The Official Suicide Squad Rotten Tomatoes Thread - Part 1

[Timebomb]

If it drops another point on Metacritic does it become red? Regardless, if it does then it is getting into sharknado territory there. wow

 

[Flint Marko]

^not even sure what you are getting at with this edit tbh.

I feel it's pretty obvious.

I don't think that's their job

Their job is to tell you whether or not they believe a movie is good. It's really that simple.

 

[weezerspider]

^not even sure what you are getting at with this edit tbh.

Their job eh.
So you read the post and the context in which I responded to did you? One that generally has nothing to do with this movie but the preferential slope of grading film?

I don't think a film like sharknado get's a better score than basketball diaries or Interstellar in any sort of consistent grading system. You tax films for lacking substance and character development, award films without the conversation even coming up.

I don't think that's their job, to grad stuff based on personal qualifiers, the audience maybe but not what we present critics as. Their job should strive for a consistency of qualifiers, otherwise there is no point. Otherwise this truly is a system in which the industry bending to the fickle and every changing "likes" of 200 bloggers. Learned analysts grading achievement in the supposed rules of art and film making is what I'd imagine.

And all of that with me mostly agreeing with most critics on SS. Me liking what they say has nill to do with my issue. It's the aforementioned along with their influence tbh.

Their job is to recommend or not recommend films. That's what they are doing. Get over yourself.

 

[Oscorp]

And the trend continues, audience score has dropped another percentage today.

I guess the audience is biased and bought as well then!

 

[Marvin]

Their job is to recommend or not recommend films. That's what they are doing. Get over yourself.

My point wasn't a retort of the definition you decided to inject into my converstaion, but rather one I see all to often, especially around here. One that has proliferated through our society and into the avg movie goer. One that can even be found in the various dictionaries, and legal definitions. That of: their job is ..the analysis and evaluation of films. Film reviews by the critic often analyze and discuss a film's details, its content and characters, assessment of the performances, camera work, directing, editing, production, and script. To which I questioned consistency in doing so, for the value diminishes based on how loosely the term 'good' becomes. It has to be more than that poster said, 'prefer'. To think studios and careers and generations of celebrated art live and die on what some handful prefer on any given first viewing? It has to be about quality is my point when I assert their job.

The sheer amount of people on this very forum or the internet that use 'the critics' to compare the quality of films, or use them or the aggregates to settle or reinforce any sort of argument about which is better or if a film is poor or great. That these posters/people are doing this based on what is "more recommended" as you put it. Because one can't recommend a bad/poor/silly film to an audience or a friend? No, I get that at the end of the day you may very well be correct in suggesting that's all their say amounts to, but that's simply not the current understanding from the people I'm addressing. Their(critics) say is seen as a measure of quality, and or accomplishment in the craft. To which I assert in the post in question, that it shouldn't matter which films critics prefer, rather which one one a consistent measure of quality favors.

In short, not everyone agrees with your definition it seems.
I look no further than the post just before yours "Their job is to tell you whether or not they believe a movie is good. It's really that simple. These people are talking in measures of quality. And it's really that "simple" to them as it should be to me apparently.

Lastly, one can share an opinion however dissenting, about however widespread an understanding, and it not be self-aggrandizing. The two aren't mutually exclusive, even in one of these dc forums.

 

[Flint Marko]

No, I get that at the end of the day you may very well be correct in suggesting that's all their say amounts to

We are right. That's all critics are there for, is to give their opinion on a movie.

but that's simply not the current understanding from the people I'm addressing. Their(critics) say is seen as a measure of quality, and or accomplishment in the craft.

So this is, like most other complaints against film critics I see around here, rooted in the fact that movies you like are consistently lambasted by them, and people bring this up in discussions.

To which I assert in the post in question, that it shouldn't matter which films critics prefer, rather which one one a consistent measure of quality favors.

It shouldn't matter which films critics prefer?

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? Again, their entire job is to tell you whether or not they think a movie is good, and "good" can take many forms, from "well-crafted" in terms of generally accepted conventional story-telling, to mindlessly entertaining, to a good time-waster. Their job is to tell you whether or not they enjoyed watching the movie, and most importantly, why.

But no, a consistent measure of quality, you say. So what do you suggest? Should we require each critic to state their own criteria in their review and have certain boxes that must be checked before they can reasonably say it was a recommend? Should this personal criteria be permanent and never allowed to change or adapt given the movie in question, therefore applying the same standards to Sausage Party, The Raid, Mad Max, and The Revenant? Or should we take out any outliers, and just send out a rigid, standardized system to all professional critics that they must adhere to, thereby assuring that the films that most fit this standardized criteria excel? Who should decide this criteria? What if a critic finds a movie that checks all the right boxes is still incredibly boring, uninspired, or unoriginal? Are they allowed to say as much in their review, or do they just go through the motions and recommend it? What if a majority of critics feel this way, but aren't allowed to express as much given that, according to you, "it doesn't matter which films they prefer"? Doesn't that negate the entire point of film critics?

