Movie Rian Johnson Star Wars Trilogy

[SM]

Knives Out does look quite good.

But that's because the tone and elements of it are not clashing with anything set in the same universe as that movie... Are people really that pig headed about RJ that they can't accept that when he's playing in his own sandbox he can actually make good movies? Looper was quite good, and his BB episodes were quite good.

I'm highly doubtful this trilogy goes ahead though as the above points still mean I'd be concerned about his movies 'feeling' like Star Wars.

 

[atlas1]

As I said, it’s a metric. If you want a collation of what mainstream critics think of as movie, it’s as good a site as any (in fact, your first two criticisms should be compliments. Of course it should select sources; I’m more interested in the views of people who watch a broad variety of movies and understand story and filmmaking, than some YouTuber who watches one genre religiously and doesn’t know his mis-en-scene from his miso soup).

They aren't criticisms, they're facts. I never said that they shouldn't or can't select sources, I'm saying that their scores shouldn't be given much thought when it's only a reflection from their curated list, those on that list are given weightings as Metacritic sees fit, and the scores from reviews that aren't numerical are converted purely based on the opinions of Metacritic staff.

Can you not see the problem with potentially misrepresenting the reception of something by only including sources that Metacritic deem worthy? Why aren't reviews from outside the US included? What if Metacritic employee A converts something different to Metacritic employee B? Why is one source weighted higher than another? Who gets to decide this? How much is it weighted by?
It just adds even more layers of subjectivity to what is already an incredibly subjective industry.

Saying that Movie X is rated as ___ on Metacritic, when only certain reviews are included and some reviews are subjectively treated as more important or influential than others, is probably not worth your time.

Another gripe I have with it is that their list of movie critics contains about 40 different publications, but the key problem with a lot of them is that there are usually many different critics associated with that publication (E.g. IGN, one of the metacritic approved). So the critic who reviews Roma might be different to who reviews Jurassic World.

The real question isn't do I care what critics think, that's just an excuse for you to go off on a tangent. All I was interested in discussing was the workings of Metacritic.

 

[edgie]

It seems unfortunate that someone has to so blindly seek validation in the critics to confirm they are liking or disliking the right films.

Once or twice saying 'so and so wrote a highly agreeable review of this' is one thing but this is quite another!

 

[JackOutback]

They aren't criticisms, they're facts. I never said that they shouldn't or can't select sources, I'm saying that their scores shouldn't be given much thought when it's only a reflection from their curated list, those on that list are given weightings as Metacritic sees fit, and the scores from reviews that aren't numerical are converted purely based on the opinions of Metacritic staff.

Can you not see the problem with potentially misrepresenting the reception of something by only including sources that Metacritic deem worthy? Why aren't reviews from outside the US included? What if Metacritic employee A converts something different to Metacritic employee B? Why is one source weighted higher than another? Who gets to decide this? How much is it weighted by?
It just adds even more layers of subjectivity to what is already an incredibly subjective industry.

Saying that Movie X is rated as ___ on Metacritic, when only certain reviews are included and some reviews are subjectively treated as more important or influential than others, is probably not worth your time.

Another gripe I have with it is that their list of movie critics contains about 40 different publications, but the key problem with a lot of them is that there are usually many different critics associated with that publication (E.g. IGN, one of the metacritic approved). So the critic who reviews Roma might be different to who reviews Jurassic World.

The real question isn't do I care what critics think, that's just an excuse for you to go off on a tangent. All I was interested in discussing was the workings of Metacritic.

Some of the gripes are interesting and I’ll look into them a bit more. But in general, as long as the selection of critics is from reputable publications that have an interest in film reviewing, then I don’t see a problem in Metacritic only including certain reviewers. The alternative is to throw it open to everyone who claims to be a reviewer and that’s a worse scenario.

It seems unfortunate that someone has to so blindly seek validation in the critics to confirm they are liking or disliking the right films.

Once or twice saying 'so and so wrote a highly agreeable review of this' is one thing but this is quite another!

I don’t need validation, I’ll make my own views. But as someone who hasn’t sought to dismiss film critics as on the take or whatever strange scenario some people imagine is going on, they still offer a useful guide. Critics rate Infinity War and everyone’s happy, they rate TLJ and suddenly the world is ending.

