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

[Kobra]

It depends on the movie....

Certain movies are "critic proof".

In fact the running narrative for Batman V Superman after the critics panned it was "Nobody cares what critics think". The opening weekend numbers proved that people were ignoring the critics. The reason the movie has under performed is because most people that saw the movie didn't go back for repeat viewings. GA Word of mouth had a MUCH bigger impact than critics.

The opening number only shows that the characters are very popular and their huge fan base would always run to watch it as soon as possible. A lot of people had already bought their tickets too. The movie had good marketing behind, so a lot of folks got excited for it.

Now, can we say for sure that the fact that critics gave it such a low score didn't stop a lot of people from watching the movie? Because i know a couple of girls who didn't watch it in the theaters because they read so much crap about it online. So i imagine that there might be other people like that. To me that's simply logical behaviour. You don't care that much about Batman or Superman, you read that it is horrible, you choose not to spend money on it. What's so unrealistic about this scenario? We're talking about a movie that has 28% on RT. How many people look at that number and say "wow, we gotta pay to watch that?". Especially in a time with so many big action movies. You have so much to watch, so often, that you gotta be a little more selective.

 

[Wylie Times]

The opening number only shows that the characters are very populer and their huge fan base would always run to watch it as soon as possible. A lot of people had already bought their tickets too. The movie had good marketing behind, so a lot of folks got excited for it.

Now, can we say for sure that the fact that critics gave it such a low score didn't stop a lot of people from watching the movie? Because i know a couple of girls who didn't watch in the theaters because they read so much crap about it online. So i imagine that there might be other people like that. To me that's simply logical behaviour. You don't care that much about Batman or Superman, you read that it is horrible, you choose not to spend money on it. What's so unrealistic about this scenario? We're talking about a movie that has 28% on RT. How many people look at that number and say "wow, we gotta pay to watch that?". Especially in a time with so many big action movies. You have so much to watch, so often, that you gotta be a little more selective.

Just like you know people who avoided the film because of of bad critic reviews myself and others know people who said "Screw the critics, I'll go see it for myself". There were a bunch of people in a previous iteration of this thread saying the exact same thing.

The impact of critical reviews on this film is negligible. The reason it under performed in the way it has is because people who see it didn't like it and didn't go back for repeat viewings.

You're also grossly overestimating the number of people that even check Rotten Tomatoes. It's not enough to dramatically impact a films box office in a positive or negative way.

Again, if people LIKED the movie they would have gone back for repeat viewings and it wouldn't have under performed. Critics had nothing to do with that. A significant number of people weren't scared off by critics so much as they were scared off by poor word of mouth.

 

[Kobra]

Just like you know people who avoided the film because of of bad critic reviews myself and others know people who said "Screw the critics, I'll go see it for myself". There were a bunch of people in a previous iteration of this thread saying the exact same thing.

The impact of critical reviews on this film is negligible. The reason it under performed in the way it has is because people who see it didn't like it and didn't go back for repeat viewings.

You're also grossly overestimating the number of people that even check Rotten Tomatoes. It's not enough to dramatically impact a films box office in a positive or negative way.

Again, if people LIKED the movie they would have gone back for repeat viewings and it wouldn't have under performed. Critics had nothing to do with that. A significant number of people weren't scared off by critics so much as they were scared off by poor word of mouth.

With all due respect, i don't think you have any way to back up what you're saying. I don't think you really have any kind of evidence that the critics had no impact and all the problem relies on the lack of multiple viewings. How do you know that? I sure don't. I simply believe critics had an impact, because it's just logical to me. But i certainly don't know for a fact what caused the movie to not hit 1B. Whose to say the problem wasn't the lack of repeated viewings and the main reason it didn't make more money was simply because a lot of people were discouraged by the horrible reviews? Well, you don't know for sure and i don't know for sure. The difference is that i'm not making wild claims. Which had more impact on the numbers? I don't know. But i strongly believe there are facts other than "people didn't like it". That argument alone i don't buy.

