Finding out that Snyder's an Objectivist makes so much of this make more sense.
Except, of course, for the questions of who the fuck thought an Objectivist helming a superhero franchise would be a good idea.
Steve Dikto.
Rumor has it that he and Stan Lee had a falling out because Stan wanted to reveal that the Green Goblin was exactly the sort of person who John Galt would invite to his gulch.
I have no idea what the hell it would look like, in a universe where Superman and Batman are unhinged sociopaths, and it would almost certainly be miserable and lifeless, but it certainly wouldn't look like the Avengers.
Snyder is going to accidentally make a perfect Justice Lords film.
The sad thing is that Snyder would probably make a terrible Justice Lords movie.
The Justice Lords were actually well written. Their actions made sense and even if you can't sympathize with them, you at least understood their motivation. And even the Justice Lords Wonder Woman took time out of the Doomsday fight to save a train full of people.
I have no idea what the hell it would look like, in a universe where Superman and Batman are unhinged sociopaths, and it would almost certainly be miserable and lifeless, but it certainly wouldn't look like the Avengers.
Snyder is going to accidentally make a perfect Justice Lords film.
The sad thing is that Snyder would probably make a terrible Justice Lords movie.
The Justice Lords were actually well written. Their actions made sense and even if you can't sympathize with them, you at least understood their motivation. And even the Justice Lords Wonder Woman took time out of the Doomsday fight to save a train full of people.
His Batman is ok for this, WW seems to have come from a mirror universe scouting for the real Justice League and Superman is a monster.
I'm honestly kind of amazed that WB/DC is deciding to bull forward when they're seeing a clear negative response to their movie; Like I understand that SS and JL are basically set in stone at this point because they are in production and post, but they've had two entries into their proposed universe and it's been soundly rejected by both critics and movie goers.
And hey: if you want to make a serious shared continuity to contrast marvel that's fine. But for the love of christ, let your superheroes at least be heroic.
All they care about is making money. And by that metric "soundly rejected" does not apply. Ergo, more movies!
They haven't made a profit on BvS yet. They're still about $100 million away from the break even point. And generally, a movie is only considered a success if the profit is more than 50% of the cost.
0
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
Several sources say Warner Bros. executives were convinced they had the goods with BvS and were shocked when negative reviews began pouring in. Now, with DC movies dated through 2020, the outcome has led to a flurry of rumors that the studio will make adjustments — maybe add a new producer? — rather than allow BvS director Zack Snyder to proceed with the two-part Justice League. But sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation say the studio has no such plans. One says the filmmakers naturally will evaluate what went wrong with BvS, but when it comes to Justice League, "we're not going to take a movie that's supposed to be one thing and turn it into a copycat of something else."
I'm honestly kind of amazed that WB/DC is deciding to bull forward when they're seeing a clear negative response to their movie; Like I understand that SS and JL are basically set in stone at this point because they are in production and post, but they've had two entries into their proposed universe and it's been soundly rejected by both critics and movie goers.
And hey: if you want to make a serious shared continuity to contrast marvel that's fine. But for the love of christ, let your superheroes at least be heroic.
It has a 70% approval rating, movie goers seem to enjoy it for the most part.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm honestly kind of amazed that WB/DC is deciding to bull forward when they're seeing a clear negative response to their movie; Like I understand that SS and JL are basically set in stone at this point because they are in production and post, but they've had two entries into their proposed universe and it's been soundly rejected by both critics and movie goers.
And hey: if you want to make a serious shared continuity to contrast marvel that's fine. But for the love of christ, let your superheroes at least be heroic.
It has a 70% approval rating, movie goers seem to enjoy it for the most part.
As much as they enjoyed Cap 1, Iron Man 2 or that Hulk movie that Marvel only sorta considers to have happened.
I'm honestly kind of amazed that WB/DC is deciding to bull forward when they're seeing a clear negative response to their movie; Like I understand that SS and JL are basically set in stone at this point because they are in production and post, but they've had two entries into their proposed universe and it's been soundly rejected by both critics and movie goers.
And hey: if you want to make a serious shared continuity to contrast marvel that's fine. But for the love of christ, let your superheroes at least be heroic.
It has a 70% approval rating, movie goers seem to enjoy it for the most part.
...and nearly a 70% dropoff in its second weekend, and a smaller domestic gross than Zootopia. Heck, it's only at 75% of Deadpool.
Even if it hits its $900 million worldwide projection, that's still the #37 biggest movie of all time. Firmly between Spider-Man 3 and Shrek 2.
