How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe? - Part 1

[Mjölnir]

Zeroing in on this specifically.
Simply adding the 'disclaimer' that it's in your view or it's in your opinion or simply working under that as a given doesn't qualify as speaking for yourself. For example: In my opinion, everyone hates avengers...and because it's too funny.
In my experience this is when someone then comes in and says, 'speak for yourself' to which one responds; "but I did, I added imo did I not."
Your opinion or not in this instance is still one speaking for 'everyone', everyone they highlighted when they said 'everyone', 'marvin' included which is why I would enter into debate at that point. Some people take it even further and say things like "(imo) when that ending happened, you feel unfulfilled". Again opinion or not now one is specifically talking about me now, and I let that stand.
All avoided if dude just said "I hate avengers and because I find too funny"
If someone want's to debate such a thing fine, but people are less likely to given I'm not stepping over into that other territory of speaking to some greater truth or observation, but really just expressing who I myself and thos like me are as a member of the audience.
Difference between stating how a film lands on you vs how a film lands. If a film is bad or just bad for you. Again there is no problem with either, it's just the former in either instance tends to lead to 'kickback', disagreement, arguments..etc.
My point is, it goes beyond 'opinion' and actually is contingent on whom that opinion is said to apply. Ergo the whole speak for yourself and not just in your opinion. And when you call a film bad or poor vs it simply being poor for you(but maybe not actually), you are falling into this.

And again, I get that your statement about projecting referring to something different. My statement was about how this ultimately amounts to similar.

It happens on both sides(before I really do pull a you know who) in my experience though posters like that 'black narcissis' tend to be aware imo.

I generally agree. As I said I usually write my opinions in opinion form and just explained the reason why I might not to in some cases. Laziness due to the environment.

Even when someone expresses his opinion like "movie x sucks" I never get into discussions about that because it's just an opinion and not anything to discuss. It's when someone say that "x sucks because of y" that discussion might be had since "y" might be an inaccurate description.

 

[Aejej]

The feeling I'm getting from your post is that you either haven't read my posts properly, or you didn't get my point. The reason I'm bringing up something related to tradition of the property is because someone was talking to me about it. I think I made myself pretty clear before that my point was that there's lots of opinions relating to issues that have nothing to do with the tradition (and I've also been clear on that there are people that are complaining about being true to the old Superman).

Don't worry. I read and understand just fine. If I bring additional information into the discussion, you reserve the right to disregard or address it. It's up to you.

When it comes to showing him as good he could have made the fight more dynamic with Superman trying to save things around them, which is a disadvantage and would give more of a feeling that he could lose in addition to showing to what lengths he's willing to sacrifice himself. They could also do with not having him actively bring a super powered fight from the fields into a populated town, or not have him stand and wait for no reason until it's too late to save his father, to make him more sympathetic (more consistently in line with the guy that saved the children on the school bus (and got flack for it) and saved the people on the oil rig).

Which goes right back to what I was saying about "That's not my Superman."

It has nothing to do with the appearance of the villain. In fact I specifically wrote that I didn't mind Superman killing so again, not sure you're reading my posts.

Just checking. Something I've noticed with certain people.

The comment about failing in all aspects of storytelling wasn't mine,

I know.

but I still disagree with your take on it. The movie has plenty of cases of things like saying one thing then showing another, or downright plot holes. That's not inherent to the property, that's just how the writing is. I've stated many of them in the past but I can list things again if you want.

It's up to you. I've no problem spelling things out myself.

 

[Deadshot]

Ok, well here's 25 examples of such a thing happening;

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/mov...cs-hated-rotten-tomatoes-57160822/#/ms-249/25

Now I have to confess I have not seen one single movie on that list. And looking at some of the titles and covers (I'm not trying to judge the book by it's cover, just giving an impression) Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Out Cold, Grandma's Boy, Madea's Family Reunion, A Night at the Roxbury, National Lampoon's Van Wilder, Super Tropers, Bad Boys 2 etc. Most of these movies look like silly movies that are leave your brain at the door comedies, brainless comedy action, juvenile entertainment, or so bad they're good type movies. Those sort of movies appeal to people. They entertain.

So to answer your question, if I think a movie sucks, and the critics hated it, too, but most people gave it a good rating, I'd probably be watching a movie like one of those above.

Because I've never felt a movie was terrible, and said movie was either not divisive or panned by the consensus. I've seen movies I've not liked but everyone else has not because I thought it was terrible, but because it just wasn't my cup of tea.

I can't really agree with anything that you said. I've seen plenty of movies that i enjoyed way more than the critics did and they are hardly "silly movies". MOS being one of them. Well, you can call it silly if you want. I just don't see how is it any more silly than any other super hero movie that got great ratings.

