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

[LizardMan07]

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?

Bingo! I don't know who you're arguing with as bias works both ways!

Well those fans are biased towards the film then? Bias works both ways...

People are treating this like a fanboy arguement, and it's not, I have just as much of a problem with overly positive reviews that don't objectively evaluate the film.

What I will note however is that a fair few more biased reviews are on the negative side

 

[LizardMan07]

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.

I'm at a genuine loss to how you people can read through a thread where people have been directly quoted saying that they dislike the spiderman franchise as a whole and still say there's no bias.

It is ridiculous and frustrating and not grounded in reality

 

[Drz]

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.

I love First Class too, but what about those people who do find TASM 1+2 Amazing? I mean, yeah this is a personal problem and you are entitled to your opinion, but doesn't it just scream of weird reasoning to disvalue these movies and argue negatively about them, by saying they're just made for profit?

All movies at the end of the day, big budgeted movies especially are aimed to please everyone, offend noone and make gazillions. It wouldn't matter what studio did these.

 

[miltonh]

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?

Spot on!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

I didn't miss the point. You are deciding what is "offensive" or "hollow" to another person.

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.

Everyone is bias. No one is objective. That is the beauty of being a person.

You don't think you are here because of your bias? That you are "annoyed" with these reviews because it is Spider-Man? Did you sit and read all the Transcendence reviews? How about all the reviews for The Other Woman?

 

[ban1o]

Also if you guys read the reviews a lot of the reviews that are rated as positive are really mixed and kinda lean towards the negative side. If critics were really biased babies who hate Spider-man, they would have rate it as rotten, but they didn't.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I love First Class too, but what about those people who do find TASM 1+2 Amazing? I mean, yeah this is a personal problem and you are entitled to your opinion, but doesn't it just scream of weird reasoning to disvalue these movies and argue negatively about them, by saying they're just made for profit?

That isn't my point. Afterall I adore MOS, and it was made with the rights in mind. It isn't that they are made for profit. The vast, vast majority of films are made with profit as the only meaningful factor to the studios.

It is a chicken or the egg situation. Which came first, the mediocre film or the complaints about why the films were made. It is all about context. For me the nature of the project only becomes a problem after bad results.

TASM being scatter shot, with a bad structure and weird tone feels like a result of a lack of care, of rushing. And why would they rush this film?

All movies at the end of the day, big budgeted movies especially are aimed to please everyone, offend noone and make gazillions. It wouldn't matter what studio did these.

And at the end of the day, some studios go about picking their creative better then others.

 

[LizardMan07]

I didn't miss the point. You are deciding what is "offensive" or "hollow" to another person.


Everyone is bias. No one is objective. That is the beauty of being a person.

You don't think you are here because of your bias? That you are "annoyed" with these reviews because it is Spider-Man? Did you sit and read all the Transcendence reviews? How about all the reviews for The Other Woman?

Oh yes because everyone's opinions are sacred and lovely. Again I will link to this article nobody actually reads. http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Justify your opinion, if the darkest day in american history is equivalent to a scene in a movie, then I want a damn good justification for it. Here's something anecdotal for size, I watch some of the people who dealt with that stuff every day of their lives for the rest of their lives and words cannot express the absolute objective difference between the two events in any logical mind. Disagree? Justify it. (Not you btw, not arguing about that with you) Not that hard.

Again, annoyed with the bias. Again, I am annoyed with the positive reviews that are superflous as well. No, again, as I stated in my first post, I am concerned about the quality of world media.

"Everyone is bias". Fabulous, we agree on something. The bias is either negative or positive, and in some reviews is strong enough either way to reduce the quality of the review.

FYI, reading transcendence reviews is my guilty pleasure.

 

[LizardMan07]

Also if you guys read the reviews a lot of the reviews that are rated as positive are really mixed and kinda lean towards the negative side. If critics were really biased babies who hate Spider-man, they would have rate it as rotten, but they didn't.

It's as if you're not reading anyone's posts as a lot of people have talked about the bias in positive reviews as well. Did you miss that?

 

[spider-neil]

TASM being scatter shot, with a bad structure and weird tone feels like a result of a lack of care, of rushing.

All of which are an opinion not a fact. I could list all the things I think are wrong with MoS and they too would be an opinion.

 

[LizardMan07]

Honestly at the moment it feels like there's a pink unicorn in the room and I'm trying to point the thing out but nobody seems to see it but me and start pointing at the floor saying random incoherent stuff.

I'm clearly tired or drunk, will come back in the morning as I'm obviously not getting this

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oh yes because everyone's opinions are sacred and lovely. Again I will link to this article nobody actually reads. http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Justify your opinion, if the darkest day in american history is equivalent to a scene in a movie, then I want a damn good justification for it. Here's something anecdotal for size, I watch some of the people who dealt with that stuff every day of their lives for the rest of their lives and words cannot express the absolute objective difference between the two events in any logical mind. Disagree? Justify it. (Not you btw, not arguing about that with you) Not that hard.

Again, annoyed with the bias. Again, I am annoyed with the positive reviews that are superflous as well. No, again, as I stated in my first post, I am concerned about the quality of world media.

