BvS BvS Rottentomatoes score - how important will it be, and what do you hope for? - Part 10

[Kanon]

I saw many people giving it 6/10 on rotten tomatoes,or 3/5 stars and their reviews still be rotten.I dont know how exactly RT works mate.

I don't know sor sure either, but people here say that the reviewer chooses fresh or rotten indepently from the score/stars/etc

 

[metaphysician]

A given reviewer's review is fresh for one and only one reason: because when they submit it to RT, they are asked "Is your review fresh?" and they said "yes". Its a simple yes/no question to the reviewer: do you recommend this movie?

 

[StormC]

I'm not so sure. I could very easily see it suffering from Watchmen Syndrome: an extremely good story in its own right, but pulled down by the negative effect it has on the industry afterwards.

Watchmen is still considered the greatest superhero comic of all time in many circles. It's largely been unaffected by the negative impact it had on the industry.

 

[JTStarkiller]

I saw Independence Day: Resurgence today which, in my opinion, was just an enormous pile of garbage. It was just a complete and utter mess from start to finish, with not one single compelling storyline, piss-poor pacing, and absolutely no sense of logic.

And yet, as I write this, it's sitting at 4% higher than the BvS Theatrical Cut. At the end of the day, it's all just opinion, I get it. But this has cemented the idea that Rotten Tomatoes is a complete waste of a website, which is a shame because so many people rely on it to decide what to see. Here's my advice, if you really have to rely on critics to help you pick what to watch, find a few that you trust, understand what they like and dislike, and make your decision from there. I scroll down the list of reviewers and hardly ever is there more than one I even recognize.

Or even better, see what looks good to you and only you.

 

[Jekecy]

But this has cemented the idea that Rotten Tomatoes is a complete waste of a website, which is a shame because so many people rely on it to decide what to see.

Because more often than not a consensus is more informed than the opinions of a select few. I personally don't have any critic who I agree with all the time (though there are ones I follow as I respect their insight), so for me the RT score is something I most definitely utilize for films I'm on the fence on.

Many of us don't have deep pockets, and even if we do, we value our time and don't want to waste it if we can be informed in avoiding it. This is were RT is incredibly valuable for the layman.

And we shouldn't discount how powerful word of mouth or marketing are as well. Critical scores aren't the be-all deciding factor. Even if people miss out on the theatrical run, home video and streaming are prime outlets for a film to find its audience. There are plenty of opportunities out there to reach a crowd.

 

[kaneluan06]

I saw Independence Day: Resurgence today which, in my opinion, was just an enormous pile of garbage. It was just a complete and utter mess from start to finish, with not one single compelling storyline, piss-poor pacing, and absolutely no sense of logic.

And yet, as I write this, it's sitting at 4% higher than the BvS Theatrical Cut. At the end of the day, it's all just opinion, I get it. But this has cemented the idea that Rotten Tomatoes is a complete waste of a website, which is a shame because so many people rely on it to decide what to see. Here's my advice, if you really have to rely on critics to help you pick what to watch, find a few that you trust, understand what they like and dislike, and make your decision from there. I scroll down the list of reviewers and hardly ever is there more than one I even recognize.

Or even better, see what looks good to you and only you.

Independence Day 2's average score is 4.4, 0.5 point lower than BvS

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Independence Day 2 is bad movie but BvS is worse.

 

[Micromind]

I saw Independence Day: Resurgence today which, in my opinion, was just an enormous pile of garbage. It was just a complete and utter mess from start to finish, with not one single compelling storyline, piss-poor pacing, and absolutely no sense of logic.

And yet, as I write this, it's sitting at 4% higher than the BvS Theatrical Cut. At the end of the day, it's all just opinion, I get it. But this has cemented the idea that Rotten Tomatoes is a complete waste of a website, which is a shame because so many people rely on it to decide what to see. Here's my advice, if you really have to rely on critics to help you pick what to watch, find a few that you trust, understand what they like and dislike, and make your decision from there. I scroll down the list of reviewers and hardly ever is there more than one I even recognize.