You're trying to justify why people liked something in a way that doesn't invalidate your views about the general perception of a certain movie. That's highly speculative and doesn't seem like a good way of drawing any type of realistic conclusion.

Critics are a fairly small and non diversified group of people. I don't see how they can represent the opinion of the masses. Even if a lot of times those opinions coincide, frequently they won't.

Let's just look at a few recent movies:

Burnt

Critics: 29%

Audience: 59%

The Intern

Critics: 59%

Audience: 78%

The Las Witch Hunter

Critics: 16%

Audience: 50%

War Room

Critics: 37%

Audience: 90%

Critics are very predictable in their ratings. Let's think about horror movies, for example. 90% of the time a modern horror movie gets a great rating from critics i know that it's not gonna have a lot of gore, it's gonna be slow and probably very contemplative and ambiguous.

Maybe you should just consider the possibility of critics not being great representatives of the masses.

 

[The Joker]

I can't really agree with anything that you said. I've seen plenty of movies that i enjoyed way more than the critics did and they are hardly "silly movies". MOS being one of them. Well, you can call it silly if you want. I just don't see how is it any more silly than any other super hero movie that got great ratings.

That's you. I'm not trying to speak for you specifically. There's always going to be some exceptions. You of all people should know that given your attitude towards the mega popular Marvel movies. Nothing is ever universally loved or hated. We're talking consensus here.

MOS is not criticized for being a silly movie. Silly was just one example I used for those movies that were on that list. It's criticized for being a weak/bland movie.

You're trying to justify why people liked something in a way that doesn't invalidate your views about the general perception of a certain movie. That's highly speculative and doesn't seem like a good way of drawing any type of realistic conclusion.

Critics are a fairly small and non diversified group of people. I don't see how they can represent the opinion of the masses. Even if a lot of times those opinions coincide, frequently they won't.

I'm not trying to justify anything. You asked me what do I base my conclusions on, and I told you I don't use any of the movie websites because none of them are good for accuracy.

Like I said above the overall score from critics seem to accurately reflect the popularity from the masses. It isn't perfect and there are some clear exceptions, like the ones listed in that link, or Bay's movies etc. Again as I said the only time I would use RT is to show how critically successful a movie is because at the end of the day that's all it's good for. Even better than Metacritic because it covers more reviews.

Let's just look at a few recent movies:

Burnt

Critics: 29%

Audience: 59%

The Intern

Critics: 59%

Audience: 78%

The Las Witch Hunter

Critics: 16%

Audience: 50%

War Room

Critics: 37%

Audience: 90%

Critics are very predictable in their ratings.

How are these ratings predictable?

Let's think about horror movies, for example. 90% of the time a modern horror movie gets a great rating from critics i know that it's not gonna have a lot of gore, it's gonna be slow and probably very contemplative and ambiguous.

That's probably because most horror movies that are gore heavy are usually weak.

Maybe you should just consider the possibility of critics not being great representatives of the masses.

In some cases I don't deny they are not. But more often than not their scores do overall reflect the the general consensus. Far more so than RT user ratings, which you use as your basis.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

That's probably because most horror movies that are gore heavy are usually weak.

I swear I've heard this exact same argument regarding critics not liking gore filled horror movies from a banned poster in this same thread in the past. That combined with the join date of this month now has me very suspicious.

 

[Snow Queen]

Critics are very predictable in their ratings. Let's think about horror movies, for example. 90% of the time a modern horror movie gets a great rating from critics i know that it's not gonna have a lot of gore, it's gonna be slow and probably very contemplative and ambiguous.

Or it could just be because most with lots of gore replace atmosphere and dread with how much blood they can throw at you. Might be a small part of it.

 

[Deadshot]

How are these ratings predictable?

I don't know. I didn't watch them. It was just an example of how easy it is to find movies where the consensus from the critics diverge from the audience. I didn't search for those movies. I just picked a few from the first list that i saw. It's really not hard to find examples like those.

That's probably because most horror movies that are gore heavy are usually weak.

Well, the masses don't always mind them. I'm not sure why should we classify a movie as being "weak" when it is able to do what they're supposed to do, which is to entertain people. I'm also not a fan of gore. But the lack of it doesn't automatically make a good movie.

Critics are predictable because they tend to put a lot of value in certain elements that aren't necessarily valuable to the regular moviegoer.

Look at Spring Breakers. Apparently, the audience didn't like it all, but critics did. It's kind of a pretentious movie, isn't it? I kind of got the feeling critics like movies like that. Movies that try to be more "artsy" and contemplative, even if they have nothing interesting to say and are poorly acted.

Again: Do you understand that critics represent around 200 people, right? And they don't vary that much in gender, age and race. To say they represent the masses is a hell of a strech.

Yeah, some movies pleae everybody, critics and audience. But let's not pretend those are the only ones that count. Art is divisive almost by default.

