Devin Faraci of B.M.D. (a known Marvel fanboy) is a reviewer that Rotten Tomatoes has verified.

[MartyMcFly]

I'm not saying he shouldn't have a site or work his connects. I'm saying RT is a terrible metric because of these biases. Anyone who says "Well RT said..." I can't take seriously. You have to watch a film and judge it for yourself.

Of course breh..you should ALWAYS watch a flick for yourself to decide if you like it. 10 times out of 10, period. Anyone who follows critics blindly are sheep and should check themselves. And criticism, by its nature, is a terrible metric because its always someone else opinion. Also though, one of the critics who is RT certified, Amy Nicholson, who happens to be Devin's cohost on a podcast I love, says that it's a terrible system because it doesn't account for nuance. Something can only be fresh or rotten but if you're lukewarm on a flick, you'll probably give it a fresh but it doesn't indicate how you really feel about it. She says its too binary. But then the ultimate question is this: why do we care?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Doesn't work like that breh. One, it's film criticism not politics or national news. Ultimately at the end of the day, you like what you like and it's hard as hell to be impartial in film criticism because its a personal thing. It's all about how a film works for you and what it does to you and for you. In a perfect world it wouldn't work like that but it's not a perfect world and we're not created by Skynet

2ndly, regardless of how I feel about Devin at times, and he can be obnoxious as hell along with dismissive and smarmy, he's a smart cat when it comes to film and his actual journalistic bonafides are beyond reproach. If he says he heard something, or reports something, then that's what he heard and I don't have a reason to not believe him. That doesn't mean things don't change from the minute he reports them to the minute the movies are out. I'll never forget one of the producers on the first burton batman flick say that a script is just a blueprint and when you get on set, things change or things can change or things get revised. Does he get it wrong at times? Of course, that's the nature of the beast but that doesn't mean he's out and out lying, just means he was wrong or things changed or his information may be bad.

and third, yeah he admits he's biased toward marvel. He's said it, he wrote a whole article about it on his site but that's not going to stop him from being a critic or having a website or having credentials and connects and inside sources. Journalism is about building relationships.

In this article what reasons did he give for being biased?

 

[MartyMcFly]

In this article what reasons did he give for being biased?

I Am Biased

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Devin, Screen Junkies and a couple other RT critics are clearly Marvel bias, this is how they get exclusive interviews for their site. Problem is that RT has no system in place to find out who's bias and who's not. For example, a reviewer from Vanity Fair posted on Twitter that she hates Zack Snyder and all his movies because of a scene in Watchmen. She ended up giving MOS a rotten review because his suit was too dark and he didn't go into a phone booth like Reeves (Reeves never went into a phone booth). Then you have reviewers like this:

“Finally, a big budget superhero sequel that manages to be both effortlessly entertaining and utterly sobering, instead of just one of those things-or, as we've endured too frequently in the past, neither of them. (Looking at you, Batman v Superman.)” – Jen

That claim that they aren't bias. I just think RT needs a new system

Yes, exactly. Excellent post that some in here will avoid commenting on.

 

[wire28]

actually i was more curious as to why certain movies at another studio were grossing almost double.

marvel paying people in the general public to go see the movie 15 times?

the funny thing is this thread wouldnt exist if BvS was actual good (and therefore got good reviews)

but let the breh keep digging, we got Faraci down but who else is having their palms greased by Marvel

 

[MartyMcFly]

Devin, Screen Junkies and a couple other RT critics are clearly Marvel bias, this is how they get exclusive interviews for their site. Problem is that RT has no system in place to find out who's bias and who's not. For example, a reviewer from Vanity Fair posted on Twitter that she hates Zack Snyder and all his movies because of a scene in Watchmen. She ended up giving MOS a rotten review because his suit was too dark and he didn't go into a phone booth like Reeves (Reeves never went into a phone booth). Then you have reviewers like this:

“Finally, a big budget superhero sequel that manages to be both effortlessly entertaining and utterly sobering, instead of just one of those things-or, as we've endured too frequently in the past, neither of them. (Looking at you, Batman v Superman.)” – Jen

That claim that they aren't bias. I just think RT needs a new system

The problem is a lot of these cats are fanboys just like cats in here and they don't know how to hide it.