Or maybe the old system of letting them say whatever they like about the film, including why they did or did not respond to a particular movie, is really working just fine?

I'd like to, again, remind everyone that this discussion started because 14 people gave the first Sharknado a recommend.

 

[FunkMiller]

So this is, like most other complaints against film critics I see around here, rooted in the fact that movies you like are consistently lambasted by them, and people bring this up in discussions.
.
.

Every person I've heard criticising Rotten Tomatoes and the critics is a fan of Snyder/BvS/SS.

Said it before, say it again, if BvS and SS were vastly different films and rated 90% on RT, not one person would be complaining.

 

[The Whizzer]

I like how so many of the people criticizing RT are saying "even if you didn't like the movie you have to agree that critics should still recommend it!"

 

[BlZARRO]

It shouldn't matter which films critics prefer?

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds? Again, their entire job is to tell you whether or not they think a movie is good, and "good" can take many forms, from "well-crafted" in terms of generally accepted conventional story-telling, to mindlessly entertaining, to a good time-waster. Their job is to tell you whether or not they enjoyed watching the movie, and most importantly, why.

But no, a consistent measure of quality, you say. So what do you suggest? Should we require each critic to state their own criteria in their review and have certain boxes that must be checked before they can reasonably say it was a recommend? Should this personal criteria be permanent and never allowed to change or adapt given the movie in question, therefore applying the same standards to Sausage Party, The Raid, Mad Max, and The Revenant? Or should we take out any outliers, and just send out a rigid, standardized system to all professional critics that they must adhere to, thereby assuring that the films that most fit this standardized criteria excel? Who should decide this criteria? What if a critic finds a movie that checks all the right boxes is still incredibly boring, uninspired, or unoriginal? Are they allowed to say as much in their review, or do they just go through the motions and recommend it? What if a majority of critics feel this way, but aren't allowed to express as much given that, according to you, "it doesn't matter which films they prefer"? Doesn't that negate the entire point of film critics?

Or maybe the old system of letting them say whatever they like about the film, including why they did or did not respond to a particular movie, is really working just fine?

I'd like to, again, remind everyone that this discussion started because 14 people gave the first Sharknado a recommend.

Yes, it shouldn't matter what critics prefer. Their preferences aren't my business. I don't care if they prefer lighter movies. I don't care if they prefer Spider-Man to Batman. I don't care if they want Superman to smile instead of being depressive. I don't care if they want a comedic film over something more serious. I don't care if they don't like too much violence. Those aren't valid measurements of quality in film, but we're consistently seeing it being used by movie critics. If i want that type of criticism, all i have to do is to call a friend. I don't need a stranger to tell me about their personal preferences. They're meaningless.

There's absolutely no consistency in film criticism. Take Spring Breakers, for example. That movie is an absolute joke, and i really don't know anyone who likes it. And yet, for movie critics that's good. That's better than Man of Steel. Even though it's absolutely shallow, with horrible characterizations and pathetic acting, to them it's good. It's much better than Batman v Superman.

As a user of the site i've felt misled so many times that i no longer put any sort of credit on what they say. I don't understand how they judge movies. I don't understand why two movies with similar problems can be ranked so differently.

We live in a time where many movie critics are also fanboys. Take Faraci, for example. That guy is as biased as you can get. And i believe that there are others like them. He is just the most stupid of the bunch for making it that clear.

Not denying DC movies have problems. But there's a difference between havng problems and deserving a 20% recommendation rate. I'm 100% sure the percentage of people who enjoyed these movies goes way beyond that that miserable number, so there's definitely a disconnection here between what critics think and what the audiences think.

 

[Erzengel]

The last 2 Transformers movies made over $1B each. Were the critics wrong about those movies?

 

[Silver Surfer]

Yes, it shouldn't matter what critics prefer. Their preferences aren't my business. I don't care if they prefer lighter movies. I don't care if they prefer Spider-Man to Batman. I don't care if they want Superman to smile instead of being depressive. I don't care if they want a comedic film over something more serious. I don't care if they don't like too much violence. Those aren't valid measurements of quality in film, but we're consistently seeing it being used by movie critics. If i want that type of criticism, all i have to do is to call a friend. I don't need a stranger to tell me about their personal preferences. They're meaningless.

There's absolutely no consistency in film criticism. Take Spring Breakers, for example. That movie is an absolute joke, and i really don't know anyone who likes it. And yet, for movie critics that's good. That's better than Man of Steel. Even though it's absolutely shallow, with horrible characterizations and pathetic acting, to them it's good. It's much better than Batman v Superman.

