Well I didn't agree with you on Green lantern so you comparing this to that is all I need to know to go watch this movie.
Yes, for all I know I might enjoy Spiderman. I could hate it too. That is why I trust critics who's opinions and body of work I am familiar with, instead of a percentage of faceless reviewers I know nothing about. I pick familiar reviewers because I can then contrast them with my own opinions. I don't usually agree with Bob's opinions, but I know where to place them. That is more than can be said for a vague concensus of strangers I can't trust. Jim, please help me out here. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E]PhunkyPhazon said:You can listen to them without adapting their opinion right off the bat. For all you know, you might absolutely adore this movie. In my case, the issue isn't so much taking the opinions of reviewers into account...it's taking *one* reviewer's opinion into account. Did you know this movie currently has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 73%, because some reviewers are actually liking it? Why not listen to what they have to say before blindly jumping on the bandwagon?maninahat said:Do you even know what film reviews are for? We use their opinions to help form our own. Just what is the point of listening to a reviewer if you don't listen to them? Movie Bob here has just saved me £10 - he's done his job.
I haven't seen the movie, I was going from Bob's opinion, which is turning out to be false. it seems that everybody else who saw the movie says that it's good, while everyone who says it's bad hasn't actually seen it (including myself)Cheery Lunatic said:Have you seen the movie? It's actually pretty good.TheFederation said:first one more day, then spiderman 3, then spectacular spiderman being cancelled, then the stupid ultimate spiderman, and now this?
someone up there really hates spiderman
Most of the reviews have been positive as well.
The movie is pretty damn close to the comics as well. So I'm not sure about this "some up there really hates Spider-Man."
OT: Saw it, loved it. Great aesthetics, amazing acting from everyone. The Lizard was kind of disappointing, but the story was told so well and the characters were represented so well, I ended up forgiving it. Also, Garfield was a GREAT Peter, he actually had some snark, something Tobey (or more like Raimi) forgot.
And I'm sure people have already been going on about this but Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey was infinitely better than Kirsten Dunst's melodramatic Mary-Jane.
Movie Bob obviously really wanted to hate this movie, and refused to see it in any other way. Soulless? Most complimented on how well the leads worked together, and how emotional their interactions were. Whatever Bob, I always took your reviews less seriously than I did ZP.
You know, he's totally right. It's clear the collective opinions of society have only shown that none of us know what we really like and don't like. In fact, everyone in the world should be told which movies they can and can't see, and we should put people like Bob in that position so that we'll only watch what he wants us to watch.MacNille said:I think that I will still see this movie. I want to form my own opionen. Rotten Tomeatoes say it have 74% ratings so it can't be bad? It is the worst thing that have happen to journalism since forever acording to bob! Ratings as the sword for the devil!
https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/220257304845623298
(Yes, that is his real tweet)
Oh, I definitely agree that you shouldn't just look at the percentage and scores and leave it at that. But I've found you gain a lot more information on the state of a movie by listening to multiple critics from both sides of the argument. It paints a vivid picture of what works well and what doesn't, and once you have said picture you can compare it with your own tastes and preferences to get a clear idea if its worth your money. Listening to just one side will only leave you jaded in the end.maninahat said:Yes, for all I know I might enjoy Spiderman. I could hate it too. That is why I trust critics who's opinions and body of work I am familiar with, instead of a percentage of faceless reviewers I know nothing about. I pick familiar reviewers because I can then contrast them with my own opinions. I don't usually agree with Bob's opinions, but I know where to place them. That is more than can be said for a vague concensus of strangers I can't trust. Jim, please help me out here. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E]PhunkyPhazon said:You can listen to them without adapting their opinion right off the bat. For all you know, you might absolutely adore this movie. In my case, the issue isn't so much taking the opinions of reviewers into account...it's taking *one* reviewer's opinion into account. Did you know this movie currently has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 73%, because some reviewers are actually liking it? Why not listen to what they have to say before blindly jumping on the bandwagon?maninahat said:Do you even know what film reviews are for? We use their opinions to help form our own. Just what is the point of listening to a reviewer if you don't listen to them? Movie Bob here has just saved me £10 - he's done his job.
Indeed. It's important to note as well that Bob isn't concerned with trivialities such as providing an honest critique, he's here to save cinema.TheDrunkNinja said:In fact, while we're at it, let's just purge freewill from the collective consciousness all together. It's clear we have no idea what the fuck we're doing. Thank god for Bob.
Listening to a few critics is fine, and Bob is just one of a couple I go to for opinions - I just rely on knowing which ones to listen to, and when. For instance, I would disregard Bob's opinion on an upcoming Expendables movie, but perhaps I would rely on a Half in a Bag instead, because I have an idea of what movies these reviews like or dislike.PhunkyPhazon said:Oh, I definitely agree that you shouldn't just look at the percentage and scores and leave it at that. But I've found you gain a lot more information on the state of a movie by listening to multiple critics from both sides of the argument. It paints a vivid picture of what works well and what doesn't, and once you have said picture you can compare it with your own tastes and preferences to get a clear idea if its worth your money. Listening to just one side will only leave you jaded in the end.maninahat said:snipPhunkyPhazon said:snipmaninahat said:snip
Besides, how else does a reviewer gain your trust if you decide to never, ever listen to them? It's amazing you started listening to any of them at all in that case.
I have seen that as well. It would interesting to see if those were based on whether they are reviewing the movie on it's own meritcs, based on the comics or based on the previous movies. I know it's only been 10 years, and they wanted to continue the franchise and had to do it with different actors. I wonder if they should have just continued on with no backstory and a new villian?scotth266 said:Strangely enough, opinions about this Spider-Man movie appear to be all over the board. Some reviews say it's great, others say it's mediocre, and some (like Bob here) say it's piss-poor. I'm betting it'll wind up being just sort of okay, doing some things right and others wrong. I'll wind up seeing it myself, if only because I like Spider-Man.