 

[Wylie Times]

With all due respect, i don't think you have any way to back up what you're saying. I don't think you really have any kind of evidence that the critics had no impact and all the problem relies on the lack of multiple viewings. How do you know that? I sure don't. I simply believe critics had an impact, because it's just logical to me. But i certainly don't know for a fact what caused the movie to not hit 1B. Whose to say the problem wasn't the lack of repeated viewings and the main reason it didn't make more money was simply because a lot of people were discouraged by the horrible reviews? Well, you don't know for sure and i don't know for sure. The difference is that i'm not making wild claims. Which had more impact on the numbers? I don't know. But i strongly believe there are facts other than "people didn't like it". That argument alone i don't buy.

Nowhere did I say that "critics had no impact", I said the impact of critics was negligible. Yes there are people who didn't go see the movie because of critical reviews, but there were also people who made it a point to publicly state that they didn't care about critical reviews and would see the movie anyway.

The lack of repeated viewings WAS the problem, that's why it keep seeing such huge drops at the box office from week to week. Again just look at the opening weekend numbers, if a decent enough number of the audience had gone back to see the film multiple times you wouldn't have seen that drop.

And you keep ignoring how word of mouth played a big role in the film not doing as well as it was expected to do. People who saw the movie and didn't like it told their friends is was a bad or mediocre movie.

And for the record NO film makes even $900 million at the box office without a LOT of repeat viewings.

 

[Kobra]

Nowhere did I say that "critics had no impact", I said the impact of critics was negligible. Yes there are people who didn't go see the movie because of critical reviews, but there were also people who made it a point to publicly state that they didn't care about critical reviews and would see the movie anyway.

Ok. And? I don't see how that disproves my point.

The lack of repeated viewings WAS the problem, that's why it keep seeing such huge drops at the box office from week to week. Again just look at the opening weekend numbers, if a decent enough number of the audience had gone back to see the film multiple times you wouldn't have seen that drop.

Ok. Just curious: How do you do that math? How do you know that the drop wasn't also due to a lot of people simply not going to see the movie for the first time given the reviews it was receiving. How do you know that all the movie needed was a "decent number" of repeated views? How do you know the movie didn't suffer from the lack of new people being interested in it during the second week, given all the negative reviews? I don't understand how you come up with certain conclusions.

And you keep ignoring how word of mouth played a big role in the film not doing as well as it was expected to do. People who saw the movie and didn't like it told their friends is was a bad or mediocre movie.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out the fact that some of YOU have been ignoring other very plausible factors in order to defend the WOM theory.

And for the record NO film makes even $900 million at the box office without a LOT of repeat viewings.

And even with a lot of repeated views, probably no movie makes 900 million without a pretty decent amount of "fresh views" every week.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Just like you know people who avoided the film because of of bad critic reviews myself and others know people who said "Screw the critics, I'll go see it for myself". There were a bunch of people in a previous iteration of this thread saying the exact same thing.

The impact of critical reviews on this film is negligible. The reason it under performed in the way it has is because people who see it didn't like it and didn't go back for repeat viewings.

You're also grossly overestimating the number of people that even check Rotten Tomatoes. It's not enough to dramatically impact a films box office in a positive or negative way.

Again, if people LIKED the movie they would have gone back for repeat viewings and it wouldn't have under performed. Critics had nothing to do with that. A significant number of people weren't scared off by critics so much as they were scared off by poor word of mouth.

Sorry, but it's you who is grossly underestimating the impact of critics reviews. We are living in a post-recession world and people are far more keen on how they spend their money--especially with so many blockbuster movie events coming out. Critical reviews are a major way people gauge if they will splurge or waste their money today--or save it for another film.

The critics warned us that this film was overwhelmingly bad. I know MANY of my non-fanboy friends who read them and skipped it (including myself initially, although eventually I saw it a week later with points as a theater platinum member--but I'm a Hypster and I see all CBMs). Now, it is crystal clear that the GA has caught the drift that the critics knew all along. And that's why the movie is dropping like a rock.