Ultimately that drop off is because of the critics and people perceiving the movie to have a negative value.
If this means Snyder doesn't get to do anything with them anymore, good fucking riddance, but it's not a 20% movie, and this is why review aggregators are garbage tbh.
But, like I said, of the people who've seen it it was given a 70%, and I'd say that's a fair number to assign to it, maybe 60%.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Ultimately that drop off is because of the critics and people perceiving the movie to have a negative value.
If this means Snyder doesn't get to do anything with them anymore, good fucking riddance, but it's not a 20% movie, and this is why review aggregators are garbage tbh.
But, like I said, of the people who've seen it it was given a 70%, and I'd say that's a fair number to assign to it, maybe 60%.
Rottentomatoes scores aren't supposed to be about averaging critic scores together. It is about whether they liked it or not aggregated together, not how much they disliked or liked it individually on average. The movie has a metascore of 44 on Metacritic, which is supposed to indicate mixed or average reviews and that site does average together the review scores.
Of the unrepresentative group of people who submitted a user score on Rottentomatoes, 70% of that group rated it a 3.5 or higher. The users don't need to have seen the film. They are also user reviews so probably have far more very low reviews and very high reviews than the critics.
Non-reviewers tend to rate movies higher than reviewers. They see less movies and look at them less critical and tend to review more closely to their old school days where 70% is average and 50% is failing.
So basically whatever method you give to non-reviewers they rate movies higher
Or they liked it because they're there for enjoyment rather than critical analysis of a piece of art. Which is ultimately the end goal of a movie.
Sure, but I don't take the advice of my friends like that as any indication of if it will be an enjoyable movie.
I give movie critics even less leeway than that so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
OK this is being silly.
Anchorman 2 is a terrible movie. It has a 75% RT score, and a 52% audience score.
The Assassin is possibly one of the worst movies ever made. 79% RT score, 50% audience score.
The Mighty Ducks is great. 15% RT score, 65% audience score.
The audience is dimwitted, but they aren't dumb, they know when critics heads be up their own asses sometimes.
Or they liked it because they're there for enjoyment rather than critical analysis of a piece of art. Which is ultimately the end goal of a movie.
And that is almost going to be higher for user scores simply because people usually don't go to a theater to see a movie they expect not to like. It is a self selecting group of people who generally expect to at least not really dislike the movie. Usually the main way to get bad scores from anything resembling a decent sample of audience members is to have basically been really misleading in advertising or be unredeemable garbage.
https://www.cinemascore.com/
The result is that Batman v. Superman can get the same cinemascore as Catwoman and Green Lantern and a lesser score than Spider-Man 3.
Edit: Where is anybody acting like user submitted scores that don't even require having seen the movie are at all representative of that movie's audience?
Yeah I'm not sure what you're after to prove, of course critics are going to be more critical?
And people are going to go see movies that they want to see.
That's the point right?
The ones who did go see it mostly enjoyed it.
Margin of error that 10% of those reviews are bogus reviews.
Among people I've talked to, 70% didn't like it.
Part of the point is that the sample group isn't "People who have seen the movie", it's actually "People who have a strong enough opinion on the movie to take the time to tell a bunch of strangers what they thought of it (or think they will think of it when they see it."
Yeah I'm not sure what you're after to prove, of course critics are going to be more critical?
And people are going to go see movies that they want to see.
That's the point right?
The ones who did go see it mostly enjoyed it.
Margin of error that 10% of those reviews are bogus reviews.
Among people I've talked to, 70% didn't like it.
Part of the point is that the sample group isn't "People who have seen the movie", it's actually "People who have a strong enough opinion on the movie to take the time to tell a bunch of strangers what they thought of it (or think they will think of it when they see it."
That's pretty anecdotal.
Most non critic reviews have been favorable, but not to the extent of Avengers or TDK.
Like was said earlier, the comparison is equivalent to Iron Man 2 or the Hulk movie. That's pretty apt. IM2 is a bit disjointed. I'd say Thor 2 is probably the closest.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yeah I'm not sure what you're after to prove, of course critics are going to be more critical?
And people are going to go see movies that they want to see.
That's the point right?
The ones who did go see it mostly enjoyed it.
Margin of error that 10% of those reviews are bogus reviews.
The ones who saw God is not Dead 2 liked it. Same with Catwoman, Super Mario Bros., The Mighty Ducks 2, and Ghost Dad.
