Ready for a new live action Blade yet?

[mace1]

On Rotten Tomatoes...

Blade - 55%
Blade II - 59%
Blade: Trinity - 26%

I stand by my original opinion. The first two were mediocre. The third was awful. Though, I will re-visit them in the near future since I don't remember them all that clearly.

Those are not real scores,that was MY point.
The real scores are below it,the average rating.

This what we call like it or not review.
ONLY 59% OF THE CRITICS LIKE IT OR GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW.
Blade II - 59%

This is THE AVERAGE SCORE THAT the critics gave it.
6/10

FOR man of steel for example only 56% of the critics like it,but man of steel real score is the average score.
6.2/10

I really go by latter,the audience and of course in the end my view point.
To tell you truth the audience score is more important in the end then the critics.
Anyway i thought blade 1 and 2 were good.
The last one, so and so.

 

[mace1]

Here is a another example i was talking about.
I posted this in another thread.
Read in bold below.

I FOUND THIS INTERESTING.
Rotten Tomatoes Editor: Shocked At Lower Rating For Man Of Steel

by BadNewsRocky14

We’ve talked a lot the last few days about the disparity between Man of Steel‘s incredible word-of-mouth, its strong audience appeal and the fairly mediocre rating it scores among critics on the popular review-aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.Apparently nobody was caught more off-guard by that last part than Rotten Tomatoes Senior Editor Gray Drake, who appeared on Fox Business News and called the Superman reboot “definitely the film to see, because finally Superman is back and he’s going to do big business.”
Asked why the freshness scale score was so low for that film, Drake admitted, “As much as I love and respect our critics at Rotten Tomatoes, I’ve got to say I am shocked. Listen, the movie’s not perfect but…I just cannot fathom it. It was a good movie, you guys.”

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/14/man-of-steel-rotten-tomatoes-edit or-shocked-at-low-critic-rating/

Thoughts about this? Even the editor for RT thought the rating was too low. Another interesting article I read examined RT and said that no one takes into account that the "average rating for the films don't follow what the score suggests many times." For instance, MoS has a 6.2 average rating which means that the score should probably be somewhere in the 60 percentile but it's rated 56%? That makes no sense. Oh, and apparently, MoS didn't have bad word of mouth, it had good word of mouth according to several credible websites that gauge audience reception.

http://theregion.ca/2013/06/15/dirty-rotten-tomatoes/

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2479849573001/will-man-of-steel-soar-ab ove-the-competition/#sp=show-clips

There's the video just in case someone doesn't believe it.

The truth is that the site also offers up an average rating on the review page (Mud got an 8.0), but it’s in small font and poorly placed position on the page, it is so often looked over. People tend to zone in on the first number they see and let it sear their brains. Thus, an opinion of a movie is formed within a second of seeing that percentage and the problem of movie rating being dictated by a simple like or dislike button becomes a deep one. A film like Goodfellas rightfully garners a 97% rating on the site, but its average rating of 8.8 is significantly higher than Mud’s.​

Batman vs. Superman (2016) : Rotten Tomatoes Editor: Shocked At Lowe...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/board/flat/229611825?p=1

 

[fixxxer]

^

Oh, I understand the mechanics of how Rotten Tomatoes works. I think the actual tomato meter is a more meaningful metric than the average rating. It's simpler. How many critics liked movie versus how many did not. In statistical analysis, typically, when samples have a high standard deviation, the resulting average is more prone to error. In such cases (depending on scenario, of course) a median works better than the mean. I personally did not like Man Of Steel at all because I believe Zach Snyder's direction has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but that's a debate for another time and place.

Similarly, the tomato meter, while it isn't a median rating, strictly speaking, is much more useful than the average rating since it is more of a binary "like" versus "did not like" decision. The average rating, as I explained before, would be more heavily prone to statistical noise in the case of a highly divisive movie like Man Of Steel.

In the end, at the root of all this is subjective analysis. I thought Blade 1 and 2 were mediocre. I thought Blade 3 was pretty awful. Looking at most metrics, I believe my opinion is in line with the popular consensus.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Granted, this was pre-CBM boom

It kicked off the CBM boom

and pre-international market boom, but the original Blade movies only took in only $131, $155 and $128 million worldwide.

True but they were only budgeted for 40, 50, and 65 million respectively even when the 3rd move was horrible and had no business being made much less being close to making back its budget.

Seen another way that's almost like having a R rated movie with a budget of 155 million making 415,098,928 That's a lot better than PG-13 CA:TFA's 140 million budget earning it 370,569,774 considering the PG 13 factor, superior PR/AD campaign and that's before you factor in inflation. I say give Blade a PG-13 feature the right budget, script and actors and it will make more money than the original trilogy put together.

Again, I'm not stating that a Blade movie cannot be successful. I'm talking about maximizing the potential of the character. Like it or not, Blade and Ghost Rider could both use some degree of rehabilitation.

