get?

The third paragraph is based off the 9/11 comment from Paul Byrnes and the first two paragraphs are an amalgamation of the introductions of the first two reviews.

 

[matt47]

If I started my review of the winter solider like this would any of you read OR respect it?

'I've never liked the idea of Captain America. He's always been sordid and boring, like a patriotic superman. Somewhere in this film we get to see some more lovely American references, but to its core, this movie just reminds me of the smurfs? Have you seen the blokes costume? It's like we're watching American Propaganda on screen. Captain America is just simply a rehash of superman and spiderman, I never really clicked with him.

The Winter Soldier is clearly a cash grab, based off the reboot "The first avenger", which tried to kick off the series after 1990's "Captain America", a reboot of 1979's "Captain America". America. Consitution. Freedom. Booooring!! Captain America, The Winter Solider seems like a cashgrab from the get go, and clearly just fodder to set up for the next avengers movie.

Also, I found the destruction scenes offensive as the reminded me of offensive historical events of the past. But it was ok in the Avengers"

Remember, you've already argued that reviews akin to this about TASM2 are ok...

This is basically a Beyond the trailers Review

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I wouldn't subject anyone to more of that rubbish

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...tenance-spidey-a-bit-dull-20140415-36pes.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/movies/3...-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-3D-12A-gets-unstuck

Those are the reviews I based it off, how close did I get?

The third paragraph is based off the 9/11 comment from Paul Byrnes and the first two paragraphs are an amalgamation of the introductions of the first two reviews.

I don't know what the SMH is, but I think the Daily Star is the British equivalent of the Star and other tabloids in the USA. So, I wouldn't go there for my film reviews. Though considering it seemed the Daily Star writer liked Garfield in the first, I don't see how that reeks of bias.

But if it isn't too much trouble, could you copy and paste the passages you seem to have so much trouble with?

 

[Green Goblin]

Uhm, I am just quoting what the critics have been saying. That was not meant to be my opinion.

Stop being snarky.

Add in "it's too familiar" it's not even an origin again, it's just another Spider-Man movie. They obviously are going to be about Peter Parker. Webb even tries new villains.
Also, apparantly a few are rotten because it was a reboot.

Even one reviewer reviews titles and gave it 50%. In these exact words,
"Because f*** this franchise".

Defenatly not bias there.