Support NeoGAF

[Trent Strong]

I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about Fuller voluntarily skipping episode 4 because of the kids killing kids thing. Yeah, the Mormons refusing to air the show is dumb.



So you refuse to watch it, then make judgments on it's quality, then say the show isnt really for you? Great post.

I never made any judgements on its quality. I just pointed out what Metacritic's judgement of its quality was.

 

[Trent Strong]

Are we actually debating whether a high Metacritic score somehow imbues a work with greater quality? Does anyone have that list of how Metacritic weighs their sampled reviews handy?

A high Metacritic score doesn't imbue a work with greater quality, no. But Metacritic scores are usually quite accurate, yes. (Obviously Metacritic isn't perfect, and there will be exceptions.)

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm not saying I am. The only reason I brought up Metacritic at all is because Hannibal defenders were saying that low ratings does not equal a bad show (which is true, I agree with them there). But I was just pointing out that not only does Hannibal have bad ratings, but it's not particularly highly rated by the critics either.

And again, as far as first season show go that have generally lower metacritic scores compared to later seasons, a 68 is a very respectable score. And the actual break down of positive versus negative reviews is even more telling, if this were RT.

This still says nothing about how you made blanket assumptions about the show without having seen it. Which is still hilarious.

 

[anaron]

I'm not saying I am. The only reason I brought up Metacritic at all is because Hannibal defenders were saying that low ratings does not equal a bad show (which is true, I agree with them there). But I was just pointing out that not only does Hannibal have bad ratings, but it's not particularly highly rated by the critics either.

When the negative reviews mostly amount to standing against the show solely for its existence being an addition to the trend of violent TV shows, it's fairly appropriate to discount them.

 

[ivysaur12]

Also, let's repost your post that did judge a show you've never actually seen on its content:

The first season of The Big Bang Theory got a 55, which is bad. I guess I was looking at season 2 of Enlighted, which is in the 90s. But I haven't seen Hannibal, and I'm not going to watch it, because I've heard it's really violent and gory, and I don't get off on violence. Torture porn and gore-fests are not my bag. I'll stick to watching Top Of The Lake, which is a really good mystery that doesn't rely on extreme violence to stay interesting and tense.

Come on, dude.

 

[Recon]

Smash having a metacritic score of 79 tells me all I need to know about metacritic.

 

[anaron]

Smash having a metacritic score of 79 tells me all I need to know about metacritic.

lol, indeed.

 

[Trent Strong]

And again, as far as first season show go that have generally lower metacritic scores compared to later seasons, a 68 is a very respectable score. And the actual break down of positive versus negative reviews is even more telling, if this were RT.

This still says nothing about how you made blanket assumptions about the show without having seen it. Which is still hilarious.

I've heard from at least a dozen people that it's very violent. Let me ask you, since you've seen it: is Hannibal very violent?

 

[Recon]

I've heard from at least a dozen people that it's very violent. Let me ask you, since you've seen it: is Hannibal very violent?

It isnt very violent in the way you are thinking. They show some disturbing scenes, but it never even comes close to "torture porn".

 

[ivysaur12]

Smash having a metacritic score of 79 tells me all I need to know about metacritic.

Southland has a 69! The Good Wife has a 76! The Nine has an 81! FlashForward has a 72! None of this makes sense!

I've heard from at least a dozen people that it's very violent. Let me ask you, since you've seen it: is Hannibal very violent?

It treats violence with the severity it deserves and deals with the effects of violence better than any show I can recall. The POV is against senseless violence, but it's more complicated than that.

 

[Symphonic]

The first season of The Big Bang Theory got a 55, which is bad. I guess I was looking at season 2 of Enlighted, which is in the 90s. But I haven't seen Hannibal, and I'm not going to watch it, because I've heard it's really violent and gory, and I don't get off on violence. Torture porn and gore-fests are not my bag. I'll stick to watching Top Of The Lake, which is a really good mystery that doesn't rely on extreme violence to stay interesting and tense.

Ugh, Hannibal isn't fucking "torture porn" or a "gore-fest". There has been zero sexual stuff thus far and the gore that's been in it has been used tastefully/artfully to convey a specific point.

Get over your high and mighty "opinion" and give the show a chance before spouting shit like this.

 

[faceless007]

See if you can guess what number Metacritic gave these:

New York Times:

Those who don’t find Hannibal fatally slow and pretentious can stick around to enjoy the superior production values and the stylishness of the pilot, directed by David Slade with an ominous suggestiveness reminiscent of David Fincher.

