"so this masked guy that uses guns, martial arts and bladed weapons to murder people is the bad guy?" "No that's Batman"
There is potential to tell a story that turns the current DC Murderman around when he's forced to confront someone very much like himself, but nah let's use Leto's Joker so there's no confusion that this will be terrible.
I'd prefer a tightly scripted horror/suspense movie where the 'monster' at the end is revealed to be Batman capturing thugs in some run-down Gotham tenement.
While it's true that bad reviews (and aggregates thereof) certainly didn't help either of these movies in the slightest, the tomatometer doesn't actually have anything to do with your movie's relative quality.
Which in the case of X3 was inexcusably terrible.
+1
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Ratner knows those are just fake reviews from fake review sites, he prefers Alternate Reviews which actually thell the story, only woke people know that BvS a masterwork of art that rivals Shakespeare and will have a lasting legacy. One critic from TotesRealReviews.com said "Better than anything that hack Nolan could fart out, 11/10"
“In Middle America it’s, ‘Oh, it’s a low Rotten Tomatoes score so I’m not going to go see it because it must suck.’ But that number is an aggregate and one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means, and it’s not always correct,” Ratner said.
Okay, that explains Middle America's reaction to the movie.
How about Upper Middle Britain, where my friends and I all decided to give it a miss based solely on all the information we had on it (trailers and word of mouth, mostly)?
New Justice League trailer coming this weekend and tiny clips are dribbling out, including this happy shot of Batman perching on top of a hooded skeleton.
Looks like that's on the GCPD as well. I'd criticize but the Arkham series is pretty gothic and I can't honestly say this isn't on the GCPD there as well.
Looks like that's on the GCPD as well. I'd criticize but the Arkham series is pretty gothic and I can't honestly say this isn't on the GCPD there as well.
The Arkham Series' GCPD has regular gargoyles, which is fine.
A hooded, hyper-detailed skeleton is less "gothic" and more "thing you scribbled in a notebook in junior high."
Ratner is not entirely wrong but he's being an ass about it and is definitely not somebody who should be making this argument.
To clarify now that I'm not on my phone, Ratner is not at all correct that RT is to blame for his movies being considered bad (they're considered bad because they're bad). He's essentially correct that RT makes it easier for people to skip seeing a bad movie, which I guess is a valid complaint from a business perspective, but not a very relevant one since gobs of people see movies they know will be bad anyway and BvS only merely made hundreds of millions of dollars and not a billion like he'd like.
He is correct in pointing out one potentially troubling issue with all of these aggregate sites, which is that they tend to amplify groupthink. "Oh, only a 6.5? I guess I won't like it," thinks a person who might like it very much--in fact, 65% of people like it so the odds are good. But they've already moved onto something else. Just like the politics bubbles people have been talking about a lot since the election, there are cultural bubbles too, and any person who has or desires to have taste needs to work to pierce those bubbles and seek out new things outside their comfort zone--to take risks, in other words. A flat number grade has a way of discouraging risks. RT is the worst in this regard because its number literally measures consensus, so it's a self-reinforcing system of conformity. This is how you get good-but-not-great movies that stay at 98% approval or films dropping precipitously into the 30s which are merely mediocre.
You could try and make the argument that RT has value as a consumer aid; that people with little time in their lives to spend vetting their entertainment can benefit from seeing with a glance whether a movie is good or bad. But if that were true, I think we'd be seeing those low-information moviegoers gravitating to and thus encouraging better movies--and it's hard to make the argument that popular films are better now than they were before the internet.
I think the old ways are best: find critics you like, read them regularly, get to know them, and use their feelings on films to predict your own. (Or be more willing to see films experts have liked without needing confirmation from the internet hive mind.)
That is maybe what Rattner would have said if he wasn't a douchebag:
I understand sites like Rotten Tomatoes can skew opinion. But I feel reliably certain that if a movie's in the 20% range I'm justified in avoiding it.
Yeah, when movies are being consistently ranked poorly by the critics it's absolutely a danger sign, but I always tell people to read about two or three reviews that are up on RT so that they can understand how the critic hit the scores that they did.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Is that a big book of small butts, a small book of big butts, or a big book of big butts?
I feel they missed an opportunity to call it The Big Big Butt Book, which would have clarified the whole situation.
BvS clocked at 27% on RT. If it had come in at the mid-60s and had underperformed then I might almost think he had a point; but the movie was poop from a butt, and his complaints are just a roundabout way of saying the critics are stupid. Rattner, the core problem here isn't that RT lets people look at all of a movie's reviews, it's that BvS's reviews were consistently negative. He might as well be complaining about Google search results.
And the promo for the teaser for the trailer for Justice League also looks horrible. The only halfway interesting shot is Batfleck out of the cowl, everything else is Darkness with quick cuts and lots of flashing lights. As a professional forum complainer, I like to talk a lot of smack about how I could do X better, even though I realize that that's just BS because this shit is difficult; but in all seriousness, I actually do think I could do a better job on these movies.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The old way doesnt work for the time crunched person.
While popular movies may not have gotten better since the Internet I would think a lot of that has to do with either feedback mechanisms in pr media (the "need" to have lots of buzz shots for the 80 trailers and multiple hype scene releases (and people reacting to them) skews the production) and simply poor corporate culture (at WB* at least) rather than any impact of review aggregators.
*it would be hard to make the argument that popular movies aren't getting better without purposefully excluding marvel. And given marvel and the fact that their films are reviewed well on aggregators we might infer that if the aggregators were having an effect it would be pulling towards rather than away from better movies.
Meh, spread legs is a battle stance and it doesn't look too wide of a stance to be credulous (to me), although her being square towards the camera kind of thwarts the battle stance a little (she should probably be at an angle).
Positioning of the sunlight's a bit on-the-nose, though.
