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.
Wah! (Score:5, Funny)
Wah!
Re:Wah! (Score:5, Informative)
Basically RT is facing a big coordinated batch of trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha!
Trolls roam in batches.
I think that should be the official term for a group of trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wah! (Score:5, Funny)
I am a self confessed troll as I troll somewhat often. That said, I prefer the term "underpass", as in "an underpass of trolls". As for my intended marks, I refer their group as a "trip", for more than one reason.
Re: Wah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a gruff of trolls would work, and has a nice ring to it.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, since I refer to SJWs as the Butthurt Brigade, Then a brigade of trolls would suffice. Or at least it will if my me-ism of The Butthurt Brigade manages to catch on.
Re:Wah! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Political Party"
Re: (Score:3)
The term troll is actually derived from a fishing troll, because it lures people in. It has nothing to do with the actual fictional monster that is a troll.
The verb describing what trolls do is 'troll'. So trolls troll. Oh well, might as well call a group of trolls a troll. A troll of trolling trolls. On the internet its not like there is any such thing as an individual troll anymore. All the trolling can come from one or many sources, it no longer matters. If you meet a person in the flesh who has trolled you probably would never see their trollishness. For sanity's sake it is best not to think of trolling coming from human beings, but from some collective id
Re:Wah! (Score:4, Interesting)
The term troll is actually derived from a fishing troll, because it lures people in. It has nothing to do with the actual fictional monster that is a troll.
That's technically true, but the term also comes from the day when trolling was considered an artform. Your modern troll has more in common with the fictional monster than anything you used to see on alt.syntax.tactical.
Re: Wah! (Score:5, Informative)
The little bitty outboard motor that some fishing skiffs have is called a "trolling motor" not a "trawling motor". Trawling is using a net, trolling is using a baited line.
But I'm probably preaching to the trolls...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wah! (Score:2, Insightful)
Free speech does not guarantee freedom from criticism.
Re:Wah! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Put your labels on the pile back there that already contains nazi, commie and terrorist, I'll ignore later.
The problem with labels is that if you use them inflationary, they lose all meaning. Back when I was young, the common thing to shut someone up who disagreed with you was to call him a Nazi. And it worked so well that everyone used it at any occasion, until it was so overused that it lost all meaning. A bit later it was en vogue to call someone a commie. Again, in the end, it lost any semblance of impa
Re:Wah! (Score:4, Informative)
Which brings us back to the SJW post a few posts back.... the only reason you wouldn't like the new Ghostbusters can only be misogyny, just like the only reason you wouldn't like Barack Obama can only be racism.
Actually, metacritic is the best place for reviews - imdb has a secret "algorithm" to ensure that the rating you see is not the average rating given to a movie, which pretty much makes the imdb score worthless.
Metacritic lets you at least see the average score, and it's pretty clear that the critics are pushing Ghostbusters purely on political points - the critic average is 60 while the user average is 2.7. Even Sharknado scored higher than that, IIRC.
Re: (Score:3)
You are saying that an internet poll is more reliable than the critic's reviews? However many bribes the critics took, their opinions still can't be as worthless as an internet poll.
Re:Wah! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, no.
Red Letter Media posted a fairly extensive review that goes over all the flaws the movie has (and there are a ton of them - bad pacing, poor editing, bad action sequences, just poorly thought out plotting, poorly done cameos - I can't even remember them all).
Their review - despite being very well sourced as to exactly why they're saying what they're saying - got tarred as being "misogynist."
Have you tried explaining how the Ghostbusters movie sucks online? Almost instantly you'll get a post explaining how actually the movie is great and you just hate female main characters.
Apparently if you think the movie sucks, you hate female leads and are going to be Responsible for Hollywood Not Casting Female Leads in the future because you hate women.
And not because the movie is bad.
Yes, I've literally seen that argument, I am not making it up.
And I actually liked the new Ghostbusters characters, over all. The movie is still bad, but it's not because the leads were women.
