BvS Honestly did the critics effect your rating of BvS?

[Sarcastic Fan]

You really have a high opinion of yourself.

He didn't say anything about himself

Yeah, I'm confused.

 

[shauner111]

Bay and Snyder are indeed very similar. Fights and battles, i'll give it to Snyder. Bay shoots a lot of action sequences and chases better than Zack. Both only know how to make flashy action movies for a teenage audience. Bay is terrible with humor, but he did do better with humor than Zack with his Bad Boys movies. At least some of those movies! I think Zack tries to get serious unlike Bay, who embraces the ridiculous. Zack thinks he can actually do serious drama which is f'n hilarious because he fails so hard every time he tries.

You really have a high opinion of yourself.

Weirdest reply of the week?

 

[Kobra]

If it was a great movie and a great story, people would have enjoyed it and wouldn't care what the critics said. Positive word would have spread about the movie. It would hardly be the first time audiences have loved a movie that critics didn't. But that didn't happen here. Which means a lot of people didn't think it was a great movie.

That's such a simplistic and flawed way of looking at things...

It's almost like saying "if this salmon was fresh and well cooked, people would have enjoyed it". Well, no, they wouldn't, because not everybody likes fish. The same way, not everybody likes Snyder's vision on Batman, Superman and the DC world in general. And it's pretty clear that some people's preconceptions about certain characters have strongly contributed to their negative opinion of the movie. It doesn't have anything to do with quality. Sometimes it's just a personal preference. It doesn't invalidate the movie as a work of art. It might invalidate it as a business investment, depending on how much WB needs to get from the movie, but that's pretty much it. Let me also say that i enjoyed the movie, almost everybody i know enjoyed the movie and even in this forum you will find that at least 50% enjoyed the movie, and the other 50% didn't necessarily hate it. So it would be nice if some of you dropped the whole "nobody liked the movie" mentality.

Another reason why your whole argument is flawed is because it doesn't take into consideration some factors that might have also contributed for the movie's underwhelming performance. For example: How do you know a lot of people didn't watch the movie simply because they read news about its critical reception? If you're not that into Batman or Superman and you read that the critics think it is garbage, you won't have much of a problem skipping it.

But yeah, people seem to ignore perfectly plausible factors like this one, because they simply wanna preserv the idea that the only reason the movie didn't make 1B is because nobody liked it and the WOM was very bad. Well, WOM might have played a factor too, but that doesn't mean it was the only one.

 

[metaphysician]

That's such a simplistic and flawed way of looking at things...

It's almost like saying "if this salmon was fresh and well cooked, people would have enjoyed it". Well, no, they wouldn't, because not everybody likes fish. The same way, not everybody likes Snyder's vision on Batman, Superman and the DC world in general. And it's pretty clear that some people's preconceptions about certain characters have strongly contributed to their negative opinion of the movie. It doesn't have anything to do with quality. Sometimes it's just a personal preference. It doesn't invalidate the movie as a work of art. It might invalidate it as a business investment, depending on how much WB needs to get from the movie, but that's pretty much it. Let me also say that i enjoyed the movie, almost everybody i know enjoyed the movie and even in this forum you will find that at least 50% enjoyed the movie, and the other 50% didn't necessarily hate it. So it would be nice if some of you dropped the whole "nobody liked the movie" mentality.

Another reason why your whole argument is flawed is because it doesn't take into consideration some factors that might have also contributed for the movie's underwhelming performance. For example: How do you know a lot of people didn't watch the movie simply because they read news about its critical reception? If you're not that into Batman or Superman and you read that the critics think it is garbage, you won't have much of a problem skipping it.

But yeah, people seem to ignore perfectly plausible factors like this one, because they simply wanna preserv the idea that the only reason the movie didn't make 1B is because nobody liked it and the WOM was very bad. Well, WOM might have played a factor too, but that doesn't mean it was the only one.

All of which ignores the fact that, again, if it were a great movie, it wouldn't have been eviscerated by critics in the first place. Thus, all the possible theoretical alternate explanations for why people stayed away are irrelevant.

 

[The Joker]

All of which ignores the fact that, again, if it were a great movie, it wouldn't have been eviscerated by critics in the first place. Thus, all the possible theoretical alternate explanations for why people stayed away are irrelevant.

Exactly.

Kobra's post was nothing but unsubstantiated coulda/woulda/shoulda, and could easily be applied to other rubbish movies like Green Lantern and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Preconceptions always come with famous characters. But if a movie is good, preconceptions or no preconceptions, people will still enjoy it. People love movies, even if it wasn't what they were hoping or expecting. Same as how people don't let critical reviews stop from them from seeing a movie if they really want to see it. I mean it wouldn't be the first time audiences have loved movies that critics didn't. Some of the most critically panned movies have been box office goldmines.

 

[Kobra]

All of which ignores the fact that, again, if it were a great movie, it wouldn't have been eviscerated by critics in the first place. Thus, all the possible theoretical alternate explanations for why people stayed away are irrelevant.

That's not a fact. That's your personal interpretation of things.

 

[Kobra]

Oh Kobra's back from his stint on probation.



Exactly.

