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

[CaptainWagner]

So now Batman fight in BvS are horrible too... Before RT people were raving about it. I think, most still do, but not on this board.

Yep. I've noticed that as well. As the narrative of it being a failure grows, even the things that were widely praised are now being jumped on within the internet because no aspect of the movie is allowed to be good.

And really? Now we're saying that fight scenes have to have plot development and character work mixed in to be considered good? I'm sorry, people don't remember great fight because of what they added to the plot. If the Prequel fights had been in better movies, their wouldn't even be an argument about which was better.

 

[titansupes]

I just felt like there was a huge disconnect about Bruce not wanting anyone to help him in TDK to saying everyone could be Batman in TDKR. Not to mention "Robin" easily figuring out his identify.

IMO, TDKR was as messy (it's not a TDKR thread so I won't list out the messy plot points) if not more so than BVS but some how got a pass from critics.

He's never been saying "Anybody could be Batman". He's saying that "Batman could be anybody". Remember, he's asked specifically by Blake "Why the mask?" He wants people to know that a citizen of Gotham stood up for what was right ("What chance does Gotham have when good people do nothing?"), not "Bruce Wayne stood up". His anonymity-- on top of being a practicality-- is part of what makes BATMAN the symbol he becomes.

It's about Gothamites looking up to him and projecting themselves onto him (again, without literally putting on hockey pads and shooting people). Gordon re-emphasizes this with Blake at the end-- "Nobody will ever know who saved and entire city..."
"They know-- He was the Batman".

Re plot: It's messier than TDK, I grant you. But it's "plot holes" have been seriously, seriously overstated by the internet, and it certainly comes together a metric ton better than BvS ever did (as well as people being in character, likable, a clear arc, all 'round better made etc).

 

[DA_Champion]

Now we're saying that fight scenes have to have plot development and character work mixed in to be considered good?

People have been very saying for a very long time ...

 

[titansupes]

Yep. I've noticed that as well. As the narrative of it being a failure grows, even the things that were widely praised are now being jumped on within the internet because no aspect of the movie is allowed to be good.

And really? Now we're saying that fight scenes have to have plot development and character work mixed in to be considered good? I'm sorry, people don't remember great fight because of what they added to the plot. If the Prequel fights had been in better movies, their wouldn't even be an argument about which was better.

Criticism in places like this always goes over the top when the movie fails overall. It'll level back out eventually (at least, it usually does), and I don't expect this particular criticism to gain much traction considering people were clamouring for him to fight like that for years.

 

[Poni_Boy]

He's never been saying everyone could be Batman. He's saying that "Batman could be anybody". Remember, he's asked specifically by Blake "Why the mask?" He wants people to know that a citizen of Gotham stood up for what was right ("What chance does Gotham have when good people do nothing?"), not "Bruce Wayne stood up". His anonymity-- on top of being a practicality-- is part of what makes BATMAN the symbol he becomes.

It's about Gothamites looking up to him and projecting themselves onto him (again, without literally putting on hockey pads and shooting people). Gordon re-emphasizes this with Blake at the end-- "Nobody will ever know who saved and entire city..."
"They know-- He was the Batman". .

See, now THAT'S deep. I didn't even like TDKR as a whole but it's character arcs and storyline were well conceptualized and executed.

 

[TheScarecrow]

Criticism in places like this always goes over the top when the movie fails overall. It'll level back out eventually (at least, it usually does), and I don't expect this particular criticism to gain much traction considering people were clamouring for him to fight like that for years.

And it's...SHOCK. A HOPEFUL MESSAGE.

Not fear and sadness.

 

[lukebrodyg]

He's never been saying "Anybody could be Batman". He's saying that "Batman could be anybody". Remember, he's asked specifically by Blake "Why the mask?" He wants people to know that a citizen of Gotham stood up for what was right ("What chance does Gotham have when good people do nothing?"), not "Bruce Wayne stood up". His anonymity-- on top of being a practicality-- is part of what makes BATMAN the symbol he becomes.

It's about Gothamites looking up to him and projecting themselves onto him (again, without literally putting on hockey pads and shooting people). Gordon re-emphasizes this with Blake at the end-- "Nobody will ever know who saved and entire city..."
"They know-- He was the Batman".

