Aquaman's Critical Reception Thread (Rotten Tomato and Metacritic)

[Theweepeople]

Some critics have B- as a rotten. Some critics count C+ as a positive.

That’s a bullcrap rating system. I’ve accumulated a decent amount of B- and C+ grades throughout my junior high, high school, and college years. Those were never failing grades.

 

[Filmfan93]

The scale of it alone was unprecedented in CBM. I think the last time there was something so grand was LOTR movies and Avatar

IW was basically people running around on a field lol

IW had a much grander scale than Aquaman.

The Wakanda battle is much more than "people running around on a field''.

To start, you have almost every Avenger there (minus Guardians, Stark, Spidey and Strange) against not only the Outriders, but the Black Order as well. The battle also involves the Hulkbuster and Scarlet Witch being the heavy hitters, with War Machine also bringing the heavy artillery from top. On top of that you have a really cool fight between Okoye-Widow-Wanda.

Lastly, the battle transitions from the fields to the forest, where Vision and Cap fight the Black Order together. Then the whole thing culminates with Thanos arriving there and wrecking everyone up.

And all of that for around 20 mins.The last battle in Aquaman is around 5-10 mins long.

 

[harlequinade]

IW had a much grander scale than Aquaman.

The Wakanda battle is much more than "people running around on a field''.

To start, you have almost every Avenger there (minus Guardians, Stark, Spidey and Strange) against not only the Outriders, but the Black Order as well. The battle also involves the Hulkbuster and Scarlet Witch being the heavy hitters, with War Machine also bringing the heavy artillery from top. On top of that you have a really cool fight between Okoye-Widow-Wanda.

Lastly, the battle transitions from the fields to the forest, where Vision and Cap fight the Black Order together. Then the whole thing culminates with Thanos arriving there and wrecking everyone up.

And all of that for around 20 mins. The last battle in Aquaman is around 5-10 mins long.

It didn't look as epic to me as Aquaman *shrugs* Only more impressive if that was shorter in Aquaman and had so much amazing stuff packed there

 

[kguillou]

I was going through the RT consensuses for the DCEU films today and to this day, I don't quite get some of the consensus' they've come up with.

Man of Steel:Man of Steel's exhilarating action and spectacle can't fully overcome its detours into generic blockbuster territory.

Batman V Superman:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice smothers a potentially powerful story -- and some of America's most iconic superheroes -- in a grim whirlwind of effects-driven action.

Really? Those were the problems people had with those movies? Ehhh, I dont think so. Those consensus' don't even seem to come close to the issues people had with them and why they scored so low.

 

[geosphere]

I was going through the RT consensuses for the DCEU films today and to this day, I don't quite get some of the consensus' they've come up with.

Man of Steel:Man of Steel's exhilarating action and spectacle can't fully overcome its detours into generic blockbuster territory.

Batman V Superman:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice smothers a potentially powerful story -- and some of America's most iconic superheroes -- in a grim whirlwind of effects-driven action.

Really? Those were the problems people had with those movies? Ehhh, I dont think so. Those consensus' don't even seem to come close to the issues people had with them and why they scored so low.

Man of Steel didn't deserve that score what so ever. It should have been in the 80s at the very least. Man of steel is the most underrated superhero film IMHO. It's very sad that film was done so dirty the way it was. Well, At least Aquaman seems to be doing great this holiday. We're gonna start stacking some wins for the DCEU.

 

[MasterBoss]

That’s a bullcrap rating system. I’ve accumulated a decent amount of B- and C+ grades throughout my junior high, high school, and college years. Those were never failing grades.

Again, every critic has their own rating system. It's up to them.

 

[harlequinade]

Maybe they slaughter a chicken and do divination type of stuff whether it should be fresh or rotten

 

[Murdock103]

That’s a bullcrap rating system. I’ve accumulated a decent amount of B- and C+ grades throughout my junior high, high school, and college years. Those were never failing grades.

But it’s not about if it’s a passing grade or not, it’s about whether or not you advise people to pay money to go see a movie.

If a teacher gave you a B- on an essay, they are saying that yes ‘you’ve passed’.
However, if that teacher walked into the staff room and all the teachers said ‘hey, we heard that essay from Theweepeople was pretty good, should we give it a read?’, the answer is going to be ‘No, it’s not worth reading, it’s only a B-.’

Have you passed, sure. Have you maybe made some good points, sure. Is it worth recommending to other people, to take 2 hours of their life up to do so....probably not for a B-.

 

[Vlyse]

The BVS consensus is so weird, it probably has the least action of any DCEU film. It smothered a potentially powerful story by simply being boring.

