BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 48

[113]

Yeah, because the cash is all that matters...

The Transformers series and the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise make a lot of money too. I don't think anyone thinks of those movies very highly, do they? Big summer CGI blockbusters tend to make a lot of money, and MoS fit that bill.

Other than financially, how can MoS be considered a success? It was panned by the critics. A 56% RT score is nothing to be proud of...considering its lower than Spider-Man 3, X-men 3: The Last Stand, and Ang Lee's Hulk, which last time I checked, were considered massive flops...

Lets not forget that there are 26 comic book films rated higher including EVERY Marvel Studios film.

I honestly don't understand how people here consider it a success. It was terrible, but it made a lot of money. That doesn't make it a success, at least not to me.

All that points to is that the critics were full of it when it came to MoS. Even the harshest critics of MoS that I've seen don't honestly believe it's worse than Spiderman 3, X3, Superman Returns, Iron Man 2, etc...

I usually don't have much problem with RT, but with MoS the critical consensus proved the tomatometer is a flawed system. At absolute worse the movie should be at 70%.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

because Rotten Tomatoes is the gospel truth of a movies quality.

 

[Tra-El]

If the critics were the be all/end all of everything successful and failure of being the true barometer of what the mass audiences actually like, then we wouldn't have had the classics we love today and I probably wouldn't have enjoyed every movie I actually liked. You know why? Because people have their own brains. I know I have mine. For every reason why people didn't like MoS, were the exact reasons why I absolutely love it.

If the critics had their way, we would have had to see a trilogy of stalker Superman being a deadbeat dad to a kid he didn't even knew existed. HOORAY FOR THE CRITICS.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That's it guys MOS only has a 56% rating on RT that means that we have to hate it.

Does that mean that I have not hate Iron Man 2 because it has a 73% rating or Superman Returns or any other well reviewed film that I hate?

 

[Mikelus]

Critically? Yes.

Quality-wise? Yes.

In terms of winning the audience? Yes.

Being the cornerstone of the new shared DC universe? Yes.

Rotten Tomatoes is not the alpha and omega of criticism, it is extremely flawed, even Rotten Tomatoes Senior Editor, Gray Drake, was shocked:

Rotten Tomatoes Senior Editor Gray Drake, who appeared on Fox Business News and called the Superman reboot “definitely the film to see, because finally Superman is back and he’s going to do big business.”

Asked why the freshness scale score was so low for that film, Drake admitted, “As much as I love and respect our critics at Rotten Tomatoes, I’ve got to say I am shocked. Listen, the movie’s not perfect but…I just cannot fathom it. It was a good movie, you guys.”

But yeah, keep trolling since it seems you love to talk about a movie you "hate".

 

[hafizbat]

Nope, just some haters in denial of MOS' success because, hold on to your seats, freaking RT critics!!

The same geniuses that have the awful Star Wars prequels and movies like Spiderman 3 rated higher:

Those "geniuses" are professional critics. And it's not the opinion of one, 10, 20, or even 50 people. Its hundreds of critics...who all seemed to share the same opinion. The point of RT is that you can't deny the score. If it was one reviewer, sure. But to deny the MAJORITY means that you are the one in denial, not the other way around...

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You are denying that the majority of critics did like the film because it has a 56% rating. I'm no math wiz but 56% is the majority.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

ok, the critics didn't like it. there you go.

but I'll still watch it like 10 more times until BvS comes out, probably even more than that.

 

[Wheels]

Critically? Yes.

Quality-wise? Yes.

In terms of winning the audience? Yes.

Being the cornerstone of the new shared DC universe? Yes.

The second one is completely opinion based and the third is up for debate.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

so basically we're all in denial for enjoying something that critics didn't like.

If that is so, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

And MOS is the cornerstone of the DCU, whether you like it or not.

 

[hafizbat]

Rotten Tomatoes is not the alpha and omega of criticism, it is extremely flawed, even Rotten Tomatoes Senior Editor, Gray Drake, was shocked:



But yeah, keep trolling since it seems you love to talk about a movie you "hate".

I am not saying that anyone has to hate it, and to infer that is simply childish and immature...

And just so you know, I thought it was pretty good. I saw it three times in theaters. I enjoyed it maybe as much as some of you here. But I do think people are in denial if they can't accept that it just wasn't well-received.

But sure, call me a troll and make fun of me because I'm not going to kiss up to MoS and make it something it was not...

 

[Tra-El]

Those "geniuses" are professional critics. And it's not the opinion of one, 10, 20, or even 50 people. Its hundreds of critics...who all seemed to share the same opinion. The point of RT is that you can't deny the score. If it was one reviewer, sure. But to deny the MAJORITY means that you are the one in denial, not the other way around...

285 reviews were counted. 159 were fresh; 126 were rotten. The majority of those reviews were fresh.

People look at the wrong score on RT anyways. You say people deny "hundreds" of reviews counted by critics are in denial, but the 415 THOUSAND movie-goers on the same site posted a 76% popcorn rating, so, it looks like 415,094 people, who basically scored MoS a 4/5, are in denial.

