DC Fans Angry Over Rotten Tomatoes 'Justice League' Ratings (wired.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DC Fans Angry Over Rotten Tomatoes 'Justice League' Ratings (wired.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday November 25, 2017 @04:34AM from the Justice-for-all dept.

Rotten Tomatoes launched a new movie-review series called See It/Skip It last week -- but it just made some people hate the site even more. An anonymous reader quotes Wired: Rotten Tomatoes, the review-aggregator-slash-Hollywood-agitator, had irked DC fans by withholding its Justice League score until Thursday night's See It/Skip It premiere -- even though a wave of reviews for the film had already been posted online. The move was ostensibly a ploy to get viewers to tune in for the show, yet others saw a greater villainy at work: Was Rotten Tomatoes, which is owned in part by Warner Bros., actually trying to shield the studio from an inevitably bad grade that could help kill its opening weekend?

The See It/Skip It pushback -- which involved a lot of Tweet-screaming -- was a reminder of just how controversial Justice League had become... With Justice League having earned a less-than-expected $96 million in its opening weekend, the lowest ever for a DCEU title, the movie will likely be seen as a Flash-point moment for DC movies as a whole. Considering how some DC obsessives have reacted to the films' bad reviews -- there have been death threats in the past -- the conspiracy theory is actually a somewhat measured response... But there's another reason for all the pre-release pressure on Justice League: With the exception of this summer's Wonder Woman, the previous DC entries have all earned disappointingly low scores on Rotten Tomatoes... For some fans, the low scores felt like a referendum not only on [director Zack] Snyder's work, but the DC Extended Universe franchise as a whole -- so much so, a few defenders even began to speculate as to whether Rotten Tomatoes was manipulating the DCEU data (or, at the very least, grading the reviews on a much steeper curve than the Marvel films). Such theories filled message boards and Quora discussions, and there was even a Change.org petition to shut the site down that collected more than 23,000 signatures... Dangling the [Justice League] verdict in front of fans, and putting off the inevitable, felt like a misuse of power.
"They just want to focus on the negative," one DC fan told the Chicago Tribune. Meanwhile, the film's director has endorsed a Change.org petition calling for the release of his original edit of the film.

Justice League cost nearly a third of a billion dollars to produce. On Thanksgiving Day, it earned less money than Disney-Pixar's film Coco.

266 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yeah... and?!! by Desler · 2017-11-25 04:36 · Score: 2

DC fans are butthurt? What’s supposed to be the news here?
1. Re:Yeah... and?!! by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-11-25 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe the fact that DC movies in general are getting unexpectedly low ratings and box office results. Which is all fine in my book, I hope that at some point the studios will return to regular old fashioned blockbuster movies to pass the summer (or winter), instead of the current overload of superhero garbage.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Desler · 2017-11-25 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe the fact that DC movies in general are getting unexpectedly low ratings and box office results.
  Unexpected how? I’ve seen both BvS and JL movies and thy were shit so the low ratings were entirely expected. As to the second half, BvS made nearly $900 million. How much more were you expecting it to make?
3. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem with these movies is not that they are stories about superheros.
  The problem is that they are all flash and no depth. The plot lines are not only thin, but full of characters acting in ways that make zero sense given their motivations. That kind of artificial drama isn't just unfulfilling to watch, it is outright insulting to the fans.
  The apparent target audience for these movies is a global audience of people that do not speak English, and hence need dialog that can very easily be translated to short sentences that are easy to read during action scenes. It is leaving the American audience feeling very justifiably snubbed by the owners of content that they have been loyally consuming since they were children.
  This business of trying to keep us in the dark about what a flop a movie is until after we have gone out and seen it is just icing on the cake.
4. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Zack Synder is the director, more like extremely expected.
5. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Darinbob · 2017-11-25 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't seen any of the latest batch. And this means more and more spoilers if I see the later ones anyway. Who cares if scores are high or low anyway, no one ever paid attention to reviews with action movies before.
  Simply put, too many stupid superhero movies. I didn't grow up with Justice League, I don't care who's in them or not. I did not read every single comic ever produced by DC or Marvel, so it's completely unimportant if some obscure character from the 90's makes an appearance. Who has time or money to keep up with every franchise, character, and and alternate universe? Sheesh, two spiderman reboots? Give it a rest already.
6. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  Superhero films went to shit after the the late 1970s superman film. Superman the movie was the pinnacle of superhero action films.
  Nowadays if you want good superhero films look to tv. Cinema has become a cesspool which is quite an irony since it's been like forever that Cinema has been killing the small screen.
7. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think it's the fact that Warner repeatedly gave DC to directors who
  a) wanted to put their own stamp on the characters- ignoring canon.
  b) made DC movies distopic and unpleasant.
  c) made DC characters known for avoiding killing into murderers (which for many people who were DC fans for decades meant we wouldn't see these abominations nor recommend them to our friends).
  d) spent more time on special effects than on character development.
  It took over a decade of hard work to destroy the DC movie franchise. And the DC television, comic book, and animated franchises show it is NOT the characters- well at least not the characters in the comic books. It IS the characters in the movie (except for wonder woman). And even as a guy, I could do without Snyders gratuitous butt shots of Wonderwoman unless he's planning on doing the same angles for superman and batman. It's howlingly sexist and pulls me right out of the movie and starts me thinking about the Hawkeye initiative everytime she spreads her legs and jumps away from us on screen.
  The current DC movie universe is UNSAVABLE.
  Junk it. Have an official press release from Warner saying "okay that went the wrong direction- we are starting over."
  Start with LOW budget (about deadpool 1 size), "year one" movies- perhaps even using some of your existing popular TV versions of the characters.
  Get good writers who are fans of DC. Put an executive producer over the series that likes the characters. Put directors over the films who like the characters but understand they have to maintain a consistent look and feel. Get editors who understand comic books and comic book color schemes. Write films that are character based and based on good comic book arcs. Not major Crisis of infinite earth arcs- just normal "day of the life" year long arcs where the world wasn't at stake. Save that for later.
  Get GOOD actors who are not major stars for most of the parts. The current superman actor, Henry Cavill, is fine- but Ben Affleck (who has done a great job) is STILL BEN AFFLECK every time I look at him. You can't have too big of an actor in a superman film- it distracts. Well- I suppose there are a very few actors who can pull it off. LIke Gary Oldman who can be anybody without distracting you. I admit that particular issue is subtle.
  But for god's sake, Supergirl's "Superman" portrayed by Tyler Hoechlin nailed the character of both Clark Kent and Superman with about 40 minutes of screen time. Make him your superman.
  Then build up to larger movies from those movies.
  As a DC fan for decades I want characters who are true to the comic books. But not slavishly. I understand small modifications have to be made to update them for 2017, or to fill in gaps left because not all characters are picked up.
  The biggest problem for DC is that it is owned and controlled by movie people who are not comic book fans and they do not get comic books and they think 'superhero' instead of 'character'.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
8. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They can't give spiderman or the fantastic four 'a rest'. If they do, the characters revert to Marvel.
  ---
  The nice thing about MCU is that every movie is self contained- even the Avengers. They are part of a larger universe but it's hyperlinked. You learn all you need to know about Captain America in the Avengers. If you want to know more, then he's got three movies you can watch. If you don't- then it's not necessary.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
9. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · 2017-11-25 07:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Desler opined:
  
  I’ve seen both BvS and JL movies and thy were shit so the low ratings were entirely expected. As to the second half, BvS made nearly $900 million. How much more were you expecting it to make?
  Yep. And so was the 300 sequel. And every other Zach Snyder movie since 300.
  The reason that 300 was such an artistic and box-office success, and every Zach Snyder movie since has been neither, is easy to explain:
  300 was a panel-by-panel recreation of Frank Miller's graphic novel. The script (which Miller wrote) was great because it was written by a master storyteller, and because Miller, not Snyder, had editorial control of it. The visuals in the movie exactly re-created the visuals in the graphic novel. Put the two facts together, and you have your answer.
  It's the exact same reason that Sin City was such a triumph - although Zach Snyder isn't fit to carry Robert Rodriguez's viewfinder - Frank Miller had creative control of the script, and was intimately involved in crafting the visuals, as well.
  By contrast, nothing Snyder has done since then has had a master storyteller's guidance - leaving only his own meager talents as a visualist and utter vacuum as a scriptwriter to power his movies.
  (FWIW - Frank Miller is a horrible human being: racist, sexist, reactionary, and mean-spirited. None of that in any way diminishes his talent as a storyteller, or his fist as an artist. Those are both genius level. In other news, Pablo Picasso was an asshole - and a genius. the Universe is unfair. Get a hat.)
  (PPS - 300, in both its incarnations, was riddled with cultural, costuming, and historical errors. The Spartans, for instance, were pederasts, just as were all the Hellenic Greek citystate cultures. In the Spartan instance, pederastic relationships continuing until the junior partner was married - which was never permitted until a man reached his 25th birtday - were normal. In most other Greek citystates, continuing such a relationship after the junior partner's beard began to grow was considered prima facie evidence of homosexuality, and thus condemned as abnormal and immoral - in every other citystate except Thebes, that is. Miller's errors with regard to Persian culture, costume, and customs were even more egregious, purposefully racist, and deplorable. I'd certainly be outraged, if I were Persian. Again, though, none of that keeps the graphic novel and the movie from being superb pieces of visual and expositional entertainment, well worthy of the plaudits - and money - they earned. Perspecitve, people ... )
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
10. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there is good superhero movies comming out.
  All the animated justice league stuff that never gets noticed. They're actually really good for comic book stuff.
11. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  "I hate you for not pretending I'm popular"
  This is slashdot, half the users probably agree.
12. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why "unexpected?"
  The "why" is the whole issue, and you have to establish that before you keep talking after making the wild claim.
  "Oh, I'm a fan" doesn't predict high ratings, or even average ratings.
13. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  .... everytime she spreads her legs and jumps away from us on screen.
  Well I didn't want to see the movie until you said THAT.
14. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can see it on youtube in the analysis of the movie. MovieBob (I think? I watched a lot of his stuff and a lot of JL stuff) calls it a "Snyder" shot emphasizing her ass.
  There are literally thousands of pictures of female asses on the internet that won't require sitting thru 2 hours of a movie.
  Probably tons of pictures of gal godot's ass as she was a model pre-wonder woman.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
15. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Desler · 2017-11-25 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  And so was the 300 sequel.
  Oh god don’t remind me. That ridiculous horse-riding scene just summed up everything wrong with that terrible movie.
16. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Brockmire · 2017-11-25 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's the casting. Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr and Gal Gadot that are at the top of my list, and then shitty ones like Ben Affleck, Brandon Routh, Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield at the bottom. In the new Spider-Man, I think he talks too much and it's his best friend that is the wrong casting. Oh, and Zach Snyder is ruining them.
17. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  God that movie stunk so badly.
  I couldn't finish it for free.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
18. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  BvS *grossed* 900 million. But that was over a cost to produce and market of $575 million.
  Warner's share of the remaining net profits was $105 million. That's about a 16% net profit.
  looking at profits for some other films...
  Iron Man 3 - $391.8m
  Avengers Age of Ultron - $382.3m
  Guardians of the Galaxy - $204.2m
  That's what Warner's shareholders and executives were expecting to make.
  But actually- they were expecting to make more because much less capital was put at risk (invested) in those three films.
  For example, Ironman 3 cost about $200 million to make and $200 million to market. Another 200 million was profits for all the middlemen. Guardians of the galaxy was much less expensive so the profit ratio was even better. Age of Ultron was about 80% profit rate (showing signs of slippage and weakening or a not-so good movie- my personal opinion was it was weak).
  So movie studios like to make about 100% profits- not about 16% profits.
  I completely agree with you about BvS-- haven't seen JL yet tho I will see it in the theaters (just on a matinee).
  JL is probably worth the $4.25 that I'll pay. From what I hear, it's not actively bad- it's just "meh" and not worth $11.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
19. Re:Yeah... and?!! by sg_oneill · 2017-11-25 09:46 · Score: 2
  
