After Poor Suicide Squad Reviews, Fan Creates Petition to Shut Down Rotten Tomatoes

[xaszatm]

If anything, what they should learn from Marvel is to stop being afraid to embrace the stupidity of their properties' respective premises. Nobody loses their parents and then decides to turn into a cape-wearing detective-ninja; just as someone with Superman's abilities is likely to have more-than-rocky formative years.

But not everyone wants a second Marvel franchise...

DC have managed to present Batman and Superman's origins in serious manners many times before. They don't have to switch from that. It's nice to have different styles in movies, rather than having a singular comedy/superhero genre.

And personally, I like Batman's story. His parents were killed in an act of violence, so a gifted child decides to use his open doors and opportunities to pursue making the world a better place.

Sure, you might see the premise as absurd, but that doesn't mean that DC have to, or should act upon that opinion.

To be fair, Lego Batman seems to be taking Batman in his inherently silly direction so I highly doubt the live-action films will go as goofy.

Honestly, the problem with the DCEU isn't the style. Marvel has Daredevil and Jessica Jones and both are far darker than MoS, BvS and (probably) Suicide Squad and both are well received. The problem with the two DCEU movies is that they aren't as clever as they think they are. Well, that and they suffer from atrocious editing and writing.

 

[mduncan50]

snip.

Ok, another
My point still stands - these are the reviewers that I regularly visit, who, unlike reviewers like former Escapist alum Bob Chipman, aren't automatically looking for something to hate. Maybe it's you that's cherrypicking. Not a great movie, but not the bomb that people want it to be.

As proof that it's good you're showing a video that gave it a 2.4/5 and called it a big disappointment? Interesting strategy Cotton.

Heres a crazy idea...Rotten Tomatoes is not a good website to judge if a movie is good or not! Its just like metacritic, I could go into the several issues, (like weighting certain critics heavier than others behind closed doors) but I'd be typing for hours, just ignore Rotten Tomatoes and see what the critics you trust have to say

How are they weighting certain critics higher? It's a binary system, either they liked it or they didn't, and they show you every single review, and whether they liked it or not, you can do the math yourself. It is literally about as transparent as it can be. Not to mention, since Warner owns the site, you'd think any bias would swing in their direction.

 

[Kyman102]

Having looked at most of the critical reviews that RT was gathering? A lot of them didn't seem especially cruel. Most of them seem to think it was okay, just NOT the smash hit that DC wanted and needed. Good moments amid some blandness.

Which isn't what DC needs. After Man of Steel and BvS, they don't need something alright or something decent. They need something GREAT.

Honestly, I think they should just play it sincerely. Not goofily or funnily. Just... Have larger-than-life figures, many of whom just want to do good in this crazy world of ours.

Wonder Woman actually is the first movie to make me EXCITED for the DCCU.

Also, other free suggestions.

Zack Snyder. Fire him. Don't let him near any of your other movies again.

Color. Add some. Make it pop. I mean, a recent Man At Arms episode showed Movie Aquaman next to a picture of the new Aquaman comic, and boy HOWDY was that a mistake, to show how washed out and dreary Movie Aquaman looked.

Also, whoever suggested or insisted on putting elements of the Death of Superman arc into BvS? Fire them too. Fire them for gross incompetence, and if they ask for references then call back every prospective boss and say "Just so you know he's the one who decided to kill off Superman in his second movie" (I admit this is a LOT on me, but that move was something that should have been struck down when it was proposed)

 

[mduncan50]

Honestly, I think they should just play it sincerely. Not goofily or funnily. Just... Have larger-than-life figures, many of whom just want to do good in this crazy world of ours.

So you think they should make it like the DC comic universe? well now that's just crazy talk!

 

[Mangod]

Heres a crazy idea...Rotten Tomatoes is not a good website to judge if a movie is good or not! Its just like metacritic, I could go into the several issues, (like weighting certain critics heavier than others behind closed doors) but I'd be typing for hours, just ignore Rotten Tomatoes and see what the critics you trust have to say

How are they weighting certain critics higher? It's a binary system, either they liked it or they didn't, and they show you every single review, and whether they liked it or not, you can do the math yourself. It is literally about as transparent as it can be. Not to mention, since Warner owns the site, you'd think any bias would swing in their direction.

Well, to be fair, I suspect that most people only look at the tomatometer, which weighs the movie using a binary good-or-bad system. And according to that, only 20% of critics liked Suicide Squad. But the average critical rating, just beneath it, hangs at 4.8 out of 10, placing the movie just south of average.

 

[thewatergamer]

snip.

Ok, another
My point still stands - these are the reviewers that I regularly visit, who, unlike reviewers like former Escapist alum Bob Chipman, aren't automatically looking for something to hate. Maybe it's you that's cherrypicking. Not a great movie, but not the bomb that people want it to be.

