Not sure about the Mark Kermode dig, he's still the most respected film critic in the UK. If anything, his willingness to give anything a fair shake - even Clifford the Big Red Dog - is one of his defining traits that makes him so likable.
@@timy9197 I think it's more him saying that the movie make Clifford too big. I watched that review recently (they're all posted on TH-cam) and he did explain his reasoning.
I agree. Kermode was giving praise to the the Twilight movies for being good for what they are while people like Moviebob were ripping it to shreds just because. Love Kermode.
For the record, having watched the full review and having additional context, Kermode was talking about how Clifford being a live action film as opposed to something animated creates suspension of disbelief/uncanny valley problems that needn't have existed. He has reviewed multiple movies every week on radio, in print and on TV for decades, his books are great and I found he was very friendly and generous with his time when I met him at a Q&A. Also, while he always gives the caveat that superhero films aren't his bread and butter he always gives them their day in court without prejudice, and he often champions films he sees as being unfairly maligned. Disagree with him if you must, but there's no cause to be bitchy.
I found it really weird that so many of the "reviews" I saw of this leaned so hard on the "Who gives a shit about the Eternals" angle. That's what launched this whole franchise to begin with. It's hard for some folks to remember now but characters like Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man, Dr. Strange and The Guardians of the Galaxy weren't exactly household names at their time of launch. Especially going into a post Endgame, Phase 4 cycle where I keep hearing a lot of chatter that Marvel has run out of "well known" characters to make movies out of and now they're just scraping the bottom of the barrel with Shang-Chi, Eternals and Moon Knight. I mean, another decade or so down the line we'll revisit this idea if Marvel tries to sell us all on a Forbush Man movie but for now if the most esoteric thing they have in their Bag of Tricks is The Eternals I think we're probably fine for viable concepts.
I don’t get why so many people are so bothered by Kermode’s point, even in just the clip used in this video he clearly states “in a live action setting” and when you watch the full review he points out the issue isn’t there in 2D art and is amused by how silly his criticism sounds.
Did you just fire shots at mark kermode? The BBC's Premier film critic and host of wintertainment, a podcast beloved by the entire country of England and most of the colonies? Bold move Bob, bold move
The thing I hate about review aggregates is that they smooth over the actual point. I would much rather see a movie that 5 critics loved and 5 critics hated than to see a movie that 10 critics agree was kinda meh. They'd have the same review score, but I'd rather take a chance on something that really connects with me than be guaranteed fluff.
Also, too many people treat the Tomatometer score like it's a test score. 90% fresh doesn't necessarily mean it's an "A-grade" movie. Just that 90% of critics thought it was *good enough* to be worth watching.
"I would much rather see a movie that 5 critics loved and 5 critics hated than to see a movie that 10 critics agree was kinda meh." I think you are in the minority here. I think most people would rather watch a movie that 90% of critics thought was a 7/10 than risk seeing a movie has a 50/50 chance of being amazing or terrible.
@@jasonblalock4429 Or maybe even more specifically, "I think this is good enough for you to leave your house and pay full price to see it in a theatre." I've read so many "rotten" reviews where it's clear the reviewer thinks it would be fine to stream three months from now.
@@BrotherAlpha 7/10 is not 'meh', it's a good movie. Would you rather watch a '5/10' movie or a '10/10 and 0/10' movie? because the first movie is Jostice League and the other one is ZS Justice League.
@@BrotherAlpha If a movie is 'meh', it's boring and perfunctory, and I can live without seeing it. If critics either love it or hate it, it's at least going to be INTERESTING, and that's worth seeing, even if I wind up viscerally rejecting it. I think a good example of that considering this is Bob's channel is Joker, which he panned, but had some people extremely up in arms to defend, and that says it has something that touches a nerve one way or the other.
Two takeaways from this: 1) Eternals had a Bizarro World audience reception and 2) the movie critic business has vastly changed (and I'd argue that it's not done yet, if what I suspect the direction of the movie theater business is true).
I was only just able to watch the movie and the critical reaction and some fans acting like it was an abomination was such a wild thing to know as I watched it. I went in with low expectations due to the reaction I saw and came out absolutely loving it. I get people having different opinions and don't have a problem with that, but the mauling it got in no way matches up with what I saw. I can appreciate loving a crappy movie that critics hate but this in no way was close to that. I feel like time will be kind to this tbh.
@@alyssasmith8980 seconded! Is this a particular falsified data incident I can't remember, or just the general online stuff killing print stuff and not taking credit?
I saw on a trans woman's review of the movie that she really identified with and care most for Sprite, what with her being stuck in a body that doesn't match her identity and her desire to fit in with society, which is a take I hadn't heard before anywhere else.
@@y2craze I haven the seen the original, but not really, because the focus is never on the anxiety of being in a different body. It's more about the relationship and trying to fix eachoter's lives, they both seem very comfortable in either body and take advantage of it. There could be a SLIGHT comforting message in there for trans people that you can be yourself regardless of your body and how people percieve you. But what I think really hit this reviewer about sprite was the ANXIETY it depicted.
That man is flat out BUSY. He started getting American offers after that came out and was like, "I got three movies being made this year, when am I supposed to cross the ocean?"
I have actually been contemplating this more lately, fans really need to learn the difference between bad-faith criticism and good-faith criticism. If it’s clear someone can’t be satisfied regardless of what a film has or how you can look at it, it’s bad-faith/ their just bitching; If they can give you point-for-point issues that took them out of the experience, it’s good-faith - no matter whether you agree with their sum or not, that’s the litmus test.
Conversely, you can tell that some people are only reading things so that they can find the first easy thing they can point to that lets them shout "bad faith! bad faith!" and attack the author with that, instead of engaging with what the author wrote or thought. I believe that criticism you don't agree with can be more useful than criticism that matches what you wanted to hear, as you're much more likely to actually think about what was written and why when it says something you weren't already thinking.
Bad faith critics are only part of the problem with audiences. An equal or possibly bigger part is overall media literacy. Too much of criticism and general online bitching and moaning boils down to "Here's a list of plot points I didn't like. I didn't like these plot points. Therefore these plot points are plot holes. The movie is terrible." No discussion of thematic narrative, subtext, meaning, or even acknowledgement that there might or should be some message in the media in question. Just mindless bitching and moaning on social media about how some movie "triggered me and my circle of knee jerk reactionaries." Audiences and critics need to move beyond plot synopsis for critical purposes. Then they'll recognize that the Henry Cavill superman movies are about superman coming to the conclusion that the human race isn't worth saving, and that the only real problem with Last Jedi is that it copied the pacing and structure of Empire Strikes Back.
@@CitanulsPumpkin How the fuck did you reach the conclusion that Man of Steel is about Superman having a cynical view of humanity? Nothing in the movie shows that and, even if they did, it would be against Superman's character. He's a constant optimist, not a bitter, jaded hero.
@@CitanulsPumpkin “it’s too similar to TESB” is _not_ what’s wrong with TLJ. “They sidelined the Black character- and set-up an undeserved redemption arc for a spacenazi greasebag -because J.J. Abrams wasn’t on-set to stop the producers from capitulating to racist crybabies on the internet” is what’s wrong with TLJ.
Riffing: Jokes & constructive criticism. Trolling = Vague Insults. Thus, why Mystery Science Theater 3K is Fun, not necessarily mocking. Comedy is meant to punch up at authorities, not down at the Pogues. Entertainment can be many things but I never really thought wasting time on things that weren't worth my time (IMHO) until I started watching RedLetterMedia & *REALLY* got into Schlock. Bob's Schlocktober was my Gateway. RLM is my Amusement Park. 🤌
What Is the deal with the blow to Mark Kermode?, he can still write insightful and even though provoking reviews. Sure i don't always agree with His opinión but that Is kind of the point of criticism, i use It to know diferent perspectives and opinións in order to Enrich my own. You know i'm not gonna shit on him just because he didn't like the same films that i did. That was completely unnecessary Bob, come on man you can do better. As for the ethernals, i feel that calling It an "art house" Marvel movie Is like when they called Winter soldier a "gritty" spy thriller.
What’s kind of funny about what you mention about the 20-30 crowd vs the older film critics is with my recent interactions of film Twitter, I find it’s the opposite, especially lately. I find the younger people who used to love or at least like some movies in the MCU have recently (post-Endgame) way WAY overcorrected into outright hating it, probably based on the Twitter telephone version of certain comments from certain directors and wanting to be perceived as “real cinephiles”. But I find that people who have been at this gig longer, like you, Scott Wampler, Drew Mcweeny etc. are a lot more fair in your assessments. There are exceptions of course but I don’t know, maybe that’s just my timeline.
Mark Kermode is one of the most respected film critics in the UK. If you'd watched any more of his videos you'd understand that his humour is very dry and that maybe, just maybe, he was taking the fucking piss.
I used to do Steve Carrel's bit from Anchorman whenever peole were arguing about stupid things and I was too tired to intelligently defend sanity. It's very soothing 😇
I think there's something to this theory: Eternals marketing sort of pitched it as the meditative, 'arty' superhero flik for clever people. No longer trying to be a big, brash popcorn movie the critics rolled up their sleeves and went, "well, alright then. Have at it!" Still a big dumb popcorn flik - whatever anyone says - which is just fine.
