Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on 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.

34 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah... and?!! by Desler · · Score: 2

    DC fans are butthurt? What’s supposed to be the news here?

    1. Re:Yeah... and?!! by JaredOfEuropa · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Maxo-Texas · · 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.
    5. Re:Yeah... and?!! by Maxo-Texas · · 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.
    6. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thomst · · 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.
    7. Re:Yeah... and?!! by sg_oneill · · 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.
    8. Re:Yeah... and?!! by UnknownSoldier · · 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.

    9. Re:Yeah... and?!! by thegarbz · · 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.

  2. lolwut by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

  3. We want the 4 hour version! by Rik+Sweeney · · 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
  4. I was given a great power by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. Really disappointed by the Justice League Movie by zifn4b · · 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 nnet · · Score: 2

      ...curse you he-man...

  6. Rotten Tomatoes Has Benn Around Since 1998 by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Maxo-Texas · · 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.
  7. I just don't understand people anymore by Anonymous Coward · · 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 quantaman · · 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
  8. DC sucks by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Really? by Jfetjunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really? Petitioning the federal government to release a movie edit? Shit like this, no wonder this country is a laughingstock.

  10. Movie Critics are Useless by LeftCoastThinker · · 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
  11. Re:Really? by Desler · · 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?

  12. People are returning to the wild by Anonymous Coward · · 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 alvinrod · · 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?

  13. Part of the problem by grasshoppa · · 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!
  14. Re:Huh? by Rockoon · · 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."
  15. Big special effects; dinky plot by hduff · · 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
  16. Re: DC Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · 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. ;)

  17. Re:Huh? by Maxo-Texas · · 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.
  18. Re:DC sucks by Subm · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Re:DC sucks

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

    You should have posted as AC.

  19. Re:DC Takes itself too seriously by yodleboy · · 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.

  20. Re:Huh? by sg_oneill · · 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.
  21. Thank Warner Brothers instead of blaming RT by Taelron · · 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.