Justice League The Justice League Critic Reviews/Rotten Tomatoes Thread - Part 2

[FunkMiller]

And they do have it. This just proves the point of the poster I was quoting. Had it been Joss name attached to the movie, reactions would have been different from both fans and online media.

So, you mean a Justice League movie made from the ground up by Joss Whedon, with no Zack Snyder at all?

You’re probably right.

 

[vinepixie100]

Snyder's name being attached to JL. I guarantee you if the words "DIRECTED BY JOSS WHEDON" were in place of Snyder's name, this film would be doing a lot better. People associate Snyder's name with critical failures such as MOS and BVS. So JL was always going to face that obstacle.

I dont think the general public knows who Zack Snyder is tbh. I went to see the movie with other people, and they had no idea.

I think it's doing poorly because this movie is related to BVS. A lot of the general public did not like this movie, and saw that JL has a similar tone and is a "sequel" to BVS.

 

[Reel-Man]

So, you mean a Justice League movie made from the ground up by Joss Whedon, with no Zack Snyder at all?

You’re probably right.

Yup and I know. t:

 

[StormC]

I really feel like people are overcomplicating this. Things like Snyder's name or Ben Affleck's PR controversies are factors but probably don't account for a lot of the foot traffic. It's simply that audiences didn't like BVS and nothing about JL looked appealing from a marketing standpoint.

 

[vinepixie100]

I really feel like people are overcomplicating this. Things like Snyder's name or Ben Affleck's PR controversies are factors but probably don't account for a lot of the foot traffic. It's simply that audiences didn't like BVS and nothing about JL looked appealing from a marketing standpoint.

Agreed. I think even if they had a better RT score, I dont think JL would have made more than 130M opening weekend.

 

[FunkMiller]

I really feel like people are overcomplicating this. Things like Snyder's name or Ben Affleck's PR controversies are factors but probably don't account for a lot of the foot traffic. It's simply that audiences didn't like BVS and nothing about JL looked appealing from a marketing standpoint.

Indeed. There’s a lot of mental gymnastics going on, trying to come up with a main reason other than the one staring us all in the face.

 

[PacificBoy]

And they do have it. This just proves the point of the poster I was quoting. Had it been Joss name attached to the movie, reactions would have been different from both fans and online media.

Had Joss' name been attached to the movie, especially in a directing role, the headlines created wouldn't necessarily have been positive for the people who tend to keep up with the movie production (and who generally care more about who's sitting in the director's chair). Anger and pushback from Snyder fans for one.

 

[OdinSon]

It's not because of that. A trashfire came before Wonder Women and Wonder Women did great.

Wonder Women wasn't a direct sequel to BVS, JL is.

 

[B]

I honestly feel bad for anyone who was expecting this movie to be a critical or financial hit. Audience's clearly rejected both MoS and BvS, so it's follow-up never stood a chance particularly with such poor marketing and the infamous production troubles.

Man of Steel wasn't rejected by audiences, Batman vs Superman was the universally divisive film, not Man of Steel.

 

[JOE]

Man of Steel wasn't rejected by audiences, Batman vs Superman was the universally divisive film, not Man of Steel.

I wouldn't call BvS universally divisive when 73% of critics on RT gave it a rotten rating. MOS on the other hand I would say was.

 

[B]

I wouldn't call BvS universally divisive when 73% of critics on RT gave it a rotten rating. MOS on the other hand I would say was.

We're talking about the audience not critics.

 

[JOE]

We're talking about the audience not critics.

Ah I see... I really don't trust those scores though. Too many 10's and 0's or 1's to be a legitimate gauge in my opinion.

 

[B]

Ah I see... I really don't trust those scores though. Too many 10's and 0's or 1's to be a legitimate gauge in my opinion.

Which scores are you talking about? On RT?

 

[OdinSon]

Ah I see... I really don't trust those scores though. Too many 10's and 0's or 1's to be a legitimate gauge in my opinion.

Precisely. Cinema score is better but even that is polled on opening day, a time when fanboys of these properties flock to see the movie. RT critic score despite it's small size is a better representation in my opinion. Also, the box office return of sequel of a movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Someone explain this to me

Just read the quotes. One is clearly negative in tone calling it "fractured," while the other is clearly positive calling it a "good time."