  (FWIW - Frank Miller is a horrible human being: racist, sexist, reactionary, and mean-spirited. None of that in any way diminishes his talent as a storyteller, or his fist as an artist. Those are both genius level. In other news, Pablo Picasso was an asshole - and a genius. the Universe is unfair. Get a hat.)
  See also: Lord Byron (Mad, Bad, Dangerous to know), Hunter S Thompson (Randomly shot at journalists, repeat drunken asshole, hotel trasher, etc) , Isaac Newton (Complete bastard of a man who went out of his way to destroy other academics who he felt in competition, notably Leibnitz) , Steve Jobs (Chair throwing god of marketing and spotting good ideas),Thomas Edison (Similar deal to Newton), Bobby Fisher (Worlds greatest chess master, and also a guy who thought 9/11 was excellent. An epic cunt of a man) , and so on.
  It would seem some folks just have so much stuff in their heads, they forget to stop and look at their own basic decency to other humans. Also, possibly autism.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
20. Re:Yeah... and?!! by sg_oneill · 2017-11-25 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, part of whats made the Marvel films work so well is they seem to be letting Directors actually put their *creative* stamp on the films, but making sure they are picking the right people to do that. And still, managing to get the canon more or less right, with a useful "Its a different universe" ruse to cover when it isnt.
  I mean Thor Ragnarok had Taika Waititi's influence stamped all over it. And that made for a frigging fun film.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
21. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but Justice league was awesome. Agree with the other stuff, but Justice league was great. That's a fact, not opinion :)
22. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Bang on. Totally agree with all of your points, especially B and D.
23. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I thought about Taika while I was writing and I agree with you but to a limited extent.
  Yes- Taika had some freedom but not as much as DC directors have had. It was a humorous variant but it was still mainstream. I knew the characters.
  The only character I thought was fairly different was the GrandMaster. He normally seems to have a stick up his butt in the comic books. However because of the humorous execution scene- Grandmaster was still a pretty chilling character. He acted goofy but he was evil on a stick. But- he wasn't really the Grandmaster we knew.
  But everything else was well within normal parameter ranges for the characters. There have been humorous thor stories in the past in the comics for example. There have been thor and space alien stories before.
  I thought the "I know him from work" line was a bit off but then I found out it was a request from a "make a wish" child and that made my heart glow enough to contradict it seeming a bit juvenile for thor.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
24. Re:Yeah... and?!! by UnknownSoldier · 2017-11-25 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  Excellent analysis! Midnight's Edge's review basically says the same thing
  i.e.
  Start making good STAND alone movies.
  THEN after 5 to 10 years of good movies, start layer the "Cinematic Universe"
  If the foundation is crap the extended universe hasn't got a snowball chance in hell to be financially success -- you've already burnt out the last goodwill of the fans.
25. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Don't blame the global market. There are plenty of much better action / superhero movies with the same constraints. These guys just make shitty films.
26. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · 2017-11-25 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  I opined:
  
  (FWIW - Frank Miller is a horrible human being: racist, sexist, reactionary, and mean-spirited. None of that in any way diminishes his talent as a storyteller, or his fist as an artist. Those are both genius level. In other news, Pablo Picasso was an asshole - and a genius. the Universe is unfair. Get a hat.)
  Prompting sg_oneill to point out:
  
  See also: Lord Byron (Mad, Bad, Dangerous to know), Hunter S Thompson (Randomly shot at journalists, repeat drunken asshole, hotel trasher, etc) , Isaac Newton (Complete bastard of a man who went out of his way to destroy other academics who he felt in competition, notably Leibnitz) , Steve Jobs (Chair throwing god of marketing and spotting good ideas),Thomas Edison (Similar deal to Newton), Bobby Fisher (Worlds greatest chess master, and also a guy who thought 9/11 was excellent. An epic cunt of a man) , and so on.
  It would seem some folks just have so much stuff in their heads, they forget to stop and look at their own basic decency to other humans. Also, possibly autism.
  Almost undoubtedly autism in the cases of Newton and Fisher. Also religious fanaticism in both. The others? Just standard-issue narcissism with a generous dollop of assholery, I suspect.
  But your point is well-taken. I considered giving additional examples of the linkage between genius-level creativity and severe personality flaws, but my post was already getting awkwardly long - so I abstained.
  I'm glad you took up the cudgels, though. It's a point well worth making ...
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
27. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Stormwatch · 2017-11-25 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  300, in both its incarnations, was riddled with cultural, costuming, and historical errors.
  Wasn't that intentional, to stress how the story was told by an unreliable narrator?
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
28. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 12:50 · Score: 2
  
  Superhero movies are garbage? By that I assume you're not actually going to see them? That would explain why you consider the DC movie's low ratings as "unexpected".
  Hundreds of movies have come out this year, only a handful of them are superhero films. You don't like them, don't see them, there's plenty of alternatives if you care to look. In the meantime here's a summary:
  DC: Horrible directing, crap story telling, poor character development, uncharacteristic actions of the characters, some of it is just an absolute cluster****, and there seems to be some opinion that if Zack Snyder is given enough goes at it eventually he can direct a movie which isn't a huge turd.
  Marvel: Each movie builds on the criticisms of the previous one. They have been getting funnier, wittier, and more lighthearted kind of like their source material. The studio seems to actually understand what made the comic books popular and haven't screwed over the fans in the process. The stories and character developments are often not skin deep, and a different director on each movie keeps them feeling fresh.
  Normally sequels are garbage, but so far the most recent Thor film has been the best super hero movie to date.
29. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  we are starting over
  Oh fuck no. I don't think I can bear watching another actor cry at the death of Martha Wayne, arrive on earth, or get bitten by some radioactive spider.
30. Re:Yeah... and?!! by TWX · 2017-11-25 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  At least Sony has seen the light and agreed to work directly with Marvel. I was a bit disappointed that they rebooted after the three Raimi-directed films (thought they were decent for when they were made) but what I saw of the trailers for the two that followed made me not bother. Haven't seen the current one yet but if they've followed the formula from Captain America: Civil War then I expect it'll be alright.
  The Fantastic 4 movies that had Alba on the cast were OK, not great. Could have been better. The most recent one though, just looked terrible. Didn't bother to see it either.
  I'd say on the whole the X-Men franchise that FOX has been producing has been above average, though not perfect. We'll see what they do as the actors age-out. Not sure how they'll handle it if Hugh Jackman can't play Wolverine anymore.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
31. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · 2017-11-25 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  I observed:
  
  300, in both its incarnations, was riddled with cultural, costuming, and historical errors.
  Prompting Stormwatch to inquire:
  
  Wasn't that intentional, to stress how the story was told by an unreliable narrator?
  I don't think so. I bought the graphic novel when it was first published, in part because I am such a fan of Frank Miller's storytelling, and in part because I'm a student of ancient Graeco-Roman history. Obviously, I was eager to see how he handled a story whose principal source is Herodotus. I had all the objections to it that I detailed above, and more. (The way he characterizes the Ephors, for instance, is downright slander - and completely fabricated slander, at that.)
  I assume the "unreliable narrator" to whom you refer is Ephialtes, the hunchbacked shephard who Herodotus tells us betrayed the Greek defenders at Thermopylae by showing the Persians a goat-path that allowed them to bypass the Spartans, surprise their Thessalian allies, then attack Leonidas's forces from the rear and crush them in a pincers.
  The thing is that Ephialtes was himself Thessalian. He would therefore have been familiar with Hellenic cultural norms - including the universal acceptance of pederasty, and other political, religious, and cultural practices that Miller profoundly misrepresents.
  His assholery aside, I understand why he did so: comics, in particular, need strong, clearly-delineated heroes and villains. Given Miller's personal predilections, it's not surprising to me that he made the heroic Spartans homophobes, the Ephors (who opposed Leonidas's proposal to go to the aid of the Attic Greek citystates) slobbering perverts, and the Persians effete, cowardly homosexuals. In Miller's worldview, homophobia is a virtue, homophilia is a despicable failure of character, and cowardice is a mortal sin.
  Just because I disapprove of his prejudices doesn't mean they were ineffective, though ...
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
32. Re: Yeah... and?!! by sound+vision · 2017-11-25 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs threw a chair too? Or did you mean Ballmer.
33. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  The F4 movies have the same problems the DC movies have.
  Instead of being true to the characters, they do all kinds of terrible things to Reed and Doom.
  The Corman version was more faithful to the characters.
  They have hundreds of stories for the characters but keep telling the origin story over and over and over and over and over...
  Marvel is likely to go multi-ethnic as the actors age out.
  Can't ignore 2 billion movie goers.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
34. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 20:28 · Score: 0
  
  But 9/11 *was* excellent.
35. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  No point even trying to look at Hollywood accounting figures. It's all BS.
  Save your time and just ignore them completely: there are so many more interesting things to think about in life.
36. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  Then don't watch it
37. Re:Yeah... and?!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-25 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with these movies is not that they are stories about superheros. The problem is that they are all flash ...
  Heh!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
38. Re:Yeah... and?!! by trawg · 2017-11-25 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yep great post. Completely agree. I am a DC fan over Marvel and I really wanted to love these new movies but I simply cannot.
  I saw JL last weekend and I actually kind of enjoyed it from a broad strokes perspective. But as a DC movie meant to celebrate the characters I grew up with and love the most in any comic series (Batman & Superman - boring, I know!) it just didn't do it.
  Comparing what DC have done to what Marvel as done shows such a striking difference I can't believe whoever is pulling the strings behind DC movies is allowing them to go on. Introducing not one but TWO "smaller" DC characters into JL with zero origin just seemed like a huge staggering mistake. I know of Aquaman but know nothing about his history. I barely have even heard of Cyborg guy. And throwing in a Flash - who is not the Flash from the TV series - I imagine probably confuses a lot of people, but at least there's some frame of reference.
39. Re:Yeah... and?!! by pots · 2017-11-26 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  I hope that at some point the studios will return to regular old fashioned blockbuster movies to pass the summer (or winter), instead of the current overload of superhero garbage.
  You make it sound like you want more superhero movies, you just want them to be called something else.
40. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  The important element here though is Kevin Feige. He is exactly what DC are missing. Someone who likes the comics and knows them well and also has a vision about what he's trying to achieve. You can be sure that he helped guide Taika when the film was going in the wrong direction but at the same time he does seem to encourage enough creativity to ensure that the films don't all have the same look and feel. Clearly it does not always work. We still wonder at Edgar Wrights version of the film would have turned out like. To some degree though, this is what is needed. If Feige and Wright could have found enough common ground, Ant Man would not have been a Peyton Reed film. Zack Synder was not and won't be the Kevin Feige that the DC world needs. If it wants to continue down this route (something DC seem to be moving away from), then they need to find someone. Ironically, I do think that Josh Wheden could/should be this person. He has a lot of experience as a producer and is obviously creative. Whether he would be prepared for doing this I don't know and I don't think the JL has shown his best work.
41. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Cederic · 2017-11-26 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  every other Zach Snyder movie since 300
  As a fan of quality cinema, enjoying films that match compelling visuals with memorable soundtracks, challenging the viewer with emotionally complex and multifaceted stories, I think you're completely wrong.
  Sucker Punch is flat out amazing. Easily his best film.
42. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Completely agree! You must be like me! Iâ(TM)m deaf and mute. The vibrations of the sound system on the theatre Chair was awe inspiring!
  Iâ(TM)m thinking I might be the only deaf and mute guy who would go experience the movie, but there you are! Deaf and Dumb experiencing the show just like me.
43. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  All Flash? No wonder... itâ(TM)s a justice league show! I canâ(TM)t imaging how they could screw up so bad that they showed the Flash all the time instead of superman, Batman and Wonder women.... you know the popular ones and they keep showing the Flash? WTF!
  Oh and fuck you for the spoiler.... I havenâ(TM)t watched it yet!
44. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  In the age of Social Justice no artwork can be judged on its own merit it seems, the artist's opinions and whether they are considered wrongthink is now somehow inherently represented in any piece of work. Surely outrage culture has had its time, but misery loves company.
45. Re:Yeah... and?!! by michael_wojcik · 2017-11-26 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  But - but - nerds! Raging! This is unprecedented.
  Hell, we're even seeing nerd slactivism here. Didn't you read the summary? There's a change.org petition! Who knows what's next? Trenchant blog posts, snarky listicles, boycotting RT for a few days ... the (minimal-effort) sky's the limit.
  My sense is that Justice League will forever be remembered as the cultural watershed moment that made annoyed fans a force to be reckoned with.
46. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-26 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's clear they are deeply disappointed with the profitability of JLA. They have already cancelled several moves and have attacked Whedon for following their instructions.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
47. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-26 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  AC Said >Then don't watch it
  Good advice that tens of millions of movie goers have followed.
  But just dumb as an attempt to shut down conversation about problems with a movie.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
48. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  All whedon could do was put lipstick on a pig.
  Snyder appears to hate the characters and wants to actively destroy them.. put them into no win ethical problems.. and is generally dystopic.
  What he is appears to be good at setting up shots that look good or match something from the comic books.
  What we need is a storyteller.
  Even then Snyder seems too dark in terms of light for D.C. too.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
49. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Autism doesn't make you exempt from being called an asshole.
50. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Stormwatch · 2017-11-26 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  I assume the "unreliable narrator" to whom you refer is Ephialtes, the hunchbacked shephard
  No, the unreliable narrator would be Dilios, the only survivor of Leonidas' crew.
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
51. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Type44Q · 2017-11-27 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  It amazes me how little people value their time - the most precious commodity they've got - in this case, less than negative two dollars per hour.
52. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-27 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Talking too much is a VERY Spider-Man thing.
  Source: Several decades of comics.
53. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · 2017-11-27 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I inquired:
  
  I assume the "unreliable narrator" to whom you refer is Ephialtes, the hunchbacked shephard
  Prompting Stormwatch to explain:
  
  No, the unreliable narrator would be Dilios, the only survivor of Leonidas' crew.
  Then my response is even more on-point. Dilios would have been intimately familiar with Spartan culture - most definitely including pederasty as a cultural norm - and sufficiently knowledgeable about other Hellenic city-states' attitudes toward adult-adult homophilia not to have mentioned Leonidas's supposed slur on Athenians. Thebans? Sure. Thebes was well-known for its tolerance of open homosexual behavior. (In fact, several centuries later, the Sacred Band of Thebes, which was composed exclusively of homosexual couples, would defeat the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra, and briefly become the only standing, domestic military unit in the Attic peninsula - before Alexander III of Macedon, leading the Companion cavalry, crushed it at the first Battle of Chaeronea, not quite 40 years later.)
  It's certainly conceivable that Dilios would have slandered the Persians, because, believe it or not, the fact that the Persians wore trousers was considered effeminate by the Greeks in general.
  I know - crazy, huh ... ?
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
54. Re:Yeah... and?!! by samwichse · 2017-11-27 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Correction: The recent Thor has been the best comedy about superheroes to date :).
  Laughed my way all the way through that one, and Taika Waititi killed it... I hope his character gets into the expanded universe or something.
55. Re: Yeah... and?!! by Rakarra · 2017-11-27 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  All Flash? No wonder... itâ(TM)s a justice league show! I canâ(TM)t imaging how they could screw up so bad that they showed the Flash all the time instead of superman, Batman and Wonder women.... you know the popular ones and they keep showing the Flash? WTF!
  That said, I've heard the Flash is really the only good thing about that movie.
  
