BvS BvS Rottentomatoes score - how important will it be, and what do you hope for? - Part 9

[MrsKent26]

BvS is a movie.

It's not a scientific experiment. It's not a color. It's not gravity.

The closest to a consensus you can get on it is that critics didn't like it overall and that it must have gotten poor word of mouth due to the box office revenue drop.

However, there's some folks who would disagree that this means it's bad overall. They may not be the majority, but thy aren't wrong. I don't think it's a very courteous thing to say "the movie is objectively bad." And sure, one could try to apply scientific principal or philosophy to this situation and find a way to prove it's bad, but why do that? Why try to discredit people who like it? Why try to enforce your opinion on...a movie!...with anything? There's no need. Why not just say you don't like it and discuss why. It may not be scientific or be any definition of truth, but it's nice. It's polite. It doesn't minimize the "other side."

Anyways, it's obviously up to the individual, but this it how I choose to handle this situation. Sure, "nice" is wishy-washy and imprecise, but to me, that makes the most sense when the thing that's being discussed is simply...a movie.

 

[Flint Marko]

This past week someone has continually told me that I'm wrong in saying BvS is poorly constructed with a messy narrative, because according to him, it is an undeniable fact that it's a good movie. Here we have people saying the exact opposite.
The problem with looking at movies "objectively" is that everyone thinks their own view is the most objective.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ I remember that and it was unfortunate. Both "sides" do this thing and it's so bothersome. People just seem to have a burning need to have others like what they like (or hate what they hate) and if they encounter others who don't bend to that, they have to discredit them with "the facts" of movies. I don't agree with it at all.

 

[FunkMiller]

BvS is a movie.

It's not a scientific experiment. It's not a color. It's not gravity.

The closest to a consensus you can get on it is that critics didn't like it overall and that it must have gotten poor word of mouth due to the box office revenue drop.

However, there's some folks who would disagree that this means it's bad overall. They may not be the majority, but thy aren't wrong. I don't think it's a very courteous thing to say "the movie is objectively bad." And sure, one could try to apply scientific principal or philosophy to this situation and find a way to prove it's bad, but why do that? Why try to discredit people who like it? Why try to enforce your opinion on...a movie!...with anything? There's no need. Why not just say you don't like it and discuss why. It may not be scientific or be any definition of truth, but it's nice. It's polite. It doesn't minimize the "other side."

Anyways, it's obviously up to the individual, but this it how I choose to handle this situation. Sure, "nice" is wishy-washy and imprecise, but to me, that makes the most sense when the thing that's being discussed is simply...a movie.

I'm no trying to minimise the 'other side' or lambast somebody for liking this movie. I respect anyone and everyone's opinion.

All I'm trying to do is introduce a little critical thinking into this debate, instead of the 'this movie rocks! / this movie sucks!' mentality that tends to prevail.

While everyone should have their opinion, and that opinion should not be belittled by anybody else, I do also think it's a valuable point that in any analysis of BvS, you have to take into account the general consensus about the movie, which points towards it being mediocre. This is undeniable. The reviews reflect that, as does the BO response to the film, and the opinions of a great many people on these boards and elsewhere.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's thoughts or feelings, just trying to introduce a little balance to the argument.

I find it completely mindless to just roundly defend the movie against any and all criticisms, the same way I think it's mindless to say its the worst movie ever made. Both are extremes, and both are ridiculous.

I'm only arguing scientific and philosophical points, because others have brought them up in their defence of the movie.

But you're also right, there's nothing wrong with also being nice about it, and if anyone has been offended by what I've been writing, then I apologise.

 

[The Joker]

This past week someone has continually told me that I'm wrong in saying BvS is poorly constructed with a messy narrative, because according to him, it is an undeniable fact that it's a good movie. Here we have people saying the exact opposite.
The problem with looking at movies "objectively" is that everyone thinks their own view is the most objective.

Gee I wonder who you could be talking about

 

[FunkMiller]

This past week someone has continually told me that I'm wrong in saying BvS is poorly constructed with a messy narrative, because according to him, it is an undeniable fact that it's a good movie. Here we have people saying the exact opposite.
The problem with looking at movies "objectively" is that everyone thinks their own view is the most objective.

No such thing as objective when it comes to stuff like this, unfortunately. If there were, this forum would probably be a ghost town

 

[GreenKToo]

A few loved this, but if alot did, it would be sitting at well over a billion right now.
I think most are probably like me who think it was just ok.
Do I think it deserves a 29 score? No.
An 80? No.
For me, it deserved around a 55/60.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

^ I remember that and it was unfortunate. Both "sides" do this thing and it's so bothersome. People just seem to have a burning need to have others like what they like (or hate what they hate) and if they encounter others who don't bend to that, they have to discredit them with "the facts" of movies. I don't agree with it at all.

The thing to me is that both sides, at least on this board, seem to broadly agree that the movie didn't work, at least as far as reaching the mass audience it needed to reach to be the kind of success WB hoped for. Where they differ is that one side argues it's just a bad movie, while the other responds no, it's a complex and layered film that, unfortunately, doesn't always come across on the single viewing that the average filmgoer is likely to give it.