Re:Wah! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem was that people were claiming it sucks the moment the movie was announced. They knew nothing about it whatsoever, except for who the leads were. People were not keeping an open mind on it, they declared it bad merely because it was a remake.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was that people were claiming it sucks the moment the movie was announced. They knew nothing about it whatsoever, except for who the leads were. People were not keeping an open mind on it, they declared it bad merely because it was a remake.
And you feel that *that* is a good reason to label reviewers misogynists? The majority of people who say it sucks, right now, are viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what this attack on the right to free speech is. Those 13,000 dipshits that signed it should be shipped off Stalinist Russia.
That would require a time machine though. And if you had that, you could just go back and convince their mothers to take it in the arse or down the throat on that fateful night.
After all, as a wise man named Ergo (The Magnificent) once said, "If you're going to wish, wish big!"
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Rotten tomatoes indeed (Score:2)
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..
Re:Rotten tomatoes indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Shoot the Messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
Do these idiots even remotely understand how Rotten Tomatoes works? All they do is aggregate critics' reviews. They don't review the movie themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, Roger's famous:
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
One of my favorite all time reviews was Roger Ebert's review for Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, which starts with:
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the DMCA to shut it down? (Score:2)
Why not use the DMCA to shut it down? As the law is poorly written they may be able to pull that off.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Surely This is a Joke? (Score:2)
Get a grip (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Petition who to shut it down? (Score:4, Interesting)
The site owners? The police?
A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
PG???? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's PG-13 according to IMDB [imdb.com] and Fandango [fandango.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PG???? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you do a movie about insane criminals and keep it PG-13?
Easy. Just stuff in all the violence you can manage, but don't show any nipples.
Re:PG???? (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Deadpool suceeded, SS failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deadpool suceeded, SS failure (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say what we're all thinking: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Ginger? Maryanne? There's a third option, you know.
Both?
Actually, Trailer/Movie Dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The New Stupid: Censor what I don't agree with ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought groupthink was limited to /. and reddit but I see it is alive and well in new areas now:
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"
Re: (Score:3)
I thought groupthink was limited to /.
Groupthink is the human condition.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
The movie sucked, even for fanboys/girls.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
IMDB has it a 8.3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Do Professional still serve a purpose? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Net effect of the petition... (Score:3)
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
Signs and Portents for bad films (Score:5, Funny)
"... 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.
Has change.org actually ever changed anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? It works for big agriculture (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Ghostbusters 2016 is still certified fresh?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that other people can't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, its budget doesn't include things like publicity and distribution. I saw tie-ins for insurance, for restaurants, even an hour-long special about the eighties with a grossly-disproportionate segment right at the end about Ray Parker Jr. and the original *Ghostbusters Theme*, and I'm pretty sure that it was paid for by those attempting to publicize the new movie.
They may have made the original shooting/production budget back, but I su
Forrest Gump made a loss (Score:3)
Hollywood accounting is "special".
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, when I watched Ghostbusters 2016 on opening weekend, I saw it in a packed theater and ... nah, just kidding.
The theater was practically deserted. I think there were maybe 20 people there all told? And this was the opening weekend.
When I went to the same theater to see Deadpool on like week three in the middle of the afternoon, the theater was literally sold out. And that's an R-rated film and it was the afternoon showing. So it's not just an unpopular theater - the new Ghostbusters film just did that
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this modded down? The AC is right:
To be "certified fresh" it has to have a rating of 75% or better.
75% is Rotten Tomatoes' "cut-off" for "Certified Fresh." In order to receive the badge, after a certain number of reviews are received, the movie has to have a rating of 75% or better. Ghostbusters 2016 got close (73%), but it didn't quite hit that.
Yet it got to be "certified fresh" anyway for ... some reason. (Hm, wonder what that might be.) Despite not meeting the criteria required for that badge.
Re:I'd be sympathetic to Rotten Tomatoes but... (Score:5, Informative)
It's explained here, and on Wikipedia:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com... [rottentomatoes.com]
Long story short, it gets the seal if it goes over 75% and has a minimum number of reviews from top critics, and keeps it unless it then falls below 70%. So there is a dead band to stop it toggling on and off rapidly if it's just on the limit, which is kinda important if companies are going to use it in the marketing.
