₦airaland Forum

XxSabrinaxX:
You implied that the general audience rated black panther better than the critics. How do you know this? What scale do you use to measure a movie's quality? Audience members aren't film critics. Audience and critics value different things. Audience looks at blockbusters as a form of entertainment, while critics evaluate movies as art.

You may be asking, what's so important about film critics?

I think each critic is different…. but on a fundamental level all critics are doing the same thing.

The first thing they teach you in art theory; Your aesthetics professor walks into class shows you a work of art and then asks you 'what you see'. If you were to critically analyze a piece of music it would be 'what you here' and in the case if cinema it is 'what you see and hear' (or in the case of a silent film 'see').

In cinema you are able to see colors, form and movement. You are able to hear sound effects, music and dialogue. From there we begin to contextualize content.

We hear an actor say a line of dialogue and we ask ourselves if it was well delivered or not. We see two actors flirting with each other and we ask ourselves if they have chemistry. We hear a piece of music fade up from the background and we ask if it moves us emotionally. If you watch a narrative film you ask yourself what was the plot? Did they convey that plot efficiently? Were there any loopholes?

The conventions of popular criticism is to look at acting performance and story before everything else. Sometimes we hear about wonderful special effects, sometimes we might hear something about a score. This is a very myopic (and populist) way of approaching criticism. Critical analysis of cinema is much more than a few lines about which actor you like the most.

Good criticism is not just about breaking a film down into it’s basic forms, and evaluating it. It is also placing that film in a broader context. You could talk about it in the context of the director’s other works. Or if it is a Western you could compare it to previous films in the genre. Or if it is somehow pushing the limits of technology you could speak about why and how it was achieved — perhaps extrapolate where that technology might lead us. When you ask a question about what a critic looks for in a movie, you must first ask what the critic is ‘LOOKING FOR’ meaning why is the critic motivated to critique the piece in the first place.

However, some ‘critics’ are not critics…. they are ‘movie reviewers’ who are paid to summarize and comment on cinema for popular consumption. In this case they are going to talk about the movie stars, and the story, and the special effects — the things popular audiences want to see in a film (and consequently want to read about in relation to the film). These people are part of broader marketing mechanisms to help sell their publications AND help sell tickets to movies.

Real critics are trying to explain broader points about cinema as a whole OR are trying to look at something hyper-specific. A critic might want to look at the history of LGBT cinema from Latin American countries. Or analysis the differences between pre/post 9/11 American action films.

Keep in mind that critics are doing a job, which is to dissect the movie they watch and write a review of it, and that review is not for you but for the movie industry. You, on the other hand, are a consumer. You go to the movies for entertainment purposes, whether that is to be amused, thrilled, chilled or informed. You watch the movie (presumably) that you are interested in, not one you have to watch as part of a job.

One issue that critics have with movies these days, maybe rightly so, is the lack of originality. This is primarily due to the fact that movies are expensive to make, and as a result, difficulty to make a profit on. More often than not most films produced are not huge money makers, if at all, and many end up as financial loses to their producers. As a result the big studios that produce them have relied on knowm money makers to make sequel after sequel because they are a know and reliable factor. Think about the Avengers, Jurassic Park, Dispicable Me/Minions and the upcoming Avatar films. why produce an art film, that critics may love but few will see if you can produce a superhero sequel that will make $1 billion world wide plus the money from all the tie ins such as toys and the answer becomes a no brainer.

At the end of the day both Critics and Audience are valuable. They both have their faults but they need each other to succeed. Writing off critics from now till eternity won't diminish the influence they hold over the film industry

Edit: By the way, I can see many salty, low self esteem wastemen lumping me in as a Marvel fangirl. If I'm being honest, I care only for these heroes in the entire comic book world:
Spider-Man (My number 1 of whom I'm a fangirl sometimes)
X-Men
Flash
Shazam!
So please don't deceive yourselves into thinking I'm a Marvel fangirl. That would be a serious delusion

hulk616:
8 Oscars nominations, 4Billion dollars in box office, lots of awards compared to DCEU 0 Oscars nominations. And you are saying we are in pains. I don't blame you when all your movies don't have logic or sense

Raalsalghul:
Wats up horse?

XxSabrinaxX:
You implied that the general audience rated black panther better than the critics. How do you know this? What scale do you use to measure a movie's quality? Audience members aren't film critics. Audience and critics value different things. Audience looks at blockbusters as a form of entertainment, while critics evaluate movies as art.

You may be asking, what's so important about film critics?

I think each critic is different…. but on a fundamental level all critics are doing the same thing.

The first thing they teach you in art theory; Your aesthetics professor walks into class shows you a work of art and then asks you 'what you see'. If you were to critically analyze a piece of music it would be 'what you here' and in the case if cinema it is 'what you see and hear' (or in the case of a silent film 'see').

