• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Batman v. Superman RT Thread: like standing ovations in rain

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shaanyboi

Banned
Lifejumper said:
What if TFA was reviewed this badly... The meltdown would be incredible.
Click to expand...

I said it earlier, but I'd equate it to Cthulu rising from the waves. In a combination of awe, terror, and madness, all of humanity turns to one another and begins savagely murdering one another, mothers drowning their own children, people throwing themselves from rooftops.

It would be madness, in its purest form.
 
B

Bloomers

Member
I was mostly indifferent on watching this originally, but seeing the dropping RT score has ironically made me hyped af

because now I'm gonna watch it drunk
 
D

Dalek

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
Reminder: Snyder was one of (if not the) first directors to talk to Lucasfilm about doing a spinoff.
Click to expand...

quentin-tarantino-golden-globes-2013.gif
 
S

Saint Gregory

Member
Shaanyboi said:
I said it earlier, but I'd equate it to Cthulu rising from the waves. In a combination of awe, terror, and madness, all of humanity turns to one another and begins savagely murdering one another, mothers drowning their own children, people throwing themselves from rooftops.

It would be madness, in its purest form.
Click to expand...

Wow, Episode VIII has a lot riding on its shoulders :{
 
Y

yuraya

Member
Lifejumper said:
What if TFA was reviewed this badly... The meltdown would be incredible.
Click to expand...

It should have. The second half of TFA was a big pile of shit. The Star Wars cult following would never diss it tho since its still infinitely better than the prequels and the first hour was really good.
 
A

Anton Sugar

Member
Chase17 said:
Oh, is that the viewer/user score? That's more in line with my experience. Should make sure to look at that too at these aggregate sites.
Click to expand...

The RT score is literally just a split between liked it/hated it (you can find out more about how RT translates scores to "like" or "dislike" on their site). A score of 90% means that 90% of reviews were favorable/positive, not that it has an average score of 90%.
 
B

Blader

Member
Chase17 said:
Visited Rotten Tomatoes. Real shock is that Cloverfield lane was at 90%. Thought it was just decent, well acted/directed but kind of boring/predictable. Looking forward to BvS this weekend, even if it's not great I imagine I'll get some reaction/enjoyment from it.
Click to expand...

The 90% just means 90% of critics liked it to some degree, not that the average score was a 9 out of 10.
 
C

Chase17

Member
Anton Sugar said:
The RT score is literally just a split between liked it/hated it (you can find out more about how RT translates scores to "like" or "dislike" on their site). A score of 90% means that 90% of reviews were favorable/positive, not that it has an average score of 90%.
Click to expand...

Oh, that makes way more sense. Thought this was just like Metacritic. Thanks for the explanation.

Edit: Also thanks to Blader.
 
I

icespide

Banned
yuraya said:
It should have. The second half of TFA was a big pile of shit. The Star Wars cult following would never diss it tho since its still infinitely better than the prequels and the first hour was really good.
Click to expand...

you think TFA should have reviewed as badly as BvS?
 
B

Blader

Member
yuraya said:
It should have. The second half of TFA was a big pile of shit. The Star Wars cult following would never diss it tho since its still infinitely better than the prequels and the first hour was really good.
Click to expand...

The "Star Wars cult following" =/= the wider critic community or general audiences, most of whom also rated TFA highly and shat on the prequels. So...
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
On the one hand, superhero movies do need to have some camp to them based on the inherent nature of spandex dudes doing superhuman feats. Superhero flicks do have to take into account the absurdity of the premise of the stories.

On the other, I really don't like the whole "but the movie is humorless! It's too dark! Too grim!" cavalcade of critiques. A lot of the impressions from this thread are actually much better than the vast majority of the RT reviews, in that they point out the actual flaws in the movie instead of generic kind-of-whining-but-not-really about the tone.

The comparison is obviously MCU movies, which from my perspective are slowly becoming formulaic and sterile, and the fact practically every character is written to be a quippy wise-ass that cracks a joke every other line that the patterns start to show. Comedy is becoming an increasingly bigger aspect of each movie and while it's obvious why it would work (comedy works better in the context of the absurdity of superhero flicks), it's still one style. I'm not saying MCU NEEDS to change its style and have a tonally super-serious entry, but the opposite is not true either; a superhero movie isn't inherently bad because it goes for a serious tone.

Not to defend the film, I think it looks like it'll be highly flawed and my expectations aren't high at all, but the specific criticisms are worrying. Some critics seem to subconsciously want to railroad superhero movies into exactly one style and one style only, and if you go for a serious tone it's "plodding", "brutal", and "humorless", as if comedy is the only flavor allowed for a superhero film.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
BlackGhost said:
Reviews don't really deter me, pretty excited to see this on Friday. See how it is for myself
Click to expand...

That Chaw review almost made me want to see it more, honestly. I'm always fascinated by those off-the rails entries in a director's filmography, where they seem to let all the crazy monsters in their head go flying out onto the screen with no real regard for the viewer. Chaw namedropped Temple of Doom, and that's part of why I like that movie so much - it feels personal and revealing in a way I'm not sure Spielberg's ever been all that comfortable with. And he probably shouldn't. There's some weird, weird, ugly shit in that movie. It's part of Batman Returns' appeal, as well. That's one fucked-up, confused as hell Batman movie, but it's eminently rewatchable because Tim Burton is just using the character to go all manner of strange mental location, and that's not a thing these sorts of blockbusters tend to do. Avatar also did this to some degree, just let Cameron wallow in his crazy creative fetishes with no real checks and balances in place. And apparently, that's what's happened with Batman v Superman. We all thought Sucker Punch was that film for Snyder, but apparently that was just the warmup.