As proof that it's good you're showing a video that gave it a 2.4/5 and called it a big disappointment? Interesting strategy Cotton.

Heres a crazy idea...Rotten Tomatoes is not a good website to judge if a movie is good or not! Its just like metacritic, I could go into the several issues, (like weighting certain critics heavier than others behind closed doors) but I'd be typing for hours, just ignore Rotten Tomatoes and see what the critics you trust have to say

How are they weighting certain critics higher? It's a binary system, either they liked it or they didn't, and they show you every single review, and whether they liked it or not, you can do the math yourself. It is literally about as transparent as it can be. Not to mention, since Warner owns the site, you'd think any bias would swing in their direction.

You really think they don't tweak the algorithim behind closed doors? Why then do they separate critics by "top critics" and "critics"

 

[Rangaman]

Urgh.

This is why I despise mega-fans. They cannot understand that not everything their precious little multinational, multi-million dollar corporation will be perfect, or even good. So rather than try and be reasonable, they have a collective *****-fest and do moronic shit like this.

This gets a special mention though, since (as many a fellow commenter has mentioned above) Warner Bros. actually has a stake in both RT and its parent company, Flixster. Not to mention sheer reality-altering idiocy of people who don't understand how RT actually gets its review scores.

EDIT: Guys, if I misuse a word, you can call me out on it. Just don't be a dick.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Just saw Suicide Squad, and whatever the critics say I loved it. Better than BvS, but that's not a stretch. It has issues, of course, but its more of a B+ movie than a D-.

 

[lacktheknack]

Noooooo, the petition is closed! D:

I had my money on it being run by one of the code monkeys over at Metacritic. ;__;

 

[Rangaman]

Heres a crazy idea...Rotten Tomatoes is not a good website to judge if a movie is good or not! Its just like metacritic, I could go into the several issues, (like weighting certain critics heavier than others behind closed doors) but I'd be typing for hours, just ignore Rotten Tomatoes and see what the critics you trust have to say

Again, someone needs to learn where RT gets its ratings. True enough, Metacritic is biased, true enough. But the bias is towards critics and establishments with a good reputation (whose ratings are weighted), not towards Disney or FOX.

Rotten Tomatoes is not nearly as biased. That big score you see next to the movie title is how many critics recommended viewing the film, not the average score (which, BTW, is directly underneath it in fine print). Honestly, I find that is a far better system than Metacritic or IMDB.

An even better idea would be to not let a critic/fan divide in review scores stop you from seeing a movie. Just remember that there have been multiple instance where the critics were wrong and where the fans were wrong.

 

[mduncan50]

snip.

Ok, another
My point still stands - these are the reviewers that I regularly visit, who, unlike reviewers like former Escapist alum Bob Chipman, aren't automatically looking for something to hate. Maybe it's you that's cherrypicking. Not a great movie, but not the bomb that people want it to be.

As proof that it's good you're showing a video that gave it a 2.4/5 and called it a big disappointment? Interesting strategy Cotton.

Heres a crazy idea...Rotten Tomatoes is not a good website to judge if a movie is good or not! Its just like metacritic, I could go into the several issues, (like weighting certain critics heavier than others behind closed doors) but I'd be typing for hours, just ignore Rotten Tomatoes and see what the critics you trust have to say

How are they weighting certain critics higher? It's a binary system, either they liked it or they didn't, and they show you every single review, and whether they liked it or not, you can do the math yourself. It is literally about as transparent as it can be. Not to mention, since Warner owns the site, you'd think any bias would swing in their direction.

You really think they don't tweak the algorithim behind closed doors? Why then do they separate critics by "top critics" and "critics"

thewatergamer you can LITERALLY do the math for yourself to see that it's correct. As for Top Critics, from their own site:

TOP CRITICS

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

Also, on the Tomatometer you can choose to only use Top Critics if you want.

Take off your tinfoil hat. Nobody is trying to railroad WB/DC, especially not on their own site.

 

[Chewster]

Honestly, who cares? Just watch what you want. Why do you need your tastes validated by your dad a bunch of critics?

Nerd fandom remains the worst.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Ok, some quick Googling has revealed that the people who started the petition know that it won't get the site shut down, but is rather an effort to make critics aware that they don't like the negative reviews about the movie. And what?!

Why the hell... oh, nope. Having a rage stroke. Back in a day or so.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Ok, some quick Googling has revealed that the people who started the petition know that it won't get the site shut down, but is rather an effort to make critics aware that they don't like the negative reviews about the movie. And what?!

Why the hell... oh, nope. Having a rage stroke. Back in a day or so.

