Slashdot Mirror
Suicide Squad Fans Petition To Shut Down Rotten Tomatoes Over Negative Reviews (variety.com)
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!
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..
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Do these idiots even remotely understand how Rotten Tomatoes works? All they do is aggregate critics' reviews. They don't review the movie themselves.
Why not use the DMCA to shut it down? As the law is poorly written they may be able to pull that off.
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.
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.
The site owners? The police?
Ghostbusters 2016 is still certified fresh?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that other people can't like it.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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!
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
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.
Which ironically has this gem:
Harrison's Postulate: "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Who exactly are they petitioning? Are they asking RottenTomatoes to voluntarily shutdown? Are they asking for the government or some third party to step in and have RottenTomatoes shuttered? I'm a DC fan myself and am disappointed by the reception of their most recent movies (I'll go to my grave believing BvS is a better film than Civil War), but this is dunderheaded. It's giving DC fans a bad name, in the same way that Trump supporters are giving uneducated white men a bad name.
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.
Too much lynch mob sh*t floating around, it all started with the Tea Party and has now poisoned half of the nation...
You must be very young, or just recently started paying attention.
Most people aren't pitiful enough give a shit about Marvel vs DC extendid so as to resort to favoritism in their reviews
Max Headroom 2016!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(character)
As a ten year old watching GB when it came out, it was certainly funny as shit, but it was never scary.
The remake was OK, they just need to let everyone off the leash, so fingers crossed for the sequel.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Doesn't IMDB include user reviews while the RT "fresh" rating is only critics?
And, for that matter, he didn't say that OP said no one is allowed to like it. You, sir, should work on your reading comprehension.
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.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
I thought groupthink was limited to /.
Groupthink is the human condition.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
The Trump Way: you don't like something, get enough people chanting "lock 'em up! LOCK 'EM UP!".
Too much lynch mob sh*t floating around, it all started with the Tea Party and has now poisoned half of the nation...
Tea Party?
You're an idiot.
It's the Democrats/leftists/"progressive" (what an ironic term) that try to silence opposing viewpoints.
It isn't leftist cop killers that get run off college campuses...
But thanks for playing, son. Here, have a cookie...
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.
I remember being afraid for years (decades) of a closed closet door with the closet light on after watching Ghostbusters.
against brain damaged change.org petitions. Quite depressing to think how loads of far more pertinent petitions never gathered 13,000 signatures...
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 out of the loop entirely and let the actual target fanbase serve as a first wave of hype-building response. Especially in the case of comic book movies, where you can be fairly sure of a large turnout opening week that is primarily fans already. I, like so many, will go see it regardless, because Im a fan of the existing body of work and want to see for myself how it translates. Good review popping up before opening weekend is in no way going to change that, but a bunch of bad reviews might. It's loose/loose for the studio.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
I've heard that supposedly it made its budget back finally.
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 suspect they've got a long way to go before they are actually in the black.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Change.org, WTF?? The usual way to prevent comic book movies getting bad reviews is to send the reviewers death threats.
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.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"... 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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
But they generally don't.
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 fantastic to finally have a theater experience again that felt like a social gathering.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?...) 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.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
> 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.
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.
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.
Don't count on it. I was reading on the business of making movies and the consensus is that since Ghostbusters is supposed to be a comedy first, it cost far, far too much to make this movie compared to what they got. Normally comedies are carried on the skills of the performers. Even the original 1984 Ghostbusters featured fairly spartan numbers of effects, many of them practical with techniques like film double-exposure, suspension rigs for the actors (Sigourney Weaver floating), and physical things like the egg-countertop scene. The big effects like the final battle with Gozer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man had plenty of practical elements and the scenes relied on the skill of the actors to pull them off more than on just the effects.
I understand that this 2016 version featured lots and lots of computer effects, far more than the original. That gets expensive and quickly.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
I'd say the best evidence there isn't a bias is that most people (like the op demonstrated) don't know the difference. They just see a comic book movie and I don't that's a bad thing. It shouldn't matter either way who owns the IP to the end viewer.
You heard wrong - as of today it's made about $150 million but ~half that goes to the theaters showing the movie and that doesn't include the marketing costs which are estimated to be upwards of another $100 million.
Worse, the movie is not allowed to be shown in China (it might give people the idea that ghosts are real or something) so foreign box office take is very very low.
It's bombed.
I realized afterwards the complaint was about DC movies... not marvel... and yeah... that's a harder list.