The takeaway for me is that it was doomed to disappoint in either case. The public at large wasn't going to embrace a bad film (obviously) or the $250 million equivalent of an entry at Sundance. this is Snyder not delivering the product WB paid him to make and it baffles me how it happened and why he's still atop JL. Though I suppose the former explains the latter.

 

[FunkMiller]

For me, it deserved around a 55/60.

I think when all is said and done, and the shouting is all over, this will be regarded by most as a fair rating... maybe a tad lower at around 50.

And both characters, the wider DCEU, and us fans, deserved far better.

 

[The Joker]

That's in or around what MOS got. I think this is much worse than MOS. So 40's at least.

 

[MrsKent26]

I'm no trying to minimise the 'other side' or lambast somebody for liking this movie. I respect anyone and everyone's opinion.

All I'm trying to do is introduce a little critical thinking into this debate, instead of the 'this movie rocks! / this movie sucks!' mentality that tends to prevail.

While everyone should have their opinion, and that opinion should not be belittled by anybody else, I do also think it's a valuable point that in any analysis of BvS, you have to take into account the general consensus about the movie, which points towards it being mediocre. This is undeniable. The reviews reflect that, as does the BO response to the film, and the opinions of a great many people on these boards and elsewhere.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's thoughts or feelings, just trying to introduce a little balance to the argument.

I find it completely mindless to just roundly defend the movie against any and all criticisms, the same way I think it's mindless to say its the worst movie ever made. Both are extremes, and both are ridiculous.

I'm only arguing scientific and philosophical points, because others have brought them up in their defence of the movie.

But you're also right, there's nothing wrong with also being nice about it, and if anyone has been offended by what I've been writing, then I apologise.

I can appreciate different analysis being brought in to discuss some things, but it did seem to me that things were spiraling towards the "this movie is objectivity bad" territory, which IMO isn't polite/nice/etc. It's not the idea of analysis I take issue with, it's the direction of it (and you aren't the only one I thought was heading there). Still, I appreciate your clarification and politeness here and believe you when you say belittling anyone was not your intention. No hard feelings on my part.

The thing to me is that both sides, at least on this board, seem to broadly agree that the movie didn't work, at least as far as reaching the mass audience it needed to reach to be the kind of success WB hoped for. Where they differ is that one side argues it's just a bad movie, while the other responds no, it's a complex and layered film that, unfortunately, doesn't always come across on the single viewing that the average filmgoer is likely to give it.

The takeaway for me is that it was doomed to disappoint in either case. The public at large wasn't going to embrace a bad film (obviously) or the $250 million equivalent of an entry at Sundance. this is Snyder not delivering the product WB paid him to make and it baffles me how it happened and why he's still atop JL. Though I suppose the former explains the latter.

There's not much leeway to argue that the movie didn't reach the mass audience as it should considering its sales and I don't see many trying to do that. I just think that neither side should be considered "wrong" or "in denial" or whatever the catchphrase may be when it comes to opinions on why this thing didn't make it to the $billion club.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

A few loved this, but if alot did, it would be sitting at well over a billion right now.
I think most are probably like me who think it was just ok.
Do I think it deserves a 29 score? No.
An 80? No.
For me, it deserved around a 55/60.

The RT meter isn't a rating. The actual rating is 4.9/10.

 

[FunkMiller]

The RT meter isn't a rating. The actual rating is 4.9/10.

And that's absolutely spot on.

 

[GreenKToo]

For me, the rating would be at about a 6 maybe a 7/10. Mos got an 8 from me
I'm seeing it again tomorrow with the wife and son so we'll see if it goes up or down.

 

[King23DC]

This past week someone has continually told me that I'm wrong in saying BvS is poorly constructed with a messy narrative, because according to him, it is an undeniable fact that it's a good movie. Here we have people saying the exact opposite.
The problem with looking at movies "objectively" is that everyone thinks their own view is the most objective.

Batman v Superman is a turd. Biggest expectations and subsequent let down of all time. Hack Snyder strikes again.

It's every bit as bad as TIH, Iron Man 2, Thor, Thor 2, Iron Man 3, Avengers, and Age of Ultron.

More entertaining and epic than TIH or the Thor movies. But the latter 3 mentioned Marvel films, IM2 included featuring the ever charismatic and entertaining RDJ make them more fun or enjoyable.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Lol what?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

But Avengers is now a genre classic, so.

Unless you mean the one based on a TV show

 

[SomeOldGuy]

There's not much leeway to argue that the movie didn't reach the mass audience as it should considering its sales and I don't see many trying to do that.

Actually, that's my point: the audience showed up in droves opening weekend, then it was over, as the box office collapse demonstrates. Whatever the reason, this film will end its run with one of the worst OW multipliers ever. It just didn't connect with viewers. Was that because it sucked or it was too complex? My answer is, who cares? Either way it didn't work.

I just think that neither side should be considered "wrong" or "in denial" or whatever the catchphrase may be when it comes to opinions on why this thing didn't make it to the $billion club.

I agree.

 

[The Guard]

this is Snyder not delivering the product WB paid him to make and it baffles me how it happened and why he's still atop JL. Though I suppose the former explains the latter.