4:45 I liked Black Widow AND Shang-Chi, so I don't get what was divisive in them. 8:06 Speaking of "artsy" directors and esoteric Jack Kirby creations, sucks we're not getting her New Gods movie. 11:26 Since Bob listed off all the famous (and infamous) MOVIE critics, I'm struggling to remember of VIDEO GAME criticism has anyone as big. Besides Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw.
With Black Widow it was Taskmaster people shat themselves over, just endless ranting about the character and it's like, wow ok calm down. I'm hoping we'll see them later down the line, it makes sense with who played them. No idea about Shang-Chi though, but I wasn't able to watch that until this month so I steered clear of the discourse on that one.
Black Widow had a lot going against it. First off it came out WAY TOO LATE. People were clamoring for a Black Widow movie since Avengers 1, but they didn't get one until after the character had died. It's kind of difficult to get invested in a character that you know has to survive in the film you're watching just so they can die in one you've already seen. Steve and Tony both got their own trilogies before their characters were retired while Natasha gets one solo film postmortem. It's a classic case of too little too late. Then of course there's the Taskmaster reveal that the chuds complained about, and there's how Natasha seems to be made of fucking steel with how much punishment she seems to brush off. She's supposed to be peak human not superhuman. There's several points in the movie where she should have broken every bone in her body, but she just walks it off and is fine by the next scene. Also, a lot of people wanted a movie about the Budapest mission where Hawkeye and Black Widow first meet. From what we've heard about it in other shows and movies and what little we see of it in this one it honestly seems like it would have made for a much more interesting story than what we got. Overall, the movie was fine but unimpressive. As for Shang-Chi, some people didn't like how the final battle was against a faceless horde of identical and disposable drones plus one giant grey cgi monster when the first two thirds of the film had built up much more interesting human antagonists, some were cynical about the cute furry creatures being clear marketing bait for plushie toys, and some didn't like how the film transitioned from well choregraphed martial arts fights to cgi heavy kaiju fights and energy blasts. However, you also have the chuds who just didn't like the fact that it stared a heavily asian cast and claimed it was pandering to China.
Been watching for years. I loved the flow of this episode through and through, very comfortable to listen to, nice editing and great points. Cheers Bob, happy holidays.
Wife and I just saw it tonight. I had to explain what the Eternals are. She loves the MCU and comic booky stuff; but this was way outside her knowledge base. It was actually her idea to go see it in the theaters rather than wait. After seeing trailers and my explanation. We both loved it. I think it is one of the better overall movies in the MCU. It should definitely shape how Marvel uses the Eternals universally going forward. It explores some really big ideas, making it truly great science fiction. It is definitely the best "ancient aliens" sci fi. Yes even better than Stargate. It is less good as a super hero movie, and perhaps leaning into that a bit less may have made it a little less muddled. Does God truly know best? Are God's ethics and morality absolute? Is humanity actually worthwhile? How does an advanced species interact with a less advanced one (colonialism). There is a lot here, and some of it could have used a little more time. It serves as the perfect follow up to Infinity War/Endgame.
I hate the ancient aliens idea but the director did an amazing job making the charicters trapped in that tale compelling enough to watch. It side stepped all my issues with that idea to become a film I massively enjoyed.
To be fair to Kermode, he was making a point about suspension of disbelief, and how the very idea of a live-action Clifford is problematic because the real-world setting makes it un-ignorably clear the dog isn't really there. And yes, being that nit-picky about a movie aimed at 5 year-olds is silly, but he does also make the point that, like Peter Rabbit, the live-action setting and contemporary sensibilities strip it of a lot of the charm of the source material, and it's unlikely to be anything more than a brief distraction for the kiddies, with no real staying power. As you yourself said about Bay's Ninja Turtles, the kids deserve better.
I don't know, when you're approaching a movie to with such a rigid standard about suspension of disbelief that "dogs can't be that big in real life and it's distracting" I feel like the problem is you. And yeah a story usually works better in the medium it was built to serve. But since the books arent gone, introducing kids to the things film can with something they already love does feels like a worthwhile effort. I haven't seen the movie so maybe it has other issues that I'd feel it could have done better on despite being a kids movie but trying to adapt it in the first place definitely wasnt one
@@memequern8087 I wouldn't necessarily call it a rigid standard; more highlighting a risk inherent in adapting this stuff. It's a balancing act: if you want your audience to believe the thing is real (at least within the context of the movie's universe), the thing has to fit within that universe. Get the balance right, and it doesn't matter what your characters look like. Take Who Framed Roger Rabbit?: Every cartoon character looked like a cartoon character, but because their interactions with the 'real' world always felt genuine, it didn't matter whether they were an anthropomorphic rabbit, a talking car or the actual Donald and Daffy Duck: their presence the movie's world felt tangible. In the case of an elephant-sized puppy, that means mass destruction. If all it does is knock a lamp over and break a vase, it feels artificial, even in the context of being in a movie. You have to either make the dog smaller, or make its destruction more pronounced. Again, the target audience is 5 year-olds, so this conversation is probably a tad too deep for the subject matter, but a little more attention to detail can be the difference between a 90 minute distraction forgotten in a week's time and an enduring classic that can stay with a child throughout their adolescence.
Movie bob, as someone who went hard into bread tube over the last year and has graduated into direct action, can I just say how fucking refreshing it is to just hear someone curse about stupid people instead of trying to explain why they do what they do? Like I understand that listening to experts about previous Nazi movements is extremely important, and paying attention is a good thing. But it's fucking exhausting, and I missed this part of my media diet that just lets me have some catharsis.
Though I can't say I am ideologically alligned, it is always great to hear people graduate into actual political engagement outside the internet. And don't feel bad for needing to scream into a pillow, watch moviebob or find the love for death metal. A sizeable minority will always be in a place where they are completely unreachable, and dialogue is just not possible. The best we can do, is solve some of their underlying problems that made them feel alienated and then hope they calm down afterwards, without bending over our fundemental principles and to make sure the minorities they target are protected. - Sincerely a boring European conservative.
Quite right...some people are just scumbags and we need to say that out loud. I've had the misfortune of knowing these people a lot longer than the general public.
While it's good you're doing direct action, you should really move past Breadtube. Most of them are a bunch of reactionary scum who will side with US reactionaries when it comes to foreign policy and intervention
I found the movie's structure odd, character focus a bit off, could've used a second draft maybe? But I loved how hard the ending went and I'm excited as hell to see where they go with the stuff established by that ending
I think it's still miles better than other MCU movies, like Iron Man 2 and 3, the first two Thor movies and...unpopular opinion, Black Panther. It's about on par with the majority of the MCU movies: mid-tier, enjoyable, fine movies with nothing particularly remarkable about them, but nothing particularly egreageous that makes them bad in any way either...movies like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Captain America The First Avenger, the two Spider-Man movies, etc. And it's obviously nowhere near in the league of movies like Winter Soldier, Civil War, The Avengers, Infinity War, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor Ragnarok or Iron Man.
I tend to remember at least 5 lines from even the lowest graded marvel movies. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one for this movie. All that talk with nothing left to linger on, what a waste.
@@madsgrams2069 you're right on it being an unpopular opinion, because at least the Kilmonger dialogue in the museum was miles more impactful than anything said in The Eternals
Same, I liked the first 2/3 but didn't love it. But the final third was amazing, which is surprising especially since the big MCU third-act set piece usually feels unnecessary and tedious, but it was far and away the best part of the movie. And it had *two* of them!
@@shindean Yeah, but his plan was so nonsensical it gave me a head-ache. And I'm not talking Zemo nonsensical, I'm talking..."why did any of that happen" nonsensical? Why did he need to do anything of what he did with Clawe, if his intention was always to shoot him in the head and bring him as a trophy in Wakanda? Why did all the stuff in Korea happen? Half this movie is POINTLESS FILLER. It's like they had an initial script that would only cover a 45 min movie and needed to bloat it with all this s*it...that is NOT a good script. And don't even get me started on the ridiculous world-building and the god-awful CGI...or how Killmonger makes a 180 from most poignant villain in the MCU to...Saturday morning cartoon caricature that wants to...what else, take over the world? :))
don't know the deal is with that, I also don't get Bob's weird hate boner for Jared Leto(That whole story about him sending condoms and other weird stuff to actors was totally bogus). Plus Clifford really does look creepy in live-action as it drifts into uncanny valley territory.
@@jadedheartsz Really? From what K read he DID give weird gifts according to other actors and himself at the time, and now he's saying he DIDN'T send the gifts but like... we really only have his word now versus his word then. So it reslly just comes down to whether one trusts Jared Leto, and I don't know if I'm feeling that charitable.
I don't think they aimed it at critics. I just think Marvel didn't underestimate their viewers. They understand that maybe people are getting fed up of the same super hero adventure story over and over and they're shaking things up and that's a good thing.
I think both the critics and the audience pretty much had the same consensus that they just couldn't connect to 10 different characters on a deeper level in just one movie.
These are some good points. Hope you are dealing with the frustrations of your industry alright. Been following you for almost 10 years and always look into these insights into the industry.
See, now you gave me new thoughts about stuff and I have to watch The Eternals again. You keep doing this! I about died laughing at the Jay and Silent Bob clip. And yeah, Fuck Facebook. The damage it's caused, and keeps causing, is just incalculable at this point.
So basically we've come full circle and the then New Guard of entertainment reporting/film critique that existed to counter the snobby, pretentious, detached-from-mainstream-audience-sensibilities Old Establishment film critics have become...the new version of that. He who fights monsters, huh?