You have your own priorities. I respect that. But personally, if i wanna get an idea of what the masses think about a movie, i find it more reasonable to look
at 500.000 opinions than to look at 250.

 

[Deadshot]

Or it could just be because most with lots of gore replace atmosphere and dread with how much blood they can throw at you. Might be a small part of it.

Sure. It Follows doesn't have much gore, so it is better than The Exorcist, according to critics. It's also better than Halloween, American Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, among others.

Do critics represent the masses? Well, i know they don't represent me. And personally, i also don't know anybody they represent.

 

[The Joker]

I swear I've heard this exact same argument regarding critics not liking gore filled horror movies from a banned poster in this same thread in the past. That combined with the join date of this month now has me very suspicious.

I didn't want to say anything but yeah my Spidey senses were tingling a bit, too. Might be wrong of course, but there is some serious deja vu going on here for me.

I don't know. I didn't watch them. It was just an example of how easy it is to find movies where the consensus from the critics diverge from the audience. I didn't search for those movies. I just picked a few from the first list that i saw. It's really not hard to find examples like those.

I haven't seen them either, but you're not posting anything I have disagreed with. I said from the get-go there are exceptions. There are always exceptions, but more often than not they reflect the general consensus. I stand by that because it's true.

Well, the masses don't always mind them. I'm not sure why should we classify a movie as being "weak" when it is able to do what they're supposed to do, which is to entertain people. I'm also not a fan of gore. But the lack of it doesn't automatically make a good movie.

It's like what Snow Queen said. In my experience it's because horror movies that usually are gore heavy are using it as a substitute for suspense and atmosphere which is what make for good horror movies.

Critics are predictable because they tend to put a lot of value in certain elements that aren't necessarily valuable to the regular moviegoer.

Look at Spring Breakers. Apparently, the audience didn't like it all, but critics did. It's kind of a pretentious movie, isn't it? I kind of got the feeling critics like movies like that. Movies that try to be more "artsy" and contemplative, even if they have nothing interesting to say and are poorly acted.

Well I haven't seen Spring Breakers so I can't comment on it personally. But it wouldn't be the first time critics liked a movie that audiences didn't care for either. Door swings both ways.

You keep giving me these random examples as though I have said critics and audiences opinions align every time. They don't. But more often than not they do.

Again: Do you understand that critics represent around 200 people, right? And they don't vary that much in gender, age and race. To say they represent the masses is a hell of a strech.

Yeah, some movies pleae everybody, critics and audience. But let's not pretend those are the only ones that count. Art is divisive almost by default.

You have your own priorities. I respect that. But personally, if i wanna get an idea of what the masses think about a movie, i find it more reasonable to look
at 500.000 opinions than to look at 250.

Let me put it to you this way; on RT you can see 226 people's opinions reflecting reality more than a supposed 146 thousand + like here; http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/

All this shows is the margin of error is much bigger on the user rating side than the critical one. Give me a system that relies on smaller numbers that give more accuracy to reality, than thousands or millions that don't.

 

[Deadshot]

I didn't want to say anything but yeah my Spidey senses were tingling a bit, too. Might be wrong of course, but there is some serious deja vu going on here for me.

Might, not. You are.

I haven't seen them either, but you're not posting anything I have disagreed with. I said from the get-go there are exceptions. There are always exceptions, but more often than not they reflect the general consensus. I stand by that because it's true.

Fair enough. But when they don't, should we assume they still do? There's a reason why you have the critics score and the audience score. If the score is the same, fine. It means both agree on a movie. But if they aren't, why assume they still are, despite the numbers showing the opposite?

It's like what Snow Queen said. In my experience it's because horror movies that usually are gore heavy are using it as a substitute for suspense and atmosphere which is what make for good horror movies.

Fine. And they generally don't like gore movies. But the masses a lot of times do, right? So there you have. Two different perspectives. Two different opinions. Two different ways of judging a certain type of movie.

Let me put it to you this way; on RT you can see 226 people's opinions reflecting reality more than a supposed 146 thousand + like here; http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/

All this shows is the margin of error is much bigger on the user rating side than the critical one. Give me a system that relies on smaller numbers that give more accuracy to reality, than thousands or millions that don't.

Maybe i didn't express myself very well. This is not about how often critics and audience agree. This is about the "audience score" representing the opinion of the general audience, and the "critic score" representing the opinion of the critics. If the audience score of a movie is 80%, i see no reason to believe the majority didn't like the movie, even if critics say the movie is bad.

What do you think MOS's real audience score should be? RT says 76%. Should we assume it is 50% or something like that?

 

[The Joker]

Might, not. You are.