Re plot: It's messier than TDK, I grant you. But it's "plot holes" have been seriously, seriously overstated by the internet, and it certainly comes together a metric ton better than BvS ever did (as well as people being in character, likable, a clear arc, all 'round better made etc).

That's a strong explanation/argument for why it worked for you and many others but it doesn't fix the issues for me personally. The disconnect between TDK and TDKR just looms to large for me to see passed it and the good in the movie. The plot holes are substantial. One doesn't heal from a broken back with a smack on the injury site much less make it across the globe and ready to fight as if wee his prime days.

I appreciate the fact that BVS attempted to be more a comic book film and less a reflection of a classic novel with comic book undertones.

 

[CaptainWagner]

People have been very saying for a very long time ...

I'm sorry, but I've never heard that mentioned. So long as a fight fits into a narrative, it only needs to be well executed to be good. Look at the Daredevil Hallway fight. How was that nuanced character development? It moved the plot forward and it looked and felt good. That's what people remember fights for.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Back to Rotten Tomatoes for a sec:

Tomatometer still at 28% (Rotten)

Audience score has now dropped to 72%. Which means the majority of scoring coming in has to be negative to reflect that downturn.

So, question: Should RT separate the "Anticipation" rating from their "Audience" rating in the future?

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm sorry, but I've never heard that mentioned. So long as a fight fits into a narrative, it only needs to be well executed to be good. Look at the Daredevil Hallway fight. How was that nuanced character development? It moved the plot forward and it looked and felt good. That's what people remember fights for.

Personally I didn't feel the Batfleck's warehouse fight moved the narrative forward at all. It paused it.

 

[DA_Champion]

Back to Rotten Tomatoes for a sec:

Tomatometer still at 28% (Rotten)

Audience score has now dropped to 72%. Which means the majority of scoring coming in has to be negative to reflect that downturn.

So, question: Should RT separate the "Anticipation" rating from their "Audience" rating in the future?

Absolutely.

Same with IMDB. Batman v Superman was briefly the highest-rated movie of all time, with a score of 9.8/10.

 

[smsvmos]

There should be a rule for official movie critics before going in to see this kind of movies. Here is my understanding of this predicament that we are living. If I am the owner of a news site and I send a critic of my own employment to review a movie, I expect that critic to know the history and back story of each character and their universe. A perfect example would be this, Gone Girl based on a best selling book. Which review would you take under consideration? A Review from a movie critic who read the book or a review from a person that never even touched the book? I for one would take the review from the critic that read the book cause he can give me a better perspective of the movie adaptation and also judge the movie in all the content that was in it. Was the story true to the source? Did the actors portraying the characters did them justice? Did the director project the emotion and essence of the story in a respectful way to the original source? And so many other questions that can be ask but only a critic that knows the material can answer and judge a movie based on that book.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm sorry, but I've never heard that mentioned.

You probably didn't notice it. Now that you're aware you'll be seeing it more and more. It's something people and critics talk about all the time and they have done so for a long time.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

Back to Rotten Tomatoes for a sec:

Tomatometer still at 28% (Rotten)

Audience score has now dropped to 72%. Which means the majority of scoring coming in has to be negative to reflect that downturn.

So, question: Should RT separate the "Anticipation" rating from their "Audience" rating in the future?

They should absolutely be separated. All it does is bloat the rating and make it inaccurate.

 

[DA_Champion]

There should be a rule for official movie critics before going in to see this kind of movies. Here is my understanding of this predicament that we are living. If I am the owner of a news site and I send a critic of my own employment to review a movie, I expect that critic to know the history and back story of each character and their universe. A perfect example would be this, Gone Girl based on a best selling book. Which review would you take under consideration? A Review from a movie critic who read the book or a review from a person that never even touched the book? I for one would take the review from the critic that read the book cause he can give me a better perspective of the movie adaptation and also judge the movie in all the content that was in it. Was the story true to the source? Did the actors portraying the characters did them justice? Did the director project the emotion and essence of the story in a respectful way to the original source? And so many other questions that can be ask but only a critic that knows the material can answer and judge a movie based on that book.