 

[Wheels]

Fourth is based on.....?

The fourth can't really be decided yet. I mean we are getting another DCCU film, so that has to count for something.

 

[The.Brotherhood]

Hate Arguments?

NOPE! Need to save Metropolis first!

Goodbye....

 

[113]

Those "geniuses" are professional critics. And it's not the opinion of one, 10, 20, or even 50 people. Its hundreds of critics...who all seemed to share the same opinion. The point of RT is that you can't deny the score. If it was one reviewer, sure. But to deny the MAJORITY means that you are the one in denial, not the other way around...

Actually, like all things, the RT methodology can be called into question. For example, individual critics don't always give movies their own scores, so RT reads a review and goes by a liked/disliked scale. Essentially simplifying critics score down to a pass/fail and averaging those results. Do most schools go by a pass/fail system? Nope, and there's a reason for it.

Second, the tomatometer's freshness level is pretty arbitrary. Why is it at 60%? Why not 51%, why not 70%?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Most have admited that Mos had a mixed reception audience wise. But for some reason you want us to admit that everyone hated it and I won't because I don't think that is true anymore then I think everyone hated Superman Returns.

I've acknowleged that the mixed reception is a problem and WB are going to have to work hard to get more moviegoers on this sequels side. Iron Man 2 had a horribly mixed reception as well and you know what helped Iron Man 3 make 1billion, a super well received Avengers.

 

[hafizbat]

^^^^With Batman coming in to save the day, sure...

And because bad movies never get sequels, right? As long as they make cash, WB could care less about the actual quality of their products. That's not a dig at WB, but rather just the way it works.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

those people who liked Man of Steel are just pretentious and in denial because the critics said so.

 

[InJustice]

^^^^With Batman coming in to save the day, sure...

And because bad movies never get sequels, right? As long as they make cash, WB could care less about the actual quality of their products. That's not a dig at WB, but rather just the way it works.

If they cared less about the quality, then why let Snyder/Goyer/Terrio/etc. delay the movie for a year?

Also, Batman coming in doesn't mean anything except an attempt to build DC's world. Judging by Snyder's comments, it seems as if it were planned.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^^^^With Batman coming in to save the day, sure...

And because bad movies never get sequels, right? As long as they make cash, WB could care less about the actual quality of their products. That's not a dig at WB, but rather just the way it works.

And Avengers saved the day for Captain America and Thor and Iron Man.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

ah... Batgod. lol

 

[Tra-El]

With Batman coming in to save the day, sure...

And because bad movies never get sequels, right? As long as they make cash, WB could care less about the actual quality of their products. That's not a dig at WB, but rather just the way it works.

If WB thought MoS was such a bad movie in terms of bad quality (I can't even..) then why in all HELL would they include Batman, their most prized franchise character to date, in a sequel to a movie with bad quality, pretty much putting their most successful, billion-dollar, rebooted money-maker in jeopardy of destroying that property? Makes no sense.

If MoS is what you say, we would have got a total Bat-reboot for 2015. Instead, a totally new Bats is being introduced in Superman's franchise.

The proof is in the pudding. Batman isn't saving the day. WB is confident enough in the MoS franchise to introduce a new Batman so soon after one of the most successful trilogies of all time. Putting a new Batman in their MoS franchise speaks volumes in the confidence of the DCU set in Superman's universe.

 

[hafizbat]

Most have admited that Mos had a mixed reception audience wise. But for some reason you want us to admit that everyone hated it and I won't because I don't think that is true anymore then I think everyone hated Superman Returns.

I've acknowleged that the mixed reception is a problem and WB are going to have to work hard to get more moviegoers on this sequels side. Iron Man 2 had a horribly mixed reception as well and you know what helped Iron Man 3 make 1billion, a super well received Avengers.

That is simply not true. This whole thing started as a reply to Marvin in the last thread, and I felt compelled to state my case after people decided to mock me...I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of MoS.

I didn't realize it was 56%...that's surprisingly bad. Personally, I gave the film a C to C- (probably around a 72), but 56 is pretty much an F....and I can't see how it was.

I respect everyone's opinion here and I myself thought it was a B-. It's just strange how everyone is so keen on attacking others here.

 

[Mikelus]

Critics are extremely fickle:

10 Classic Movies That Critics Hated: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/10-classic-movies-that-critics-hated-dbell.php

Even The Empire Strikes Back initially received mixed reviews. Many critics had problems with the story, but at the same time said the film was a technical achievement.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back

And there are people that don't like TDK and hate Nolan's Batman:

[YT]yuokQPtbEt8[/YT]

What matters is that most people like MOS and TDKT, a minority of haters is not going to change the facts.

 

[Lencho01]

I didn't realize it was 56%...that's surprisingly bad. Personally, I gave the film a C to C- (probably around a 72), but 56 is pretty much an F....and I can't see how it was.

You weren't around as the score kept getting smaller and smaller? It was all...