Or even better, see what looks good to you and only you.

Agreed.

 

[obredaan]

I saw Independence Day: Resurgence today which, in my opinion, was just an enormous pile of garbage. It was just a complete and utter mess from start to finish, with not one single compelling storyline, piss-poor pacing, and absolutely no sense of logic.

And yet, as I write this, it's sitting at 4% higher than the BvS Theatrical Cut. At the end of the day, it's all just opinion, I get it. But this has cemented the idea that Rotten Tomatoes is a complete waste of a website, which is a shame because so many people rely on it to decide what to see. Here's my advice, if you really have to rely on critics to help you pick what to watch, find a few that you trust, understand what they like and dislike, and make your decision from there. I scroll down the list of reviewers and hardly ever is there more than one I even recognize.

Or even better, see what looks good to you and only you.

So lets break it down...

BvS has 338 reviews listed with 92 of them being fresh

ID4 has 158 reviews listed with 49 of them being fresh

BvS was sitting at 33% after 146 reviews. So with about the same number of reviews handed in, BvS was actually 2% higher than ID4. Most likely by the end of its run, ID4 will end up lower than BvS if that makes you happy. Not sure why you chose these 2 films to convince yourself RT is pointless but I have to assume its because of BvS getting a poor reception. Had the opposite occurred and BvS scored a 90% with critics than I'm sure you wouldn't be explaining to us how pointless RT is.

 

[Gu3ree]

I could really care less about what scores are received on Rotten Tomatoes, but I care about what the public is saying. Rotten Tomatoes seems unbelievable sometimes, well actually, most of the time.

I rely on IMDB.com usually. I came across one review I read and found it interesting, and I agree with most of what this user said:

prospectus_capricornium wrote:

There is an utter greatness that thrusts BATMAN v SUPERMAN: Dawn of Justice into immediate attention. The brawl from which it explodes and paves way for relentless epic action sequences, conjures breathtaking forms, never less monumental than what Snyder seemingly tries to make them appear on the big screen. It's a visual spectacle, only much grittier and grimmer than any of its Marvel counterparts has ever been, even darker than the already dimly- toned 'Man of Steel' in 2013. In such measure, it is no question that this pre-Justice League movie has created for itself a towering achievement. But if that's how you gauge cinematic greatness, alone, then let's call the recent 'Fantastic Four' resurrection, a colossal epic (note the exaggeration). True enough, the absurd amount of explosive action takes the film into some time-stopping, jaw-dropping prodigiousness, but it is ultimately the absence of a decent plot that pulls itself to the ground. And while the overstuffed narrative is what tends its already complex plot line into further convolusion, it is not entirely what it is adequate of, that ultimately gives 'Dawn of Justice' unnecessary weight, but the horrendous lack of coherence and proper structure of its narrative.

Picking up from where 'Man of Steel' ended, the film paints the kryptonian superhero, a figure of destruction. Half of his city worships him, while the other regards him as its very destroyer, capable enough to rend the earth apart. Much of this film is spent in introductions, of hints about a looming mega-franchise that, let me guess, is set to counter what is Avengers to Marvel. That could have been alright if only the film knows where to place them. A recurring streak of ominous dreams introduces Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) visions, while also becoming Clark Kent's (Henry Cavill) ultimate nemesis. Gal Gadot's entry as Diana Prince and Wonder Woman is nothing more spectacular than how the trailers made her appear, in fact, her underwritten character may have made her role shrunk to the miniature levels of her fellow Justice League members, whose cameo introductions you might have missed if you happened to go to the restroom for at least two minutes. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is epic in both good and bad way, but more of the latter I guess. Amy Adams' Lois Lane— forget her, she's just there to prove she really loves Clark.

The movie bleeds from these flaws, the same way the Caped Crusader becomes kryptonite to Superman, and the Man of Steel becomes Batman's very Bane. The very same struggle inflicts the audience who thirst for some sensible story lines and not just shreds of unresolved, horribly- knitted sidestories. We might as well be grateful we're not Kryptonians.

