MCU/Superhero Discussion Thread

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

More reviews coming in:

Captain Marvel Metacritic at 66

Rotten Tomatoes at 84%


Also til that Infinity War is at 68% on Metacritic

I'm surprised IW only got 68, but looking, it seems like the MCU doesn't generally get that high on Metacritic. Less than half get above 70, and only Black Panther and Iron Man get proper good scores with 88 and 79, respectively.

[Liriena]

Notice the hilarious patterns in the IMDB ratings for Captain Marvel.

Millennial men confirmed as best men

[Liriena]

More reviews coming in:

Captain Marvel Metacritic at 66

Rotten Tomatoes at 84%


Also til that Infinity War is at 68% on Metacritic

I'm surprised IW only got 68, but looking, it seems like the MCU doesn't generally get that high on Metacritic. Less than half get above 70, and only Black Panther and Iron Man get proper good scores with 88 and 79, respectively.

IIRC, a lot of professional critics were pretty harsh over the fact that IW (a) kinda made it necessary for you to watch at least some of the previous MCU films, (b) was not a "complete story" and (c) was a huge comic book blockbuster with a massive cast and lots of action.

[Tarsonis]

::shrug:: i find no shame or egoism in saying that something like Reuben's "Massacre of the Innocents" is intrinsically better and more valuable than Tracy Ermin's tent.

Come on, Emin's piece is way more interesting. Are we really saying that one among how many thousands of Bible-inspired paintings is more interesting than something like that tent. I couldn't even find Ruben's piece at first, because it's not even the only work with that title. Meanwhile, though you didn't even give the title of Emin's work (or, for that matter, spell her name correctly) I had no trouble finding it.

1. Popularity =/= quality. Twilight should have taught us all that one.

2. also you're full of shit because I google "Ruben's Massacre of the Innocents" and the hits filled the first 3 pages. Let alone, the image search.

3. Further, I know you're full of it, because in 2002 it sold for 76 million dollars, making it the 3rd most expensive painting ever sold (at the time). It's a fairly famous work.

4. Rubens is pretty much one of the, if not the, most known, recognized, and influential artists of the Baroque period. If you don't know who he is or his work, that says more about you than it does about him.

Oh, hey, that little objectivity experiment didn't last long. But maybe I'm just in denial about it.

It works just fine. Emin's work is provocative, but it doesn't make it more valuable.

I also find it incredibly amusing that a zealous Catholic can insist they're being objective while claiming that art depicting a scene from the Bible is objectively better than a piece titled "Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963--1995." Methinks it might have something to do with his personal perspective. If only there were a word for that.

Actually, it's objectively better, because it's
1. A piece of artwork that actually required some level of talent to produce, while my 4 year old niece could recreate Emin's work.
2. A masterful exploration of the contrast and blurred line between horror and beauty, while Emin's work is a self indulgent display of... nothing really.
3. And Boroque beats dada every day of the week and twice on sundays. (This is one admittedly my opinion)

Props to Emin though she was an instagram model before it was cool.

But if that doesn't satisfy you, I'll pick a different one.

Damien Hirst's "Physical impossibility" is "objectively" lightyears more substantial, intriguing, and valuable than Koh's "Gold poop"

You can keep hitting me with Dudisms, but it's still an extremely weak argument. I realize yes that there is a massive subjective component to art, but there are at least some objective qualities by which we can judge the value of art. Keating be damned.

[Tarsonis]

"The Room" is objectively bad.

Actually, I'd say that The Room is one good example of why "objectively bad" is kind of oxymoronic when talking about film. On the one hand, yes, it's incompetent on a technical level, insofar as it doesn't abide by the long-established norms of American filmmaking, and its writing and acting make suspension of disbelief difficult. But is it an "objectively bad" film? I'd say that's debatable if you consider how much people enjoy watching it, knowing that it's an incompetent film, because of how incompetent it is.

That's the thing though. I'm talking about quality, not about reception. The room is objectively bad, but people love it because it's so bad.


