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

[Ms. Marvel]

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.

Two problems, first of all not every review is rated. Also the reviewers use different scales. How does one translate a B- to a number out of 10? That's why people don't talk about the average score.

 

[Lily Adler]

Guys please don't continue on that tangent it never ends well.

 

[kedrell]

Two problems, first of all not every review is rated. Also the reviewers use different scales. How does one translate a B- to a number out of 10? That's why people don't talk about the average score.

Well said. The more complicated you make the process, the less you can really trust it.

 

[Consona]

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.

Very well said.

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.

Well, result of 1+1 depends on algebra you've chosen as a basis for this function, it's not "hard fact" or anything.

But yea, all those things are acts of faith. I believe there's something like gravity and that this something is independent of my mind, that it actually exists out there even if I don't exactly know what the "gravity" is. I believe evolution is a really good, even exceptional, explanation of changes of organisms, etc. But you can never say any of these things are "objectively true". Earth is not flat... That's obvious, isn't it... Well, there's a theory that the whole universe as we perceive it is just an 3d holografic projection of the "true" reality, that actually is flat. None of us has ability to prove whether it is the case or not. We should knowledge that, debate those things, because they are interesting, because they could be "true" but we should not act like we know that something is "true" or "hard fact" or anything.

The law of gravity is not a habit.

My point about light is that blue is blue is blue. Objectively, it remains the same colour, as pure science trumps human philosophy every single time.

And a majority seem to think it is mediocre, which is kind of my whole point.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree.

But this whole thing is so off-topic... We could discuss that elsewhere or just let it be...

 

[Mjölnir]

Two problems, first of all not every review is rated. Also the reviewers use different scales. How does one translate a B- to a number out of 10? That's why people don't talk about the average score.

There's a third issue as well, and that's that there's reviewers that even use the same scale but define each grade differently. All these are big reasons why it's better to just say if the movie was good or bad, as that means the same for everyone.

Aggregated opinions should always be as simple as possible since the process will muddy things up. Even with the simple RT format people still interpret it wrong and think it says something it doesn't.

 

[metaphysician]

Uh, no it's not. The vast, vast majority of movies ranked on RT don't even merit a fresh rating(60% or higher) much less clear that hurdle by well over have a dozen percentage points. Anything at a 76% is a pretty good score for a movie. There are many classic films that "only" got a score this high. There are many that have been nominated for best picture which had a comparable RT score. Maybe you're expectations are just a bit too high.

I'm comfortable calling a RT score in the 70s a "C". Either it works well but has notable flaws, or its only middling, but either way, its a functional but not great movie. Fits with most films I've watched with 70s ratings.

 

[metaphysician]

You know what holds weight? When you see how much the critics and general audiences agree. When Civil War blast past BvS at the box office, while the RT score is worlds better, it is a consensus. Not one you have to agree with, but it still is a consensus.

I agree, with the added proviso that you measure general audience approval with box office numbers, *not* with the Audience Rating on RT or any similar site. Box office sales are a real measure of a real thing, whereas self-selected internet polls are useless.

 

[metaphysician]

Of course it is. Authority can be a single person or a whole organisation. Any time you say "person/people say that X is/is not Y" is a logical fallacy.

Actually, no. Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy when one appeals to an *irrelevant* authority in their argument, or when one attempts to place authority in direct opposition to evidence. Appealing to a *relevant* authority is entirely appropriate. So, no, there's nothing fallacious about saying "RT approves of this movie, ergo its good", especially since RT isn't even a single authority, but the collected opinion of several *hundred* experts.

 

[metaphysician]

Your "Oh, for crying out loud. It's just not good. End of story." theory does not explain why some people love this film much more than majority of other CB films and why it had such a powerfull impact on them.

*I* can easily explain that. However, you might not like my explanation. It starts with "grossly biased audience".

 

[metaphysician]

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.

Gonna have to call BS here. No, evolution fits *exactly* with the others mentioned. There is no credible doubt about the basic forces at work, as they have been repeatedly confirmed via multiple different means ( observation of micro-organisms in a lab, tracking phenotype changes across fossil records, etc ). The theory of evolution is not *complete*, and that is where the scientific debate is. However, neither is the theory of gravity: we *know* there are huge gaping holes in it where are current model is inaccurate. If anything, our understanding of evolution is *better* than our understanding of gravity.

