[champ]

If you're looking forward to this film then don't google Suicide Squad reviews...

[Aptorian]

Because the review verdict is bad or because there are spoilers in the reviews?

[champ]

Bad, I think the word I've seen the most associated with it is "mess!"

edit

Plus I've come across some spoilers, people seem to be happy to spoil it in their eagerness to bash it.

This post has been edited by champ: 02 August 2016 - 07:02 PM

[Siergiej]

Ye, reviewers are harsh on Suicide Squad. Will need to see for myself this weekend. Had high hopes but kinda cooling down after first opinions.

[QuickTidal]

The reviewers I trust seem to have enjoyed it. So that's how I'l be going into it.

I've got my tickets for Friday.

This won't hang on reviews...too many people want to see this. The box office will still be pretty good I think.

But yeah, some of the reviewers have a SERIOUS, glaring HATRED of what WB and DC are doing with their films, and it comes out in their reviews.

[worry]

I read some of the spoilers. Can't believe the third act takes place at the Gathering of the Juggalos where Jared Leto's "The Jokester" character gathers his clown army.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 02 August 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

The reviewers I trust seem to have enjoyed it. So that's how I'l be going into it.

I've got my tickets for Friday.

This won't hang on reviews...too many people want to see this. The box office will still be pretty good I think.

But yeah, some of the reviewers have a SERIOUS, glaring HATRED of what WB and DC are doing with their films, and it comes out in their reviews.

To some degree, Suicide Squad is a sequel to BvS. It matters little that they have very little overlap, but in many people's minds, the two movies are linked. So opinions on BvS can get knowingly and unknowingly ported over to this.

I'll see it in a couple weeks because I'm in no rush.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 02 August 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 August 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

The reviewers I trust seem to have enjoyed it. So that's how I'l be going into it.

I've got my tickets for Friday.

This won't hang on reviews...too many people want to see this. The box office will still be pretty good I think.

But yeah, some of the reviewers have a SERIOUS, glaring HATRED of what WB and DC are doing with their films, and it comes out in their reviews.

To some degree, Suicide Squad is a sequel to BvS. It matters little that they have very little overlap, but in many people's minds, the two movies are linked. So opinions on BvS can get knowingly and unknowingly ported over to this.

I'll see it in a couple weeks because I'm in no rush.

Yah, I think you're very right on that score.

I'll chime in here once I've seen it.

[QuickTidal]

Reviewer bias and bought votes (something I would have called tinfoil hat territory before) is becoming all too prevalent these days.

When GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) gets a higher score than FORREST GUMP (a film with multiple academy award wins)...there is a problem....and when BvS (divisive though it may be) gets a lower score than PAUL BLART and DADDY'S HOME....there is an agenda at work.

I'm not saying who's responsible (studios, marketers, ect.?)...but their biggest tell is Mr. Aint It Cool News Harry Knowles. The fact that he gets set visits and swag for certain movies (even bad ones) and then that bad movie gets a gusher review...he led the way for critics to be bought since he started AICN. Which is sad. But yeah, something I never thought could happen, is happening more and more these days.

So, I guess your best option is to see the movie yourself, ignore reviews, and make up your own mind.

But it's annoying that reviewers still set the tone for box office draw with bought hatchet-job reviews (or on the flip side bought gusher reviews).

[Aptorian]

It seems some DC fans got their panties in a bunch:

https://www.change.o...rotten-tomatoes

[QuickTidal]

It's weird to have a petition against an aggregate site. That displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how RT even works.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

When GHOSTBUSTERS (2016) gets a higher score than FORREST GUMP (a film with multiple academy award wins)...there is a problem...

I haven't seen Ghostbusters yet but Forrest Gump is terrible so it wouldn't have to be very good to be better...




Most of the reviewers I pay attention to seem to be saying that Suicide Squad is flawed but fun, and nowhere near as bad as BvS, with Jeremy Jahns who kind of represents my inner fanboy thinking it was fucking awesome. So I'm not reading too much into the really negative ones. Not gonna be able to see it for a while though.

[worry]

Forrest Gump sucks.

[Abyss]

Some of the coverage is suggesting the studio produced two very dif versions of SQUAD, then tried to make everyone happy by editing them together, and naturally failed on all fronts. Naturally.

[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 03 August 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

Reviewer bias and bought votes (something I would have called tinfoil hat territory before) is becoming all too prevalent these days.

****

So, I guess your best option is to see the movie yourself, ignore reviews, and make up your own mind.

But it's annoying that reviewers still set the tone for box office draw with bought hatchet-job reviews (or on the flip side bought gusher reviews).

See, I don't like this approach to the stated problem.

This plays right into the hands of anyone hypothetically manipulating review scores. Because it gets them ticket sales. Which means more people pay to see crap movies.

While I rarely read reviews by actual reviewers anyway (don't like spoilers, and don't find reviews to be very useful unless they tell me something really different to what I was expecting), I don't think they should be written off as corrupt and therefore everyone just has to go see all the movies they might be interested in to find out either way. I think the vast majority of reviews aren't obviously bought and paid for either.