 

[Deck Rickard]

We're talking about the audience not critics.

Man of Steel, I think, was divisive with audiences. I have a lot of friends who liked/loved it, but I think I know an equal amount of people who thought it sucked and a few who HATED it. And in the time I've spent reading comments on the internet, there seems to be an pretty even split. Me, I personally liked it a lot. But I also think a few things should have been tweaked. Had that happened, I'm pretty confident that the response to it would have been mostly positive rather than mixed.

Regardless of that though, I feel like had BvS been good, or had there been a MOS 2 that was better received than its predecessor, the DCEU would have been in great shape. I don't think MOS killed anyone's interest in Superman or the DCEU at large. But I think BvS kicked all of our hopes and dreams right in the teeth.

 

[Endeavor]

Just read the quotes. One is clearly negative in tone calling it "fractured," while the other is clearly positive calling it a "good time."

Also, are both from the same reviewers? Individual reviewers leave instructions to RT to classify a film as Fresh or Rotten based on a pre-determined rating standard that's personal to them.
Reviewer A my tell RT that for them any film they rate as 3/5 or above is fresh, whereas Reviewer B might say for them it's 2.5/5 or above.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Also, are both from the same reviewers? Individual reviewers leave instructions to RT to classify a film as Fresh or Rotten based on a pre-determined rating standard that's personal to them.
Reviewer A my tell RT that for them any film they rate as 3/5 or above is fresh, whereas Reviewer B might say for them it's 2.5/5 or above.

Again, if a critic submits a review, it's up to them. They could make a 1/5 star review count as fresh and 4/5 stars count as rotten.

Logically speaking that obviously wouldn't happen, but it's all up to the critic.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Again, if a critic submits a review, it's up to them. They could make 1/5 stars count as fresh and 4/5 stars count as rotten.

Logically speaking that obviously wouldn't happen, but it's all up to the critic.

If they submit one then yes. Otherwise if RT seeks out the review and posts it themselves, they go with the tone of the review and the critic's personal threshold history.

Also, are both from the same reviewers? Individual reviewers leave instructions to RT to classify a film as Fresh or Rotten based on a pre-determined rating standard that's personal to them.
Reviewer A my tell RT that for them any film they rate as 3/5 or above is fresh, whereas Reviewer B might say for them it's 2.5/5 or above.

No. I wasn't able to check at the time I posted my initial response, but I am able to now and the Justice League review was by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone while the Thor review was by Tom Russo of the Boston Globe. Two different critics with two different ratings thresholds. That's not RT's fault and that's why automatically making things fresh or rotten based on a score will never work. Because one critic's 2.5/5 is not the same as another's. Also, there is no standard even in scoring system. Some use four stars, some use five stars, some use a percentage, some use a score out of ten, some use a letter grade system...

 

[Consona]

So how does RT work?

 

[FunkMiller]

To all of you blaming critic reviews for the Justice League box office flop, I have one question:

Why did Batman V Superman not flop with even worse reviews?

 

[markjoedelonge]

Spoiler

So how does RT work?

Someone please explain this.

 

[markjoedelonge]

To all of you blaming critic reviews for the Justice League box office flop, I have one question:

Why did Batman V Superman not flop with even worse reviews?

Wait, I thought the general consensus here has been posters telling us left right and center that BvS WAS considered a flop.

"OH a film with BOTH Batman AND Superman in it is guaranteed a billion! Anything less is a flop!"

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So how does RT work?

Very simply:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/31/16107948/rotten-tomatoes-explainer-critics-movies-aggregation

Some critics (or staffers at their publications) upload their own reviews, choose their own pull quotes, and designate their review as “fresh” or “rotten.” Other critics (including myself) have their reviews uploaded, pull-quoted, and tagged as fresh or rotten by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. In the second case, if the staff isn't sure whether to tag a review as fresh or rotten, they reach out to the critic for clarification. And critics who don't agree with the site’s designation can request that it be changed.

One critic's 2.5 out of 4 is not another critic's 2.5 out of 4.

 

[FunkMiller]

Wait, I thought the general consensus here has been posters telling us left right and center that BvS WAS considered a flop.

"OH a film with BOTH Batman AND Superman in it is guaranteed a billion! Anything less is a flop!"

I never said BvS was a flop... and are you going to answer the question?