I was watching the film again, and notice every time there is an action, or exciting sequence, for instance, the party Lex Luthor was hosting...when Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne meet, and then there's Diana Prince (which by the way, in every scene she had made me more engaged) and when Superman first confronts Batman after the chase sequence...these scenes I'm more into rather than the other scenes, such scenes that were building up to the final act...with Lex and Senator Finch or other characters I'm slightly bored with.

Certain scenes drag too long. We had enough dream sequences from Bruce, even though it plays an important part, but also a lot of Alfred and Bruce dialogue scenes. I like every scene of itself however, some were too many, there were too many introductions, and scenes that establish Bruce's hatred for Superman.

Scenes like when Bruce walks into the Batcave, "You're getting slow in your old age, Alfred" or when Bruce and Alfred have another conversation, "He has the power to wipe out the entire human race..." are important scenes and key to the story.

These scenes play an important role, but then there is another scene where Bruce and Alfred are at the mansion, Bruce saying, "This may be the only thing I do that matters"...I think this could have been cut, even though it was a nice scene. The story dragged on too long in many places.

Basically what I mean is, what little scenes we had of Clark, Perry and Lois together in the newsroom, or Batman and Superman, or Bruce and Clark sharing a scene together, or the trinity, I wish we could have had more of.

 

[The Joker]

So lets break it down...

BvS has 338 reviews listed with 92 of them being fresh

ID4 has 158 reviews listed with 49 of them being fresh

BvS was sitting at 33% after 146 reviews. So with about the same number of reviews handed in, BvS was actually 2% higher than ID4. Most likely by the end of its run, ID4 will end up lower than BvS if that makes you happy. Not sure why you chose these 2 films to convince yourself RT is pointless but I have to assume its because of BvS getting a poor reception. Had the opposite occurred and BvS scored a 90% with critics than I'm sure you wouldn't be explaining to us how pointless RT is.

Bingo.

 

[Bats123]

I think its safe to say the critics were too harsh

Take into account that way more people saw BvS than those two movies, therefore the score is lower, if BvS had the same amount of negative reviews as Angry Birds has it would most likely be higher...

 

[third3ye]

Oh the irony of DC fanboys screaming bloody murder that Disney and Marvel paid off film critics to trash BvS, and here we have WB Games getting caught for paying off bloggers

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/12/12157310/pewdiepie-youtubers-sponsored-videos-ftc-warner-bros

 

[NeoRanger]

Oh the irony of DC fanboys screaming bloody murder that Disney and Marvel paid off film critics to trash BvS, and here we have WB Games getting caught for paying off bloggers

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/12/12157310/pewdiepie-youtubers-sponsored-videos-ftc-warner-bros

That's not what happened there. WB hired certain Youtubers for paid promotion through previews and let's plays, not reviews. Some of them were even disclosed, though not sufficiently. The FTC holds WB responsible for not overseeing the situation and making sure there was sufficient disclosure in these promotions.

 

[TeeKay]

 

[Kane52630]

I dont wanna defend BvS but...this movie is at least somewhat better than that turd ID Resurgence.

 

[BatLobster]

Eh, to me while ID-R was far from a good movie, it was at least somewhat enjoyable in a guilty pleasure, turn your brain off and watch the spectacle sort of way for me. BvS takes itself way too seriously for that. BvS has more redeeming qualities as a film, but I may dislike it more for being such a missed opportunity and getting off the DCU to such an awkward start. ID-R was just kind of harmless camp, if a bit unnecessary to me.

Rotten Tomatoes is just a binary aggregate system. It was never science. You just gotta accept that it's best use is to give casual moviegoers some broad sense of whether or not the majority of critics liked a movie (and also NOT how much they liked or disliked it). At this point I think any self-respecting movie fan should already know that you should make up your own mind about a movie, as well as stick with a few critics you trust if you're on the fence. That's what I did with ID-R, which I almost didn't see due to the bad reviews, but I read a bunch that made me think "this will probably be exactly what I expect from it", and for me, it was.

