The Official Suicide Squad Rotten Tomatoes Thread - Part 1

[Timebomb]

Because this is a RT thread, I am posting that the audience score has dropped another percentage point

 

[BlZARRO]

Your DC/WB bias really is not worth a counter argument. The fact that the TDK trilogy was able to score very highly with the critics three times in a row makes this bias claim look like nothing but deluded feeble fanboy excuses. Which is just what it is. You're the one claiming bias, so the onus is on you, not us who don't believe it, to provide proof of this bias.

So, The Joker, it seems like the number of people who do care about critics remains pretty significant in your thread.

 

[Micromind]

What I was saying was regardless of what should happen,the scenario does happen in some cases and shouldnt be dismissed.I mean I do it to for certain movies.Like I certainly wouldnt have seen Conjuring if it wasnt for good reviews.But for movies for which Im hyped about I go see anyway.I'm 95% sure I will go see Doctor Strange regardless of its reviews.

Regarding the conspiracy/bias thing I dont think most smart DC fans feel that way.But I wont speak for everyone.My feelings close align to this :

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...despite-medias-gloom-and-doom/2/#1aa4859e7a1f

A quote :

"I will strenuously defend the press and film reviewers against hyperbolic accusations and false, uninformed claims of widespread payoffs and bribery, and I consistently tell my readers and fans on social media to stop silly claims of conspiracies against their favorite films. And I will forever defend the right of film critics to express their opinions whether or not readers happen to aggree with the writer’s personal subjective assessment of art.

But I will just as strongly disagree with any members of the press who try to pretend ulterior motives or bad behavior sway some people’s writing sometimes, or who deny that there isn’t a demonstrable tendency of established narratives about a production or project or star to be perpetuated by outlets and reporters. This isn’t to say it can’t change, that people don’t resist it, or that it is the dominant truth of entertainment journalism, but it’s there and it’s not just a few “bad apples” or rare occurrences. And let’s face it, everybody knows it and can see it, so when the media tries too hard to deny it or make excuses for it, it merely enhances the perception that the press can’t be trusted to be honest about itself."

Its a very well written article,I suggest you give it a read.

The author makes many valid points.

There's a growing trend to follow a consensus and the desire to publish click bait headlines.

 

[The Joker]

So, The Joker, it seems like the number of people who do care about critics remains pretty significant in your thread.

*Sigh* Like talking to a brick wall. I'll say it to you one more time, after that your daily excitement over small numbers will be ignored. The thread has not even clocked up close to 80 something votes yet on a forum with thousands of members.

Calm down, have patience, and stop lying awake nights monitoring the thread.

 

[BlZARRO]

*Sigh* Like talking to a brick wall. I'll say it to you one more time, after that your daily excitement over small numbers will be ignored. The thread has not even clocked up close to 80 something votes yet on a forum with thousands of members.

Calm down, have patience, and stop lying awake nights monitoring the thread.

But there are several polls that don't have that many votes. Not saying the number won't change if it gets 200 votes, but do you really think it will change that much? It will go from 30% plus to 1%? Isn't 40 plus votes enough for you to understand that there are, indeed, a significant percentage of people who care? Lol.

A poll is a poll. No poll includes more than a very small percentage of the total public.

 

[Tymminator]

26% critics
69% audience

 

[Bats123]

26% critics
69% audience

well, the audience score has definitely been holding up better in RT than other sites...

 

[Erzengel]

It's been going down periodically.

6.8 on IMDB.
69% and 3.7 audience score on RT.
6.6 on Metacritic.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I'm actually kind of surprised SS scores were so low, mostly because the film was pretty much exactly as marketed and expected to be. I thought if people liked the marketing of it, they'd lean towards liking it overall (in this specific case) .

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I'm actually kind of surprised SS scores were so low, mostly because the film was pretty much exactly as marketed and expected to be. I thought if people liked the marketing of it, they'd lean towards liking it overall (in this specific case) .

Me too, I can see where the criticisms are coming from but even then the reviews are a bit too harsh.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'm actually kind of surprised SS scores were so low, mostly because the film was pretty much exactly as marketed and expected to be. I thought if people liked the marketing of it, they'd lean towards liking it overall (in this specific case) .

The trailers didn't really give out all aspects of the movie though. For example the villain, or even type of villain, was not known at all to most, and that's one aspect that's commonly brought up as one of the biggest negatives. Many probably went in and thought that the Joker would be the villain since they did make one trailer to look that way.

 

[Timebomb]

It's been going down periodically.

6.8 on IMDB.
69% and 3.7 audience score on RT.
6.6 on Metacritic.

Went down to 68% today. My guess is that is where it will stay

 

[Flint Marko]

In no way does the critical consensus have enough of an effect to hurt the box office in any significant way.