Another example would be "Rocky Horror." The movie as a whole is terrible. Doesn't mean it's not also one of the most enjoyable movies, with a huge cult following, Iconic performances, iconic songs, and yes I've been in 1 and a half productions of it. (We lost our performance space for the second one because the year before it was "too sexy")

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Notice the hilarious patterns in the IMDB ratings for Captain Marvel.

(Image)

Millennial men confirmed as best men

Ooh, I had no idea IMDB had demographic data. Gonna waste my afternoon looking at numbers for various films. Seems like the site in general skews heavily male, so it's probably going to go particularly badly for poor Captain Marvel.

[Tarsonis]

Notice the hilarious patterns in the IMDB ratings for Captain Marvel.

(Image)

Millennial men confirmed as best men

That could tell us one of two things though.

A. It's really good but men are poo pooing it unfairly cause misogyny.

B. It's not that good, but it's getting a bump from the female demographic because feminism.


I mean, it's probably A, but that data alone doesn't give us the whole picture.

[Liriena]

Notice the hilarious patterns in the IMDB ratings for Captain Marvel.

(Image)

Millennial men confirmed as best men

Ooh, I had no idea IMDB had demographic data. Gonna waste my afternoon looking at numbers for various films. Seems like the site in general skews heavily male, so it's probably going to go particularly badly for poor Captain Marvel.

Angry nerds continue to own themselves through their own slacktivism and it's great.

[Liriena]

Notice the hilarious patterns in the IMDB ratings for Captain Marvel.

(Image)

Millennial men confirmed as best men

That could tell us one of two things though.

A. It's really good but men are poo pooing it unfairly cause misogyny.

B. It's not that good, but it's getting a bump from the female demographic because feminism.


I mean, it's probably A, but that data alone doesn't give us the whole picture.

The rather disproportionate amount of 10/10 and 1/10 reviews seems like a sign of brigading to me.

[Tarsonis]

That could tell us one of two things though.

A. It's really good but men are poo pooing it unfairly cause misogyny.

B. It's not that good, but it's getting a bump from the female demographic because feminism.


I mean, it's probably A, but that data alone doesn't give us the whole picture.

The rather disproportionate amount of 10/10 and 1/10 reviews seems like a sign of brigading to me.

It would yeah, but I could only see averages from that source.

[Liriena]

The rather disproportionate amount of 10/10 and 1/10 reviews seems like a sign of brigading to me.

It would yeah, but I could only see averages from that source.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Best bet dont pay attention to 10 and 1 ratings as both are definitely going to involve a lot of brigading.

[Tarsonis]

It would yeah, but I could only see averages from that source.

Bawhahaha okay, damn. yeah way to go guys and gals.


In other news the critic reviews are more or less what I expected: meh movie and Larson is nothing special.


We'll see what the real audience says once it's actually released.

[Liriena]

Best bet dont pay attention to 10 and 1 ratings as both are definitely going to involve a lot of brigading.

Yeah, I'm gonna assume that the movie is most likely in the 7-8 range.

[The Huskar Social Union]

(Image)

Bawhahaha okay, damn. yeah way to go guys and gals.


In other news the critic reviews are more or less what I expected: meh movie and Larson is nothing special.


We'll see what the real audience says once it's actually released.

On-line audience reviews are going to be dominated by brigading in both directions simply because Captain Marvel is a "cOnTrOvErSiAl" movie, most regular movie goers are not going to rate it, so honestly i'd take both with a pinch of salt.

Interacting with people in real life who have seen it is probably a better bet.

[Tarsonis]

Bawhahaha okay, damn. yeah way to go guys and gals.


In other news the critic reviews are more or less what I expected: meh movie and Larson is nothing special.


We'll see what the real audience says once it's actually released.

On-line audience reviews are going to be dominated by brigading in both directions simply because Captain Marvel is a "cOnTrOvErSiAl" movie, most regular movie goers are not going to rate it, so honestly i'd take both with a pinch of salt.

Interacting with people in real life who have seen it is probably a better bet.

I'm a teacher. 99% of my interaction is with teenagers who couldn't care less about it

[The first Galactic Republic]

It would yeah, but I could only see averages from that source.

Always throw out the 1s and the 10s in review scores.

Bawhahaha okay, damn. yeah way to go guys and gals.


In other news the critic reviews are more or less what I expected: meh movie and Larson is nothing special.


