Does it?

Your point was already nullified before you made it; the "crude" humor in the rest of the film outside of the museum scene had already been acknowledged before you brought it up.

Yup, there sure wasn't!

Not that you could see from that angle, at any rate. Talk about the lighting not matching, talk about the foliage and climate not matching, etc. You'll get no argument from me! But that's not what you did.

Hence, my clarification.

My mom's done basically the same while sober, it's w/e. Wasn't exactly my favorite moment in life but it certainly happens. So, in the context of a scene establishing Sam's embarrassment with his family and his loser/underdog status at his fancy, new Ivy League college...sure. I'm perfectly fine with it.

Not to mention forging the younger audience's bond with Sam, a quick wink at the stoners in the crowd, and the good, hearty laughter it supplied!

No problem there whatsoever.

 

Remind me where Skids and Mudflap could learn how to read Cybertronian and/or the Language of the Primes through Earth's internet?!?

 

 

I like that this premise from the OP hinges on critics being the same as the average moviegoer, and who don't bother to actually review a film, and not having critics be people who have actually studied the medium of film and how to analyze it in a way the average person hasn't, and who take the practice of doing so as a serious profession.

Because there's none of those kinds of critics, surely.

 

Not round here, for sure!!

 

I think it's a matter of what stands out in a film because most people aren't going to read or watch a two hour review that covers every scene in the film.

So lets say you were reviewing one of the Toy Story films and everything is just working for you. The characters are compelling, the story really pulls you into that fictional world, the pacing seems right, all the jokes are working, all the sad part make you sad. But there is one bit character in the film for about 45 seconds that delivers a joke that doesn't work. Would your review really cover that one bit character has one fail joke?

Since a review can't cover every detail and every character they tend to cover examples in the film of why a critic enjoyed a film or why a critic didn't enjoy a film.

 

Movies are art. Art is inherently objective. Trying to attach a subjective form of interpretation to an objective medium doesn't make any sense.

Some people don't like the movies. I don't like the movies.

But here's the crazy thing - NOTHING THEY SAY CAN STOP YOU FROM LIKING IT.

Sure, they can bring up a flaw or valid complaint, but that doesn't stop your ENJOYMENT of the art itself. If you like it, you like it flaws and all.

Homie so mad he created an entirely new review system to shut the haters up. Ya'll are too crazy on these boards sometimes lmao

 

Could you be more precise OP. Everyone has their own opinions in their reviews, good or bad.

You may see it differently and that's fine but try to limit anyone's ability to voice their thoughts is biased attitude.

 

Whoa Whoa cool yourself I made this not because I was angry but because I thought it was an intriguing idea it seems few agree with me oh well but this had nothing to do with anger nothing at all.

My style of reviewing doesn't limit anyone ability to voice their thoughts how does it just curious? The whole idea behind this was to kind of avoid the problem of a few really bad things or really good things from overshadowing the movie allowing you to have a more complete picture others don't seem to agree well oh well then. It's not like I can make this happen it was just a fun suggestion no alternative motive behind it.

 

I think the change I'd really like to see is a more universal scale. Some reviews do pass/fail, some reviews do how many out of four stars, some reviews how many out of five stars, and other reviews do a letter grade.

Which can sometimes mess up something like the Tomato Meter if a critic didn't totally love or totally hate a movie. Reading some of the reviews it seems like they don't totally nail if a reviewer's review was fresh or rotten.

 

This is true as well though I don't listen to Rotten Tomato really at all me and it have a long long history of disagreeing on too many things to count. Though what do you mean by more universal could give what would be an example of the kind of review you're suggesting just not sure what you mean by more universal.

 

I don't think the method you described limits anyone's ability to voice their thoughts, well... beyond diluting cinematic analysis down to a numeric score based on subjective responses at pre-selected moments in a film (similarly, I'm not a fan of giving films numeric ratings in the first place) that has no more nuance than a traffic light, but the main gripe I think most people in the thread are having with it is that it's just not really effective at evaluating a film.

In trying to avoid the problem of "a few good things" or "a few bad things" affecting attitudes towards a film, you are actively encouraging people to focus their entire attitudes of the film towards select moments, in essence drawing their attention to a few good moments or a few bad moments. Now, I'm imagining your idea in doing this is so you can focus the evaluator's attention on a few key moments, which could potentially work in the favor of a spectacle-heavy film like the Transformers films, (which, I'm suspecting, is basically your driving force behind this), but if that's the case, why bother with the rest of the film at all? If you have to sit through 2 to 3 hours of unenjoyable film to get to these moments that are supposed to stick out and get judged, how is that a more accurate picture of whether the film is "good" or "bad"? You're basically going to move away from people building a full picture of the film in their evaluation, instead accomplishing the exact opposite of what you're saying your goal is.