The people who post user submitted reviews do not even form anything resembling a representative sample of the film's audience. It is as worthless as an unscientific internet poll on who the best presidential candidate will be.
A lot of it is wanting to think well of something that just cost you £10 or so, and three hours of investment.
I've seen a fair number of films that I'd describe as poor in retrospect, but only one where I was immediately thinking 'wow, that sucked' on my way out the door.
(For reference, that was The Order (The Sin Eater in the UK), where my flatmates and I just went for whatever sounded like the most interesting-sounding title. One of us had to leave ten minutes in because he was ill, and the consensus by the end was that he was the lucky one)
It's made $700,000,000 out of the $250,000,000 budget. ($410 including advertising and all that)
It's getting reasonable reviews from moviegoers that review it online.
You guys are fucking weird.
The big thing you're forgetting is that movie theaters take take 50% or more of the box office take. WB has probably only gotten around $350 million from BvS so far. There's the very real chance that BvS doesn't become profitable until after its home release comes out. That's really not what WB was looking for.
Also, online moviegoer reviews really need to be ignored, whether good or bad. There's no way to actually track that those people actually saw the movie. Someone really needs to come up with an app where you scan your ticket with your cell phone and can then rate + review a movie. That would guarantee that at least the person who's reviewing it spent money on it before posting the review.
The budget was 250 million? Where did folks get that 800 number from?
Production budget, advertising doubled it.
I'm not really sure where 800 came from. Was it the "WB feels good about the movie" mark?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
"Sources say" that WB needed 800 milly to make the film profitable.
The usual math is to at least break even, you take the movie's budget times two, since an equal amount is often spent on marketing and actual prints of the movie. By that rough equation the film is already fine, but not up in the top of recent blockbusters.
The budget was 250 million? Where did folks get that 800 number from?
Production budget, advertising doubled it.
I'm not really sure where 800 came from. Was it the "WB feels good about the movie" mark?
Pretty sure it came from the general rule that Movie Theaters take 50% of the box office take, meaning if the Budget + Advertising was $400 million, it would need to make $800 million for WB to get all $400 million they spent on it back.
You also have to take into account that BvS literally had theaters all to itself during its second week because nothing else premiered.
And it still dropped lower than those other two films, soo........
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm sure Warners' biggest concern right now isn't "will this movie make money?" but rather "how badly did this tarnish the brand?"
BvS was the foundation for a huge series, and it was a critical disaster that also performed below financial expectations. They have every right to be worried, and they should be. No one shows up for the sequel to the movie they hated.
Or they liked it because they're there for enjoyment rather than critical analysis of a piece of art. Which is ultimately the end goal of a movie.
Sure, but I don't take the advice of my friends like that as any indication of if it will be an enjoyable movie.
I give movie critics even less leeway than that so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you have friends who have very similar taste to you that's one thing.
But, for example, if I were to take my friends at their word I would end up seeing shitty zombie movies and terrible Judd Apatow comedies that I would most likely avoid if I had read a real review instead.
Posts
Steve Dikto.
Rumor has it that he and Stan Lee had a falling out because Stan wanted to reveal that the Green Goblin was exactly the sort of person who John Galt would invite to his gulch.
The sad thing is that Snyder would probably make a terrible Justice Lords movie.
The Justice Lords were actually well written. Their actions made sense and even if you can't sympathize with them, you at least understood their motivation. And even the Justice Lords Wonder Woman took time out of the Doomsday fight to save a train full of people.
His Batman is ok for this, WW seems to have come from a mirror universe scouting for the real Justice League and Superman is a monster.
All they care about is making money. And by that metric "soundly rejected" does not apply. Ergo, more movies!
It has a 70% approval rating, movie goers seem to enjoy it for the most part.
As much as they enjoyed Cap 1, Iron Man 2 or that Hulk movie that Marvel only sorta considers to have happened.
Just waiting on Affleck to direct his own Batman and Cavill to get a good director so he an be Superman.
Even if it hits its $900 million worldwide projection, that's still the #37 biggest movie of all time. Firmly between Spider-Man 3 and Shrek 2.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
If this means Snyder doesn't get to do anything with them anymore, good fucking riddance, but it's not a 20% movie, and this is why review aggregators are garbage tbh.
But, like I said, of the people who've seen it it was given a 70%, and I'd say that's a fair number to assign to it, maybe 60%.
Of the unrepresentative group of people who submitted a user score on Rottentomatoes, 70% of that group rated it a 3.5 or higher. The users don't need to have seen the film. They are also user reviews so probably have far more very low reviews and very high reviews than the critics.