 

[Theweepeople]

But it’s not about if it’s a passing grade or not, it’s about whether or not you advise people to pay money to go see a movie.

If a teacher gave you a B- on an essay, they are saying that yes ‘you’ve passed’.
However, if that teacher walked into the staff room and all the teachers said ‘hey, we heard that essay from Theweepeople was pretty good, should we give it a read?’, the answer is going to be ‘No, it’s not worth reading, it’s only a B-.’

Have you passed, sure. Have you maybe made some good points, sure. Is it worth recommending to other people, to take 2 hours of their life up to do so....probably not for a B-.

I like your analogy. It even sounds very realistic but, I think it’s a flawed, subjective, and an unfair way of reviewing certain works of art. Your analogy does not account for handling what I refer to as the subjective grey area of reviews.

I have a mathematical analogy. In this analogy the C+ to B- numerological range starts at 77% and ends at 83%. The quality of this range is clearly above an average range of merit. Any essay with a grade that falls within this range should obtain a “borderline good status.” If this range of percentages is considered the grey area for reviews then the critics who take a rigid stance with these numbers are being disingenuous.

These types of reviews are the sole reason I hate the rotten tomatoes rating system. There should be a neutral rating for excessively subjective reviews such as these. It’s the only fair way to protect the general public from critic bias and manipulation.

Another abstract way of conceiving the range is the teacher or critic who analyzed the work of art believes out of 100 people 77 to 83% will enjoy it. Even though the critic has determined the art has good quality and many will enjoy it their bias inexplicably influences them to tell people to stay away. Does it make sense to influence this percentage range of people contrary to what the review suggests?

 

[quangtran65]

The RT system doesn't care for middling reviews, hence why a fresh rating starts at 60 percent instead of 51. The whole point is for it to be a simple binary system (with no room for grey areas) hence the reason why most people prefer it to metacritic.

Which leans into another issue with people constantly complaining about RT, in that the RT scores are rarely ever far off from the coloured results on metacritic, where Aquaman received an even WORSE rating of 55%.

 

[The Joker]

Again given the history of this franchise, landing a percentage in the 60's is a victory for the DCEU. Any port in a storm.

 

[kguillou]

Damn a 55% metacritic score? Ouch.

 

[Mysteryman]

I miss the days when these scores didn't matter to me.

 

[Patchwork Man]

I miss the days when these scores didn't matter.

Fixed. Every new trailer seems to carry a VO proclaiming "...and now 93% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes!" It's ridiculous.

 

[kguillou]

Sigh, my favorite movie review podcast ( nowplayingpodcast.com, HIGHLY recommend these guys, their reviews are so entertaining and informative to listen to) didnt like the movie either. Oh well. Fascinating the discrepency between fans, audience and critics on this movie.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I like your analogy. It even sounds very realistic but, I think it’s a flawed, subjective, and an unfair way of reviewing certain works of art. Your analogy does not account for handling what I refer to as the subjective grey area of reviews.

I have a mathematical analogy. In this analogy the C+ to B- numerological range starts at 77% and ends at 83%. The quality of this range is clearly above an average range of merit. Any essay with a grade that falls within this range should obtain a “borderline good status.” If this range of percentages is considered the grey area for reviews then the critics who take a rigid stance with these numbers are being disingenuous.

These types of reviews are the sole reason I hate the rotten tomatoes rating system. There should be a neutral rating for excessively subjective reviews such as these. It’s the only fair way to protect the general public from critic bias and manipulation.

Another abstract way of conceiving the range is the teacher or critic who analyzed the work of art believes out of 100 people 77 to 83% will enjoy it. Even though the critic has determined the art has good quality and many will enjoy it their bias inexplicably influences them to tell people to stay away. Does it make sense to influence this percentage range of people contrary to what the review suggests?

The rotten tomatoes rating system is widely not understood all across the internet. For the scoring system that gives a numerical rating based on how they rate the movie 1-10, RT has that. It's called the Average Rating. That is scored out of 10, of which Aquaman currently has a 6/10 . The RT % is simply based on this one question: Do you recommend the movie? If yes, it gets a fresh. If no, it gets a rotten. There isn't a scoring system for that basic question, it simply comes down to whether the critic would recommend the movie or not. To date, 64% of critics would recommend Aquaman.

I know we want to see higher scores for movies we like, but there is no flaw in the Rotten Tomatoes rating system. If you want something that just applies hard numbers and 1-10 ratings, use the Average Rating. I saw this movie 2 times already. I couldn't care less that the score is "only" 64%. All that matters to me personally is whether I like the movie or not. In this case, I find this movie a hell of a lot of fun. You could take this same movie and change the score to 20%, and my feelings would be the same.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Sigh, my favorite movie review podcast ( nowplayingpodcast.com, HIGHLY recommend these guys, their reviews are so entertaining and informative to listen to) didnt like the movie either. Oh well. Fascinating the discrepency between fans, audience and critics on this movie.