In short, your system accomplishes exactly the same issue you're railing against, it would tell you the sum of how the reviewer felt during preselected moments of the film, instead of how they felt about the film as a whole, and more importantly, WHY the film made them feel that way and HOW the film went about accomplishing it. Those HOWs and WHYs are the actual bulk of what reviewing a movie is supposed to be.

You don't have to like Rotten Tomatoes, because all it basically does well is exactly what you've suggested, summing and averaging simplistic reviews to build an overall score for a movie. It's great at telling you, on average, what people think of a film, and if it's not getting to the same conclusions as you on a film, that's because your opinions don't fit that average. But there's other resources out there for looking at what people are saying about a film, like film columns or even professional reviewers like the late Siskel and Ebert, and that's probably where you should be going to look at how professional critics actually review films.

 

What I mean is it would be nice if say every critic agreed that they would give films a letter grade. That way you don't have to look at what metric they use each time since 2 out of 4 stars is different than 2 out of 5 stars.

I find Rotten Tomatoes rather useful since it's a ton of reviews gathered in one place and I don't have to go site to site to site to compare the reviews of different people. I don't always agree with any particular critic 100% of the time so it's good to compare reviews. On a film where opinions are rather split it gives me the chance to compare the positive and negatives reviews to see which one is closest to my own tastes in films.

 

I don't agree with critics period usually I do look at cinemas core every now and again but I tend to trust my instincts most movies I think look great usually are though appreciate the advice thanks.

 

That's fine to not agree with them, and to like what you want, but you might find your tastes are going to change over time as you get older. (or maybe just get more complicated, there's tons of "terrible" movies that I still enjoy, even if I can dissect exactly how poorly made they are). What you might be better served by is doing some reading on film study and cinematic technique in order to better understand and appreciate the medium. You'll find it can help you look at even the films you already like with a deeper perspective.

 

For me I just don't trust marketing any more.

Edge of Tomorrow had some of the worst advertising and marketing I've ever seen. Instead of an interesting film it looked like First Person Shooter the Movie which I wasn't interested in. But there were so many positive reviews that I gave the film a chance as a rental and I loved it. Really regret that I skipped seeing it on the big screen because of my gut.

There have been other films where the marketing was absolutely brilliant like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull or Man of Steel that had me leaving the theater bitterly disappointed and feeling like I wasted my money.

Not to mention all the great movies with no US marketing I might have missed like Troll Hunter, Attack the Block, or Dead Snow if a critic had not been out there going hey guys here's a great little film flying under the radar.

 

I don't entirely trust marketing either usually I just know. I can't really explain it or anything but most of the time I just know. I can count on one hand the number of times my instincts here have been wrong.

Also not an insult or anything but I rarely have any real expectations. I don't have any expectations on what I want the movie to be or what characters I want to be used. This has helped massively with my view of movies. This applies to big characters for example if the Dino bots were what you were most excited for I can completely understand your disappointment I would be too.

It's just not a factor to me I do expect a lot but nothing specific I know it's unclear but that's my view of it. Thanks for the input though I appreciate it regardless.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that having low or no expectations about films you watch and somehow being able to like every film you guess you'll enjoy are not unrelated.

Not that this is a bad thing, it must make watching movies a very rewarding experience, and hell, I wish I was like that, but just thought I'd point it out.

 

You are correct though I don't have low expectations not exactly anyway my expectations work differently I have very high expectations but I just want something good I don't have any perceived ideas on how the film will go.

Basically I don't have any demands on how I think the film should go. Shockwave wasn't a big role disappointing but Sentinel was great if Shockwave was wasted and Sentinel sucked I would be mad but the traitor autobot angle was great not what I would've done but I liked it all the same. The Dinobots in truth I knew they were only in the ending because every shot of them was clearly in China which I knew was the climax so I nothing to be disappointed about there since I already knew it.

I've said this before and was pretty much ignored but anyone can view something the way I do if they so wish it just requires a few things.

First it's fine to dream up possible ideas for the movie you are seeing but do not let those ideas and hopes enter the movie with you when you enter that theater you must be prepared to accept the story being given to you not the story you expect it to be. This doesn't mean blindly like it as many mistook my statement for it means judge the story for what it is not what you would've preferred it to be for example the dinobots were clearly set up for more later on so don't really focus your disappointment on them judge Age of Extinction for the main story the autobots being hunted and humans efforts to use their remains to build their own.

Do not ask yourself what could've been those words are poison to entertainment because every movie could've been a different movie there are endless possibilities and these possibilities cannot all be used there will always be more that could've been done because every choice results in a different outcome. You cannot ask yourself what the movie could've been at least not until after you have fully judged it once you have judged and completely determined your opinion then think of as many ways you could improve as you want.

Ignore the parts you don't like this is critical I obviously don't really like the romeo and juliet card scene I also don't care for the rainbow dash there are other things I don't care for as well but I don't think of these I try to stay focused on the story being told. Basically I go okay I didn't like that but instead of staying on it I go okay didn't like that but for now I'm going to ignore it and move on there are other things to focus on.