 

[Flint Marko]

I never said there wasn't anything to criticize. But the same complains you can make about MOS, you can also make about many other movies that get much better ratings.

Must you really be reminded that this is only your opinion? I found MoS to be a failure on a basic story-telling level. It deserved the mixed reception because it was a film riddled with problems.

The fact that a movie has issues doesn't disprove my theory that preconceived ideas make it harder for certain people to enjoy the movie with an open mind. I don't know where you're trying to go with all this, but you're really not proving your point.

Yes it does, Kobra. When a movie has several glaring issues that so many critics all independently agree on, it absolutely disproves your baseless theory that preconceptions had a significant impact on its poor reception. Arguing otherwise is you burying your head in the sand. You have no way of proving what you're claiming.

 

[FunkMiller]

With all due respect, i don't think you have any way to back up what you're saying. I don't think you really have any kind of evidence that the critics had no impact and all the problem relies on the lack of multiple viewings. How do you know that? I sure don't. I simply believe critics had an impact, because it's just logical to me. But i certainly don't know for a fact what caused the movie to not hit 1B. Whose to say the problem wasn't the lack of repeated viewings and the main reason it didn't make more money was simply because a lot of people were discouraged by the horrible reviews? Well, you don't know for sure and i don't know for sure. The difference is that i'm not making wild claims. Which had more impact on the numbers? I don't know. But i strongly believe there are facts other than "people didn't like it". That argument alone i don't buy.

Good Lord chief, sooner or later you're just going to have to accept the fact the this movie wasn't all that great. It was average, so it received average attention from the audience. If it had been good, the WOM would have given it legs, but it is wasn't, so it didn't. The reviews largely saw it as mediocre to poor, which is pretty damn accurate. No conspiracy, no anti-DC sentiment.

Look, I know you love BvS, but I'm sure everyone of us could list a movie that we like that the majority of people don't. This one is yours. Accept it, and celebrate the fact. There's nothing wrong with liking a movie that other people didn't, and one that was critically panned for the right reasons. Your ego is intact. I frickin' love Saw, and Punisher War Zone, and Silent Hill, and can also accept that a lot of people don't like any of them, and that they're probably bad films. Doesn't stop me likin' them though!

The GA just didn't like Batman v Superman. Don't sweat it.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

And that should be the final word on this. If only. Sigh

 

[Timebomb]

Here here. I didn't like BVS or any of those movies you listed.

the movies I love that everyone for some reason hates are the Hobbit movies. (Yes, all 3 of them)

Okay, I kinda like the first Saw.

 

[Flint Marko]

Good Lord chief, sooner or later you're just going to have to accept the fact the this movie wasn't all that great. It was average, so it received average attention from the audience. If it had been good, the WOM would have given it legs, but it is wasn't, so it didn't. The reviews largely saw it as mediocre to poor, which is pretty damn accurate. No conspiracy, no anti-DC sentiment.

Look, I know you love BvS, but I'm sure everyone of us could list a movie that we like that the majority of people don't. This one is yours. Accept it, and celebrate the fact. There's nothing wrong with liking a movie that other people didn't, and one that was critically panned for the right reasons. Your ego is intact. I frickin' love Saw, and Punisher War Zone, and Silent Hill, and can also accept that a lot of people don't like any of them, and that they're probably bad films. Doesn't stop me likin' them though!

The GA just didn't like Batman v Superman. Don't sweat it.

The low cinemascore, plummeting audience rating on RT, and the record-setting box office drop demonstrate beyond any doubt that the general audience did not click with BvS.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Just like you know people who avoided the film because of of bad critic reviews myself and others know people who said "Screw the critics, I'll go see it for myself". There were a bunch of people in a previous iteration of this thread saying the exact same thing.

The impact of critical reviews on this film is negligible. The reason it under performed in the way it has is because people who see it didn't like it and didn't go back for repeat viewings.

You're also grossly overestimating the number of people that even check Rotten Tomatoes. It's not enough to dramatically impact a films box office in a positive or negative way.

