|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 26, 2017 13:30:08 GMT -5
I realize my perspective is different, not being a mega comic book fan or anything of the sort, but I kind of feel like some people are choking the fun from this movie. Focusing so much on rotten tomatoes and box offices and past movies and certain details and Marvel... like, f***. I went, I saw, I loved. That's pretty much where I go with it. I do feel like Tomato-scores get too much attention. Like HMARK mentioned earlier, if you actually read film reviews they are more nuanced than a simple good/bad or rotten/fresh binary. Hell, no movie is gonna get universal praise. The New Yorker called Casablanca "pretty tolerable", and it's legitimately one of the greatest films ever made. I recently got to see it on the big screen as part of its 75th anniversary (have seen it probably a half dozen times or more on dvd), it's amazing. Haha, sorry, went on a Bogie tangent there.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 26, 2017 13:34:08 GMT -5
I do feel like Tomato-scores get too much attention. Like HMARK mentioned earlier, if you actually read film reviews they are more nuanced than a simple good/bad or rotten/fresh binary. In general, I don't pay attention to what critics write. I know me enough to know whether I'll like something or not, regardless of what someone I don't know thinks. So for me, it's a total shrug and move on aspect anyway. I tend to look at a few reviews after the fact and go: "yeah, you're right, that movie was good." or "nah, don't know what movie this dude saw."
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Nov 26, 2017 13:45:02 GMT -5
I find Numbers/Scores annoying, I find they cause too much aggro
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Nov 26, 2017 20:37:44 GMT -5
I realize my perspective is different, not being a mega comic book fan or anything of the sort, but I kind of feel like some people are choking the fun from this movie. Focusing so much on rotten tomatoes and box offices and past movies and certain details and Marvel... like, f***. I went, I saw, I loved. That's pretty much where I go with it. I mean, one one level, I get it: poor reviews and not generating revenue means no more films. To them, every bad review puts the whole DCEU at stake. On the other hand, it's that same insidery, "this is how the sausage is made" bullshit that made me fall out of love with wrestling, so they're really not doing themselves any favors worrying about it either way. My advice would be to just turn your brain off and enjoy the ride.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 23:43:34 GMT -5
Really for me it being a comparative bust at the box office and leaving the future of these movies uncertain is the most interesting thing about the movie for me. Just saw it a week ago and I thought it was fine and all but barely anything from it's actually stuck with me. It was a tolerable two hours, which was a lot more than I expected out of it but that isn't at all what the first theatrical meeting of a bunch of the biggest heroes (and Cyborg) should have felt like, and I find DC going from the mammoth opening of BvS to that managing to badly underdeliver in spite of it to the same thing essentially happening with Suicide Squad to the surprise hit of Wonder Woman to Justice League losing to a group who before their movie were a bunch of total D-list nobodies to be the more interesting story than anything the movie actually did.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 27, 2017 6:18:19 GMT -5
Concerning a Flashpoint-like reboot; I don't know, I feel like JL has already kind of served as the "bite the bullet, take a financial hit, and relaunch from here" movie, given that it shifted the series away from Snyder's tone and style.
As for how Aquaman might do, it should really boil down to the film's quality. Wonder Woman, though she's a bigger name than Aquaman, still came out shortly after Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad and still managed to be a huge hit due to being one of the better superhero movies of the past few years; pull off something similar with Aquaman and people will very likely show up. With Justice League I have to assume there was still an audience hangover from BvS and likely a lot of word of mouth concerning how troubled its production was.
As for critics, I really like and appreciate film critique as its own art and science, and love it when it's done well, especially when a critic manages to disassemble the various components of a film to see what makes it tick before reassembling them to analyze the whole. However, any critic will remind you that their takes will always be largely subjective and that it's up to the reader/listener to take pertinent information from their reviews and figure if the critic's take tells them anything about the film that they think might impact their enjoyment or appreciation of it (in positive or negative ways). I can't say I'm a huge fan of the "turn your brain off" concept (though I do get where the idea is coming from) with regards to big budget movies, but that also doesn't mean that a critic justifiably pointing out various flaws in a film means one can't go in and find a reason to enjoy the proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 27, 2017 9:28:29 GMT -5
Speaking as an amateur critic:
When I write stuff or reviews for FAN, I try to keep an open mind so that I can remain fair. Even if a studio, actor or director has goodwill built up with me, I don't have an issue pointing out flaws in a thing. Even some of my rave reviews will occasionally have some nitpicks.
