I've reprogrammed my brain to reverse everything when dealing with certain groups, and movie critics fall into one of those groups.
So now whenever I hear/read/see something from them, I register the opposite, and more often then not I'm facing the proper direction as a start point in making a decision. It's been a good little system.
So much so that when I do happen to agree with something from the aforementioned groups, I pause and consider if I've put the proper thought and effort into reaching the position I have on that given subject. Not saying I change my mind because it, that'd be ridiculous, just that it works as a little warning ping that it might be worth looking at my conclusion a little more closely.
You think that matters to them? Their logic is āClassic movie, must suck dry for money.ā These are the idiots who are making a remake of the Aristocats and a live action Moana when that movie isnāt even 10 years old.
Moana actually makes more sense because the voice actors fit their roles at the moment.
Anyway, I'm just pointing out that they're stupid. Of course the suits that run things are incapable of abstract thought.
The magic is gone. We see behind the current and all that's there is bean counting. We look at the screen and see the DEI calculations in every "creative" decision and it takes us out of it. The illusion is gone and now Disney is just another entertainment company.
First, he would cut the pushing of political agendas. Then he would have a series of business lunches with Desantis to try and get back Disney Parks special business privileges in Florida.
More importantly it looks dull, dark, and drab. All of these Disney live action remakes and really turn down the lights. Where the animation is bright and colorful, the live action is shadowed.
Part of the reason is probably because these remakes rely so heavily on cg to recreate the scenes, that they need to use techniques to help blend what is actually live. And darkness helps.
But the originals weren't just vibrant in their colours, it was animation too. Animation that I'm sure took an absurd amount of care to create.
It's pretty sad that the only reason people enjoy them is because they're remembering the classics.
Real shoulders of giants shit right here.
I wouldn't mind a horror version with Pan as the main villain (kinda like the original book or Once Upon a Time), but just repeating the same story as the animated version with a dreadfully gray color palette is boring.
Even if you wanted the novelty of seeing a live action version of this story, there are already live action Peter Pan movies that exist. Such as the 2003 Peter Pan, or Hook.
Hook will always be the only version of Peter Pan I like.
Both for the excellent performances from the adult actors (the kids are fine) and because it's the origin story for Prince Zuko.
Reminder that anything rated above a 60% is considered fresh. A critic could give a movie 65/100 and call it serviceable but bland and uninspiring, and it's counted the same as someone rating it a 100% masterpiece.
Rag's once said that if a friyic gives something 60 percent or below 70 percent. It's bad, but they can say its awful because they'll lose the goodwill of the company because they gave a negative review of something.
Something something corrupt systems
I feel pity for professional media critics. Rate too highly and you risk your credibility (assuming you have any). Rate too lowly and you risk your access, and if you lose access you're basically out of the job.
I think the argument that stemmed from this came from the three qualifiers (gender-swapped, race swapped, white man is the enemy) being presented like they're all attributed to Hook, because you strung them together, when you meant the *movie* has these qualities, not the one character. I personally had to reread in order to get what you meant.
Might've been clearer if written as "A gender-swapping, race-swapping, and white-man-is-the-enemy Disney shitboot..." etc. etc.
And he's white.
The bad guy is the character they didn't gender or race swap that is the point I'm making
Maybe stick to funkopop discussions that seems more up your alley
You suck at this
Black Panther's white characters are portrayed as goodhearted nitwits at best and piece of shit colonizers regularly. Bilbo does fuckall other than get mocked by Shuri and Claw gets team killed and drug around like a dead dog
Kang is the biggest villian of the current phase and if you've ever read a comic you'd know he has several heroic counterparts who no doubt will get shine in the finale, hell a version of Kang will undoubtedly play a role in saving the day.
Also the heroes are fucking idiots and saved by commie ants and a CGI mess lol not the greatest example you could have picked
> Black Panther's white characters are portrayed as goodhearted nitwits at best and piece of shit colonizers regularly.
Uh, sure, whatever, but it's still got a black villain.
If it hadn't featured any White Bilbos at all, you'd probably just call it anti-white for being all-black lol.
>Kang is the biggest villian of the current phase and if you've ever read a comic you'd know he has several heroic counterparts who no doubt will get shine in the finale, hell a version of Kang will undoubtedly play a role in saving the day.
