Negativity towards the DC films? - Part 1

[Erzengel]

For some, there won't be any unity until the majority of critics and skeptics suddenly decide that MOS and BvS were/are masterpieces and that they "Get it" now.

Hahahahahaha.

 

[Grommers]

So you think that the majority of people think BvS is a good movie.

Well, yes, the general audience score is still positive. It's the critics one that is abysmal.

One of the curious numbers I'd be interested in seeing is, how many of the current critics viewing these also viewed marvel films.

And not because they have a biased hate towards DCEU, I want to be clear I don't think there is a biased hate towards DCEU, however there could be a biased in what the current critics are watching who prefer Marvel movies to said DC films.

So an example of what I mean is - if you were to watch Bicentenniel Man and love it, but then turn around and watch iRobot, two movies very similar idea behind the movie, completely different movies. I could see how one would like one more than the other.

Now comic book movies kind have been lumped together in one pot, but truthfully I find Marvel/ DCEU to be completely different, where as Marvel tend to go for a more light hearted, family fun, film. DCEU tries to touch upon things that are much more controversial.

I don't feel like seeing if it's all the same reviewers and doing the numbers, more so that I'd be interested in seeing those. Because that does create a realm of biased.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Still hard to get over a movie featuring Batman and Superman (as main characters) couldn't break a even 900 million at the box office.

 

[Erzengel]

Well, yes, the general audience score is still positive. It's the critics one that is abysmal.

One of the curious numbers I'd be interested in seeing is, how many of the current critics viewing these also viewed marvel films.

And not because they have a biased hate towards DCEU, I want to be clear I don't think there is a biased hate towards DCEU, however there could be a biased in what the current critics are watching who prefer Marvel movies to said DC films.

So an example of what I mean is - if you were to watch Bicentenniel Man and love it, but then turn around and watch iRobot, two movies very similar idea behind the movie, completely different movies. I could see how one would like one more than the other.

Now comic book movies kind have been lumped together in one pot, but truthfully I find Marvel/ DCEU to be completely different, where as Marvel tend to go for a more light hearted, family fun, film. DCEU tries to touch upon things that are much more controversial.

I don't feel like seeing if it's all the same reviewers and doing the numbers, more so that I'd be interested in seeing those. Because that does create a realm of biased.

If you're hanging your hat on 3.6 (while not a perfect way to measure), here are some other 3.6 CBM. Wolverine Origins, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men Apocalypse. Green Lantern has a 3.1.

 

[The Endless]

If the average movie goer really did love BvS... then it wouldn't have completely bombed after the huge first weekend. There is a reason it didn't have legs... barely any repeat viewings.

 

[Leenie]

If the average movie goer really did love BvS... then it wouldn't have completely bombed after the huge first weekend. There is a reason it didn't have legs... barely any repeat viewings.

^This. Internet ratings do not reflect the overall audience response.

Does BvS have its fans? Of course it does. And considering the film's opening weekend numbers, it's clear as day that the general audience was excited for the film too. The movie burned out quickly after opening weekend at the box office, though.

 

[MbJ]

IMDB is also a user-run site that is full of fanboyism on all fronts. People will often highly rate a movie just because they feel some loyalty to the source material or alternatively attack another because they don't like its source.

So (and I don't mean this to sound rude) saying BVS has a somewhat high IMDB rating is proof that it was well liked and well received isn't really the smoking gun it's being touted as. As others have said there are other bad superhero movies with decent scores, likely for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[The Joker]

IMDb is the last place in the world you should trust for audience ratings.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I think imdb was a decent resource prior to 2008 or so.

 

[Panacea]

IMDb is the last place in the world you should trust for audience ratings.

Why? The algorithm is weighted against people who only rate things 10 or 1, unlike most places.

 

[The Joker]

Why? The algorithm is weight against people who only rate things 10 or 1, unlike most places.

Fanboys make multiple accounts and vote movies up or down to their liking.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think imdb was a decent resource prior to 2008 or so.

I'd even go before that. It was a good site circa 1998 or so, but even by the time the first Harry Potter films were coming out it was pretty bad.

 

[The Guard]

Not to turn this into yet another of these discussions, but what really ground my gears about the whole thing (besides the piss poor manner in which it was done [not to mention the logic behind it in the first place]) is the complete and utter change in attitude by those who didn't have a problem with it.

Pre-MOS, you could've wandered into any Superman related thread, said "Superman doesn't kill." and the responses would've been some variation of "Duh."

Post-MOS, you'll get about half a dozen responses that start with, "Well actually..."

It's blatant revisionist history that's being used to justify a stupid ass decision that ultimately didn't even matter. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

There have been debates about various heroes killing and the morality of it for as long as SHH has been here.

I recall a rather lively one regarding Superman and killing around the time of SUPERMAN RETURNS, and even prior to MOS, it was a fairly frequent debate topic.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Audience ratings from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are basically worthless.

I never put any stock in them.

 

[Superchan]

BvS had the worst multiplier of any film opening at 100 million + in HISTORY! Meaning the film opened big and dropped like a rock because the audience thought it sucked!
There is no conspiracy here, the dark knight trilogy was a DC series of films and it's regarded as some of the best by critics and when the DCEU start making films that people deem to be atleast good, then the critics' ratings will begin to reflect those.

 

[Sleiek]

So wait, this movie earned 872 million dollars because audience thought it sucked?
Good to know.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Also as I recall there was a ton of hype for BVS in the last couple weeks before release. Most "insiders" and early (non critic) reactions where very positive. The consensus prior to release was "Zack Snyder did it!". Sure you had a few people voicing concern Faraci, McWeeny, our own Poniboy. I didn't get the feeling there were a bunch of people wanting the movie to fail.

