Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Movies Entertainment

Suicide Squad Fans Petition To Shut Down Rotten Tomatoes Over Negative Reviews (variety.com) 407

The much-anticipated movie Suicide Squad has largely failed to impress film critics and normal people alike. People are leaving the theaters disappointed, with a firm belief that DC Universe has let them down again. Vanity Fair goes as far as saying, "Suicide Squad isn't even the good kind of bad," adding that "I'd have to imagine that most fans of Harley Quinn -- male, female, gay, straight -- will be disappointed." The ratings are super low at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes as well. Amid these reviews, the fans of the film have launched a Change.org petition with the intent of shutting down film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Variety adds: Abdullah Coldwater, the DC Comics fan who drafted the petition, accused the site of giving "unjust bad reviews" that "affects people's opinion even if it's a really great [movie]." He added, "Critics always give The DC Extended Universe movies unjust bad reviews." The petition has received over 13,000 signatures as of this post. "Suicide Squad," which stars Will Smith, Jared Leto and Margot Robbie and is one of the most highly-anticipated movies of the summer, currently has an approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 34 percent. In comparison recent critical disgrace "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" settled at 27 percent on 344 critiques, whereas Marvel's "Captain America: Civil War" garnered a laudatory 90 percent with 320 critics chiming in.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Suicide Squad Fans Petition To Shut Down Rotten Tomatoes Over Negative Reviews

Comments Filter:
  • Wah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:21PM (#52638701)

    Wah!

    • Re:Wah! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:23PM (#52638723) Journal

      Basically RT is facing a big coordinated batch of trolls.

      • Ha!

        Trolls roam in batches.

        I think that should be the official term for a group of trolls.

        • A Good Source of Group Names [thealmightyguru.com] I'm partial to a "Clattering" myself.
        • Re:Wah! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:40PM (#52638919) Journal

          Trolls roam in batches ... official term for a group of trolls...

          "Political Party"

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by NotInHere ( 3654617 )

        I've read your sentence as "Basically russia today is facing a big coordinated batch of trolls.".

        Then I've thought... That can't be. They get paid by the same side after all.

      • It's a posse of trolls. Who'd grown fat and sloppy from the roasting of souls.
    • Re:Wah! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @05:05PM (#52639143) Journal

      Yes exactly. If a critic thinks it's a bad movie, they'll write that it's a bad movie. If a bunch of critics give shitty reviews, then a bunch of critics think it's a shitty movie. Demanding critics be silenced because they might hurt a movie's prospects at the box office makes about as much sense as authors demanding bad reviews of their books be taken down because it might hurt book sales.

      Besides, I'm pretty dubious as to how much critics' views even matter. The critics largely seem to think most of Michael Bay's films are dire hunks of steaming donkey shit (a view I share), and yet they appear to be licenses to print money, so clearly a helluva lot of people who go to the movies either don't read reviews, or don't give a shit.

      And heck, I'm one of them. Lots of critics hated Coneheads and Mars Attacks back in the day, and I confess, every time I watch either, I laugh my ass off, so fuck the critics on those ones.

      • Ghostbusters as a counter example ?

        Then again that was an example of critics trying to tell the audience they were bad people for not liking a steaming pile of poop

        • Re:Wah! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @07:11PM (#52640197)

          Ghostbusters was, if anything, an example how much you can bully and bribe critics today. The comparison between the "professional" and the "user" verdict speaks volumes on pretty much every review aggregation page.

      • Lots of critics hated Coneheads and Mars Attacks back in the day, and I confess, every time I watch either, I laugh my ass off, so fuck the critics on those ones.

        Both of those are laugh-worthy, no matter how many times I have seen them.

        Plus, everytime I see Al Sharpton on TV (since his weight loss), I can't help but be reminded of the Martians in Mars Attacks!

      • Re:Wah! (Score:4, Informative)

        by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @05:40PM (#52639505)

        Demanding critics be silenced because they might hurt a movie's prospects at the box office makes about as much sense as authors demanding bad reviews of their books be taken down because it might hurt book sales

        Don't look now but a US major party candidate wants to change libel laws to let people sue their critics. I'll let you guess which one.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      Critics fail to understand a film. More news at 11.

      Not surprised really. A lot of them lose their mind if they just see a blue naked guy.

      • Critics fail to understand a film. More news at 11.

        Not surprised really. A lot of them lose their mind if they just see a blue naked guy.

        I agree 100%, but really, it isn't okay to try to shut them up. Critics should never be silenced, only responded to.

        It's ironic when people use their freedom of speech to demand silence from others.

  • Get a life people....

    Also... change.org was neat for a while... but I just don't want to be depressed all day every day so I took myself off the mailing list..