  Oh and fuck you for the spoiler.... I havenâ(TM)t watched it yet!
56. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Rakarra · 2017-11-27 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Snyder appears to hate the characters and wants to actively destroy them.. put them into no win ethical problems
  I don't know, maybe the characters should have to face ethical dilemmas. I was always a bit amused at the twittering over the Man of Steel ending. That Superman didn't really have to face that either/or... Zod vs innocents, but somehow he always found a way out of that situation, I thought that was bad writing on the part of the comics. Or at least, non-daring. It's one reason why Superman would start strong and then feel stale.
57. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-11-27 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a bit stunned by a student of Ancient Greek culture applying the modern, Western concept of homosexuality on the period, not to mention skipping over some of the very unfortunate problems caused by the fact that the main sources we have for Spartan history are the Athenians--who cannot be trusted...to be accurate, anyway. To slight and slur the Spartans anytime they think they can get away with it? Hell yes. Some of the differences in values show up, too, because current thought is that Sparta was effectively a matriarchy--which is not something the Athenians saw as at all good, because in their opinion, women weren't really people. Which, incidentally, is also part of why applying modern Western concepts of sexuality is problematic...
  It's also a bit hard to believe that anybody who has seen or read 300 can believe Ephialtes might be the unreliable narrator, given that he is very very very very definitely dead before we're done. There isn't even anything involving pederastic relationships within the movie, there's no particular discussion of sexuality, and I would think that as a student of Greco-Roman culture you'd be very, very well aware how illegal it'd be to have included any pederastic relationships since 'beard growing in' at the time would mean 13-14 years old or so. (And that's just the start. I actually would quite happily do a graduate thesis on how ancient sexuality worked, because it's a lot less gender-based and a lot more Dominance/submission.) As for the rest? Seriously? It's pretty explicitly in-universe propaganda. From my experience with reading--occasionally in the original language--stuff from the period, the places where it's not accurate pretty much can be split between being a pretty likely guess on how they'd have written the account & things you cannot depict anymore.
  But to take this back onto topic: Honestly, I can't really understand why they chose Snyder in the first place, especially since they'd done quite well with the Animated Universe which, admittedly, probably did as well as it did because WB's executives usually didn't meddle. Comic book movies have generally seriously benefited from being made by people into comics--with the noted exception of Burton, who isn't into them at all for mysterious reasons. He actually did get for a bit what was to become Superman Returns (after much, much meddling) and his proposal is the one version I'd have loved to see--his vision is straight out Golden Age and I'd have basically told him flat-out "Okay, but set it in the 1930s."
  Really, despite having grown up on DC comics--Marvel was going through a period of heavy continuity porn to the detriment of new readers at the time I started reading--I'm pretty much OK with how the ratings are for the movies overall. That Wonder Woman wasn't a trainwreck is actually rather surprising, given WB's track record here.
58. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-27 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Against that are the successful animated versions and the successful comic versions (including All Star Superman) which are hopeful and upbeat.
  So no, the characters don't start strong and then feel stale when portrayed that way skillfully.
  The M.O.S. ending meant, I would not pay top dollar at a theater to see BvS. In the end, it meant I wouldn't pay even matinee prices and I certainly didn't buy the DVD and blue rays like I have for some other movies.
  All that happens when DC heroes are put into non-canon dystopic Trolley situations and portrayed in unpleasant ways is that no one watches them, a half dozen movies you might have seen are cancelled, and the entire movie universe dies for a dozen years at least. No one makes much money. And people decide "super hero moves are not profitable!" when the real answer is "ugly dystopic movies involving warped versions of DC superheroes are not popular".
  I'll start watching the DC films when they stop screwing over the characters I read and watched for over 40 years. I have a lot of leeway for canon changes. M.O.S. went past that leeway by a large margine.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
59. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Rakarra · 2017-11-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Against that are the successful animated versions and the successful comic versions (including All Star Superman) which are hopeful and upbeat.
  So no, the characters don't start strong and then feel stale when portrayed that way skillfully.
  I think we're just going to disagree on this. I always found Superman to be stale. In the comics, in the few well-received animated versions, etc. But that's just my opinion, lots of other people like him, and I (usually) like what they like, so this is just one character that just never resonates with me. I think we agree for the most part otherwise.
  
  The M.O.S. ending meant, I would not pay top dollar at a theater to see BvS
  I didn't see BvS until it was on HBO for the following reasons:
  *) Ben Affleck as Batman. He's gotten better as an actor since the days of Armageddon when I really detested him, but he should stay behind the director's chair. Hell, maybe he should have directed Justice League.
  *) The DCEU art direction. God damn, I can't see anything that's going on. I was very disappointed with the color palette choice in MoS, and they continued that with BvS and then Justice League. Live action color grading is a tool that is abused so much now that I think its use should be strictly curtailed, if not retired. It turned Superman's nice red S into a murky maroon, and his blue to... well, pretty close to grey.
  *) Advanced warning about the plot. BvS felt like it had a similar problem to the most recent Fantastic Four movie -- separately written stories that they just sortof jammed together. The Doomsday plot in particular was just tacked on at the end. The "Batman vs Superman" thing felt more logical when Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever did the same plot, and you never want to be negatively compared to that movie. The only way the writers could think of to get the two of them to come to blows was to make both of them, especially Batman, much much stupider than they had been previously portrayed. I hate Idiot Ball plots. There really is no worse plot device. When the whole "Martha" thing made them do a characterization 180, I threw up my hands and lost all hope.
  *) Zach Snyder. If he has good characters played by actors who really know how to play them (say, Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, and David Wenham in 300), he can do a great job, and only if the source material fits his aesthetic style already. If your writers can't write dialogue or credible character interactions, though, then there probably isn't any saving it. Snyder is flash without substance. 300 was good, Watchmen was ok, the rest of his work looks pretty bad.
  Right now, DC is going through its dark age/dork age. Marvel somehow survived the anti-hero 90s and is now maybe better for it. Hopefully DC survives the teens and comes out stronger, somehow.
  
  And people decide "super hero moves are not profitable!"
  I don't think anyone makes that claim, given how ridiculously successful Christopher Nolan's Batman series was, and how well the MCU is still doing. Hell, Wonder Woman (DCEU) did fantastic business over the summer. I think super heroes are certainly overexposed at the moment, and that's led to a mild backlash. IMO, Marvel shouldn't be putting out more than one tentpole a year, and neither should DC.
60. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · 2017-11-28 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  https://slashdot.org/~Cinnamon+Beige criticized:
  
  I'm a bit stunned by a student of Ancient Greek culture applying the modern, Western concept of homosexuality on the period, not to mention skipping over some of the very unfortunate problems caused by the fact that the main sources we have for Spartan history are the Athenians--who cannot be trusted...to be accurate, anyway. To slight and slur the Spartans anytime they think they can get away with it? Hell yes. Some of the differences in values show up, too, because current thought is that Sparta was effectively a matriarchy--which is not something the Athenians saw as at all good, because in their opinion, women weren't really people. Which, incidentally, is also part of why applying modern Western concepts of sexuality is problematic...
  [edit] ... There isn't even anything involving pederastic relationships within the movie, there's no particular discussion of sexuality, and I would think that as a student of Greco-Roman culture you'd be very, very well aware how illegal it'd be to have included any pederastic relationships since 'beard growing in' at the time would mean 13-14 years old or so.
  Please don't put words in my mouth. I was very careful to use the term "homosexual" exclusively in the context of adult male/male relationships. Elsewhere, I deliberately employed the more appropriate word "homophilia/homophiliac".
  Your point regarding the absence of specifically Spartan sources in the historical record is not without merit - but we work with the evidence we have, not with the evidence we wish existed, n'est ce pas?
  As for the bizzaro notion that Sparta was somehow a matriarchy, despite its kings and ephors being exclusively male (and despite the popular, Aristotlelian notion that women were somehow "incomplete men") - well, that's news to me. I suspect it has little to do with the actual evidence from sources and artifacts, and everything to do with the endless quest for fresh topics for masters' theses.
  There is, in fact, a sexual slur directed at the Athenians by the Spartans in both versions of 300. It occurs during the march from the Peloponnese to the Hot Gates (which somehow involves passing near Athens in Millerworld). You apparently missed it. I did not, because it stood out to me as such a vividly gratuitous introjection of Frank Miller's personal prejudices in the graphic novel that I was on the lookout for its reappearance in the movie.
  And, of course, there it was, in all its ugly, gratuitous, anachronistic glory ...
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
61. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-11-28 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  https://slashdot.org/~Cinnamon+Beige criticized:
  
  I'm a bit stunned by a student of Ancient Greek culture applying the modern, Western concept of homosexuality on the period, not to mention skipping over some of the very unfortunate problems caused by the fact that the main sources we have for Spartan history are the Athenians--who cannot be trusted...to be accurate, anyway. To slight and slur the Spartans anytime they think they can get away with it? Hell yes. Some of the differences in values show up, too, because current thought is that Sparta was effectively a matriarchy--which is not something the Athenians saw as at all good, because in their opinion, women weren't really people. Which, incidentally, is also part of why applying modern Western concepts of sexuality is problematic...
  [edit] ... There isn't even anything involving pederastic relationships within the movie, there's no particular discussion of sexuality, and I would think that as a student of Greco-Roman culture you'd be very, very well aware how illegal it'd be to have included any pederastic relationships since 'beard growing in' at the time would mean 13-14 years old or so.
  Please don't put words in my mouth. I was very careful to use the term "homosexual" exclusively in the context of adult male/male relationships. Elsewhere, I deliberately employed the more appropriate word "homophilia/homophiliac".
  The term you want is adult male/male sexual relationships or things of that nature. Homophilia and homophiliac are still too connected to the modern West, and even there you have to be careful since even within Western culture there are groups that subscribe to the rule that you're only a homosexual if you're the receptive party.
  That said, the only thing we've got firm evidence for is that it was a romantic relationship among the Spartans--some of the ancient sources actually explicitly say that it turning sexual was taboo, and what acts are and aren't permitted definitely varied by city-state.
  The Ancient Greeks as a whole also saw no shame in a man being in a sexual relationship with another man--as long as he's not the receptive partner, which is also something that applies among the Romans. Calling Julius Ceasar every man's husband would have been a complement; it was calling him specifically their wife that made it an insult.
  
  Your point regarding the absence of specifically Spartan sources in the historical record is not without merit - but we work with the evidence we have, not with the evidence we wish existed, n'est ce pas?
  Oh, definitely, but this still is a thing you note. The problem isn't that there were not works--almost certainly there were--but that there are no known surviving copies. This is something which may change, even now.
  
  As for the bizzaro notion that Sparta was somehow a matriarchy, despite its kings and ephors being exclusively male (and despite the popular, Aristotlelian notion that women were somehow "incomplete men") - well, that's news to me. I suspect it has little to do with the actual evidence from sources and artifacts, and everything to do with the endless quest for fresh topics for masters' theses.
  I don't know, how about we start with Aristotle's claims about them? This should get you started on your run through this part of history. Yes, yes, it is Wikipedia, but it's a good place to harvest yourself some references including where to start in reading Aristotle.
  