Green Lantern crities panned it (25%) but the audience didn't like it much better (45%); and I think the rating is fair.
Watchmen did ok... 65% and 71% and although I liked it, for what it was, the movie really was only ok; but it had pacing issues in the directors cut, and didn't make enough sense in the theatrical release.
I haven't seen the Losers or Jonah Hex, so won't comment on them; except to note that both were rated dismally by critics AND audiences alike.
V for Vendetta picked up 73% and 90%; and I quite liked it.
As for Batman or Superman films. (The Batman Reboot ("Dark Knight") obviously did very well with critics; and Superman did well if not as well. The constant re-re-booting of the franchise with new casting isn't doing it any favors... and the public at large still holds a special place in their hearts for Reeve's superman.
Superman v Batman; where the critics gave it 27% and the audience gives it 65% is really the only disconnect between critics and audiences... and that makes sense. Its as stupid as a bag of hammers. Anyone looking at the movie critically has to accept that its just that dumb. And then it took itself way too seriously for how stupid a concept it was. But it does a lot of fan service too so I can see why the audience was more accepting of it. (especially since the audience is self-selecting people who WANT to go see batman v superman...)
So again... no I don't think there is a bias against the DC extended universe. They just need to make better movies.
It made less than $50mil in its opening weekend and basically got creamed after that by Star Trek and Secret Life of Pets. Or to put it in perspective: The Killing Joke made $3.2 million on a monday night with only two showings on a single screen in a handful of theaters around the country. Ghostbusters made $3.4 million.
The production budget alone was around $150 million, and another $100 million was spent on marketing. Enforced narratives aside Ghostbusters was pretty much a disaster for the studio.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Sure it's only 32% on RT. That's not unsalvageable. Or even that bad - I've liked movies that gotten far lower scores.
All it means is it's likely just a summer blockbuster that's enjoyable for the two hours you're there, but that's it. You're not going to get any life changing revelations, new insights, or anything else.
it's just a disposable movie that's enjoyable and forgettable. If you want to escape your dreary life for a couple of hours, it'll be perfect.
Far too many people put too much into a review - basically a 5 star review is the cinematic equivalent of literature - something everyone should see to make themselves a better person, etc. etc. etc.
But I've found that's not me. I don't want plots full of subtext and hidden symbolism. I just want an escape - give me two hours to enter a fantasy world, believe I belong there during that time, and wrap it up.
For me, the best movies typically score 3-4 stars, or even 2 stars. Leaving 1 star for the truly dreadful movies.
At 32%, it's probably watchable.
Yeah, I mis-read it. And posted a follow up to try and rectify the mistake.
But the notion that there is industry wide bias against DC movies vs Marvel movies among movie reviewers is kind of ridiculous.
While I do know the difference -- I promise -- you'll note I only mentioned Marvel titles in my OP :) let me keep my nerd card! Nevertheless, the sibling post suggesting I didn't know the difference still makes an excellent argument, with respect to "to most reviewers" its just going to be a "comic book movie".
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.
Heck, even the name tells you that.
If you want sweetness and light, you're in the wrong playroom, sweetcheeks
Seeing it tonight!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Welcome to Amerika, were the stupid censors you. - Yeah I think that sums it up... American society has been becoming more and more brain dead in the recent years. We're devolving into spoiled little children, who only listen to those they agree with and want to kick and scream when they disagree. The internet has just been making things worse, the G.I.F.T. (penny arcade) is quite appropriate to describe society at large.
a petition to stop bad reviews? c'mon people ... p.c. 101 = we believe in free speech that we agree with ...
as far as "suicide squad" goes - I loved the "Batman: Assault on Arkham" animated flick. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it (my local library system has it on dvd) - very much not for the youngsters though (PG-13 all the way) ...
to be honest, I've been turned off by any film with Wil Smith in it for quite a while - so I probably wouldn't have seen it anyway (even had a chance to get a free ticket and passed). DC does straight to dvd/whatever animated films very well - and keeps releasing terrible live action movies ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I have found that I tend not to enjoy DC compared to Marvel movies. I'm pretty indifferent about the universes but my general opinion is outside of Batman and his villains, the characters are boring. This is compared to Marvel who have far too many damn characters for me to care about (how many were in Days of Future Past that I can't remember at all?).
With the current round of MCU - Marvel built up a pretty good pace. Here's some characters people know and let's build on it. Let's make some fun movies and go. Granted Civil War was pretty meh as were the Thor offerings but on the whole, pretty solid films overall. GotG was something I thought would be a stupid idea and it worked perfectly.
