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

[Spidey-Lad93]

People need to move on The Sam Rami films are finished if they rebooted Spider-Man again for the next movie I would still watch and give it a fair judgement

 

[DarthSkywalker]

People need to move on The Sam Rami films are finished if they rebooted Spider-Man again for the next movie I would still watch and give it a fair judgement

Why do fans always decide what "fair judgment" is?

 

[Green Goblin]

Why do fans always decide what "fair judgment" is?

A review that talks about the actual film instead of lecturing the reader about consumer capitalism or the Hollywood Industry today or turn into an essay about how good the Sam Raimi version was. A review that tells me what was good in ASM2 and what wasn't.

Of course I saw some critics bash TWS because it's a cap movie. It's just it seems that more and more negative reviews apparantly are because it's a reboot.

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

If Electro wore his classic costume critics would be complaining about how unrealistic he looks and what's all this crap about looking like a smurf that's how he looks in the Ultimate Universe! The 1st movie got criticised for being too dark and being a Batman rip off now the tone of this movie is lighter they still complain and are they really complaining about the comedy? That's part of the character and some of the MCU movies have comedy in it and people don't call them campy

 

[Drz]

Why do fans always decide what "fair judgment" is?

This coming from the man who wants to put judgement on which Studio made this movie. :b

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A review that talks about the actual film instead of lecturing the reader about consumer capitalism or the Hollywood Industry today or turn into an essay about how good the Sam Raimi version. A review that tells me what was good in ASM2 and what wasn't.

Of course I saw some critics bash TWS because it's a cap movie. It's just it seems that more and more negative reviews apparantly are because it's a reboot.

I didn't ask that though. I asked why fans, who have a potential bias towards the film of their own, are the arbiters of what "fair judgment" is.

Also, even if one agrees that kind of a review is out of order, that is a small minority that every film suffers from. You can't bunch the other negative or lukewarm positive reviews with those ones. Too many to simply cast them aside as bias like that imo.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This coming from the man who wants to put judgement on which Studio made this movie. :b

When did I say that?

 

[Spidey-Lad93]

People have been bashing this movie for a year now CBM is the worst when it comes to bashing so I can understand why you think there's a biased toward this franchise watch The Amazing Spider-Man 3 get the same criticism

 

[Drz]

"Sony only makes these movies to retain the rights" argument.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

"Sony only makes these movies to retain the rights" argument.

First, this is true. Second, my point was that this wasn't the most purely creative project, which it wasn't. That is why the first film had a rushed script with a completely different tone and look from the sequel, at least going by the trailers.

Fox rushed First Class, but it is also my favorite X-Men film. So if TASM had been amazing this wouldn't be a problem. But if they really made two mediocre films in a row, well yeah. The balance between creative and cash becomes more disproportionate.

 

[Green Goblin]

I didn't ask that though. I asked why fans, who have a potential bias towards the film of their own, are the arbiters of what "fair judgment" is.

Also, even if one agrees that kind of a review is out of order, that is a small minority that every film suffers from. You can't bunch the other negative or lukewarm positive reviews with those ones. Too many to simply cast them aside as bias like that imo.

It just seems to be more with this film. I really enjoy reviews like Total Film or IGN (though I don't read them too much critics reviews much) as they were mixed-positive but even though I didn't agree with what was said, they explained it well and I can accept that fine. They didn't turn it into a reboot/Raimi debate too.

There will defenatly be fans anyway with a positive bias (Avenging Spidey) but like negative bias you'll clearly see it by the ignorance in the post.

To answer your question, a fair review is really one that talks about a film and what was good or bad, weigh it up and give a conclusion.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

So ASM got rotten reviews from critics for being "unnessesary" in doing the origin story. Ok you have a point but I think it's unfair but I can understand.

Now lots of critics are bashing it acgually because it's also f***ing unnessesary? F*** off. These critics should bury their head in shame. It's just childish, it's actually disgusting to think that these people are paid to have well thought out opinions but clearly they have the a very flawed and biased mindset. This is a lesson that critics are no more of value than yourselves. Critics that don't like ASM2 are fine but because it's "unnessesary" because you suffer from the horrible disease that is fanboyism then you need to simply grow up. Really pathetic how ignorant some people are it's actually unreal.

Society rewards trailblazers, innovators, and those who expand boundaries. It's why no one cares about the second guy to climb Mt. Everest, the million CoD clones, or Gobots. If you are going to remake or redo something, It needs to differ and improve on what came before it to garner the same accolades.

People seem to forget that the new franchise wasn't created in a vacuum. Sony has the opportunity to improve on what worked and change what didn't work in the previous series. The critics take that into account.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It just seems to be more with this film. I really enjoy reviews like Total Film or IGN (though I don't read them too much critics reviews much) as they were mixed-positive but even though I didn't agree with what was said, they explained it well and I can accept that fine. They didn't turn it into a reboot/Raimi debate too.

There will defenatly be fans anyway with a positive bias (Avenging Spidey) but like negative bias you'll clearly see it by the ignorance in the post.