No, you shouldn't have to read Gone Girl the book prior to seeing the movie. The movie should work without the book, it should work independently.

 

[lukebrodyg]

Back to Rotten Tomatoes for a sec:

Tomatometer still at 28% (Rotten)

Audience score has now dropped to 72%. Which means the majority of scoring coming in has to be negative to reflect that downturn.

So, question: Should RT separate the "Anticipation" rating from their "Audience" rating in the future?

How about we just do away with the profession?

 

[DoomRulz]

There should be a rule for official movie critics before going in to see this kind of movies. Here is my understanding of this predicament that we are living. If I am the owner of a news site and I send a critic of my own employment to review a movie, I expect that critic to know the history and back story of each character and their universe. A perfect example would be this, Gone Girl based on a best selling book. Which review would you take under consideration? A Review from a movie critic who read the book or a review from a person that never even touched the book? I for one would take the review from the critic that read the book cause he can give me a better perspective of the movie adaptation and also judge the movie in all the content that was in it. Was the story true to the source? Did the actors portraying the characters did them justice? Did the director project the emotion and essence of the story in a respectful way to the original source? And so many other questions that can be ask but only a critic that knows the material can answer and judge a movie based on that book.

That's absurd. Films are rated based on their merit as a film, not on how faithful they are to source material. It's like telling people who don't like CBMs to read the comics first to understand the material better. They shouldn't have to in order to like or appreciate the film.

 

[TheScarecrow]

There should be a rule for official movie critics before going in to see this kind of movies. Here is my understanding of this predicament that we are living. If I am the owner of a news site and I send a critic of my own employment to review a movie, I expect that critic to know the history and back story of each character and their universe. A perfect example would be this, Gone Girl based on a best selling book. Which review would you take under consideration? A Review from a movie critic who read the book or a review from a person that never even touched the book? I for one would take the review from the critic that read the book cause he can give me a better perspective of the movie adaptation and also judge the movie in all the content that was in it. Was the story true to the source? Did the actors portraying the characters did them justice? Did the director project the emotion and essence of the story in a respectful way to the original source? And so many other questions that can be ask but only a critic that knows the material can answer and judge a movie based on that book.

No.

An adaption is a work based off of another work. It should be self-contained and self-explanatory.

For instance, it's unreasonable for a film adaption of a book to leave out vital information and then say "well you should have read the book". Likewise, it's unreasonable to suggest people should know things about comic books before going in. The movie needs to be accessible to everyone, because the GA doesn't have that background.

The only "mandatory knowledge" should be sequels, prequels etc. because the film is able to draw on these without recounting them entirely. Even then, a good film will rehash relevant plot points.

Otherwise, a good film is self-explanatory and self-contained.

 

[smsvmos]

You can argue that sometime movies should be judge on pure face value. Was it fun? Was it explained well? What did I get out of it? Did the movie engaged me enough to see it again an continue the series of movies that are coming next?. Well let me try to relate my point in this matter. Again I default to my original point. Before I go to see this movie, do I need to know anything else about it so I can enhance my viewing experience?. Is there another movie before this one that I need to see?. Did I understand the first movie and did it reach my expectation?. You can't judge a second installment of a series well enough if you didn't even like the first installment because you will go in with a predetermined judgment about it. And don't even judge a sequel if you didn't see the first cause that would be just stupid. Let me simplify what I am trying to say. Let's say your a collage student and you need to take a pre calculus class but you don't like math and you were never any good at it. Are you going to enjoy that class? bad place no (LoL) but you need to pass it to get your degree so you barely pass that class just to get it out of your way. Same thing it's happening with this critics now a days. They show up to see a movie of a genre that they don't like and they have to give it a score. What kind of score would you give a movie if you don't even like the genre?.

 

[DA_Champion]

No.

An adaption is a work based off of another work. It should be self-contained and self-explanatory.

For instance, it's unreasonable for a film adaption of a book to leave out vital information and then say "well you should have read the book". Likewise, it's unreasonable to suggest people should know things about comic books before going in. The movie needs to be accessible to everyone, because the GA doesn't have that background.