Well you're hardly going to admit you're a former banned member now are you

I'm not accusing you, but the fact is, and others here will back me up on this, your opinions and posting manner are identical to Panthera/Freak/Vulture and all the other usernames said member had. I wasn't even going to mention it, but Kahran brought it up to me.

Fair enough. But when they don't, should we assume they still do? There's a reason why you have the critics score and the audience score. If the score is the same, fine. It means both agree on a movie. But if they aren't, why assume they still are, despite the numbers showing the opposite?

I don't understand this question. Why would you assume they still do when they don't?

Fine. And they generally don't like gore movies. But the masses a lot of times do, right? So there you have. Two different perspectives. Two different opinions. Two different ways of judging a certain type of movie.

The masses don't hold gore movies up as great movies. It's exactly like those kinds of movies I posted in that link. Bad Boys 2, National Lampoons Van Wilder, Diary of a Mad Black Woman etc, they're not regarded as brilliant movies with the masses despite the high audience scores they have.

Maybe i didn't express myself very well. This is not about how often critics and audience agree. This is about the "audience score" representing the opinion of the general audience, and the "critic score" representing the opinion of the critics. If the audience score of a movie is 80%, i see no reason to believe the majority didn't like the movie, even if critics say the movie is bad.

I understood what you meant. I'm saying the margin for error is much bigger on the audience side, than on the critics. You going to have me believe over 2 million people rate Spider-Man 3 just 0.5 of a score less than MOS? Or Green Lantern 0.2 less than it?

These scores just don't reflect reality, and it's made worse by the fact they're supposedly based on way more numbers than the critics, yet the critics scores usually match with the public opinion.

What do you think MOS's real audience score should be? RT says 76%. Should we assume it is 50% or something like that?

Somewhere between 50-60% sounds right. It's divisive. Polarizing.

 

[Mjölnir]

Don't worry. I read and understand just fine. If I bring additional information into the discussion, you reserve the right to disregard or address it. It's up to you.

Ok, just making sure my previous comment was clear as your post made me unsure on that. All is fine then.

Which goes right back to what I was saying about "That's not my Superman."

No, the basis for that comes from what Snyder has said about who his Superman is. Just recently he talked about it again that the advantage Batman has over Superman is the goodness of the latter, and that Batman knows how to exploit that Superman has to fight fair. That's exactly what I meant that he could have used to good effect already in MoS. If he does it in BvS I think it will be a step up.

It's up to you. I've no problem spelling things out myself.

I have no strong desire to list things just for my own sake. The real point was really the meta discussion and not points about the movie itself anyway.

 

[Deadshot]

Well you're hardly going to admit you're a former banned member now are you

I'm not accusing you, but the fact is, and others here will back me up on this, your opinions and posting manner are identical to Panthera/Freak/Vulture and all the other usernames said member had.

Well, i've been here for a while and have been accused of that a number of times and even reported just because of that. It's weird to me that people would make those kind of accusations just because i have similar opinions to someone else. I've seen many people around here with identical opinions, but never crossed my mind to think they're clones. I've identified in this forum unhealthy levels of obsession with subjects that aren't even related to superheroes. I find it very weird.

I don't understand this question. Why would you assume they still do when they don't?

All this started with me pointing out that the majority of the people who voted enjoyed the movie. Then you told me that it is silly to judge a movie's popularity by the audience score. So, if the audience score tells me that the majority enjoyed the movie, and if that score is different from the critics score, why should i assume the 200 critics are the ones who represent the majority? In this particular case, they don't. Considering all the information i can have access to, critics score doesn't reflect the opinion of the general audience.

I understood what you meant. I'm saying the margin for error is much bigger on the audience side, than on the critics. You going to have me believe over 2 million people rate Spider-Man 3 just 0.5 of a score less than MOS? Or Green Lantern 0.2 less than it?

These scores just don't reflect reality, and it's made worse by the fact they're supposedly based on way more numbers than the critics, yet the critics scores usually match with the public opinion.

But if you don't know what reality is, since you don't have a way of having access to the opinion of everybody, or even the true majority, how do you know it doesn't reflect reality? You have a perception of reality. But that's different than actually knowing what the reality is.

All we have to base our opinions on is the information we find online. And yes, according to that information, people rate "Spider-Man 3 just 0.5 of a score less than MOS". Everything else is just speculation and imagination.

Somewhere between 50-60% sounds right. It's divisive. Polarizing.

Well, it has 7.4 on IMDB and 3.9/76% on RT. That's all i can base my opinion on. Unless we just assume there's something dishonest going on with the ratings. And that number doesn't even reflect my personal experience. Around 90% of the people i know enjoyed this movie. Based on personal experience and online information, i can't really subscribe to the idea that this is divisive. I just don't have enough information to draw that conclusion.