Ghost Rider needs the rehabilitation badly, Blade not so much imo

Dr. Strange (which seems to be Feige's pet project), Captain Marvel and Black Panther, on the other hand, are fresh properties in the eyes of the general audience, brimming with potential.

I hope all three come out, are good and are a success but potential is a two way street

 

[halo10]

Love the Blade character, but I don't understand all the nostalgia for the original Blade trilogy. They were all somewhere between awful and mediocre. Admittedly, Wesley Snipes played the character well, but I don't see anyone crying for Michael Keaton to return for Batman/Superman and don the cape and cowl. I find it similarly puzzling that so many call for Thomas Jane to play Punisher again.

With that out of the way...

I don't think the Blade character would be able to support a massive tent-pole that would be expected to return at least $500 mill at the box office. At the moment. If I were Feige, my idea would be to launch (or rehabilitate, as the case may be) some of Marvel's supernatural characters by making making the Dr. Strange sequel a supernatural team-up. Dr. Strange: Dark Avengers would be my working title... could've just as easily used "Midnight Sons", but I'm saving that for later. The team would be led by Dr. Strange and heavily focus his mythos, with Ghost Rider and Blade as the primary supporting characters. Few other supernatural heroes would also feature in slightly lesser roles.

Then when the character's profile has been sufficiently raised, I would launch a solo Blade movie, and prep for sequels, depending on the reception. Similarly, Ghost Rider. Now, Midnight Sons can be launched as as the supernatural equivalent of the Avengers. A more balanced team-up with Dr. Strange, Ghost Rider and Blade and maybe a few others sharing screen time rather than a more Dr. Strange-centric plot.

So my "Marvel supernatural plan" would essentially entail:

* Dr. Strange
* Dr. Strange: Dark Avengers
* Blade
* Ghost Rider
* Midnight Sons

except for the 3rd and final Blade film- i didn't have a problem with a Blade trilogy
as i thought the first two were pretty good (the 2nd blade was brilliant) although the 3rd one was a complete disaster. Especially how they made up " Dracula" in the mix. uuugh ! i thought the IDEA of blade vs dracula was a great one ... but to bring it with a " prison break" Dominic Purcell into the mix instead of the traditional, sophisticated Dracula-look, and an
alien-monster looking Dracula battling Blade.... that was a sour taste and a bad ending to a trilogy.

i'm all for a combined Blade/Midnight Son/Ghost Rider/Morbius the Living Vampire ...as opposed to another " new" live action Blade series. they tried a TV series and it failed. i think using more combined characters, ideas, more range is a better idea.
but a lot hinges on a re-boot... or NOT re-boot of a ghost rider.

 

[Hypestyle]

I'd want to see a cameo at the end of a future Marvel movie, Mr. Whedon gives himself a cameo as a civilian.. when a vampire shows up, but gets killed, and you see Blade...

"What's the matter? You never seen a vampire slayer before?"

alternate line: "you expecting some blonde chick to save your @$$?"

 

[fixxxer]

I'd want to see a cameo at the end of a future Marvel movie, Mr. Whedon gives himself a cameo as a civilian.. when a vampire shows up, but gets killed, and you see Blade...

"What's the matter? You never seen a vampire slayer before?"

 

[bluerayer]

I would like to see a netflix series on Tomb Of Dracula, starring Dracula. With guest appearances by Blade.

 

[bluerayer]

Or...

 

[mace1]

^

Oh, I understand the mechanics of how Rotten Tomatoes works. I think the actual tomato meter is a more meaningful metric than the average rating. It's simpler. How many critics liked movie versus how many did not. In statistical analysis, typically, when samples have a high standard deviation, the resulting average is more prone to error. In such cases (depending on scenario, of course) a median works better than the mean. I personally did not like Man Of Steel at all because I believe Zach Snyder's direction has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, but that's a debate for another time and place.

Similarly, the tomato meter, while it isn't a median rating, strictly speaking, is much more useful than the average rating since it is more of a binary "like" versus "did not like" decision. The average rating, as I explained before, would be more heavily prone to statistical noise in the case of a highly divisive movie like Man Of Steel.

In the end, at the root of all this is subjective analysis. I thought Blade 1 and 2 were mediocre. I thought Blade 3 was pretty awful. Looking at most metrics, I believe my opinion is in line with the popular consensus.

Well i disagree,the average rating is the correct one and that's the one i go by if i want to know the real score FROM THE CRITICS.
I thought man of steel was great and blade 1 and 2 were good or very good.
To me however i think the audience ratings are more correct on average anyway.

Blade (1998) - IMDb
Rating: 7.1/10 - ‎147,703 votes

3 1/2 STARS
VERY GOOD.

Blade II (2002) - IMDb
Rating: 6.7/10 - ‎121,932 votes
3 1/2 STARS
VERY GOOD

Blade: Trinity (2004) - IMDb
Rating: 5.9/10 - ‎101,927 votes

3 STARS.

So it seems for the last one the audience thought it was just good,not very good.