In cinema you are able to see colors, form and movement. You are able to hear sound effects, music and dialogue. From there we begin to contextualize content.

We hear an actor say a line of dialogue and we ask ourselves if it was well delivered or not. We see two actors flirting with each other and we ask ourselves if they have chemistry. We hear a piece of music fade up from the background and we ask if it moves us emotionally. If you watch a narrative film you ask yourself what was the plot? Did they convey that plot efficiently? Were there any loopholes?

The conventions of popular criticism is to look at acting performance and story before everything else. Sometimes we hear about wonderful special effects, sometimes we might hear something about a score. This is a very myopic (and populist) way of approaching criticism. Critical analysis of cinema is much more than a few lines about which actor you like the most.

Good criticism is not just about breaking a film down into it’s basic forms, and evaluating it. It is also placing that film in a broader context. You could talk about it in the context of the director’s other works. Or if it is a Western you could compare it to previous films in the genre. Or if it is somehow pushing the limits of technology you could speak about why and how it was achieved — perhaps extrapolate where that technology might lead us. When you ask a question about what a critic looks for in a movie, you must first ask what the critic is ‘LOOKING FOR’ meaning why is the critic motivated to critique the piece in the first place.

However, some ‘critics’ are not critics…. they are ‘movie reviewers’ who are paid to summarize and comment on cinema for popular consumption. In this case they are going to talk about the movie stars, and the story, and the special effects — the things popular audiences want to see in a film (and consequently want to read about in relation to the film). These people are part of broader marketing mechanisms to help sell their publications AND help sell tickets to movies.

Real critics are trying to explain broader points about cinema as a whole OR are trying to look at something hyper-specific. A critic might want to look at the history of LGBT cinema from Latin American countries. Or analysis the differences between pre/post 9/11 American action films.

Keep in mind that critics are doing a job, which is to dissect the movie they watch and write a review of it, and that review is not for you but for the movie industry. You, on the other hand, are a consumer. You go to the movies for entertainment purposes, whether that is to be amused, thrilled, chilled or informed. You watch the movie (presumably) that you are interested in, not one you have to watch as part of a job.

One issue that critics have with movies these days, maybe rightly so, is the lack of originality. This is primarily due to the fact that movies are expensive to make, and as a result, difficulty to make a profit on. More often than not most films produced are not huge money makers, if at all, and many end up as financial loses to their producers. As a result the big studios that produce them have relied on knowm money makers to make sequel after sequel because they are a know and reliable factor. Think about the Avengers, Jurassic Park, Dispicable Me/Minions and the upcoming Avatar films. why produce an art film, that critics may love but few will see if you can produce a superhero sequel that will make $1 billion world wide plus the money from all the tie ins such as toys and the answer becomes a no brainer.

At the end of the day both Critics and Audience are valuable. They both have their faults but they need each other to succeed. Writing off critics from now till eternity won't diminish the influence they hold over the film industry

Edit: By the way, I can see many salty, low self esteem wastemen lumping me in as a Marvel fangirl. If I'm being honest, I care only for these heroes in the entire comic book world:
Spider-Man (My number 1 of whom I'm a fangirl sometimes)
X-Men
Flash
Shazam!
So please don't deceive yourselves into thinking I'm a Marvel fangirl. That would be a serious delusion

iuwe:
Actually black panther has a lower audience rating to CRITICS.

When I see a movie i detect when a line is poorly delivered or an action appearing blank, I don't need to be a critic to know that

Ask yourself was the dialogue in Ant-Man and the wasp better than Aquaman? Why was Ant-Man rated better than Aquaman?

You are right about the movie reviewers thing because that was all that was reviewed in Aquaman but in this case negatively.

Every movie should be fundamental and contained but when you see a critic comparing one movie with another most especially of the same genre then you know he is to no good. How can one compare Aquaman to black panther just because the latter came first not minding that Aquaman was already an established character in the comic books before black panther.

How can one say that Aquaman is basically wet Thor whereas Aquaman was already there with his history in the comics before Thor was born.

When a critic compares movie they should try to remember which comic book character came first. I don't know how they wanted Aquaman to tell his story with using the original source.

What a critic writes is basically my concern because he could make or break a movie. So giving the wrong criticism about a movie is bad and there is no two ways about it

TheKingIsHere:
For the record, DC batman film has won more Oscar awards than marvel will ever achieve. #fact

Heck, even suicide squad won an Oscar award, but these clowns are jubilating because of ordinary nomination tickets.

TheKingIsHere:
For the record, DC batman film has won more Oscar awards than marvel will ever achieve. #fact

Heck, even suicide squad won an Oscar award, but these clowns are jubilating because of ordinary nomination tickets.