As a user of the site i've felt misled so many times that i no longer put any sort of credit on what they say. I don't understand how they judge movies. I don't understand why two movies with similar problems can be ranked so differently.

We live in a time where many movie critics are also fanboys. Take Faraci, for example. That guy is as biased as you can get. And i believe that there are others like them. He is just the most stupid of the bunch for making it that clear.

Not denying DC movies have problems. But there's a difference between havng problems and deserving a 20% recommendation rate. I'm 100% sure the percentage of people who enjoyed these movies goes way beyond that that miserable number, so there's definitely a disconnection here between what critics think and what the audiences think.

Then what's the problem? ignore their opinion, go watch and enjoy the movie.

 

[The Joker]

Then what's the problem? ignore their opinion, go watch and enjoy the movie.

Its funny, usually the people who claim they don't care about critics' opinions or say they don't matter, they are usually the ones who are most vocal about them when they bash a movie they enjoyed.

 

[Jekecy]

The last 2 Transformers movies made over $1B each. Were the critics wrong about those movies?

As far as whether they're worth making? Absolutely.

A franchise doesn't consistently do 1 billion plus if it weren't exciting audiences. Money talks, and people put the money where their mouth is.

 

[TheVileOne]

People can say it doesn't matter all they want. Tomato meter matters folks. Look how much discussion this garners for Suicide Squad alone. It totally matters.

Rotten Tomatoes scores are industry standard now. They are marketing tools and advertised on Blu-ray and DVD covers. They obviously do matter.

They matter to fans because they want their opinions validated by critics even when they say they don't. DC fans felt slighted because after Batman v Superman they felt overdue for a win here. They did not get it.

 

[Flint Marko]

I truly don't understand how one could look at a faceless, unrelated group of hundreds, if not thousands, of film critics all over the world and say "you all are being unfair and/or biased". It makes no sense. It defies logic.
That's painting with such a comically large brush, and it gets even funnier when you realize that it's always rooted in "my favorite movies aren't being well-reviewed, so it must be on you all, and not the film-makers".

 

[BlZARRO]

Then what's the problem? ignore their opinion, go watch and enjoy the movie.

The problem is that they aren't doing a good job and their opinions impact a movie's performance because, believe it or not, a lot of people use that site in order to decide if they should dump money on a movie or not. As far watching the movie regardless, that's exactly what i do, which doesn't mean i can't comment on how unhelpful their reviews are.

Its funny, usually the people who claim they don't care about critics' opinions or say they don't matter, they are usually the ones who are most vocal about them when they bash a movie they enjoyed.

It's like the guys who say they don't care much for these films. They're usually the most vocal about them. Maybe they should just ignore Suicide Squad and BvS, if these are such bad movies. Go watch something else. Go think about something else, talk about something else. See? Same thing.

 

[BlZARRO]

I truly don't understand how one could look at a faceless, unrelated group of hundreds, if not thousands, of film critics all over the world and say "you all are being unfair and/or biased". It makes no sense. It defies logic.
That's painting with such a comically large brush, and it gets even funnier when you realize that it's always rooted in "my favorite movies aren't being well-reviewed, so it must be on you all, and not the film-makers".

It doesn't defy logic at all. All you have to do is to read a couple of reviews, read the type of criticism that they make, and maybe even compare it to other movies to understand how inconsistent and biased they are in the way they review movies. And when a few of them are well known biased fanboys, it isn't that far fetched to assume that there's a good chance that several others might be it too.

 

[The Joker]

It's like the guys who say they don't care much for these films. They're usually the most vocal about them. Maybe they should just ignore Suicide Squad and BvS, if these are such bad movies. Go watch something else. Go think about something else, talk about something else. See? Same thing.

No, its not the same thing. These are movies about characters people are huge fans of. So discussing how badly they were mishandled is only natural for people who care about said characters. Its the same as fans discussing bad comic book stories about characters they love.

Whereas talking about the opinions of people you claim you don't care about, that makes no sense at all. Yet here you are spending all this time talking about critics you say don't matter to you. You are a shining example of the type of person we're talking about.

 

[Flint Marko]

It doesn't defy logic at all. All you have to do is to read a couple of reviews, read the type of criticism that they make, and maybe even compare it to other movies to understand how inconsistent and biased they are in the way they review movies. And when a few of them are well known biased fanboys, it isn't that far fetched to assume that there's a good chance that several others might be it too.

 

[PacificBoy]

For those calling for 'consistency in criticism', how would that consistency look like? Style guides and house styles like we see in journalism and publishing? A system like the Michelin Star rating in food reviews?

