All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 1

[TeeKay]

Considering the arrogance of Snyder and Ayer (**** Marvel, flavour of the week etc), when their movies don't do as well as they should, critics are quick to point it out. Its almost ironic. I don't agree either with the bashing of directors, but comparisons? Absolutely. They should be made. Not sure why its an issue here. Its the "Disney are paying off critics" mentality. Critics are saying what I don't like so screw them.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Considering the arrogance of Snyder and Ayer (**** Marvel, flavour of the week etc), when their movies don't do as well as they should, critics are quick to point it out. Its almost ironic. I don't agree either with the bashing of directors, but comparisons? Absolutely. They should be made. Not sure why its an issue here. Its the "Disney are paying off critics" mentality. Critics are saying what I don't like so screw them.

I agree that both Ayer and Snyder brought some stuff on themselves. And there's nobody else to blame.

 

[idiot09]

I dont think anyone here is saying Disney is paying off critics. Its a very very stupid claim made by stupid fanboys. and just like Ayer said some stupid stuff, some folks over at Marvel(Mackie) have also done the same. Whats the point in the finger pointing game really?

 

[TeeKay]

Well like I have said many times, I dont have a problem with movies being compared for the sake of constructive analysis. If they do that for WW and BvS great Even if that means pointing out the flaws in BvS to what WW does right. However if its just to drag BvS for a "zinger" then I do have a problem with that. However I think I have said enough about it, but I just clarified because your question seemed genuine.

I haven't read the Logan or Lego Batman movie reviews. Like I said BvS has become a punching bag in the CBM genre for obvious reasons. Especially when it was asking to be taken serious then it runs into piss jar moments and Martha moments and fails yo execute it properly. Well then you have the various jabs been taken.

Also I think quanitifying the over-all reception is a tricky thing, and I wont claim what I said was right. There is simply no way for an 100% accurate representation. I considered RT, but that uses a dual scoring thing, a yes or a no, and that makes it difficult to gauge a critical response overall. Therefore I used metacritic that divides it into good, mixed and bad reviews. BvS had around 10 good ones, 10 bad ones, and 30 mixed ones. Hence I concluded BvS had a mixed reception. However I do understand all these evaluations whether that be RT or Metacritic have their own flaws, which I do know about. So there's that. I just meant that statement in an overall way, and I think its merits and demerits can be argued either way until it just becomes about semantics, and I dont think thats worth it.

The way I view mixed reviews is its 50/50. That's why I said MoS was mixed. BvS I disagree that it was mixed. Same goes for SS. These movies are considered the lower end of the spectrum of the CBM genre. And that's not a good look.

 

[idiot09]

Anyway I dont think Logan reviews are even out yet so...

 

[TeeKay]

I dont think anyone here is saying Disney is paying off critics. Its a very very stupid claim made by stupid fanboys. and just like Ayer said some stupid stuff, some folks over at Marvel(Mackie) have also done the same. Whats the point in the finger pointing game really?

These are the DIRECTORS. They're the ones making the movies. They're in charge. Not the actors. When you talk the talk about the competition, you better back it up with your resume or make sure you deliver on your next outing. Its the same.in sports. When youre trashing your opponent it screams confidence and arrogance. When you lose youre going to look downright stupid. That's my point. Snyder has been talking the talk back even when they were about to make Thor, Cap etc. So now its really ironic since those movies have fared better than his own movies. Because of that it could have very well factored into the reviews. Because the competition is doing it better.

 

[idiot09]

and it could have very well factored into the reviews.

Then thats just childish and unprofessional. But Im not sure if that has happened so I cant comment on that.

 

[Erzengel]

Also I think quanitifying the over-all reception is a tricky thing, and I wont claim what I said was right. There is simply no way for an 100% accurate representation. I considered RT, but that uses a dual scoring thing, a yes or a no, and that makes it difficult to gauge a critical response overall. Therefore I used metacritic that divides it into good, mixed and bad reviews. BvS had around 10 good ones, 10 bad ones, and 30 mixed ones. Hence I concluded BvS had a mixed reception. However I do understand all these evaluations whether that be RT or Metacritic have their own flaws, which I do know about. So there's that. I just meant that statement in an overall way, and I think its merits and demerits can be argued either way until it just becomes about semantics, and I dont think thats worth it.