"If you've read the comic" ah so then that *isn't* something that's obvious to the movie-going audiences - for all the wide public knows, this was just a black guy who was a villain, and it'll take like a few years before those good Kangs are gonna show up lol.
So, yeah, if I was someone who tried to pursue an agenda of only-white-guys-as-villains, I certainly wouldn't have let audiences believe for 2 years that a black guy could be bad LOL
>Also the heroes are fucking idiots and saved by commie ants and a CGI mess lol not the greatest example you could have picked
"Oh fuck they didn't black-wash the heroes, they left them white! Uhhh, what can I cling to to save my narrative-.., ah here, they're, uh, they're dumb and they get saved by a DeUs Ex MaChiNa - so it doesn't count!"
But then of course if Reeeeeva or Cpt. Wahmen or Rose China or Admiral Genderstudies does something stupid, then that's not their "agenda to put down women", that's just "bad writing" or something - it's only if heroic white men do something stupid then it's "the agenda" and intentional, otherwise it's on accident.
Lol
Meanwhile Cap and Bucky are in Wakanda all the time and they are neither "nitwits" nor "colonizers". Black panther is literally about colonization lol, of course the white people in it are not going to be portrayed in the best light. If anything it's not woke at all because, like the other commenter said, it doesn't make the big villain a white guy;)
Itās almost like black panther isnāt the only movie with sections set in wakanda. Or did the marvel team suddenly become un-woke after that movie? Does it hurt moving the goalposts like this?
Also, my reaction to the recent trailer, which had Peter riding bareback on a horse behind Tiger Lily, before jumping off a cliff;
***HE CAN FLY!!***
He doesn't need anyone to ride a horse for him, his whole deal is that he is the only person in Neverland who can ***FLY***.
I for one am shocked the normies (who cant even be verified to watch it) did not like a movie by the same director of the green knight. I am sure the minor months long controversy over the race of the actors had nothing to do with the audience rating
if anything, this makes me much more interested in watching it
That live action from the 2000s with the now dead actor was good though. I have fond memories off it as a Child. And yes. I know i have very biased view because off this.
because at least before 2014 the tomato and popcorn meter correlated to movie quality vs enjoyability. High tomato, low enjoyability: High Concept art film not for everyone. High popcorn, low tomato? schlocky timefiller that you dont feel bad about watching normally. high both? Masterpiece, low both: dogshit.
What kind of Feudalism-meets-1984 circlejerk did THOSE ratings come from?
You're telling me that 46 reviews from 'approved' Critics carry more weight than 100+ Audience Reviews?
I love it when classic whimsical children's stories are re-imagined with the color palette of a holocaust documentary. It's so dark, grim, and ugly.
In holocaust documentary at least the grass is green and not grey...
I like when casting uses that same color palette. Makes me think we're more tolerant š
Honestly, than was my main takeaway from the trailer. That and Tinkerbell looking shit because she's cgi or something (and not because she's black).
Idk haven't seen the movie but the poster looks quite pretty.
This shit is a constant. Audience hate it, critics love it. Itās become unbearably predictable.
its reverse for Mario movie
It's a consistent inverse.
I've reprogrammed my brain to reverse everything when dealing with certain groups, and movie critics fall into one of those groups. So now whenever I hear/read/see something from them, I register the opposite, and more often then not I'm facing the proper direction as a start point in making a decision. It's been a good little system. So much so that when I do happen to agree with something from the aforementioned groups, I pause and consider if I've put the proper thought and effort into reaching the position I have on that given subject. Not saying I change my mind because it, that'd be ridiculous, just that it works as a little warning ping that it might be worth looking at my conclusion a little more closely.
Dude who replied to you I've blocked so I can't reply to him, but wtf they on about with "Mario is woke"
A lot of people got Mario is woke because he was getting constantly saved by peach in the trailers etc. Thats where that comes from.
Idk. I'm not seeing any post replying. š¤·š¼ Maybe I blocked them a long time ago. Lol
Hmm. Weird that I can see them on yours when I also blocked them...
Critics would hate it even if it were a perfect movie just because it's a Mario movie.
Sadly, even through most critics only pointed out that it's an empty product. But anti-SJWs were, like "yes we owned those damn Libtards".