  There is, in fact, a sexual slur directed at the Athenians by the Spartans in both versions of 300. It occurs during the march from the Peloponnese to the Hot Gates (which somehow involves passing near Athens in Millerworld). You apparently missed it.
lolwut by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let me get this straight, when Batman vs. Superman came out the conspiracy was that Rotten Tomatoes was colluding with Disney/Marvel to tank the movie but this year it’s that it was trying to hide bad reviews to not tank a DC movie? Seems Warner Bros. needs to work harder on being more consistent in their conspiracy plots...
1. Re:lolwut by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-11-25 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  File this one under the 'get a life' category.
2. Re:lolwut by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  My wife loves action movies, whenever we watch a movie that is what she asks for.
  At the end of Batman vs Superman, she told me she didn't like it. First superhero movie she's said that about. Even the ones with really weak plots like Transformers, she loved.
  Anybody who suffered through that movie and can't figure out why lots of people would think it was a stinker, just wow. I can hardly even remember much of it, it was just weak clear through. I've seen unpopular movies that I really liked, but it is usually obvious why it would be unpopular. For example, lots of people think Heartbeeps was the worst science fiction movie ever made, and that's because it was actually a romantic comedy about robots. Romantic comedies don't make good sci-fi unless the writer and director are actually trying to make it sci-fi! If it is just a romantic comedy, and the marketing people make a trailer that makes it look like sci-fi, then it flops hard. And anybody who sees it and likes it is going to understand right away, there are long, slow, thoughtful sequences that would be complete torture for many sci-fi fans.
  If you watch Batman vs Superman and come up with conspiracy theories about people holding it down, look, I'm not saying you should change your opinion of movies, just stop thinking you can understand what other people like!
3. Re:lolwut by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  If you watch Batman vs Superman and come up with conspiracy theories about people holding it down, look, I'm not saying you should change your opinion of movies, just stop thinking you can understand what other people like!
  I've spent a fair amount of time trying to figure why I do or don't like something, and I think I've been able to distill it down to a simple way to describe it:
  Conflict in a drama is annoying, whereas conflict in a comedy is funny.
  All of the "dark and gritty" reboots and spinoffs tend to have conflict between characters that are unlikeable and lack good chemistry. The most recent egregious examples are the aforementioned Batman vs Superman, Star Trek Discovery, Marvel's Inhumans, Stargate Universe, et al. I don't want to watch what is basically an abusive work environment.
  I saw BvS in the theater and didn't like it. When I watched the extended version of it, it made more sense. But, it still just wasn't good. Incidentally, the How It Should Have Ended YouTube channel has an excellent analysis of how both BvS and Justice League could have been "fixed".
  Hopefully the directors and screenwriters will learn from their mistakes and make better films.
4. Re:lolwut by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-11-25 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  I saw BvS in the theater and didn't like it. When I watched the extended version of it, it made more sense.
  As an aside, this is one of those things that I haven't liked about the recent set of DC movies: The "Extended Versions."
  The distributors will chop up the movie so it fits in a time-slot that will allow a large number of showings. So now I spend $14 to watch the movie and then I have to spend more money for the Blu-Ray to see all the stuff that they chopped out that allowed the movie to make sense. This was true with BvS and Suicide Squad (the even the cut scenes didn't save it).
  So why should I spend good money to watch an edited version in a theater when I can just wait a few months and watch the "Extended Version" at home?
Huh? by rsilvergun · 2017-11-25 04:45 · Score: 1

I know lots of DC fans and they let out a collective 'meh' on the movie and went back to watching the cartoon universe. I've yet to hear anyone who really got excited about it. Heck, the only thing they've really called out is the bad CGI photoshop on Superman's beard because they had to do reshoots after the actor was working on something else...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Huh? by MightyMartian · 2017-11-25 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The best I can say about I as that it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. It was fun enough in a dispensable kind of way, but I just don't think they know what to do with these superheroes. Superman, in particular, is just wasted screen space. Honestly I think the first two Superman films, in particular the Richard Donner cut of the second one, just so overwhelm these films. The only one to come close is Wonderland, but Gil Gadot is doing the same wink to the audience that Christopher Reeve did, and that's absolutely critical.
  Oh, and fire Ben Affleck now. I'd soone have George Clooney, nipples and all.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Huh? by Rockoon · 2017-11-25 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  Superman is a terrible superhero w.r.t. storyline. Its that simple.
  
  You speak of the first two Superman movies, but are missing the real fist movies that had the winning formula, which is light action comedy. Thats the only way Superman works on screen.
  
  Honestly he would be a much better villain on screen. Villains should be nearly all powerful, not the hero.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
3. Re:Huh? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  It's not comedy so much as "not humorless dystopian nightmares".
  Normal human beings joke during stressful times. Even soldiers in combat laugh occasionally.
  DC movies were made by a director who appears to actively want to destroy the DC characters.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
4. Re:Huh? by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-11-25 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly he would be a much better villain on screen. Villains should be nearly all powerful, not the hero.
  I disagree, I think. What needs to be done with Superman might make fans uncomfortable though. There are a great number of moral and ethical quandaries that go with being all powerful and virtually invincible and being inherently motivated to Do The Right Thing. One mans hero becomes another mans villain, and balancing the various shades of "what is right" is a lot harder than they make it with the weak plots we've seen. What do you do with a man who is given a near religious quest to do what's right and save humanity, in spite of humanity? Does he become a dubiously benevolent God Emperor?
  Imagine Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" line. A lot can be done. But there are a few problems: 1) The target audience is probably looking for an action flick, and would maybe get that by accident and be disapointed, 2) The trend of releasing these films only when they can be globally marketed to other cultures with other value systems (and political concerns) isn't compatible with a lot of introspection, particularly when it comes to dubious dictators; China may not like having the concept of benevolent dictator questioned a lot and in this particular way 3) Superman might quickly become the villain, or certainly be portrayed as one in some of the movies.
  Personally I think after decades of Marvel comics with popcorn plots, we're ready for more intellectual superheroes with really hard problems. Batman is the best we've done, he's popular because he's complicated and conflicted (at least in some of the movies) and he's chosen a decidedly different bias-point than say Superman. I think "grown-up" superheros/villains with a lot of nuance is a way to differentiate DC movies from the boom-boom Marvel franchise that might makes some money, but in a wallet measuring contest I don't think it will compete, they may have to make do with less than a global audience.
5. Re: Huh? by Brockmire · 2017-11-25 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  They should have kept Tom Welling after Smallville and the finale should have setup the Superman movie series. Except he didn't want to be known as Superman forever, so we got fucked with Brandon Routh and Henry Cavil. They are both shitty actors.
6. Re:Huh? by sg_oneill · 2017-11-25 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  The best Superman film I've seen is an Animated one. "All Star Superman" (The names a pun on the fact hes literally powered by sunlight). They frigging nail him in that. He's the big blue boyscout, whos a bit TOO pure for this world, but he loves the place so much he'd give his life to save it, and for that the world loves him back. THATS superman.
  Its interesting that with the Wonderwoman movie, they actually got her right, and in return, the audience and critics loved it, and loved her. Just do that for Supes, and save the grimdark shit for batman. Grimdark works for batman, he's goddamn batman and batman is sad and punches people a lot. The rest of them are not grimdark, especially fucking supes.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
7. Re: Huh? by nitehawk214 · 2017-11-25 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  God, no. Don't bring the Injustice story to the movies. DC is already standing for "Dark Crapsack." It doesn't need to be any darker.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
We want the 4 hour version! by Rik+Sweeney · 2017-11-25 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Meanwhile, the film's director has endorsed a Change.org petition calling for the release of his original edit of the film.
Oh here we go again. The simple fact is that Snyder is not a good director. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller. Stop trying to cram 4 movies into a single one.
I do believe that Joss Whedon's reshoots did more harm than good, but if the film had been watchable to start with, then WB wouldn't have requested Whedon to do so.

--
Summation 2
1. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, the film's director has endorsed a Change.org petition calling for the release of his original edit of the film.
  Oh here we go again. The simple fact is that Snyder is not a good director. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller. Stop trying to cram 4 movies into a single one.
  I do believe that Joss Whedon's reshoots did more harm than good, but if the film had been watchable to start with, then WB wouldn't have requested Whedon to do so.
  I enjoyed the movie and didn't see it as 4 movies in 1.
  Regarding the 2-hour max, wasn't Patton over 2-hours and 52 minutes? That told a terrific story.
  You might be right about the Joss Whedon reshoots.
2. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-25 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't seen this film but the trailers were really off-putting. It looked more like a video game, with low quality CGI sets. Lots of fighting but no sign of a plot beyond "get the band together".
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by wonkey_monkey · 2017-11-25 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I do believe that Joss Whedon's reshoots did more harm than good, but if the film had been watchable to start with, then WB wouldn't have requested Whedon to do so.
  They brought Joss Whedon on because Zack Synder's daughter commited suicide, not because they wanted him replaced.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  If they liked Snyder's direction they would not have brought in Joss Whedon to finish it. They would have found someone who would have deferred to the original vision.
5. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Wraithlyn · 2017-11-25 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  These are not mutually exclusive options. Snyder left due to his daughter, *AND* WB was unsatisfied with the state of the film.
  They had Whedon do reshoots and insert additional dialog. That's not something you do to a film you're happy with.
  
  --
  "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
6. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-11-25 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't tell a story in 2 hours because of arbitrary movie length limits or audience patience, you need to break the story into pieces and tell a piece in 2 hours. That doesn't make you a bad story-teller, it makes you a bad director. It seems like 90-180 minutes is what people can give to the theater, so you have to understand your medium a bit.
  But in terms of story-telling, the sky is the limit, the story-teller should be graded then on his ability to hold interest for the duration required to tell that story. Obviously if it takes a year to tell, it becomes a very challenging effort.
7. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller.
  Some of the very best classic movies are in the 2h30-3h range. Personally, I hate that so many movies these days are closer to 90 minutes. It's like how CSI is boring if you also have a clock with you so you know how many minutes they have left to wrap up the case.
8. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, the point is, when you're making a movie the producers decide early on things like, how long is the movie going to be. You should be targeting a length before you start talking to the screenwriter about what sort of script you'd like them to write.
  And if it is 1:30 then you only fit one movie in. If it is between 2:00 and 2:30, then you can cram the amount of storytelling of 2 shorter movies in. If it is 4 hours, you can fit a trilogy of storytelling in because you don't have to re-introduce anything.
  If a director takes is given a script and told to make 2 hours of movie out of it, and at the end of the process they're complaining that the final cut doesn't represent the movie they made, because to understand its greatness requires 4 hours, that just means they suck at the role of leading the process.
  I actually don't blame the director, I blame the executive producers for letting the director have that much control. They need better producers that keep the creative vision on track in a participatory way instead of just phoning it in and trying to fix it with oversight after-the-fact. Not every director can also be their producer, that is very rare, just like authors needs editors, and even authors who are great editors need editors on their own work.
  I prefer longer movies, but the good ones were planned to be long movies.
9. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  We know that there were extensive reshoots for Rogue One as well. They didn't replace Gareth Edwards. Sometimes it just needs some objective criticism. I'm no Synder fan but I would have expected him to have done the reshoots himself under different circumstances.
10. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by UnknowingFool · 2017-11-26 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Oh here we go again. The simple fact is that Snyder is not a good director. If you can't tell a story in 2 hours, you're not a good story teller. Stop trying to cram 4 movies into a single one
  At this point it should be no secret what kind of movie Snyder will make. However I have to also blame the studio for their interference. It seems to me DC wanted to cram in multiple movie story lines so that they can catch up to Marvel. And Snyder didn't say no.
  But also I have to give credit to Marvel for the choice of directors as they have been willing to take chances on lesser known directors like James Gunn, the Russo brothers, and Taika Waititi who focused more on story telling.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
11. Re:We want the 4 hour version! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  I'd never heard of this before, christ that's horrible.
I was given a great power by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mutant...superhero...weird. It didn't matter what they called me. I was free at last to indulge in my fantasy of wearing women's nylons and yoga pants. 'Cause that's what people who get superpowers do - they wear gay clothes.
Seriously, I couldn't tell you who are DC heros and who are Marvel heros and who are off-brand heros. I can tell you that there are way too many stupid-ass superheros.
Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by zifn4b · 2017-11-25 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

It didn't have Gleek the Monkey or that snazzy announcer "Meaaaanwhiiile, back at the Hall of Justice..."

--
We'll make great pets
1. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  It didn't have Gleek the Monkey or that snazzy announcer "Meaaaanwhiiile, back at the Hall of Justice..."
  Ted Knight
2. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-11-25 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  This is really gonna hurt in the next movie because, from the after credits, we will be needing "Meanwhile, at the Legion of Doom..."
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-11-25 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't even know if he's alive anymore but they could work it in in a news story in the background halfway through, with a talking head saying "Meanwhile..."
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by nnet · 2017-11-25 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  ...curse you he-man...
5. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by mark-t · 2017-11-25 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... so adding yet more confusion.
  Arrowverse already used the title 'Legion of Doom' in Legends of Tomorrow to describe Eobard Thawn's team-up with Malcolm Merlyn and Damien Darhk from Arrow, as well as Leonard Snart.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
6. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, from Wikipedia; Ted Knight (December 7, 1923 – August 26, 1986)
7. Re:Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-11-25 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking that it was the lack of Wendy and Marvin...
Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

