Netflix’s ‘Castlevania: Nocturne’ Again Proves The Uselessness Of User Reviews
(www.forbes.com)
from slugger@sopuli.xyz to anime@lemmy.ml on 02 Oct 2023 15:30
https://sopuli.xyz/post/4195667
from slugger@sopuli.xyz to anime@lemmy.ml on 02 Oct 2023 15:30
https://sopuli.xyz/post/4195667
#anime
threaded - newest
Don’t they mean the uselessness of critic reviews?
The “tomato meter” is literally manipulated into irrelevance. There are outfits that specifically pay critics during a certain time period to either hold off with their review or change it to give a shitty feature a 100% during previews so they can market the hell out of it. The system was shoddy and broken before. At this point it’s just useless.
Which review site or a rating do you prefer?
Honestly, I don’t really read reviews. I can usually sense based on the marketing campaign and the feel of the trailer whether a movie will be up my alley. I also work in film and have a huge group of super pretentious movie buffs around me at all times. I’m definitely an outlier in that group because I’m a pretty easy critic lol. And I know which friends of mine are too pretentious for their own good or ones who are more geared toward blockbusters than I am. And from there I work backwards to see what interests me. Or I just tag along and find out the hard way.
I will say, though, I like letterboxd. You do have to start scrolling and see which people you’re going to discount and which ones that point out things that are important to you.
No. If you go to Rotten Tomatoes there’s definitely a lot of right wing virtue signaling buzzwords with one-star reviews.
This paranoid lunatic really believes that criticism of a show’s writing and characters is some kind of dogwhistle. The first series of Castlevania was decent, but very silly; it was a 6/10 at the absolute highest. Or, if I was a character from Castlevania, I would say “the first FUCKING series of Castlevania was DAMN decent, but very FUCKING silly and SHIT; it was a DAMN 6 out of BITCH 10 at the absolute FUCKING highest”. It’s not a particularly amazing series and this one is worse, as continuations are wont to be.
Considering this is a Forbes article, my assumption is that this is a bought-and-paid-for PR statement. Why would you post anything from this corporate rag in the first place, OP?
I never finished the first show but I thought it was cool. At least a 7 for me. This Forbes review is specifically citing the reviews that complained about “modern day talking points” so I don’t doubt they’re at least partially correct. The show is probably mediocre to begin with but there’s also righties getting worked up over it. I guess I’ll have to watch it and see if it’s any good.
What’s wrong with complaining that a show puts talking points (or however you’d like to refer to the concept) over quality?
Again I haven’t seen the show yet but usually when people say that it just means there was a black/queer character and it made them angy
Lmao it seem you’re usually wrong
Without spoilers, there’s melanin, gayness, and even character flaws. You were spot on.
And also low quality writing and minimal satisfying entertainment.
Low quality? No, not in the least. It was adequate setup for a 3-4 season show. The emotional arcs would have been fantastic if they had been given any amount of time to breathe or if there had been more visible development between certain characters, but that’s not what the complaints are about, are they? What, my good chud, are they complaining about in their reviews? Do feel free to pull your mask off, you’re among friends.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were the grand arbiter of quality, selected by the universe to be the one true source of objective judgement on the topic.
What an absolutely unhinged comment. And to reply to your reviews, there’s nothing of substance said in half of them. I read them, evidently you haven’t. Feel free to keep the mask on, I guess?
You seriously expect every random person to write an essay describing their thoughts for the reviews?
Attempting to sound older than 16 seems like a small ask. As does… having a review in your review. Speaking of which, you mind linking your review?
Lol I bet you’re absolutely furious at nearly every review on the internet if a short blurb about one’s opinion isn’t a sufficient thing to write.
So you don’t have one?
No, I’m not leaving a review because I watched one episode, and decided the show didn’t interest me. Like hundreds of other shows I haven’t left reviews on. My thoughts based on what I’ve seen are that I don’t particularly like their choice of what to do with the story, the writing could be much improved, and the animation is alright, but not anything to set it apart.
The first episode is without any of the characteristics you derided in your other comments. Why did you come to a comment section to argue in favor of negative reviews about a show you haven’t actually watched? That’s a bizarre hobby.
Weird, I distinctly remember the first episode having both writing and animation. Perhaps I’m mistaking it for something else?
Anyway, try reading the link before you try and use it to back you up.
Why is it idiotic to not like media that prioritizes pushing a message over being entertaining?
Just because you want to change the topic of discussion to a strawman it doesn’t mean it’s what we are discussing.
Besides, you’re the only one kidding around here, making up bogus accusations to discredit criticism
you just threw out a strawman, got told to stay on topic, then accused the other person of strawmanning your argument because they stayed on topic rather than responding to your strawman
Lmao I was the one staying on topic dumbass. Read the conversation if you’re too stupid to understand it
i guess we can add "reading comprehension" to your list of special talents
Lmao says the dumbass who continues to strawman everything i say.
Not clicking on some weird Facebook link
oh no somebody's using words they don't understand
give me the definition of a strawman argument, then explain how that was one
A strawman argument is where they put up a false version of the argument I was making and argue against it instead. Such as pretending I was arguing media should have zero message whatsoever, instead of the actual argument I was making, which was that entertainment should be a higher priority than the message
ok i think i get it, so for example making the argument be about "shows shouldn't prioritise pushing a message over quality" when that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand would be an example of a strawman argument, yes?
also i'm still waiting on an answer for what message the show is pushing
i think that might be a strawman
having black people in a tv show isn't "prioritizing pushing a message", you absolute loon
Nobody said that you fucking dunce
what message is the show pushing
asdfasfasdf
And it doesn’t raise red flags that someone was pissy enough over bad reviews to go and publish an entire article to cry that everyone leaving bad reviews is just racist?