Again, if people LIKED the movie they would have gone back for repeat viewings and it wouldn't have under performed. Critics had nothing to do with that. A significant number of people weren't scared off by critics so much as they were scared off by poor word of mouth.

Your logic that the large OW proves critics had no effect has a big fallacy, WB's embargo on reviews was on till like 1-2 day of the release, by then a lot of people have already bought the tickets, and even the reviews released were not many. Even if we don't take the embargo into consideration, OW is more indicative of the popularity of the characters and the marketing rather than the reviews

Plus the other argument, 'It didn't fail because of bad reviews! It failed due to bad WOM and people didn't like it!' has a fallacy too, because News Flash! Critics are people! What 300 regarded critics have to say about a movie, more often than not is in line with what audience have to say (WOM), how many movies do you know that have been critically panned and still loved by audience? Critical reception, more often than not, is proportional to WOM and vise versa

Thirdly, legs aren't just 'repeat viewers', bad legs are more often due to 'on the fence people' who decide to not watch it poor reviews/WOM, and good legs are a lot of times due to initially uninterested people getting excited

You are giving 'repeat viewings' more importance than it has, I, like most people here am a big CBM fan, and in all my life I have seen only one movie twice in theaters (DOFP), while I can name a dozen movies (Jungle Book, TFA, GoTG, Furious 7 to name a few) that I had no interest of viewing prior to release but went to seen because of good reviews/WOM

The problem with BvS was that, the Fanboys would see it anyways, they would rush to see it as soon as possible (hence the huge OW) but once they had seen it, the movie has nothing to offer for the average joe to see (hence the huge drops)

 

[Raiden]

The low cinemascore, plummeting audience rating on RT, and the record-setting box office drop demonstrate beyond any doubt that the general audience did not click with BvS.

And WB has also been saying that JL and Aquaman will have a lighter tone than BVS, while SS is trying to market itself as more of a fun movie. It's very obvious what they're trying to do after BVS's disappointing BO.

 

[Greens]

And WB has also been saying that JL and Aquaman will have a lighter tone than BVS, while SS is trying to market itself as more of a fun movie. It's very obvious what they're trying to do after BVS's disappointing BO.

SS was already doing that months before BvS came out. It was always going to be a lighter movie.

 

[The Joker]

Sorry, but it's you who is grossly underestimating the impact of critics reviews. We are living in a post-recession world and people are far more keen on how they spend their money--especially with so many blockbuster movie events coming out. Critical reviews are a major way people gauge if they will splurge or waste their money today--or save it for another film.

Yeah that's why the likes of the critically hammered Transformers movies consistently make money in the billion dollar range three times in a row. Because people are careful about wasting their money.

But two bigger icons like Batman and Superman together in a movie cannot attract more audiences than a bunch of talking robot cars. And Minions. Bloody MINIONS can make over a billion, make more money than Batman and Superman together in this day and age, even with a rotten RT score.

But you're trying to say people are picky about what they pay to see in a post-recession world when the likes of goofy little yellow men and talking robot cars in movies with rotten critical scores are able to get people to fork out their money more than two cinematic legends like Batman and Superman. No offense but you'd have a better chance selling ice to an Eskimo than making that argument sound credible.

 

[Kobra]

Good Lord chief, sooner or later you're just going to have to accept the fact the this movie wasn't all that great. It was average, so it received average attention from the audience. If it had been good, the WOM would have given it legs, but it is wasn't, so it didn't. The reviews largely saw it as mediocre to poor, which is pretty damn accurate. No conspiracy, no anti-DC sentiment.

Look, I know you love BvS, but I'm sure everyone of us could list a movie that we like that the majority of people don't. This one is yours. Accept it, and celebrate the fact. There's nothing wrong with liking a movie that other people didn't, and one that was critically panned for the right reasons. Your ego is intact. I frickin' love Saw, and Punisher War Zone, and Silent Hill, and can also accept that a lot of people don't like any of them, and that they're probably bad films. Doesn't stop me likin' them though!