 

[The Joker]

Well, i've been here for a while and have been accused of that a number of times and even reported just because of that. It's weird to me that people would make those kind of accusations just because i have similar opinions to someone else. I've seen many people around here with identical opinions, but never crossed my mind to think they're clones. I've identified in this forum unhealthy levels of obsession with subjects that aren't even related to superheroes. I find it very weird.

When I say yours are identical to said former banned member, I mean identical. Right down to the little things like the gore in horror movies argument Kahran mentioned above. Nobody else here matches your style. You also have to understand said banned member keeps coming back again and again no matter how many times they get banned. Here you are another newbie saying all the same stuff they did. Posting in all the same threads. Making all the same arguments. Identical.

You show all the signs of this person. People will find that very difficult to believe as coincidence. Again I'm not accusing you, but it's only natural people would associate you with this person given how identical you are. Though I will say it is wrong to out right accuse you without proof.

All this started with me pointing out that the majority of the people who voted enjoyed the movie. Then you told me that it is silly to judge a movie's popularity by the audience score. So, if the audience score tells me that the majority enjoyed the movie, and if that score is different from the critics score, why should i assume the 200 critics are the ones who represent the majority? In this particular case, they don't. Considering all the information i can have access to, critics score doesn't reflect the opinion of the general audience.

You're getting yourself all twisted up here. Lets back up;

- You cited RT's MOS score as some kind of basis that there is no divisiveness and most people like it
- I point out a few examples of other CBMs with similar scores that suggest most like them when we know these movies are not well liked
- You then asked me what website do I base my opinion on, I said I don't use any of them because they're all flawed and don't reflect reality. The only one that comes close is the critical scores on RT because more often than not the gel with the public consensus.
- Then you went into a whole hair splitting discussion on isolated examples where they didn't, which didn't prove anything other than what I already said. I still don't know why you went into all that.
- Now you're asking why we should believe 2 million people rate something like Spider-Man 3 just 0.5 less than MOS? You don't need me to tell you that most people don't think the quality of MOS and Spider-Man 3 are that close. Or to Green Lantern for that matter.

But if you don't know what reality is, since you don't have a way of having access to the opinion of everybody, or even the true majority, how do you know it doesn't reflect reality? You have a perception of reality. But that's different than actually knowing what the reality is.

What are you talking about? Show me a perception of reality other than those numbers which reflect Green Lantern and MOS being so similar in quality.

Then tell me it's wise to rely on those numbers for your perception of reality.

All we have to base our opinions on is the information we find online. And yes, according to that information, people rate "Spider-Man 3 just 0.5 of a score less than MOS". Everything else is just speculation and imagination.

Really so I am just speculating and imagining when I say Green Lantern and MOS are not viewed as very similar in quality?

I don't rate MOS very highly, but even I know that's not true. GL is seen as one of the worst CBMs, whereas MOS is divisive at best. No 3.7 and 3.9 out of 5 score on RT is going to change that fact.

Well, it has 7.4 on IMDB and 3.9/76% on RT. That's all i can base my opinion on. Unless we just assume there's something dishonest going on with the ratings. And that number doesn't even reflect my personal experience. Around 90% of the people i know enjoyed this movie. Based on personal experience and online information, i can't really subscribe to the idea that this is divisive. I just don't have enough information to draw that conclusion.

Well apparently 147 thousand people out there reckon GL is just a hair away from MOS quality wise. Speaks bigger numbers than everyone you know right? Unless everyone you know feels the same way? Or could it be that these numbers are totally flawed?

Rhetorical question. We know they are.

 

[Marvin]

Let me put it to you this way; on RT you can see 226 people's opinions reflecting reality more than a supposed 146 thousand + like here; http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/

All this shows is the margin of error is much bigger on the user rating side than the critical one. Give me a system that relies on smaller numbers that give more accuracy to reality, than thousands or millions that don't.

this is a slippery slope.
Imagine if you will you got the entire audience consensus on a movie(if such a thing were possible), would you actually claim that these 200 or so opinions are closer to the so called 'reality' when it comes to judging what the consensus is on if a piece of art is liked?
For me that would seem entirely counter intuitive.

the thing about the term consensus when it comes down to preference, is that it's accuracy is in large part measured by how large the group is being polled. A consensus of 7 billion providing something 'more' than a consensus between 2 if you catch my drift.
Moreover, people like what they like. I'm willing to accept alot of people(young women in particular) like justin beibers new song over mozzart, or the beetles over beethoven, regardless of what the critical consensus is. People are capable of liking all sorts of things(Avengers over godfather), we're all different, and polling a smaller group vs a bigger one on such things again, counter intuitive imo.

Lots of people, kids in particular probably enjoy the fun, and colours and reynolds and stuff of that lantern movie. Very much a 90's throw back. Not my cup of tea but I wouldn't assume to assert what the reality is when I have friends that enjoy all sorts of things.