It has only become an issue for Hollywood in more recent years. The problem is not Rotten Tomatoes, but the quality of films Hollywood is producing.
There is very little worth seeing. Half the films seem to be superhero films, which many people have no interest in. The other half are remakes, reboots or generally trash.
1. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-25 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the dozens of pointless sequels.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Add to this the over the top SJW bullshit, hate for men and especially white men, a dishonest push of demographics, and constant idiocy of pushing women into roles for men, means movies across the board are all suffering. People are tired of the lies, stupidity, dishonest agenda, racism, and hate, and lying politics, all in the name of faux intellectualism.
  There's almost nothing which is watchable right now. Endless, leftist-fake-hate-racist news. Add to this the rape and pedophilia rampant in Hollywood and Democrats in general, of course a lot of good, moral, people are simply going to stop watching.
  You can't shit on someone's plate and force them to eat. Yet this is what Hollywood, Leftists, and especially Democrats are doing to this country.
3. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-25 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Things weren't any better in the 80s and 90s. When you think about it, many of the "classics" from those eras are only remembered for being kinda bad in an enjoyable way. A lot of the good movies were commercial failures at the time.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  It's a little more than that.
  Rotten Tomatoes has a problem with it's critics.
  There are OFTEN movies and television shows which have a low critical rating combined with a 90%+ audience review.
  And to be honest, the audience rating should be more prominent than the critical rating. On the main page, both should be displayed and the audience rating should be first.
  If a critic likes a movie, I may like it. If a critic dislikes a movie, I may like it. There is literally *no* connection between critics taste and most of the audience's taste.
  However, if 90% of the audience likes it, I am very likely to like it. And if 66% of the audience dislikes it, I'm about 2/3 likely to dislike it too. We all have our own peculiar favorites (I adore the final destination films but dislike most other horror films for example).
  So when rotten tomatoes critics give a 29% rotten rating and 92% (or even 65%) of the audience loves the move- the problem is with Rotten Tomatoes- not the movie- not the audience.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
5. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by giggleloop · 2017-11-25 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Dude... get help.
6. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Rotten Tomatoes sucks, though don't take this as a defense of the DC movies (please, I don't want to edit together a video of Superman-saving-people-to-funeral-dirge, Rich Evans laughing, and me vomiting)
  Aside from the problems with reviews in general, RT ranks things in such a way that can be incredibly misleading.
7. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Desler · 2017-11-25 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Boring trolling is boring.
8. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  The very sad fact of reality is, you are very mentally ill if you believe anything in that post is trolling. This is reality.
  If you exited your mental institutions and safe spaces long enough you would see the real world. But we both know you'll cower inside your mental illness and project your hate and racism upon everyone while accusing them of hate and racism. It's literally been the leftist platform for over a decade now.
  I really brainwashed, mentally ill, people such as yourself. You likely could have contributed to the world. Now you're just a "useful idiot" - and likely hate filled and racist to boot.
9. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. Two new generations are looking back on mainstream 80s and 90s and asking what bullshit is offered today. Multiple generations are declaring your answer complete bullshit. That's not to say people don't romantically look back. But the simple fact is, today's horseshit is racist, SJW, worthless, propaganda, bullshit. All of which is produced for DC Hollywood and DC elite pedophiles.
10. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Troller is Troll.
  may even be russian troll saying democrats are pedophiles while Moore is in the headlines for sexually assaulting 14 year old girls and even pastors in alabama are saying he's a 'godly man' and backing voting for him.
  older democratic male figures have decades of casual sexual harassment. "grab ass" wasn't even a thing back in 1990 but it will execute your career today.
  MCU Version 2 is likely to have an international roster so it can appeal to viewers all over the world.
  And it will still be good or bad based on how they focus on character defining moments over spectacle. It will depend on having directors who like and respect heroism and don't want to write no-win dystopic stories where the heroes are destroyed (and by proxy so are the audience members).
  But returning to some "fantasy" time when the rest of the world was recovering from world war 2 isn't going to make movies better or worse. Lots of white men (especially NAZI scum) had everything to do with world war 2. Lots of christians too (easy to find bishops tossing the nazi salute and identified with anti-semitism- tho if you dig in deeper you see individual catholic priests in germany did take some huge risks to save people including jews from the holocaust).
  If you are a white supremacist racist, then watching something that doesn't unrealistically celebrate how awesome white males are is probably going to be unpleasant.
  But that has nothing to do with why DC Movies are failing and Marvel Movies are kicking ass. DC television, animation, and comic books are diverse AND successful.
  Marvel comic books are a completely different story. I'm not even sure they treat them as comic books any more- they are more of a developmental laboratory to figure out what's liked and popular which can then be monetized as a movie.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
11. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-25 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  He's probably trying to, but pushing against social engineering is not fashionable right now.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by serviscope_minor · 2017-11-25 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Also most fo the films were utter shite and completely forgettable. Being 20-30 years in the past means they've been thoroughly forgotten. I don't think it's much different from now.
  Except now er have something of an overload of superhero movies. I used to like superhero movies in general but there have been too man and especially too many crappy ones recently. And I don't think Henry Cavill is a good superman.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
13. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  It has only become an issue for a few studios cranking out expensive turds in more recent years.
  FTFY. Hollywood on the whole doesn't seem to have a problem with review aggragators.
14. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  You say that they're films that people many people are not interested in watching but it's also the case that many are. They are sufficiently popular for the large studios to all be prepared to pay a lot of money to get some of that action.
15. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by tbannist · 2017-11-26 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think they prioritize the critical review because it's harder to manipulate that score. Fans can artificially affect the audience score by organizing to overwhelm normal votes.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
16. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Can you imagine how many reasonable, creative and interesting movies they could have made with $300 billion? Even if 1 in 20 were considered 'great' it would be an improvement... even pretty purely financially.
17. Re:Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Rakarra · 2017-11-27 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. I don't believe you. Save your trolling. It's not credible -- learn from the trolls of the past. They were better than you at this.
Horrible first world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:55 · Score: 0, Insightful

Typical of snotty rich Americans who cannot conceive of anyone else except themselves. Self righteous bigoted one percenters who think a movie is more important and spend countless hours debating it.
1. Re:Horrible first world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  If only they were superior, tolerant caring foreigners! Then they would spend their valuable time writing petulant self-righteous anonymous comments on a messageboard, proving how much better they are!
2. Re: Horrible first world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Found the EU Nazi.
3. Re:Horrible first world problems by Austerity+Empowers · 2017-11-25 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Typical of snotty rich Americans who cannot conceive of anyone else except themselves
  Actually we're kind of pissed about these movies being stupified to fit into other, esp Asian, markets. It seems almost impossible to make a thoughtful movie that doesn't make a certain government and it's censors uncomfortable.
  I definitely wish we were more bigoted and simply let the cards fall where they may.
4. Re:Horrible first world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Typical of snotty rich Americans who cannot conceive of anyone else except themselves. Self righteous bigoted one percenters who think a movie is more important and spend countless hours debating it.
  If this were a conversation about vaccinations for tropical diseases, you would see the same people as is posting in this thread.
  That you can't imagine people having multiple interests means that you are retarded, so fuck off and leave us one percenters to our conversation about movies.
5. Re: Horrible first world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  I would bet that the AC who posted about "snotty rich Americans" is a teenage American.
  It's the use of the phrase "one percenters" that makes me think so.
WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:56 · Score: 1

Why is this even allowed? Not in any legal sense, but why is Rotten Tomatoes risking their good name by having a studio as a part owner under any circumstances?
I know, I know. "They offered us dumptrucks full of cash!" Nevertheless, it's a pretty sure way to taint public perceptions about any degree of impartiality in the process.
1. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Desler · 2017-11-25 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  The studio owning RT has had neglible impact on their reputation outside of whiny DC fans who can’t even construct internally-consistent conspiracy theories.
2. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I hate how Rotten Tomatoes went from being a (somewhat) satire site that was enjoyable to read for tearing into crappy movies into a site that I am supposed to respect for their real movie reviews. It's almost as if 4Chan tried to report reputable news.
3. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't agree more. Hearing Warner had an partial ownership makes me want a new review site that doesn't have that kind of taint. And it is a taint.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
4. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Desler · 2017-11-25 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Warner has been either the full owner or part owner for the last 6+ years. Why was the supposed “taint” only a problem now?
5. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because RT behaved oddly this time for JL's ratings, it attracted attention to Warner's partial ownership.
  Before if Warner was manipulating things they were doing so much more subtly.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
6. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Desler · 2017-11-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Or there was nothing going on at all just like how RT wasn’t working with Disney to tank BvS. Yeah, I know, I’m using too much logic.
7. Re:WB partly owns Rotten Tomatoes? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter. Warner ownership is an inherent conflict of interest and now everyone knows about it.
  It was a problem before-- we just didn't know about it.
  Warner is doing enough to destroy the DC movie universe on their own.
  It's really a case that their egos are hurting their pocketbooks.
  Stop making dystopic movies and writing DC characters into no-win situations.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

People seem so damned intolerant of anything anymore. You have people who, if you don't agree with everything they espouse, no matter how unrealistic it may be, you are labeled a hater, a bigot, stupid, intolerant, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of it.
Just two days ago, my wife and I were over at her mother's for Thanksgiving, and my wife's brother, the youngest in the family and still in university, trotted out this "Thanksgiving is white privilege bullshit". Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around, have become bastions of intolerance for any differing opinion or belief.
1. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:06 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  What a really long way to tell people you are white. I mean good for you, but why are you upset that someone is returning from a university with thoughts you disagree with when you just said that's why people go to them?
2. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  It's OK to be white.
3. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Nice story. Did you make it up yourself?
4. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  When that happens I just bend the family member over the table and give em the penis up the butt for a little while. They fight it, scream, plead, cry...but eventually they calm down and reflect on their mistakes. Then we can all sit down together and enjoy Thanksgiving.
5. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-25 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  What a really short way to tell people you are an idiot.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
6. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  I'm thankful for the huge AC penis up my ass.
7. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  It's Okay to be white.
8. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Actually...it's fucking fantastic. That's why shitnìggers and snivelling jew faggots consider it such a privilege.
9. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  It's excusable, so long as you didn't do it on purpose.
  --
  AmiMoJo
10. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Idiocy is differing.
  Accurate data gets replicated more. Differing ideas swirling around will mostly look like total crap, until something new and interesting falls out the side.
11. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just kill him? Just stab him to death with the turkey knife! Then some sort of Thanksgiving pun.
12. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around"
  Of course, if it gives one person a thought and opinion you don't agree with like "Thanksgiving is white privilege bullshit", you'll want those universities reined in and stopped from letting THAT idea be held!
  You don't do introspection, do you?
13. Re: I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Universities are supposed to engender in students the ability to hear rational arguments, analyze them on their merits, and then debate them. This simply does not happen anymore. The vast majority of universities are now polarizing left-wing establishments that preach and teach nothing but left wing ideologies. Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, I am NOT a Republican or Tea Party asshat.
  [ ] Democrat
  [ ] Republican
  [*] Awake
14. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by quantaman · 2017-11-25 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  People seem so damned intolerant of anything anymore. You have people who, if you don't agree with everything they espouse, no matter how unrealistic it may be, you are labeled a hater, a bigot, stupid, intolerant, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of it.
  Just two days ago, my wife and I were over at her mother's for Thanksgiving, and my wife's brother, the youngest in the family and still in university, trotted out this "Thanksgiving is white privilege bullshit". Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around, have become bastions of intolerance for any differing opinion or belief.
  "Thanksgiving is white privilege bullshit" sounds exactly like an opinion that might pop out from a place where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around. You can't really learn anything if you only hear things you agree with, I'd actually be kind of curious to hear why he thought "Thanksgiving is white privilege".
  You also need to distinguish criticism from discussion, if you make a dumb argument I'm going to push back. I'll agree there's some points of views that you rarely hear expressed on campus, that's because they're really hard to defend.
  I agree that there's a problem with conservative speakers being protested on campuses, which is related though really a different discussion. But "Thanksgiving is white privilege" does make me wonder what Native Americans think about Thanksgiving.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
15. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by kenai_alpenglow · 2017-11-25 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  "Can you expound on 'Thanksgiving is white privilege'", or does the student just repeat tired-old-arguments--or simply responds with profanity when challenged? Or violence? Universities are supposed to make you reason about your views, not just repeat talking points. Oh, as for native americans...what they should be thinking is "I no longer have to worry about the tribe next door putting me through torture rituals if I get captured". Eastern tribes tended to be pretty violent; though not as bad as the meso-american ones. The "European Tribes" simply won the latest war and imposed a peace. People tend to be people, regardless of skin color...
16. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by quantaman · 2017-11-25 20:20 · Score: 2
  
  "Can you expound on 'Thanksgiving is white privilege'", or does the student just repeat tired-old-arguments--or simply responds with profanity when challenged? Or violence? Universities are supposed to make you reason about your views, not just repeat talking points.
  I have no idea what the student understood though I have no doubt he was simply repeating talking points. As far as I'm concerned the only way to be under 25 and right on a complex subject is by having the dumb luck to choose the right set of talking points. It's only later that those talking points turn into wisdom and nuanced views.
  
  Oh, as for native americans...what they should be thinking is "I no longer have to worry about the tribe next door putting me through torture rituals if I get captured". Eastern tribes tended to be pretty violent; though not as bad as the meso-american ones. The "European Tribes" simply won the latest war and imposed a peace. People tend to be people, regardless of skin color...
  Do you actually know any of the history of how first contact went for Native Americans? They're estimated to have lost 80-90% population through disease, starvation, and deliberate killing. Not to mention having their land taken and losing a lot of their culture due to forced assimilation. And you think they're better off today? Substance abuse, poverty, mass unemployment, etc. There's a reason why those communities suffer horrid suicide rates, they do not experience the same country you experience.
  If you were to give me the choice between living as a European nobleman in 1400 and a poor Caucasian in Europe or N.A. in 2017 I'd choose 2017 in a heartbeat.
  If the choice were an average North American Aboriginal in 1400 and living as an average North American Aboriginal in 2017 I'm honestly not sure which way I'd go.
  North American Aboriginals would have been far better off if the Americans had not been colonized by Europeans.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
17. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  I hope everyone banded together, threw his special-snowflake ass outside, then locked the damn doors.
  I'm going to have to get your definition of "snowflake" here. Isn't it supposed to mean an emotionally fragile person who can't stand anything outside a narrow personal worldview? Wouldn't you be the snowflake in that example?
18. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by UnknowingFool · 2017-11-26 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Universities... supposedly places where differing thoughts and opinions can swirl around, have become bastions of intolerance for any differing opinion or belief.
  Yes because before universities existed, intolerance never existed. I mean visiting the south a hundred years ago you'd find that they were very welcoming of all minorities. Universities and college are a place where differing opinions can come together; however, that does not mean everyone who goes there espouses an opinion you would like.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
19. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by tbannist · 2017-11-26 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  Do you actually know any of the history of how first contact went for Native Americans? They're estimated to have lost 80-90% population through disease, starvation, and deliberate killing.
  This bears some explanation, I think. As I understand it, unintentionally spread diseases from European explorers ravaged the beginnings of North American Native civilization that had just started building actual cities along the Mississippi. The combined death rate from the epidemics is estimated to be in the 98% to 100% range in those nascent cities, the entire culture was destroyed in less 20 years and likely by accident.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
20. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by Headw1nd · 2017-11-27 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine that, a young man coming home from a new social environment and testing the waters by espousing a challenging and impolitic viewpoint. I bet that never, ever happened in the past.
21. Re:I just don't understand people anymore by david_thornley · 2017-11-27 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thanksgiving, like Columbus Day, celebrates white privilege. That seems pretty clear from the history. There were a few whites around, and a whole lot of natives, and the natives were going to get the shaft.
  I don't know what you're going on about. Your brother-in-law picked up a differing thought and opinion at his university. You seem to be intolerant of that.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
DC sucks by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-25 05:02 · Score: 4, Funny

That's what happens when you praise Edison instead of Tesla.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Is it really important on opening night? by damn_registrars · 2017-11-25 05:05 · Score: 1

I don't often go to movies on opening night, but generally if I'm even considering it I've already decided that I want to see the movie regardless of how critics perceived it. Why would it matter if the rotten tomatoes reviews are up before opening night or not?