Spoiler

30

Los Angeles Times:

For fans of "Silence of the Lambs" there is some pleasure in gathering the canonical Easter eggs planted throughout the series, but for the most part Hannibal suffers from the same fatal flaw as its main character: It takes itself so seriously that it's no fun at all.

Spoiler

40

New York Post:

The thing that does give this show its grounding is the acting. Dancy is a perfect, tortured soul; Fishburne is everyman with a brain; and Mads Mikkelsen is perfectly named. What is lacking, though, is any respite from the darkness.

Spoiler

63

Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

 

[Nappuccino]

A high Metacritic score doesn't imbue a work with greater quality, no. But Metacritic scores are usually quite accurate, yes. (Obviously Metacritic isn't perfect, and there will be exceptions.)

Most of the metacritic scores are also based on a review of just the first 2-3 episodes. It's hardly a good metric for the entire season. The first 2-3 episodes are all growing pains as the show tries to find it's voice and chemistry. Most first seasons start awkward and become what they are mid-way through.

And Hannibal is pretty great. There's a huge focus on the psychological and it's main failings are some of the supporting cast (who are usually just in one scene) and there are some occasional strange things in the cases that aren't explained. Presumably, they'll be explained later, but we'll see.

The violence/gore is sometimes shocking, yes, but it doesn't exist just to exist. There are some very dark themes to this show and shying away from the ramifications of these actions would be a disservice to the show's attempts. It's not just to get people off on the gore. It's to help further the storytelling.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Yeah after watching the first 4 episodes, I can see how people would be offended by this. It's pretty insanely gory for a network show. Almost as gory as The Walking Dead in some parts.

 

[Trent Strong]

Ugh, Hannibal isn't fucking "torture porn" or a "gore-fest". There has been zero sexual stuff thus far and the gore that's been in it has been used tastefully/artfully to convey a specific point.

Get over your high and mighty "opinion" and give the show a chance before spouting shit like this.

I have no opinion about Hannibal one way or the other. I have no skin in this game. I don't care if Hannibal becomes the most successful TV show of all time, or if it gets cancelled tomorrow. Hannibal, and what becomes of it, does not interest me.

 

[Symphonic]

I have no opinion about Hannibal one way or the other. I have no skin in this game. I don't care if Hannibal becomes the most successful TV show of all time, or if it gets cancelled tomorrow. Hannibal, and what becomes of it, does not interest me.

Then why in the world are you debating in a thread about what becomes of Hannibal?

 

[Nappuccino]

Then why in the world are you debating in a thread about what becomes of Hannibal?

while also grossly misrepresenting its content.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I've heard from at least a dozen people that it's very violent. Let me ask you, since you've seen it: is Hannibal very violent?

It's a show about serial killers, of course it's violent.

But unlike something like say, The Following, it's violence isn't just a shock tactic or pointless. It has rhyme and reason and the violence is psychologically impactful on the characters involved. It's not torture porn. The violence isn't some masturbatory Eli Roth fantasy.

 

[Trent Strong]

Then why in the world are you debating in a thread about what becomes of Hannibal?

I don't think this thread is about what becomes of Hannibal. I assumed this thread was about a conservative Mormon owned TV station taking it off their line-up. I assumed this thread was about censorship, religion, etc. I mean, you can still see Hannibal in Utah. It's not going anywhere unless it gets cancelled by NBC because of low ratings.

 

[ivysaur12]

I have no opinion about Hannibal one way or the other. I have no skin in this game. I don't care if Hannibal becomes the most successful TV show of all time, or if it gets cancelled tomorrow. Hannibal, and what becomes of it, does not interest me.

Clearly no opinion, you'll just seem to lack an understanding at all of the show. Which is understandable, you've never seen it. But I usually don't go into threads about shows I've never seen and attempt to discuss it. Your first post in this thread showed at least some sympathy that the show was pulled for violent reasons instead of sexual ones (for once!), when Hannibal couldn't be further from a show that promotes violence.

For reference:

Well, at least they're objecting to violence instead of sex for once.




What if the show was racist? Would you just change the channel or would you complain?

 

[Torhthelm Tídwald]

I wouldn't say its the Mormons, I would say that the idiots who make the decisions at KSL who happen to be mormon.