For DC - outside of Nolan and Burton's Batman films and Reeve's Supermans, I can't think of one DC movie I liked otherwise. I wouldn't have known V for Vendetta or Watchmen were DC without being reminded. Same for Constantine. Man of Steel was so bad, I just don't care about any future offerings. Superman Returns was miserably dull. Catwoman? Green Lantern? Goodness. Having a DC name on it is more of a curse in my mind than anything else.
I'm not opposed to a dour Superman concept but goodness, Man of Steel was just all over the place. I liked the idea of a young Clark Kent being a drifter, struggling with his purpose on the planet Earth and ultimately deciding to be a hero on his own free will. But all that was undone when Zod forced him into the role instead. They should have kept it simple - like a planet ending asteroid and seeing people come together to try to save the planet and fail, forcing him to act. And ditched the Jesus mess. Then you coulda gone with "how does Earth today respond to an all powerful being?" in Bats v Sups. Absolutely makes sense - perhaps Zod shows up, perhaps it's whatever Luthor made. Could have been a much better and more compelling universe that builds naturally into Justice League rather than feeling like it's being hamfisted into movies.
... or were the site creators just going for irony?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It goes a little further back than the Tea Party. The current vulgar lynch mob shit started with right-wing talk radio. You know the names. It's two minutes hate for the uneducated.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It was terrible and highly sexist. A sex object male secretary and "safety switches are for boys."
"That's the joke." The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role. Which would make more sense if Janine fit that role, which she - well, didn't. Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make.
Except they forget to play up the "friendship" angle and it comes off as the Girl Ghostbusters hating him but keeping him around for literally no reason. (They don't even seem to like him as "eye candy" after the initial interview. Like, the idea is apparently supposed to be that he's kept around because they like looking at him but then they never really show that and you're left to deduce that.)
If it had been a great movie maybe those things would be less glaring but it was a terrible movie, it wasn't funny, no suspense, no action, nothing redeeming at all.
It's not that bad. What it ends up being is a great example of studios trying to produce a "safe" movie while at the same time being "edgy." You end up with a movie that's clearly been handed a checklist by the studio and rapidly interrupts itself to let you know what it's doing.
There are funny moments and glimpses of what could have been a good movie. Unfortunately they're interspersed with "HEY DID YOU NOTICE THIS IS A COMEDY" and "OH BY THE WAY HERE'S AN OBVIOUS TOY PROTOTYPE FOR MATTEL" and "DID YOU REMEMBER THIS IS GHOSTBUSTERS? BECAUSE THIS IS A THING FROM GHOSTBUSTERS, WE HOPE YOU NOTICED IT. WE'LL JUST LINGER HERE A BIT. WHAT'S PACING?"
It is a bad movie. But it's not "fun" bad. It's just bland bad. And it's annoyingly bad because there are good ideas to be found in it, but they just aren't ever allowed to breathe.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Oh the irony ...
Haven't seen it, and probably won't bother, but "OK" is pretty much what I expect of it.
The problem for me is that it's a remake, and I'm hard-pressed to think of a remake in the last 20 years that was worth the price of admission.
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 poorly.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
But it's a 'fan service' movie.
Hmm, that probably explains why I thought it was a terrible movie. I wasn't its target audience.
Let's shut down change.org for being part of a Hollywood conspiracy to promote crappy movies that no one wants to see by suppressing honest reviews.
Not that another proof was needed, but this does show on pointless change.org is.
I bet you do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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* ...which is about 3 times the amount of time spent actually writing the original "Ghostbusters" theme, as recounted by Ray Parker, Jr.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You left out "racist," "homophobe" and "islamophobe." Happy to help.
Except I'm usually *not* a fan of DCU things... As a non-fan of both title characters, I was pleasantly surprised. My biggest complaint was Lex Luthor being extremely out of character, usually he gives himself an out/escape strategy. His character in this movie was basically a rich Joker.
That's Hollywood accounting though. The movie WILL make it's $100M and more, just not in the first weekend. Off course the studios will cry that it's a loss because it didn't make $1B the first weekend and thus they'll qualify for a number of government grants and bailouts while not paying their employees and artists. http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
It WILL gain a following (all really bad movies and all superhero movies do after all) and it will make it up in DVD sales and later on TV. There is not a single movie in the last half century that has never made it's expenses back, you just can't believe what the studio tells you about it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The parent post does not know the difference between Marvel & DC Comics
Misread the summary as saying there was a bias against marvel universe movies, instead of DC universe movies. I've corrected that error in a follow up post.
and claims the movie is "certified fresh" at 73%, when it is actually 32% (rotten).