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-25 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because there are other people besides you on the planet? Just a possibility... I know it sounds far fetched.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by damn_registrars · 2017-11-25 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  So apparently all of these other people have strange internet service that only allows them to read movie reviews at rotten tomatoes? I can still check my local newspaper for movie reviews, or check any nationally circulated paper as well. Are none of these other people able to find any other sort of news or review aggregation service?
  
  I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person on earth who considers opening night for a movie to be a pretty substantial outing. While not a black tie affair I still need to find time to actually go (being as most movies open mid-week that's no small feat) and then I have the cost of the ticket, the cost of any snack or beverage I might buy, the cost of getting to the theater, the cost of finding a sitter, the opportunity cost of other things I could have done at that time ... I certainly know before committing whether or not I have any interest in the movie.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
3. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-25 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Keep telling us about yourself, your personal schedule, how you perceive things, including how insignificant RT reviews are in your opinion. The rest of us want to know how we are supposed to think and behave!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:Is it really important on opening night? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  If you were teetering placing your money on a safe bet or something new.
  Personally, I was debating between the new social justice league and pornographic images of monkeys. I think we both know what movie I chose.
5. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by damn_registrars · 2017-11-25 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  You're making some huge assumptions there that are not supported by anything I have written. I suggest you go back and try reading what I have written here so far, if you are capable of comprehending it you will realize you have now repeatedly shoved your own foot into your mouth. Are you too proud of yourself to admit to your mistake?
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
6. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by religionofpeas · 2017-11-25 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I can't be the only person who doesn't read newspapers.
7. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, he's explaining to you the logical errors you're making by ridiculing them.
  You're talking about yourself, and it isn't about you. If you want to talk about yourself, make your opinion also about yourself and leave those other out of it. If your opinion is about others, talk about them, not yourself. And that will require first thinking about things from their perspective, which implies having listened carefully and having understood and believed them about their views.
  For example, you don't even seem to understand who it is that values embargoed reviews; I'll give you a hint, it isn't the readers.
8. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by nitehawk214 · 2017-11-25 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Also, please tell us your first pet's name and your mother's maiden name.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
9. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by damn_registrars · 2017-11-25 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  I plainly stated my opinion on the matter. The person who replied to me discarded all logic and made a sweeping assumption about me without any regard for what I actually wrote.
  
  You seem to be following a similar course of anti-logic. I will leave you with just one question, why is my opinion worth so much less than his or yours? He rushed to attack me, and you have rushed to his defense.
  
  If there exist people in the world who want to see movies on opening night but will only do so if the rotten tomatoes score falls within certain criteria, then so be it; those people live a very different life than the one I live. Selecting movies based primarily on what RT says about them is a lot like only accepting news that is aggregated for you by google news; you can do it but you're missing out on quite a lot. Similarly there exist methods for getting better relevant info than what is normally served be either.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
10. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-26 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  "If there exist people in the world who want to see movies on opening night but will only do so if the rotten tomatoes score falls within certain criteria, then so be it"
  Nobody is making that claim but you. People can complain about the situation and still go to the movie. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just accept the fact that you aren't very bright and move on with your pathetic life ...
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
11. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by damn_registrars · 2017-11-26 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for reminding us that the reply button does not require the person pressing it to actually read what they are replying to. I accept the apology that you are too proud to give. I'm done with you now kid, move along and go waste someone else's time. If you ever care to try to learn how to comprehend written English, we can have a discussion at that time.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
12. Re: Is it really important on opening night? by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-11-28 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Here is your apology: go fuck yourself you worthless piece of shit.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Make it up in vhs and dvd rentals by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:07 · Score: 0

so all is good in the end.
Really? by Jfetjunky · 2017-11-25 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really? Petitioning the federal government to release a movie edit? Shit like this, no wonder this country is a laughingstock.
Movie Critics are Useless by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-11-25 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

First of all, I just have to say: First world problems on this one...
Second of all, people have to realize that critic reviews have, almost since the time of Shakespeare, been overly critical of media that is primarily audience targeted and for lack of a better term fun to experience. Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical. The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time. The best barometer I have found to figure out if I will enjoy a movie or not is the Amazon reviews score and reading the top positive and top negative. There is always the risk of a spoiler, but it is a far better barometer because normal people are giving their impressions. As traditional media and newspapers die, so too should the movie critic industry. It is an antiquated system that is neither useful nor necessary in the modern era.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by jeremyp · 2017-11-25 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical.
  How do you explain that the Marvel films as a rule get better reviews despite being a better time than the average recent DC film?
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
2. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  They all suck! No more superhero movies for 10 years please, give that genre some time to regenerate. It's been over exploited as badly as global fish stocks!
3. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  The urge to publicly criticize likely comes from the urge to be seen as intellectual, and thinking the correct thoughts. Whatever sets one's self apart from the fray, e.g. cynicism; being critical of taste, tradition, populism, etc.
  Producers of "art", especially performance art, have picked up on this over the past century; either produced crap that subtly mocked those who would critically approve, or produced crap sincerely seeking out critical approval.
4. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by alvinrod · 2017-11-25 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that every critic looks at comic book movies and expects them to be Citizen Kane or some kind of avant-garde arthouse movie, but even within the realm of popcorn blockbusters, there are obviously degrees. There are comic book films like those in Raimi's Spiderman or Nolan's Batman trilogies that stand head and shoulder above most of what is being trotted out today. Those offer far better spectacle and storytelling than a lot of the more recent DC films, many of which get more flak from comic book fans than film critics because they fail miserably to accurately characterize the subjects of their films.
  
  Snyder is a terrible director and really proves how little Hollywood understands about movies. His early success road heavily on the back of stories by acclaimed writers like Alan Moore and Frank Miller where anyone could have had a great film by adapting those properties. His only real skill is in creating spectacle, but he does so at the expense of everything else including the characters in his story or the logic of the movie's world. Both Watchmen and 300 already had plenty baked into their narratives as a result of being graphic novels so Snyder only needed to bring that to the screen. Once he got the ability to add his own ideas to existing scripts, it all just went to hell because now the film existed in service to a few choice scenes rather than spectacular scenes supplementing the rest of the movie.
5. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Desler · 2017-11-25 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because the movies are more enjoyable to watch? If this is all an anti-DC conspiracy how do you explain that the Dark Knight trilogy movies were nearly universally more highly-rated (84%, 94% and 87% respectively on RT) than these Snyder shlockfests?
6. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  The recent DC movies are garbage. That’s why they get low ratings. Snyder is a shit director.
7. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, I just have to say: First world problems on this one...
  Awww, people said words you didn't think were as important as world peace, poor baby.
  Did you ever bother to toss "spending time complaining about vapid bullshit" onto your Problem-O-Meter to see if whining that insignificant problems are insignificant is more, or less, insignificant than your target?
8. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  > they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical. The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year
  Am I misinterpreting this, or are you suggesting 25 movies a year is on the low end?
  That's a movie every 2 weeks. If I bother to watch 2 movies within a year, it's been an exceptionally good year.
9. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-25 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think it is more that critics watch a LOT of films. They are jaded compared to the audience.
  They may also be formally trained in film making so they see things explicitly that we don't.
  Personally, I find critical reaction to not be very helpful lately. I find the audience ratings to be much more helpful.
  Critical reaction wasn't even that useful in the 80s but today, it's like there is a complete disconnect between critics and audiences.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
10. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by blackomegax · 2017-11-25 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Why hate? Nobody is forcing you to watch them. Just go away and shut up. Let people enjoy things.
11. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by quantaman · 2017-11-25 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, I just have to say: First world problems on this one...
  Second of all, people have to realize that critic reviews have, almost since the time of Shakespeare, been overly critical of media that is primarily audience targeted and for lack of a better term fun to experience. Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical. The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time. The best barometer I have found to figure out if I will enjoy a movie or not is the Amazon reviews score and reading the top positive and top negative. There is always the risk of a spoiler, but it is a far better barometer because normal people are giving their impressions. As traditional media and newspapers die, so too should the movie critic industry. It is an antiquated system that is neither useful nor necessary in the modern era.
  Critics offer two services, one they offer intelligent analysis of art and contribute to the public conversation around art, second, they help people decide what art to seek out.
  Roger Ebert was a great example of the first one, he could identity themes and influences a viewer with less experience would miss, and his analysis could add some layers and really enhance the enjoyment of a movie.
  But as for the second part, a good reviewer can also let you understand what kind of film a movie is and how it succeeds on that measure. For instance, 300 got huge audience ratings, but I didn't like it, I just got bored. If I'd read a good review previously it might have told me it was an awesome film, but not a film I'd personally enjoy.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
12. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Second of all, people have to realize that critic reviews have, almost since the time of Shakespeare, been overly critical of media that is primarily audience targeted and for lack of a better term fun to experience.
  Irrelevant in this case. One thing the general audiences and critics can both agree on is that DC have been crapping out and endless stream of turds. The reviews between the audience and the critics are split up and they show some interesting trends in the comic book industry: the audience has favourable bias as well as centre bias. In truly awesome movies they don't rate as high as critics, in truly unwatchable turds they rarely go below the 50% mark while the critics seem to bottom out around the 25% mark.
13. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by UnknowingFool · 2017-11-26 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Critics want edgy, ground breaking artistic media because for the most part they watch way too many movies and are burnt out and cynical.
  
  Some critics want edgy. Some of them just want movies to be good.
  
  The rest of us who watch maybe 25 movies a year are for the most part just looking for a good time.
  
  25 movies a year? What kind of time do you have? I see maybe 5 movies a year. So I have to be selective what I watch. And people with children have to watch the movies that their children can/want to watch. If a movie gets terrible reviews, I'm not wasting my time on it but I pay attention to the substance of the criticism. That means I've watched some independent movies are Sundance winners. It also means I've seen both John Wick movies because they were exactly what the critics say they were: all high-paced action, little plot which is what I wanted to see.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
14. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  People want movies that are enjoyable to watch and not wrought with predictable tropes or dumbed down for the illiterate. Seriously, how many action movies can be summed up as "My name is John and this is my partner Sandra Tigbits, and we're off to stop the bad guys from detonating a bomb/railing the president up the ass"? Guy is a badass, "Meet your new partner", cut to the bad guy with the president smoking a cigar saying "You're getting it up the ass when I finish this cigar", show off the gadgets, generic shootouts, plane scene, more shootouts, Sandra Tigbits is actually Sasha Tigbitsovich of the KGB (foreshadowed tens of scenes ago when it's shown she drinks vodka), John gets captured, breaks free, and saves the president just as the bad guy yanks his drawers down. Then the bomb goes off.
  What needs to die are massive budgets, and overpaid big names.
15. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-11-27 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Critics offer two services, one they offer intelligent analysis of art and contribute to the public conversation around art, second, they help people decide what art to seek out.
  And therein lies a key distinction. While movies can be art, they can also be entertainment media. This is one of the things that the video game industry has done a much better job of understanding. While both movies and video games can be art, most commercial productions are entertainment media first and foremost (which is why if they don't make a profit, they are considered failures. As far as I am concerned, watching any of the superhero movies and expecting art is doing it wrong. They are entertainment, just like the comic books they originated from are not Homers Odyssey. If you go in expecting art, you will have a bad time and rate the movie poorly, if you go in looking for entertainment you will have a good time.
  Not to say there aren't still garbage movies with huge plot holes, terrible acting and shoddy writing, but the only way to fairly measure a work is by how it reaches it's target audience and if entertainment was it's goal, how effective it is in that goal.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
16. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-11-27 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Get a life... Seriously.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
17. Re:Movie Critics are Useless by Aighearach · 2017-11-27 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  What do you even think that means? Like, did you ever think about, "Do the words I dribble out of my mouth mean something? I wonder what I'm saying?"
  I mean, even one time?
Aggregation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:17 · Score: 0

Even funnier is the fact it aggregates. Apparently this implies every independently reviewed article is part of this conspiracy. Lol wat
Re:Really? by Desler · 2017-11-25 05:18 · Score: 2

What the hell are you talking about? No one is petitioning the US government. It’s a petition to Warner Bros. Also, I’m failing to understand how an Egyptian DC fan making a useless change.org petition means that the US is a laughingstock. Care to explain that logic?
People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

People are slowly reverting to their savage, primitive, tribal nature.
For centuries, if not millenia, people have fought and died to pull humanity out from the depth of barbarism and into the light of civilization. Slowly but surely, things like war, genocide, blodshed, slavery, human traficcing, sexual exploitation of women and children, linching, mob mentality and superstitions have been replaced with collaboration, gender equality, the state of law, justice, education, knowledge and science.
But in the last few decades, all of this has started to go all to hell. Extremists, both right and left-wing, once confined to the shadows, are now more and more emboldened to come out in the open. Religious superstitions and sects and sprouting everywhere. There's a systematic war on science. People are being judged, condemned, and executed (both phisically and figuratively) by social media linch mobs. delusional conspiracy theorists are spreading like a disease. Bearded savages in the middle-east are trying to push human civilization back to the dark ages. Democracies are slowly turning into fascism, police states, and other forms of tyranny.
"May you live in interesting times". This surely is true from a sociologist/anthropologist point of vew, but this is certainly not the kind of world I feel confortable raising my children in.
1. Re: People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Nicely put. Now then, may I interest you in my penis in your butt? It'll only take but a...
  (AC tries to run away but he is tackled and wrestled into position by the stronger, more tribal AC)
  Ooh, you're putting up a fight! I like that in my ACs!
2. Re: People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Crickey, we got a wild one ere' mate.
3. Re:People are returning to the wild by alvinrod · 2017-11-25 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "May you live in interesting times". This surely is true from a sociologist/anthropologist point of vew, but this is certainly not the kind of world I feel confortable raising my children in.
  But is there really a different time you'd want to raise your children in? I can't really think of any time in history better than now. A large part of the world are capitalist democracies that allow you to accumulate wealth for yourself rather than handing it all over to your lord, master, etc. Even if you're not born there, most of them are willing to let you move there and even become citizens.
  
