BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread.

[The Question]

Except the sample size here is 250000 for RT and 200000 for IMDb, so that point is pretty irrelevant here. Yeah you can't distinguish between pre-existing fans and those who aren't. But when you combine these large sample sizes with the box office and A- CinemaScore, it's pretty obvious what the answer is. And even if you won't look at what the data in front of you presents, you certainly don't have anywhere close to a strong case for the box office being on "hype alone."

Actually I do. Man of Steel made most of it's money in the first few weeks, and the numbers started to drop pretty rapidly after that.

And even then, even if the numbers were stead, the fact is that box office numbers for all movies, good or bad, say a lot less about how good the movie is and a lot more about how well marketed the film is.

Now, I didn't know about the huge sample size on IMBD and RT (I was speaking more generally anyway), but it's still a very flawed polling model. The question it asks doesn't get a very nuanced answer and doesn't account for a huge number of variables.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

We should absolutely use it. My whole point is that we should acknowledge the fact that we don't really know what the numbers tell us at a cursory glance, and 75% rating or a 25% rating doesn't necessarily mean that 75% of people who saw a movie liked or hated it. There are lots of other factors that their polling models don't take into account that we have to if the numbers are going to mean anything.



I dismiss it because it's an inaccurate polling model. My standards have nothing to do with the movie, they're standards of data accuracy.

You state it is an "inaccurate" polling model but its an even playing field. So while it is an "inaccurate" for MOS it is "inaccurate" as well for every other superhero movie released. And when comparing MOS among all the other superhero films on IMBD it ranks among the top and it is not the abomination some of you make it out to be. Very far from it.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

We should absolutely use it. My whole point is that we should acknowledge the fact that we don't really know what the numbers tell us at a cursory glance, and 75% rating or a 25% rating doesn't necessarily mean that 75% of people who saw a movie liked or hated it. There are lots of other factors that their polling models don't take into account that we have to if the numbers are going to mean anything.

I can agree with that, but for now all I can say is that the GA reception has been good, not great. I'm sure that's a reasonable assumption.

 

[The Question]

You state it is an "inaccurate" polling model but its an even playing field. So while it is an "inaccurate" for MOS it is "inaccurate" as well for every other superhero movie released.

It's inaccurate, or perhaps imprecise would be a better word, for every movie in general.

And when comparing MOS among all the other superhero films on IMBD it ranks among the top and it is not the abomination some of you make it out to be. Very far from it.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. I'm saying that IMDB is an imprecise and not particularly in depth polling model, that the numbers it gives you don't necessarily say what they obviously seem to say because it's model doesn't take a huge number of factors into account and doesn't ask very in-depth questions. And you say, as a response, that MoS ranks near the top of superhero movies on IMDB and... what? I don't see what you're getting at.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Actually I do. Man of Steel made most of it's money in the first few weeks, and the numbers started to drop pretty rapidly after that.

And even then, even if the numbers were stead, the fact is that box office numbers for all movies, good or bad, say a lot less about how good the movie is and a lot more about how well marketed the film is.

Now, I didn't know about the huge sample size on IMBD and RT (I was speaking more generally anyway), but it's still a very flawed polling model. The question it asks doesn't get a very nuanced answer and doesn't account for a huge number of variables.

Better multiplier than Iron Man 3, which also had a good reception from audiences. Every movie makes most of it's money in the first few weeks, unless you're Titanic.

According to you, there is no way to tell if audiences worldwide liked a movie. Because IMDb is inaccurate, RT is inaccurate, box office is inaccurate, CinemaScore is inaccurate. Right? Fine. Then you likewise have no basis to claim that the movie made it on hype alone. Might as well stop talking about it.

 

[The Question]

I can agree with that, but for now all I can say is that the GA reception has been good, not great. I'm sure that's a reasonable assumption.

That's the general vibe I get, yeah. It seems to me that most people who went to see the film had a reasonably good time but didn't really care.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It's inaccurate, or perhaps imprecise would be a better word, for every movie in general.



I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. I'm saying that IMDB is an imprecise and not particularly in depth polling model, that the numbers it gives you don't necessarily say what they obviously seem to say because it's model doesn't take a huge number of factors into account and doesn't ask very in-depth questions. And you say, as a response, that MoS ranks near the top of superhero movies on IMDB and... what? I don't see what you're getting at.

