Bright [2017] by David Ayer

What's the Iogical explanation for this discrepancy?

Other urls found in this thread:

rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Max made daddy buy some chinese voting bots

DONT WATCH IT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

(((Critics)))

OUT-OF-TOUCH critics with UNMASCULINE sensibilities can't handle FUN and LITTY romps like Bright and @jumanjimovie

Critics review bombing it.

>What's the Iogical explanation for this discrepancy?
Step 1: critics hate Max Landis and are judging it as they would any other middling movie and then deducting points for Max Landis.
Step 2: people are watching it for free (ish) so eve if it's middling they've set the bar a lower than if they'd paid $15 and they don't give a shit about Max Landis.

>this thread again
hey max

the industry is afraid of netflix

Normies think that if a piece of media has some kind social commentary it automatically makes it good and if you don’t like it, “you don’t get the message” or some dumb shit

max landis is retarded, ayer cant direct anymore, "fantasy" fans are retards

shut up

This.

mods are asleep, post elfs

kys

People have lower expectations for something they watch at home whilst vacuum cleaning

what's the logical explanation for posting this thread 20 times a day?

oh right, Sup Forumstard shitposting because you have no fucking idea you're championing a movie written by this guy.

that guy is based

You're not making sense to anyone, please take your medication

>this guy
you mean /ourguy/ fpbp mouseshill *inhales* OH NONONONONONO

Most of the people are dumb

...

>Normies think that if a piece of media has some kind social commentary it automatically makes it good and if you don’t like it, “you don’t get the message” or some dumb shit

Many of the critics were annoyed that the movie was first and foremost a buddy cop film that took a few shots at SJW's rather than a deep, far left social commentary. Much of the criticism amounted to little more than whining that Bright was not woke enough, was a missed opportunity for to advance a cultural agenda and was not the movie the *critics* wanted. You basically could write the critics' reviews after you saw and heard "Trigger Warning Entertainment" and "Faerie Lives Don't Matter Today" withing the first 10 minutes of the movie.

If the above wasn't enough, Netflix big-budget, big-star movies like Bright totally upset the established critic-theater-studio business model that pays the critics' bills. The critics had an interest in not liking the film and judging it as harshly as possible. Even if you agree that the movie had many flaws, it was hardly one of the worst movies of 2017 as many of the reviews suggest. Such ridiculous hyperbole speaks for itself.

Actual Netflix subscribers who enjoyed the movies can be easily explained as just liking a Will Smith buddy cop movie with some sexy elves. It's a simple formula, that while hardly a cinematic masterpiece, has worked with audiences time and time again,

Critics didn’t get any special merchandise or premier tickets to a direct to streaming film

Do they get the same concessions from makers/distributors of low budget arthouse films?

Even the arthouse films involve big stars connected to major studios. The smaller artsy films allow critics to write reviews effectively masturbating to their own supposed intellectual and cultural superiority, all while cosying-up to certain stars, directors and producers for the next big-budget flick.

Simply, the arthouse films are still part of the old business model. Artsy films released by Netflix would present the same conflicts of interest as Bright.

Do americans really look like this?

>Even the arthouse films involve big stars connected to major studios
>he thinks arthouse means Sundance flicks

That’s a Canadian.

>Artsy films released by Netflix would present the same conflicts of interest as Bright.
Yeah, about that...

Big stars (or formerly big stars) often love to do small, artsy films to boost their acting cred, both Sundance-type and others.

Big stars like Shahab Hosseini and Taraneh Alidoosti?

A conflict of interest doesn't mean a critic acted on it. Small artsy films on Netflix present a far smaller threat to the status quo than a $90million movie starring Will Smith.

Don't be surprised if after a few more major Netflix releases, their artsy films receive similar treatment to Bright.

Again, few are stating that there wasn't ample reasons to potentially criticize Bright. However, the ridiculous hyperbole and mimicked complaints, often with any note about the potential conflicts of interest, are troubling, particularly when there such a vast disconnect between the critics and the people who actually watched and enjoyed the film. To a lesser extent, it's also an interesting social commentary on what the largely very liberal critics want from films and what the more diverse audience seems to enjoy.

Yes, the Netflix audience obviously includes many conservatives and other non-liberal types.

I mean, it's obvious that the people who watch Netflix don't like the very liberal productions.

The backgrounds and politics of the Netflix audience is far more reflective of the general viewing audience that than the world of professional critics.

"Conservatives and other non-liberal types" watch movies just like everyone else. More importantly, they (and most other people not constantly involved in politics) often will watch and be entertained by films that don't necessarily parallel their own politics. As is obvious from the "professional" complaints compared to the fan reviews of Bright, that really cannot be said for the paid critics.

People with activist political bents often don't realize or acknowledge that most of America and the rest of the world don't see politics in everything, no less care about it in their movies unless the production is designed to offend or insult them.