 

[The Joker]

this is a slippery slope.
Imagine if you will you got the entire audience consensus on a movie(if such a thing were possible), would you actually claim that these 200 or so opinions are closer to the so called 'reality' when it comes to judging what the consensus is on if a piece of art is liked? the thing about the term consensus when it comes down to preference, is that it's accuracy is in large part measured by how large the group is being polled. A consensus of 7 billion providing something 'more' than a consensus between 2 if you catch my drift.
Moreover, people like what they like. I'm willing to accept alot of people(young women in particular) like justin beibers new song over mozzart, or the beetles over beethoven, regardless of what the critical consensus is. People are capable of liking all sorts of things(Avengers over godfather), we're all different, and polling a smaller group vs a bigger one on such things again, counter intuitive imo.

Lots of people, kids in particular probably enjoy the fun, and colours and reynolds and stuff of that lantern movie. Very much a 90's throw back. Not my cup of tea but I wouldn't assume to assert what the reality is when I have friends that enjoy all sorts of things.

This is exactly why you can't use things like the RT user ratings as a basis. The very reason someone might have rated MOS and GL so close is for superficial reasons like that. That doesn't speak to the movie's quality much.

But the point is if you're going to use RT user ratings then you have to acknowledge that movies like Spider-Man 3 and GL are almost as good as MOS is, at least according to the ratings. So if you're going to use them to defend a movie, then you're also accepting that, too.

I don't, and I know most people wouldn't either because in no reality is GL or Spider-Man 3 seen in the same ballpark as MOS by any kind of consensus. But if any MOS fan wants to believe they are, that's ok with me. It's no compliment to MOS.

 

[Deadshot]

When I say yours are identical to said former banned member, I mean identical. Right down to the little things like the gore in horror movies argument Kahran mentioned above. Nobody else here matches your style. You also have to understand said banned member keeps coming back again and again no matter how many times they get banned. Here you are another newbie saying all the same stuff they did. Posting in all the same threads. Making all the same arguments. Identical.

You show all the signs of this person. People will find that very difficult to believe as coincidence. Again I'm not accusing you, but it's only natural people would associate you with this person given how identical you are. Though I will say it is wrong to out right accuse you without proof.

Yeah, if there's someone out there who says the exact same things as i do, which i kind of doubt, it is very strange indeed. Though i don't think i've presented any opinion in this forum that is totally unheard of.

I think you should just contact a moderator so he can ban me as soon as possible.

What are you talking about? Show me a perception of reality other than those numbers which reflect Green Lantern and MOS being so similar in quality.

Then tell me it's wise to rely on those numbers for your perception of reality.

According to RT, MOS anf Green Lanter are not similar in quality. One was liked by 45%, the other by 76%, which seems about right to me.

Really so I am just speculating and imagining when I say Green Lantern and MOS are not viewed as very similar in quality?

I don't rate MOS very highly, but even I know that's not true. GL is seen as one of the worst CBMs, whereas MOS is divisive at best. No 3.7 and 3.9 out of 5 score on RT is going to change that fact.

Green Lantern is 3.1 on RT and 5.6 on IMDB. Quite a bit lower than MOS.

Well apparently 147 thousand people out there reckon GL is just a hair away from MOS quality wise. Speaks bigger numbers than everyone you know right? Unless everyone you know feels the same way? Or could it be that these numbers are totally flawed?

Rhetorical question. We know they are.

As i said, the gap between the two is not that small as you're claiming.

 

[The Joker]

Yeah, if there's someone out there who says the exact same things as i do, which i kind of doubt, it is very strange indeed. Though i don't think i've presented any opinion in this forum that is totally unheard of.

It's not the opinion, it's the way you present it. The types of arguments you use. You participate in all the same threads. Use all the same little tropes and reasoning in the arguments. Things only this person used.

That's why people have been singling you out. It's like looking at a different face speaking in a familiar voice.

I think you should just contact a moderator so he can ban me as soon as possible.

I'm not trying to get you banned. I also can't make a moderator ban anyone unless there's grounds for it. And even then the decision isn't mine to make.

According to RT, MOS anf Green Lanter are not similar in quality. One was liked by 45%, the other by 76%, which seems about right to me.

According to RT MOS has an average user rating of 3.9/5, a fact you were using as a defense. Also according to RT GL has an average user rating of 3.1/5. That's a score difference of 0.8

So explain to me how that makes them 45% and 76% different. Then you have Spider-Man 3 with a 3.3/5, just a mere 0.6 difference and a supposed 51%. Explain that as well please because I'm just not getting their math % here.

Green Lantern is 3.1 on RT and 5.6 on IMDB. Quite a bit lower than MOS.

3.1 and 3.9 is not a huge difference. You think there's only a 0.8 gap between them quality wise?