Most people in Utah are Mormon. So the other Utah affiliates are run by Mormons as well, but you never see them doing this, even in the case of similar shows like the Following or Modern Family (similar to the New Normal, which was also axed by KSL). It's pretty clear that the ownership of this station by the Mormon church affects its decisions, and its perfectly proper to object to that. If the government is going to give a tax shelter to religions, they need to put some more restrictions on it (no owning any stock would be a good start) to keep those religions from having an inordinate influence. If a church objects, they can reorganize and pay taxes like everyone else.

What really bugs me about this is that people don't even need to change the channel to stop programing they want. V-chips have been mandatory for over a decade and will do it automatically, yet conservatives act like the only way to protect "the children" is to start a massive censorship campaign. It's really obnoxious.

 

[PaulExcellent]

GODFUCKINGDAMMIT

COME ON KSL GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER.
I FUCKING LOVE THE SHOW.
GO EAT A BAG OF DICKS I'M NOT GOING TO WATCH YOUR FUCKING NEWS.

:/

NBC is going to get my views now.

 

[DarkFlow]

A high Metacritic score doesn't imbue a work with greater quality, no. But Metacritic scores are usually quite accurate, yes. (Obviously Metacritic isn't perfect, and there will be exceptions.)

I guess Braveheart is a shit movie, it only got a 68. :/. Give back the Oscar Mel, Trent has spoken.
Empire strikes back is also sitting at a 78, so it's only kinda shit.
One more... Shawshank Redemption has a 80, yeah fuck metacritic.

 

[peaceiscloser]

I can never deny that I feel happy being a member of the LDS Church, and what it's done for me personally. However, far too many of the executive decisions being made by other bonehead members in charge are really driving me nuts.

I just wish the for-profit arm of the Church would disappear. The ownership of a NBC affiliate channel isn't really doing anything for members spiritually and is unnecessary and ridiculous. Not to mention it's pushing the boundaries of what a religious entity should and shouldn't be involved with.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Most people in Utah are Mormon. So the other Utah affiliates are run by Mormons as well, but you never see them doing this, even in the case of similar shows like the Following or Modern Family (similar to the New Normal, which was also axed by KSL). It's pretty clear that the ownership of this station by the Mormon church affects its decisions, and its perfectly proper to object to that. If the government is going to give a tax shelter to religions, they need to put some more restrictions on it (no owning any stock would be a good start) to keep those religions from having an inordinate influence. If a church objects, they can reorganize and pay taxes like everyone else.

What really bugs me about this is that people don't even need to change the channel to stop programing they want. V-chips have been mandatory for over a decade and will do it automatically, yet conservatives act like the only way to protect "the children" is to start a massive censorship campaign. It's really obnoxious.

It's more of people complaining to the station that got it removed. If it was up to the church, there would be a lot of shows removed from the station. This was in response to the reactions of the general public who watch KSL.

 

[dead souls]

I guess Braveheart is a shit movie, it only got a 68. :/. Give back the Oscar Mel, Trent has spoken.
Empire strikes back is also sitting at a 78, so it's only kinda shit.
One more... Shawshank Redemption has a 80, yeah fuck metacritic.

Metacritic may be flawed in some respects, but those scores aren't out of line for those movies.

You get that movies aren't reviewed on the 7-10 scale that games are right?

 

[Dead Man]

I can never deny that I feel happy being a member of the LDS Church, and what it's done for me personally. However, far too many of the executive decisions being made by other bonehead members in charge are really driving me nuts.

I just wish the for-profit arm of the Church would disappear. The ownership of a NBC affiliate channel isn't really doing anything for members spiritually and is unnecessary and ridiculous. Not to mention it's pushing the boundaries of what a religious entity should and shouldn't be involved with.

I like this post.

 

[BertramCooper]

NBC needs to drop this stupid affiliate already.

I'm pretty sure their already meager audience will easily migrate to a SLC-area channel.

 

[Shabadoo69]

I think this is such a joke. If you don't want to watch a show about a serial killer then don't watch it. This is coming from the same state that has the "Zion Curtain Law" (or whatever it's called) where you can't show alcohol to customers or even pour drinks in front of them. Its seriously so stupid.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

The amount of people that complained about the show, get triple to complain about pulling it.

 

[Renoir]

How can non profit entities own profit making entities?

am I weird for picturing the philosoraptor asking this question ?

 

[rrs]

And this is what happens when religion owns things it shouldn't.

 

[spookyfish]

I feel so sorry for all of these people in Utah that for some reason cannot prevent themselves from watching something that may be questionable to them.

Do they even cable?