"Everyone is bias". Fabulous, we agree on something. The bias is either negative or positive, and in some reviews is strong enough either way to reduce the quality of the review.

FYI, reading transcendence reviews is my guilty pleasure.

And with that one sentence you proved my point.

I understand your general point, but what are you really asking for here? I think the major problem is the RT score. The reviews are almost irrelevant. It is how they effect the RT score, how it effects the fans validation. So it isn't the reviews. After all if they are too bias for you in a certain way, you just move on. But because they "count" in some way, the view point of the reviewer suddenly matters.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

All of which are an opinion not a fact. I could list all the things I think are wrong with MoS and they too would be an opinion.

Of course. I am not disagreeing at all. I was giving my point of view.

 

[LizardMan07]

Oh god Darth what sentence was it and what were you trying to prove I'm getting confused now I'm sorry, you'll have to spell it out for me.

 

[spider-neil]

Of course. I am not disagreeing at all. I was giving my point of view.

Cool

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oh god Darth what sentence was it and what were you trying to prove I'm getting confused now I'm sorry, you'll have to spell it out for me.

I'd put it in bold , but because you put two other sentences in bold, it might go a little unnoticed. But it was your last sentence.

 

[LizardMan07]

Oh no this is aweful I'm so sorry.

What was it about the trancendance reviews though? They're just hillarious to have a gander at.

Oh I just got it, I analyse the Spiderman reviews for reasons because I've actually seen the film but I just laugh along at the trancendance reviews as they're kind of hillarious

 

[Arach Knight]

No one is being biased. Fans and critics alike were largely in agreement that the first film was treading ground that did not need to be retread. I watched the film with my fiancee to prepare her for TASM2, and one of her initial remarks was how it treads too much of the same territory as the first Raimi film. Of course this is going to happen since both films are based on the same source material, but the fact is, this second trilogy is coming from the same studio, and only five years after a commercially successful trilogy.

There was no need to start from square one. Audiences are still familiar with the character origin. There was a successful cartoon on television at the time. Activision had been churning out game after game based on the character. Audiences did not need to see him get his powers and lose uncle Ben, yet again. It was a critical mistake. And since that is the foundation that this new trilogy has been built upon, then the rest of the legacy can only be as strong as the foundation.

 

[Micromind]

How to identify whether a critic is "biased" -

If a critic

* Brings up constant comparisons with earlier incarnations of the same franchise.

* If he finds the very concept of the said superhero (not it's execution) questionable.

* If he complains about things like "too much CGI" in a movie which depends on CGI.

* If he dismisses the movie as a "cash grab" (all comic book movies are made to earn cash)

* If he dismisses the movie because he thinks it was made to "Keep the rights" (which is something unrelated to the quality of the movie)

 

[LizardMan07]

How to identify whether a critic is "biased" -

If a critic

* Brings up constant comparisons with earlier incarnations of the same franchise.

* If he finds the very concept of the said superhero (not it's exacution) questionable.

* If he complains about things like "too much CGI" in a movie which depends on CGI.

* If he dismisses the movie as a "cash grab" (all comic book movies are made to earn cash)

* If he dismisses the movie because he thinks it was made to "Keep the rights" (which is something unrelated to the quality of the movie)

Hell to the yeah for this post

 

[Shikamaru]

It's so difficult to pick a side here without having seen the film. Which apparently, I'm the only one that hasn't.

It really depends on the quality for me. If I see the film and think it's great, I'll probably conclude there really is a bias. If the film is just good/alright like the first one as opposed to great, I can't say I wouldn't disagree with the points the likes of T'Challa made (about s post TDK/Avengers world). As I said before, they got the origin out of the way and made the first film as a setup for greater things to come. It's the second film in a rebooted franchise (and as I always say, the second film always makes-or-breaks the franchise) and they're adapting one of the most iconic Spider-Man stories of all time. There is no valid reason the film shouldn't be great.

 

[spider-neil]

How to identify whether a critic is "biased" -

If a critic

* Brings up constant comparisons with earlier incarnations of the same franchise.

* If he finds the very concept of the said superhero (not it's execution) questionable.

* If he complains about things like "too much CGI" in a movie which depends on CGI.

* If he dismisses the movie as a "cash grab" (all comic book movies are made to earn cash)

* If he dismisses the movie because he thinks it was made to "Keep the rights" (which is something unrelated to the quality of the movie)

[YT]fgwaD5ZN26Y&list=PLHsVPxW3dtY87GOKp5yoexwIugyrBlG3f [/YT]

A reviewer who brings up the above and then gives a fair and balanced opinion.
A brilliant reviewer by the way, I highly recommend you follow her.

 

[ban1o]

It's as if you're not reading anyone's posts as a lot of people have talked about the bias in positive reviews as well. Did you miss that?

I'm just saying if they were really as biased as you guys claim they would have made the review rotten.

 

[LizardMan07]

And again you fail to understand that bias can work in two ways.

 

[GuestStar2004]

there was no way sony could keep the rights for another 10 years, so they were backed into a corner they either reboot or they don't