I don't know that I'm going to like this movie. It doesn't seem like I'm going to, based on what it's doing, and why it's doing it. But damned if I'm not gonna take my shot to experience Snyder's going over the cliff in a rail car while he chases the ghost of Watchmen.
 
F

flaxknuckles

Member
Even if this movie got a 90% score, just reading what they do with some of my favorite characters in this movie would make me reject that. Burn this Elseworlds swine down and start over I say.
 
S

Secret Fawful

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
That Chaw review almost made me want to see it more, honestly. I'm always fascinated by those off-the rails entries in a director's filmography, where they seem to let all the crazy monsters in their head go flying out onto the screen with no real regard for the viewer. Chaw namedropped Temple of Doom, and that's part of why I like that movie so much - it feels personal and revealing in a way I'm not sure Spielberg's ever been all that comfortable with. And he probably shouldn't. There's some weird, weird, ugly shit in that movie. It's part of Batman Returns' appeal, as well. That's one fucked-up, confused as hell Batman movie, but it's eminently rewatchable because Tim Burton is just using the character to go all manner of strange mental location, and that's not a thing these sorts of blockbusters tend to do. Avatar also did this to some degree, just let Cameron wallow in his crazy creative fetishes with no real checks and balances in place. And apparently, that's what's happened with Batman v Superman. We all thought Sucker Punch was that film for Snyder, but apparently that was just the warmup.

I don't know that I'm going to like this movie. It doesn't seem like I'm going to, based on what it's doing, and why it's doing it. But damned if I'm not gonna take my shot to experience Snyder's going over the cliff in a rail car while he chases the ghost of Watchmen.
Click to expand...

I feel the exact same way, except for one thing: the movie might be honest, but it's also apparently mindnumbingly boring.
 
M

mreddie

Member
EatinOlives said:
On the one hand, superhero movies do need to have some camp to them based on the inherent nature of spandex dudes doing superhuman feats. Superhero flicks do have to take into account the absurdity of the premise of the stories.

On the other, I really don't like the whole "but the movie is humorless! It's too dark! Too grim!" cavalcade of critiques. A lot of the impressions from this thread are actually much better than the vast majority of the RT reviews, in that they point out the actual flaws in the movie instead of generic kind-of-whining-but-not-really about the tone.

The comparison is obviously MCU movies, which from my perspective are slowly becoming formulaic and sterile, and the fact practically every character is written to be a quippy wise-ass that cracks a joke every other line that the patterns start to show. Comedy is becoming an increasingly bigger aspect of each movie and while it's obvious why it would work (comedy works better in the context of the absurdity of superhero flicks), it's still one style. I'm not saying MCU NEEDS to change its style and have a tonally super-serious entry, but the opposite is not true either; a superhero movie isn't inherently bad because it goes for a serious tone.

Not to defend the film, I think it looks like it'll be highly flawed and my expectations aren't high at all, but the specific criticisms are worrying. Some critics seem to subconsciously want to railroad superhero movies into exactly one style and one style only, and if you go for a serious tone it's "plodding", "brutal", and "humorless", as if comedy is the only flavor allowed for a superhero film.
Click to expand...

I really hope Civil War and Strange actually level things out.
 
B

Blader

Member
EatinOlives said:
On the one hand, superhero movies do need to have some camp to them based on the inherent nature of spandex dudes doing superhuman feats. Superhero flicks do have to take into account the absurdity of the premise of the stories.

On the other, I really don't like the whole "but the movie is humorless! It's too dark! Too grim!" cavalcade of critiques. A lot of the impressions from this thread are actually much better than the vast majority of the RT reviews, in that they point out the actual flaws in the movie instead of generic kind-of-whining-but-not-really about the tone.

The comparison is obviously MCU movies, which from my perspective are slowly becoming formulaic and sterile, and the fact practically every character is written to be a wise-ass quippy let's-crack-jokes-every-other-line that the patterns start to show. Comedy is becoming an increasingly bigger aspect of each movie and while it's obvious why it would work (comedy works better in the context of the absurdity of superhero flicks), it's still one style. I'm not saying MCU NEEDS to change its style and have a tonally super-serious entry, but the opposite is not true either; a superhero movie isn't inherently bad because it goes for a serious tone.

Not to defend the film, I think it looks like it'll be highly flawed and my expectations aren't high at all, but the specific criticisms are worrying. Some critics seem to subconsciously want to railroad superhero movies into exactly one style and one style only, and if you go for a serious tone it's "plodding", "brutal", and "humorless".
Click to expand...

I'd say it feels like certain fans are the ones who think superhero movies should be pigeonholed into "all comedy" or "all seriousness."

Nolan's trilogy was dark and grounded and widely acclaimed. Winter Soldier is the most grounded and serious of the MCU movies and is one of the most highly acclaimed of Marvel's movies. The problem is not dark superhero movies, the problem is assuming that making something dark and serious means having to suck all the fun and joy out of it -- which seems to be mainly a Snyder issue than anything else. There are plenty of other superhero directors (Nolan, Singer, the Russos) who know how to balance drama with levity in the right amounts in this genre.
 
Y

yuraya

Member
icespide said:
you think TFA should have reviewed as badly as BvS?
Click to expand...

Maybe not as badly but nowhere near the high 90s when reviews first launched. The second half of that movie was probably the most disappointing second half of a movie I've watched since Prometheus. It was awful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?
20
2K
Skyfox replied
‘Superman’ top contenders to replace Henry Cavill revealed
2
81
10K
Toots replied
The Flash is Rumored to Erase the SnyderVerse
Rumor 2 3 4
165
12K
ManaByte replied
Zack Snyder's Justice League Review Thread
2 3 4 5 6
265
28K
KyoZz replied
DCEU frustrates me because it could've been so good
2
80
6K
Explosive Zombie replied
Top Bottom