 

[Lord]

The difference between Batman v Superman and ID 2 on the Rottentomatoes is 5%, kinda weird to constantly see people taking it as if it was a precise ranking for films. Captain America 2 and 3 have the difference of 1%, is Civil War automaticaly the objectively better film due to being higher by 1%? Is Iron Man 1 objectively better than Avengers 1 due to being higher by 2%? Is Boyhood one fo the best films of all time due to having 98% and 100% by top critics?

Everyone should remember that while you can evaluate a film by certain standards, it ultimately has a lot that is very subjective too. I usualy use it to get an idea of what to expect from major high budgeted releases, but taking every single digit seriously sounds ridiculous. Films at the 20-30s percentage usualy are at the same level. Then there are also film directors like Refn, whose works seem to take a while to be fully apreciated (among film circles, Only God Forgives is already considered a modern masterpiece, yet, it only has 40% on rottentomatoes).

 

[Kane52630]

among film circles, Only God Forgives is already considered a modern masterpiece

LOL...oh god.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I view Rotten Tomatoes as a probability meter. All it is a consensus of whether critics recommend or don't recommend a film.

So if it a film that I'm interested in seeing gets 80%+, I'm very likely to like the film myself. 60-80%, I'm more likely than not. 40-60%, is 50/50. Under 40%, I'm more likely not to like than I am, especially as it gets closer to 0%.

 

[NeoRanger]

If you want to determine the best way to view RottenTomatoes, there is no better place to start than the current Ghostbusters debacle. It has a rating over 75%, but if you hit "Top Critics" only, it drops down to less than 50%. That's a whooping 25% deviation and the audience reviews aren't even in yet.

It's not a good metric for the quality of the movie, it's an average of reviews. Even then it's not an average score, it's the average of the binary "go see it in theatres or don't". I maintain the best way to use it is so you can scout out individual critics that you find represent your taste in movies, so you can go back to read them for every new release.

 

[BestGirl]

In my experience, a movie's average rating is a better indicator of its quality than its tomatometer. Ghostbusters sits at 6.5/10 (making it barely fresh) and BVS got a 4.9/10, which is much higher than its tomatometer of 27%.

 

[metaphysician]

If you want to determine the best way to view RottenTomatoes, there is no better place to start than the current Ghostbusters debacle. It has a rating over 75%, but if you hit "Top Critics" only, it drops down to less than 50%. That's a whooping 25% deviation and the audience reviews aren't even in yet.

It's not a good metric for the quality of the movie, it's an average of reviews. Even then it's not an average score, it's the average of the binary "go see it in theatres or don't". I maintain the best way to use it is so you can scout out individual critics that you find represent your taste in movies, so you can go back to read them for every new release.

I disagree, I think the fact that it provides info like "what is the difference between all critics and top critics" is part of what makes RT so useful. Instead of focusing on fairly meaningless stuff like 1-2 point score differences, you can look for broad behaviors. "So, the top critics *really* hated it, much moreso than is normal. What likely causes this?" Or "So, the RT rating is terrible, but the user rating is decent. What does this likely mean?" This is stuff that can tell you plenty about a movie, as long as you watch out for certain traps ( taking user reviews as gospel right when a movie is released, when the vast majority of said reviews are from people who've not seen the movie ).

 

[Assassin32]

That's an excellent point, metaphysician. Spot on.

 

[NeoRanger]

I disagree, I think the fact that it provides info like "what is the difference between all critics and top critics" is part of what makes RT so useful. Instead of focusing on fairly meaningless stuff like 1-2 point score differences, you can look for broad behaviors. "So, the top critics *really* hated it, much moreso than is normal. What likely causes this?" Or "So, the RT rating is terrible, but the user rating is decent. What does this likely mean?" This is stuff that can tell you plenty about a movie, as long as you watch out for certain traps ( taking user reviews as gospel right when a movie is released, when the vast majority of said reviews are from people who've not seen the movie ).

My point is that the tomatometer on its own doesn't mean anything. It's a starting point, but unless you actually read reviews and you see why that meter is the way it is (either high or low, between All Critics, Top Critics and User Reviews), it's not necessarily evidence of a film's quality.