Kobra's post was nothing but unsubstantiated coulda/woulda/shoulda, and could easily be applied to other rubbish movies like Green Lantern and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Preconceptions always come with famous characters. But if a movie is good, preconceptions or no preconceptions, people will still enjoy it. People love movies, even if it wasn't what they were hoping or expecting. Same as how people don't let critical reviews stop from them from seeing a movie if they really want to see it. I mean it wouldn't be the first time audiences have loved movies that critics didn't. Some of the most critically panned movies have been box office goldmines.

Preconceptions stop a movie from being judged fairly. And they don't always come with famous characters. At least, not on this level. The amount of people who will complain about Batman killing or Superman being too serious or the film being too dark is just absolutely insane. I'm not really claiming the movie is great and everyone is being unfair. What i'm saying is that if these characters didn't inspire as much hate and passion in the first place, maybe the movie would have been judged more clearly. There are simply more factors that come into play. Whether or not you want to acknowledge them is 100% irrelevant.

 

[metaphysician]

That's not a fact. That's your personal interpretation of things.

Which, given said interpretation is supported by all the available evidence. . .

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, it *might* be a very deceptive goose. . . but most likely, it is, in fact, a duck.

 

[Kobra]

Which, given said interpretation is supported by all the available evidence. . .

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, it *might* be a very deceptive goose. . . but most likely, it is, in fact, a duck.

All the available evidence point to the fact that very often critics enjoy movies that the audience does not care for. That small group of people is hardly the authority on what's good or bad. You may choose to look at them that way, and other people might do the same, but they are nothing more than opinions. 100% subjective.

 

[Greens]

All the available evidence point to the fact that very often critics enjoy movies that the audience does not care for. That small group of people is hardly the authority on what's good or bad. You may choose to look at them that way, and other people might do the same, but they are nothing more than opinions. 100% subjective.

All the available evidence also points to the fact that more often than not critics and audiences (which is actually way too generalized, since every movie has a different target audience) enjoy the same movies. You're using exceptions to prove a rule.

 

[Kobra]

All the available evidence also points to the fact that more often than not critics and audiences (which is actually way too generalized, since every movie has a different target audience) enjoy the same movies. You're using exceptions to prove a rule.

Nothing you just said disproves what i said. I'm pretty much just saying that it makes no sense to talk in absolutes when we have so many examples of the critics and the audience disagreeing.

 

[Kobra]

Well the critics definitely make the general audiences hesitated to go n watch the movie. Which is a shame because it's a great movie, a great story. They just don't let go their perception.

The problem with threads like this is that people aren't always willing to confess that someone else's opinion might have had an impact on their own opinion. And some of them might not even be aware of that.

I don't think there's actually any study that confirms that critics can have an impact on people's opinions. But i do believe that, if you read that a movie is absolutely awful, you might watch that movie expecting it to be at least not very good. And if you expect that, you might watch it trying to find flaws in it, which you will end up finding, since you're gonna be more focused on it than otherwise you would be. The reality is that some people also have an hard time being the odd man out.

To me this is just basic human psychology. Doesn't mean that everyone is like this. A lot of people will hate or like a movie no matter what anyone says. But i do believe that a good percentage of people will be influenced by critical opinion.

 

[sf2]

The problem with threads like this is that people aren't always willing to confess that someone else's opinion might have had an impact on their own opinion. And some of them might not even be aware of that.

I don't think there's actually any study that confirms that critics can have an impact on people's opinions. But i do believe that, if you read that a movie is absolutely awful, you might watch that movie expecting it to be at least not very good. And if you expect that, you might watch it trying to find flaws in it, which you will end up finding, since you're gonna be more focused on it than otherwise you would be. The reality is that some people also have an hard time being the odd man out.

To me this is just basic human psychology. Doesn't mean that everyone is like this. A lot of people will hate or like a movie no matter what anyone says. But i do believe that a good percentage of people will be influenced by critical opinion.

good point.

 

[The Joker]

Kobra's been banned? Who's going to take up his mantle of peddling all those nonsensical conspiracy theories now?

 

[Tony Gunk]

What Kobra says may have some truth in it but on the flip side what about those people who were deeply emotionally invested in the film and never likely to say anything other than that it's wonderful regardless of its quality?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

What triggered the banning?

 

[sf2]

What triggered the banning?

i guess he might has said the forbidden word... H.A._._R in the trap thread.

 

[Wildcard]

No, critics didn't ever effect my rating for BvS. I still love it. Is it a perfect movie? No, but I can understand why it was so polarizing amongst so many. It needed to be so much more than what it was.

I don't believe there's some conspiracy against DC movies, at this point I just think Snyder is poison for WB & the wrong guy to have been put at the helm of the DCEU.

 

[sf2]

No, critics didn't ever effect my rating for BvS. I still love it. Is it a perfect movie? No, but I can understand why it was so polarizing amongst so many. It needed to be so much more than what it was.

I don't believe there's some conspiracy against DC movies, at this point I just think Snyder is poison for WB & the wrong guy to have been put at the helm of the DCEU.

hmmm... kinda weird... you said you love it and then you said Snyder is poison and wrong guy to be in-charge???
that's paradoxical!