I've never said that BvS is the worst movie ever or the worst review movie ever.

However, using Metacritic, there are other CBM released over the past 10 years that are worse:

Fantastic Four (2015) Score of 27: 1 Positive, 18 Mixed, 21 Negative
Green Lantern (2011) Score of 39: 5 Positive, 19 Mixed, 15 Negative
Suicide Squad (2016) Score of 40: 11 Positive, 26 Mixed, 16 Negative
Wolverine Origins (2009) Score of 40: 9 Positive, 19 Mixed, 11 Negative

Batman v. Superman (2016) Score of 44: 10 Positive, 30 Mixed, 10 Negative

And there are some that that were reviewed a little bit better.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) Score of 52: 16 Positive, 29 Mixed, 3 Negative
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) Score of 53: 19 Positive, 26 Mixed, 4 Negative
Thor: Dark World (2013) Score of 54: 22 Positive, 19 Mixed, 3 Negative

For me, this is just a simple eye or smell test. If Dark World is arguably considered the worst of the MCU, TASM2 the worst of the Spider-Man series, and Apocalypse one of the low end of the X-Men series, it's easier for me to see that at least critically, it's not really mixed since it seems more comparable to Wolverine Origins in terms of scores.

 

[idiot09]

Thats an interesting way of looking at it, comparing it to other CBMs. However when the movie has equal number of positive and negative reviews, and the number of mixed reviews is 3times either positive or negative, in my book, thats a textbook mixed response. But thats just my reading of it. YMMV.

 

[Erzengel]

So Wolverine Origins, which is almost universally regarded as the worst X-Men movie, almost has twice as much mixed then it does positive/negative would be textbook mixed?

 

[idiot09]

Yes. A bit less so because the number of mixed and negative reviews difference isnt that high, but still its more mixed than negative.

 

[Erzengel]

Honestly, that's an interesting spin to put on it.

 

[idiot09]

Honestly, that's an interesting spin to put on it.

Our perspective is all we have. Maybe im biased because I like the movie.

Also have you checked out the new statues and toys from JL? Also a new mysterious pic Zack just posted. Check those out in the JL thread.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Its the same.in sports. When youre trashing your opponent it screams confidence and arrogance. When you lose youre going to look downright stupid.

See Ryan, Rex.

 

[BH/HHH]

There's a way to compare though and some reviewers don't show respect.

 

[Chesterfield]

Snyder is very proud of BvS. Anyone who follows him on Vero can tell that. As he should be. I think its a great movie. Its silly to say "I dont like it so he should be ashamed of it". The movie made $870M. It did really really well on home media. It made a lot of money. And many fans love it. He has every right to be proud of it. Were the expectations higher? Sure. Was the critical response mixed? Yes. But that doesnt mean he should be ashamed of himself.

As he isnt. He just recently posted a video celebrating and thanking the vfx team and vfx work of BvS. He is proud of BvS. And that isnt going to change because someone didnt like it.

Well, a parent will still love their child even if the whole world thinks they're ugly as f***.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

why? The DCEU mad 3 horrible movies in a row, the assumption that not much will change in the near future is more than warranted. And to warn their readers that, again, they might not have a good time at the theatre is actually a service, considering the cost of tickets nowadays.

And there are also people who for whatever reason didn't see BvS or the other DCEU movies but are interested in a WW film or JL. To tell them, that what they will very likely get is probably not what they actually want (a good time, a decent movie as examples), again, is a service to the readers.