 

[FunkMiller]

Gonna have to call BS here. No, evolution fits *exactly* with the others mentioned. There is no credible doubt about the basic forces at work, as they have been repeatedly confirmed via multiple different means ( observation of micro-organisms in a lab, tracking phenotype changes across fossil records, etc ). The theory of evolution is not *complete*, and that is where the scientific debate is. However, neither is the theory of gravity: we *know* there are huge gaping holes in it where are current model is inaccurate. If anything, our understanding of evolution is *better* than our understanding of gravity.

Couldn't have put it better

 

[Marvel Knight]

A great video on Rotten Tomatoes (specifically BVS and CA: Civil War):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjl-Ul4OsWk

 

[Consona]

A great video on Rotten Tomatoes (specifically BVS and CA: Civil War):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjl-Ul4OsWk

At least he should get his facts right. Grace Randolf did not say critics should not compare those films. She said "problem is attacking BvS to praise CA:CW" not that you cannot compare the two.

 

[Wylie Times]

At least he should get his facts right. Grace Randolf did not say critics should not compare those films. She said "problem is attacking BvS to praise CA:CW" not that you cannot compare the two.

Except that the person that Randolph was going at wasn't "Attacking" BvS she was comparing the two films, it just that the comparison wasn't favorable to BvS.

And if Randolph and anyone else had bothered to actually read Yamato's entire review they'd have seen she was just as if not more critical of Marvel's previous films when comparing them to Civil War:

You might argue that other films that have come before Marvel’s Captain America threequel have achieved such equilibrium, but let’s be real, you’d be lying to yourself. Not even Disney’s Marvel machine has yet been able to shake off formula or self-seriousness in service of spandexed superhero franchising.

There’s just been too much tiresome worldbuilding and origin storytelling to do anything more than watch heroes wrestle with their great powers and their great responsibilities while saving humankind from the baddies who emerge from the skies, or the laboratories, or the fanatical paramilitary terrorist cells bent on world domination.

Source

And you really can't compare two movies without pointing out the positive or negative between the two, otherwise its' not even a comparison you're just mentioning the film.

 

[Mad Ones]

All this stuff about Grace hating Marvel and having a bias toward DC is hilarious. She's been torn apart until very recently for being a DC hater. She gave mixed reviews to TDKR and MoS, and had negative things to say about Suicide Squad's early production. Her reviews and opinions are all over the place, but painting her as biased in studio war garbage isn't true.

 

[Wylie Times]

All this stuff about Grace hating Marvel and having a bias toward DC is hilarious. She's been torn apart until very recently for being a DC hater. She gave mixed reviews to TDKR and MoS, and had negative things to say about Suicide Squad's early production. Her reviews and opinions are all over the place, but painting her as biased in studio war garbage isn't true.

Yeah I don't think she has a biased against or for any particular studio. I don't think she has a serious problem of not being well informed and not respecting the opinions of others.

It's same thing we've been seeing around here. Instead of just accepting that some people really don't like the film she's been going on and on about some smear campaign against the movie and implying that critics have been paid off.

I will say that it's ironic that she's accusing others of being biased but before she gave her review of Batman V Superman she made it a point to gush over the gift WB gave her at her screening of the film.

 

[Mad Ones]

Yeah I don't think she has a biased against or for any particular studio. I don't think she has a serious problem of not being well informed and not respecting the opinions of others.

It's same thing we've been seeing around here. Instead of just accepting that some people really don't like the film she's been going on and on about some smear campaign against the movie and implying that critics have been paid off.

I will say that it's ironic that she's accusing others of being biased but before she gave her review of Batman V Superman she made it a point to gush over the gift WB gave her at her screening of the film.

LOL yeah she had quote the cozy BvS viewing experience that's for sure. I'm not sure I've seen where she's implied that critics have been paid off. But yeah, sometimes logic completely escapes her.

I will say that I'm somewhat sympathetic with her view, in that I wish critics/reviewers would review Civil War without comparing it to BvS. Civil War is its own movie, and reviewing it in the context of BvS cheapens its good reviews. I feel like movie reviews are becoming less and less about the movie itself and more about how the movie is packaged (the movie's position in relation to other movies, the ad campaign, director comments, etc). Just let movies stand alone.

 

[Consona]

Actually, no. Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy when one appeals to an *irrelevant* authority in their argument, or when one attempts to place authority in direct opposition to evidence. Appealing to a *relevant* authority is entirely appropriate. So, no, there's nothing fallacious about saying "RT approves of this movie, ergo its good", especially since RT isn't even a single authority, but the collected opinion of several *hundred* experts.