 

[gluvnast]

Doesn't work like that breh. One, it's film criticism not politics or national news. Ultimately at the end of the day, you like what you like and it's hard as hell to be impartial in film criticism because its a personal thing. It's all about how a film works for you and what it does to you and for you. In a perfect world it wouldn't work like that but it's not a perfect world and we're not created by Skynet

2ndly, regardless of how I feel about Devin at times, and he can be obnoxious as hell along with dismissive and smarmy, he's a smart cat when it comes to film and his actual journalistic bonafides are beyond reproach. If he says he heard something, or reports something, then that's what he heard and I don't have a reason to not believe him. That doesn't mean things don't change from the minute he reports them to the minute the movies are out. I'll never forget one of the producers on the first burton batman flick say that a script is just a blueprint and when you get on set, things change or things can change or things get revised. Does he get it wrong at times? Of course, that's the nature of the beast but that doesn't mean he's out and out lying, just means he was wrong or things changed or his information may be bad.

and third, yeah he admits he's biased toward marvel. He's said it, he wrote a whole article about it on his site but that's not going to stop him from being a critic or having a website or having credentials and connects and inside sources. Journalism is about building relationships.

It's not necessary that Faraci is a good writer or not.... but about his and other journalistic integrity. The majority of people trust critics and journalists due to displaying an unbiased journalistic integrity when report or providing opinionated editorials or reviews. When you got someone who not only blatant about his bias, but at any given chance tries to sabotage or smear its chief competitor and time and time again it gets exposed as false, but the lie had already circled throughout the worldwide web three times over that people think of the lie as the truth.... that's a problem. I'm not even go address the things he already done prior to the release of BvS, but the lie he told about the Suicide Squad and reshoots, trying to muddle in unnecessary drama points to the lack of integrity the man has and why should you take anything of a review of his seriously, not just for anything Marvel or DC but ANY film, because if he can do it for one, he can do it for anything knowing he has the power to persuade readers. Groupthink is the biggest weapon of a critic. That's the issue.

In regards of RT, as I stated and should add this is how groupthink behavior is encouraged, the aggregated score is what most people simply look without bother to read reviews in its full context. It even works among other critics because if a trend of overly positive or negative reviews begin to spill, other would come in with a preconditioned assumption already to look for the negative instead of a clear mind and come out with an independent consensus. The late greats of Siskel and Ebert once addressed this issue back in the 90's.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I Am Biased

So basically:

"I know a lot of you guys already understand this, but I want to get into it for the people who will be coming to complain at this website in the looming months about our reviews for blockbusters (and likely superhero blockbusters): there is no such thing as an objective piece of film criticism. It can't exist. You're asking for the impossible."

So the lesson is reviews aren't that important, but it's kinda fun to laugh at movies with bad ones. lol

 

[MartyMcFly]

It's not necessary that Faraci is a good writer or not.... but about his and other journalistic integrity. The majority of people trust critics and journalists due to displaying an unbiased journalistic integrity when report or providing opinionated editorials or reviews. When you got someone who not only blatant about his bias, but at any given chance tries to sabotage or smear its chief competitor and time and time again it gets exposed as false, but the lie had already circled throughout the worldwide web three times over that people think of the lie as the truth.... that's a problem. I'm not even go address the things he already done prior to the release of BvS, but the lie he told about the Suicide Squad and reshoots, trying to muddle in unnecessary drama points to the lack of integrity the man has and why should you take anything of a review of his seriously, not just for anything Marvel or DC but ANY film, because if he can do it for one, he can do it for anything knowing he has the power to persuade readers. Groupthink is the biggest weapon of a critic. That's the issue.