As for IMDb, you might as well make up your own scores than use that website. Nobody takes IMDb seriously. It's a joke.

As i said, the gap between the two is not that small as you're claiming.

Yes it is.

 

[Marvin]

This is exactly why you can't use things like the RT user ratings as a basis. The very reason someone might have rated MOS and GL so close is for superficial reasons like that. That doesn't speak to the movie's quality much.

But the point is if you're going to use RT user ratings then you have to acknowledge that movies like Spider-Man 3 and GL are almost as good as MOS is, at least according to the ratings. So if you're going to use them to defend a movie, then you're also accepting that, too.

I don't, and I know most people wouldn't either because in no reality is GL or Spider-Man 3 seen in the same ballpark as MOS by any kind of consensus. But if any MOS fan wants to believe they are, that's ok with me. It's no compliment to MOS.

If you are going to use that site then you are going to have to acknowledge that movies like sm3 and lantern can be liked by the masses as much as MOS(though I doubt that even fickle Rt states such a thing), which is very easy for someone like me, especially when someone like me don't have some kinda stake in some kinda game.
I also can see the masses as both fickle and insightful as they may like "fellow that bird" more than "2001". If the measure is how much something is liked by an audience that includes people like my aunt then all bets are off. I am again talking about consensus and what it yields, not so much rt and how they collect data.

Anyways your mistake here is thinking this is then indicative of what is commonly perceived as 'good' around these parts, and tbh when it comes to art I personally avoid such discussions(around these parts). You mention reality when I personally don't think we have the same concept of what that really is.

 

[batfreakforever]

The action in Man of steel craps on anything marvel has ever done in the mcu. I don't feel any dread or tension in the mcu films. I own them and they are entertaining but the action is the same in every film.

 

[Marvin]

The action in Man of steel craps on anything marvel has ever done in the mcu. I don't feel any dread or tension in the mcu films. I own them and they are entertaining but the action is the same in every film.

what about winter soldier?

 

[The Joker]

If you are going to use that site then you are going to have to acknowledge that movies like sm3 and lantern can be liked by the masses as much as MOS(though I doubt that even fickle Rt states such a thing), which is very easy for someone like me, especially when someone like me don't have some kinda stake in some kinda game.
I also can see the masses as both fickle and insightful as they may like "fellow that bird" more than "2001". If the measure is how much something is liked by an audience that includes people like my aunt then all bets are off. I am again talking about consensus and what it yields, not so much rt and how they collect data.

Anyways your mistake here is thinking this is then indicative of what is commonly perceived as 'good' around these parts, and tbh when it comes to art I personally avoid such discussions(around these parts). You mention reality when I personally don't think we have the same concept of what that really is.

I'm sorry, Marvin, but I don't even know what you're talking about any more. You lost me at the having a stake in a game comment.

You say if you use RT then you have to acknowledge that movies like SM-3 and GL are as much liked as MOS. I don't. Not remotely. But like I said if anyone wants to believe that then feel free, as that is no compliment to MOS.

 

[Deadshot]

It's not the opinion, it's the way you present it. The types of arguments you use. You participate in all the same threads. Use all the same little tropes and reasoning in the arguments. Things only this person used.

That's why people have been singling you out. It's like looking at a different face speaking in a familiar voice.



I'm not trying to get you banned. I also can't make a moderator ban anyone unless there's grounds for it. And even then the decision isn't mine to make.

You're not being too objective and i don't really know what you mean. I think this discussion is pointless. Believe whatever you want.

According to RT MOS has an average user rating of 3.9/5, a fact you were using as a defense. Also according to RT GL has an average user rating of 3.1/5. That's a score difference of 0.8

So explain to me how that makes them 45% and 76% different. Then you have Spider-Man 3 with a 3.3/5, just a mere 0.6 difference and a supposed 51%. Explain that as well please because I'm just not getting their math % here.

It depends on how people vote for certain movies.

Let's imagine:

Movie A - 80%

10 votes: 6.5, 6.5, 7, 7, 9, 8.5, 6, 7, 1, 4 - 6.1

Movie B - 50%

10 votes: 9, 7, 7, 10, 7, 4, 4, 3,2, 4 - 5.7

A movie with 50% can have an average rating similar to a movie with 80%.

3.1 and 3.9 is not a huge difference. You think there's only a 0.8 gap between them quality wise?

As for IMDb, you might as well make up your own scores than use that website. Nobody takes IMDb seriously. It's a joke.

Well, it's only a 5 star system. Everything seems very close. But you can see a 3.1 score as a 6.2/10 and a 3.9 as a 7.8/10. I do think the difference is big, don't you? I see a 6.2 as a "meh" movie and a 7.8 as something pretty good. To me Green Lantern was a 5, but i have no problem accepting that a lot of people enjoyed it more than i did.