    • by Mr. Shotgun ( 832121 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @08:55PM (#52640779)

      Also... change.org was neat for a while..

      Did change.org petitions ever actually accomplish anything? I am serious cause change.org sounds like a site for people to sign onto a petition no one will read. Does the petition ever get sent anywhere? Let alone to anyone who can make decisions?

      Not trying to be rude but at least with paper petitions the recipient knows someone did the legwork to get people to sign. Change.org seems to be the epitome of armchair activism.

  • by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:24PM (#52638733)

    Do these idiots even remotely understand how Rotten Tomatoes works? All they do is aggregate critics' reviews. They don't review the movie themselves.

    • by halivar ( 535827 )

      Yeah, BUT they select from a curated list of critics. Recently, many of these critics (Chicago Tribune, I'm looking at you) that see movie critique as an opportunity to show off their acerbic wit in a series of ever increasingly scathing roasts. At this point, I'm wondering if some of these critics actually enjoy movies. Basically, I have to take RT ratings with a grain of salt.

      • to show off their acerbic wit in a series of ever increasingly scathing roasts

        Suddenly I'm motivated to read reviews again. It always seemed like critics were mostly being paid off to give positive sounding reviews and you had to read really deep to find the truth. Like video games where the average review is something like 8 when it should be 5, but if you dare give a AAA title a 5 you get trolled.

        • by halivar ( 535827 )

          The thing is, they are trying really hard to emulate Roger Ebert's classic "North" review, and falling far, far, short: http://www.rogerebert.com/revi... [rogerebert.com]

          • If your point is that it is derivative...ok. Acerbic wit? Not remotely witty. But assuming he actually saw the movie, the review tells me some useful things: Will Smith and Margot Whoever were good, the script sucked, it's likely going to be corporate junkfood rather than something with some substance (Netflix's Daredevil comes to mind), and I probably don't want to bring my young kids there. That last is important, too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share, but I'd like to

            • "too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share"

              Agreed, censorship only serves to retard the mental development and coping skills of children. There is a reason that the children who were raised in a world where they actually enforced R ratings at the theater became teenagers who kill themselves left and right.
          • Ah yes, Roger's famous:

            I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

        • Suddenly I'm motivated to read reviews again.

          Then you should read the Vanity Fair review [vanityfair.com]: " Suicide Squad is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something."

        • One of my favorite all time reviews was Roger Ebert's review for Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, which starts with:

          "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pan

      • Bull shit. Rotten Tomatoes offers TWO rankings - one for the critics and one for registered users.

        Most importantly, Rotten Tomatoes has a great spread that most rating systems - that is they don't give all movies good ratings, some get low, some get high ratings. This is mainly because they are independent.

        The problem is some people are addicted to certain genres, - asking them which movie is good is like asking a heroin addict to rate his heroin - the worst heroin gets a 9, the best gets a 10, and the

      • Recently, many of these critics (Chicago Tribune, I'm looking at you) that see movie critique as an opportunity to show off their acerbic wit in a series of ever increasingly scathing roasts.

        Recently? This has been how many movie critics have behaved *for decades*.

        Way back, before the Internet was a gleam in Al Gore's eye, I remember reading syndicated reviews in newspapers where the reviewer seemed more interested in displaying how clever they were than in reviewing the movie...

    • Lucky for Rotten Tomatoes as the movie was fucking awful, would not inflict it on them.
  • Why not use the DMCA to shut it down? As the law is poorly written they may be able to pull that off.

    • Why not use the DMCA to shut it down? As the law is poorly written they may be able to pull that off.

      That would be perjury and you would risk jail time as a result. DMCA claims require that A) The person filing it has personal or corporate juristiction to do so (Ie is the owner of the copyright or an agent), and B) isnt violating fair use, which a review clearly is not.

      The courts have a history of being very harsh on people who lie in DMCA filings about their rights to content whilst trying to use them in a

      • The movie studios can claim that the review has copyright stuff in it and must be removed and they can also say that we lost $$$$ due to it.

      • by suutar ( 1860506 )

        The perjury part is only for the assertion that the filer of the DMCA complaint is the owner or is the agent of the owner of a copyright. The assertion that the work being complained about infringes on that copyright is "good faith".

  • Of all the reasons to want to close a movie review aggregator, the reviews for Suicide Squad are the greatest sin the site has committed? Do these people even understand how an aggregator works? This can't be "real," this is an obvious Internet prank. This is just bad comedy.
  • Get a grip (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Batman v. Superman is the worst movie in the DC universe. Everyone involved was awful. The script, the screenplay, the line delivery. Gal Gadot did nothing but furrow her brow for two hours. Eisenberg spent 10 minutes saying ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. DC films and TV are pretty garbage.
    • Never saw it, but the concept is horrible...