The GA just didn't like Batman v Superman. Don't sweat it.

I don't think you really understood anything i said.

 

[Kobra]

Must you really be reminded that this is only your opinion? I found MoS to be a failure on a basic story-telling level. It deserved the mixed reception because it was a film riddled with problems.

Yeah, and i guess you're stating facts. Not.

Yes it does, Kobra. When a movie has several glaring issues that so many critics all independently agree on, it absolutely disproves your baseless theory that preconceptions had a significant impact on its poor reception. Arguing otherwise is you burying your head in the sand. You have no way of proving what you're claiming.

No, it doesn't. You have no way to prove that this movie was judged fair and square and preconceptions played absolutely no role in the way the movie was judged.

 

[FunkMiller]

I don't think you really understood anything i said.

Pretty sure I did, thanks.

 

[Flint Marko]

Yeah, and i guess you're stating facts. Not.

Didn't say or even remotely imply that I was. I see this conversation has devolved into pointless snarky remarks.

No, it doesn't. You have no way to prove that this movie was judged fair and square and preconceptions played absolutely no role in the way the movie was judged.

Unlike you I've been providing an argument as to why my position holds water. Ive continually pointed to the consistent criticisms which show that countless people have independently arrived to the same conclusions after watching both movies, meaning that the actual contents and flaws of both MoS and BvS are what brings it such negativity. Until you can finally provide a decent rebuttal that will prove your claims, consider this conversation over.

 

[Kobra]

Pretty sure I did, thanks.

Judging by your post, i can 100% guarantee you didn't.

 

[Mjölnir]

Judging by your post, i can 100% guarantee you didn't.

What's the point of continuing this if you're going to post twice about that you don't think he understood what you said, and still not try to clarify your meaning? This is just pointless bickering.

 

[Kobra]

Unlike you I've been providing an argument as to why my position holds water. Ive continually pointed to the consistent criticisms which show that countless people have independently arrived to the same conclusions after watching both movies, meaning that the actual contents and flaws of both MoS and BvS are what brings it such negativity. Until you can finally provide a decent rebuttal that will prove your claims, consider this conversation over.

1- How do you know they have "independently" arrived to the same conclusions? Were they locked alone inside a room after watching the movie so they could write their review without being influenced by anybody else?

2- How do you know that a movie with similar flaws but different characters wouldn't have received better reviews? A flawed movie isn't necessarily a bad movie and the weight you choose to put on certain flaws can certainly be influenced by several factors. You love to talk about proof, but you certainly can't prove i'm wrong. Your whole argument is flawed.

3- I've seen enough people showing all kinds of preconceptions regarding the movie and the characters. So yeah, the conversation might as well be over because there's absolutely no way you can convince me this movie was judged fair and square.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

So there! Nyah!

 

[The Joker]

1- How do you know they have "independently" arrived to the same conclusions? Were they locked alone inside a room after watching the movie so they could write their review without being influenced by anybody else?

How do you know they didn't independently come up with their own opinions like any normal person does? You're the one who conjured up this argument that they could have been swayed by the critics. The onus is on you to back up what you're saying here, instead of telling everyone who disagrees with your unfounded theory that they have no proof, when it's what you're saying has no proof, nor even a logical basis. You've been given many examples of movies that were hated by critics and loved by audiences. Where is your statistics to back you up?

I've seen enough people showing all kinds of preconceptions regarding the movie and the characters.

So what? I've seen people send death threats to critics because they didn't like a movie they did; http://www.comicschronicle.com/dc-fans-send-death-threats-to-2-critics/

That doesn't make them a representative of the majority any more than your little sightings of people whom you claim had preconceptions.

So yeah, the conversation might as well be over because there's absolutely no way you can convince me this movie was judged fair and square.

Nobody's trying to convince you of anything. You're the one that brought this argument in here. People are just pointing out the crater sized holes in the logic of it since you're trying the one trying to make a case for it here.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Critics score for this movie dropped even lower, I did not think this could happen.