We'll see what the real audience says once it's actually released.

On-line audience reviews are going to be dominated by brigading in both directions simply because Captain Marvel is a "cOnTrOvErSiAl" movie, most regular movie goers are not going to rate it, so honestly i'd take both with a pinch of salt.

Interacting with people in real life who have seen it is probably a better bet.

It’s really sad that internet outrage culture has made word of mouth the most reliable way to get more authentic opinions from normal movie goers.

[The Huskar Social Union]

On-line audience reviews are going to be dominated by brigading in both directions simply because Captain Marvel is a "cOnTrOvErSiAl" movie, most regular movie goers are not going to rate it, so honestly i'd take both with a pinch of salt.

Interacting with people in real life who have seen it is probably a better bet.

I'm a teacher. 99% of my interaction is with teenagers who couldn't care less about it

Ah well fair enough.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Come on, Emin's piece is way more interesting. Are we really saying that one among how many thousands of Bible-inspired paintings is more interesting than something like that tent. I couldn't even find Ruben's piece at first, because it's not even the only work with that title. Meanwhile, though you didn't even give the title of Emin's work (or, for that matter, spell her name correctly) I had no trouble finding it.

1. Popularity =/= quality. Twilight should have taught us all that one.

2. also you're full of shit because I google "Ruben's Massacre of the Innocents" and the hits filled the first 3 pages. Let alone, the image search.

3. Further, I know you're full of it, because in 2002 it sold for 76 million dollars, making it the 3rd most expensive painting ever sold (at the time). It's a fairly famous work.

4. Rubens is pretty much one of the, if not the, most known, recognized, and influential artists of the Baroque period. If you don't know who he is or his work, that says more about you than it does about him.

Oh, hey, that little objectivity experiment didn't last long. But maybe I'm just in denial about it.

It works just fine. Emin's work is provocative, but it doesn't make it more valuable.

I also find it incredibly amusing that a zealous Catholic can insist they're being objective while claiming that art depicting a scene from the Bible is objectively better than a piece titled "Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963--1995." Methinks it might have something to do with his personal perspective. If only there were a word for that.

Actually, it's objectively better, because it's
1. A piece of artwork that actually required some level of talent to produce, while my 4 year old niece could recreate Emin's work.
2. A masterful exploration of the contrast and blurred line between horror and beauty, while Emin's work is a self indulgent display of... nothing really.
3. And Boroque beats dada every day of the week and twice on sundays. (This is one admittedly my opinion)

Props to Emin though she was an instagram model before it was cool.

But if that doesn't satisfy you, I'll pick a different one.

Damien Hirst's "Physical impossibility" is "objectively" lightyears more substantial, intriguing, and valuable than Emins, "everyone I've ever slept with".


You can keep hitting me with Dudisms, but it's still an extremely weak argument.

Maybe you could calm down a little? I googled "Massacre of the Innocents", and it turned up a different painting (from the same year, I think!) with that title. No, I've never heard of it before, and that you're quicker to accuse me of deception than ignorance kind of proves my point here; people have different frames of reference. It's a clear demonstration of the subjectivity involved: I've never even heard of it, because I'm not interested in the things you're interested in. Different people assign value to different things. Do you understand that? Theory of Mind and all that jazz?

Technical skill is a metric you're choosing to assign value to. So is how much its been sold for. I didn't directly reference popularity so much as originality. You seem to be appealing to authority by talking about how well-regarded Rubens is; funny how you'll dismiss the views of film critics but fall back on that of art critics when you need to. I could just as easily choose to value art based on how easily I can find it with google. An unorthodox metric, but not "objectively wrong".

Your argument is full of subjective judgements. Horror, beauty, and the blurred line between them to which you assign value. Self-indulgence (which means we're also talking about intent, and whether we should take that into account is itself a contentious subject). You're trying to find objectivity in concepts that are intrinsically subjective, which is hilarious.