Man of Steel (2013) - IMDb
Rating: 7.3/10 - ‎379,567 votes
3 1/2 STARS
Very good

RT/audience
76% LIKE IT

Average rating 3.9/5

3 1/2 stars

Very good

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

The first two Blade movies were great and still are, the third is messy but about as enjoyable as most third movies in superhero trilogy's.

 

[metaphysician]

Nobody in their right mind should trust either the RT audience rating, or the IMDB ratings. Both are subject to epic levels of stuffing and abuse.

 

[bluerayer]

I'd say that i trust the IMDB ratings a little bit more than RT. But just a little bit. Some scores on that site makes you wonder.

 

[Chance Jackson]

I'd want to see a cameo at the end of a future Marvel movie, Mr. Whedon gives himself a cameo as a civilian.. when a vampire shows up, but gets killed, and you see Blade...

"What's the matter? You never seen a vampire slayer before?"

alternate line: "you expecting some blonde chick to save your @$$?"

I would LOVE that lol that is some grade A Wesly Snipes type Blade **** right there

 

[DarKush]

Love the Blade character, but I don't understand all the nostalgia for the original Blade trilogy. They were all somewhere between awful and mediocre. Admittedly, Wesley Snipes played the character well, but I don't see anyone crying for Michael Keaton to return for Batman/Superman and don the cape and cowl. I find it similarly puzzling that so many call for Thomas Jane to play Punisher again.

With that out of the way...

I don't think the Blade character would be able to support a massive tent-pole that would be expected to return at least $500 mill at the box office. At the moment. If I were Feige, my idea would be to launch (or rehabilitate, as the case may be) some of Marvel's supernatural characters by making making the Dr. Strange sequel a supernatural team-up. Dr. Strange: Dark Avengers would be my working title... could've just as easily used "Midnight Sons", but I'm saving that for later. The team would be led by Dr. Strange and heavily focus his mythos, with Ghost Rider and Blade as the primary supporting characters. Few other supernatural heroes would also feature in slightly lesser roles.

Then when the character's profile has been sufficiently raised, I would launch a solo Blade movie, and prep for sequels, depending on the reception. Similarly, Ghost Rider. Now, Midnight Sons can be launched as as the supernatural equivalent of the Avengers. A more balanced team-up with Dr. Strange, Ghost Rider and Blade and maybe a few others sharing screen time rather than a more Dr. Strange-centric plot.

So my "Marvel supernatural plan" would essentially entail:

* Dr. Strange
* Dr. Strange: Dark Avengers
* Blade
* Ghost Rider
* Midnight Sons

I'm not opposed to a Midnight Sons movie. I think that would be sweet. But the idea that Blade needs to sufficiently raise his profile before getting another round of films I take issue with. Blade arguably has a higher profile among the general public than Dr. Strange and maybe even Ghost Rider already. At least his movies were better received, among fans at least, than Ghost Riders were. Yet Ghost Rider's films were financially successful and in the public mind he has a higher profile, though it might be a dubious one, than Dr. Strange too.

To be honest, I could see Marvel centering their supernatural universe around Dr. Strange and planning accordingly. But I don't think Blade has to take a back seat to Dr. Strange, Ghost Rider, or anyone else. He had three movies already, a TV series, and an anime series.

Who says that Blade has to support a $500 million dollar franchise? I think there could be an audience for R-rated supernatural comic book films, which Blade has already proven. And he did it largely before the comic book boom. And when you look at stuff like Resident Evil and Underworld there's good money to be made in pursuing that route. Marvel could diversify and vacuum up all the money it can. It doesn't have to all be big blockbusters.

 

[KangConquers]

the Blade Trilogy is to me, firmly in the tradition of late 90s film making style. It sits comfortably on the shelf next to the Matrix, Mortal Kombat, Underworld, and other dark/ industrial feeling films from that era.

It's also essentially a Wesley Snipes vehicle based on a Marvel property, more than it is a Marvel movie. I see Blade credited as kick starting the CBM craze, but in truth, movies like Raimi's Spider-Man kick started the new Super Hero Movie craze when they rebelled against what Blade represented; cheap, dark, violent, and appealing to a small audience.

It's worth noting that every Marvel property in the tradition of Blade has performed poorly with critics and audiences alike. Blade's cinematic children are Daredevil, Elektra, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider, and Punisher.

Marvel's going for big, bright, expansive, exciting and snappy on the big screen. Blade doesn't represent that, and his best chance is probably a tv show.

 

[Markb82]

I wish they'd just re-hire Snipes and Retcon the Blade trilogy into the MCU.

Can't disagree more with this. It's not because I didn't like the old Blade Films (3rd was a bit meh), I'd rather see a actor who has a lot more mileage left behind him. I wouldn't want to see Snipes being like Schwarzenegger in the new Terminator movies.