And then you misread my post. I was repsonding to a post about ghostbusters' rating, so my post starts by looking at the ghostbusters (2016) rating, which is 73% by critics and 58% by audiences.
Yes, Suicide Squad is currently at 31%. And since it hasn't been released yet, there is no audience rating yet.
Jeez, informative??? More like a subtle Troll..
Your too quick to jump to conclusions.
Clearly you haven't played DC Universe Online and seen the flame wars.
I thought they'd intentionally merged the joker and luther, though apparently not they just had a very strange take on luther.
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 for Batman vs. Superman you'll see that the user score is pretty similar but the critic score is higher. Though, okay fine, it's still a pretty big disconnect.
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
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!"
This space unintentionally left blank.
Even Forrest Gump made a loss according to what the IRS and the writer were told when they came looking for money.
Hollywood accounting is "special".
The "is Superman a God or a false God" theme seemed like a mismatched piece shoved in to the movie out of left field because somebody had seen "Watchman" where it made more sense and spent far less time going on about it.
The actor did what he could but IMHO it would have been a far better movie to just cut Superman out entirely.
Lex too, but it could be argued as an origin story and him being very different later, at a stretch.
I think the former is all over the place and the latter is making an effort to be consistent. Earlier I would have said that the Marvel movies were employing some talented people but Batman vs Superman has some pretty good actors that barely save it from being direct to video quality - thus the Marvel stuff is far deeper than a good cast.
Two minutes? I thought it was Rush hour.
You can't manufacture Genius, I guess.
Play Command HQ online
heh, my office is in a renovated building that usedta be an old hospital ward. I walked into the toilet, slid the lock shut and then the light started buzzing and flickering off. I turned to the mirror and thought, if I see a ghostly figure wearing a hospital gown behind me I'm gonna be in a whole lot of trouble.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
... by equally pathetic people in a pathetic way. Could the be more proof Suicide Squad is just another senseless money grabber from hollywood?
Bach says it all.
Ghostbusters 2016 is still certified fresh?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that other people can't like it.
Most viewersdidn't like it, most critics did. I'd trust the viewers on this one.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
But these scenes are always offset by a damned fucking good script that keeps them lighthearted and sardonic
Actually, the script was pretty bland. Ghostbusters, like the original Star Wars trilogy, was made by the ad-libs from the actors. I've not seen the remake because at least one of the following is true:
The claims that people don't like it because they hate women make me slightly cranky though, because judging from the trailer the film itself was misogynistic and racist. If you want to make a good film with female leads, I'd suggest that you try a few simple rules:
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Fans get very upset when you criticise the things they like, even if you clearly state that you think the thing is mostly great and enjoyable and it's just these few issues you have that stop it being perfect. And then they pile in and demand you stop criticising, claiming you are trying to censor them... It's like they lose all self awareness.
First it was video games, now comic book movies... It's getting more common, and we need to stop it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"That's the joke." The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role.
First, if you have to analyze and explain a joke, that means it is not funny. Not funny at all.
Also taking a painfully obvious premise (oh look! we've switched genders, ha... hohum) that has been done before and beating it to death for 2 hours wears thin in 10 minutes. This is the usual "take a short SNL sketch, good for 5 minutes of amusement, and turn it into a bad 2 hour bomb." They keep doing this. Then when people do not like it, they claim it's "the people that are the problem," not the crappy movie. And the Skiddies fell for it. Typical, all if it, just typical (and boring).
It's explained here, and on Wikipedia:
https://www.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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wondermark, #566. Supernatural collective nouns.
How about a malevolence of Trolls?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
FYI, the term for the "dead band" is hysteresis. The more you know...
I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
You misunderstand.
I value opposing viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them.
As Vexxed so eloquently quotes
"The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role."
That isn't a joke, it's just reverse sexism. Reverse sexism isn't going to work. You can't cure sexism with more sexism any more than you can cure hate with more hate. The same as racism. Stop trying to teach the next generation that sexism is funny.
"Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make."
Other than being played by someone attractive, how does Dana fit that role any better than Janine? She was a strong and intelligent female character.