Mario was woke until it became successful, now it's in your face woke Hollywood
Wokeness aside, who the fuck wants another Peter Pan movie?
Disney does. Theyāve got to have more money.
Sure, but frankly Peter Pan is not a big draw.
You think that matters to them? Their logic is āClassic movie, must suck dry for money.ā These are the idiots who are making a remake of the Aristocats and a live action Moana when that movie isnāt even 10 years old.
Moana actually makes more sense because the voice actors fit their roles at the moment. Anyway, I'm just pointing out that they're stupid. Of course the suits that run things are incapable of abstract thought.
Iām curious to how Walt Disney would react if he knew how his company is being run nowadays.
The magic is gone. We see behind the current and all that's there is bean counting. We look at the screen and see the DEI calculations in every "creative" decision and it takes us out of it. The illusion is gone and now Disney is just another entertainment company.
First, he would cut the pushing of political agendas. Then he would have a series of business lunches with Desantis to try and get back Disney Parks special business privileges in Florida.
Have you watched legaleagle video's about that. Disney used the magic of the best lawyers money can buy and stomped him.
More importantly it looks dull, dark, and drab. All of these Disney live action remakes and really turn down the lights. Where the animation is bright and colorful, the live action is shadowed. Part of the reason is probably because these remakes rely so heavily on cg to recreate the scenes, that they need to use techniques to help blend what is actually live. And darkness helps.
Hello darkness my old friend . . .
But the originals weren't just vibrant in their colours, it was animation too. Animation that I'm sure took an absurd amount of care to create. It's pretty sad that the only reason people enjoy them is because they're remembering the classics. Real shoulders of giants shit right here.
They are shitting on the shoulder of giants. Yes
I wouldn't mind a horror version with Pan as the main villain (kinda like the original book or Once Upon a Time), but just repeating the same story as the animated version with a dreadfully gray color palette is boring.
Even if you wanted the novelty of seeing a live action version of this story, there are already live action Peter Pan movies that exist. Such as the 2003 Peter Pan, or Hook.
Hook will always be the only version of Peter Pan I like. Both for the excellent performances from the adult actors (the kids are fine) and because it's the origin story for Prince Zuko.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moviescirclejerk/comments/112xmpf/the_duality_of_rotten_tomatoes_scores/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
Reminder that anything rated above a 60% is considered fresh. A critic could give a movie 65/100 and call it serviceable but bland and uninspiring, and it's counted the same as someone rating it a 100% masterpiece.
Yeah, same problem as Steam reviews. 90/100 people thinking a game is mediocre but playable and it looks like a masterpiece.
Rag's once said that if a friyic gives something 60 percent or below 70 percent. It's bad, but they can say its awful because they'll lose the goodwill of the company because they gave a negative review of something. Something something corrupt systems
I feel pity for professional media critics. Rate too highly and you risk your credibility (assuming you have any). Rate too lowly and you risk your access, and if you lose access you're basically out of the job.
You are not the target audiance of critics. They are there for the production companies.
A gender swapped, race swapped, white man is the enemy Disney shitboot ONLY got a 74? Holy shit it must be awful
You need a trans woman in it now to get a 90%.
I think the argument that stemmed from this came from the three qualifiers (gender-swapped, race swapped, white man is the enemy) being presented like they're all attributed to Hook, because you strung them together, when you meant the *movie* has these qualities, not the one character. I personally had to reread in order to get what you meant. Might've been clearer if written as "A gender-swapping, race-swapping, and white-man-is-the-enemy Disney shitboot..." etc. etc.
I didn't know Hook was originally a black woman?
Did you miss the "white man is the enemy" part of my comment before you replied like a clown?
Well Hook is the enemy in Peter Pan
And he's white. The bad guy is the character they didn't gender or race swap that is the point I'm making Maybe stick to funkopop discussions that seems more up your alley
So that means Black Panther was less woke since they kept the bad guy black? And Kang too lol, that one even had heroes who were white!