  There's far less war than previously and the odds of a Mongol horde or something similar destroying your village are so much less. If you're a woman, you'll probably not get carried off, die in childbirth, and if you can make it to that western world you're just as free to pursue your dreams as anyone else instead of being stuck as a house keeper or baby factory.
  
  Knowledge is readily available to anyone with an internet connection which is rapidly expanding to almost everyone as smart phones become ubiquitous and are bringing computers to parts of the world that never got them before. There's so much knowledge available that the bigger problem is filtering it and picking the best stuff out. There's typically a youtube video showing you how to do just about anything you could care to learn, never mind access to manuals, etc. that might have been much harder to get your hands on previously.
  
  I could probably go on for another five or six paragraphs about how good shit is now. Hell, you can lose limbs or have plenty of other terrible accidents that would have been a death sentence previously, but are entirely manageable today. People who are more interested in intellectual pursuits can find work in them whereas in the past, they were probably limited to manual labor unless they were born into the aristocracy. The internet has eliminated serious barriers to entry for artistic people in a similar manner. Just about everything is better today and there aren't too many things that you can't do if you aren't willing to work for it.
  
  If things seem tough or difficult now, it's because they always are. There are always going to be extremists of some sort. In the 80's and 90's it was the religious right, now its the authoritarian left. It doesn't really matter, because in a few decades it will be something else. But the world is only going to get better if you stand up to the difficulties and work to change the world for the better or keep the evils from spreading. Your ancestors had to stand up to barbarian hordes, but you can't handle some idiots yelling at you about burning in hell or how you're causing microaggressions? Seriously?
4. Re:People are returning to the wild by dzelenka · 2017-11-25 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  "For centuries, if not millenia, people have fought and died to pull humanity out from the depth of barbarism and into the light of civilization."
  Sounds like the opening line in a bad DC hero movie!
  
  --
  Bah!
5. Re:People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  That's actually a freaking good idea.
6. Re:People are returning to the wild by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Aquaman to the... rescue?
7. Re:People are returning to the wild by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-11-25 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the millions that have been murdered illegally so that America could get what it wants, never mind the economic and social damage caused by a psychopathic foreign policy. Remember: Capitalism is incompatible with socialism but is 100% compatible with fascism.
  You're engaged in endless wars, experience mass shootings and terrorist attacks every other day, have antifa and BLM rioting in the streets, an orange faced (supposedly) billionaire reality star as a President, a privately owned federal bank that's sold all its gold and are printing money willy-nilly, a pay to play political system, entire cities with murder rates of third world countries, homeless people living in the streets, education is deemed a privilege and will cost you a fortune in student loans, if you get sick you're fucked, free speech is up for debate but reasonable gun control is not, jobs are being shipped to China at alarming rates while illegal aliens are being imported as cheap pseudo-slave labor, men are still expected to be "providers" but are also maligned as potential rapists, white people are vilified simply for being white but it's somehow not racist, the media are all liars with political agendas and in 2017 fucking Fox are starting to sound like the voice of reason... and The View is an actual thing that people watch... while Hollywood is raping kids and being holier than thou hypocrites.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
8. Re:People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  This is a fantastic set of comments. Please, comment here more often. Perhaps it will offset the sheer stupidity of 95% of ./ comments.
9. Re:People are returning to the wild by david_thornley · 2017-11-27 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Even assuming that what you say is mostly true, this is still the best time to be living in than all the others.
  Endless war? That's been going on, um, endlessly. The modern wars are a lot easier on the population. Mass shootings? They affect only a very few people. Rioting in the streets? Old hat. We had real riots when I was a kid, not like the kind we have now. College has normally been a sign of privilege, and getting sick has always been dangerous.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:27 · Score: 1

Justice League cost nearly a third of a billion dollars to produce.
I would have done it for just a 100 million or so. And I would have used lego characters in all the starring roles.
Hollywood is living denial by DeplorableCodeMonkey · 2017-11-25 05:31 · Score: 1

Nearly $333M to produce? That's a huge investment from an industry that is filled with people who can't shut their mouths and stop making statements that alienate as much as 50% of the population. With such large outlays, you need to appeal to as much of the population as a whole unless you have a minority of the population with deep pockets who will enthusiastically replace the majority (see Apple).
It's especially ironic since right-of-center audiences that Hollywood loves to mock are precisely the sort of people who go to movies like this for the escapism and are willing to hold it to a lower standard because they don't "expect that much" from a comic book. The only people I know who bitch about Michael Bay movies are left-leaning types. For everyone else, it's worth a little escapism and sometimes fun to watch it over a few beers just to watch shit get blown up.
1. Re:Hollywood is living denial by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  You derped all over yourself with your politics. Time to change your shirt!
  Newsflash: No, choosing your favorite political team doesn't make you artistically superior to all those ignorant hippies.
  Of all the stupid fucking shit people say, this is just about the stupidest in awhile.
2. Re:Hollywood is living denial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Why should they? The Hollywood capitalists (lets be honest, the "leftest" tag is in name only, not when it comes to making a buck) see that the rubes are as dumb as ever. Their new supposed "right wing" masters are feeding them heaps of bullshit while robbing them blind, same as it ever was, and they gobble it up and ask for seconds. So why wouldn't the studio execs fleece while the fleecing is good? The mob is a stupid as it has been throughout history, its just that right now "team red" managed to wrest their attention away from "team blue". I'm sure that will change in a few years, and blue will get their chance at the trough while saying something supposedly very different but doing exactly the same thing.
  Captcha: dominion
3. Re:Hollywood is living denial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 21:15 · Score: 0
  
  I wont watch any movie that has scientologists, homepaths, PETA supporters, or BLM supporters in it. This of course means I don't watch many movies. If you're going to involve yourself with cults, hate groups, animal abusers, or outright scientific illiteracy then you're not getting my time or money.
Re:DC sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:32 · Score: 0

This singular comment on slashdot just entertained me more than the entire 4-hour original edit of Snyder's Justice League possibly would have.
Wack Snyder by sixsixtysix · 2017-11-25 05:33 · Score: 1

His movies have gotten consecutively worse, and he only uses other people's IP. Two thumbs down.

--
...
1. Re:Wack Snyder by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  He's competing with Uwe Boll and M. Night Shyamalan for worst director, and I think he has that one. Maybe after Just Us League (TM) looses a shitload of money he won't get to direct anything else.
  In Boll's defense, I know people who as worked with he and said he was fun and created a great working environment.
DC Fan by sqorbit · 2017-11-25 05:35 · Score: 1

I'm a big DC Comics Fan. I love the comic books, am very into the Rebirth series. I haven't watched any of the recent movies. I just avoid them. I've read about them and realized that I'd just probably be disappointed. These "fans" that are getting their backs up are just as bad as Apple fan boys. In their eyes DC can do no wrong. If you wasted your time on Convergence and are happily reading Rebirth, you know DC can completely screw things up. Doesn't mean your not a fan if you say it sucks.

--
Sent from my TARDIS
1. Re:DC Fan by david_thornley · 2017-11-27 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Try Wonder Woman. Not any of the others.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
DCU should have started pre-Crisis by mykepredko · 2017-11-25 05:36 · Score: 1

Basically follow the Marvel model, of introducing characters in their own worlds (which in the original pre-Crisis books, there was some intermingling (ie the Flash's Cosmic Treadmill)), develop the characters and their rogue's gallery. Right now, they're throwing everybody together and basically letting God sort it out - "Suicide Squad" was an excellent example of this; Margo Robbie had the stand out performance and made the movie watchable at the expense of putting all the other characters in the shadows (which is unfortunate).
Also, Marvel has an excellent set of anchor hero characters; Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Thor, Nick Fury while DC doesn't and often tends to focus on the villains instead (this is why Michael Keaton dropped out as Batman). Christian Bale wasn't bad as Batman and Nolan's movie followed the model of showing the character, but DC/Warner never figured out how to capitalize on that. They need a better Superman, Henry Cavil looks the part but seems overwhelmed at the size of the character - I always imagined the "real" Superman/Clark Kent/Kal El as being somewhat self-aware and self-deprecating. Gal Godot seems to be the right person for Wonder Woman. Personally, I'm not in love with the current incarnation of the The Flash and it just doesn't ring true to what I thought of the character (in the '70s up to his trial and disappearance). So, I would consider there to be four DC Anchor Heros, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and The Flash. Unfortunately, I only think they have a Wonder Woman who's up to the task.
I would have thought that "The Crisis on Infinite Earths" would be an excellent point of bringing everybody together with an existential threat followed by everybody learning to working together followed by dealing with a multi-movie arc of dealing with Darkseid and maybe an invasion by Dominators.
If anybody from DC/Warner is reading and takes this to hear, I'd be happy to receive royalties on this concept in $10s and $20s.

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by DatbeDank · 2017-11-25 05:37 · Score: 0

I'm going to take a karma hit and apologies to the fans of these franchises.
When I was in grade school playing with those old Apple IIs and enjoying the ever loving adventures of D&D, it just seemed that the culture always veered into comic books and super heros.
I enjoy nerdy hobbies, but super hero comic books are at their best silly and at their worst lame.
Fast forward to adulthood, it's been a cinematic hell that most of what's released in the cinemas are... superhero films.
The worst part is they don't even have actor continuity . Tony Stark will always be Robert Downey Jr, the Hulk will always be Eric Bana, and don't get me going on Spider Man.
As if this couldn't get any worse, apparently they can't even get their story lines within the comic books straight. Stooping to the level of Bollywood style plot twists.
The first few super hero flicks were an enlightening change of pace, ten years later they've become a sad staple of modern cinema chock filled with all sorts of yawn inducing progressive tropes.
No wonder American audiences don't go to the movies anymore.
1. Re:Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by avandesande · 2017-11-25 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I like ice cream but I don't want to eat it every meal.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
2. Re:Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  it just seemed that the culture always veered into comic books and super heros.
  Naw, it was just the people you knew.
3. Re: Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by nitehawk214 · 2017-11-25 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't like a thing, therefore nobody should like the thing."
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
4. Re:Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  How many Marvel movies are released a year? 3? How many DC? 2? 3? So 6 out of how many opening weekends? Two - three dozen "major films" plus probably 100 others in some form of cinematic distribution? So At that we have _maybe_ 5%, but probably more like 2-3% of the content in cinemas being super hero films. Now take into account streaming services, television, etc? Sure, Netflix had Defenders and Punisher this year, but it also had a ton of other series and direct to Netflix movies.
  So this is a "cinematic hell that most of what's released in the cinemas are superhero films" By what possible measurement do you make this? Advertising dollars? Genre releases? Certainly can't be quantity, unless you have some different numbers from me. Please do share if you do.
5. Re:Larger Debate: Superheros are Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'm going to take a karma hit and apologies to the fans of these franchises.
  When I was in grade school playing with those old Apple IIs and enjoying the ever loving adventures of D&D, it just seemed that the culture always veered into comic books and super heros.
  I enjoy nerdy hobbies, but super hero comic books are at their best silly and at their worst lame.
  Fast forward to adulthood, it's been a cinematic hell that most of what's released in the cinemas are... superhero films.
  The worst part is they don't even have actor continuity . Tony Stark will always be Robert Downey Jr, the Hulk will always be Eric Bana, and don't get me going on Spider Man.
  As if this couldn't get any worse, apparently they can't even get their story lines within the comic books straight. Stooping to the level of Bollywood style plot twists.
  The first few super hero flicks were an enlightening change of pace, ten years later they've become a sad staple of modern cinema chock filled with all sorts of yawn inducing progressive tropes.
  No wonder American audiences don't go to the movies anymore.
  Here's some news white boi, the world doesn't revolve around your interests. You might want to step away from your nerdgasm dreamland and look at what's actually playing in the theaters rather than what your carefully filtered news feeds are giving you, because panties and capes make up less that 10% of what's showing at local 24 screen theater.
I do not see the difference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:42 · Score: 1

