So Aquaman....its everything I expected it would be.

[Saelune]

Y'know, I've just realized something - why's the MCU even being discussed here? It was mentioned once by Shinji, then Saelune brings it into things.

Anyway:

Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

The second group's opinions should be weighed as well - judging a piece of media as an adaptation is different from judging a piece of media via its actual quality (or lack of it). But as for the third group, as soon as they see the piece of media in question, they're entitled to a view on it. Because while the third group is coming from a piece of bias, then any pro-genre (depending on genre) viewer is also coming from a position of bias. And since the objective reviewer is a unicorn, everyone's coming from a place of bias at the end of the day.

OP mentioned Marvel, and MCU is far and above over DC for movies.

Sure, everyone is 'entitled' to have a view on anything, but not everyone needs to be listened to. Marvel/Disney should not waste their time listening to people who arent going to watch the movies anyways.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Y'know, I've just realized something - why's the MCU even being discussed here? It was mentioned once by Shinji, then Saelune brings it into things.

Anyway:

Some people dislike MCU cause of the tone. Some people dislike MCU cause of how they treat the source material. Some people dislike MCU cause they think all superhero movies are childish garbage. I don't really think the third group's opinion matters much here.

The second group's opinions should be weighed as well - judging a piece of media as an adaptation is different from judging a piece of media via its actual quality (or lack of it). But as for the third group, as soon as they see the piece of media in question, they're entitled to a view on it. Because while the third group is coming from a piece of bias, then any pro-genre (depending on genre) viewer is also coming from a position of bias. And since the objective reviewer is a unicorn, everyone's coming from a place of bias at the end of the day.

I see the point you?re trying to advocate, but when the question is ?is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?? (operative term being ?superhero,?) what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don?t like superhero films? By your reasoning, a vegan?s input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater. Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, ?bias? is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you?re seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you?ll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I?ll give you that you?d want their objective opinions from within that pool.

 

[Hawki]

I see the point you?re trying to advocate, but when the question is ?is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?? (operative term being ?superhero,?) what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don?t like superhero films?

I've seen this reasoning before. A recent example would be Last Jedi, with the phrase "it's a good film, just not a good Star Wars film" popping up everywhere. And while I've got my own personal examples of this (e.g. Terminator 3), the concept doesn't go so far as to say that people who don't like the film series/genre/whatever have no opinion worth giving.

If we actually apply this ideology as writ, then, among other things, critic reviews would have to be screened - apparently you'd need to be a fan of the genre before giving a review on it. If only people who have a positive pre-disposition towards a genre/series are allowed to give feedback, then that feedback is going to be heavily biased. It's certainly not going to do those with no disposition one way or the other any favours if they're only getting biaised feedback.

By your reasoning, a vegan?s input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater.

If the vegan actually eats the meat, then their feedback on the quality of the meat itself is valid.

Also, key difference - a vegan can't eat meat without breaking their veganism. There's no equivalent philosophy in critique of media - swearing off a genre/series isn't something that's generally lauded.

Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, ?bias? is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you?re seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you?ll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I?ll give you that you?d want their objective opinions from within that pool.

Bias can be helpful if you're seeking opinions of only a certain disposition...whether it's good to seek those opinions is another matter.

Like, for instance, take Captain Marvel as the next MCU film that's coming out. Saelune sees it and says it's great. Samtembo sees it and says it's bad. John Doe sees it and gives whatever opinion. Of those three, John Doe is generally the person I'm the most interested in getting feedback from. Saelune is an MCU fangirl and doesn't hide it. Samtembo greatly dislikes the style of the MCU and doesn't hide it either. I've got no idea about the biases of John Doe, but if JD gives a review, then JD's feedback is the most valuable because I'm operating under the assumption that JD is at least trying to be as objective as possible. If you want a real-world example of this, I stopped paying attention to a lot of Movie Bob's reviews ages ago, because he's got biases (e.g. pro Marvel, pro Nintendo) and doesn't even try to hide them. Same thing with Zero Punctuation (key difference that ZP is selling itself primarily as comedy).

 

[Xprimentyl]

I see the point you?re trying to advocate, but when the question is ?is [insert superhero film title here] a good superhero film?? (operative term being ?superhero,?) what sense does it make to consider the opinion of those who don?t like superhero films?

