MovieChat Forums > FilmBuff > Replies
FilmBuff's Replies
The depiction of MAGA is very inaccurate, to the point where it's comedically wrong. What it absolutely nails is the PERCEPTION of MAGA by those on the left, and therein lies the comedy.
I agree that Cinemascore is the most accurate fan rating system. It's not perfect, but the best we have.
Rotten Tomatoes will let anyone rate a film. For awhile they had a way to link to a couple major theater chain's web pages where you could verify you bought a ticket, but only if you bought one online from a major chain. If you did verify it, your review got marked as verified, but that's all. Anyone can still rate a film as many times as they have accounts.
Letterboxd is also a good way to gauge the overall response to a film, though most people aren't on Letterboxd, and haven't even heard of it, so you're seeing results from a very narrow demographic. It's a bit like looking to Reddit to get a sense of the political pulse of the country, though not as drastic.
For me at least, I'm not terribly interested in what movie-watchers think, as my tastes rarely mirror the mainstream. I like reading what critics say, because they bring a depth of knowledge and experience to their opinions that is lacking in a fan rating. Even critics with whom I regularly disagree are helpful in choosing what to watch, as I learn where my opinions differ and where they don't.
But the results are shown as a percentage, so it's the same thing. My point is that when you limit responses to a small pool of professionals, you at least know what you're getting. When the pool is open to anyone, and savvy people can hop in thousands of times, the resulting percentage has minimal value.
I don't always agree with individual critics, but I do find that the aggregate critical score tends to better mirror a film's quality than does the audience score. There are exceptions to that, no doubt, which is why one must pay attention and make up one's own mind, but as a general rule it holds true far more often than not.
Plenty? I'd argue those religious right-wingers are rare. Much like white supremacists, there are a tiny, tiny number of people like that, but the media hypes their existence to the point where it seems like there are millions of them, lurking around every corner. In truth, were you to gather every American with those beliefs together they'd number in the hundreds, if that.
Why the last one? The upcoming Fantastic Four film intrigues me, and I have to believe those two Avengers films will be solid. The others I'm less sold on, but then I've been pleasantly surprised before by Marvel films I expected wouldn't be very good.
That you would use fascist to describe Trump and his supporters tells me you have zero idea what you're talking about.
I don't think you have any idea what the people you call Trumpers are all about. A film that promises to be irreverent and offensive is right up the alley of the right wingers. It's the people who get offended at any joke that isn't made at the expense of a narrow, approved demographic of people deemed permissible to insult that will have a problem with the film.
I find the user score to be the least useful of all. Even if it weren't easily manipulated, it still doesn't tell me anything of value. At least the opinions of critics are coming from people with some level of knowledge about film. There may be some whose opinions aren't particularly valuable, but overall the opinion of 100 critics is going to tell me a lot more about a film than that of 100 random people, or 1 random guy who rated the film 100 times.
That's impossible to tell from a few photographs.
Why are you so convinced she's really a he? I've never even heard of her before stumbling upon this thread in the trending section, but she looks like a girl in her picture.
A lot can change in the next 3 1/2 months, but currently oddsmakers have Trump as the favorite, with Harris quite a bit behind, and RFK Jr. waaaay behind. Never say never, but at this point it's highly unlikely he'll win.
The odds as of this post:
Trump -164
Harris +275
Big Mike +3,900
RFK Jr. +12,900
Vance +13,900
Fetterman +20,000
Hilary +22,900
George Clooney +25,000
For those unfamiliar with how odds work, a minus sign means you need to bet that amount to win $100, while a plus sign means you win that much if you bet $100. So a $100 bet on Trump means you end up with just under $161 total if he wins, while a $100 bet on Harris means you end up with a total of $375 if she wins. Meanwhile, a $100 bet on RFK JR. puts $13k in your pocket if he wins, so if you really believe what you posted you ought to bet the farm that he'll win.
"Telling the truth." What you're doing is trolling for arguments. You can't accept that your opinion is only that, an opinion. Rather than discuss one another's opinions like adults, you treat a conversation like a debate in which you are tasked with proving a point.
We both listened to what McTiernan said, and we each interpreted it differently. We could have had an interesting discussion about that, but instead you adopted an "I'm right and you're wrong and if you disagree with me you're a dummy!" stance that leaves no room for any friendly chit chat. That's not honesty, that's immaturity.
Whenever I encounter someone like you online I can't help but wonder how you got this way, and how you function in day to day life.
That trailer was running before a lot of films I saw a few months back and it actually makes the film look really interesting, which is no easy feat based on the unappealing description of the film.
Of all voting blocs, the staunchest Democrat voters have historically always been the dead. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
That's some Matrix-level bullet dodging. If Trump can actually do that he's even more bad-ass than even his most ardent supporters believe him today. He might even be able to catch a bullet with his teeth.
You don't understand the meaning of a strawman.
I'm talking about the 2024 election as well, and I'm not changing any topic. I'm pointing out the insanity of the original post.
It's clearly the new tactic. Their guy has been obviously senile for at least 5 years and they denied it as long as their TVs told them to deny it, despite the clear evidence of his failing mental state. Now the TV has told them it's okay to say Biden's senile as the push to install Kamala begins. There's no reasoning with these types, because they aren't basing their decisions on observation or logic, they're basing it on party loyalty. You'll have better luck convincing a Red Sox fan that the Yankees are a better team than you will convincing these people that anything the media tells them is untrue.
Is this the new strategy??
We've all known Biden was suffering from dementia since the last election cycle. The media denied it, so you obediently accepted as true what you knew deep down to be false. The media continued to deny his dementia until it was no longer possible to pretend otherwise, and so did you.
Now you're going to play the game of "No I'm not you are!" and try to paint Trump as suffering from Alzheimer's, despite knowing that he isn't?
Wake up and think for yourself. It's fine if you dislike or disagree with Donald Trump, or any politician, but do so for valid reasons, not because your TV told you so.