I thought Eternals was over-long and out of focus with an abrupt, unsatisfying ending. What was the frigging POINT of Kro the evolving Deviant? You know, the guy who drives like 85% of the plot? That guy? Who gains sentience and immediately seems to realize he's got more in common with the Eternals than not, making noise about being a betrayed child of the Celestials literally right after they find out that applies to them too? Is that maybe, y'know, a theme? Is something going to come of this? Nah, he dies anticlimactically off to the side and then the cast gets poofed away by Space God who literally says, out loud, that he's not gonna do anything right now but he's coming back for the sequel. What even was that.
It’s funny but as a 21 year old I don’t picture “film critics” as what he said at all. I picture film critics as TH-camrs with a suit jacket and a shelf full of comic-con merch or framed indie movie posters. MovieBob, Jermey Jahns, Chris Struckman, André from Black Nerd Rants. That’s who I picture. Probably because I’ve never known anything different and have always gotten all my movie review content from TH-cam.
@@orinjayce Muddled...that's how I'd describe Man of Steel. The middle portion doesn't work at all in terms of pacing and the destruction of Metropolis was just...ugh.
6:41 Let me take this moment to be meaner about it: Eternals is what Zack Snyder wishes he COULD have made but NEVER had the talent/mindset/insight to pull off.
If Zack Snyder had someone to tell him what parts of his work were good and what was bad, he could easily reach the bar of "mid-level marvel movie quality".
@@TheEvilCheesecake Agreed in principle if not necessarily the expected result. He DOES lack someone to keep him honest, which is why his films get indulgent.
This is a fantastic video. Seriously, this is what I subscribe to you for. Thoughtful, historically minded discourse that is nuanced and engaging. A sincere thank you sir.
I don't think any Marvel movie is perfect by any means. They're all flawed. Eternals is no exception. But, for myself, this is one of my top five favorite Marvel movies. It's weird, shorter than it should be (as long as the movie is, some scenes needed more room to breathe), but I dig what it was trying to do, and I love the fact that Marvel was willing to stretch itself and try something apart from the formula. The biggest flaws in the film are when it reverts to the Marvel formula; if anything, they should have gone all-in on the weird. But, all that said, I liked the movie a lot.
Rotten Tomatoes seems to cause more problems than it solves. Its entire function appears to be causing arguments and being used as ammo in arguments. I agree with most of what you said apart from the stuff about Mark Kermode.
I liked Eternals. It was different as far as Marvel Studios films go. It seemed more interested in the relationships of these characters who've known each other for a long time and the ethical quandry they had to deal with than defeating any kind of villain. I mean, the Deviants were there, but their main purpose was to complicate things and push all the main characters to be in the same place again.
I went into the movie expecting a story that was going to rely on flashbacks to hide plot details until necessary. The acting was good & the writers did the best they could with the source material (MovieBob has already detailed that in previous videos, so I won’t belabor the point). The fact that it did some heavy lifting in terms of world building for Phase 4 & 5 is really what (IMHO) resonated with the fans - comics nerds & MCU-only fans got to see plot threads that they know will get paid off. The former get to access the deep lore databanks & rev up the theory engines in their skulls. The latter are just there to enjoy the ride.
It's funny, but many folks don't seem to get that aggregate score are just sorta factoids, when what's useful is that specofic reviewer who has similar tastes to your own. Like, if I want a review of a horror film, I want the opinion of somebody who likes horror, and in particular, likes the same type of horror that I do. Otherwise, it like going to a vegan to see whether a steakhouse is any good .
Dude, you really need to get that very very dry british Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo humour, because you missed it and took him literally. Watch much much more of his reviews. The guy is a great reviewer, even when I disagree, and he's quick to name his own bias in any given review. The guy is a top top fella basically.
6:16 What do you mean "used to"? The History Channel STILL does that! I don't think Bob will do a crossover with Doug Walker or Brad Jones, or anyone within a country mile of CA. OT: I still haven't seen Eternals, but want to see Spider-Man: No Way Home this weekend. But I agree, there's too much guessing at what critics and general audiences will say BEFORE they say something, and marketing to those assumptions makes no sense. Then again, I'm not in marketing or sales, I'm an engineer.
Eternals Disney+ show idea: anthology of planets they were overseeing prior to Earth. 30 min a pop, mass destruction/alturism depending on the civilisations involved.
Movie criticism has changed, in the same sense that media in general have changed. The 1970's-90's were the heyday, where Siskel, Ebert, Leonard Maltin, Joel Siegel, et al were minor celebrities in their own right. A relatively small number of critics became famous in this manner, but the few who did were highly recognizable by name and face. But those critics were known because of their positions with major newspapers, national magazines, syndicated TV shows, and evening news broadcasts. Having a nationally syndicated newspaper column or TV show were big deals 30 years ago. Now, not so much. Pretty much anyone with a camera and the willingness to produce regular online content can be a film critic. As with the examples from yesteryear, current online critics can review films with varying degrees of insight.
I often think about the people who watch reviews, but never watch the movies themselves. How much do they drive the traffic of reviews, wanting a plot synopsis rather than a recommendation.
Marvel is the most interesting thing to happen to film since colorization. Like...really! The idea of an entire suite of films which all reference one another directly, sharing characters, beats, plotlines, themes and moods is a HUGE DEAL.
I wouldn't necesarilly go that far, but there absolutely is some truth to that. The main problem I think is that all of it's success channels money into a single company, and not just any company but the biggest and most monopolistic film studio. It'd be much easier to be fully war m to the mcu if it had stayed an independent studio and made distribution deals with a variety of companies.
Just got to the point where I have to say Mark Kermode is a great film critic. Watch his documentary about the Exorcist. I may occasionally disagree with his opinions but they are well made.
That "economic anxiety" shot at the beginning was weird. Like fair enough if you want to make fun of anti-vax Trump supporters, but a weird thing to frame it around, weird thing to emphasise
I have to disagree. The point of the rant is that the middle class is disappearing and people are angry at the "elite". Don Trump says he's going to make their lives better and rants about the elite and the base buys into it. And we can ignore that don trump made is career by pretending to be one of the elite. Personally I think that is a part of things, but only a part, and not even the biggest. You have decades of xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans and suddenly someone using a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle, which their base likes. You have 8 years of right wing politicians and media attacking Hillary Clinton, which she didn't need as she was already not liked for actually legitimate reasons. A unbalanced electoral college system where someone can get 2 million more votes and still lose (or 9 million more votes and only win by maybe 100,000 votes). Just to name a few of the more prominent reasons in my mind. The main take away is people being duped into voting against their own self interest (nothing new there) and for a very obviously inept and incompetent leader who hires sycophantic yes men who are corrupt and incompetent themselves. And the results were painfully obvious long before they happened. So whatever the next catastrophe is if we somehow get don trump 2.0 in 2024 it is going to be another disaster.
If I remember correctly, and this is gonna be LONG- Facebook outright lied, just blatantly showed false numbers, for how much engagement their video-services got. They showed these utter falsifications to various news channels and newspapers and, well, basically the whole journalistic world in an effort to make them put more content on Facebook. "Look at the eyeballs we're getting! If you make videos for OUR platform, SO many eyeballs will see your videos and click on their ads, and you'll make so much money from it!" Because that is after all how video on the Internet pays for itself- companies buy adspace for the videos, and they pay more the more people see and click on their ads. And the thing is- they showed these fabricated numbers for video specifically, because they felt it was easier to get ads into videos. So a whole entire field of criticism that up until then had been mostly text-based "pivoted to video", as it was called. Critics HAD to learn how to make their criticism in video-format, and make it snappy, make it exciting, make it the kind of stuff people would WATCH, which due to how video demands a lot less focus than reading, often substantially changes how criticism is written, what it's focus will be and how it is presented. A lot of old guard critics felt their time was gone and withdrew because they just couldn't adapt to the change, and the ones who stayed often had to work harder to make videos which is a far more intensive process than just writing, while at the same time not really making that much better criticism. Essentially, it felt like the world had changed from horse-carts to cars, and now a shitload of horse-shoe smiths were out of jobs. Sad, but inevitable... Except, again, as I said- it wasn't true! It's like if Henry Ford made bombs shaped like cars that inevitably exploded and killed the people inside them and just LIED that they were meant to be vehicles for transportation! People DIDN'T watch video in the numbers Facebook said they would, Facebook had just faked that whole bullshitshow because they HOPED that by having tons of media change to video, and specifically videos on THEIR platform which Facebook could get a cut of the ad-money for, the audience that would watch and click would simply manifest! Everyone would make more money! Except they didn't- newsmedia who pivoted to video lost millions altering their entire structure to deliver news, not just reviews, but their regular news, via video instead of text, hoping they'd recover those costs with ad-watching eyeballs that they were lied to TOTALLY existed. And along with the damages those losses caused they also lost critics and workers of all stripes who just couldn't handle the pivot to video, losing perspectives and experienced people journalism could have used in these trying times, furthering the collapse of journalism as a whole, JUST because Zuckerberg wanted click-money he didn't even get. But whereas Facebook makes enough money anyway to see this entire venture as an unfortunate little whoopsie, newspapers are folding and dying at an unprecedented rate, accelerated even beyond what would be natural in a changing media-landscape. So to summarize- if Bob could get his hands on Mark Zuckerberg and go FULL Joker Society (2021) on him, I and many others would gladly pay enough to see that sumptuous sight to put him into the same economic bracket he said movie critics aren't part of any more.
could someone explain to me exactly what Facebook did that he talked about? I wasn't very well versed in the movie critic sphere 15years ago, cus I was 5, so am a bit confused
That's literally not a vision people have of critics anymore from outside the industry. It existed at a time because there was a consistent, strong, and editorialized standard in the industry and several notable names, like Mark Kermode, who you cited here. The majority of the public is aware that the majority of reviewers are hobbyists and that's also why alot of people are convinced that certain sites and reviews are biased or drawn out, because in a sense they're dependant on that ad revenue
I liked Eternals, but its not a film Id go back to unless some one asked me to watch it with them. I think I liked the idea of where these characters and overall plot of the Eternals are going much more than the actual film. It had some pacing issues and none of the characters or action was really that mind blowing, but it was all serviceable enough.