You accuse Emin of self-indulgence; I might argue that I think art is objectively good if it's deeply personal. Only Emin could have made that particular tent. You claim that the work being more provocative doesn't make it less valuable; I disagree, and you can't prove I'm wrong, because "value" doesn't exist. I might point out (and here I'm speaking sincerely) that Emin's work set me to thinking about what my own and other people's tents would look like; that is, it made me introspect in a way Rubens' did not. That is something I value in art. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it's what art should be for. I might argue that Emin's is more universal; every adult human understands the different things it can mean to sleep with someone, while Rubens' subject matter only holds significance for people from certain faiths and cultures. I might value that. You might not, and the one isn't less valid than the other.

[Tarsonis]

1. Popularity =/= quality. Twilight should have taught us all that one.

2. also you're full of shit because I google "Ruben's Massacre of the Innocents" and the hits filled the first 3 pages. Let alone, the image search.

3. Further, I know you're full of it, because in 2002 it sold for 76 million dollars, making it the 3rd most expensive painting ever sold (at the time). It's a fairly famous work.

4. Rubens is pretty much one of the, if not the, most known, recognized, and influential artists of the Baroque period. If you don't know who he is or his work, that says more about you than it does about him.

It works just fine. Emin's work is provocative, but it doesn't make it more valuable.



Actually, it's objectively better, because it's
1. A piece of artwork that actually required some level of talent to produce, while my 4 year old niece could recreate Emin's work.
2. A masterful exploration of the contrast and blurred line between horror and beauty, while Emin's work is a self indulgent display of... nothing really.
3. And Boroque beats dada every day of the week and twice on sundays. (This is one admittedly my opinion)

Props to Emin though she was an instagram model before it was cool.

But if that doesn't satisfy you, I'll pick a different one.

Damien Hirst's "Physical impossibility" is "objectively" lightyears more substantial, intriguing, and valuable than Emins, "everyone I've ever slept with".


You can keep hitting me with Dudisms, but it's still an extremely weak argument.

Maybe you could calm down a little? I googled "Massacre of the Innocents", and it turned up a different painting (from the same year, I think!) with that title. No, I've never heard of it before, and that you're quicker to accuse me of deception than ignorance kind of proves my point here; people have different frames of reference. It's a clear demonstration of the subjectivity involved: I've never even heard of it, because I'm not interested in the things you're interested in. Different people assign value to different things. Do you understand that? Theory of Mind and all that jazz?

Technical skill is a metric you're choosing to assign value to. So is how much its been sold for. I didn't directly reference popularity so much as originality. You seem to be appealing to authority by talking about how well-regarded Rubens is; funny how you'll dismiss the views of film critics but fall back on that of art critics when you need to. I could just as easily choose to value art based on how easily I can find it with google. An unorthodox metric, but not "objectively wrong".

You'll have to forgive me, I'm from Boston, that's just how I speak. Shouldn't be read as abnormally aggressive.

Your argument is full of subjective judgements.

It's really not, your mixing up aspects of the argument.

Horror, beauty, and the blurred line between them to which you assign value.

Except I didn't. I only picked those because they're qualities of the painting. The actual act of exploring these topics, (or any topic) is the source of value being ascribed here.

Self-indulgence (which means we're also talking about intent, and whether we should take that into account is itself a contentious subject).

Yes and no. Self indulgence can actually be meaningful, depending on the personality and the statement, made. In the case of the tent no.

You're trying to find objectivity in concepts that are intrinsically subjective, which is hilarious.

only if you stretch the definition of subjective to its least logical value, by which the universe has no objectivity, because you perceive it subjectively.

You accuse Emin of self-indulgence; I might argue that I think art is objectively good if it's deeply personal.

Not a 1 to 1 equivalent.

Only Emin could have made that particular tent.

Only the names would change.

You claim that the work being more provocative doesn't make it less valuable;

I didn't, I claimed it doesn't make it more valuable.

I disagree, and you can't prove I'm wrong, because "value" doesn't exist.

Thanks, Dude.

I might point out (and here I'm speaking sincerely) that Emin's work set me to thinking about what my own and other people's tents would look like; that is, it made me introspect in a way Rubens' did not. That is something I value in art. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it's what art should be for. I might argue that Emin's is more universal; every adult human understands the different things it can mean to sleep with someone,

making it a glorified project on pedantry.

while Rubens' subject matter only holds significance for people from certain faiths and cultures. I might value that. You might not, and the one isn't less valid than the other.

