Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 6:16:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 6:16:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 11:09:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 11:09:36 GMT
yeah it's pretty bad. On the new see it/skip it feature of Rotten Tomatoes for those that dont know
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 11:20:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by Peter B. Parker on Nov 16, 2017 11:20:09 GMT
Damn, I was off by 24%
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 12:11:25 GMT
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 12:11:25 GMT
Ok so I heard some people saying the reviews were good.
This is funny, the first article I read, says "not as high as I would have hoped, but still high enough I'll buy a ticket". So ok, listen I get it if critic reviews don't influence your decision to go, and that's totally cool. But this guy is saying there is a level where he wouldn't go, but 43 isn't low enough. WTF is low enough if 43 isn't? Do you see any movie better than 30? I mean 43 is a serious problem.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 12:39:05 GMT
I mentioned in some other threads that some of the reviews that concluded the film was "good" weren't all that good, or that the reviewer was being generous, and I'll give two examples.
If you watch Chris Stuckmann's review below, he's clearly not enthusiastic about anything he saw but talks about how much he wanted to love this movie. He ends up giving it a B minus. Not a B, but a B minus, and I have to say I would bet this was his desire to like the movie and doing everything he could not to admit it was a C or worse. Perhaps he didn't want to admit it to himself, perhaps he didn't want to contribute to a poor reputation for the film by putting out a bad review, IDK. But either way, I will actually bet you within a year, if he references it again, he'll admit it wasn't a good film. You can just see how he reacts, that he has no real excitement for what he saw, and he's trying to find any reason to like, which I understand. He wants to like it. I get it. But chalking these types of reviews into the good category is not being realistic IMO.
Then Grace. Just watch the first 20 seconds or so, you don't even need to watch anything else, because in that 20 seconds she flat out says 50% of Justice League is bad, and then still calls it a good movie. Right after that she says it's because she loves DC. Now that is just flat out denial.
But a 43% for Justice League is an absolute disaster for this franchise. I just can't believe this keeps happening. It's amazing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KT1UCsOE74 (Stuckmann) www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zgI7HeY87I&t=24s (Grace)
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 13:16:04 GMT
This isn't a bait thread, it's a serious discussion to the long term impact on the DC brand.
Whether you like the DCU as is or not, the continuing reputation is that they are not a trusted brand. Now here is the real issue. Let's say anybody under 10 years old when the MCU began has now grown up with Marvel being the set of characters they look to as the big time comic book characters. Those are the ones they are always going to care about. They don't care that in the 70's and 80's Superman was a big deal. They didn't even grow up with The Dark Knight. And anybody born after those kids who were 10 and younger, have the same experience. Now with Justice League reinforcing that perception with a 43 RT score and other very negative reviews, another few years will go by before DC can even start to mend it's reputation. If they allow an entire generation to grow up viewing Marvel as the clear superior brand, that is long term damage that they will have extreme difficulty erasing. It's a real factor that will have real implications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 15:26:09 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 15:26:09 GMT
I mentioned in some other threads that some of the reviews that concluded the film was "good" weren't all that good, or that the reviewer was being generous, and I'll give two examples.
If you watch Chris Stuckmann's review below, he's clearly not enthusiastic about anything he saw but talks about how much he wanted to love this movie. He ends up giving it a B minus. Not a B, but a B minus, and I have to say I would bet this was his desire to like the movie and doing everything he could not to admit it was a C or worse. Perhaps he didn't want to admit it to himself, perhaps he didn't want to contribute to a poor reputation for the film by putting out a bad review, IDK. But either way, I will actually bet you within a year, if he references it again, he'll admit it wasn't a good film. You can just see how he reacts, that he has no real excitement for what he saw, and he's trying to find any reason to like, which I understand. He wants to like it. I get it. But chalking these types of reviews into the good category is not being realistic IMO.