Don’t really think Warner’s would sacrifice Chalamet for Eternals-like results when Dune grossed near the amount of what Eternals grossed while also receiving a higher cinema score and much, much better critical reception
A really nonsensical reference to Mark Kermode that came across as immature, insecure and unnecessary. I don’t see how Mark was doing anything negative in either of those clips, but you seemed to be implying it with the snarky tone - do correct me if I’m wrong because I really didn’t get the point that you were trying to make. How are a few opening sentences of his Clifford review in any way an indication of how he ‘recovered’ from asking David Lynch a knowingly redundant question in good humour? You think a fellow critic would be wary of using short, out-of-context clips of others to imply new false meaning
Tomatometer counts overall positive versus overall negative impressions (alongside a potentially more telling average numerical rating). so a 90% score could just mean nine out of ten reviewers thought a bland but serviceable film was just good enough to justify the ticket price. i think that goes a long way to explain how Marvel movies seem “overrated” despite reliably staying on the Fresh side of the spectrum.
They also have an average critic score which I remember both Man of Steel and FF6 both having a 6.2/10 when they came out despite Man of Steel being "rotten" and FF6 being fresh
Was gonna post a joke about commenting before the video even STARTED, but then I started wondering why TH-cam doesn’t include a timestamp for when someone commented, how much they watched vs skipped to, etc. For the record, this comment was posted at 4:01
Eternals was fine. I think the main thing that prevents it from sticking the landing is that the characters aren't very interesting. Like ... Sersi is functionally the protagonist of this thing but I don't think people are exactly dying to see what happens to her next. But just as a basic fantasy movie ... it's fine. I was actually having a conversation with a friend a few days ago about review arrogate scores for older movies, and how genre movies might be doing better today than they would in the past and vice versa because of the changing culture of film criticism, (and also how franchise Blockbusters have arguably pushed other mid-tier movies out of theaters).
Haven't come around to watch it but I think thats what I would have liked it for. I still think Dr. Strange might have been a much better movie if it wasn't in the MCU and they desperately needed to break that mold.
@@TheSorrel Eternals certainly broke the mold in my opinion. It just didn't feel like a Marvel movie in the best way possible. I really hope that the Eternals starts a trend of experimental movie-making for the MCU. They've got the money to take risks, so why not?
I liked it. Yes, It had pacing problems and had that issue that most ensemble pieces have where three or four characters are given the spotlight while the rest of the group fade into the background, but it was pretty solid. It certainly wasn’t “the worst MCU movie” by a long shot. Not while Iron Man 2 or Thor The Dark World exists.
I actually braved the local movie-house (only two screens, been around since forever, but tickets are five bucks a head) to see this movie. And I gotta tell you... I loved it. I can't wait to watch it AGAIN on Disney Plus. Also, I love episodes of this show where I actually learn something.
I'm significantly less brave and so wait for the Disney Plus release. COVID numbers are just too thick on the ground here and I have no health insurance.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Find you a smaller theater- in my case, it was the Eaton Theater in Charlotte, Michigan. Enough seating that social-distancing wasn't a problem... even at 2:30 on a Saturday afternoon. And of course, the best bit is that TICKETS ARE ONLY FIVE BUCKS. Small-town, one/two-screen movie-theaters eat the lunch of those big multiplexes in terms of affordability and accessibility. And it's supporting local industry, which ALSO eats the lunch of giving money to a large, multi-million-dollar cinema-chain.
I said this on your review video. I *LOATHED* this movie. I'll commend it for it's properly done inclusiveness, cast diversity, and cinematography. On a technical level, it's fine. Those aren't my issues. My two main issues, one major and one minor, are this: Minor: The timeline doesn't work. Setting this after the blip makes me wonder why Strange & company aren't looking into these world affecting events like they looked into the rings. Set it during the blip and it goes to explain their absence and Natasha's line about earthquakes. It would also allow more direct discussion about the Eternal's purpose and "non interference". Major: At its core, this is an "Ancient Aliens influenced human development" story, and I HATE that bullshit. It even had Phastos mourning over helping towards Hiroshima. That made me livid (not even going to dignify the plow bit, which was bad enough). Such stories diminish human accomplishments and accountability, and I have nothing but disdain for anyone who promotes them. For the record, Thor gets away with it by not addressing it, so my takeaway there is that they were visitors, not direct influencers & helpers.
@@BartvG88 It's not real? You don't say! 🤦 That doesn't change my point at all. I do not like stories that imply it. They infuriate me. It's a story that implies humans weren't solely responsible for Hiroshima. That means that IN THE UNIVERSE OF THE STORY, the human accomplishment and accountability of that act are diminished. Whether it's real or not is irrelevant.
I don't see it as that bad here, but human accountability is one of the reasons I absolutely despised Godzilla 2014, so I understand what you mean. Still, the idea of aliens flying around in spaceships which look like ancient temples is really cool to me.
@@BartvG88 I'm not sure what part of I don't even like STORIES that imply it you're not understanding. And yes, even saying it in story when referring to actually, historical, and tragic events, diminishes those who actually endured them. You want to tell a story like this? Don't have aliens crying over their role in Hiroshima!
I literally have notifications set to all for Bob and I still don't get notified about his videos being posted. Why does the TH-cam algorithm take issue with certain creators?
Not sure about the Mark Kermode dig, he's still the most respected film critic in the UK. If anything, his willingness to give anything a fair shake - even Clifford the Big Red Dog - is one of his defining traits that makes him so likable.
Exactly lol I didn’t understand what the joke was other than that he was reviewing a Clifford movie and that made it easy to take him out of context
@@timy9197 I think it's more him saying that the movie make Clifford too big. I watched that review recently (they're all posted on TH-cam) and he did explain his reasoning.
I agree. Kermode was giving praise to the the Twilight movies for being good for what they are while people like Moviebob were ripping it to shreds just because. Love Kermode.
Yeahhh the dig came off as real pretentious on Bob's part. How dare kids movies get treated with respect and get a real review? Burn?
For the record, having watched the full review and having additional context, Kermode was talking about how Clifford being a live action film as opposed to something animated creates suspension of disbelief/uncanny valley problems that needn't have existed. He has reviewed multiple movies every week on radio, in print and on TV for decades, his books are great and I found he was very friendly and generous with his time when I met him at a Q&A. Also, while he always gives the caveat that superhero films aren't his bread and butter he always gives them their day in court without prejudice, and he often champions films he sees as being unfairly maligned. Disagree with him if you must, but there's no cause to be bitchy.
11:16 - Oh god that gave me a wave of nostalgia. I need to go back and rewatch that series, that was some silly fun
I found it really weird that so many of the "reviews" I saw of this leaned so hard on the "Who gives a shit about the Eternals" angle. That's what launched this whole franchise to begin with. It's hard for some folks to remember now but characters like Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man, Dr. Strange and The Guardians of the Galaxy weren't exactly household names at their time of launch.
Especially going into a post Endgame, Phase 4 cycle where I keep hearing a lot of chatter that Marvel has run out of "well known" characters to make movies out of and now they're just scraping the bottom of the barrel with Shang-Chi, Eternals and Moon Knight.
I mean, another decade or so down the line we'll revisit this idea if Marvel tries to sell us all on a Forbush Man movie but for now if the most esoteric thing they have in their Bag of Tricks is The Eternals I think we're probably fine for viable concepts.
Not to mention that the Fantastic Four and the X-Men are going to show up sooner or later.
Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man, Dr. Strange and The Guardians of the Galaxy still got better reviews than this junk
Same reason I hate when people insist Captain Marvel couldn’t have been so successful.
I don’t get why so many people are so bothered by Kermode’s point, even in just the clip used in this video he clearly states “in a live action setting” and when you watch the full review he points out the issue isn’t there in 2D art and is amused by how silly his criticism sounds.
11:55 the amount of good content creators that lost their jobs because of Facebook does not get brought up enough
For the record Bob, you are one of the people that pop into my head when I think “film critic.”
Did you just fire shots at mark kermode? The BBC's Premier film critic and host of wintertainment, a podcast beloved by the entire country of England and most of the colonies? Bold move Bob, bold move
The thing I hate about review aggregates is that they smooth over the actual point. I would much rather see a movie that 5 critics loved and 5 critics hated than to see a movie that 10 critics agree was kinda meh. They'd have the same review score, but I'd rather take a chance on something that really connects with me than be guaranteed fluff.
Also, too many people treat the Tomatometer score like it's a test score. 90% fresh doesn't necessarily mean it's an "A-grade" movie. Just that 90% of critics thought it was *good enough* to be worth watching.