Well, a critic is supposed to translate their impression of a movie to their target audience. If the critic is out-of-touch with their audience, their reviews are less useful. The critic goes "Well, I hated Margot Robbie's hot pants, so I'm giving this a 2/5" and their readers go "We fucking love hot pants! Your 2/5 did not accurately represent the quality of the movie as it pertains to our opinions re: hot pants!"

I mean, having a guy review Finding Dory with the same critical lens that he uses for The Revenant, without considering that one is aimed at five-year-olds and the other is aimed at the Oscar awards committee, would be considered bad reviewing. So maybe there's something worthwhile there, in getting the critics to rethink who their reviews are going to be read by and what stuff they might like or not like.

Honestly, who cares? Just watch what you want. Why do you need your tastes validated by your dad a bunch of critics?

Nerd fandom remains the worst.

The critics tangibly affect the success of the film, and the success of the film tangibly affects the odds of more films in the same vein being produced.

Fans of the DCCU want to see more DCCU films. (If they're like me, they want to see more good DCCU films, not more "meh" films.) That means they have an emotional investment in seeing the franchise succeed on the promise that it will one day produce what they want (the fabled, near-mythical, oh-so-close Wonder Woman solo film).

That means when critics - or Rotten Tomato's shitty aggregate of critics, in this case - trash the latest DCCU film to an unfair degree, it makes people salty. And you wouldn't like people when they're salty.

(they taste awful)

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Well, a critic is supposed to

I think you may have missed the point I was making; The petitioners knew their efforts were a shallow attention grab, but went ahead with it anyway.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I thought the trailers looked pretty cool, so me and a few friends are going to see it today.
I hope the reviews are wrong I and I find reason to sign a poorly worded doomed to fail petition.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Well, a critic is supposed to

I think you may have missed the point I was making; The petitioners knew their efforts were a shallow attention grab, but went ahead with it anyway.

The entire point of a petition is to get people's attention. That's what petitioning is; a system by which a group of people make their desires or intentions known to a governing body, in the hope of influencing that body's decisions.

I thought you were making the point that the petition had no clear practical purpose. If your issue was instead that the petition was a plea for people's attention then...I don't know what to say, other than "that's what a petition is."

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

The entire point of a petition is to get people's attention. That's what petitioning is; a system by which a group of people make their desires or intentions known to a governing body, in the hope of influencing that body's decisions.

I thought you were making the point that the petition had no clear practical purpose. If your issue was instead that the petition was a plea for people's attention then...I don't know what to say, other than "that's what a petition is."

Any petition is pointless unless it is capable of enforcing the change the signatories want.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The entire point of a petition is to get people's attention. That's what petitioning is; a system by which a group of people make their desires or intentions known to a governing body, in the hope of influencing that body's decisions.

I thought you were making the point that the petition had no clear practical purpose. If your issue was instead that the petition was a plea for people's attention then...I don't know what to say, other than "that's what a petition is."

Any petition is pointless unless it is capable of enforcing the change the signatories want.

That's like, 99% of all petitions.

When I was in university, every other week the socialist guys would have a new petition saying we needed to legalise gay marriage, or remove all immigration restrictions, or declare war on Israel. All kinds of shit that was never going to happen. That didn't stop them, because it wasn't the point. The point was getting everyone who signed the petition to think about gay marriage/immigration/how much Israel sucks. Get enough people talking about an issue, and it suddenly becomes an important issue, and now the government has to address it.

Which makes sense; the people or groups who are capable of enforcing change, generally speaking, don't need to make petitions in order to do it. The President doesn't need to petition the White House to get the executive branch to do something. A petition is a way for groups incapable of affecting change to get the attention of people who can enforce change; not necessarily to convince them, because that's unlikely to occur, but to draw public scrutiny to the issue in question. A petition to Barack Obama to increase NASA funding, for example, isn't unlikely to succeed just because the petitioners asked nicely and got 0.0004% of the national population to sign it, but it will prompt discussion on the topic of funding space exploration.

In this case, this petition against Rotten Tomatoes has a 0% chance of getting Rotten Tomatoes shut down. I don't know what kind of action by what body could even do that to start with. But it has a non-zero chance of getting people to go "Hey, Rotten Tomatoes is kind of a bullshit website, maybe we shouldn't take it so seriously," or getting a critic to think "Am I out of touch with my audience in a way that affects my capacity as a critic?"

The very fact that we're in this forum having this conversation shows the petition was successful at drawing attention to the issue it's aimed at. Every news website who reports on this petition is furthering that goal. If you think that's just a plea for attention, that's...because it is, and a lot of online political or social commentary is, fundamentally, a plea for attention.

You can be all brusque and insist that petitions must be brutally pragmatic or else a waste of time if you want to, but that's just blinkering yourself, to be honest.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

petition was successful at drawing attention

Attention yes, action no. And in a week or so, it will be forgotten.