Then Grace. Just watch the first 20 seconds or so, you don't even need to watch anything else, because in that 20 seconds she flat out says 50% of Justice League is bad, and then still calls it a good movie. Right after that she says it's because she loves DC. Now that is just flat out denial.
But a 43% for Justice League is an absolute disaster for this franchise. I just can't believe this keeps happening. It's amazing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KT1UCsOE74 (Stuckmann) www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zgI7HeY87I&t=24s (Grace)
Yeah, it is clear to me that a number of reviewers don't want to shit all over another DCEU movie and are being more generous than they should be. My guess is that if MoS hadn't been released yet and it hit theaters tomorrow, it would get like a 75% RT.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 15:36:09 GMT
Post by Winter_King on Nov 16, 2017 15:36:09 GMT
If you watch Chris Stuckmann's review below, he's clearly not enthusiastic about anything he saw but talks about how much he wanted to love this movie. He ends up giving it a B minus. Not a B, but a B minus, and I have to say I would bet this was his desire to like the movie and doing everything he could not to admit it was a C or worse. Perhaps he didn't want to admit it to himself, perhaps he didn't want to contribute to a poor reputation for the film by putting out a bad review, IDK. But either way, I will actually bet you within a year, if he references it again, he'll admit it wasn't a good film. You can just see how he reacts, that he has no real excitement for what he saw, and he's trying to find any reason to like, which I understand. He wants to like it. I get it. But chalking these types of reviews into the good category is not being realistic IMO.
That's not the impression I got from Chris Stuckmann. He praised every actor, the interactions between the characters and Ben Affleck in particular. He said that as Superman fan he's was happy with Henry Cavill and said that was his best outing as Superman of the three films. He acknowledges the problems but he clearly seemed to like this one more than BvS or Suicide Squad. Hell he got me excited to see the film and I was a bit skeptic have the seeing the reviews. H I think you are seeing things that aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 16, 2017 15:53:41 GMT
Wait, wait, wait wait... I found some reviews that are more flattering to this epic superhero team-up
Hee hee hee...
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:05:03 GMT
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 16:05:03 GMT
If you watch Chris Stuckmann's review below, he's clearly not enthusiastic about anything he saw but talks about how much he wanted to love this movie. He ends up giving it a B minus. Not a B, but a B minus, and I have to say I would bet this was his desire to like the movie and doing everything he could not to admit it was a C or worse. Perhaps he didn't want to admit it to himself, perhaps he didn't want to contribute to a poor reputation for the film by putting out a bad review, IDK. But either way, I will actually bet you within a year, if he references it again, he'll admit it wasn't a good film. You can just see how he reacts, that he has no real excitement for what he saw, and he's trying to find any reason to like, which I understand. He wants to like it. I get it. But chalking these types of reviews into the good category is not being realistic IMO.
That's not the impression I got from Chris Stuckmann. He praised every actor, the interactions between the characters and Ben Affleck in particular. He said that as Superman fan he's was happy with Henry Cavill and said that was his best outing as Superman of the three films. He acknowledges the problems but he clearly seemed to like this one more than BvS or Suicide Squad. Hell he got me excited to see the film and I was a bit skeptic have the seeing the reviews. H I think you are seeing things that aren't there. It's the impression I got. He really wants to like it so he's seeing it with the rosiest glasses he can put on to get to a B-.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Nov 16, 2017 16:06:52 GMT
Reviews.
Don't.
Mean.
D**k.
Yet every thread all you talk about is reviews and how bad they are and how the bad reviews are a death knell for the entire franchise when it simply isn't true.