I've seen this reasoning before. A recent example would be Last Jedi, with the phrase "it's a good film, just not a good Star Wars film" popping up everywhere. And while I've got my own personal examples of this (e.g. Terminator 3), the concept doesn't go so far as to say that people who don't like the film series/genre/whatever have no opinion worth giving.

If we actually apply this ideology as writ, then, among other things, critic reviews would have to be screened - apparently you'd need to be a fan of the genre before giving a review on it. If only people who have a positive pre-disposition towards a genre/series are allowed to give feedback, then that feedback is going to be heavily biased. It's certainly not going to do those with no disposition one way or the other any favours if they're only getting biaised feedback.

By your reasoning, a vegan?s input as to the quality of the food at a steakhouse is as valid as the opinion of a meat-eater.

If the vegan actually eats the meat, then their feedback on the quality of the meat itself is valid.

Also, key difference - a vegan can't eat meat without breaking their veganism. There's no equivalent philosophy in critique of media - swearing off a genre/series isn't something that's generally lauded.

Obviously, the vegan/steakhouse analogy was a ham-handed one to highlight the absurdity of seeking the opinion of a thing from someone diametrically opposed to said thing; it wasn?t meant to pass literal scrutiny or the smell test of every conceivable hypothetical.

Though it seems to carry a negative connotation, ?bias? is not necessarily a bad thing; it can actually be helpful. When you?re seeking an aggregate opinion that gauges the quality of a very specific experience, it makes sense to narrow the pool of opinions you?ll consider to those that are biased towards/have a predisposition in favor of that very specific experience. That being said, I?ll give you that you?d want their objective opinions from within that pool.

Bias can be helpful if you're seeking opinions of only a certain disposition...whether it's good to seek those opinions is another matter.

Yes, that was the exact intent of my post. Back to our vegan, he can chew the steak and tell you it?s tender, salty, medium rare, etc. But ask him if it?s a GOOD steak. After he finishes puking his guts out and his repentant self-flagellation, I think his opinion should lose some weight. The intent of the asker determines the weight of the answers. In this case, I?m not just hungry for food (i.e.: willing to eat at a vegan restaurant,) I want a good steak.

Like, for instance, take Captain Marvel as the next MCU film that's coming out. Saelune sees it and says it's great. Samtembo sees it and says it's bad. John Doe sees it and gives whatever opinion. Of those three, John Doe is generally the person I'm the most interested in getting feedback from. Saelune is an MCU fangirl and doesn't hide it. Samtembo greatly dislikes the style of the MCU and doesn't hide it either. I've got no idea about the biases of John Doe, but if JD gives a review, then JD's feedback is the most valuable because I'm operating under the assumption that JD is at least trying to be as objective as possible.

In this example, it?s evident that you?re just looking for a good movie; for your purposes, it makes sense for you to weigh these opinions all relatively equally. Then I come along looking for a good MCU movie; Samtemdo?s opinion is entirely invalid for me because he is diametrically opposed to everything I hope this film to be and thusly has no relevant bearing on whether or not I?ll enjoy it. The object review is indeed a unicorn, but also like the unicorn in rarity, it is highly unnecessary in a lot of ways. I can safely say that most people don?t always approach entertainment media from a stark, clinical perspective; they?re looking to ENJOY things, so the enthusiastic opinion of others who also enjoy those things is helpful, and the more specific one can be in that pursuit, the better.

 

[Hawki]

Obviously, the vegan/steakhouse analogy was a ham-handed one to highlight the absurdity of seeking the opinion of a thing from someone diametrically opposed to said thing; it wasn?t meant to pass literal scrutiny or the smell test of every conceivable hypothetical.

Thing is, I don't see that as inherently absurd.

I mean, if you want confirmation that something is good then you're not going to get confirmation from such a source. If you want confirmation it's bad, then it's a good source.

But the vegan analogy is still a bad one, because a vegan is going to object to eating steak for any number of reasons. There's no equivalent philosophy in media criticism. I'm sure that people avoid certain genres, but there's no unifying philosophy for them.

Yes, that was the exact intent of my post. Back to our vegan, he can chew the steak and tell you it?s tender, salty, medium rare, etc. But ask him if it?s a GOOD steak. After he finishes puking his guts out and his repentant self-flagellation, I think his opinion should lose some weight.