So basically whatever method you give to non-reviewers they rate movies higher
Sure, but I don't take the advice of my friends like that as any indication of if it will be an enjoyable movie.
I give movie critics even less leeway than that so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anchorman 2 is a terrible movie. It has a 75% RT score, and a 52% audience score.
The Assassin is possibly one of the worst movies ever made. 79% RT score, 50% audience score.
The Mighty Ducks is great. 15% RT score, 65% audience score.
The audience is dimwitted, but they aren't dumb, they know when critics heads be up their own asses sometimes.
I was at BvS for enjoyment. I didn't get it, and I am easy to please. Heck, I left the 2015 Godzilla movie with my joy meter filled.
And that is almost going to be higher for user scores simply because people usually don't go to a theater to see a movie they expect not to like. It is a self selecting group of people who generally expect to at least not really dislike the movie. Usually the main way to get bad scores from anything resembling a decent sample of audience members is to have basically been really misleading in advertising or be unredeemable garbage.
https://www.cinemascore.com/
The result is that Batman v. Superman can get the same cinemascore as Catwoman and Green Lantern and a lesser score than Spider-Man 3.
Edit: Where is anybody acting like user submitted scores that don't even require having seen the movie are at all representative of that movie's audience?
And people are going to go see movies that they want to see.
That's the point right?
The ones who did go see it mostly enjoyed it.
Margin of error that 10% of those reviews are bogus reviews.
Among people I've talked to, 70% didn't like it.
Part of the point is that the sample group isn't "People who have seen the movie", it's actually "People who have a strong enough opinion on the movie to take the time to tell a bunch of strangers what they thought of it (or think they will think of it when they see it."
And admittedly, there are factors that can influence that. But if the critics were that wrong, I assume the word of mouth would be better.
That's pretty anecdotal.
Most non critic reviews have been favorable, but not to the extent of Avengers or TDK.
Like was said earlier, the comparison is equivalent to Iron Man 2 or the Hulk movie. That's pretty apt. IM2 is a bit disjointed. I'd say Thor 2 is probably the closest.
As far as I can tell it's still performing "well" for most definitions of well.
It's not performing "well" if you're WB and want to make a billion dollars.
The ones who saw God is not Dead 2 liked it. Same with Catwoman, Super Mario Bros., The Mighty Ducks 2, and Ghost Dad.
The people who post user submitted reviews do not even form anything resembling a representative sample of the film's audience. It is as worthless as an unscientific internet poll on who the best presidential candidate will be.
I've seen a fair number of films that I'd describe as poor in retrospect, but only one where I was immediately thinking 'wow, that sucked' on my way out the door.
(For reference, that was The Order (The Sin Eater in the UK), where my flatmates and I just went for whatever sounded like the most interesting-sounding title. One of us had to leave ten minutes in because he was ill, and the consensus by the end was that he was the lucky one)
It's getting reasonable reviews from moviegoers that review it online.
You guys are fucking weird.
The big thing you're forgetting is that movie theaters take take 50% or more of the box office take. WB has probably only gotten around $350 million from BvS so far. There's the very real chance that BvS doesn't become profitable until after its home release comes out. That's really not what WB was looking for.
Also, online moviegoer reviews really need to be ignored, whether good or bad. There's no way to actually track that those people actually saw the movie. Someone really needs to come up with an app where you scan your ticket with your cell phone and can then rate + review a movie. That would guarantee that at least the person who's reviewing it spent money on it before posting the review.
Production budget, advertising doubled it.
I'm not really sure where 800 came from. Was it the "WB feels good about the movie" mark?
The usual math is to at least break even, you take the movie's budget times two, since an equal amount is often spent on marketing and actual prints of the movie. By that rough equation the film is already fine, but not up in the top of recent blockbusters.
Why?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=superman2015.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=deadpool2016.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=avengers11.htm
Similar enough in the drops.
Pretty sure it came from the general rule that Movie Theaters take 50% of the box office take, meaning if the Budget + Advertising was $400 million, it would need to make $800 million for WB to get all $400 million they spent on it back.
And it still dropped lower than those other two films, soo........
BvS was the foundation for a huge series, and it was a critical disaster that also performed below financial expectations. They have every right to be worried, and they should be. No one shows up for the sequel to the movie they hated.
If you have friends who have very similar taste to you that's one thing.
But, for example, if I were to take my friends at their word I would end up seeing shitty zombie movies and terrible Judd Apatow comedies that I would most likely avoid if I had read a real review instead.