To answer your question, a fair review is really one that talks about a film and what was good or bad, weigh it up and give a conclusion.

And have you ever considered it is because you care about this film more? That you are a fan? I know I read more MOS reviews just because Superman is my favorite. I know I will read tons of Star Wars reviews, because it is Star Wars. As fans, we all look a little closer when it comes to our favorite characters.

A fair review from anyone is their opinion on the film. If they don't like it for whatever reason and tell you so, then what is the problem? Afterall the true essence of a review is about the content, the reading, not the score on RT. So if you don't agree with a review for whatever reason, don't agree. But that doesn't change the critic's opinion, and more importantly it shouldn't.

 

[Green Goblin]

First, this is true. Second, my point was that this wasn't the most purely creative project, which it wasn't. That is why the first film had a rushed script with a completely different tone and look from the sequel, at least going by the trailers.

Fox rushed First Class, but it is also my favorite X-Men film. So if TASM had been amazing this wouldn't be a problem. But if they really made two mediocre films in a row, well yeah. The balance between creative and cash becomes more disproportionate.

You could argue the same for the Raimi films, they kept making them to retain the rights to make more money. ASM had two years to write, it was being written in 2009. Same as SM2. ASM2 is a sequel to ASM with a new suit, that's it.

Also X-Men First Class was a prequel even if the continuity errors make it out that way.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You could argue the same for the Raimi films, they kept making them to retain the rights to make more money. ASM had two years to write, it was being written in 2009. Same as SM2. ASM2 is a sequel to ASM with a new suit, that's it.

Also X-Men First Class was a prequel even if the continuity errors make it out that way.

Did I disagree with this? I have watched every Bond film there is more then once. There are eras that feel like complete money making activities, and I don't care for them much. Where I watch the OHMSS, the first four Connery films and The Craig films all the time.

I am sure this is the same for many movie critics, who are just fans of films they like to watch. Like Roger Ebert was.

 

[ban1o]

Just because you guys don't like what they are saying doesn't ean that they are extremely biased. You guys are like petty fanboys that think that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is wrong. Have any of you even seen the film yet. And they wouldn't be sayng it was unnecessary if they thought he was very good. They are saying it is unnecessary because they didn't think it was good. Also you guys are acting like TASM1 got horribel reviews. It got similar reviews as most MCU films with the exception of IM1, CA, TWS and TA. It had an 80% rating with tops critics for goodness sake! And everyone is biased that's why film quality is an opinion.

 

[ban1o]

First class is an excellent point. That movie was very rushed as well and only made to retain the rights. And it was a reboot (at the time anyway LOL, Fox seems to have changed their minds). But it got very good reviews and they didn't say it was unnecessary because they liked it. It's the same thing with this. The reviewers who are saying it's unnecessary are only saying that because they didn't like the film. You guys are just acting really biased.

 

[Tequilla]

No bias. The films are just horrific.

 

[LizardMan07]

I actually fell to sleep Darth! Here's my review of the review, if you will

You don't need 3D glasses to tell that Peter Parker is a bit of a pill. Yes, I know he has had a hard upbringing, his parents abandoning him when he was a little boy, but he's got a smart mouth and a bad attitude, as Gwen Stacy's stern police captain father (Denis Leary) noticed in the first movie of the rebooted series.
Don't know what I'm talking about? You're probably over 40 and the world of Spider-Man is a mystery to you. This is Episode 2 of the second movie iteration of Spider-Man, or what we might call Sony's attempt to turn a 1962 comic book fantasy character from the Cold War into a franchise that will never die. Every studio wants one of those, and Episode 1 of Tranche 2 brought in more than $US750 million ($800m), so shut up!

The copy-catting is hardly new. Batman and Superman predate Spidey by about 25 to 30 years, so most of Spidey's origin ideas are, shall we say, borrowed from earlier comics. And frankly, the idea of a flying arachnid with his human face completely hidden was pretty dumb even in 1962, except that it worked.
The reason was simple: Spidey was a teenager with superhero powers, just as the readers were largely teenagers without. Teen characters up till then were mostly sidekicks. Spider-Man was a boy, trying to become a man, a theme that is as old as Jesus

These are the opening four paragraphs from the SMH review, why this bothers me is that not once is the phrase "The Amazing Spiderman 2" used. The critic spends the first four paragraphs of his review attacking PP as a character, saying most of the ideas are ripped off from other superheroes, alienated people over 40, again attacked the franchising of the film, and basically did anything except talk about the film. What the reviewer does do however is indicate quite early a clear BIAS in his assesment of the movie.

I could go on with how his assesment of the movie is generalised and flawed, but I think we should analyse the bias, since you know, this thread is about bias.

From the paragraphs we can gather, in the most basic of terms.

-The reviewer does not like the spiderman series
-He does not like the idea of the "cash grab"

If you cannot see bias in those paragraphs, you are contributing to the diminishing quality of the media worldwide, and you need to start thinking critically and noticing these explicit signs of bias.