Finally enter with an open mind an almost empty one in a way what I mean is when you enter that theater being it for a transformer movie, a marvel movie, DC movie or any adaptation really enter as if it's your first time being introduced to the franchise everything you know about it for those two and half hours or so don't exist this is it's own thing and as far as your concern this is the first time you've been introduced to it. Source material inaccuracies, character changes they don't apply because for now this is the only version you know. If the others didn't exist would it stand up well on it's own that's the single most important question I ask myself if I didn't know the source material would I still like this?

That's the basic idea of what I do and it's really nothing special there's nothing unique about my way at all anyone is capable of doing it so long as they wish to so I hope this gave you an idea of how I view these and you could too it's all up to you and neither choice you make would be the wrong one.

 

You just said "I rarely have any real expectations. I don't have any expectations on what I want the movie to be or what characters I want to be used" but I guess that this helps put that into a different context.

The thing is, while there's a lot of criticism over the specific characters and story elements in many "genre" films from fans, that's generally not what critical analyses will focus on, if only because the critical community doesn't usually have an attachment to the brand they're analysing or the kind of expectations you're describing. Certainly a lot more common to see those kinds of issues voiced around a site like this, but from a grander sense of cinematic analysis, HOW those characters and elements are used is of much more importance. Open-mindedness is key for a community like ours (and the cinematic and critical community as a whole, but lets set them aside for now), given the brand reinvents itself every 3-5 years, but provided we give new incarnations a fair shake (and I'll concede, there are some in this community unwilling or unable to do that), we are under no obligation to like them or to spare them from any criticism.

The rest of your description involves basically ignoring anything less than what you see as perfection in a film and lionising the remaining bits in your head to form your image of what the film "is", which, with no offence meant, explains a bit about how you've conducted yourself in discussions regarding these films, but does little for analysis of what the film actually is, and goes against the entire idea of critical cinematic analysis. I concede that doing things your way will probably help you to "like" a film better.

I completely disagree with your assertion that we shouldn't talk about what could have been, however. Yes, the film is what it is, and shall be what it is forevermore (barring a George Lucas-style "special edition"), and nothing any of us can change it. Disassembling it, analysing the parts and proposing alternatives, however, is imperative for developing new ideas, new characterizations, and new concepts. These will, over time, inspire at least some authors to form the foundation of new stories, which are imperative in a brand and a genre constantly reinventing itself. Discussions like these develop the community into more savvy observers of media, and for those of us that partake, into better creators of media.

 

You misunderstand ignore what you don't like for the time being when the film is done take everything you don't like and see if it outweighs what you do to form your opinion don't ignore it altogether that's not helpful at all just don't let it overshadow everything yet. Same with what could've been thinking that is fine when the movie is over but thinking that during the film is just going to make it harder for you to judge the story as it is.

I'm not saying to ignore the flaws period just don't dwell on them until the movie is over then decide if what you didn't like outweighs the rest. That's what I meant not ignoring all criticism and flaws altogether just not focusing on them until after so they don't blind you to the rest of the movie until it is over.

That's what I mean that's what I do also this description isn't about critic reviews. Is what I'm saying making a little more sense now regardless if you agree or not?

 

If the director does something in the film that basically sours you on the rest of it (I'm looking at you Ridley Scott in Prometheus, I better get a final cut), then it's not about setting that aside to enjoy the rest of the film, it's about that moment or thing or whatever souring the remainder of the film! If someone's able to get past it in their overall impression of the film, great, and there are plenty of films that are like this for plenty of people, but if the "bad" moment is that impactful for someone from the audience, that's entirely accurate to lay it at the feet of the director, because they're responsible for the WHOLE film, not just bits and pieces of it! If there's something in the film that detracts from the main story (and yes, the Transformers films can be really bad at this at times), that's a sign of a director who is not doing their job effectively, and definitely deserves to be pointed out.

Unless someone is livetweeting their review of the movie while watching it, or tuned out or walked out halfway through (which is, again, a sign the director has not made a film that can hold it's audience) describing their overall impression of the film, either impacted by or in spite of those moments after the fact is exactly what that audience member is going to be doing.

I'll be perfectly serious with you, what you have said has NOT made things more clear to me, for the most part, and whether this is due to how you're explaining your idea or due to the idea itself is not clear to me. The last couple posts from you have, no foolin, described to me that your original idea is in direct conflict with what you are actually attempting to do, and that you're most invested in making the movies you like seem as good as they possibly can. I'm not trying to insult you here, but I'm honestly having a hard time following your position and aligning it with the art of film study.

Like, I'm talking about "this is how people (and critics) determine whether they like or don't like a film" and you're talking about "this is what you need to do to like this film". Does that make any sense to you? I'm having a hard time elaborating on the situation myself.