 

[edgie]

...



I don’t need validation, I’ll make my own views. But as someone who hasn’t sought to dismiss film critics as on the take or whatever strange scenario some people imagine is going on, they still offer a useful guide. Critics rate Infinity War and everyone’s happy, they rate TLJ and suddenly the world is ending.

I think Infinity War was quite good, must have been only MCU fanboys that didn't like it.

Are there any movies you like that aren't say, +50% on your metrics?

 

[JackOutback]

Are there any movies you like that aren't say, +50% on your metrics?

Interesting question. I like to think I have decent taste in movies and critics aren’t as wildly opposed to popular stuff as you think. For example, I didn’t mind that Fast and Furious spin-off Hobbs and Shaw, I thought that may qualify. But I did a quick search and it’s meta critic rating is 60, which is probably fair. I did find one. Billy Madison; love it, it had 16 on metacritic. I’ll try to think of some others.

 

[JackOutback]

I should also add, there’s probably tonnes of films 90+ that I’ve never seen. I do like some drama but my cinema-going habits would be pretty mainstream.

 

[edgie]

Interesting question. I like to think I have decent taste in movies and critics aren’t as wildly opposed to popular stuff as you think. For example, I didn’t mind that Fast and Furious spin-off Hobbs and Shaw, I thought that may qualify. But I did a quick search and it’s meta critic rating is 60, which is probably fair. I did find one. Billy Madison; love it, it had 16 on metacritic. I’ll try to think of some others.

* me dead I have a stack of old Empire magazines I was reading on the toilet last night and they gave Fast and the Furious 7 like an 8/10. They are basically MCU tier among critics at this stage. No longer wildly unpopular at all.

What did Billy Madison have on RT? You have to do the double by your own standards!

 

[JackOutback]

fu** me dead I have a stack of old Empire magazines I was reading on the toilet last night and they gave Fast and the Furious 7 like an 8/10. They are basically MCU tier among critics at this stage. No longer wildly unpopular at all.

What did Billy Madison have on RT? You have to do the double by your own standards!

Fast 7 has 67 on metacritic apparently, Fast 6 was 61, Fast 8 56. Fast 7 was surprisingly bonkers and fun, and the critics were a little on board but it is no way a critically popular franchise.

Billy Madison has 40 on RT.

 

[edgie]

Fast 7 has 67 on metacritic apparently, Fast 6 was 61, Fast 8 56. Fast 7 was surprisingly bonkers and fun, and the critics were a little on board but it is no way a critically popular franchise.

Billy Madison has 40 on RT.

I said 'at this stage'. I think they have beaten the critics and maybe audience down through weight of numbers to just accept them for what they are. I like a lot of things that run at less than half so more than that is popular to me. Meanwhile the two Expendables movies got ******* hammered despite the people they were aimed at being pretty satisfied with them and they made no effort to please the greater audience.

 

[JackOutback]

Adventures of Ford Fairlane is a cult favourite from my youth, 24 on metacritic. McGruber is 43, I really enjoyed that. Comedy is where I tend to see the biggest difference between critics and fans. Dumb and funny has a place in our lives even if the films aren’t examples of quality filmmaking and story.

 

[JackOutback]

I grew up on ‘80s action. The Expendables is dire (only the first, couldn’t bring myself to watch the others).

 

[edgie]

I grew up on ‘80s action. The Expendables is dire (only the first, couldn’t bring myself to watch the others).

The second is considered an improvement by everyone including your critical go tos, so your loss! None others were made.

What kind 80s action, just the big really well done stuff that everyone should like like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Predator?

I grew up on 80s action, the other stuff. Stallone, Van Damme, Norris, etc.

 

[JackOutback]

The second is considered an improvement by everyone including your critical go tos, so your loss! None others were made.

What kind 80s action, just the big really well done stuff that everyone should like like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Predator?

I grew up on 80s action, the other stuff. Stallone, Van Damme, Norris, etc.

Um, there was a third one. And the Expendabelles, I believe.

All of them and more. Every Van Damme film, Steven Segal, Michael Bien, Christopher Lambert, Don ‘the dragon’ Wilson etc. I mean, Stallone and Van Damme aren’t the ‘other stuff’, they were top tier action stars.