To compare BvS - the last movie with Batman in it - to the LEGO Batman movie is warranted. They feature the same title character. And those of the audience who didn't enjoy BvS (as in: the majority) and are therefore reluctant to see another film with Batman in it, fearing it might be the same pile of dung of what came last year, are very likely grateful for the information given them by the reviewer that the LEGO Batman movie is, unlike the DCEU movies, indeed a good film. That's a service to the readers.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the reviewers bias, but with giving his audience, the readers, crucial information they might want to know before they decide to go to the cinema. 'will this movie suck as much as...' is a legitimate question from the GA.

That is the primary job of critics. To inform their readers whether they should invest their time and money into seeing a film (or for any other product, this doesn't apply just to films), and just as importantly why.

For example, far and away the number one question about Justice League that needs to be answered is "Is it different than MoS and BvS or is it more of the same?" Any critic worth his or her salt needs to be able to answer that question.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

That is the primary job of critics. To inform their readers whether they should invest their time and money into seeing a film (or for any other product, this doesn't apply just to films), and just as importantly why.

For example, far and away the number one question about Justice League that needs to be answered is "Is it different than MoS and BvS or is it more of the same?" Any critic worth his or her salt needs to be able to answer that question.

exactly. the same goes for LEGO Batman (since same title character) and to a lesser degree even Logan (same genre and not part of the MCU)

 

[harlequinade]

Then thats just childish and unprofessional. But Im not sure if that has happened so I cant comment on that.

What's childish and unprofessional is screaming '**** Marvel'. It's just giving critics the ammo - not only did someone make a bad movie but he acts in immature way too. Them using this ammo is not childish or unprofessional at all. It's like when for example next POTC movie is a mess and critics will mention that Depp's personal life atm is a mess too. They are just stating the fact. Should they be mixing their opinion about the movie with things surrounding it? Maybe not but they certainly have the right to. It's not like they are lying.

 

[BH/HHH]

So we're just gonna pretend that people at Marvel havent taken shots at DC? Let's start with Anthony Mackie shall we?

 

[harlequinade]

So we're just gonna pretend that people at Marvel havent taken shots at DC? Let's start with Anthony Mackie shall we?

But Mackie wasn't in a movie as bad as Suicide Squad (Marvel ones). These critics when they hate a movie they usually will bring everything they can to just wreck it, some of them (most of them?) have hyperbolic style like that. If Squad was good no one would go 'hey it's good but anyways the director yelled this and this and it was so stupid of him'. Here it's an easy path from 'this is bad' to 'also the director acted in a stupid way'.

My point is when an actor or director does something that is easy to ridicule or be called out on it's gonna be brought up when their movie failed. Leto waxed for DBC but no one made fun of him then because the movie was good and he was good in it. But he did it again for Squad and people mocked him because of it, among many other things, because of how his performance and the movie ended up.

 

[Erzengel]

So wasn't Mackie's quotes? What was the last good DC movie you saw and saying the interviewer was bananas for liking MOS?

That is not =/= Ayer saying "Eff Marvel."

 

[BH/HHH]

But Mackie wasn't in a movie as bad as Suicide Squad (Marvel ones). These critics when they hate a movie they usually will bring everything they can to just wreck it, some of them (most of them?) have hyperbolic style like that. If Squad was good no one would go 'hey it's good but anyways the director yelled this and this and it was so stupid of him'. Here it's an easy path from 'this is bad' to 'also the director acted in a stupid way'.

My point is when an actor or director does something that is easy to ridicule or be called out on it's gonna be brought up when their movie failed. Leto waxed for DBC but no one made fun of him then because the movie was good and he was good in it. But he did it again for Squad and people mocked him because of it, among many other things, because of how his performance and the movie ended up.

Whether a movie is good or bad is subjective. If you call obe unprofessional for saying something then you gave to call the other in the other side unprofessional. Whether in your opinion he was involved in a better film or not.

 

[BH/HHH]

As competitors the MARVEL guys have certainly earned some bragging rights

So because your films are "doing better" by certain standards that gives you the right to **** in someone? Sorry but that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. It's not sports.

 

[Ivan Drago]

I found it hilarious how Ayer said f**k marvel a day before the reviews for Suicide Squad hit.