"I would much rather see a movie that 5 critics loved and 5 critics hated than to see a movie that 10 critics agree was kinda meh."
I think you are in the minority here. I think most people would rather watch a movie that 90% of critics thought was a 7/10 than risk seeing a movie has a 50/50 chance of being amazing or terrible.
@@jasonblalock4429 Or maybe even more specifically, "I think this is good enough for you to leave your house and pay full price to see it in a theatre." I've read so many "rotten" reviews where it's clear the reviewer thinks it would be fine to stream three months from now.
@@BrotherAlpha 7/10 is not 'meh', it's a good movie. Would you rather watch a '5/10' movie or a '10/10 and 0/10' movie? because the first movie is Jostice League and the other one is ZS Justice League.
@@BrotherAlpha If a movie is 'meh', it's boring and perfunctory, and I can live without seeing it. If critics either love it or hate it, it's at least going to be INTERESTING, and that's worth seeing, even if I wind up viscerally rejecting it. I think a good example of that considering this is Bob's channel is Joker, which he panned, but had some people extremely up in arms to defend, and that says it has something that touches a nerve one way or the other.
Two takeaways from this: 1) Eternals had a Bizarro World audience reception and 2) the movie critic business has vastly changed (and I'd argue that it's not done yet, if what I suspect the direction of the movie theater business is true).
I was only just able to watch the movie and the critical reaction and some fans acting like it was an abomination was such a wild thing to know as I watched it. I went in with low expectations due to the reaction I saw and came out absolutely loving it. I get people having different opinions and don't have a problem with that, but the mauling it got in no way matches up with what I saw. I can appreciate loving a crappy movie that critics hate but this in no way was close to that. I feel like time will be kind to this tbh.
@@natf7942 Could well work out like Hitchcock's Vertigo in that respect.
Holy cats, Bob, your 'context clip' selection this time has been phenomenal! And I agree that Zuck has a LOT to answer for...
I'll add Dorsey to that list (btw, making a list), for MUHC worse than Zuck.
EDIT: I misspelled "MUCH" before.
@@louisduarte8763 Be sure to check it three times. Can't have some fat reverse-burglar showing you up.
For once, I agree with Bob on something. Though, he's still bad at 'context clips'.
What is he talking about?
@@alyssasmith8980 seconded! Is this a particular falsified data incident I can't remember, or just the general online stuff killing print stuff and not taking credit?
I saw on a trans woman's review of the movie that she really identified with and care most for Sprite, what with her being stuck in a body that doesn't match her identity and her desire to fit in with society, which is a take I hadn't heard before anywhere else.
This neuro-atypical outsider feels her on that one.
Yes Sprite could definitely be seen as an allegory for trans/non-binary experience. The whole idea of why was I made in THIS body
that is an interesting point, didn't think about that when i saw the movie.
Is Freaky Friday a transgender story then because that logic could apply anywhere.
@@y2craze I haven the seen the original, but not really, because the focus is never on the anxiety of being in a different body. It's more about the relationship and trying to fix eachoter's lives, they both seem very comfortable in either body and take advantage of it. There could be a SLIGHT comforting message in there for trans people that you can be yourself regardless of your body and how people percieve you. But what I think really hit this reviewer about sprite was the ANXIETY it depicted.
11:16 Yikes! You had to remind us of The Game Overthinker. Can you believe the last episode will be 7 years old next march?
Man, I miss that show.
I kinda miss In Bob We Trust, mostly for the theme music.
They told me there was going to be Korean dad from Train to Busan being all dad jokes and brawling like nobody else, and they delivered
That man is flat out BUSY. He started getting American offers after that came out and was like, "I got three movies being made this year, when am I supposed to cross the ocean?"
Love you Bob, but Mark Kermode is a national treasure, and he’s right, the physics of Clifford didn’t check out at all. My guy.
I have actually been contemplating this more lately, fans really need to learn the difference between bad-faith criticism and good-faith criticism. If it’s clear someone can’t be satisfied regardless of what a film has or how you can look at it, it’s bad-faith/ their just bitching; If they can give you point-for-point issues that took them out of the experience, it’s good-faith - no matter whether you agree with their sum or not, that’s the litmus test.
Conversely, you can tell that some people are only reading things so that they can find the first easy thing they can point to that lets them shout "bad faith! bad faith!" and attack the author with that, instead of engaging with what the author wrote or thought. I believe that criticism you don't agree with can be more useful than criticism that matches what you wanted to hear, as you're much more likely to actually think about what was written and why when it says something you weren't already thinking.
Bad faith critics are only part of the problem with audiences. An equal or possibly bigger part is overall media literacy.
Too much of criticism and general online bitching and moaning boils down to "Here's a list of plot points I didn't like. I didn't like these plot points. Therefore these plot points are plot holes. The movie is terrible."
No discussion of thematic narrative, subtext, meaning, or even acknowledgement that there might or should be some message in the media in question. Just mindless bitching and moaning on social media about how some movie "triggered me and my circle of knee jerk reactionaries."
Audiences and critics need to move beyond plot synopsis for critical purposes. Then they'll recognize that the Henry Cavill superman movies are about superman coming to the conclusion that the human race isn't worth saving, and that the only real problem with Last Jedi is that it copied the pacing and structure of Empire Strikes Back.
@@CitanulsPumpkin How the fuck did you reach the conclusion that Man of Steel is about Superman having a cynical view of humanity? Nothing in the movie shows that and, even if they did, it would be against Superman's character. He's a constant optimist, not a bitter, jaded hero.
@@CitanulsPumpkin “it’s too similar to TESB” is _not_ what’s wrong with TLJ.
“They sidelined the Black character- and set-up an undeserved redemption arc for a spacenazi greasebag -because J.J. Abrams wasn’t on-set to stop the producers from capitulating to racist crybabies on the internet” is what’s wrong with TLJ.
Riffing: Jokes & constructive criticism.
Trolling = Vague Insults.
Thus, why Mystery Science Theater 3K is Fun, not necessarily mocking.
Comedy is meant to punch up at authorities, not down at the Pogues.
Entertainment can be many things but I never really thought wasting time on things that weren't worth my time (IMHO) until I started watching RedLetterMedia & *REALLY* got into Schlock.
Bob's Schlocktober was my Gateway.
RLM is my Amusement Park. 🤌
I want the last ten minutes as a 20 minute video. I’m old enough to remember Siskel and Ebert and I would love to hear about the change to YTers
What Is the deal with the blow to Mark Kermode?, he can still write insightful and even though provoking reviews. Sure i don't always agree with His opinión but that Is kind of the point of criticism, i use It to know diferent perspectives and opinións in order to Enrich my own. You know i'm not gonna shit on him just because he didn't like the same films that i did. That was completely unnecessary Bob, come on man you can do better. As for the ethernals, i feel that calling It an "art house" Marvel movie Is like when they called Winter soldier a "gritty" spy thriller.
What’s kind of funny about what you mention about the 20-30 crowd vs the older film critics is with my recent interactions of film Twitter, I find it’s the opposite, especially lately. I find the younger people who used to love or at least like some movies in the MCU have recently (post-Endgame) way WAY overcorrected into outright hating it, probably based on the Twitter telephone version of certain comments from certain directors and wanting to be perceived as “real cinephiles”. But I find that people who have been at this gig longer, like you, Scott Wampler, Drew Mcweeny etc. are a lot more fair in your assessments. There are exceptions of course but I don’t know, maybe that’s just my timeline.
The kids are all right
Mark Kermode is one of the most respected film critics in the UK. If you'd watched any more of his videos you'd understand that his humour is very dry and that maybe, just maybe, he was taking the fucking piss.
'a Zack Snyder film if he was way into yoga and not crossfit' 😂😂👍
I used to do Steve Carrel's bit from Anchorman whenever peole were arguing about stupid things and I was too tired to intelligently defend sanity. It's very soothing 😇
6:57 Lynch owning the interview 😄 Made me burst out laughing
I.
Am.
Bulletproof.
Fucking great reference. Happy holidays, Moviebob.
I think there's something to this theory: Eternals marketing sort of pitched it as the meditative, 'arty' superhero flik for clever people. No longer trying to be a big, brash popcorn movie the critics rolled up their sleeves and went, "well, alright then. Have at it!"
Still a big dumb popcorn flik - whatever anyone says - which is just fine.
Or maybe it was just bad
Facebook did *what* to data??? Can anyone provide links/sources for the item that led up to the Killing Joke reference?
4:45 I liked Black Widow AND Shang-Chi, so I don't get what was divisive in them.
8:06 Speaking of "artsy" directors and esoteric Jack Kirby creations, sucks we're not getting her New Gods movie.
11:26 Since Bob listed off all the famous (and infamous) MOVIE critics, I'm struggling to remember of VIDEO GAME criticism has anyone as big. Besides Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw.
With Black Widow it was Taskmaster people shat themselves over, just endless ranting about the character and it's like, wow ok calm down. I'm hoping we'll see them later down the line, it makes sense with who played them.
No idea about Shang-Chi though, but I wasn't able to watch that until this month so I steered clear of the discourse on that one.
