Follow TV Tropes
I went to this film not knowing what to expect from it. Would it be a perversely entertaining shitplot like Suicide Squad? An epically atmospherized shitplot like Batman v Superman? A Marvelized yet well done curiosity like Wonder Woman? Or a predictable The Avengers ripoff?
The answer, although inevitably tilting towards the last, happened to be none of those. I really liked the final product, even if it carried the weight of Warner Bros's past bad decisions about this franchise. The characters had a surprising amount of chemistry and were well used as far as possible (which is not much, but still more than expected), and the plot was simple yet efficient. As for the flaws, while I liked the baddie more than Loki or Ultron and saw Aquaman and Cyborg as quite impressive, not having their own movies made impossible that they came to be full-fledged characters in this. I also think it was painfully obvious where had Whedon inserted some of his jokes in Snyder's solemn version. However, these flaws were difficult to avoid, and they don't detract from the general vision.
Almost more interestingly that the film, however, was its reception. I wasn't enough of a doofus to believe this film would have ever got the success of Wonder Woman (commercialized feminism is a powerful asset, my friends), but the fact that Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 and 3 had twice of the Rotten Tomatoes score given to Justice League was enough for me. I don't believe in conspirations about bribed critics and such, but if you don't believe there is a pandemic critical bias towards Marvel and against its competition, you are fooling yourself.
Is this a review or a rant? It seems more like a thinly veiled way to throw shade at the \"competition\" in a way that is neither necessary nor helpful. I would also like some clarification on how it is that the flaws don\'t detract from the general vision when the consensus is that the general vision is the flaw, or at least a large part of it.
It\'s a commentary on DC getting screwed by professional review sites. Raging Higher likes the movie but he\'s frustrated that review sites are giving it a terrible score. He\'s not throwing Marvel under the but to make DC look better, he just brings up films that had less effort put into them having overwhelmingly higher scores to explain his (and many other people\'s including me) irritation.
In other words, the movie is good, but critics are trashing it for being DC.
Either way he and most other DCEU fans need to get a grip and stop acting like there\'s a bias against their preferred brand.
40% to critics vs 85% to audience is a pretty wide gap. It shows how out of touch the critics are with their audience. I really don\'t prefer DC, to Marvel, but Rotten Tomatoes give even Marvel\'s flops a fair pass. Age of Ultron was so stuffed with set up plot lines that even Joss Whedon was disgusted with his product and briefly retired from super hero movies. It sits at 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet Whedon was far more receptive to his work on Justice League and its graded Rotten. It seems that Rotten Tomatoes can only see DC\'s failures (besides Wonder Woman) and not its successes.
Or maybe they just have different opinions? I don\'t really think Justice League is a very good movie, so I personally agree with the critics in this case. If you liked the movie then that\'s great but the fans are hardly unbiased. A lot of fans blindly praise their favorite films (DC fans are hardly the only ones who do this), so I don\'t really find audience reviews particularly trustworthy either. And why do the critic opinions matter? DC fans always complain about how critics are out of touch but that shouldn\'t detract from their enjoyment of the film. And even though Wonder Woman was a critical success, apparently critics still hate DC movies. And people need to stop referring to Rotten Tomatoes as if they are responsible for the reviews, they\'re just review aggregators.
I personally find hard to call my review a DCU fanboy\'s rant when I explicitly diss the DCU in the very first paragraph. Do you know what\'s most ironic? I\'m a Marvel fan, not a DC one. I like lots of lots of characters in Marvel comics and literally only one in DC, and roughly same for their movies. It\'s only that first and foremost I have to be honest and try to remain impartial when I review any film. In this case, even although I would go with Marvel all the day, I believe it is a reality and not a paranoia that professional critics are allowing themselves to get carried away by the MCU\'s reputation of film infallibility.
How can you remain impartial when you review a movie? The whole point of a review is to say whether you were partial to the film or not, so that you can help me decide whether I should go see it. If you mean to say you approached the movie without a preconceived bias, then I\'m not sure I believe that considering how much you go on about the professional reviewers and how they must secretly like DC films more than they say.
(Also, as mentioned, you don\'t seem to understand how Rotten Tomatoes scores work? The percentage isn\'t how good the movie is, it is what proportion of critics gave it at least a baseline positive review. An 80% positive score could simply consist of 80% of critics saying \"eh, its alright\". It\'s recommended you actually read some of the reviews, not just go on the number.)
Are you talking about a review or an ad? When I publish a review I want people to know what I think about the film, not convince them to go or not to go. If they make their decision basing on what I say, that\'s great, perhaps my words are right and I\'m teaching these poor souls the correct way, but I would still prefer people to decide by themselves whether they should go or not to go and then make their own opinions after watching it. And yeah, nobody can remain impartial, but a film critic should try to be objective and not mistake his judgement for his liking. According to you, if Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was my favourite film, should I advocate that it is the best film ever and that everybody has to freakin\' watch it?
How much I go on the professional reviewers? Well, about one paragraph out of three, in the last place and as pretty much as a P.D. It is not like I spent all the writeup with it.
And you don\'t seem to understand my complaint, my friend. I don\'t care what was said in the film\'s reviews. I would rather question how free of preconceived ideas the reviewers were (both the good and the bad ones, duh) when they watched the film, what was their measuring stick and, more importantly, whether they really apply the same stick to all the films they watch.
You are reviewing the movie, not Rotten Tomatoes.
Isn't that thinking rather highly of yourself? No offence, but we don't personally care about you at all, we come because we care about the opinions of the work in question, and when it's so soon after release, yes, we just want a general idea of wether we should spend time and money on it or not. That's what reviews are.