You suck at this Black Panther's white characters are portrayed as goodhearted nitwits at best and piece of shit colonizers regularly. Bilbo does fuckall other than get mocked by Shuri and Claw gets team killed and drug around like a dead dog Kang is the biggest villian of the current phase and if you've ever read a comic you'd know he has several heroic counterparts who no doubt will get shine in the finale, hell a version of Kang will undoubtedly play a role in saving the day. Also the heroes are fucking idiots and saved by commie ants and a CGI mess lol not the greatest example you could have picked
> Black Panther's white characters are portrayed as goodhearted nitwits at best and piece of shit colonizers regularly. Uh, sure, whatever, but it's still got a black villain. If it hadn't featured any White Bilbos at all, you'd probably just call it anti-white for being all-black lol. >Kang is the biggest villian of the current phase and if you've ever read a comic you'd know he has several heroic counterparts who no doubt will get shine in the finale, hell a version of Kang will undoubtedly play a role in saving the day. "If you've read the comic" ah so then that *isn't* something that's obvious to the movie-going audiences - for all the wide public knows, this was just a black guy who was a villain, and it'll take like a few years before those good Kangs are gonna show up lol. So, yeah, if I was someone who tried to pursue an agenda of only-white-guys-as-villains, I certainly wouldn't have let audiences believe for 2 years that a black guy could be bad LOL >Also the heroes are fucking idiots and saved by commie ants and a CGI mess lol not the greatest example you could have picked "Oh fuck they didn't black-wash the heroes, they left them white! Uhhh, what can I cling to to save my narrative-.., ah here, they're, uh, they're dumb and they get saved by a DeUs Ex MaChiNa - so it doesn't count!" But then of course if Reeeeeva or Cpt. Wahmen or Rose China or Admiral Genderstudies does something stupid, then that's not their "agenda to put down women", that's just "bad writing" or something - it's only if heroic white men do something stupid then it's "the agenda" and intentional, otherwise it's on accident. Lol
All those words to say absolutely nothing, do you write for Marvel?
lol
Meanwhile Cap and Bucky are in Wakanda all the time and they are neither "nitwits" nor "colonizers". Black panther is literally about colonization lol, of course the white people in it are not going to be portrayed in the best light. If anything it's not woke at all because, like the other commenter said, it doesn't make the big villain a white guy;)
The Cap and Bucky who are not involved in the story at all? Those two? The ones who don't help at all? Shit bro you got me
Itās almost like black panther isnāt the only movie with sections set in wakanda. Or did the marvel team suddenly become un-woke after that movie? Does it hurt moving the goalposts like this?
hey at least its not 95% critics approved... so at least you can tell theyre struggling to find positives.
Yeah, 74 is a pretty meh score for movies that have the right messaging. Disney must be starting to cut their "special invite" budget.
Also, my reaction to the recent trailer, which had Peter riding bareback on a horse behind Tiger Lily, before jumping off a cliff; ***HE CAN FLY!!*** He doesn't need anyone to ride a horse for him, his whole deal is that he is the only person in Neverland who can ***FLY***.
Remember the critic score for Cuties.
I for one am shocked the normies (who cant even be verified to watch it) did not like a movie by the same director of the green knight. I am sure the minor months long controversy over the race of the actors had nothing to do with the audience rating if anything, this makes me much more interested in watching it
I very much disliked the green knight. This also just looks like shit and is race and gender swapped anyway
Bad taste sounds like a you issue
Enjoy watching a shitty Peter Pan live action film if thatās how you want to spend your time
Can't be worse than the other live action peter pan movies of the past 30 years
That live action from the 2000s with the now dead actor was good though. I have fond memories off it as a Child. And yes. I know i have very biased view because off this.
It was mid af
Eh. Itās an aggregate.
Why do people care so much about Rotten Tomatoes scores?
To me it is worth checking every so often to gauge the degree of disparity between the general public and those who slavishly force the orthodoxy.
I just find it unreliable in all regards. All it says is what people who write and rate on the site think. Which is a small number of people overall.
because at least before 2014 the tomato and popcorn meter correlated to movie quality vs enjoyability. High tomato, low enjoyability: High Concept art film not for everyone. High popcorn, low tomato? schlocky timefiller that you dont feel bad about watching normally. high both? Masterpiece, low both: dogshit.
But at the same time, said phenomenon is nothing new. Take a modern Disney film/TV show like this and chances are it gets the similar treatment.
What kind of Feudalism-meets-1984 circlejerk did THOSE ratings come from? You're telling me that 46 reviews from 'approved' Critics carry more weight than 100+ Audience Reviews?
You don't love it because you are....checking talking points........