Can I just tack something on at the end? No? Well I'm doing it anyway!

It would all be completely ludicrous, were this not the second decade after the attacks of 9.11.2001. Every film that trashes New York now does it with that in mind, so that every film becomes a 'memorial'. Yeah right, like trashing New York hasn't been a movie staple since King Kong in 1933. It's just that now, we have a horrible reminder that nightmares do come true. Unfortunately, superheroes don't, which makes these movies hollow at best, downright offensive at worst.

Ah, comparing a scene in a fictitious film to one of mankind's darkest days, just charming. Typical sensationalist Australian media, bottom of the barrel stuff. Again, if a critic cannot differentiate reality from fiction, he/she is in the wrong business.

And if someone even tries to pull out the "opinion" card I'm going to explode. Enjoy this article from The Conversation that sums up my views

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Who wants an example of bias in a positive review?

 

[Nemeres]

This bias argument... it's like the lazy high schooler who complains that the teacher failed him because he "did not like him". The "unnecessary" comment -which I've seen from some critics, but by no means the majority, and even less regarding this new film- probably refers to the franchise's failure to conjure something that feels fresh, something that audiences haven't seen. Does ANYTHING in TASM satisfy that criteria? Now, about this new film... if people call it underwhelming, messy, bloated, well, they're not far from the truth. And those are the complaints that I see in spades, much more than "unnecessary", or any other that suggests the bias that some of you insist on bringing up.

I say that while having given the film a pass, and having enjoyed it overall. It's a cool film, but it's just not stellar. It's very much deserving of its current RT score.

 

[The Endless]

I laugh at all this "bias critics" crap.

What about "bias fans" who will like anything with Spider-Mans name on it simply because it's Spider-Man?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I actually fell to sleep Darth! Here's my review of the review, if you will

I have done this twice recently myself.

These are the opening four paragraphs from the SMH review, why this bothers me is that not once is the phrase "The Amazing Spiderman 2" used. The critic spends the first four paragraphs of his review attacking PP as a character, saying most of the ideas are ripped off from other superheroes, alienated people over 40, again attacked the franchising of the film, and basically did anything except talk about the film. What the reviewer does do however is indicate quite early a clear BIAS in his assesment of the movie.

I could go on with how his assesment of the movie is generalised and flawed, but I think we should analyse the bias, since you know, this thread is about bias.

From the paragraphs we can gather, in the most basic of terms.

-The reviewer does not like the spiderman series
-He does not like the idea of the "cash grab"

If you cannot see bias in those paragraphs, you are contributing to the diminishing quality of the media worldwide, and you need to start thinking critically and noticing these explicit signs of bias.

Can I just tack something on at the end? No? Well I'm doing it anyway!

This is laying the ground work of the writer's perspective/bias. Considering we want our critics to be honest, how is this a bad thing? Would it be any different then some telling you how "comic accurate" something in a film is?

Now you don't have to agree with the review, but the writer's perspective is plain as day, so what is the problem here?

Ah, comparing a scene in a fictitious film to one of mankind's darkest days, just charming. Typical sensationalist Australian media, bottom of the barrel stuff. Again, if a critic cannot differentiate reality from fiction, he/she is in the wrong business.

And if someone even tries to pull out the "opinion" card I'm going to explode. Enjoy this article from The Conversation that sums up my views

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Who wants an example of bias in a positive review?

Films making real life parallels happen all the time. All the time. We just saw another comic book film do it.

 

[LizardMan07]

Well personally I don't think the electro times square scene was related to the 9/11 attacks. I think you missed my point, if the scene was a plane flying into a building then there was no need to differentiate reality from fiction cause god damn that'd be offensive.

But if it is a "smurf" electro-fying (yeah, I meant that) times square then I think it's time to get off the high horse and you know, stop comparing the deaths of thousands of people to the smurfs.

Yep, you're right, he can lay the groundworks and be honest that he hates the franchise, but this thread is about whether they are biased, which you just admitted they were, so at least we agree on that.

 

[spider-neil]

I laugh at all this "bias critics" crap.

What about "bias fans" who will like anything with Spider-Mans name on it simply because it's Spider-Man?

Like SM3?

 

[T"Challa]

There is no bias..yeas there are a few people who will not give this reboot a chance because they feel its a cash grab just as there are people who wont give MCU movies the time of day, and people who think DC movies are too self-important. At the end of the day, those people don't really affect the consensus that much.

The problem with TASM 1 and 2 is that they are not great movies. Thats it. This is a post TDK/Avengers world now and the standard has been raised for better or worse. Being a 'decent' or 'entertaining' movie is not enough anymore. The movies have to do something fresh, inventive and up the ante in storytelling, character development etc in order to get a pass from the critics.

There's no doubt in my mind that if TASM 2 , Thor 2, the Wolverine and Man of Steel were released in 2002, they would have had a much better critical reception but that is not the case now. Critics just expect a lot more from CBM's these days.

There isnt a bias. TASM 2 is being graded on a curve set by earlier terrific CBM's and to that respect, it doesnt get a pass.