It is still a useful guide in whether a movie has been received well or not. If you don't agree with that then we will just end up going in circles with this.

 

[The Question]

According to you, there is no way to tell if audiences worldwide liked a movie.

Nope. Do a good poll. Have phone banking and call a large sample size of people asking in depth questions. That would be a way to tell what people thought about the film and get fairly accurate and informative results. Movie studios do internal polling like that all the time, it just isn't available to the public.

 

[The Question]

It is still a useful guide in whether a movie has been received well or not. If you don't agree with that then we will just end up going in circles with this.

It's useful as a starting point, yes. But my perspective is that you shouldn't look at the numbers on IMDB sand say "so, this is how many people liked the movie" or "this is how much most people liked the movie." You should look at the numbers on IMDB or RT and say "okay, let's think critically, look at all the factors involved, and figure out what the numbers are telling us." Because even numbers from the most accurate polling models in the world can lie to you if you don't study them carefully with a critical eye.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It's useful as a starting point, yes. But my perspective is that you shouldn't look at the numbers on IMDB sand say "so, this is how many people liked the movie" or "this is how much most people liked the movie." You should look at the numbers on IMDB or RT and say "okay, let's think critically, look at all the factors involved, and figure out what the numbers are telling us." Because even numbers from the most accurate polling models in the world can lie to you if you don't study them carefully with a critical eye.

Yup, and they tell me the movie has been received well. But certain people tend to ignore this.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Better multiplier than Iron Man 3, which also had a good reception from audiences. Every movie makes most of it's money in the first few weeks, unless you're Titanic.

According to you, there is no way to tell if audiences worldwide liked a movie. Because IMDb is inaccurate, RT is inaccurate, box office is inaccurate, CinemaScore is inaccurate. Right? Fine. Then you likewise have no basis to claim that the movie made it on hype alone. Might as well stop talking about it.

Actually that was Mr. Dent.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Nope. Do a good poll. Have phone banking and call a large sample size of people asking in depth questions. That would be a way to tell what people thought about the film and get very accurate and informative results. Movie studios do internal polling like that all the time, it just isn't available to the public.

Okay then. That isn't available to us and it hasn't been for any movie. Gallup doesn't even provide sample sizes larger than a couple thousand for most of their cited polls.

You still don't have a case for MoS's success at the box office being on hype alone. Because a poll like that isn't available. This discussion started with that outlandish claim. Time to move on.

 

[The Question]

Yup, and they tell me the movie has been received well. But certain people tend to ignore this.

Well, I'm not 100% certain they tell me that. What exactly does "well received" mean? What's the standard we're going by? How many people legitimately enjoyed the film and left the theater really good and how many people just said "yeah that was pretty good" and then forgot about it by the time they got home? How many people thought really long and hard about what they thought before giving it a rating and how many just gave it a high score because they didn't hate it and reasonably enjoyed themselves when they saw it? And the big question: A year from now, how many people will really be thinking about or caring about this movie?

The numbers, by themselves, don't answer those questions for me. Maybe most people genuinely enjoyed it, maybe not. At this juncture I can't really tell. It's safe to say that most people didn't hate the movie and most of them thought it was good, but for me, the question is what does that mean? What do they mean by good? What are their standards? How much do they actually care? That's still unanswered.

 

[The Question]

Okay then. That isn't available to us and it hasn't been for any movie. Gallup doesn't even provide sample sizes larger than a couple thousand for most of their cited polls.

You still don't have a case for MoS's success at the box office being on hype alone. Because a poll like that isn't available. This discussion started with that outlandish claim. Time to move on.

It's not outlandish. It's a hypothesis that's worth discussing. It's not currently provable, but it's well worth talking about.

 

[STARMAN]

You don't need to look at numbers. You can tell when a movie is universally loved or hated. Most films fall in-between.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

It's not outlandish. It's a hypothesis that's worth discussing. It's not currently provable, but it's well worth talking about.

It's not a hypothesis when you try to pass it off as a fact. Your explanation for why our reasoning against this claim doesn't work simultaneously makes your own argument in support of it irrelevant. So what discussion is there to be had?