TheKingIsHere:
For the record, DC batman film has won more Oscar awards than marvel will ever achieve. #fact

Heck, even suicide squad won an Oscar award, but these clowns are jubilating because of ordinary nomination tickets.

XxSabrinaxX:
You quoted all that just to spew that shit from your mouth. Unless you are about to shock me and say something intelligent, don't mention me again.

Raalsalghul:
You know some of us actually got a life beyond this marvel/d.c fanboy stuff.

fun fact,that guy's moniker is the name of a DC character

XxSabrinaxX:
LMAO!!! You've already admitted that you ride DC's rod all day like a bitch so don't try to damage control . Stfu please. You're a fanboy, like it or not

You, Raalsalghul, clearly don't act like you do

MJBOLT:

fun fact,that guy's moniker is the name of a DC character

XxSabrinaxX:
You implied that the general audience rated black panther better than the critics. How do you know this? What scale do you use to measure a movie's quality? Audience members aren't film critics. Audience and critics value different things. Audience looks at blockbusters as a form of entertainment, while critics evaluate movies as art.

You may be asking, what's so important about film critics?

I think each critic is different…. but on a fundamental level all critics are doing the same thing.

The first thing they teach you in art theory; Your aesthetics professor walks into class shows you a work of art and then asks you 'what you see'. If you were to critically analyze a piece of music it would be 'what you here' and in the case if cinema it is 'what you see and hear' (or in the case of a silent film 'see').

In cinema you are able to see colors, form and movement. You are able to hear sound effects, music and dialogue. From there we begin to contextualize content.

We hear an actor say a line of dialogue and we ask ourselves if it was well delivered or not. We see two actors flirting with each other and we ask ourselves if they have chemistry. We hear a piece of music fade up from the background and we ask if it moves us emotionally. If you watch a narrative film you ask yourself what was the plot? Did they convey that plot efficiently? Were there any loopholes?

The conventions of popular criticism is to look at acting performance and story before everything else. Sometimes we hear about wonderful special effects, sometimes we might hear something about a score. This is a very myopic (and populist) way of approaching criticism. Critical analysis of cinema is much more than a few lines about which actor you like the most.

Good criticism is not just about breaking a film down into it’s basic forms, and evaluating it. It is also placing that film in a broader context. You could talk about it in the context of the director’s other works. Or if it is a Western you could compare it to previous films in the genre. Or if it is somehow pushing the limits of technology you could speak about why and how it was achieved — perhaps extrapolate where that technology might lead us. When you ask a question about what a critic looks for in a movie, you must first ask what the critic is ‘LOOKING FOR’ meaning why is the critic motivated to critique the piece in the first place.

However, some ‘critics’ are not critics…. they are ‘movie reviewers’ who are paid to summarize and comment on cinema for popular consumption. In this case they are going to talk about the movie stars, and the story, and the special effects — the things popular audiences want to see in a film (and consequently want to read about in relation to the film). These people are part of broader marketing mechanisms to help sell their publications AND help sell tickets to movies.

Real critics are trying to explain broader points about cinema as a whole OR are trying to look at something hyper-specific. A critic might want to look at the history of LGBT cinema from Latin American countries. Or analysis the differences between pre/post 9/11 American action films.

Keep in mind that critics are doing a job, which is to dissect the movie they watch and write a review of it, and that review is not for you but for the movie industry. You, on the other hand, are a consumer. You go to the movies for entertainment purposes, whether that is to be amused, thrilled, chilled or informed. You watch the movie (presumably) that you are interested in, not one you have to watch as part of a job.

One issue that critics have with movies these days, maybe rightly so, is the lack of originality. This is primarily due to the fact that movies are expensive to make, and as a result, difficulty to make a profit on. More often than not most films produced are not huge money makers, if at all, and many end up as financial loses to their producers. As a result the big studios that produce them have relied on knowm money makers to make sequel after sequel because they are a know and reliable factor. Think about the Avengers, Jurassic Park, Dispicable Me/Minions and the upcoming Avatar films. why produce an art film, that critics may love but few will see if you can produce a superhero sequel that will make $1 billion world wide plus the money from all the tie ins such as toys and the answer becomes a no brainer.

At the end of the day both Critics and Audience are valuable. They both have their faults but they need each other to succeed. Writing off critics from now till eternity won't diminish the influence they hold over the film industry

Edit: By the way, I can see many salty, low self esteem wastemen lumping me in as a Marvel fangirl. If I'm being honest, I care only for these heroes in the entire comic book world:
Spider-Man (My number 1 of whom I'm a fangirl sometimes)
X-Men
Flash
Shazam!
So please don't deceive yourselves into thinking I'm a Marvel fangirl. That would be a serious delusion

Kingrapha:
bohemian Rhapsody was one of the best movies out last year .... even won a golden globe! and is deservedly nominated for the best picture in the Oscars.