In regards of RT, as I stated and should add this is how groupthink behavior is encouraged, the aggregated score is what most people simply look without bother to read reviews in its full context. It even works among other critics because if a trend of overly positive or negative reviews begin to spill, other would come in with a preconditioned assumption already to look for the negative instead of a clear mind and come out with an independent consensus. The late greats of Siskel and Ebert once addressed this issue back in the 90's.

And I can't speak on his integrity or lack thereof which is why I didn't. But I know there are cats here who pay more attention to all of this than I do so I won't say you're wrong. I do agree with you on RT though but again, that's the problem of the people who believe it and cite critics as gospel rather than figuring something out on their own. I've got no compassion or sympathy for someone like that so that's on them.

 

[FlyRy]

Devin loves superman though

 

[AnonymityX1000]

It's not necessary that Faraci is a good writer or not.... but about his and other journalistic integrity. The majority of people trust critics and journalists due to displaying an unbiased journalistic integrity when report or providing opinionated editorials or reviews. When you got someone who not only blatant about his bias, but at any given chance tries to sabotage or smear its chief competitor and time and time again it gets exposed as false, but the lie had already circled throughout the worldwide web three times over that people think of the lie as the truth.... that's a problem. I'm not even go address the things he already done prior to the release of BvS, but the lie he told about the Suicide Squad and reshoots, trying to muddle in unnecessary drama points to the lack of integrity the man has and why should you take anything of a review of his seriously, not just for anything Marvel or DC but ANY film, because if he can do it for one, he can do it for anything knowing he has the power to persuade readers. Groupthink is the biggest weapon of a critic. That's the issue.

In regards of RT, as I stated and should add this is how groupthink behavior is encouraged, the aggregated score is what most people simply look without bother to read reviews in its full context. It even works among other critics because if a trend of overly positive or negative reviews begin to spill, other would come in with a preconditioned assumption already to look for the negative instead of a clear mind and come out with an independent consensus. The late greats of Siskel and Ebert once addressed this issue back in the 90's.

When has a rumor about fukkin' reshoots ever sabotaged a movie?! Please tell me. If SS is great people won't see it cause they read an article about reshoots?! It's really much a do about nothing. He's probably trolling people like you. lol

 

[MartyMcFly]

So basically:

"I know a lot of you guys already understand this, but I want to get into it for the people who will be coming to complain at this website in the looming months about our reviews for blockbusters (and likely superhero blockbusters): there is no such thing as an objective piece of film criticism. It can't exist. You're asking for the impossible."

So the lesson is reviews aren't that important, but it's kinda fun to laugh at movies with bad ones. lol

Not the last part but I think his ultimate point is looking for objectivity in the review of a movie doesn't exist which I agree with. However, the other shyt that @gluvnast was talking about is an issue if its true. A big issue and not cool at all. If he really is using his position to throw dirt just to throw dirt, then he's foul for that

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Not the last part but I think his ultimate point is looking for objectivity in the review of a movie doesn't exist which I agree with. However, the other shyt that @gluvnast was talking about is an issue if its true. A big issue and not cool at all. If he really is using his position to throw dirt just to throw dirt, then he's foul for that

Do you think his alleged dirt throwing has a material effect on box office or even other critics? I don't.

 

[wire28]

Do you think his alleged dirt throwing has a material effect on box office or even other critics? I don't.

so the sheep general audience are blindly following the critics who are blindly following Faraci its all beginning to make sense. Marvel is so ingenious

 

[MartyMcFly]

Do you think his alleged dirt throwing has a material effect on box office or even other critics? I don't.

It does for fandom tho. and that plays into pre-movie buzz or lack thereof. It's all part of how you build hype. There are movies that come out every year that the critics have their knives out for before they even see the light of day and it can have an effect on things, including the bottom line. If enough people tell you that something stinks, there's a good chance you'll stay away. Not all the time, but it can. And I've heard cats in the film biz talk about this, whether its on an IGN podcast or writers for deadline