The only "mandatory knowledge" should be sequels, prequels etc. because the film is able to draw on these without recounting them entirely. Even then, a good film will rehash relevant plot points.

Otherwise, a good film is self-explanatory and self-contained.

One exception to this is when the source material is common knowledge. For example if you're making a WW2 film, you don't need to introduce Hitler.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Personally I didn't feel the Batfleck's warehouse fight moved the narrative forward at all. It paused it.

I don't see how that is. Martha had to get rescued. To save her, Batman had to fight the thugs. Besides, pausing implies something has become boring or slowed down, neither of which apply to the fight.

You probably didn't notice it. Now that you're aware you'll be seeing it more and more. It's something people and critics talk about all the time and they have done so for a long time.

I'll pay attention. But you didn't respond to my main point.

 

[TheScarecrow]

You can argue that sometime movies should be judge on pure face value. Was it fun? Was it explained well? What did I get out of it? Did the movie engaged me enough to see it again an continue the series of movies that are coming next?. Well let me try to relate my point in this matter. Again I default to my original point. Before I go to see this movie, do I need to know anything else about it so I can enhance my viewing experience?. Is there another movie before this one that I need to see?. Did I understand the first movie and did it reach my expectation?. You can't judge a second installment of a series well enough if you didn't even like the first installment because you will go in with a predetermined judgment about it. And don't even judge a sequel if you didn't see the first cause that would be just stupid. Let me simplify what I am trying to say. Let's say your a collage student and you need to take a pre calculus class but you don't like math and you were never any good at it. Are you going to enjoy that class? bad place no (LoL) but you need to pass it to get your degree so you barely pass that class just to get it out of your way. Same thing it's happening with this critics now a days. They show up to see a movie of a genre that they don't like and they have to give it a score. What kind of score would you give a movie if you don't even like the genre?.

But they do like the genre. That's why The Dark Knight, Superman: The Movie, Spider-man 2, Captain America: TWS, Guardians of the Galaxy, Days of Future Past, The Avengers and possibly more have RT scores in the 90s.

This was just a crap film.

 

[Poni_Boy]

There should be a rule for official movie critics before going in to see this kind of movies. Here is my understanding of this predicament that we are living. If I am the owner of a news site and I send a critic of my own employment to review a movie, I expect that critic to know the history and back story of each character and their universe. A perfect example would be this, Gone Girl based on a best selling book. Which review would you take under consideration? A Review from a movie critic who read the book or a review from a person that never even touched the book? I for one would take the review from the critic that read the book cause he can give me a better perspective of the movie adaptation and also judge the movie in all the content that was in it. Was the story true to the source? Did the actors portraying the characters did them justice? Did the director project the emotion and essence of the story in a respectful way to the original source? And so many other questions that can be ask but only a critic that knows the material can answer and judge a movie based on that book.

This in a nutshell means: Movies based on presisting stories are not for everyone only those who know the stories beforehand

The logic there is so, very, flawed

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

You can argue that sometime movies should be judge on pure face value. Was it fun? Was it explained well? What did I get out of it? Did the movie engaged me enough to see it again an continue the series of movies that are coming next?. Well let me try to relate my point in this matter. Again I default to my original point. Before I go to see this movie, do I need to know anything else about it so I can enhance my viewing experience?. Is there another movie before this one that I need to see?. Did I understand the first movie and did it reach my expectation?. You can't judge a second installment of a series well enough if you didn't even like the first installment because you will go in with a predetermined judgment about it. And don't even judge a sequel if you didn't see the first cause that would be just stupid. Let me simplify what I am trying to say. Let's say your a collage student and you need to take a pre calculus class but you don't like math and you were never any good at it. Are you going to enjoy that class? bad place no (LoL) but you need to pass it to get your degree so you barely pass that class just to get it out of your way. Same thing it's happening with this critics now a days. They show up to see a movie of a genre that they don't like and they have to give it a score. What kind of score would you give a movie if you don't even like the genre?.

Yeah, ********. Have you seen all the acclaim comic book movies and shows have been getting? Don't make excuses. They just thought the film was bad.

 

[DA_Champion]

But you didn't respond to my main point.

Poni Boy responded to it adequately.