The Suicide Squad marketing and trailers were great as well.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Audience ratings from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are basically worthless.

I never put any stock in them.

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst. IMDB is bad, but at least IMDB doesn't take the anticipation votes and immediately make them all positive as soon as the film comes out.

 

[Marvin]

Uh-uh. Stop right there.

I was pretty surprised that was even attempted to be honest.

Ignoring a good amount of mcu trailers(See ironman 3/TDW) do the serious/dark pull the wool over my eyes thing. That anyone see's a trailer like the MOS ones and doesn't think that there will be plenty of stuff that simply isn't the trailers is beyond me. humorless and murder and death death death. I look at xmen movies with their end of times trailers...then think of all the fun and optimism. Every transformer(s) trailer vs their movies.... No way man. As for how antip that movie was, i vaguely recall the early tracking not even hitting 100, and this is after ironman films would dance backwards over that line, neither here nor there I suppose.

There's so much moving the goalposts in this discussion. Critics don't hate dark, serious superhero films. There are many fitting that description that have been very well reviewed (Logan, Days of Future Past, Nolan's Batfilms and others disprove this). That's an odd argument to make in the first place since snobby critics have a reputation for showering dark, depressing films with praise and not liking upbeat popcorn films.

It's not about 'serious'. I think a non serious cbm in this day and age would have a hard time getting through. None of these are films spoofs, even ant man is 'serious'. Deadpool is a debate, but even still.

Cutting to the chase it's all of the above and in particular when it comes to SUPERMAN. How many pundits and studio heads are speaking of 1. Otimistic 2.Hopeful 3. Inspiring 4.humor 5.joy. 6.Cynicism....
It's not about how serious a film it is. Even donner's was serious.

Bringing up Logan and Batman, films that are seemingly allowed to be like their accepted source material in a discussion as to why a 'grim dark' superman is getting over criticized for just that and for not being like it's so called material, seems like the best way to un prove ur point tbh. No one here is calling the dceu films master pieces and beyond criticism, that something is a large factor, and ironically even a poor film could get a pass on having fun or being material accurate. A factor. There are people here that argue the only criticism comes from form/writing/performance alone. As usual, one takes alot of believe, the other not so much.
I just found out MOS(one of these steaming plies) got the same and or better avg scores than fresh films in the same genre, that should suggest after the blogger gave the film a positive score, there was something missing. The head of RT, the real head is on record criticizing mos for 'good movie, just not a good superman one', on film. And now it's nothing but tweets about what these films have been missing? And they go on to explain what that thing is? A factor!

I mean does anyone think, if they produced a Superman film as 'good' as Logan with the same plot(as much as they could), tone, hopelessness and death and R rating, lack of bright(more so than even supermans) costume, that it would get the same or better score? Or would there be a dissent that it's a horrible direction for superman. People here actually believe preconception to tone and such don't factor heavily...great, but then go on to claim people that do the names. It's a bit much* imo.
But that's just my opinion.

 

[Erzengel]

Rotten Tomatoes is the worst. IMDB is bad, but at least IMDB doesn't take the anticipation votes and immediately make them all positive as soon as the film comes out.

IMDB is the worst.

http://www.slashfilm.com/imdb-watch-are-dark-knight-fanboys-burying-the-godfather/

https://www.cnet.com/news/when-the-wisdom-of-crowds-turns-on-itself-imdb-edition/

 

[MbJ]

I remember that. Dozens of bad reviews before the movie was released in ANY country, with each one suspiciously claiming they'd been invited to see an advanced review and that's how they knew it was terrible.

The hilarious part is it had literally no effect other than proving the point that IMDB user scores are a bad source of data. Did they think they were gonna sway opinions or harm the movie somehow?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Oh believe me, I know. IMDB is awful and unreliable as well.

 

[The Endless]

So wait, this movie earned 872 million dollars because audience thought it sucked?
Good to know.

If audiences didn't think it sucked then it would've earned Avengers numbers after the huge opening weekend it had.

An OW of What, 170 million? Then it finishes with 320 million in the US? That's pretty bad. Especially when it had zero competition.

Put it this way the R rated Deadpool had a 130 million OW but finished with 370 million in the US.

 

[C. Lee]

One of the curious numbers I'd be interested in seeing is, how many of the current critics viewing these also viewed marvel films.

And not because they have a biased hate towards DCEU, I want to be clear I don't think there is a biased hate towards DCEU, however there could be a biased in what the current critics are watching who prefer Marvel movies to said DC films.

So.....some critics should only review DC while others should only review MARVEL? Why not also say that critics that review superheroes can't review romantic comedies or musicals?

A critic is going to watch movies. I dare say that they will watch both DC and MARVEL because they aren't into the petty studio rivalry that you see from people on here.

 

[Slade W]

It is difficult to say for sure that the majority of people disliked BVS. I do, however, think it is safe to say that the movie has far more critics and people who have issues with it than most other CBMs. No Marvel movie, Raimi Spider-Man movie, Nolan or Burton Batman movie, or the best of the FOX movies have received anywhere near as many complaints or criticisms as BVS has.

A movie featuring two massive characters in Batman and Superman, who were meeting for the first time on the big screen, in a movie that was important in getting the DCEU off to a good start should not have anywhere near as much criticism and negativity around it as BVS. Such a movie should not have what seems like the same amount of people complaining about it as the likes of Wolverine: Origins and ASM2.