      Superman is effectively invincible... even his supposed weakness is not really a weakness... He can lift an ENTIRE ISLAND made of the stuff into outer space if he just digs deep enough... pfft, what chance does a mere mortal have?

      • Superman is interesting when he's not dealing with petty humans. They already pissed away Doomsday, and by the looks of it the formation of the Justice League. (I guess we're ignoring the Justice Society.)

        Human villains that can challenge him in ways that make Superman's abilities useless, reducing him to the level of a mere mortal, are interesting. For example, Lex Luthor forcing Superman to choose which missile to stop and who to save. (Of course, having Superman selectively reverse time afterward is

      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        Frank Miller told the story well in Dark Knight Returns. The key in that story was that Batman's goal in the fight was not to kill Superman, just to give him enough of a beating to encourage Superman to back off. Batman, of course, knows about kryptonite and has the resources to acquire some. Still, hundreds of people have tried to beat Superman using Kryptonite over the years, and he's still there.

        DKR is a very good read, and in one book invented the "dark Batman" that everyone expects today. Miller is

      • That's a problem DC heroes all share, they are far too powerful. Marvel heroes seem to be much more grounded.
  • by Threni ( 635302 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:29PM (#52638799)

    The site owners? The police?

  • A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyrannosaur ( 2485772 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:33PM (#52638843)

    I have an idea, how about we instead make a change.org petition to have The DC Extended Universe movies be better written? That would solve TWO problems!

    • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HBI ( 604924 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:37PM (#52638887) Journal

      I say this as a former comic book fan in my youth, but it tickles my fancy nowadays to hear people getting all uptight about the quality of either the comic books themselves or the movies based on them. Look back on it in 30 years and it's pretty much all shit. Even the things I loved like Jim Starlin's Metamorphosis Alpha/Dreadstar haven't aged very well. The Claremont/Byrne X-Men are mediocre at best, and we thought they were so great back in the 80s.

  • PG???? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:34PM (#52638851)
    When I first saw the movie trailer I was looking forward to a sin city type of darkness that could only be done in an R-rated movie. I found out it was PG? It makes me not want to go see it right there.
    • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      It's PG-13 according to IMDB [imdb.com] and Fandango [fandango.com].

    • Re:PG???? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Swampash ( 1131503 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @09:55PM (#52641159)

      When the Comic-Con 2015 teaser for Suicide Squad came out it was all dark and depressing and grownup.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Then dark and depressing and grownup Batman v Superman: Yawn of Justice hit cinemas and tanked. So some marketing genius at DC looked over at Marvel rolling in cash from critical and commercial homeruns like Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy and sent down word that Suicide Squad would henceforth be a comedy buddy movie. Witness: official trailer.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Same actors, same story, but now it's funny. Can't you tell?

      Marvel managed to make a great movie starring a talking raccoon and a tree, and DC has managed to serve up steaming turds featuring Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Joker. Right now DC is to movies what Donald Trump is to twitter. You just feel like saying "stop".

  • by justcauseisjustthat ( 1150803 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:35PM (#52638871)
    From what I understand Deadpool was created without input from studio executives, Suicide Squad was just the opposite and was actually recut to try and copy Deadpool humor. Maybe getting rid of the committees that make so many bad movies will bring us more entertainment.
    • by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:46PM (#52638975)

      Time to make the fucking chimichangas!

      Deadpool was utterly fabulous. The only problem with it is that it will undoubtedly spawn innumerable copycats with input from studio executives, that will be so bad they make your brainstem bleed.

      • Soooooooo true, brainless lemmings (although well paid).
        • SS is a hot mess.
          Harley Quinn is not golden age DC. And her shorts are too short. It's disgusting objectification.

          DC just wants a giant hit like Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool, why are you haeting on them for trying to jump on the bandwagon?!!

          Also, it doesn't matter that the Enterprise can beat a Imperial Star Destroyer, Defiant would mop the floor with both of them.
          Ginger? Maryanne? There's a third option, you know.
    • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @05:20PM (#52639307) Homepage

      My understanding (from a couple of people I know who were involved with the movie) was that the first pass (ie at the end of filming in July of 201) of the movie was disappointing, but serviceable (ie make its money back in the theatres and turn a profit on streaming and DVDs). Test audiences' biggest problem was that they didn't know many of the various minor villains (ie Killer Croc, Deadshot and Captain Boomerang) and were confused by Harley Quinn because in the cartoons, she has a definite costume and doesn't use a baseball bat.

      Then the trailer was created which made it seem like a *much* different movie than it actually was. The trailer, (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]) generated a lot of buzz due to the energy the characters gave off which wasn't in the original film. The Warner suits realized that there was a disconnect between the trailer and reality, so early last fall, they ordered a script update with reshoots so that the movie would better match the trailer.

