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

Status
Not open for further replies.
How Justice League played out shows you how unhappy WB was with BvS. How poorly it did.
 
Why don't you contact the reviewers or RT directly to ask about this situation? It doesn't solve anything to ask your fellow SHHers who don't owe you any explanations for a site's inner working. And why did they cut out the reviewers' names in that screencap? It's easier to detect who are the Marvel "shills", you know.
 
Why don't you contact the reviewers or RT directly to ask about this situation? It doesn't solve anything to ask your fellow SHHers who don't owe you any explanations for a site's inner working. And why did they cut out the reviewers' names in that screencap? It's easier to detect who are the Marvel "shills", you know.
It's is not a question. It is a statement trying to make RT look untrustworthy, even as how RT works has been explained multiple times in this thread.
 
DPNRCdPV4AE_kOJ.jpg:large


So how does RT work?

It's like this, my man:

They cut off the head of the chicken. They put one fresh tomato in one corner and one rotten in another. Wherever the chicken goes and drops dead is how they submit the review.
 
It's like this, my man:

They cut off the head of the chicken. They put one fresh tomato in one corner and one rotten in another. Wherever the chicken goes and drops dead is how they submit the review.

..but what do they do with the head?
 
It's is not a question. It is a statement trying to make RT look untrustworthy, even as how RT works has been explained multiple times in this thread.

Indeed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
 
DPNRCdPV4AE_kOJ.jpg:large


So how does RT work?
There's clearly a massive bias against Marvel and they love DC. I mean, how else can you explain this, right? :whatever:

0h654fD.png


Seriously though, this is nonsense, and you can do this for literally any franchise. How RT works has been explained hundreds of times by now, but here it is once again:
Matt Atchity (Editor in Chief at Rotten Tomatoes) said:
It depends on whether the critic is submitting their own review or if the RT staff adds it.

Some critics (about half) add their own reviews to the site, and they mark them Fresh or Rotten themselves.

For the reviews that the Rotten Tomatoes staff finds and adds the Fresh/Rotten determination happens one of two ways:

  • Sometimes a critic has previously set a rating threshold (i.e. anything that is 3.5/5 stars or above should be marked Fresh) so the staff will use that as a direction. Keep in mind that 3.5/5 stars may mean Rotten to another critic; different critics have different tipping points.

  • When a critic doesn't use a score and doesn't submit their own reviews (this happens with Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, for example), then the Rotten Tomatoes team will read the review and make a determination. And frequently the RT staff will check with a critic on a borderline review to make sure that it's marked correctly.
 
OMG; are people now trying to simultaneously argue that JL was bad because WB butchered Snyders' film and critics that don't like it are biased against DC?
 
Last edited:
It's the same idiocy that made stans defend Christina Aguilera's Whitney Houston tribute.
 
OMG; are people now trying to simultaneously argue that JL was bad because WB butchered Snyders' film and critics that don't like it are biased against DC?

Yes indeed. It’s all the critics and Joss Whedon’s fault. It’s not because the general audience couldn’t give a ****, thanks to being turned off by Snyder’s last ‘masterpiece.’
 
i really enjoyed jl i saw it last night its not a great film by any means but i dont think it deserves a 39% on RT
 
The critic gives their rating, then decides whether it's rotten or fresh. I don't know what's so complicated about that?

It's an overall yay or nay if they enjoyed the movie. If someone gave GOTG 2 a 3/5 with a fresh rating and JL a 3/5 with a rotten rating, they enjoyed GOTG 2 but didn't enjoy JL.

Alacia Queen - C+ ROTTEN
James Berardinelli- 2.5/4 ROTTEN
Roe McDermott- 6/10 ROTTEN
Charles Koplinski- 2.5/4 ROTTEN
Mark Dujsik- 2.5/4 ROTTEN
Steven D. Greydanus- C+ ROTTEN

Anyone want to take a guess which movie those ratings are for? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Justice League. Those are all JUST for Thor Ragnarok. How come everyone with the fancy screenshots didn't upload THESE ratings? Oh, because it didn't fit your conspiracy theory that the critics favor the MCU over the DCeU.

