CinemaScores for superhero/comic book movies

[KRYPTON INC.]

A History of Violence with a C+ was very surprising to me. I have that as one of only 6 comic book and/or superhero movies I've ever given more than a 9/10 to. That's creme-de-la-creme territory for me.

It's a great film but lets not pretend it's a crowd pleasing romp. It's a dark and violent film that is much more about atmospherics than action. It getting a low score from the general audience isn't surprising to me, even if I think it's an incredible film.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Yeah let's not forget this is a "did the General Audience like it?" score

 

[kedrell]

Well both of the writers inspiration for RoboCop '87' came from Judge Dredd, TDKReturns, American Flagg, and Rom The Space Knight comics.

Dr. Doom inspired Darth Vader but I'm not gonna include Star Wars either.

Also does Sky Captain & the World Of Tomorrow count?
It got a B-.

I thought about it, but that's more of an homage to old timey serials and such and has only superficial similarities to both comic books and superheroes. Same reason I didn't include the Conan or Red Sonja movies. I felt if I started broadening the definitions of superheroes or comic books(that one is easier to lock down than the former one) then where would it end? I did try to find the scores to The Phantom & The Shadow but came up empty on those two.

 

[kedrell]

It's a great film but lets not pretend it's a crowd pleasing romp. It's a dark and violent film that is much more about atmospherics than action. It getting a low score from the general audience isn't surprising to me, even if I think it's an incredible film.

You make an excellent point there. I did initially state though that the scores being B+ and above mattered more with the higher budgeted and thus higher grossing films as they needed to cast a wider net and please more people than niche' stuff like AHoV was.

 

[Elevator Man]

In the movie when Robo visited that elementary school the Media Break reporters mentioned that he was something out of comic books. The announcer/narrator called RoboCop a "superhero" in this TV spot of the film as well.
[YT]jf2z4vQeZ3s [/YT]

 

[metaphysician]

What's so moderated about RT?

Anybody willing to register an account with IMDB can add their review to the total. Or a few dozen reviews, if they are willing to register multiple accounts. RT requires an actual website, with at least some minimum attempt at appearing credible, and distinguishes between Top Critics and everyone else.

 

[kedrell]

In the movie when Robo visited that elementary school the Media Break reporters mentioned that he was something out of comic books. The announcer/narrator called RoboCop a "superhero" in this TV spot of the film as well.
[YT]jf2z4vQeZ3s [/YT]

It's a fine line to be sure. He certainly has many of the qualities of a superhero. What the hell, I'll add it. It sure is easier when dealing with what constitutes a comic book movie. Pretty cut and dry there, I'd say.

I'm still not conviced on the Matrix though. It takes more than just being a heroic character who happens to have superpowers(even in virtual reality) to make a superhero, in my opinion. There are certain criteria beyond all that which are needed.

I'm also counting any costumed crimefighter as one, regardless of lack powers as they check off much of the duality aspect of superheroes.

 

[Elevator Man]

Also Megamind (A-).

 

[Mandarin]

Anybody willing to register an account with IMDB can add their review to the total. Or a few dozen reviews, if they are willing to register multiple accounts. RT requires an actual website, with at least some minimum attempt at appearing credible, and distinguishes between Top Critics and everyone else.

But anybody can vote. So, what's so moderated about it? What's so different between RT's user rating and IMDB's user rating?

Btw, i gotta laugh at the fact that you think that the opinion of someone with a website is more credible than the opinion of just some random dude. You see, people with "websites" are simply stating their opinion, like everyone else, and many of them are pretty biased too. Many of them are haters. Even critics are biased. If you knew what i know about film critics, you wouldn't value their opinions one bit.

 

[The Joker]

IMDb is a cesspit of trolls and haters. I don't know how anyone can stomach posting there.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

But anybody can vote. So, what's so moderated about it? What's so different between RT's user rating and IMDB's user rating?

Btw, i gotta laugh at the fact that you think that the opinion of someone with a website is more credible than the opinion of just some random dude. You see, people with "websites" are simply stating their opinion, like everyone else, and many of them are pretty biased too. Many of them are haters. Even critics are biased. If you knew what i know about film critics, you wouldn't value their opinions one bit.

What is up with this lil fellas attitude?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

IMDb is a cesspit of trolls and haters. I don't know how anyone can stomach posting there.

Me neither.

 

[Flint Marko]

But anybody can vote. So, what's so moderated about it? What's so different between RT's user rating and IMDB's user rating?

He's clearly referring to RT's critic rating, which is what most people use the website for.

Btw, i gotta laugh at the fact that you think that the opinion of someone with a website is more credible than the opinion of just some random dude. You see, people with "websites" are simply stating their opinion, like everyone else, and many of them are pretty biased too. Many of them are haters. Even critics are biased. If you knew what i know about film critics, you wouldn't value their opinions one bit.

"If you knew what I know about film critics..."