Oh, give me a break. This is obviously a reach on your part, because if your personality was so blandly milquetoast that you actually think this, you wouldn’t be the kind of person who uses histrionics like you just did. I don’t know what your angle is but at least be internally consistent.
Gotcha attempt: failed
Tears: wept
Pearls: clutched
A real triple threat. Performative outrage suits you well.
Lmao what? User reviews are useless because people leave their opinion on the show?
The only useful reviews are the ones you trust from people who share similar thoughts about what you enjoy. You could aggregate the rating of everyone on the planet and it still won’t be a useful metric. Reviews from only people self-selecting that would have watched the show in the first place are also not useful.
Reviews from critics who are bribed to give 100% are less than useful. It is worse than useless. It is actively harmful. “Bribed” in the sense that they are given early access to something and don’t want to lose access as their livelihoods might depend on it. Sometimes they might be bribed with actual money, who knows.
I mean yeah, user reviews aren’t perfect, but this mess of a show doesn’t prove it any more than literally every other piece of media people leave reviews for.
I agree with you.
Pretty standard stuff. A handful of bigots go ahead and review bomb stuff they hate.
Usually that’s an indicator that the show is really great. Personally I thought the original Castlevania series was fantastic, so I’m looking Forward to watching this one.
Powerhouse Animation is usually worth watching for the visuals alone.
Critic and audience scores are more and less important depending on the movie.
Do you want to find movies that are well done, break new ground, or include the tropes that critics love? Critic reviews are helpful.
Do you want something that is well done in a genre that critics tend to look down on, like horror or comedy? Audience reviews are helpful.
But any kind of score aggregation of either group is far less useful than reading a review that clarifies whether the movie includes things you like a lnd whether they are well done. A horror movie that has reviews that mention frequent jump scares will drive me away because I don't like them that much unless they are frequent and well done. Someone else might want to see it because that is what they enjoy!
Yeah I think many people sort of ignore many critics see a ton of movies so when you get ones that are all very trope and cliche, it may be a fun rump but a critic probably would have seen many of them prior. At the end of the day movie reviewing is a job and you are probably going to get sick of shit you see on repeat over and over with just a slap of paint on top of it. Typically the reason why comedies and horror films probably get slapped the hardest by critic reviews.
Some critics also focus more on whether the movie is trying something new rather than doing what it is trying to do well.
It isn't like they mark a drama down for doing stereotypical drama stuff over and over and over again like they do with comedies or horror. Comedies and horror tend to suffer from people not all finding the same stuff funny or horrifying, while anyone can say drama is drama even if it is melodramatic with manufactured drama.
that’s going to cap your bandwidth to what your friends have time to watch… not criticizing, i do the same, but honestly fuck bribed reviewers.
Or just not care about other peoples opinions on things and just watch what catches your eye. If it doesn’t seem interesting by the nth episode just drop it.
That’s time wasted and you’re usually manipulated into it anyway with cliffhangers and flashy visuals instead of quality content.
If something is going to face plant like game of thrones, I want to know in the beginning before I get invested. All forms of marketing are geared toward hiding those face plants to drive viewership, but it’s the only metric people really care about: is this movie essentially longform clickbait that isn’t going to pay off in the end, like so much of the other shit coming out recently
On the other hand, pretty much anything I’ve ever disliked I’ve discovered through reviews or mentions online, while nearly everything I liked I’ve just stumbled upon myself.
Also because they usually judge criteria differently. They watch a lot of movies and are looking for things the average person isn’t.
The original one was great and honestly Nocturne ain’t that bad as well so far.
I finished Nocturne last night and it was…eh? Well it’s half a show isn’t it? It’s the same as the OG Netflix Castlevania S1, where they set all the pieces up for S2, so I’m willing to wait it out and see where it goes. The 53% does feel accurate to me as a score honestly, even though I’d personally put it at like ~60%.
The highlight of the show for me was Richter and Maria’s interactions in episode 1, and I thought we would get more of that than we actually did. I don’t mind Annette, but like…I wish we got more RICHTER (and Maria, Tera, and Orlox by extension) and saved Annette’s story for later.
It also just …weirdly felt too rushed and too slow simultaneously. 8 episodes was not enough for the story they wanted to tell, and I wish they just focused on the Belmont side for now.
It’s the weird scene arrangement. Had opera gone to hell at the end of the season, it would have been paced infinitely better and, moreover, it would have been much more poignant. Contrasting the incoming with the outgoing would have been interesting. As you said, I’ll forgive it if they can meaningfully expand on their story in the next season.
It’s a lose adaptation of next Alucard/Belmont saga:
I really don’t find rt to be useful. Take away the fact that critics are being paid to give positive reviews, it’s just a measure of like versus dislike, so 100% of critics liking it is really just saying every critic thought the show was at least decent, but it doesn’t give me any sort of scale. It’s like a giant pass fail, but there’s no indication of whether the show barely passed across the board, or was actually quite good.
That being said, have not seen this series yet, but plan to