      The script changes were complete and new filming was finishing up in Vancouver when Deadpool came out and did not affect the final version of the film. It may have confirmed the Warner suits' that they were on the right track, but Deadpool didn't force the decision one way or another. I was told in December that Warner had managed to turn a fair movie that avid comic book readers will like into a "shitty" one that wouldn't work for anybody with the script and filming changes.

      The DC Universe movie problems go a lot deeper than trying to copy Deadpool or Avengers movies - it basically comes from a lack of central planning that Marvel/Disney/Sony have in spades as well as difficulty in listening to the casual movie goer.

      One of the friends, who's a PA on Suicide Squad, said that fanboys know the characters and that's who DC/Warner tends to listen to rather than somebody off the street who has heard of Batman and Superman but can't name anybody in their rogue's gallery other than The Joker and Lex Luthor and needs an introductory movie for them and the universe, the same way Marvel does.

  • by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:37PM (#52638889)

    I thought groupthink was limited to /. and reddit but I see it is alive and well in new areas now:

    /sarcasm Yeah, let's censor reviews we don't agree with!

    Uh, No, "this movie sucks" is an opinion. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, but trying to censor opinions you don't disagree just because it hurts your bottom line is just plain stupid. We already have the legal right to "voice" our opinion as long as it isn't slander nor libel.

    As they say, Everyone is a critic. [youtube.com]

    Which ironically has this gem:

    Harrison's Postulate: "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

    • I thought groupthink was limited to /.

      Groupthink is the human condition.

    • > I thought groupthink was limited to /. and reddit but I see it is alive and well in new areas now:

      You, uh, thought very wrong. Groupthink is everywhere. Look no further than politics to see it writ large.

  • by fallen1 ( 230220 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @04:53PM (#52639033) Homepage

    so get over it already. DC just has a lousy track records of making a universe of films with continuity that are, you know, well-scripted and fun to watch.

    I also thought the new Star Trek was mediocre at best. I was looking for some of the wonder and excitement that the reboot brought to the screen (minus lens flare) and I got wonder alright -- I wandered into the movie and then I wandered out when it was over. No excitement for the villain, the plot overall, but there were at least a couple of funny moments.

  • My teenage daughter has been wanting to see this for a while now, so I'm pretty sure I'll be going at some point soon. The previews looked pretty good to me, to I'm fine with going. I have a feeling this will be one of those movies that the critics are going to blast, but the public will like. I just looked at IMDB and did check a couple of the reviews. They're were at least a couple (all the ones I read)) that it appears have seen the film and rated it fairly high. So the 8.3 seems reasonable. It certainly
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      My teenage daughter has been wanting to see this for a while now, so I'm pretty sure I'll be going at some point soon. The previews looked pretty good to me, to I'm fine with going. I have a feeling this will be one of those movies that the critics are going to blast, but the public will like. I just looked at IMDB and did check a couple of the reviews. They're were at least a couple (all the ones I read)) that it appears have seen the film and rated it fairly high. So the 8.3 seems reasonable. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the critics got it wrong, if that's the case.

      Take a look at the review breakdown:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386697/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

      Nearly 70% of the reviews are giving it a perfect 10. I'm guessing this is probably the work of the same kind of folks who are making these silly petitions and not the result of the critics being wildly out of touch.

  • This is a serious question. It seems like they consistently do more harm then good to the box-office of movies in modern times, serving only to spread early negativity and hamper the opening weekend turnout. I understand that once upon a time the film industry needed these curated professionals to have early access to the film to drum up interest and get press in printed media, but in today's world of twitter feeds and social media, I honestly think the film industry would be better served to leave them o
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      Or maybe the reviewers are right. Frankly with the cost of movies being so high I would rather wait for the reviews before I spend the money. I was looking forward to this movie but now I will probably give it a miss or wait and see it during the day when it is cheaper.

  • by ThomasBHardy ( 827616 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @05:10PM (#52639191)

    Protester fanbois protest site that aggregates reviews, screaming "Stop saying it's bad".

    Net effect: An even larger audience reading articles about the petition realize it's a bad movie and don't go.

    Way go to! /tumbsup

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @05:15PM (#52639259) Homepage Journal

    "... which stars Will Smith"
      And yet people are shocked at the bad reviews. At this point if you see Will Smith in a film, you should proceed carefully.

  • ... or were the site creators just going for irony?
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday August 03, 2016 @11:26PM (#52641671)

    You are legally not allowed to criticize food. Food felony laws - Oprah Winfrey was sued for expressing her disgust about hamburger.

    Food libel laws, and ag-gag laws, gotta love them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on the continuing viability of FORTRAN. -- Alan Perlis

Working...