I'll admit there's stuff I can be a fanboy towards, but I do have the ability to step back and realize something isn't perfect, so I'm not arguing for being blindly positive with tentpole films- or anything. But at the same time, I don't like it when critics root for stuff to fail, or are excessively mean spirited or make personal remarks about the creators/crew. For me, it's more fun to just be honest.
I don't read other reviews until I've seen something, and from there I hold it up to the light next to my own opinions. I was aware of Justice League's RT score going in, but I've also enjoyed my fair share of stuff with a "rotten" rating, so I don't take it fully to heart on a film's overall merit. And lo and behold, I had way more fun with JL- in spite of some complaints- than I did BvS.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 27, 2017 10:26:42 GMT -5
You'd almost have to have more fun with JL than BvS. That f***er was a funeral dirge, both figuratively and literally.
That is one more problem that goes back on BvS now too since JL brought Supes back so quickly: "what was the point of killin him?" they gave lip service to Bats guilt and all, but just like everything else it was unearned.
Oh well, at least Clark is happy now.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 27, 2017 10:44:14 GMT -5
You'd almost have to have more fun with JL than BvS. That f***er was a funeral dirge, both figuratively and literally. That is one more problem that goes back on BvS now too since JL brought Supes back so quickly: "what was the point of killin him?" they gave lip service to Bats guilt and all, but just like everything else it was unearned. Oh well, at least Clark is happy now. Clark in JL felt like the version from Superman: The Animated Series (like Phantasm for Batman, I think that show is perfect for an introduction to his character).
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Nov 27, 2017 11:08:23 GMT -5
Wasn't it that since Superman died, that allowed Steppenwolf to return? The lack of a hero of that strength and magnitude caused fear and left a huge opening to attack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 11:23:59 GMT -5
You'd almost have to have more fun with JL than BvS. That f***er was a funeral dirge, both figuratively and literally. That is one more problem that goes back on BvS now too since JL brought Supes back so quickly: "what was the point of killin him?" they gave lip service to Bats guilt and all, but just like everything else it was unearned. Oh well, at least Clark is happy now. Yeah, that whole thing baffled me from the instant they did it. I mean, in theory I get the concept - set up how much the world needs Superman while at the same time depriving it of him to force the creation of the Justice League, okay. But like... That's just stupidly watering down death right from the word go in your universe with one absolutely nobody was buying. It'd have made far more sense to, one, come up with an actual reason Superman had to use the spear instead of just forgetting Wonder Woman was there, and two, have it severely injure him or put him in a coma or something, maybe make him temporarily lose his powers. Enough to be serious and scare people with the idea of being without him thus the League but without just pointlessly killing him just so you can undo it.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 27, 2017 11:54:51 GMT -5
You'd almost have to have more fun with JL than BvS. That f***er was a funeral dirge, both figuratively and literally. That is one more problem that goes back on BvS now too since JL brought Supes back so quickly: "what was the point of killin him?" they gave lip service to Bats guilt and all, but just like everything else it was unearned. Oh well, at least Clark is happy now. Yeah, which is a big reason why JL felt like a reboot to me; kind of handwaving all that away so quickly as a way of saying "No, we're not going to do it that way now." The truth seems to have been that WB went to Snyder and DC for BvS and said "Marvel's way ahead of us, so take two of our biggest trade paperbacks and work them into your movie", hence getting us the Dark Knight Returns fight and the Death of Superman ending. Ridiculously short-sighted on WB's part, but nobody's accused them of being too competent of late. Meanwhile, using the Death of Superman as part of a cinematic universe's story should be huge, but as the Really That Bad episode said: "You killed Superman, and nobody cared." I guess it would've worked a little better structurally with Snyder's initial idea of doing a two-part Justice League movie, where maybe Supes returns in the second one, but I get them just wanting to move past all of this now.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 13:47:08 GMT -5