I think an argument can be made that he did deliver the product WB paid him to make. I refuse to believe WB greenlit and made this movie without knowing its contents and recognizing that it was a darker, riskier story and direction for the characters.

We can make the quality argument all day long, but there's nothing all that baffling here. Plenty of critics, fans and audience members immediately pointed out the issues with this franchise. The film is too dark, not enough action/fun, not accessible enough, and ultimately not faithful enough to the recognizeable versions of the source material.

It happened, likely because WB was out of touch with what is popular. They seemed to think that because the Dark Knight trilogy made bank a few years ago that they could still present dark and serious versions of their heroes and people would eat that up. Their company line since before MOS has been to make more serious superhero films. The mandate was to make them darker than Marvel's. We see the results of that.

 

[MbJ]

I think an argument can be made that he did deliver the product WB paid him to make. I refuse to believe WB greenlit and made this movie without knowing its contents and recognizing that it was a darker, riskier story and direction for the characters.

We can make the quality argument all day long, but there's nothing all that baffling here. Plenty of critics, fans and audience members immediately pointed out the issues with this franchise. The film is too dark, not enough action/fun, not accessible enough, and ultimately not faithful enough to the recognizeable versions of the source material.

It happened, likely because WB was out of touch with what is popular. They seemed to think that because the Dark Knight trilogy made bank a few years ago that they could still present dark and serious versions of their heroes and people would eat that up. Their company line since before MOS has been to make more serious superhero films. The mandate was to make them darker than Marvel's. We see the results of that.

In fact, I seem to remember when Speed Racer bombed they said it was because it was too light and child-friendly, so they'd now be refocusing on making more serious blockbusters.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

I think an argument can be made that he did deliver the product WB paid him to make. I refuse to believe WB greenlit and made this movie without knowing its contents and recognizing that it was a darker, riskier story and direction for the characters.

Oh, I hear you. That's the main reason I think Snyder is still around, he has allies in the executive suite who would be right out with him if he got canned. I worry that it's double-or-nothing time with JL, despite the "lighter" comments. I just have no real feel for how things go from here.

 

[Kobra]

The RT meter isn't a rating. The actual rating is 4.9/10.

Yeah, it isn't. But it looks like one and most people interpret it as such.

The reality if that a movie can have 85% and still not be considered a great movie. Sure "85%" looks like great, but again, it's not a rating. A movie can have 85% and an average rating of 6.8, which isn't even good, let alone great.

The Winter Soldier

89%

7.5/10

Batman Begins

85%

7.7/10

So, even though TWS has 89%, Batman Begins has a higher average rating. People usually only look at the %. If you look at the % you will think critics see TWS as the better movie, but not really.

Average rating gives us more information about what people really think of the movie.

 

[kedrell]

60 is not good, 70 is average. 80 and up is where you get into "good" territory.

Well, agree to disagree on that one. But it's a provable fact that the overwhelming majority of films made(professionally by Hollywood, I mean) do not even reach the 60% mark for fresh on RT.

The definition of the term Average is the sum of all things in a group(in this case, movies) then divided by the entire number of individual parts in that group.

If you had the time and inclination to do that with all the movies RT lists then you'd be lucky to get even a 50% score as average, I'd say. More likely it'd be in the mid 40% range. So yes, 60% range is above average and thus good IMO.

But believe whatever the hell you want to. You're gonna do it anyway.

 

[kedrell]

The RT meter isn't a rating. The actual rating is 4.9/10.

I never really use the average score on RT except as a possible indicator that when the initial reviews are coming in, whether the overall RT score is likely to rise or fall based on how high the average score is. Otherwise I find it to be pretty useless because not all critics score a movie in a uniform way. There's too much apples and oranges being tossed around with that one IMO. The overall RT score is trustworthy precisely because it's so simplistic. Anything more complex and it falls apart upon analysis. And even the simplistic RT score is not infallible or anything...but IMO it's the best we've got for now.

 

[kedrell]

This is the kind of thinking that helps religion flourish - the ultimate logical fallacy.

And there is validity in collective human authority, where facts are arrived at by independent consensus from across the scientific spectrum - evolution, the construction of an atom, the law of gravity, those kinds of incidental things.

You're trying to convince yourself that the concept of logical fallacy applies to all opinion and presented evidence. It doesn't.

Hmmm...one of these things is not like the other, to quote Sesame Street. And I'm someone who accepts evolution as probably correct...why not, I wasn't there and no matter how much they study it neither were all those scientists until somebody invents a time machine. But I'll accept the theory until a better one comes along or they categorically prove that one right(again, it'll take a time machine to do it). But evolution is just not at the same level as those others. Nor is something like climate change even though it's got 97% support of all scientists. Because those others have virtually ZERO dissent about them. Just like 100% of mathematicians agree that 1+1=2. So yes there is objective truth(assuming we can trust our own senses regarding the world...which is an act of faith) about some things. The problem is that people tend to put things into that category that simply have the majority or even overwhelming majority agreeing with them and that's not the same thing. You're not going to find 3% of any scholars who disagree with 1+1=2.