I know it blows your mind, and it simply doesn't compute for you...but that doesn't change the fact that these types of movies, with an IP this pervasive in world culture dimply defy all traditional metrics.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:08:00 GMT
Post by Winter_King on Nov 16, 2017 16:08:00 GMT
That's not the impression I got from Chris Stuckmann. He praised every actor, the interactions between the characters and Ben Affleck in particular. He said that as Superman fan he's was happy with Henry Cavill and said that was his best outing as Superman of the three films. He acknowledges the problems but he clearly seemed to like this one more than BvS or Suicide Squad. Hell he got me excited to see the film and I was a bit skeptic have the seeing the reviews. H I think you are seeing things that aren't there. It's the impression I got. He really wants to like it so he's seeing it with the rosiest glasses he can put on to get to a B-. His opinion seems pretty similar to Jeremy Jahns, Collider and Schmoeknow. A entertaining fun movie despite the some glaring flaws.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:10:52 GMT
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 16:10:52 GMT
It's the impression I got. He really wants to like it so he's seeing it with the rosiest glasses he can put on to get to a B-. His opinion seems pretty similar to Jeremy Jahns, Collider and Schmoeknow. A entertaining fun movie despite the some glaring flaws. Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:21:18 GMT
Post by Larcen26 on Nov 16, 2017 16:21:18 GMT
His opinion seems pretty similar to Jeremy Jahns, Collider and Schmoeknow. A entertaining fun movie despite the some glaring flaws. Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
Yes. Yes I can. Yes we ALL can. BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEAN D**K. Nor do Stuckman and Jahns whoever they are.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:23:22 GMT
Post by Winter_King on Nov 16, 2017 16:23:22 GMT
His opinion seems pretty similar to Jeremy Jahns, Collider and Schmoeknow. A entertaining fun movie despite the some glaring flaws. Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
My reply was about the Chris Stuckmann review not about Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 16:41:43 GMT
Post by dazz on Nov 16, 2017 16:41:43 GMT
Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
General consensus being less than 50 ppls opinion with Metacritic, and an unknown grade via RT, RT score is the yay or nay outlook, 43 out of 100 critics recommend Justice League, it's not an actual score of the films quality, to compare things MOS received a 55 for both Metacritic and RT %, but had an average score of 6.2/10, or BVS & SS getting in the 20% range but grades in the 4.5/10, which shows even those who were part of the bad reviews didn't hate the films, JL could for all intents and purposes be one that has the majority finding it a middling film but the other near half loving it.
And as to an earlier question a film can be half bad but still be worth watching if the good half is incredible, bad doesn't mean without merit it can mean meh, like half the film was forgettable but once the story kicks in it's great, or the reverse where a film starts of incredible but by the end it unravels. and with entertainment that can be the key thing, so long as you finish strong you can overcome a rocky start.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 17:29:49 GMT
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 17:29:49 GMT
Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
Yes. Yes I can. Yes we ALL can. BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEAN D**K. Nor do Stuckman and Jahns whoever they are. Ok, then have a good time with that.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 17:31:14 GMT
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 16, 2017 17:31:14 GMT
Yet he's way off the general consensus.
You don't get to ignore that it's got a 49 on metacritic and a 43 three on rotten tomatoes. Stuckman and Jahns aren't more important.
My reply was about the Chris Stuckmann review not about Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Yeah I know, and I'm just pointing out that he's way off the consensus, and I actually think he's being willfully generous because he wants to like it and he doesn't want to bury it for others.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 16, 2017 17:39:33 GMT
40% now. It'll be interesting to see how this affects its BO take. Five years ago me just time traveled in and kicked current me in the nuts for even commenting on RT scores or BO numbers.
Look, I'm still seeing the movie. Admittedly, I already bought my tickets ages ago, but I'd still have bought them tomorrow if it had a 9% RT rating. I'm willing to give it a chance. BvS was a total train wreck and I still saw it twice in theaters because I thought it had a few redeeming qualities.
|
|
|
RT 39%
Nov 16, 2017 17:57:01 GMT
Post by harpospoke on Nov 16, 2017 17:57:01 GMT
Some of my very very favorite CBMs have mediocre to poor RT scores so this could be good news to me.
Watchmen 64% Kick Ass 75% Mystery Men 60%
I've got my tickets already anyway so the score does't matter at this point. Going in with lowered expectations isn't the worst thing in the world.
|
|