Black Widow had a lot going against it. First off it came out WAY TOO LATE. People were clamoring for a Black Widow movie since Avengers 1, but they didn't get one until after the character had died. It's kind of difficult to get invested in a character that you know has to survive in the film you're watching just so they can die in one you've already seen. Steve and Tony both got their own trilogies before their characters were retired while Natasha gets one solo film postmortem. It's a classic case of too little too late. Then of course there's the Taskmaster reveal that the chuds complained about, and there's how Natasha seems to be made of fucking steel with how much punishment she seems to brush off. She's supposed to be peak human not superhuman. There's several points in the movie where she should have broken every bone in her body, but she just walks it off and is fine by the next scene. Also, a lot of people wanted a movie about the Budapest mission where Hawkeye and Black Widow first meet. From what we've heard about it in other shows and movies and what little we see of it in this one it honestly seems like it would have made for a much more interesting story than what we got. Overall, the movie was fine but unimpressive.
As for Shang-Chi, some people didn't like how the final battle was against a faceless horde of identical and disposable drones plus one giant grey cgi monster when the first two thirds of the film had built up much more interesting human antagonists, some were cynical about the cute furry creatures being clear marketing bait for plushie toys, and some didn't like how the film transitioned from well choregraphed martial arts fights to cgi heavy kaiju fights and energy blasts. However, you also have the chuds who just didn't like the fact that it stared a heavily asian cast and claimed it was pandering to China.
Been watching for years. I loved the flow of this episode through and through, very comfortable to listen to, nice editing and great points. Cheers Bob, happy holidays.
Have a happy holiday and New Year Moviebob.
Wife and I just saw it tonight.
I had to explain what the Eternals are. She loves the MCU and comic booky stuff; but this was way outside her knowledge base. It was actually her idea to go see it in the theaters rather than wait. After seeing trailers and my explanation.
We both loved it. I think it is one of the better overall movies in the MCU. It should definitely shape how Marvel uses the Eternals universally going forward.
It explores some really big ideas, making it truly great science fiction. It is definitely the best "ancient aliens" sci fi. Yes even better than Stargate. It is less good as a super hero movie, and perhaps leaning into that a bit less may have made it a little less muddled.
Does God truly know best? Are God's ethics and morality absolute? Is humanity actually worthwhile? How does an advanced species interact with a less advanced one (colonialism). There is a lot here, and some of it could have used a little more time.
It serves as the perfect follow up to Infinity War/Endgame.
I hate the ancient aliens idea but the director did an amazing job making the charicters trapped in that tale compelling enough to watch. It side stepped all my issues with that idea to become a film I massively enjoyed.
Bob, what you said during the one minute mark brought tears to my eyes. Stay strong and sane as we go into 2022.
To be fair to Kermode, he was making a point about suspension of disbelief, and how the very idea of a live-action Clifford is problematic because the real-world setting makes it un-ignorably clear the dog isn't really there.
And yes, being that nit-picky about a movie aimed at 5 year-olds is silly, but he does also make the point that, like Peter Rabbit, the live-action setting and contemporary sensibilities strip it of a lot of the charm of the source material, and it's unlikely to be anything more than a brief distraction for the kiddies, with no real staying power.
As you yourself said about Bay's Ninja Turtles, the kids deserve better.
I don't know, when you're approaching a movie to with such a rigid standard about suspension of disbelief that "dogs can't be that big in real life and it's distracting" I feel like the problem is you.
And yeah a story usually works better in the medium it was built to serve. But since the books arent gone, introducing kids to the things film can with something they already love does feels like a worthwhile effort.
I haven't seen the movie so maybe it has other issues that I'd feel it could have done better on despite being a kids movie but trying to adapt it in the first place definitely wasnt one
@@memequern8087 I wouldn't necessarily call it a rigid standard; more highlighting a risk inherent in adapting this stuff. It's a balancing act: if you want your audience to believe the thing is real (at least within the context of the movie's universe), the thing has to fit within that universe.
Get the balance right, and it doesn't matter what your characters look like. Take Who Framed Roger Rabbit?: Every cartoon character looked like a cartoon character, but because their interactions with the 'real' world always felt genuine, it didn't matter whether they were an anthropomorphic rabbit, a talking car or the actual Donald and Daffy Duck: their presence the movie's world felt tangible.
In the case of an elephant-sized puppy, that means mass destruction. If all it does is knock a lamp over and break a vase, it feels artificial, even in the context of being in a movie. You have to either make the dog smaller, or make its destruction more pronounced.
Again, the target audience is 5 year-olds, so this conversation is probably a tad too deep for the subject matter, but a little more attention to detail can be the difference between a 90 minute distraction forgotten in a week's time and an enduring classic that can stay with a child throughout their adolescence.
I absolutely adored Eternals. It isn't perfect, but I loved it basically by the time they landed on Earth.
Oh, my god...The Critic's English for cab drivers will never stop being funny to me
Movie bob, as someone who went hard into bread tube over the last year and has graduated into direct action, can I just say how fucking refreshing it is to just hear someone curse about stupid people instead of trying to explain why they do what they do? Like I understand that listening to experts about previous Nazi movements is extremely important, and paying attention is a good thing. But it's fucking exhausting, and I missed this part of my media diet that just lets me have some catharsis.
Though I can't say I am ideologically alligned, it is always great to hear people graduate into actual political engagement outside the internet. And don't feel bad for needing to scream into a pillow, watch moviebob or find the love for death metal. A sizeable minority will always be in a place where they are completely unreachable, and dialogue is just not possible. The best we can do, is solve some of their underlying problems that made them feel alienated and then hope they calm down afterwards, without bending over our fundemental principles and to make sure the minorities they target are protected.
- Sincerely a boring European conservative.
It was the same excuse some did with over analysis paralysis during the Civil Rights (Human Rights) Movement.
Quite right...some people are just scumbags and we need to say that out loud. I've had the misfortune of knowing these people a lot longer than the general public.
While it's good you're doing direct action, you should really move past Breadtube. Most of them are a bunch of reactionary scum who will side with US reactionaries when it comes to foreign policy and intervention
I found the movie's structure odd, character focus a bit off, could've used a second draft maybe? But I loved how hard the ending went and I'm excited as hell to see where they go with the stuff established by that ending
I think it's still miles better than other MCU movies, like Iron Man 2 and 3, the first two Thor movies and...unpopular opinion, Black Panther. It's about on par with the majority of the MCU movies: mid-tier, enjoyable, fine movies with nothing particularly remarkable about them, but nothing particularly egreageous that makes them bad in any way either...movies like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Ant-Man, Captain Marvel, Captain America The First Avenger, the two Spider-Man movies, etc. And it's obviously nowhere near in the league of movies like Winter Soldier, Civil War, The Avengers, Infinity War, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor Ragnarok or Iron Man.
I tend to remember at least 5 lines from even the lowest graded marvel movies. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one for this movie. All that talk with nothing left to linger on, what a waste.
@@madsgrams2069 you're right on it being an unpopular opinion, because at least the Kilmonger dialogue in the museum was miles more impactful than anything said in The Eternals
Same, I liked the first 2/3 but didn't love it. But the final third was amazing, which is surprising especially since the big MCU third-act set piece usually feels unnecessary and tedious, but it was far and away the best part of the movie. And it had *two* of them!
@@shindean Yeah, but his plan was so nonsensical it gave me a head-ache. And I'm not talking Zemo nonsensical, I'm talking..."why did any of that happen" nonsensical? Why did he need to do anything of what he did with Clawe, if his intention was always to shoot him in the head and bring him as a trophy in Wakanda? Why did all the stuff in Korea happen? Half this movie is POINTLESS FILLER. It's like they had an initial script that would only cover a 45 min movie and needed to bloat it with all this s*it...that is NOT a good script. And don't even get me started on the ridiculous world-building and the god-awful CGI...or how Killmonger makes a 180 from most poignant villain in the MCU to...Saturday morning cartoon caricature that wants to...what else, take over the world? :))
Wow. Taking shots at Kermode.
Playful or not... that's a bold move from Bob.
don't know the deal is with that, I also don't get Bob's weird hate boner for Jared Leto(That whole story about him sending condoms and other weird stuff to actors was totally bogus). Plus Clifford really does look creepy in live-action as it drifts into uncanny valley territory.
@@jadedheartsz Really? From what K read he DID give weird gifts according to other actors and himself at the time, and now he's saying he DIDN'T send the gifts but like... we really only have his word now versus his word then. So it reslly just comes down to whether one trusts Jared Leto, and I don't know if I'm feeling that charitable.
@@goranisacson2502 I am.
what's that whole 11:54 bit about facebook lying about media? can I get a citation for that?
I don't think they aimed it at critics. I just think Marvel didn't underestimate their viewers. They understand that maybe people are getting fed up of the same super hero adventure story over and over and they're shaking things up and that's a good thing.
But all the box office evidence is that people are not fed up with it. Shang Chi and Spider Man seem to be showing its exactly what people want.
I think both the critics and the audience pretty much had the same consensus that they just couldn't connect to 10 different characters on a deeper level in just one movie.
These are some good points. Hope you are dealing with the frustrations of your industry alright. Been following you for almost 10 years and always look into these insights into the industry.
It is nice to see Grace Randolph still working and liveing.
See, now you gave me new thoughts about stuff and I have to watch The Eternals again. You keep doing this!
I about died laughing at the Jay and Silent Bob clip.
And yeah, Fuck Facebook. The damage it's caused, and keeps causing, is just incalculable at this point.
2:46
Apropos of nothing, I saw COLLATERAL for the first time all the way through last year. It's pretty great.