I have a theory about why Marvel has largely been more successful than DC. I don't think it is really all the writers or the movie makers fault. I believe the fault is a factor of two things. Firstly while not total, a very large chunk of the viewers of said movies are an older audience, who for nostalgia reasons desire to see super heros of their youth. The problem with that is they are no longer kids anymore, but need to be able to still connect with the movie, that is to say that the movie needs to be more "adult" than for "kids". The second factor influences the first in that if you look at the growth of heros in DC VS Marvel over the years (say the last 20), in general many of the Marvel heros "matured", where as most of those in DC did not, other than a few examples, and some of those in weird "alternate" universes that are generally seen as not cannon (i.e. Supes in Red Son is pretty dark, but no one is going to take that as anything but an interesting spin off).
So for example DC Batman was successful more less because there was plenty of examples of him being pretty dark prior to the movie (and the type of hero he was to begin with). However many of the kiddy or silly heros have a harder time transitioning to a more adult theme. Take Green Lantern for example. At the very core, this is a pretty silly superhero. He thinks of a big mallet hammer and bonks bad guys on the head. It is hard to make that really all that relateable to an adult audience. Shazam is another example. While there was that one example of a pretty dark Shazam battling Superman, for the most part you have a hero that is a kid, who turns into a man with powers, by a wizard on command. Pretty silly and hard to translate to an adult audience. However on the Marvel side of things, take a very similar hero in Thor. In the original, it was about a old blind guy with a cane that found a hammer, who can turn into "Thor" by wielding it. Over the years, this morphed into Thor being an actual God who interacts with humanity. My personal favorite version (Ultimate I believe), is where they leave Thor's origin as somewhat ambiguous, where Thor believes he is the God of Thunder from Azguard, however much of the other Avengers think he is a mutant, or just some guy with superpowers who is a bit crazy/nuts/delusional but fights for good so they don't really press the issue too much. Another example on the other side of things is Marvel's Fantastic 4. There have been a lot of swings and misses, and terrible movies made. Again, not so much with perhaps the movies themselves (though I don't think they did themselves a lot of favors either), but the heros themselves are pretty silly, and never really matured. It is hard to take a movie like that seriously no matter how well they might have produced it (which none really were anyway).
As an extreme example It'd be like DC making a "Wonder Twins" movie and then wondering why it wasn't all that successful with an adult audience.... Then trying again however making it dark and brooding, Zan addicted to opium and having to defeat his own daemons while Jayna suffers from severe depression issues brought on by a terrible childhood... Then wondering why the audience found it ridiculous. Form of a script, shape of a movie!
Went on a Tuesday after opening and there were only 4 empty seats in the theater (3D showing) at 7:45 PM. The 2D IMAX was full as was the regular 2D screen. Theaters were this sold at 10:00 AM that day when I purchased the tickets on-line (I could see the sold seats because this theater does assigned seating).
Everyone's market will have different people and different turnouts.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Rotten Tomatoes shows that the average rating was in fact 4.1 out of 10; which matches metacritic's pretty well.
While the 29% just means that 70% of critics "didn't like it".
I'm not sure that represents a problem with the methodology; since they give both numbers, and both numbers mean something useful.
I suppose you could question which number means "more", given they make one number much bigger than the other. But if they are including a lot of critic reviews which are simply yay or nay then maybe assigning a score to those on a scale of 1 to 10 would be less honest.
All of /. thinks echo chambers are bad.
... move along.
Nothing suspicious to see here
Suicide-Girls Squad?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Have you ever seen someone trying to tell a joke and laughing so hard at their joke they can't tell it well enough for anyone else to know what they are talking about?
You have the simplified plot of the Ghostbuster's Reboot.
Add characters written as SJW type sexist and racist stereotypes and you have the overview.
NRRPT/RCT
They will gleefully call out Matt Damon for staring in a movie about the Great Wall of China, declaring it is 'yellow face' even if he is not playing an Asian (I don't know, I'm guessing). But ignore an all-black Hamilton musical or an all-female Ghostbusters. They would never ever consider saying 'white face' or 'dick face', but those would be equivalent terms.
Straight white males are free game in today's society.
I started a petition on change.org to keep that guy from being able to start petitions anymore.
https://www.change.org/p/every...
The people who made the trailer managed to showcase the worst parts of the film.
Don't forget, Trailers Always Lie.I've lost count of the number of trailers where the tone of the movie was radically different from what was presented in its official trailer. Pixar makes pretty good films, but the trailers are crafted (with extra sound effects and out-of-context statements) to get the 8-year-old boys to drag their families to the theater.