When-She-Had-Enough.gif
 
Last edited:
It's is not a question. It is a statement trying to make RT look untrustworthy, even as how RT works has been explained multiple times in this thread.

Including in the very post above that one. It wasn't like the explanation was buried a dozen pages back. People are just deliberately ignoring the explanation because it doesn't fit their pre-determined biased conclusion.
 
There's clearly a massive bias against Marvel and they love DC. I mean, how else can you explain this, right? :whatever:

0h654fD.png


Seriously though, this is nonsense, and you can do this for literally any franchise. How RT works has been explained hundreds of times by now, but here it is once again:
Thank you.

Heavens, this has been explained over and over again. Each critic gives the film their rating and then they let RottenTomatoes know whether to classify it as a positive or negative.

Your 2.5/4 might be positive, mine might be negative. It's apples and oranges.
 
There's clearly a massive bias against Marvel and they love DC. I mean, how else can you explain this, right? :whatever:

0h654fD.png


Seriously though, this is nonsense, and you can do this for literally any franchise. How RT works has been explained hundreds of times by now, but here it is once again:

Man, I was just asking, was not insinuating anything. Thx for the answer nonetheless.
 
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?

I don't blame the critics, but I have an answer:

Because WB's marketing team is really, *really* good, and they hadn't yet burned all their credibility. By the time the reviews came out, the marketing had already hooked and hyped a huge chunk of people, who had already decided to go see it opening weekend.

And then, when they saw it, and realized "Holy ****, this was terrible", the WOM killed the movie dead. Hence the terrible multiplier despite the incredible opening weekend.

In essence, WB conned the audience into showing up. This time around, the audience was once-bitten-twice-shy, and so weren't as susceptible. Thus, when the terrible reviews showed up again, most of them *weren't* already sold on the movie. So they either didn't go at all, or decided to wait and here first hand reports ( ie, WOM ).

Basically, reviews are part, but only part, of the equation. A movie *can* get good sales despite bad reviews. . .but you can be pretty sure it would have gotten *better* sales ( better legs if nothing else ) if it actually did have good reviews. Likewise, a movie that audiences are skeptical about, like say, Wonder Woman? Can do *amazing* despite that initial skepticism, if it gets good WOM and thus legs.

The core to all of this, which a lot of people refuse to admit? The *actual quality of the movie*. Reviews and WOM are not these arbitrary things standing alone, disconnected from everything else. They are measures that depend, with varying degrees of accuracy, on *how good the movie actually is*. You can nitpick and argue and debate about the matter, but ultimately, the most likely explanation for a movie getting bad reviews and bad WOM? Is that the movie *actually is bad*.
 
A prime example of people solely looking at the score as opposed to looking at the specific critiques of each film. I can give Justice League a 2.5/5 rotten score for having interesting characters but lacking coherence on a plot-level. Likewise, I can give a Marvel film a 2.5/5 fresh rating because there is coherence in the plot but the characters aren't as interesting as their previous film. However, I would prioritize plot coherence over the other element in both cases -- resulting in my fresh/rotten score. It's not rocket science.

These comparisons between scores of Marvel/DC films are so ridiculous that I'm questioning whether it's worth pressing enter on this reply at all.
 
Last edited:
A prime example of people solely looking at the score as opposed to looking at the specific critiques of each film.

These comparisons between scores of Marvel/DC films are so ridiculous that I'm questioning whether it's worth pressing enter on this reply at all.

For your own sanity don't do it. It's a trap! :woot:
 
Thank you.

Heavens, this has been explained over and over again. Each critic gives the film their rating and then they let RottenTomatoes know whether to classify it as a positive or negative.

Your 2.5/4 might be positive, mine might be negative. It's apples and oranges.

Wait...you mean to say its not a conspiracy but rather that opinions and criticisms are a...subjective thing!?!? That's absurd!
 
This also shows the absurd nature of rating movies. One person's 2 outta 4 is entirely different than another person's. This is why I stopped rating movies altogether. And I respect critics that don't.
 
This also shows the absurd nature of rating movies. One person's 2 outta 4 is entirely different than another person's. This is why I stopped rating movies altogether. And I respect critics that don't.

Yeah, I find the A-F scale to be far more ascertainable (for want of better wording). But at the end of the day, its all just one person's opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"