So basically we've come full circle and the then New Guard of entertainment reporting/film critique that existed to counter the snobby, pretentious, detached-from-mainstream-audience-sensibilities Old Establishment film critics have become...the new version of that.
He who fights monsters, huh?
They're called "cycles" for a reason.
Probably not, they probably just made a bad movie
I thought Eternals was over-long and out of focus with an abrupt, unsatisfying ending. What was the frigging POINT of Kro the evolving Deviant? You know, the guy who drives like 85% of the plot? That guy? Who gains sentience and immediately seems to realize he's got more in common with the Eternals than not, making noise about being a betrayed child of the Celestials literally right after they find out that applies to them too? Is that maybe, y'know, a theme? Is something going to come of this?
Nah, he dies anticlimactically off to the side and then the cast gets poofed away by Space God who literally says, out loud, that he's not gonna do anything right now but he's coming back for the sequel. What even was that.
It’s funny but as a 21 year old I don’t picture “film critics” as what he said at all. I picture film critics as TH-camrs with a suit jacket and a shelf full of comic-con merch or framed indie movie posters. MovieBob, Jermey Jahns, Chris Struckman, André from Black Nerd Rants. That’s who I picture. Probably because I’ve never known anything different and have always gotten all my movie review content from TH-cam.
It kind of seemed like a DC movie made by people who don't hate fun and having a color pallette.
Sort of an instruction manual to Zack Snyder on how to ACTUALLY make movies, say?
@@johnathonhaney8291 I wish he would make a fun, less "gritty" Superman movie. Man of Steel is 3/4 a good one. Until it's all grim and dark.
@@orinjayce Muddled...that's how I'd describe Man of Steel. The middle portion doesn't work at all in terms of pacing and the destruction of Metropolis was just...ugh.
@@johnathonhaney8291 spot on. Agree completely.
Great use of the Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back clip.
Kermode is one of the best critics in my opinion. When you review as many movies as he does your gonna be able to clip a bad take or two.
6:41 Let me take this moment to be meaner about it: Eternals is what Zack Snyder wishes he COULD have made but NEVER had the talent/mindset/insight to pull off.
If Zack Snyder had someone to tell him what parts of his work were good and what was bad, he could easily reach the bar of "mid-level marvel movie quality".
@@TheEvilCheesecake Agreed in principle if not necessarily the expected result. He DOES lack someone to keep him honest, which is why his films get indulgent.
Zach Snyder is just pretentious Michael Bay.
@@jasonblalock4429 Feel like that's an insult to Michael Bay.
This is a fantastic video. Seriously, this is what I subscribe to you for. Thoughtful, historically minded discourse that is nuanced and engaging. A sincere thank you sir.
I'm with you. I come here less for Bob's actual feelings about a movie and more for his ability to articulate them well.
I don't think any Marvel movie is perfect by any means. They're all flawed. Eternals is no exception. But, for myself, this is one of my top five favorite Marvel movies. It's weird, shorter than it should be (as long as the movie is, some scenes needed more room to breathe), but I dig what it was trying to do, and I love the fact that Marvel was willing to stretch itself and try something apart from the formula. The biggest flaws in the film are when it reverts to the Marvel formula; if anything, they should have gone all-in on the weird. But, all that said, I liked the movie a lot.
Spider-Verse is perfect
Rotten Tomatoes seems to cause more problems than it solves. Its entire function appears to be causing arguments and being used as ammo in arguments.
I agree with most of what you said apart from the stuff about Mark Kermode.
I liked Eternals. It was different as far as Marvel Studios films go. It seemed more interested in the relationships of these characters who've known each other for a long time and the ethical quandry they had to deal with than defeating any kind of villain. I mean, the Deviants were there, but their main purpose was to complicate things and push all the main characters to be in the same place again.
I went into the movie expecting a story that was going to rely on flashbacks to hide plot details until necessary. The acting was good & the writers did the best they could with the source material (MovieBob has already detailed that in previous videos, so I won’t belabor the point).
The fact that it did some heavy lifting in terms of world building for Phase 4 & 5 is really what (IMHO) resonated with the fans - comics nerds & MCU-only fans got to see plot threads that they know will get paid off. The former get to access the deep lore databanks & rev up the theory engines in their skulls. The latter are just there to enjoy the ride.
To be fair, the movie kinda DID rely on flashbacks to hide a plot detail until necessary. At least one flashback, anyway.
It's funny, but many folks don't seem to get that aggregate score are just sorta factoids, when what's useful is that specofic reviewer who has similar tastes to your own.
Like, if I want a review of a horror film, I want the opinion of somebody who likes horror, and in particular, likes the same type of horror that I do.
Otherwise, it like going to a vegan to see whether a steakhouse is any good .
Dude, you really need to get that very very dry british Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo humour, because you missed it and took him literally. Watch much much more of his reviews. The guy is a great reviewer, even when I disagree, and he's quick to name his own bias in any given review. The guy is a top top fella basically.
Had to hit the like button just for the use of "heaven forfend" since I haven't heard a youtuber use that term...well...EVER before this. :3
thank you bob for keeping subtlety and nuance alive on the internet despite its every attempt to try an kill it
Lol
6:16 What do you mean "used to"? The History Channel STILL does that!
I don't think Bob will do a crossover with Doug Walker or Brad Jones, or anyone within a country mile of CA.
OT: I still haven't seen Eternals, but want to see Spider-Man: No Way Home this weekend. But I agree, there's too much guessing at what critics and general audiences will say BEFORE they say something, and marketing to those assumptions makes no sense. Then again, I'm not in marketing or sales, I'm an engineer.
Eternals Disney+ show idea: anthology of planets they were overseeing prior to Earth. 30 min a pop, mass destruction/alturism depending on the civilisations involved.
Movie criticism has changed, in the same sense that media in general have changed. The 1970's-90's were the heyday, where Siskel, Ebert, Leonard Maltin, Joel Siegel, et al were minor celebrities in their own right. A relatively small number of critics became famous in this manner, but the few who did were highly recognizable by name and face.
But those critics were known because of their positions with major newspapers, national magazines, syndicated TV shows, and evening news broadcasts. Having a nationally syndicated newspaper column or TV show were big deals 30 years ago. Now, not so much. Pretty much anyone with a camera and the willingness to produce regular online content can be a film critic. As with the examples from yesteryear, current online critics can review films with varying degrees of insight.
As a wannabe reviewer in training myself, this was fascinating as a kind of reflection on career/industry frustrations. bookmarked for rewatching.
I've missed The Big Picture videos. Thanks Bob for putting up a new one.
Eternals was my favourite Marvel movie since Thor Ragnarok/Black Panther.
it was gorgeous and I fucking loved it.
I loved it as well. I see it aging well tbh.
I often think about the people who watch reviews, but never watch the movies themselves. How much do they drive the traffic of reviews, wanting a plot synopsis rather than a recommendation.
Marvel is the most interesting thing to happen to film since colorization.
Like...really! The idea of an entire suite of films which all reference one another directly, sharing characters, beats, plotlines, themes and moods is a HUGE DEAL.
I wouldn't necesarilly go that far, but there absolutely is some truth to that. The main problem I think is that all of it's success channels money into a single company, and not just any company but the biggest and most monopolistic film studio. It'd be much easier to be fully war m to the mcu if it had stayed an independent studio and made distribution deals with a variety of companies.
I for one am positively shocked!!
Happy New Year Bob, Glad your still here.
Just got to the point where I have to say Mark Kermode is a great film critic. Watch his documentary about the Exorcist. I may occasionally disagree with his opinions but they are well made.
That "economic anxiety" shot at the beginning was weird. Like fair enough if you want to make fun of anti-vax Trump supporters, but a weird thing to frame it around, weird thing to emphasise
I have to disagree. The point of the rant is that the middle class is disappearing and people are angry at the "elite". Don Trump says he's going to make their lives better and rants about the elite and the base buys into it. And we can ignore that don trump made is career by pretending to be one of the elite.
Personally I think that is a part of things, but only a part, and not even the biggest. You have decades of xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans and suddenly someone using a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle, which their base likes. You have 8 years of right wing politicians and media attacking Hillary Clinton, which she didn't need as she was already not liked for actually legitimate reasons. A unbalanced electoral college system where someone can get 2 million more votes and still lose (or 9 million more votes and only win by maybe 100,000 votes). Just to name a few of the more prominent reasons in my mind.
The main take away is people being duped into voting against their own self interest (nothing new there) and for a very obviously inept and incompetent leader who hires sycophantic yes men who are corrupt and incompetent themselves. And the results were painfully obvious long before they happened. So whatever the next catastrophe is if we somehow get don trump 2.0 in 2024 it is going to be another disaster.
My initial thought was "Is this some kind of compilation episode?".
1:08 That rant was glorious. :-D But also: Yeah... yeah... *sigh*
Can someone tell me what that bit about Facebook killing criticism was all about?
If I remember correctly, and this is gonna be LONG- Facebook outright lied, just blatantly showed false numbers, for how much engagement their video-services got. They showed these utter falsifications to various news channels and newspapers and, well, basically the whole journalistic world in an effort to make them put more content on Facebook. "Look at the eyeballs we're getting! If you make videos for OUR platform, SO many eyeballs will see your videos and click on their ads, and you'll make so much money from it!" Because that is after all how video on the Internet pays for itself- companies buy adspace for the videos, and they pay more the more people see and click on their ads.