I saw The Avengers and Justice League both in theatres and I honestly can write that I cannot see the difference in quality between both films. Both amplify Joss Wheadon's signature comedic tone that everyone is familiar with, both movie premise of saving the world is flimsy, and the dramatic ending fight sequences are the the exact same teenage mutant ninja turtles feel to it.
Both films incidentally showcase both films great casting choices Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk and Ezra Miller as Barry Allen.
In my opinion, any score you give The Justice League should be within the same ballpark as The Avengers.
1. Re:I do not see the difference by avandesande · 2017-11-25 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's like comparing rottweiler poo with that from a great dane...
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
2. Re:I do not see the difference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Just going by what you say it sounds like "Justice League" was basically a knock off of "Avengers". Why would it get the same score? If you're saying that neither of them brought anything new (or feeling new) to the audience then fair enough but if Avengers met a need then, based on your comment, I don't think you should be surprised that Justice League found that that need had already been met.
3. Re:I do not see the difference by Aighearach · 2017-11-25 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Haven't you ever seen a movie with Scottish characters?
  If you want to tell the difference, you have to taste it.
Part of the problem by grasshoppa · 2017-11-25 05:51 · Score: 2

I feel part of the problem with DCU is their hackneyed approach to telling the individual stories. Superman got a movie, Wonderwoman got a movie, but what about Cyborg or Aquaman? Batman can be forgiven given his screen time already, and frankly I don't need to watch another hour of cutscenes describing in painstakingly detail just how Bruce Wayne became Batman ( BvS, looking at you ).
Aquaman especially; if anything, Justice League introduced a version of Aquaman I'd like to know more about, but instead they just throw him out there ruining a perfectly good story telling chance. Cyborg too; unless you knew the backstory, I get the impression a lot of folks will be lost.
Between Justice League and BvS, DCU is ignoring the supporting stories and going right to the climax. If there's a reason MCU is doing better, it's that right there; they know how to build a story.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm sure this will work out well... by nitehawk214 · 2017-11-25 05:51 · Score: 1

Bitching about poor ratings isba good way to get more poor ratings.
Same as bitching about downvoting gets you more downvotes.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
1. Re:I'm sure this will work out well... by drinkypoo · 2017-11-25 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Same as bitching about downvoting gets you more downvotes.
  Except I often get upvotes when I bitch about downvotes, even when I am outright inviting people to downmod my comments in order to drain their modpoints.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:I'm sure this will work out well... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  DOWNVOTE!!! Ummm.. wait. Unless this was meant to do that. UPVOTE!!! No.. no... wait. I'm confused... >_>
How much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 05:54 · Score: 0

How much does it cost a distributor to get "featured" on the web show and get their RT rating delayed? How long until delayed RT rating release means total bomb of a picture.
RT got so big by serving the public interest. This self serving could poison their brand and create an opening for a competitor.
Big special effects; dinky plot by hduff · 2017-11-25 06:10 · Score: 2

The story sucked. The special effects were outstanding, especially in 3D.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
1. Re:Big special effects; dinky plot by iggymanz · 2017-11-25 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  so typical hollywood tripe then. warner-brothers should try something radical like making a quality movie.
2. Re:Big special effects; dinky plot by Ryanrule · 2017-11-25 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  so, avatar then. but more designed for a coke user than a lsd user.
3. Re:Big special effects; dinky plot by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  The story sucked. The special effects were outstanding, especially in 3D.
  This is the DC formula.
Re: DC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Nobody can defeat Jean gray as Phoenix. That's why professor Xavier tried to block it out of her memory for all those years. ;)
Wonder Woman is the only good superhero movie... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:17 · Score: 0

...of the recent generation, DC or Marvel. I really don't understand how any of the Marvel films receive as much praise as they do (Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy were very boring). DC fans might think it's a conspiracy, but critics are more than likely idiots who pretend to enjoy things like The Force Awakens.
Bias! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:23 · Score: 0

I didn't realize Warner Bros. was part owner of Rotten Tomatoes. I shall henceforth stop trusting their "ratings".
1. Re:Bias! by Desler · 2017-11-25 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  They’ve been so since 2011. Why is it only a problem now?
DC Takes itself too seriously by quantaman · 2017-11-25 06:57 · Score: 1

In general the DC movies are dark and serious while the MCU movies are fun and lighthearted.
The DC approach works really well with a character who is dark and serious like Batman, if usually fails with anything else.
As for the allegation in the story, that WB screwed with the timing to shield the movies opening, it's probably a coincidence, but it is plausible even as a one-off scheme since it could mean the difference of millions of dollars.
Realistically WB only has two reasons to be interested in Rotten Tomatoes, either they want some additional insight into what audiences and critics like, or they want to influence the media coverage of their movies.

--
I stole this Sig
1. Re:DC Takes itself too seriously by yodleboy · 2017-11-25 09:45 · Score: 2
  
  I agree... Marvel movies seem more hopeful. Yeah the world may be in peril, again, but it seems like a world worth saving. DC is stuck in the same dystopian storytelling that led to Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner and all those damn zombie apocalypse movies. It's hard to see WHY anyone would want to save those worlds sometimes. Audiences don't want to be depressed every time they go see a movie. Dystopian series have passed their sell buy date.
Who cares about ratings? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:57 · Score: 0

Go see the movie. If you enjoyed it, good. If you didn't, it had nothing to do with a Rotten Tomatoes rating.
DC fails because no Stan Lee by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 06:58 · Score: 0

While the directors of the DC movies may be bad, they could be really good and it still wouldn't make up for not having Stan Lee.
Re: DC Sucks by Hognoxious · 2017-11-25 07:05 · Score: 1

Not even Chuck Norris?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:DC sucks by Subm · 2017-11-25 07:14 · Score: 4, Funny

> Re:DC sucks
> > That's what happens when you praise Edison instead of Tesla.
You should have posted as AC.
Bullhockey. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:32 · Score: 0

"I just want it to be fun and adhere to its own set-upon rules" are often the modern critic's *only* criteria, and yet modern films still flop by those standards. We can of course lower our standards to match the films, but then why bother with the middleman when we could just entertain ourselves with dangling keys all day like a baby? Multi-million dollar films don't deserve the "as long as I can squint hard enough and enjoy myself, it's fine" defense.
Re: DC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:44 · Score: 0

We're restricting this to fictional characters, obviously. Invoking Norris in this context is no contest.
Don't fall for it. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 07:58 · Score: 0

That post was just well-poisoning. It's purpose is to create the impression that conservatives are all radical nuts.
1. Re:Don't fall for it. by tbannist · 2017-11-26 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Poe's law: Parody of extremist views are indistinguishable from extremist views. In this case are lots of dumb conservatives who actually believe what the GGP wrote, whether the GGP is one or not is probably moot.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
upset over what? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 08:27 · Score: 0

saw it in 3D last night. slept through half of it. Should have asked my money back.
Re:DC sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 08:50 · Score: 0

I see what you did there.
(and it made me laugh out loud)
More censorship could have fixed this by AHuxley · 2017-11-25 10:09 · Score: 1

Imagine if some global review system could ensure only good reviews got propagated?
That only the more positive reviews got shown as search results?
Imagine an internet without negative reviews.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Christ by Ryanrule · 2017-11-25 10:22 · Score: 0

Warner Bros OWNS rotten tomatoes.
1. Re:Christ by Desler · 2017-11-26 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Only a minority owner these days. Fandango is the majority kwber.
screw the fans by mapkinase · 2017-11-25 10:34 · Score: 1

fans of anythig. It's just entertainment. Nad if you are so emotionally attached to yor sport team or a movie, you are just a brainless imbecile.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Really? by thegarbz · 2017-11-25 12:58 · Score: 1

No. Crazy idiots like this are around in every country. What makes America a laughing stock is that with the head of the current administration I'm not certain the government will actually ignore it.
the death of the gods means superheroes flourish by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2017-11-25 13:17 · Score: 1

i mean really, its not surprising people are passionate about this stuff; but its all make believe in the end.

--
-
Re:Really? by Desler · 2017-11-25 13:27 · Score: 1

The doubly stupid part about their post is the person who made the petition is from Egypt not the US.
A third of a billion dollars on this stupid movie? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 14:37 · Score: 0

Some countries can send probes to other planets for 1/3 of that.
Well said but by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-25 16:19 · Score: 0

there are no ''Persians'' today. They were a small part of what is modern day Iran. Iranians are proud of the old Persian empire and have appropriated the name but they are no more Persians than Greeks Bulgarians Balkans and modern day ''Macedonians'' are the heirs of Alexander the Great.

Agree on MIller: an asshole and a talented story teller rolled into one.
Why the Butt-hurt ???? by dasgoober · 2017-11-25 18:41 · Score: 1

They are only movies, of absolutely no particular significance,
why on earth would anyone take this issue so seriously?
Thank Warner Brothers instead of blaming RT by Taelron · 2017-11-25 20:16 · Score: 2

Warner Brothers made a deal with Rotten Tomatoes a while back and at WBs request, Rotten Tomatoes will withhold reviews until the night of the premiere. The move was slammed by critics and earned its abysmal score. There was a lot of backlash from fans at Rotten Tomatoes for not publishing the review until the premiere. It is not doing well in the box office, and its not because of the ratings. The latest DC universe save the exception of Wonder Woman, is just not doing well. The TV shows are doing better, but unlike Marvel tying everything to one universe, DC has its TV shows set in two different universes (Supergirl and then Flash/Arrow) and their Movies in a third different universe. There is no unifying tie-in. Fans of the TV shows are upset they didn't cast those actors in the movies. They are alienating and splitting their own fans. Its DC's own fault. Stop trying to blame an aggregate site.
'DC' bias on Rotten Tomatoes? Forgot WW already? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-26 02:58 · Score: 0

Last I checked, Wonder Woman was a DC movie, it has a 92% rating.
I suspect there may be something more insidious going on here... a bias against _bad_ movies...
Re:'DC' bias on Rotten Tomatoes? Forgot WW already by Desler · 2017-11-26 05:35 · Score: 1

Or just look at the highly rated Dark Knight trilogy movies. You’re not supposed to let facts get in the way of conspiracy theories and whining.
Jenny Nicholson - Justice League Bad by tomwood2 · 2017-11-26 23:40 · Score: 1

Look up 'Jenny Nicholson Justice League Bad' on YouTube for a great take-down of the movie.
Why so serious? by DarthVain · 2017-11-27 07:21 · Score: 1

I'd agree with most of what you said, however with one glaring omission.
If you look at the most successful superhero movies done in the last say 5 years or so, they all have something in common.
They took deliberate effort to inject a sizable amount of good humor into the movies, and try not to taken themselves too seriously.
GOTG, Deadpool, Thor (except maybe the 2nd one). Logan wasn't all that funny as I remember, but it was really well done.
Anyway, essentially lighten up, its mostly a bunch of grown ass adults going to a comic book movie. Wonder Woman wasn't bad, but mostly because I think Chris Pine can do a bit of comedy if he needs to, and Gal Gadot played the naive comedy trope passably.
1. Re:Why so serious? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-27 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's a naive view.
  IMHO, it's not about injecting comedy but in recognizing the humor that people inherently bring to their existence.
  People joke during times of stress.
  The Orville does this pretty effectively after (but not including) episode 1. Episode 1 is canned jokes but episode 2 stars character based jokes.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
2. Re:Why so serious? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-11-27 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mean naive as dumb. Just shallow.
  It's the kinda thing a hollywood executive would do without engaging their brains.
  Civil War was pretty serious but also had natural character based humor.
  What I'm saying is the movies don't need to be "comedies" like Deadpool.
  Just make a normal horror film, or action film, or adventure film, or political thriller that is *good*, *well written*, AND has superheroes. Look at superheroes the same way you would at "House" who can play the piano, who rides a hot motorcycle, who has strong diagnostic skills, who is rude, who is in pain.
  If the superheroes are characters we know and we like and we care about them, we'll enjoy the film and it will do well.
  If the film starts and ends as a superhero film, it's very limiting. And inherently less grounded.
  I like captain america because of *who* he is- not because of *what* he is. I like tony stark- any enjoyment from the ironman action scenes is dependent on how much I like stark and will still be down several notches because it's all CGI and I don't emotionally engage with CGI (nothing's really at stake, the stunt wasn't hard to do).
  For DCU, I like Batman. He's a good character. But he's not Bruce. Bruce is like a cardboard cutout and a mask. So if you are going to do DCU, you need character interaction (on a small scale) between the superheroes- not between the secret identities.
  Anyway- I can see in my minds eye the result of some hollywood executive deciding, "It's COMEDY" and we get a deadpool/jerry louis version of ironman or doctor strange that stinks.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:DC Sucks by Rakarra · 2017-11-27 12:58 · Score: 1

Superman and Batman together couldn't defeat Jean Grey as Phoenix.
I'm not sure. Given how X-Men Apocalypse turned out, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has a chance of being worse than Justice League.