Gary Collinson responds to Finn Jones’ comments about the negative reviews for Iron Fist…
In the wake of the near-universally negative reviews for Netflix’s latest Marvel show, Iron Fist star Finn Jones has spoken out about the critical backlash to the new series this past weekend, stating that “these shows are not made for critics, they are first and foremost made for the fans.”
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard that comment; most notably, it happened last year with Warner Bros.’ two DC movies Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad. Given the critical mauling that both of these films received compared to their box office takings and general fan reception, an argument could be made that there is some sort of disconnect between critics and fans when it comes to the DCEU (although that doesn’t take into account the DC fans who felt the same way as the critics).
But can Jones really pull the ‘DC Defense’ when it comes to Marvel? Are the critics who are writing negative reviews of Iron Fist not the very same critics who helped to propel Daredevil to an 87% Fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes? Jessica Jones 93%? Luke Cage 96%? Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to 95%?! Hell, even Iron Man 2 sits at 72%, and that’s widely accepted as being one of – if not the – worst instalments in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
If anything, critics have been overly generous to Marvel over the years. Take a look at the Rotten Tomatoes summary for the Marvel Cinematic Universe here. Looking at those scores, there are only three possible scenarios: 1) The critics writing these reviews are actually big fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe; 2) those ridiculous rumours abut Disney paying off critics were true, but the money ran out just before Iron Fist’s embargo lifted; or 3) Iron Fist just isn’t a very good show.
This article isn’t an attack on Finn Jones as such. To be fair to him, he’s caught between a rock and a hard place. What can you really say in the wake of overwhelmingly negative reviews? “It’s for the fans, not the critics” has become the standard response, and it makes sense. They still need people to tune in or to buy their tickets. But it is also perpetuating a falsehood that critics are not fans.
We see it here on Flickering Myth quite frequently, as I’m sure do many other sites. We’ll post a negative review, and get a response along the lines of “it’s not for the critics, it’s for the fans”, “that’s why no one listens to critics” or “it’s just clickbait” (the latter is a tad baffling, as nine times out of ten a positive review gets a lot more traction, pageviews and ad impressions than a negative one, but we’ll save that for another day, as we’re focussing on ‘critics vs. fans’ here). And so I’d like to address those first two comments.
“It’s not for the critics, it’s for the fans”
As Anghus Houvouras has pointed out on a number of occasions, film criticism has changed dramatically over the years, and in the age of the internet, everybody’s a critic, or can be if they choose to do so. You don’t need a degree in Film Studies, and you don’t have to have spent months of your life immersed in the French New Wave or German Expressionism. Hell, you can probably scrape by with only a rudimentary knowledge of film. All you need is a computer and access to the internet.
So if and when you make that jump and become a critic, do you suddenly stop being a fan? All those Marvel and DC comics you read as a kid (and an adult), the countless rewatches of Star Wars, the years spent collecting whatever it is you collect… none of that matters any more, because you’re sharing your opinion on a movie online, so you must be “one of them” and films and TV shows are no longer made for you? It’s utterly ridiculous.
There is a reason that every year when we do our 10 Most Anticipated Movies, the list is dominated by comic book movies, Star Wars, sequels, and blockbusters. I can’t speak for every writer on Flickering Myth, but I have never considered myself to be a “critic”. I’m a fan who likes to write about movies and TV, and have been fortunate enough to get the opportunity and platform to do so. I’m sure a number of my colleagues feel the same. In fact, I’d wager that a large proportion – if not the majority – of writers online would consider themselves to be fans, and that it’s probably the main reason why most get into the game in the first place.
Aside from creating an imagined “them and us” divide, Jones’ “fans vs. critics” line also raises one other issue for me, in that it implies fans are willing to accept any old garbage, because they’re “true fans”. What is a “true fan” anyway? Is it someone who blindly loves everything from a particular franchise? Shouldn’t a “true fan” be able to express their disappointment when they feel it is warranted?
Back in January, we came under attack from some Transformers fans for not including Transformers: The Last Knight in our list of our Most Anticipated Movies of 2017. Asked why it was absent, I suggested the previous films must have killed our anticipation. I was told that was not a “true fan” if I didn’t like the movies. That’s despite me being absolutely obsessed with Transformers through much of the 80s. Despite racing to the newsagent every Saturday morning to pick up the Transformers UK comic (for its entire run). Despite owning Generation 1, the Takara Collection and even a few episodes of Transformers Prime on DVD. Despite having all of the Michael Bay movies on Blu-ray (the first two, double-dipped after previously owning them on DVD). Despite being a 36-year-old man who still fights back the tears when Optimus Prime dies in The Transformers: The Movie, and who still spends a good ten minutes or so looking through the new figures when I’m in Toys ‘R’ Us.
Apparently, I’m not a “true fan” because I found Transformers: Age of Extinction painful to watch. I would argue the opposite is true. The reason it was so painful is because I am a fan (and I have no problem with any fans who did like it either, we’re all entitled to our own opinion, and in a way I’m jealous that you have a Transformers movie you like). But it’s okay not to like a certain aspect of a franchise. It doesn’t make you a hater, and it doesn’t make you less of a fan. It may even mean the studios take note and give you something even better next time. If you willingly accept garbage, they’ll just keep serving it up to you.
“That’s why no one listens to critics”
The above comment is problematic to me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if one of our writers posts a negative review, that’s because they personally didn’t enjoy what they saw. We’re not attempting to prevent your enjoyment, or encourage you not to see it. We’re simply sharing our own individual thoughts. I’m sure the vast majority of people have already decided what they’re going to watch well before the reviews come out anyway (there’s also a minority who seem to know what they’re going to love before they’ve even seen it!).
In a way, I would agree that people shouldn’t listen to critics. A negative review – or even negative reviews across the board – would not change my mind if I’ve already decided to see something. I saw both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad opening day (as I have every superhero movie since Batman ’89). In the case of the former, I disagreed with the critical consensus. The latter, I agreed. If Wonder Woman gets the worst reviews in history, I’ll still be there day one to make up my own mind. That being said, if a film I’ve written off gets positive reviews, I could be convinced to give it a shot (I was going to wait until the Blu-ray release for Jurassic World, for example, but the reviews prompted me to pay a visit to the cinema, and I was glad I did). And by the same token, I may read a positive review of a film that’s slipped under my radar and find something I come to love that I’d otherwise have missed.
The other issue I have with “that’s why we don’t listen to critics” is that it suggests there’s always a critical consensus, and that critics hate everything you love, and love everything you hate. If that was the case, the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be in a right state given the overwhelmingly positive critical reception (although Iron Fist will presumably go down a treat!). Unlike the majority of outlets, we gave positive reviews to Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad last year. Where does the DC fanatic then stand? They have to agree with someone. What about all the glowing Logan reviews? Should audiences have given that film a wide berth because critics loved it?
What that comment really means is “that’s why we don’t listen to critics, when they disagree with us”, and in that regard, you have my full support. Make your own mind up. A review is just one person’s opinion, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether that person agrees with you or not. All that matters is whether you like what you see. But don’t feel you have to love something just because the critics don’t, or vice versa. Critics are just fans like you, after all.
Gary Collinson is a writer and lecturer from the North East of England. He is the editor-in-chief of FlickeringMyth.com and the author of Holy Franchise, Batman! Bringing the Caped Crusader to the Screen.