And the thing is- they showed these fabricated numbers for video specifically, because they felt it was easier to get ads into videos. So a whole entire field of criticism that up until then had been mostly text-based "pivoted to video", as it was called. Critics HAD to learn how to make their criticism in video-format, and make it snappy, make it exciting, make it the kind of stuff people would WATCH, which due to how video demands a lot less focus than reading, often substantially changes how criticism is written, what it's focus will be and how it is presented. A lot of old guard critics felt their time was gone and withdrew because they just couldn't adapt to the change, and the ones who stayed often had to work harder to make videos which is a far more intensive process than just writing, while at the same time not really making that much better criticism. Essentially, it felt like the world had changed from horse-carts to cars, and now a shitload of horse-shoe smiths were out of jobs. Sad, but inevitable...
Except, again, as I said- it wasn't true! It's like if Henry Ford made bombs shaped like cars that inevitably exploded and killed the people inside them and just LIED that they were meant to be vehicles for transportation! People DIDN'T watch video in the numbers Facebook said they would, Facebook had just faked that whole bullshitshow because they HOPED that by having tons of media change to video, and specifically videos on THEIR platform which Facebook could get a cut of the ad-money for, the audience that would watch and click would simply manifest! Everyone would make more money!
Except they didn't- newsmedia who pivoted to video lost millions altering their entire structure to deliver news, not just reviews, but their regular news, via video instead of text, hoping they'd recover those costs with ad-watching eyeballs that they were lied to TOTALLY existed. And along with the damages those losses caused they also lost critics and workers of all stripes who just couldn't handle the pivot to video, losing perspectives and experienced people journalism could have used in these trying times, furthering the collapse of journalism as a whole, JUST because Zuckerberg wanted click-money he didn't even get. But whereas Facebook makes enough money anyway to see this entire venture as an unfortunate little whoopsie, newspapers are folding and dying at an unprecedented rate, accelerated even beyond what would be natural in a changing media-landscape.
So to summarize- if Bob could get his hands on Mark Zuckerberg and go FULL Joker Society (2021) on him, I and many others would gladly pay enough to see that sumptuous sight to put him into the same economic bracket he said movie critics aren't part of any more.
could someone explain to me exactly what Facebook did that he talked about? I wasn't very well versed in the movie critic sphere 15years ago, cus I was 5, so am a bit confused
Just a schizo rant i bet
That's literally not a vision people have of critics anymore from outside the industry.
It existed at a time because there was a consistent, strong, and editorialized standard in the industry and several notable names, like Mark Kermode, who you cited here.
The majority of the public is aware that the majority of reviewers are hobbyists and that's also why alot of people are convinced that certain sites and reviews are biased or drawn out, because in a sense they're dependant on that ad revenue
So what I'm getting from this is that you hate Mark Zuckerberg.
Completely fair.
When did Bob split from the escapist (again)? I've not been caught up
I liked Eternals, but its not a film Id go back to unless some one asked me to watch it with them.
I think I liked the idea of where these characters and overall plot of the Eternals are going much more than the actual film.
It had some pacing issues and none of the characters or action was really that mind blowing, but it was all serviceable enough.
Now if Timothee Chalamet suddenly dies we’ll know why
Love your work dude, keep it up
Don’t really think Warner’s would sacrifice Chalamet for Eternals-like results when Dune grossed near the amount of what Eternals grossed while also receiving a higher cinema score and much, much better critical reception
A really nonsensical reference to Mark Kermode that came across as immature, insecure and unnecessary. I don’t see how Mark was doing anything negative in either of those clips, but you seemed to be implying it with the snarky tone - do correct me if I’m wrong because I really didn’t get the point that you were trying to make.
How are a few opening sentences of his Clifford review in any way an indication of how he ‘recovered’ from asking David Lynch a knowingly redundant question in good humour?
You think a fellow critic would be wary of using short, out-of-context clips of others to imply new false meaning
Love your content Bob
I hope you have a great holiday season and a great 2022
Tomatometer counts overall positive versus overall negative impressions (alongside a potentially more telling average numerical rating).
so a 90% score could just mean nine out of ten reviewers thought a bland but serviceable film was just good enough to justify the ticket price. i think that goes a long way to explain how Marvel movies seem “overrated” despite reliably staying on the Fresh side of the spectrum.
They also have an average critic score which I remember both Man of Steel and FF6 both having a 6.2/10 when they came out despite Man of Steel being "rotten" and FF6 being fresh
…now I just wanna know if Bob has WATCHED Kids Next Door.
I like that loud Hans Zimmer horns always advertise something as important since as we all know sound and fury signify a lot
Was gonna post a joke about commenting before the video even STARTED, but then I started wondering why TH-cam doesn’t include a timestamp for when someone commented, how much they watched vs skipped to, etc. For the record, this comment was posted at 4:01
Eternals was fine. I think the main thing that prevents it from sticking the landing is that the characters aren't very interesting. Like ... Sersi is functionally the protagonist of this thing but I don't think people are exactly dying to see what happens to her next. But just as a basic fantasy movie ... it's fine. I was actually having a conversation with a friend a few days ago about review arrogate scores for older movies, and how genre movies might be doing better today than they would in the past and vice versa because of the changing culture of film criticism, (and also how franchise Blockbusters have arguably pushed other mid-tier movies out of theaters).
Lol “Clifford the big red dog was too big and red”
I remember your old stuff Bob. Do you still have the Trunks costume?
I just liked how ‘different’ it was from the rest of the MCU. That’s all I cared about.
Haven't come around to watch it but I think thats what I would have liked it for.
I still think Dr. Strange might have been a much better movie if it wasn't in the MCU and they desperately needed to break that mold.
@@TheSorrel Eternals certainly broke the mold in my opinion. It just didn't feel like a Marvel movie in the best way possible. I really hope that the Eternals starts a trend of experimental movie-making for the MCU. They've got the money to take risks, so why not?
I liked it.
Yes, It had pacing problems and had that issue that most ensemble pieces have where three or four characters are given the spotlight while the rest of the group fade into the background, but it was pretty solid.
It certainly wasn’t “the worst MCU movie” by a long shot. Not while Iron Man 2 or Thor The Dark World exists.
What is good about it?
Can anyone share me a source to get more info about what he’s talking about Facebook lying about data points causing the shift to video essays?
DAMN BOB! Your opening statement basically mirrors my opinions on well everything political these days.
I actually braved the local movie-house (only two screens, been around since forever, but tickets are five bucks a head) to see this movie. And I gotta tell you... I loved it. I can't wait to watch it AGAIN on Disney Plus.
Also, I love episodes of this show where I actually learn something.
I'm significantly less brave and so wait for the Disney Plus release. COVID numbers are just too thick on the ground here and I have no health insurance.
@@johnathonhaney8291 Find you a smaller theater- in my case, it was the Eaton Theater in Charlotte, Michigan. Enough seating that social-distancing wasn't a problem... even at 2:30 on a Saturday afternoon. And of course, the best bit is that TICKETS ARE ONLY FIVE BUCKS.
Small-town, one/two-screen movie-theaters eat the lunch of those big multiplexes in terms of affordability and accessibility. And it's supporting local industry, which ALSO eats the lunch of giving money to a large, multi-million-dollar cinema-chain.
I said this on your review video.
I *LOATHED* this movie. I'll commend it for it's properly done inclusiveness, cast diversity, and cinematography. On a technical level, it's fine. Those aren't my issues.
My two main issues, one major and one minor, are this:
Minor:
The timeline doesn't work. Setting this after the blip makes me wonder why Strange & company aren't looking into these world affecting events like they looked into the rings. Set it during the blip and it goes to explain their absence and Natasha's line about earthquakes. It would also allow more direct discussion about the Eternal's purpose and "non interference".
Major:
At its core, this is an "Ancient Aliens influenced human development" story, and I HATE that bullshit. It even had Phastos mourning over helping towards Hiroshima. That made me livid (not even going to dignify the plow bit, which was bad enough). Such stories diminish human accomplishments and accountability, and I have nothing but disdain for anyone who promotes them.
For the record, Thor gets away with it by not addressing it, so my takeaway there is that they were visitors, not direct influencers & helpers.
You know that this story isn't real, right? It doesn't diminish human accomplishments if it didn't actually happen.
@@BartvG88
It's not real? You don't say! 🤦
That doesn't change my point at all. I do not like stories that imply it. They infuriate me. It's a story that implies humans weren't solely responsible for Hiroshima. That means that IN THE UNIVERSE OF THE STORY, the human accomplishment and accountability of that act are diminished.
Whether it's real or not is irrelevant.
I don't see it as that bad here, but human accountability is one of the reasons I absolutely despised Godzilla 2014, so I understand what you mean.
Still, the idea of aliens flying around in spaceships which look like ancient temples is really cool to me.
@@firefly4f4 It doesn't make claims on the actual world, just the MCU. You might care just a little bit too much about a fictional story.
@@BartvG88
I'm not sure what part of I don't even like STORIES that imply it you're not understanding. And yes, even saying it in story when referring to actually, historical, and tragic events, diminishes those who actually endured them.
You want to tell a story like this? Don't have aliens crying over their role in Hiroshima!
What's this about media pivoting to video? I have no idea what Bob's talking about there.
I literally have notifications set to all for Bob and I still don't get notified about his videos being posted. Why does the TH-cam algorithm take issue with certain creators?
That Lithium joke from the Critic remains evergreen. That and the Tea Cozy bit.
A peanut is neither a pea, nor a nut!