Even when RT is a very unreliable system, I understand the difference between audiences and critics. Individual audiences tend to review based on their general feeling, (yeah, this and that was crappy, boring and or confusing but this and that were awesome) while critics are more methodical, so the plot structure, character development and screentime (aka Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg issue) and the notisable missed scenes (everyone's talking about a director's cut) are more glaring to them.
@Raging Higher: I wasn\'t calling you a fanboy or questioning the validity of your review, apologies if that\'s how it came across. I was arguing against the notion that audience reviews are inherently more accurate than critic reviews when they can also be skewed. Not saying you\'re a DC fanboy.
"Isn't that thinking rather highly of yourself? No offence, but we don't personally care about you at all, we come because we care about the opinions of the work in question,"
Well, to my knowledge, review sites are for people to write whatever they want in their reviews and publish them so everybody can read them. If fulfilling their use is a sign of arrogance, then shame on us millions of reviewers in internet that thought the world cared about us at all. We should restrict these sites and clarify you have to indicate people whether spend their money in the cinema or not if you want to publish a review. After all, what are any words for if they don't have a pragmatic application?
"Individual audiences tend to review based on their general feeling, (yeah, this..."
And that's what I call prejudice.
@Tommy Fresh, didn't get offended but thank you.
No, but implying people should read your review out of a movie that just came out just to hear you instead of getting a use out of it is. You wrote a review publicly, but say people should decide for themselves if they want to go watch it or not and that it shouldn't influence their opinion. That implies that people should read your review just because it's you or that people will watch or not because of your view of the movie, instead of use it as a "piece" of data to make a decision.
Nonsense. As long as it\'s not clarified in the review site that I must obligatorily recommend or not to recommend, I have no reason to do it.
Prejudice (countable): an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts. You have claimed that individual reviewers base their reviews on coolness while professionals are more methodic, but I can\'t see any knowledge of the facts. What\'s your source for that claim, street wisdom aside?
I never said it's obligatory to recommend, but that that's the de facto use people will give a review of something that just came out, as that is the norm and to expect otherwise is rather ludicrous.
Exactly, I talked about people's opinion after they saw the movie, so how is that prejudiced?
No, I did not. I said individual audiences tend to rate movies based on the general feeling they got out of them. Both groups notice the flaws but one is usualy more forgiving given the overall result. A casual viewer might say "this film had very well choreograph fighting scenes, inventive action scenes, a charismatic and memorable villain and the climax had me on the edge of my seat" while also agreeing with a professional critic that said it had a rather boring start, takes too long for the plot to get going and that said villain didn't have a clear motivation.
I haven\'t seen Man of Steel or the new Justice League, but if you think there\'s some kind of \'pandemic critical bias\' that films in the same universe as \'Suicide Squandered Talent\' and \'Angry Stupid Batman Who Kills People Now I Guess VS Flavourless Boy Scout: Dawn of Oh Hey, Wonder Woman is Here Too\' are getting negative reviews, then... that might just be because you personally like them and don\'t really think that other people don\'t like them.
Like, LEGO Batman. LEGO Batman got tons of positive press and reviews and a very high Rotten Tomatoes score. Is that because the LEGO helped it to avoid the pandemic critical bias against DC? Or is it because it was a good movie?
If you expected that, I\'m sorry for you. I don\'t know if there is an unspoken rule about recommending or not recommending, but I\'m not stranger to review sites and they don\'t usually make such a fuss about it (unless they, you know, have a recommended/mildly recommended/not recommended counter, which TV Tropes doesn\'t have).
You\'re bent on bundling the things I say, huh? Your prejudice is not if critics will say it is good or bad. Your prejudice is implying that audiences are basically unable to reach professional critic levels of awareness about the film\'s flaws. I agree that many casual viewers don\'t typically see certain faults in a film and that we should expect from critics to see them, but to use that theoretical notion to invalidate any questioning of the critics\'s mindset is both absurd and fallacious (appeal to authority, specifically).
But let\'s return to my case. I accuse many professional critics of not using the same measuring stick towards Marvel and DC films; you can argue against my stance, but you cannot shut it down solely on the belief that being professional critics makes them right. Or maybe you\'re arguing that every reviewer that accuse the critics like me does it solely because he believes the film is good for having inventive action scenes and yadda yadda?
\"Bias\" might be a more fitting word to use here. Isn\'t prejudice a bit heavy for a superhero movie review?
Ok I think we're done here, keep having your imaginary battles and putting words in people's mouth to make a reply.
\"If you expected that, I\'m sorry for you. I don\'t know if there is an unspoken rule about recommending or not recommending, but I\'m not stranger to review sites and they don\'t usually make such a fuss about it (unless they, you know, have a recommended/mildly recommended/not recommended counter, which TV Tropes doesn\'t have).\"
Yes, generally speaking people read reviews so that they can form a decision on whether a thing is worth paying for. Every one of those people on Rotten Tomatoes is being paid to try and convince you one way or the other about making a consumer decision. There are exceptions, like when people get entertainment value out of the words of a particularly talented reviewer, or when they are childish and use reviewers as a means of backing up opinions they have already formed about a thing they\'ve already paid for.
Honestly, knowing about what went on behind-the-scenes would have been a boon for you. I can't say it's a great movie, but I can't agree that Justice League is as bad as many of the detractors make it sounds. However, I do agree that Joss Whedon was not the right person to use in order to finish Zack Snyder's work. Also, your use of "shitplot" doesn't help your review, to put it lightly.
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More