But really, this stuff needs to be investigated to stop the practice definitively. Because reviews should be unbiased by those who stand to benefit from it.

[Tsundoku]

Silencer, on 03 August 2016 - 10:11 PM, said:

But really, this stuff needs to be investigated to stop the practice definitively. Because reviews should be unbiased by those who stand to benefit from it.

D'awwww ... you're so cute. I'll bet you think politicians shouldn't set their own pay increases or get donations from big business as well. Bless.

[Silencer]

Tsundoku, on 03 August 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

Silencer, on 03 August 2016 - 10:11 PM, said:

But really, this stuff needs to be investigated to stop the practice definitively. Because reviews should be unbiased by those who stand to benefit from it.

D'awwww ... you're so cute. I'll bet you think politicians shouldn't set their own pay increases or get donations from big business as well. Bless.

Damn straight, haha. I can dream, right? (though frankly I'm less concerned about movie reviews than my post may have implied )

[PLUGO]

So I saw it on Monday,

I've been working on my review for the past couple of day so I totally overlooked this thread and that Rotten Tomatoes Hoopla, which i still should take a closer look.

I can't say anything officially (embargoed until friday - I can post a link to my review then) but if you enjoyed BvS you'll probably love this.

I also got to review Batman v Superman & Deadpool for that matter, and I think there's something to how "critics" responded. When I wrote my review of DEADPOOL I was much more underwhelmed by it than the general audience response, I find myself wondering if a lot of critics and reviewers (I consider myself that later rather than the former) were taken off guard by how well received it was. Once BvS came out (which I personally enjoyed more that DEADPOOL) I wasn't surprised by the backlash from critics; as if to say "SEE! these movies aren't that great!"

Still it made enough money to show that fans will ignore critics.

Still Ayer and folks were smart to do re-shoots that helped bring the movie more in line with what's going on these days in Super-heroes movies. Never-the-less there are some Jai Cortney "action" gags that are direct call backs to DEADPOOL, they wouldn't really be funny if you haven't already seen DEADPOOL. Who hasn't? I've seen it again and hae found myself liking it more.

As for that subway scene . . . kind of a waste.

[Abyss]

PLUGO, on 04 August 2016 - 12:21 AM, said:

...if you enjoyed BvS you'll probably love this.

Im not sure if youre being clever there since you stated you enjoyed BvS, but heh, regardless.

Quote

...Batman v Superman ...Still it made enough money to show that fans will ignore critics.
...

Apparently not, since it didn't make back its budget domestically and multiple reports are that the studio is borderline panicked over it. Hence the apparent mess that is SQUAD.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 04 August 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

Apparently not, since it didn't make back its budget domestically and multiple reports are that the studio is borderline panicked over it. Hence the apparent mess that is SQUAD.

It did. Anyone who tells you that 870million WW box office didn't "make back it's budget" is lying to you and doens't know studio math. This was the narrative when it made money anyways, the pundits kept upping the "it needs to make at least ______" to make a profit...and every time it hit a new milestone in that race, those same people just upped their numbers of "what it needed to make"....all of that is completely spurious...and mainline media outlets just picked up that ball and ran with it.

It may not have done what DC WB WANTED or EXPECTED it to do Box Office-wise...but it made it's budget back and then some.

$870,000,000 is a success regardless of what the people who hated it want you to think.

I'm not joking, I saw this nonsense applied at more than one "news" outlet. It was dog piling plain and simple. "People hate this movie, but it's making money, so let's try some other tactic to make it look bad....for clicks."

250 million budget, plus 150 million marketing ect. is 4oo,mil, and it made nearly 900mil in its run at the box office (plus 70% of their DVD/BluRay sales on release [still topping those charts] a feat only beaten by STAR WARS: TFA). Studio math is double your budget and marketing costs is breaking even/making the budget back (that's 8oomil), and anything above that is cream/profit (72 million), plus a very successful home video release makes for (probably) near the billion mark if not over it.

You will have seen this tactic reversed with a movie everyone (AKA clicky media outlets and news outlets) wanted to do well, and when it didn't they wanted to try to spin it...and that's the GB remake, which was 150mil plus at LEAST 100mil marketing push (I'm being generous, it was probably more than that) meaning it needs at least 600mil WW to break even, and more to make a profit. It's sitting at 161mil currently (week 3). Yet, google reviews around the time of release and see them all calling it a triumph and a success, and the box office was strong ect. ect. when NONE of that is actually the case. But lots of people bought it. I saw the local news report that it was a successful opening weekend (it wasn't. Not remotely, Not by any metric that I know of.)...which I guess goes to show you more about where your local news gets their info, than anything. But still, this was the perfect example of the opposite of what went on with BvS.

But SS is tracking to good audience reviews, if not critics (those that have seen preview screenings thus far seem to be impressed), and WW and JL trailers scored the highest at the SDCC reveals for those that were there and those that were not.

It should also be noted that comic book focused sites like it and have given it positive reviews, as has Patty Jenkins (director of WONDER WOMAN).

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 04 August 2016 - 12:15 PM