I was excited to see that Netflix’s Castlevania: Nocturne was reviewing extremely well, a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, living up to the high scores of the previous show, one of the best game adaptations of all time.
Or just not care about other peoples opinions on things and just watch what catches your eye. If it doesn't seem interesting by the nth episode just drop it.
That’s time wasted and you’re usually manipulated into it anyway with cliffhangers and flashy visuals instead of quality content.
If something is going to face plant like game of thrones, I want to know in the beginning before I get invested. All forms of marketing are geared toward hiding those face plants to drive viewership, but it’s the only metric people really care about: is this movie essentially longform clickbait that isn’t going to pay off in the end, like so much of the other shit coming out recently
The “tomato meter” is literally manipulated into irrelevance. There are outfits that specifically pay critics during a certain time period to either hold off with their review or change it to give a shitty feature a 100% during previews so they can market the hell out of it. The system was shoddy and broken before. At this point it’s just useless.
Pretty standard stuff. A handful of bigots go ahead and review bomb stuff they hate.
Usually that's an indicator that the show is really great. Personally I thought the original Castlevania series was fantastic, so I'm looking Forward to watching this one.
Powerhouse Animation is usually worth watching for the visuals alone.
I finished Nocturne last night and it was…eh? Well it’s half a show isn’t it? It’s the same as the OG Netflix Castlevania S1, where they set all the pieces up for S2, so I’m willing to wait it out and see where it goes. The 53% does feel accurate to me as a score honestly, even though I’d personally put it at like ~60%.
The highlight of the show for me was Richter and Maria’s interactions in episode 1, and I thought we would get more of that than we actually did. I don’t mind Annette, but like…I wish we got more RICHTER (and Maria, Tera, and Orlox by extension) and saved Annette’s story for later.
It also just …weirdly felt too rushed and too slow simultaneously. 8 episodes was not enough for the story they wanted to tell, and I wish they just focused on the Belmont side for now.
It’s the weird scene arrangement. Had opera gone to hell at the end of the season, it would have been paced infinitely better and, moreover, it would have been much more poignant. Contrasting the incoming with the outgoing would have been interesting. As you said, I’ll forgive it if they can meaningfully expand on their story in the next season.
While many people actually just say the quiet part out loud, it’s too “woke,” others code it with the “bad writing, bad characters” claim. The writing of course being the “woke” parts, mainly, the characters being those of color, usually.
This paranoid lunatic really believes that criticism of a show's writing and characters is some kind of dogwhistle. The first series of Castlevania was decent, but very silly; it was a 6/10 at the absolute highest. Or, if I was a character from Castlevania, I would say "the first FUCKING series of Castlevania was DAMN decent, but very FUCKING silly and SHIT; it was a DAMN 6 out of BITCH 10 at the absolute FUCKING highest". It's not a particularly amazing series and this one is worse, as continuations are wont to be.
Considering this is a Forbes article, my assumption is that this is a bought-and-paid-for PR statement. Why would you post anything from this corporate rag in the first place, OP?
And it doesn't raise red flags that someone was pissy enough over bad reviews to go and publish an entire article to cry that everyone leaving bad reviews is just racist?
Your reaction was so angry and so strong. It raises red flags man lol
Oh, give me a break. This is obviously a reach on your part, because if your personality was so blandly milquetoast that you actually think this, you wouldn't be the kind of person who uses histrionics like you just did. I don't know what your angle is but at least be internally consistent.
I never finished the first show but I thought it was cool. At least a 7 for me. This Forbes review is specifically citing the reviews that complained about "modern day talking points" so I don't doubt they're at least partially correct. The show is probably mediocre to begin with but there's also righties getting worked up over it. I guess I'll have to watch it and see if it's any good.
The only useful reviews are the ones you trust from people who share similar thoughts about what you enjoy. You could aggregate the rating of everyone on the planet and it still won't be a useful metric. Reviews from only people self-selecting that would have watched the show in the first place are also not useful.
Reviews from critics who are bribed to give 100% are less than useful. It is worse than useless. It is actively harmful. "Bribed" in the sense that they are given early access to something and don't want to lose access as their livelihoods might depend on it. Sometimes they might be bribed with actual money, who knows.
I mean yeah, user reviews aren't perfect, but this mess of a show doesn't prove it any more than literally every other piece of media people leave reviews for.
I really don't find rt to be useful. Take away the fact that critics are being paid to give positive reviews, it's just a measure of like versus dislike, so 100% of critics liking it is really just saying every critic thought the show was at least decent, but it doesn't give me any sort of scale. It's like a giant pass fail, but there's no indication of whether the show barely passed across the board, or was actually quite good.
That being said, have not seen this series yet, but plan to
Critic and audience scores are more and less important depending on the movie.
Do you want to find movies that are well done, break new ground, or include the tropes that critics love? Critic reviews are helpful.
Do you want something that is well done in a genre that critics tend to look down on, like horror or comedy? Audience reviews are helpful.
But any kind of score aggregation of either group is far less useful than reading a review that clarifies whether the movie includes things you like a lnd whether they are well done. A horror movie that has reviews that mention frequent jump scares will drive me away because I don't like them that much unless they are frequent and well done. Someone else might want to see it because that is what they enjoy!
Yeah I think many people sort of ignore many critics see a ton of movies so when you get ones that are all very trope and cliche, it may be a fun rump but a critic probably would have seen many of them prior. At the end of the day movie reviewing is a job and you are probably going to get sick of shit you see on repeat over and over with just a slap of paint on top of it. Typically the reason why comedies and horror films probably get slapped the hardest by critic reviews.