Aunty tell us the RT score!


Ant-Man and the wasp was the worst mcu movie in the last 3 years

Aunty what was the RT score?

Sharknado was a shitfest

Aunty what was the RT score?


Teen Titans go! that nonsense, Aunty what was the RT score?

I believe some critics are objective and view movies objectively but a majority of them are Social media keyboard warriors that blantantly attack film makers and jump on bandwagons....

Some critic gave Aquaman a bad rating because according to him it was too wet!

These are the people you think view movies as art? don't get me wrong some do! but a majority of them won't know a great movie if it hit them in the face.


I'm not saying Aquaman is a perfect movie or is the best Cbm of 2018 but I'm sure it was better than ant man and the wasp and it deserved a higher rating.

XxSabrinaxX:
LMAO!!! You've already admitted that you ride DC's rod all day like a bitch so don't try to damage control . Stfu please. You're a fanboy, like it or not

You, Raalsalghul, clearly don't act like you do

XxSabrinaxX:
[img]https://media1./images/0f78af841f453545a036b6cceb3620cc/tenor.gif[/img]
Cc. Iuwe, MJBOLT
Please come and explain to this band of butthurt kneejerk clowns that I'm not slighting Aquaman. I haven't even watched the movie. I'm only explaining the differences between general audience and critics and why you shouldn't rely solely on audience ratings to see a movie.
Whether you like Rotten Tomatoes or not, that's your goddamn business. If you don't like it, why not search for other RELIABLE CRITIC SITES ON THE INTERNET? There's Metacritic, there's Roger Ebert, there's CaptainMidnight, Emergency Awesome. Hell, EVEN FORBES!!!
Jesus. What kind of rabid closemindedness is this? Even the religious fanatics in the religious sections are more calm and tolerant

Kingrapha:
I'm not about to get into a keyboard argument with you.

Kingrapha:
I enjoy movies in general MCU , DCEU, Star trek, Star wars and most franchises...

Kingrapha:
a collection of critics even Forbes writers submit their reviews to RT. and they give the general consensus!

these scores affect people's opinion, and it isn't fair to the film maker and studio for a movie to be down voted and consequently underperform because of the bias of some group of people..

Kingrapha:
if you'll just call me a clown again: then don't reply.

XxSabrinaxX:
Believe me, I'm even more unprepared than you


Same



Apparently, you've not been reading my posts in this forum, because all these things you've just said, I'VE SAID THEM ALREADY.




You should have read my previous posts before rushing to attack me. I hate rude arguments online but if you force my hand, i won't hold back. Just ask the peeps over at the religious sections.

Raalsalghul:
Wats up horse?

Raalsalghul:
Thanks for schooling her!... The horse is confused.

Raalsalghul:
Chill horse!.... Will definitely get back to you in my spare time horse.

Raalsalghul:
Chill horse. Don't go berserk on me. Enough grass to go around
I'm a fanboy? Yes. But I've got my fanboy time.
Keep sniffing the ass till I return.

Kingrapha:
LoL you hate online arguments, but you're dishing out jabs like Rabid Close Mindedness hahaha it seems to me like you enjoy the arguments.


what's your beef with religion? or is the religious people?

XxSabrinaxX:
Raalsalghul, take a good look at your posts:




You're starting to sound like a broken record. The horse and ass-sniffing jokes weren't funny the first time, and it hasn't gotten any funnier since. Well, what do you expect when you're so mentally relapsed that you end up getting stuck in a cycle of mediocrity and subsequently, bad jokes? Either that or maybe that's just the extent of your vocabulary.
Anyways, I'm done here. The toxic behaviour of your likes in these forums is the reason I hate discussing under comicbook forums. But i guess i shot myself in the foot the moment I attempted to apply logic in a thread full of trolls like you. So, I'm sorry for that. This place is obviously not for me.
As usual, either you or MAYBE another salty fanboy will reply to this comment with another joke just so you/he can have the last post to compensate for lack of any ego, but do go ahead. I'd expect nothing less from your type.
PS: I really hope you're not this slow and autistic in real life

Lana1:
A DCEU movie finally makes 1 billion and these DC fans have decided to camp here permanently. Lol. Insecure much!!

MJBOLT:

BP oscar nominations is causing them great pain.

i dont blame them,the last time a DC film grossed at least 900m at the BO was eons ago

Lana1:

I get. But Aquaman's success has given them a lot of confidence. We dey hardly see this many DC fans at once before.

MJBOLT:

i dont blame them,the last time a DC film grossed at least 900m at the BO was eons ago