I've don't agree with this.
I'd love to see the list of 'several' tbh, perhaps to actually look at their specific circumstances. Moreover, I'd love to see the ones that landed in the sub thirty percent range that managed to perform well and by well I mean this measure that SS needs to hit before it's somehow considered a financial 'good performer'. Somewhere in the 300dom/700WW I hear, I'd really hope for them to be non (mega)sequels if possible.

So now that SS has hit these aforementioned criteria from the Hype's resident film criticism skeptic, can we put to bed the idea that RT has a significant effect on box office? Clearly WOM is the deciding factor.

 

[Marvin]

If proving Marvin right or wrong had the power to put anything to bed, this place would be alot less back and forth if you will. (TWSvsMOS total profits comes to mind). Article after article, write up after write up from the trades alone that mention critical fall out in their box office assessments and forecasts and it's all for nothing when convenient. It's a curious thing to be sure, I truly wonder why they even bother mentioning such things.

Anyways and really the only reason I'm even responding is to point out just another perversion of a point and how that makes this place go round. I never said dick all about how SS hitting those numbers would prove or disprove anything, given I believed(and hoped) it always would land there, that would be nice little conflict of interest. What I said was that if that range(300/700) is the measure needed to make his point, then please give me the list of films that have consistently done this same/similar and with this same sub 30% score and be sure to give me their circumstances. Circumstances wise SS is hardly a non mega sequel. It's part of a cinematic franchise coming off a supposed avengers like event, and it has so called mega characters, it opened as such, and it even has a sequel multiplier among other things. For example Alice(as he brought up) was the first post JamesCameron 3D and it actually had 52%(not 25%) and so forth. Putting this to so called bed means providing a list. Understand and realize that was the point made in the post you quoted. SS doing Transformers numbers simply proves another point, that it was a hit with audiences, see below*

So it's on paper and not left for the detractor to misinterpret, my skeptical point was that critics have a 'greater' impact on films that actually rely on them, and more so domestically. Somber weighty dramas need better reviews than movies more aimed at a crowd(young kids) that doesn't read reviews. A movie like Arrival/12 Monkeys/Prestige with it's B cinema score would be crushed with bad reviews, whereas the Transformers films don't rely on reviews for the same reason. How much more a film like Interstellar needs reviews given the audience it's sold to than the likes of The Hangover 2. SS did better than BvS in this particular regard because it was sold as a good time and with more of an MTV appeal. I digress however for all of this falls into circumstances, something I specifically pointed out needed to be examined in each case yet ignored to be sure. I was careful to use the terms 'greater' and 'more' for unlike people here I don't deal in absolutes and don't think anything can ever be conveniently 'put to bed' to be honest. It's all circumstantial.

Lastly, and this is a point that should actually land cleanly on the typical detractor given they've been making it all summer: How much better would could a film have done! Nothing in these numbers here has negated the quantifiable affect of critical scores. It's like saying BvS made alot of money(900mill), ignoring that it could have made over a billion if it was "good". It made lots so quality has no impact call it a day. Same with critical impact, there's no accounting for how much better the films could have done. Unless of course if Strange got a 26% from critics and people here think it would have attained them same numbers, maybe even more, given critical have no significant impact.

*This post above seemingly "puts to bed" any debate about SS's WOM, for the people that argue WOM is the deciding factor anyways. SS's positive WOM may in some ways even rival DP's in this "deciding factor" paradigm looking at their numbers. Who'd have thunk.

 

[Flint Marko]

So it's on paper and not left for the detractor to misinterpret, my skeptical point was that critics have a 'greater' impact on films that actually rely on them, and more so domestically. Somber weighty dramas need better reviews than movies more aimed at a crowd(young kids) that doesn't read reviews. A movie like Arrival/12 Monkeys/Prestige with it's B cinema score would be crushed with bad reviews, whereas the Transformers films don't rely on reviews for the same reason.

So essentially big franchise films don't rely on reviews like smaller movies that aren't based on any big-name IPs.

You'll note that we are currently on Superherohype, where we mostly talk about the first sort of movie. So yes, the reviews aren't of much consequence at the end of the day for these movies, as SS has demonstrated. Perfect

 

[Marvin]

Again with the absolutes.
And sure if that's what you need then ok, Big films like Green Lantern don't need reviews to make 200plus million dollars the way a small indie film like the Arrival does.

And no, that point(which somehow got misinterpreted) wasn't about scale of film alone being of consequence, hence I pointed to more dramatical film vs mtv geared. As for you IP point, you give Ex Machnia(as it) $300milll budget, I'm still making the same point.
And around we go.

 

[Ivan Drago]

Again with the absolutes.
And sure if that's what you need then ok, Big films like Green Lantern don't need reviews to make 200plus million dollars the way a small indie film like the Arrival does.

And no, that point(which somehow got misinterpreted) wasn't about scale of film alone being of consequence, hence I pointed to more dramatical film vs mtv geared.
And around we go.