I agree with you! Their "diverse" backgrounds show up in their preferences.

I think it's fairly obvious at this point that critics HATE Netflix movies

It's safe to say that I trust the diverse Netflix audience much more than paid critics!

Critics are out of touch with the audience!

They are elites whose views do not line up with the average consumer who is surely very discerning!

Critics liking some Netflix movies doesn't prove or disprove anything, particularly when the film at issue doesn't really pose a threat to the status quo. Bright is different. It's a major-release class movie with the budget, star power and marketing to really begin to challenge the established business model. The fact that it also takes a swipe at or refuses to deal with certain left-wing social priorities only pokes the critics in the eye even more.

As I see it, the critics took the bait. The hyperbolic "worst movie of 2017" reviews along with the huge discrepancy with the viewer reviews only served to provide more marketing muscle to the film and demonstrate that Netflix was truly independent from the old ways and more interested in their subscribers than pleasing some moldy, establishment "experts" and professional critics.

Why is it always this posted, and not the part where she almost kisses her sister?

>and more interested in their subscribers than pleasing some moldy, establishment "experts" and professional critics.
Of course! Which is exactly why they are now producing a movie with that independent Hollywood pariah and polarizing filmmaker Martin Scorsese! A bigger budget than even Bright will obviously make the establishment critics hate this previously lambasted filmmaker and his Netflix sponsored film even more than Bright!

Again, critics and the public can agree (or disagree) without proving much, particularly with minor films. You need to look at trends and the particular movie at issue. Some movies are unquestionably great or completely suck. This tells us nothing. As discussed before, Bright is different for a number of reasons. Also, it hardly unusual for a movie to include bad writing or acting or week premise, and still just be *fun*. Not every movie wants to win an award, or needs to in order to be a financial success.

I would also note that in the discussions about Bright, we should also look at the mirror image with The Last Jedi. The critics loved it, yet the audience has been FAR more circumspect.

rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/

Bright is only using one marketing technique. I have no doubt they might employ the exact opposite strategy in a movie like the Scorsese film.

Would this be considered hypocritical? Yes. Have studios done this before and will do it again? Absolutely. Marketing is about what works. In fact, the credibility from movies like Bright might actually provide more cred for the Scorsese film.

I would argue that Netflix is handling the choosing, production and marketing of their own material with a great deal of prudence and financial acumen. While they're bound to make some mistakes along the way, Netflix and its contemporaries might change movie-making business model sooner they might be expected.

My negro! And as I have been demonstrating throughout this thread, the audience is a hotbed of intellectualism and refined taste!

And marketing is exactly what makes critics like or dislike a movie and not being paid by the establishment, as we've demonstrated in this thread! Because Netflix does not give concessions to the paid critics in exchange for good reviews!

The critics shared nearly an identical love of Avengers.

Sometimes the love of superhero movies, all the flaws notwithstanding, transcends all.

However, as such movies have saturated the market, both critics and audience have become more critical.

Audiences are extremely critical these days!

Bright was a generic buddy cop movie that thinks it's saying something, but it comes off as goofy, poorly written, poorly acted, feels like Twilight/Underworld and just a huge wasted potential. I wanted to love or even like it, but I ended up disliking it. I don't think it's a 29%, though. More like 50%.

honestly, this seems accurate. People are watching it for free so they don't care. All critics see is a mediocre-at-best cop movie

shutup idiot.

>critic-theater-studio business model
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me. Like, studios hating netflix makes sense. But Critics? Critics review films and get paid to review films whatever the venue. These statements seem to carry the implication that Critics get paid directly by studios, but they don't - they get paid by whatever publication they write for.

>LITTY
Haven't been on Sup Forums in a few years. Is this what the board is like now?

>I don't think it's a 29%, though. More like 50%

That's a big part of the issue. It's one thing not to like a move, but quite another for the critics to claim it's one of the worst movies of the year.

>All critics see is a mediocre-at-best cop movie

Newsflash - Audiences like buddy-cop movies (no less with some sexy "elves"). There's a reason why it's practically its own genre. It works and earns money.

>they get paid by whatever publication they write for

Who advertised in their publication? Who sends the critics on trips and sponsors film festivals?

Right, and Critics just watch movies all the goddamn time, so they get bored of genre films fast. So it's the same dichotemy that's gone on since the dawn of time - Critics love shit that's different because it breaks the monotony of watching Rush Hour 12, whereas the public who goes to see a couple films a year max is much more interested in something they know they'll be entertained by

> another for the critics to claim it's one of the worst movies of the year.

I agree. I'd say however that I completely understand almost all the rotten ratings it got. I didn't hate it and even I'd give it a rotten. I didn't even finish the last 20 minutes- it was that boring. All it made me feel to do is watch Rush Hour.