I've said it before I firmly believe that there is an agenda by professional critics who are Pro-Marvel. I can agree that Justice League was rushed, a weak villain, and some obvious problems with the effects in general. But to say it's deserving of a 30 to 40%? While Thor: Ragnarok receives a 90%? Come on now. I love Marvel as much as the next person, but for anyone to even suggest that Batman vs. Superman, Suicide Squad, and Justice League are the worst films ever is completely exaggerating and is presenting an obvious bias. I am all for having difference of opinions, that isn't my problem, the problem I am pointing out is "edgy fanboys" and "professional critics" who type up a review bashing a film while displaying an obvious bias, it spreads, and then viewers who read it buy into it and the film in question suffers. Dude, I'm sorry, but you have to understand how sites like Rotten Tomatoes actually work. Thor didn't "get a 90%", JL didn't "get a 40%"; putting it that way makes it sound like critics are saying Thor was an A-level movie, or JL a D-level one. All it does is say what percentage of the reviews were positive. That's it. Many Thor reviews may simply be "it was alright", and something that lukewarm would count toward the 90%. It just so happened that Thor was such an agreeable movie that the vast majority of critics at least felt it was worth an "eh, pretty good". I wasn't blown away by it, but if I was being asked my opinion in a simple "good" or "bad" binary, I'd say it was good. Similarly, JL getting 40% or whatever doesn't mean the reviews were all "4 out of 10", it just means they might've been just as lukewarm as some of the positive Thor reviews, just in the negative direction. Given JL's obvious flaws due to its troubled production, many reviewers not being that into it can't be particularly surprising, but it doesn't mean they all hated it. Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. Which is my point regarding Rotten Tomatoes and the "professional critics". The majority of these professional critics, in my opinion, happen to be these pro Marvel fanboys who hate anything that isn't Marvel. Just last night I was at work and overheard this man tell his wife after leaving Justice League "There's no way that deserved a 40%. That was actually pretty damn good." Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of power, critics have a lot of power, and if all they're doing is trashing material and having it spread like wildfire then it hurts the movie. We're not talking about Gigli, Bucky Larson, or some other obvious cash grab bad film. We're talking about the Justice League, Batman vs. Superman, and Suicide Squad that was unfairly ripped apart because it wasn't Marvel. Were they perfect films? No. Were there various out of character moments? Absolutely. But were they the worst films in the world? No, they weren't and that's where my problem lies with a lot of these "professional critics" who attempt to be witty, edgy, and are bitter.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Nov 27, 2017 14:00:41 GMT -5
Dude, I'm sorry, but you have to understand how sites like Rotten Tomatoes actually work. Thor didn't "get a 90%", JL didn't "get a 40%"; putting it that way makes it sound like critics are saying Thor was an A-level movie, or JL a D-level one. All it does is say what percentage of the reviews were positive. That's it. Many Thor reviews may simply be "it was alright", and something that lukewarm would count toward the 90%. It just so happened that Thor was such an agreeable movie that the vast majority of critics at least felt it was worth an "eh, pretty good". I wasn't blown away by it, but if I was being asked my opinion in a simple "good" or "bad" binary, I'd say it was good. Similarly, JL getting 40% or whatever doesn't mean the reviews were all "4 out of 10", it just means they might've been just as lukewarm as some of the positive Thor reviews, just in the negative direction. Given JL's obvious flaws due to its troubled production, many reviewers not being that into it can't be particularly surprising, but it doesn't mean they all hated it. Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. Which is my point regarding Rotten Tomatoes and the "professional critics". The majority of these professional critics, in my opinion, happen to be these pro Marvel fanboys who hate anything that isn't Marvel. Just last night I was at work and overheard this man tell his wife after leaving Justice League "There's no way that deserved a 40%. That was actually pretty damn good." Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of power, critics have a lot of power, and if all they're doing is trashing material and having it spread like wildfire then it hurts the movie. We're not talking about Gigli, Bucky Larson, or some other obvious cash grab bad film. We're talking about the Justice League, Batman vs. Superman, and Suicide Squad that was unfairly ripped apart because it wasn't Marvel. Were they perfect films? No. Were there various out of character moments? Absolutely. But were they the worst films in the world? No, they weren't and that's where my problem lies with a lot of these "professional critics" who attempt to be witty, edgy, and are bitter. No one is buying this or will. BvS and Suicide Squad got what they deserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 14:09:45 GMT -5
Wasn't it that since Superman died, that allowed Steppenwolf to return? The lack of a hero of that strength and magnitude caused fear and left a huge opening to attack. That's they way I got it too. I'm not sure why people get so hung up on the death of Superman in these films. In the comics it was hokey and obviously the silliest stunt imaginable especially considering the way they brought him back. {Spoiler}the way they brought him back in JL was actually waaaaaaaaaaay more interesting than how they did it in the comics. It was a coming together of a team for a bigger purpose and they all had to work as a unit to make it happen. In the comics it was just like "Oh...well, I just needed some down time after my fight with Doomsday."
In JL, it felt more like his resurgence was purpose-driven beyond, "look guys, we gotta bring him back to sell more books..."