But again, just because you don't understand, agree or accept something, doesn't mean it is wrong. I think that's the part you're strugling with. I'm also not saying i agree with RT's ratings. Most of them, i don't agree with. But i also don't see any reason to believe they're "fake". And even if they are, how do i know what's the reality? Do i simply look at what critics say? Do i look at what my 30 friends say? That seems like a very small number of people to draw any conclusion from. Plus, if you're gonna question the general audience rating, why not question critics too?

 

[Marvin]

I'm sorry, Marvin, but I don't even know what you're talking about any more. You lost me at the having a stake in a game comment.

You say if you use RT then you have to acknowledge that movies like SM-3 and GL are as much liked as MOS. I don't. Not remotely. But like I said if anyone wants to believe that then feel free, as that is no compliment to MOS.

My point about stake in the game refers to your comment about it being no compliment to mos. I say so what. You make it sound like that's some kinda deterrent or something. Moreover, not sure why you keep bringing up MOS when there are plenty of films in the same boat.
Secondly, mos and gl aren't actually in the same boat on rt. Avg rating and liked percentage works the same way as it does with the critical scores. Last I checked I was talking about the liked category.

thirdly I said if you use it you have to accept the possibility. You don't and that's your prerogative, I personally don't put much past a general audience when it comes to liking art.
to each his own.

 

[The Joker]

My point about stake in the game refers to your comment about it being no compliment to mos. I say so what. You make it sound like that's some kinda deterrent or something. Moreover, not sure why you keep bringing up MOS when there are plenty of films in the same boat.
Secondly, mos and gl aren't actually in the same boat on rt. Avg rating and liked percentage works the same way as it does with the critical scores. Last I checked I was talking about the liked category.

Ok just two things to clear this up;

1. I mention it as being no compliment to MOS because Deadshot used RT as a defense for it.

2. I'm sure there are plenty of movies in the same boat on there. I used two others myself as an example. It's why I don't use RT user scores to gauge public consensus of the movie. It's way too flawed. The only reason MOS was mentioned in particular here was because it was the movie Deadshot was using in his/her argument. That's all.

thirdly I said if you use it you have to accept the possibility. You don't and that's your prerogative, I personally don't put much past a general audience when it comes to liking art.
to each his own.

Fair enough.

You're not being too objective and i don't really know what you mean. I think this discussion is pointless. Believe whatever you want.

How objective do you want me to be? I haven't accused you of anything. I didn't even bring this up in the first place. I've just stated facts. People have not noticed these similarities out of thin air. We're not all imagining the same things about you.

It depends on how people vote for certain movies.

Let's imagine:

Movie A - 80%

10 votes: 6.5, 6.5, 7, 7, 9, 8.5, 6, 7, 1, 4 - 6.1

Movie B - 50%

10 votes: 9, 7, 7, 10, 7, 4, 4, 3,2, 4 - 5.7

A movie with 50% can have an average rating similar to a movie with 80%.

That does not remotely explain that 45% and 76% scores for those numbers. All you've done is added up 10 numbers and divided them by 10. I know how average user ratings are calculated. That's simple math. I'm talking about those percentage scores.

Well, it's only a 5 star system. Everything seems very close. But you can see a 3.1 score as a 6.2/10 and a 3.9 as a 7.8/10. I do think the difference is big, don't you? I see a 6.2 as a "meh" movie and a 7.8 as something pretty good. To me Green Lantern was a 5, but i have no problem accepting that a lot of people enjoyed it more than i did.

But again, just because you don't understand, agree or accept something, doesn't mean it is wrong. I think that's the part you're strugling with. I'm also not saying i agree with RT's ratings. Most of them, i don't agree with. But i also don't see any reason to believe they're "fake". And even if they are, how do i know what's the reality? Do i simply look at what critics say? Do i look at my 30 friends say? That seems like a very small number of people to draw any conclusion from. Plus, if you're gonna question the general audience rating, why not question critics too?

The star system? You mean IMDb? You really are using IMDb to back up your point about movie scores? The website is a joke. A piece of fiction. Ask anyone. You might as well make up your own scores. It's the most unreliable site of the lot for anything like that. Nobody takes the place seriously. If they did you'd have seen a lot more bragging about this from Nolan fans;

http://batman-news.com/2015/10/14/batman-imdb-25-year-list/

It's got nothing to do with me agreeing or accepting anything. That's your issue as you are using a website that says MOS is as close in quality to the consensus as the likes of GL and Spider-Man 3. I'm not the one using RT's user ratings as a defense. You are. So if you are then you need to accept that. Not me. That was the whole point. You tried to use RT as a defense for MOS, so if you are then you need to accept the ratings of all the other movies on there, too.

As for understanding, I understand perfectly. This isn't a complicated issue.