>Who advertised in their publication?
Well, Newspapers are generally advertised by local businesses

>Who sends the critics on trips and sponsors film festivals?
Critics are usually sent by their publication, though the studios generally provide tickets and other shit to said publication in order to increase awareness.

Like, shit man, this isn't Gamer Gate, where the advertisers are videogame companies financing the media directly as a sockpuppet, and the biggest news magazine is owned by fucking Game Stop. Entertainment rags and general news media have a variety of advertisers.

Aye, don't talk shit about Rush Hour 1 and 2. 3 was shit, but the first two were Kino. If Jackie wasn't a dinosaur I'd be wishing it goes all the way up to 12.
What did normies even find great about Bright? I feel like the movie was too slow and dull even for the average person to enjoy. Are buddy cops really that auidence-friendly that the genre fooled people into thinking this was a great movie? The youtube comments only consists of 15 year olds talking about critics are wrong and bright is best movie of the year.

>he doesn't get LITTY

YouTube commenters are the smartest people in the world though

The viewers really didn't find that Bright was "great," but rather it was simply *fun*. A movie need not win acting and directing awards to thoroughly entertain, and the critics arguments that the movie was so terrible it must be avoided did not reflect reality for most of the public. [The reverse seems to be true of The Last Jedi.]

>fun
*litty

I forgot that XxNarutoGomez64 knows has better tastes than a seasoned critic. I

Independent YouTube commenters are often probably more broadly representative of the viewing public than professional critics.

The viewing public are also the smartest people in the world

It just annoys me when they try to act like critics don't know what they're talking about just because they personally liked a movie. I like a lot of dumb shit critics hate- but I don't pretend like my dumb movie deserves a perfect score. The general public is retard when it comes to art.

Might be true, but in no way right.
However even the most terrible movies like Ghostbuster 2016 were universally hated, so at least the general public isn't completely hopeless.

remember Bright is a netflix film by literally who, and Star Wars is Star Wars. Expectations are going to be different.

And by in large, it sounds like Star Wars *wasn't* fun, just very trite.

>the social commentary is too on the nose
>the tone is inconsistent, it's supposed to be rush hour with an orc instead of Martin Lawrence but the tone is often too gritty and humorless
>the dialogue is forced
>there are a number of plot weakpoints in the script(why did the evil elf chick give her wand to a subordinate instead of dealing with the problem herself.why was Smith surprised that leeloo was a bright when he reported it earlier,ect )
>the lore is poorly explained(did the orcs work for the d lord or were they his enemy.
>the chemistry of the main characters is weak

Bright was everything I wanted from it, no more, no less. I hope it makes modern high fantasy more popular, as I think it's an underused setting with a lot of fun possibility.

This board is a hollow shell of its former self.

>dialogue is forced


"WE ARE THE CAVALRY!"
That line was so forced and horrible. That when my mind completely switched off. It didn't even make sense when he said it. It's like they tried to write the most generic line possible there.

But... but... but .... ""Trigger Warning Entertainment" and "Faerie Lives Don't Matter Today"!

How can you be woke and enjoy Bright?!?!

I want that too, but I don't want cheap and witless "orcs are minorities and elves are the 1%" shit. That's lazy as fuck.

Critics are all paid by the same box office dogshit industry.

Didn't they boo this film in real life because they were terrified of its repercussions?

Because Noomi has a really striking smile, and her character's visual design accentuates it, so all the waifufags gravitate to this clip instead.

...

just made me want a shadowrun film instead without the boring social commentary and an actual cyberpunk aesthetic

audiences love rapists

...

...

>cyberpunk aesthetic

Cyberpunk hasn't been in since the 1990's, and Shadworun is chock full of social commentary similar to Bright.

Critics are sjw's who can't create themselves.
They only do snark like a teenage valley girl who gets gangbanged by wetbacks and her negro step daddy.
They a broken people believing they are virtuous.
Cancer of society.
Litmus test for the initiated.

>broken people

>Critics are orcs

>Crazy Eyes
>Would you still do her?

>the sharpened teeth are a *big* problem

Okay, now make it a webm.

Bright isn't altogether as bad as they say, if you already like modern fantasy blends like Shadowrun. The social commentary is really heavy handed, but I expect that to be the case given the short amount of time they have. There's basically 2 main threads world-building and buddy-cop, with a bunch of time wasted miscellaneously in between. Big name actors though. Not too bad to sit through.

Should I watch this just for her?

Sup Forums loves faggots tho

It's more a buddy-orc, err.. cop film than a sexy elves movie, but it's not too bad.

It's only 1.5 hours, give it a try.

sooo... does Sup Forums like it?
does reddit like it?

She actually doesn't get very much screentime. If you've been frequenting these threads then you've probably already seen most of what the movie has to offer on the Noomi front.

>They a broken people believing they are virtuous.
>Cancer of society.
youre describing Sup Forums

I've only heard shes a good villain and vicious. Only character I'm interested in.