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 14:18:32 GMT -5
Dude, I'm sorry, but you have to understand how sites like Rotten Tomatoes actually work. Thor didn't "get a 90%", JL didn't "get a 40%"; putting it that way makes it sound like critics are saying Thor was an A-level movie, or JL a D-level one. All it does is say what percentage of the reviews were positive. That's it. Many Thor reviews may simply be "it was alright", and something that lukewarm would count toward the 90%. It just so happened that Thor was such an agreeable movie that the vast majority of critics at least felt it was worth an "eh, pretty good". I wasn't blown away by it, but if I was being asked my opinion in a simple "good" or "bad" binary, I'd say it was good. Similarly, JL getting 40% or whatever doesn't mean the reviews were all "4 out of 10", it just means they might've been just as lukewarm as some of the positive Thor reviews, just in the negative direction. Given JL's obvious flaws due to its troubled production, many reviewers not being that into it can't be particularly surprising, but it doesn't mean they all hated it. Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. Which is my point regarding Rotten Tomatoes and the "professional critics". The majority of these professional critics, in my opinion, happen to be these pro Marvel fanboys who hate anything that isn't Marvel. Just last night I was at work and overheard this man tell his wife after leaving Justice League "There's no way that deserved a 40%. That was actually pretty damn good." Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of power, critics have a lot of power, and if all they're doing is trashing material and having it spread like wildfire then it hurts the movie. We're not talking about Gigli, Bucky Larson, or some other obvious cash grab bad film. We're talking about the Justice League, Batman vs. Superman, and Suicide Squad that was unfairly ripped apart because it wasn't Marvel. Were they perfect films? No. Were there various out of character moments? Absolutely. But were they the worst films in the world? No, they weren't and that's where my problem lies with a lot of these "professional critics" who attempt to be witty, edgy, and are bitter. People pay too much attention to the percentage score and not enough to the average scores. Thor: Ragnarok's average rating out of 10: 7.5 from 301 reviews (92%). Justice League's average rating out of 10: 5.3 from 278 reviews (41%). Both of those seem fair to me. If one were to filter the results so only the top critics - the actual professional ones who are held to higher standards and are less likely to be swayed by brand bias or fanboyism - are counted: Thor: Ragnarok: 7.6 from 36 reviews (94%). Justice League: 4.8 from 31 reviews (32%). So it seems to me that the more fanboy-like critics you add to the mix, the better Justice League's score fares.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 27, 2017 14:28:43 GMT -5
The notion that Marvel has a secret cabal of evil film critics that they're paying off in order to ruin DC films is one of my favorite "You sir are f***ing insane" conspiracy theories. I won't even entertain the notion and I have no time for people who did. It's absurd. I mean it's not like the MCU hasn't had it's share of cinematic turd offerings that got critical roasting for being shit (Oh hai Inhumans!)
Maybe, just maybe attempting to be dark and serious isn't the same as successfully being dark and serious and that the reason these movies are getting terrible reviews they rightly deserve. And I say this as a guy who prefers DC comics to Marvel ones. I want DC comics to make good films and I'm mad at them because they aren't. And that has nothing to do with Marvel mostly doing a good job.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 27, 2017 14:40:46 GMT -5
And another thing while I'm at it, if "it's just all right" is the best you can do with your big tentpole franchise you have SERIOUS problems in need of rectifying.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 27, 2017 14:41:31 GMT -5
I say this as a guy who prefers DC comics to Marvel ones. I want DC comics to make good films and I'm mad at them because they aren't. And that has nothing to do with Marvel mostly doing a good job. Which again is what I said earlier. Most people complaining about DC movies aren't Marvel Fanboys... it's DC fans that want DC to stop f***ing up. (note: this is not a critique of Justice League itself as I have not seen it.)
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 14:45:42 GMT -5
The notion that Marvel has a secret cabal of evil film critics that they're paying off in order to ruin DC films is one of my favorite "You sir are f***ing insane" conspiracy theories. I won't even entertain the notion and I have no time for people who did. It's absurd. I mean it's not like the MCU hasn't had it's share of cinematic turd offerings that got critical roasting for being shit (Oh hai Inhumans!) Maybe, just maybe attempting to be dark and serious isn't the same as successfully being dark and serious and that the reason these movies are getting terrible reviews they rightly deserve. And I say this as a guy who prefers DC comics to Marvel ones. I want DC comics to make good films and I'm mad at them because they aren't. And that has nothing to do with Marvel mostly doing a good job. I am not saying Marvel is paying off critics. What I am saying is that there are "professional critics" with an agenda and don't want to see anything that isn't Marvel succeed. That's the point I am trying to make. I could write a review stating that I feel "Infinity War" could and will be the worst film in the world. While I don't think that's the case, I could write a review like that and have it spread like wild fire. The more someone says something is trash the more people believe it and don't give it a chance.
|
|