Spoiler

 

[Mandarin]

He's clearly referring to RT's critic rating, which is what most people use the website for.

I know what most people use the website for, which is kind of naive.

 

[Mjölnir]

"If you knew what I know about film critics..."

Spoiler

That's a fake laugh. Mine was real though. t:

 

[kedrell]

Also Megamind (A-).

Now that's cut and dry. I'm surprised I missed it. Thanks.

 

[kedrell]

But anybody can vote. So, what's so moderated about it? What's so different between RT's user rating and IMDB's user rating?

Btw, i gotta laugh at the fact that you think that the opinion of someone with a website is more credible than the opinion of just some random dude. You see, people with "websites" are simply stating their opinion, like everyone else, and many of them are pretty biased too. Many of them are haters. Even critics are biased. If you knew what i know about film critics, you wouldn't value their opinions one bit.

Not much, which is why I find using the audience rating on RT to be next to useless. At least with the RT critic score, you know that probably the majority of reputable(legit) critics are on their roster so you can trust that the RT score is a rather accurate representation of how the critics corps really felt on any given movie. The Audience score however isn't a very scientific sampling of the GA at all so what good is it other than to gauge some fanboy's reactions?

 

[Mandarin]

Not much, which is why I find using the audience rating on RT to be next to useless. At least with the RT critic score, you know that probably the majority of reputable(legit) critics are on their roster so you can trust that the RT score is a rather accurate representation of how the critics corps really felt on any given movie. The Audience score however isn't a very scientific sampling of the GA at all so what good is it other than to gauge some fanboy's reactions?

Well, i can't really tell how big the percentage of fanboys is amongst the voters. They're definitely there, but i don't buy the idea that critics aren't biased in any way. The same way you find fanboys and trolls among the GA, you also find them among critics. I remember back in 2012 one critic openly admitted to give a bad rating to TDKR just to troll. I don't remember who it was, but it happened. In my personal opinion, the critic's ratings aren't necessarily a better indicator of quality than the GA's. Let's also not forget we're essentially talking about 200 people or so. Really small number.

 

[kedrell]

Exactly! You can't tell so you can't(and shouldn't, IMO) trust the audience rating on RT. And I don't care about critics biases whether real or imagined. All RT is good for is getting an accurate representation of what the bulk of critics actually think about a movie. Whether one wishes to agree with them or not is an entirely different matter. But it'd be naive to think that they hold no influence with their opinions whatsoever. They have some pull collectively, like it or not and I must say that better than 50% of the time I end up agreeing with them on the whole. There's still plenty of times that I haven't though.

 

[Mandarin]

Exactly! You can't tell so you can't(and shouldn't, IMO) trust the audience rating on RT. And I don't care about critics biases whether real or imagined. All RT is good for is getting an accurate representation of what the bulk of critics actually think about a movie. Whether one wishes to agree with them or not is an entirely different matter. But it'd be naive to think that they hold no influence with their opinions whatsoever. They have some pull collectively, like it or not and I must say that better than 50% of the time I end up agreeing with them on the whole. There's still plenty of times that I haven't though.

Oh, they have influence in people's opinions, and if you often agree with them, you should keep valuing those opinions. I'd say i agree with them around 60% of the time, which isn't really that great of a number. That number is also similar to the GA's ratings, that's why i say i don't see much difference between one and the other.

One important thing to notice is that the demographic diversity among critics is very limited. To me that makes their judging criteria very predictable.

Last night i watched "It Follows", without having read or seen anything about the movie. But just because it had a good rating among critics(for an horror movie), i knew exactly what to expect. I knew it was gonna be slow, with very little action, very little blood, pretentious "artsy" feel and unsolved mystery. Didn't like it. In this case, the GA's rating seems more reliable to me. I mean "8.2/10" for that movie...give me a break...not even The Exorcist has that kind of rating.

 

[kedrell]

I wouldn't know on that one as I don't watch horror movies.

 

[metaphysician]

The audience score should be ignored, because its meaningless. A self-selected sampling of not-so-random internet users tells you absolutely nothing.

 

[kedrell]

^Precisely. Cinemascore may also be meaningless but it's still more scientific than internet user scores.

 

[Mandarin]

The audience score should be ignored, because its meaningless. A self-selected sampling of not-so-random internet users tells you absolutely nothing.

It's as meaningless as the critics score. Both are opinions, both come from people, both are motivated by unknown factors.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It's as meaningless as the critics score. Both are opinions, both come from people, both are motivated by unknown factors.

Also a meaningless opinion.

It's pretty simple. You ask people what they think and sum up the results. Nobody is forced to agree with them. Nobody is coming over to your house to threaten you with a crowbar if you don't. It can however be an interesting discussion point when people with strange agendas aren't trying their best to shut it down. What exactly is your endgame here? You may as well be waving your arms shouting "this thread is pointless! delete! delete!" If you don't like the topic or don't find it interesting you don't have to participate.