False. You don't even have to know the biblical story or even know about Christianity, to understand the juxtaposition of such a horrific act being presented in such beautiful form. You're appealing to the fact that it's a biblical painting to discount it, which is completely baseless.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Moron shit stirrer]

Oh found out the original twitter profile, its the Mary Sue.


Shocking.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

My apologies for the "less valuable" error, but I do think you could address the point rather than picking on what was obviously a minor mistake. You seem to be randomly taking tiny snippets of my post and responding to them so briefly that I don't really know what your point is (what exactly do you consider pedantic about Emin's work? Or are you saying my argument is pedantic? And which bits of your argument have I mixed up? If you don't make the effort to communicate, I can't understand you), or if you've even understood my arguments as I intended them.

There's only one bit I feel able to respond to, which is the part about the biblical subject matter being irrelevant:

So if it were an entirely original scene made up by the artist, would the piece have exactly the same "value"? Do the religious aspects add nothing to its objective quality?

[Liriena]

Moron shit stirrer]

Oh found out the original twitter profile, its the Mary Sue.


Shocking.

Mary Sue, please stop helping.

[Forsher]

If you want to see Barthes there, that's on you, not me.

Now watch as you practically quote Barthes directly...

It is simply the case that what the author wants to do has pretty much nothing to do with what the audience experiences.

I repeat, if you want to see this as trying to represent Barthes' views and, therefore, of abusing them, then that's on you.

What the author did, however, is connected... and that's the question we're engaged with, i.e. is it possible to speak of film quality?

Yes.

Don't dismiss what you're clearly interested in as "boring". If you find my particular take, i.e. the ability of film elements to predict audience reception and calling films which predict positive receptions good, boring then just don't reply to me and instead engage with any of the other people talking about this.

It is arbitrary to distinguish between people who are pleased and who are... pleased.

It's really not. It's part of why we come up with so many different terms to describe them.

We have lots of different words for penis too. I could call a hairdo a hair style or a look and probably other things, e.g. most people will accept hair cut. The existence of synonyms and near synonyms doesn't imply an actual purpose and certainly doesn't describe a non-arbitrary motivation for the purpose. Is it vomit or a technicolour snake?

“I think I'm about to have a technicolour snake!' he added, and threw up. °ere, mistah?'someone shouted back. 'Yes?' “That was a chunder!' “Right! No worries!

Is this distinction, in anyway, non-arbitrary? No it's not.

We're not trying to figure out if someone is stressed, anxious, depressed or whatever. There is no diagnostic purpose to the distinction of these positive experiences in the same way that healthcare professionals often have a need to differentiate various kinds of negative mental health states.

So what.

This is a kind of non-arbitrary distinction between what we can loosely term emotional states that, in particular, would be condensed into one category for most non-technical purposes.

We are simply bothered by whether or not they've enjoyed themselves and to claim that there's any meaningful difference is to claim that there is some purpose to distinguishing between them (if, and it is extremely doubtful, it is even possible to distinguish between them in the first place).

It is.

Yeah, well, whatever.

Incidentally... as far as aggregated critic scores are concerned... Captain Marvel seems functionally identical to The First Avenger and other films generally considered to be middle of the road (or even poorer) entries to the MCU (think: Ultron, Iron Man 3 and both Ant Mans). On the other hand, these are actually some of the best MCU films (well, maybe not Ultron and TFA).

I loved The First Avenger. Ultron suffered from the tug of war between Whedon and the studio, making it uneven. Iron Man 3 was a wuss out, they were afraid that The Mandarin's ten rings would be too hard a sell in the MCU as it was at the time but they were working their way towards the Infinity Gauntlet and Doctor Strange, they should have just gone for it. Plus we'd tangentially get Fin Fang Foom.

Of course I'm still rooting for them to try and pull off M.O.D.O.K.

Fin Fang Foom is so much more omnipresent than the Mandarin.

[Forsher]

Always throw out the 1s and the 10s in review scores.

Absurd. Movies are watched pretty much exclusively by people who think they'll enjoy them. Throw out all the 1's... the 10's are what theory would predict.