 

[The Question]

It's not a hypothesis when you try to pass it off as a fact. Your explanation for why our reasoning against this claim doesn't work simultaneously makes your own argument in support of it irrelevant. So what discussion is there to be had?

Well, seeing as how I wasn't the guy who made the claim in the first place, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

 

[regwec]

So...I thought MOS was pretty good. Thoughtful, in a simple way, with good performances from a nice cast. Looking forward to this one.

 

[Marvin]

And I seriously don't understand why WB is giving Snyder so much responsibility. He choked Watchmen, both critically and commercially, and his Superman film was even more critically panned than Superman Returns and got by at the box office completely on hype alone.

To be fair Returns had alot of "hype" as well.
It also starred superman and wasn't exactly being directed by the guy that just came off of "sucker punch".

What's more Returns didn't have the displeasurable situation of following...Returns. If anything it was seen as the big fat follow up to the "lovely" Donner verse.

just saying.

 

[jmc]

Agreed. What's funny and weird about this entire scenario is that on one hand, I do agree that this feels like a natural progression to the story in the sense of humanity responding to the presence of Superman on Earth now, but on the other hand, given on how it's the freaking Batman that's being used here, it just feels like it's out of place with the situation.

I mean I think it's safe to agree that an majority of fans don't feel that a Superman/Batman film was the right step to go right after MOS.

I sincerely hope that Goyer and Snyder know on how many issues people had with MOS because if they try to be ignorant about it while going into this film, then that won't mean good things for us.

right now, this is really a big gamble, more so than the Avengers was in my honest opinion. Why? Because of Goyer and Snyder. Those two can either give something good or something terribly bad. I haven't seen any evidence to say that they could give something great as of yet.

And what's more irritating is that I keep reading on other places on how people think this is a new batman film already, ignoring Superman's presence in it. It kind of makes you wonder if people are just happy to see Batman again and couldn't care less about Superman being in it, let alone on how he'd be portrayed against the Caped crusader.

Honestly, if Goyer and Snyder do well, I'll give them credit when and where it's due. But if they regress the character of Superman back to the drawing board after this, I hope that there's a huge outcry that's let out, enough to state to the studios that no one wants to see them ever near the material again in the same degree like how no one wants to see Joel touching Batman's films anymore.

Have Snyder and Goyer done well to begin with? Mos is all over the place, it has good parts but it also has terrible parts, which is a hallmark of all Snyder films. As far as I'm concerned Snyder's been given more than enough benefit of the doubt to show his worth and he always comes up short. I'd much rather have someone else take over the Batman/Superman movie because Snyder isn't up to it.

 

[jmc]

To be fair Returns had alot of "hype" as well.
It also starred superman and wasn't exactly being directed by the guy that just came off of "sucker punch".

What's more Returns didn't have the displeasurable situation of following...Returns. If anything it was seen as the big fat follow up to the "lovely" Donner verse.

just saying.

In retrospect I actually don't think there was much hype for that film. Like everything with Returns people assumed a hell of a lot was going to happen.

 

[Marvin]

In retrospect I actually don't think there was much hype for that film. Like everything with Returns people assumed a hell of a lot was going to happen.

in retrospect people now appreciate what it is the donner films were(in fact), however back in 2005, they were seen very differently imo.
and so was singer.

 

[jmc]

Returns was relying a lot on nostalgia to carry forward its hype, I don't think there's any doubt about that, thing is WB miscalculated the extent of that nostalgia. I don't recall the excitement levels being anywhere near that of Man of Steel. The great irony of course is that to many Returns is the better film.

 

[The Question]

I think Man of Steel had a much better marketing campaign than Returns.

 

[Marvin]

I can see how some feel the original is a better film but many feel that way about Returns as well? That's something.

I don't want to speak for fans anymore(and I know Jamie loves talking about how we always re-write history), but Superman's big return to the screen in 2006 was very much a huge novelty, I think bigger on that fact alone than WB rebooting it post Marvel's recent market share upgrade. I also don't recall a single article besmirching that films director. I get how people can think MOS was a better sell though, Snyder has that way about his ad material.