A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!
Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010
Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362
THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ So... what's your excuse now?
Pretty sure that just means the critics agreed on the same score is it not? For the audience score, The full popcorn bucket means the movie received 3.5 stars or higher by Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes users. I remember being hyped for Iron Man 3 when it had a 73% at the time and that movie was all types of butt.
Superhero shows are trash
Yes, WB made plans for several different Batman films that never came to pass before Batman '89 and Begins came out. Burton and Nolan were still signed on before a script was completed, they were the beginning of brand new film projects. Nothing I said was false.
And the DCEU gets this level of hate and distrust because their films are heavily disliked and failed to make the DC characters universally appealing. They make polarizing films, they brought this on themselves.
Last edited by Atlanta96; 02-21-2017 at 08:39 AM.
The "DCEU" is all of 3 films old currently. Let's see how the MCU was faring at 3 films old:
1.) Iron Man: Okay, this one was a surprise winner and made a superstar of a B-List character and a washed out actor.
2.) The Incredible Hulk: Generally perceived as boring and the disappointing financial performance put the final nail in the coffin for solo movies featuring this character.
3.) Iron Man 2: Generally disliked and seen as a cynical commercial for The Avengers. A big step down from IM1 as well.
And these movies made less at the box office than the first three DCEU movies. The second film killed the chances of the Hulk as a solo star and the third film hurt the goodwill earned by the first film, leading to the demise of Jon Favreau's directorial role in the MCU (whose replacement Shane Black also turned out a polarizing sequel and who has gone on record complaining about Marvel executives). There was more behind the scenes drama with Edward Norton refusing to return as Bruce Banner, Terence Howard quitting as Rhodey and Ant-Man stuck in limbo thanks to Edgar Wright.
I won't pretend all Marvels phase 1 films were masterpieces. But how many people legitimately hate those films? What harm did they actually do to Marvel's reputation? They were mediocre at worst, and still managed to accomplish their goal of establishing the leads and building up the MCU in a coherent way. They're not great but they're not embarrassments or massive wastes of potential.
And most importantly, those characters are NOT Batman and Superman. None of the Marvel films until Avengers came close to the level of importance BvS had. It's incomparable, the failure of BvS is way more troubling than a mediocre Hulk movie.
Forrest Gump is a very divisive film, which is reflected in both tomato meter and rating. Pulp fiction and Doctor strange are less divisive to critics but pulp fictions rating is almost 2 points higher. Rotten tomatoes doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, an aggregator or enjoyment.
Favorites: Batman, Superman, All-New Wolverine, Deathstroke, Detective Comics, Green Lanterns, Doom Patrol
As I said, it doesn't even reflect the true critics score (which is 7.3/10 so 73%, which is more fitting for that film). The Rotten/Fresh percentage is all kinds of weird and the site composes it by forcing critics to make a decision based on the Harvey Dent School of Reasoning: is this movie "fresh" or "rotten"?
That's it. Just two categories to represent the "critical analysis" of every film. Whether the critic generally liked it or disliked it. Obviously lighter, peppier stuff like the MCU films, Lego Batman and Deadpool stand to benefit from such a "measuring" system as it would be hard to say that those films aren't generally enjoyable, even if incredibly forgettable like in the case of most of the MCU films. So it skews the true rating of the film and that's how something like Doctor Strange ends up with a 90%. It also adversely affects something like BvS that critics may not readily decide was enjoyable even if it had redeemable qualities, so the critics score hovers around 5/10 but because critics were forced to label it as one of "fresh" or "rotten", it ends up with a percentage which is almost half of its score (27% as opposed to 49% or 50%-53% as it previously was,).
Rotten Tomatoes is one of the worst things to happen to film criticism.
Last edited by Confuzzled; 02-21-2017 at 09:53 PM.
I think the discussion about the Batman in this episode of Movie Talk is spot on. DC needs to get back on track, they have been fumbling for to long with The Batman.
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does? - Gaff Blade Runner
"In a short time, this will be a long time ago." - Werner Slow West
"One of the biggest problems in the industry is apathy right now." - Dan Didio Co-Publisher of I Wonder Why That Is Comics
I enjoyed Douchebag Murray in the new Ghostbusters too I'm sure he would have managed fine as Bruce/Batman but I'm glad we ended up with Keaton instead.
If BvS came close to hurting Batman's brand anywhere as close as TIH did to Hulk's standing as a solo hero then there wouldn't be so much interest in the highs and lows surrounding The Batman solo film. All of the drama during Marvel's Phase 1 (and Phase 2) flew relatively under the radar because those characters were of a lower standing and because, to Marvel's credit, nobody else had planned an interconnected cinematic universe before so people did not know what was happening and gave them lots of leeway to find their proper foothold.
Also, Man of Steel was a big financial improvement over the last Superman movie, Superman Returns, so there is a legit argument there to say it did more good than bad for Superman as a cinematic franchise.
Last edited by Confuzzled; 02-22-2017 at 04:34 AM.
You just admitted those mediocre Marvel films were of a lower standing. That's exactly why the failures of the DCU so far carry more weight, Thor is not Superman. Bruce Banner is not Bruce Wayne.
And the fact that studios now know how to make a shared cinematic universe makes the current situation at DC look even worse, not better. They should be doing better than Marvel was at this point, not changing their release schedule or losing a director every other month.
MoS did better than Returns because it was the start of a new franchise and not a pointless sequel to the old Superman films of the 70s and 80s. And because it actually showed Superman punching people which Returns didn't.
Last edited by Atlanta96; 02-22-2017 at 05:02 AM.