 

[BlZARRO]

No, its not the same thing. These are movies about characters people are huge fans of. So discussing how badly they were mishandled is only natural for people who care about said characters. Its the same as fans discussing bad comic book stories about characters they love.

Whereas talking about the opinions of people you claim you don't care about, that makes no sense at all. Yet here you are spending all this time talking about critics you say don't matter to you. You are a shining example of the type of person we're talking about.

I care about the opinion of people who can affect the performance of movies i enjoy(or not) and i care about film criticism. I just don't care about bad film criticism. When done right, film criticism can be helpful, and i wish it was helpful. I wish i could go to RT and get a fair assessment on how good a movie is. I wish i could go to RT and not see a movie like MOS rotten and a movie like Sharknado fresh. I wish i could go to RT and find consistency. Theoretically, could be a great tool, but it isn't.

See? Still the same thing. You talk about bad movies because you want them to be good, therefore you aren't happy with the fact that they aren't. I talk about critics because i wanted their reviews to be fair and coherent, but they aren't. When i say "i don't care", i'm saying that i won't watch or stop watching a movie because of them. I'm not saying that it doesn't bother me the importance that they're given.

We talk about bad things when they affect us or something that we like. These guys are given way too much spotlight and they just don't deserve it.

 

[BlZARRO]

If that's the best you can do, you shouldn't even post here. You are really not offering any valid counter-argument.

 

[The Joker]

I care about the opinion of people who can affect the performance of movies i enjoy(or not) and i care about film criticism. I just don't care about bad film criticism. When done right, film criticism can be helpful, and i wish it was helpful. I wish i could go to RT and get a fair assessment on how good a movie is. I wish i could go to RT and not see a movie like MOS rotten and a movie like Sharknado fresh. I wish i could go to RT and find consistency. Theoretically, could be a great tool, but it isn't.

See? Still the same thing. You talk about bad movies because you want them to be good, therefore you aren't happy with the fact that they aren't. I talk about critics because i wanted their reviews to be fair and coherent, but they aren't. When i say "i don't care", i'm saying that i won't watch or stop watching a movie because of them. I'm not saying that it doesn't bother me the importance that they're given.

We talk about bad things when they affect us or something that we like. These guys are given way too much spotlight and they just don't deserve it.

What makes you think the opinions of these guys are affecting the movie in any significant way? It didn't stop the movie from having a huge opening, in spite of the bad reviews. Ditto for BvS. People saw the movie, didn't care to go re-watch it. That's why box office drops. Poor re-watch factor to bring bums back into seats. If audiences like a movie, they'll go and watch it again.

If critics had the power to adversely affect box office with their bad reviews then the likes of Transformers wouldn't be able to keep pulling in billions.

Why should you wish to see anything on RT if you claim, and I quote 'Yes, it shouldn't matter what critics prefer. Their preferences aren't my business. I don't care if they prefer lighter movies. I don't care if they prefer Spider-Man to Batman. I don't care if they want Superman to smile instead of being depressive. I don't care if they want a comedic film over something more serious. I don't care if they don't like too much violence. Those aren't valid measurements of quality in film'. So do what was suggested to you since you so adamantly don't care, just ignore it.

See this is not the same thing. You've no reason to want the critics reviews to be the way you want if it doesn't matter to you what they think. You have no basis to believe their reviews are adversely affecting box office either. That certainly goes for the majority on these forums. Someone did a poll several months ago to ask if the bad reviews affected them seeing BvS, and one person out of 88 voters said yes; http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=512541&highlight=

 

[Flint Marko]

If that's the best you can do, you shouldn't even post here. You are really not offering any valid counter-argument.

The claim that critics are biased against WB/DC isn't worth a counter-argument.

 

[BlZARRO]

For those calling for 'consistency in criticism', how would that consistency look like? Style guides and house styles like we see in journalism and publishing? A system like the Michelin Star rating in food reviews?

If you're a critic, why would i wanna know about your personal preferences? Why would i care if to you the massive destruction of a city is boring? Or if you don't like movies that have no jokes. Or if a lot of blood is bad to you. I don't care. You're just another person. Your personal tastes are meaningless to me. If i'm reading your review is because i want a more technical and knowledgeble assessment of the characteristics of the movie. What makes it good? What makes it bad? Explain it to me so i can objectively understand. Tell me something about the movie that the average viewer can't tell me. If you're being paid for it, that's the least you could do.

All movies have flaws. Just don't ignore the flaws of one movie and then go through all the trouble of pointing out everything that's wrong with another. You might even love Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 to death, for whatever reason. That's your problem. I want an objective and unbiased dissection of the movie's qualities and flaws. Just tell me what's good and what's bad about it so i can decide if it's worth the watch or not. Don't hide the flaws from me just because you happened to enjoy it. Be critical of it. That's your job.