No conspiracy, that's just how it has always worked. That's why the AC was modded down, he's just repeating a Reddit conspiracy theory that is easily disproven with 10 seconds of research.
Re: (Score:3)
It was ok. Not terrible, just ok.
It needed to be funnier in the funny portions, and scarier in the scary portions, a combination that the original got just write.
As it is, Ghostbusters(2016) is kindof bland.
Re: (Score:2)
The remake was OK, they just need to let everyone off the leash, so fingers crossed for the sequel.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember being afraid for years (decades) of a closed closet door with the closet light on after watching Ghostbusters.
Re:I'd be sympathetic to Rotten Tomatoes but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The brilliance of the original Ghostbusters was that it actually had, visually at least, some pretty fucking scary scenes; a possessed Sigourney Weaver levitating, a pretty scary looking canine monsters sitting in front of a temple every bit as freaky as anything out of a Indiana Jones film. But these scenes are always offset by a damned fucking good script that keeps them lighthearted and sardonic. Bill Murray is a godsend in these kinds of films, but kudos to all the cast, in particular Rick Moranis, who somehow simultaneously makes the fearsome Vinz Clortho the Keymaster seem like accountant to the demigods.
I really wish Hollywood was still capable of making a film like Ghostbusters, that could so cleverly balance such seemingly incompatible elements in one film, sometimes in one bloody shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd be sympathetic to Rotten Tomatoes but... (Score:5, Informative)
Its 'certified fresh' at 73%, with an average rating of 6.4/10, with an audience rating of 58%. Seems pretty fair to me, and suggests it is a fair but nothing special movie.
For comparison, the Daredevil TV series is 86% fresh, with 95% audience approval; Deadpool is 84% with 91%. Jessica Jones TV series got 93% and 90%. Antman got 81% and 86%. Gaurdians of the Galaxy got 91% and 92%.
I've seen all of these and they were all pretty good. I think the ratings are pretty fair.
So NO, I don't think there is a bias against Marvel's extended universe at all. I think Suicide Squad is likely to be a pretty weak movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Suicide Squad is DC, not Marvel. Yes, the Marvel series are good, but I don't think Marvel movies and TV shows is good evidence for or against whether there is a bias against DC movies.
Re: (Score:2)
What they are claiming is there is a bias *towards* the MCU and *against* the DCCU (Suicide Squad is DC). While I don't necessarily agree, I will say Batman vs Superman was a lot better than critics gave it credit for.
Re:I'd be sympathetic to Rotten Tomatoes but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I misread the original summary, and made a follow up post to look at DC titles.
" I will say Batman vs Superman was a lot better than critics gave it credit for."
Rotten tomatoes tends to agree with you. There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%. However, I think the critics are "right" in the sense that if you try to look at that movie with a critical eye that it's as dumb as a bag of hammers. But it's a 'fan service' movie. So the audiences that went to see, by and large, got what they wanted and were happy with it.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%
This is really just a problem with the methodology that Rotten Tomatoes uses. 27% just means that there is broad agreement among critics that it's not a very good movie, it doesn't mean that those critics, or any critics, would give it a rating of 2.7/10.
It's a shame that Rotten Tomatoes functions this way, it means that an uncontroversial movie like Batman vs Superman will get a lower score than another movie which may be generally worse but more controversial. If you check Metacritic [metacritic.com] for Batman vs. Sup
Re: (Score:3)
Max Headroom 2016!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(character) [wikipedia.org]
Actually, It's the SJW Way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to believe that Deadpool will signal studios to start making superhero films for adults. I doubt it, though. I'm even afraid of what the next Deadpool will be like, likely with a bigger budget which means everything will be filtered through a pack of accountants and marketers, which will likely render it an emasculated impotent copy of what was for me one of the best theater experiences I've had in about a quarter century.
The whole audience was laughing out loud when I went. It was just so fantasti