I think that's maybe just reaching a little. THere's a lot to bitch about with the DCEU but the lighting is clearly centred with the logo and she is centred in the image, I don't think there is a conspiracy here and it took me a while to figure out what the writer was complaining about, the back of her skirt is clearly there and creates separation.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
It's AV Club, they gotta I can't even to make those twitter retweets n' shit, fam.
It's awkward but it's fine, better than Cyborg's I think which just fails on a bad photoshop level with Vic's head there:
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
It honestly looks like somebody cut and pasted a dude's face onto Gipsy Danger.
CGI looks ropey, some scenes are so dark I can't make anything out and they felt the need to put an Amy Adamy cameo in there playing the character from Arrival playing the character from Man of Steel. And general ripping off of the rock song trailer.
It doesn't look good. And Superman's absence, which will presumably be rectified before the end of the film, doesn't help, but it looks like....well Watchmen.
This is like their biggest movie of the year, right? Why is the trailer being released on a Saturday?
Doctor Detroit on
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
The CGI fights of Man of Steel and BvS worked for me, so if this ends up being a 2 hour dumb superhero brawl in that vein, I'm down. The deluge of jokes is maybe implying we're dropping the pretense of this being high art.
Posts
http://io9.gizmodo.com/batman-v-superman-funder-claims-rotten-tomatoes-is-ruin-1793564298
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Which in the case of X3 was inexcusably terrible.
Right, and by cataloging all the professionals stating that, RT is helping other people learn it's terrible, therefore it's RT's fault!
How about Upper Middle Britain, where my friends and I all decided to give it a miss based solely on all the information we had on it (trailers and word of mouth, mostly)?
They have learned nothing.
No parents!!
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The Arkham Series' GCPD has regular gargoyles, which is fine.
A hooded, hyper-detailed skeleton is less "gothic" and more "thing you scribbled in a notebook in junior high."
To clarify now that I'm not on my phone, Ratner is not at all correct that RT is to blame for his movies being considered bad (they're considered bad because they're bad). He's essentially correct that RT makes it easier for people to skip seeing a bad movie, which I guess is a valid complaint from a business perspective, but not a very relevant one since gobs of people see movies they know will be bad anyway and BvS only merely made hundreds of millions of dollars and not a billion like he'd like.
He is correct in pointing out one potentially troubling issue with all of these aggregate sites, which is that they tend to amplify groupthink. "Oh, only a 6.5? I guess I won't like it," thinks a person who might like it very much--in fact, 65% of people like it so the odds are good. But they've already moved onto something else. Just like the politics bubbles people have been talking about a lot since the election, there are cultural bubbles too, and any person who has or desires to have taste needs to work to pierce those bubbles and seek out new things outside their comfort zone--to take risks, in other words. A flat number grade has a way of discouraging risks. RT is the worst in this regard because its number literally measures consensus, so it's a self-reinforcing system of conformity. This is how you get good-but-not-great movies that stay at 98% approval or films dropping precipitously into the 30s which are merely mediocre.
You could try and make the argument that RT has value as a consumer aid; that people with little time in their lives to spend vetting their entertainment can benefit from seeing with a glance whether a movie is good or bad. But if that were true, I think we'd be seeing those low-information moviegoers gravitating to and thus encouraging better movies--and it's hard to make the argument that popular films are better now than they were before the internet.
I think the old ways are best: find critics you like, read them regularly, get to know them, and use their feelings on films to predict your own. (Or be more willing to see films experts have liked without needing confirmation from the internet hive mind.)
That is maybe what Rattner would have said if he wasn't a douchebag:
Yeah, when movies are being consistently ranked poorly by the critics it's absolutely a danger sign, but I always tell people to read about two or three reviews that are up on RT so that they can understand how the critic hit the scores that they did.
I feel they missed an opportunity to call it The Big Big Butt Book, which would have clarified the whole situation.
BvS clocked at 27% on RT. If it had come in at the mid-60s and had underperformed then I might almost think he had a point; but the movie was poop from a butt, and his complaints are just a roundabout way of saying the critics are stupid. Rattner, the core problem here isn't that RT lets people look at all of a movie's reviews, it's that BvS's reviews were consistently negative. He might as well be complaining about Google search results.
And the promo for the teaser for the trailer for Justice League also looks horrible. The only halfway interesting shot is Batfleck out of the cowl, everything else is Darkness with quick cuts and lots of flashing lights. As a professional forum complainer, I like to talk a lot of smack about how I could do X better, even though I realize that that's just BS because this shit is difficult; but in all seriousness, I actually do think I could do a better job on these movies.
The old way doesnt work for the time crunched person.
While popular movies may not have gotten better since the Internet I would think a lot of that has to do with either feedback mechanisms in pr media (the "need" to have lots of buzz shots for the 80 trailers and multiple hype scene releases (and people reacting to them) skews the production) and simply poor corporate culture (at WB* at least) rather than any impact of review aggregators.
*it would be hard to make the argument that popular movies aren't getting better without purposefully excluding marvel. And given marvel and the fact that their films are reviewed well on aggregators we might infer that if the aggregators were having an effect it would be pulling towards rather than away from better movies.
Meh, spread legs is a battle stance and it doesn't look too wide of a stance to be credulous (to me), although her being square towards the camera kind of thwarts the battle stance a little (she should probably be at an angle).
Positioning of the sunlight's a bit on-the-nose, though.
It's awkward but it's fine, better than Cyborg's I think which just fails on a bad photoshop level with Vic's head there:
I mean Cyborg looks terrible.
And the sudden gear shift to jokes jokes jokes is on the nose.
But yeh, looks cool.
It doesn't look good. And Superman's absence, which will presumably be rectified before the end of the film, doesn't help, but it looks like....well Watchmen.