Debatable. This is assuming that he's even going to be puking or self-flagellating at all.

Veganism can come from a variety of factors, such as ethics or health. It doesn't inherently remove the ability to have a taste for meat. It might be less of a worthwhile opinion than someone with no such tendencies, but it doesn't remove the viability of the opinion in of itself.

In this example, it?s evident that you?re just looking for a good movie; for your purposes, it makes sense for you to weigh these opinions all relatively equally.

Um, no. I thought I made that clear.

If we're going back to the analogy, Saelune is a steak lover, Sam is a vegan, John Doe is just some guy. That's not to say that the opinions of the first two are invalid, but they're a lot less useful to me.

Even if I fell into either of their camps, I'd still be aware that their opinion is a lot less useful to me, because it's coming from a place of bias. And yes, everyone is biaised. I've got biases. But any reviewer worth their salt should at least try to keep their biases in check.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

It made me really want to play DnD.

I had a similar sentiment. When we were leaving the theater I turned to my girlfriend and said "I feel like I just watched the most expensive D&D campaign ever."

It was all there. The ancient civilizations, fallen rulers with magical mcguffins, a related villain with angsty backstory, a motley crew of allies- every D&D cliche in the book.

Overall I had a good time. It wasn't my favorite superhero movie ever but it was the first DC movie in a long time that didn't come across as embarrassed to be a comic book movie. I really enjoyed Wonder Woman but even it didn't revel in its comic book-ness as much as Aquaman. This film found a nice groove between high stakes action and embracing the inherent silliness of Aquaman.

 

[laggyteabag]

My girlfriend went to see it, and her impressions were that it was "fine". I think i'll take her word for it, i've been bored to death watching DC's cringe-fest of a film franchise 5 times before, and I don't really want to spend 2h 20m doing it again.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, praise Beebo it's not up its own ass.

Okay but can we talk about legends of meow meow and how perfect it was

Sorry to uote a month old post, been away with health problems. But more importantly, that was an utterly epic episode. So much so that I watched it three times before it dawned on me that it was essentially "here I Go Again" redone.

With heart and fabric.

Seriously though, if we all want the true DC universe in film.

True Scotsman fallacy: now in comics!

Part of the problem is that DC is a large jumble of concepts and properties and versions. Sometimes Batman is a campy crusader. Sometmes he kidnaps orphans and abuses them. Sometimes Aquaman is silly and fun. other times, he's a badass sub-maniner with a hook hand. The real DC is kind of a jumbled mess.

A real good DC? That's also debatable.

I wish Alex Ross was working on the movies.

I really don't. I wish we had some new ideas that aren't "what if Batman and Superman were unlikable assholes and we smashed them together like action figures" or "what if we took the guy who did the Avengers and give everyone MCU Dad joke lines?"

I've read most of those comics. I'd rather see something new. And I think the general audience would probably not have the level of affection you do.

I think the general public wold sooner get behind Miller's All-Star Batman.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Oh, praise Beebo it's not up its own ass.

Okay but can we talk about legends of meow meow and how perfect it was

Sorry to uote a month old post, been away with health problems. But more importantly, that was an utterly epic episode. So much so that I watched it three times before it dawned on me that it was essentially "here I Go Again" redone.

With heart and fabric.

Seriously though, if we all want the true DC universe in film.

True Scotsman fallacy: now in comics!

Part of the problem is that DC is a large jumble of concepts and properties and versions. Sometimes Batman is a campy crusader. Sometmes he kidnaps orphans and abuses them. Sometimes Aquaman is silly and fun. other times, he's a badass sub-maniner with a hook hand. The real DC is kind of a jumbled mess.

A real good DC? That's also debatable.

I wish Alex Ross was working on the movies.

I really don't. I wish we had some new ideas that aren't "what if Batman and Superman were unlikable assholes and we smashed them together like action figures" or "what if we took the guy who did the Avengers and give everyone MCU Dad joke lines?"

I've read most of those comics. I'd rather see something new. And I think the general audience would probably not have the level of affection you do.

I think the general public wold sooner get behind Miller's All-Star Batman.

What's wrong with Alex Ross?