Well, sometimes these groups of people are all the same.

I can totally understand why this movie is not a critical darling. Had it come out in say 2011, it probably would have fared a bit better. But people are having a good time, the movie is making money and most of the regular fans are happy so I think people need to let go of this.

And I personally had a blast with the film while recognizing it's flaws, so...

 

[Dr.]

I have a mathematical analogy. In this analogy the C+ to B- numerological range starts at 77% and ends at 83%. The quality of this range is clearly above an average range of merit. Any essay with a grade that falls within this range should obtain a “borderline good status.” If this range of percentages is considered the grey area for reviews then the critics who take a rigid stance with these numbers are being disingenuous...

RT has a few issues vis-à-vis interpreting an individual critic’s rating system and translating it into their own.

One scenario: apparently, in borderline cases, a critic can tell RT how (e.g.) their 2.5/4 rating should be recorded. Sometimes, this can be “fresh,” sometimes it’s “rotten.” It depends on the movie and, I guess, the critic’s mood. (Note that 2.5/4 = 62.5% - which is above the rotten/fresh threshold. So, really, there should be no need for translation or clarification; 62.5% is fresh. If the critic wanted his score to be recorded as rotten, it’d be simple enough to rate it 2/4 in the first place.)

Another: the “letter grade” system you mentioned. Technically, the only letter that indicates “fail” is F. Everything else (from D- up to A+) indicates 60% or higher - a “pass.” Obviously, this is a poor system to evaluate movies inasmuch as it might be useful to know just how bad a movie is; and there can be a big difference between a 59% F= fail/rotten and a 10% F = fail/rotten. Thus, it’s more-or-less assumed that (along with F) D-, D, D+ are also bad/failing scores (different degrees of rotten). But how far up the scale do these assumptions apply? At least one reviewer gave Aquaman a C+ grade - which was duly recorded as rotten. Typically, a C+ is in the 75-79% range. Bottom line: as applied to movies, the “letter grade” system is flawed and/or confusing.

 

[2kt09]

RT has a few issues vis-à-vis interpreting an individual critic’s rating system and translating it into their own.

Start with the number that's more comprehensive isn't in the largest font for folks to notice.
There's a 10 scale right below the tomato meter averaging critics' numeric consensus beyond the basic "up/down" system.

 

[Micromind]

I saw a Top Critic review posted on RT where the reviewer basically states something like "despite some flaws Aquaman works" and gives the rating as 3/5, and I would say that sounds like he is giving a mediocre score but RT takes it as Rotten, if the said reviewer was indeed thinking that the movie deserved a Rotten, why he is saying it works ?

 

[Flint Marko]

After having seen the movie and thoroughly enjoying it, I pretty much get why the critics were fairly mixed. I had a genuinely great time with it and I'm excited to see Aquaman again, but the script could really have used some polish. Wan's direction and the production design elevated the movie as a whole but it is pretty disappointing how the story was both over-stuffed and under-cooked.

 

[Mysteryman]

Fixed. Every new trailer seems to carry a VO proclaiming "...and now 93% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes!" It's ridiculous.

Thanks!
That is actually what I meant to say.

 

[FunkMiller]

Has this thread pretty much degenerated into “we’ve got a huge, crowd pleasing box office success on our hands, but we’re still pissed because it isn’t as highly rated as the MCU”?

...because that’s the way it’s beginning to look.

Aquaman is a solid, fun superhero movie. It washes away Snyder’s stank. It gives the DC cinematic universe some life going forward.

DC have the better pantheon of characters, so those highly rated movies will come... but for now, for the love of god, just be pleased the ship is turning in the right direction again!

 

[kguillou]

After having seen the movie and thoroughly enjoying it, I pretty much get why the critics were fairly mixed. I had a genuinely great time with it and I'm excited to see Aquaman again, but the script could really have used some polish. Wan's direction and the production design elevated the movie as a whole but it is pretty disappointing how the story was both over-stuffed and under-cooked.

I'm pretty much on your wave length but...I dont know, in your opinon, do you think the story/script really was any more egregious than a lot of other similar movies? A movie like Suicide Squad for example, script wise that movie was a damn mess ( although i still enjoy it as a guilty pleasure lol) l. But Aquaman I felt was a pretty basic straightforward story with the usual contrivances we see in these kinds of movies.