Again:

You cannot use scientists even in their own field of expertise as your argument since there's disagreement even between those experts. Just look at any scientific articles and you'll find objections to the presented results immediately. There is no human authority that is "objectively right" about anything. That's why it's called logical fallacy, because noone knows the truth so you cannot base your arguments on anybody else's conjectures.

Which is based on all those sceptic's modes like infinite regress, circularity, relativity, etc.

As for the "RT experts"... Remember The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky and Nijinsky? Critics of its time called it "a laborious and puerile barbarity" and similar things or Pelléas et Mélisande by Debussy? A critics said it's "sickly and practically lifeless" (sounds familiar?

), it sounds "like the noise of a squeaky door or a piece of furniture being moved about, or a child crying in the distance.", yet today those things are acknowledged as a masterpieces. I'm not saying this will or will not happen with BvS, but it shows what opinion of experts is worth of. It's just their opinion no matter how many of them share the same opinion. Now, common opinion amongst the experts is those works of art are masterpieces. So what? In one period some people liked the things, some did not, nowadays it is the same. But there's definitely historical parallel of something being hated when it arrived to be praised years later.

I'm just saying perception of works of art changes over time. IMO, the important thing is BvS is controversial. Some people find it to be trash, but some see really interesting connections, symbolism, meanings, etc. throughout the film which make the whole thing work for them in a meaningful way, which separates BvS from films like Transformers, where I think you will not find anybody claiming it's substantially "more than meets the eye".

IMO...

 

[Consona]

Except that the person that Randolph was going at wasn't "Attacking" BvS she was comparing the two films, it just that the comparison wasn't favorable to BvS.

And if Randolph and anyone else had bothered to actually read Yamato's entire review they'd have seen she was just as if not more critical of Marvel's previous films when comparing them to Civil War:



Source

And you really can't compare two movies without pointing out the positive or negative between the two, otherwise its' not even a comparison you're just mentioning the film.

You can describe things without having to put some value to them. The fact that like really nobody does in public sector discussions is a different thing. I'm ok with comparing things, it's a very important thing to do, IMO. I think the important thing in her speech was word "attacking", like she's ok with making comparisons, but not ok with "see how utter trash BvS is compated to CW?" kind of things...

All this stuff about Grace hating Marvel and having a bias toward DC is hilarious. She's been torn apart until very recently for being a DC hater. She gave mixed reviews to TDKR and MoS, and had negative things to say about Suicide Squad's early production. Her reviews and opinions are all over the place, but painting her as biased in studio war garbage isn't true.

I don't agree with her sometimes, sometimes I think her opinions are weird and sometimes I watch her videos just because she sees things totally differently than me, so that's interesting, because while her POV is different, she can make clear point why she thinks so, which is valuable.
I don't mind her opinions "being all over the place", to me it's more of she just changes her opinions, which is something I appreciate a lot.

 

[Mad Ones]

I don't agree with her sometimes, sometimes I think her opinions are weird and sometimes I watch her videos just because she sees things totally differently than me, so that's interesting, because while her POV is different, she can make clear point why she thinks so, which is valuable.
I don't mind her opinions "being all over the place", to me it's more of she just changes her opinions, which is something I appreciate a lot.

I like hearing her opinions too since they seem so genuine and unabashed. Her wtf reviews are more entertaining anyway.

 

[JOE]

She comes off as a pot stirrer. I remember watching her Civil War trailer 2 reaction and already she was talking about how Marvel was selling tickets too early and that was "aggressive" towards DC. She's trying to cause friction that isn't there.

Look at all the Twitter drama that's gone on with her. My personal opinion is that she will do or say whatever it takes to get attention. She just wants to be the black sheep.

 

[Sarcastic Fan]

Grace Randolph compared DC fans who don't like BvS with "abusers". Any credibility she's had is gone.

She also threw a giant fit to demand Fox release a PG-13 Deadpool. That was just funny, but the "abusers" comment was almost tragic.

She's coming off as a crackpot.

 

[super85]

I think she gives some good balance to the debate regarding this film. I have been enjoying her posts .

 

[JOE]

She's biased, and extremely salty towards Marvel. Not surprised considering she was fired. It just throws all her credibility out the window knowing she's not impartial.

 

[Flint Marko]

Was she really fired?

*I* can easily explain that. However, you might not like my explanation. It starts with "grossly biased audience".