 

[edgie]

Um, there was a third one. And the Expendabelles, I believe.

All of them and more. Every Van Damme film, Steven Segal, Michael Bien, Christopher Lambert, Don ‘the dragon’ Wilson etc. I mean, Stallone and Van Damme aren’t the ‘other stuff’, they were top tier action stars.

Stallone was carried by his franchises, a lot of his other stuff like Cobra was super b-grade. He wasn't consistent with his quality like Arnie.

 

[JackOutback]

Tango & Cash, Cliffhanger, Demolition Man; Stallone went ok.

 

[edgie]

Tango & Cash, Cliffhanger, Demolition Man; Stallone went ok.

Lol Tango and Cash was pure b-grade. Cliffhanger was pretty good but you are right on Demolition Man, great movie with high production value.

I'm not trying to put him down, he is my favourite person in the film industry.

Rambo is without doubt to me the best action flick of 2000 - 2010.

 

[atlas1]

Some of the gripes are interesting and I’ll look into them a bit more. But in general, as long as the selection of critics is from reputable publications that have an interest in film reviewing, then I don’t see a problem in Metacritic only including certain reviewers. The alternative is to throw it open to everyone who claims to be a reviewer and that’s a worse scenario.

Some of the publications on their list are more likely to have film review as their priority (e.g. Original Cin) compared to others (e.g Wall St Journal). If this was how their weighting system operates then I wouldn't have as much a issue with it, but it shits me when it's treated as some secret formula.

Why is tha the only alternative? Why not ditch the flawed scoring system and use the site as a hub for critic publications and aim it at those who are interested in reading them?

 

[crafty_bernardo]

The way I tackle reviews is, I'll look at their conclusion. Then work my way back to see what their gripes with the film are.

A lot of times especially for blockbuster films they'll harshly criticise a film for such trivial things and forget that there can still be fun to be had despite bad pacing, and character development.

People be wasting their time investing so much into a metric score and some lame ass YouTube reviewer.

 

[Exe Gesis]

theres nothing wrong with a youtuber per se.

i watch a lot and the ones i end up liking have excellent abilities or critiques.

eg, redletter media gained popularity due to their prequel analyses, but it was because they were so excellent in film theory and observations etc that their popularity continued and grew.

the critical drinker as a pure reviewer is very astute, he has some comical elements, but at heart hes astute. midnights edge isnt a reviewer as such but an excellent commentator on the industry per se. Jeremy from Geeks and Gamers isnt a reviewer, but he has astute observations too. that aussie guy robot head is also good

then there are some other star wars channels that are always worth watching, like a few of them, for their knowledge of sw lore and such.

dw i generally filter out the rubbish or annoying people and zoom in on those who offer something. no wasted time out of ones life.

 

[edgie]

I liked how many here called Plinket reviews as gospel of the prequels but when he s**t on TLJ all of a sudden it was a matter of opinion when his measures or standards never really changed.

I've been wanting to do a video review and comparison of the three Punisher movies, just no time to have it done in a consistent unbroken manner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Exe Gesis]

I've been wanting to do a video review and comparison of the three Punisher movies, just no time to have it done in a consistent unbroken manner.

id be extremely interested in watching that if you did.

 

[JackOutback]

dw i generally filter out the rubbish or annoying people and zoom in on those who offer something. no wasted time out of ones life.

I hate to think of what you’ve sat through if what you’ve posted here is the ‘curated’ examples.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I hate to think of what you’ve sat through if what you’ve posted here is the ‘curated’ examples.

lol, it wasnt pretty.

 

[atlas1]

Rian Johnson Says He’s Still In Talks For More ‘Star Wars’, And That Angry ‘Last Jedi’ Tweets Helped Inspire ‘Knives Out’

After Rian Johnson made Star Wars: The Last Jedi, he faced angry Star Wars fans on Twitter, including some who formed a petition to have Lucasfilm strike Johnson’s film from Star Wars canon. Johnso…

deadline.com

Johnson added he is still in talks with Lucasfilm to make more Star Wars films, though had no news about them. “We’re still engaged with Lucasfilm and we’ll wait and see,” Johnson said. “No updates on it at this moment, but yeah.”