The Official Suicide Squad Rotten Tomatoes Thread - Part 1

[BlZARRO]

http://www.**************.com/polls/?poll=4674&view=results

It's interesting that 6% straight up admit they won't watch a movie without reading reviews. The other 60% says they like to check out the reviews too, even though they claim it's not that important. Just looking at this, it's not too far-fetched to assume that easily around 10% or more give enough importance to what critics say and might make a decision based on that. And even if it's only 6%, that's still a big number and can definitely affect the BO results.

This isn't even taking too much into account that people often prefer to hide the fact that they care about what others think. So we can't really have a good idea about the real number, but it's certainly way above 6%. 6% of 200 million people. How much BO revenue is that? It's still a lot.

 

[nogster]

Disagreed. I not think bad reviews matter for movies. I love Spider-Man films most but Spider-Man 3 one of weakest ones and lowest critic score but make most money out of all 5 Spider-man movies. Poor reviews not impact.

Well. that is because it is SPIDERMAN. He is a cash cow. Spidey 3 was sequel to 2 highly successful films, both critically and at the BO. Of course it was going to do well. I saw it the first day. Did I watch it again? No.
Would I have watched it numerous times if it was good. Of course. Like i do with all Superhero films I like.
Besides, Spidey 3 was still relatively well received by reviews. It was hardly the critical failure like BvS or SS.

 

[Flint Marko]

Deciding to skip Transformers 4 due to poor reviews is like deciding not to eat at Mcdonald's because someone said it was unhealthy. At this point we should all know what to expect.

I won't argue that poor reviews have absolutely no effect on the box office whatsoever, but I don't see any convincing argument that would say it has any significant effect, let alone one that it could make or break a film's profitability in theaters. That staggering opening weekend for both SS and BvS right when said reviews were in the headlines doesn't exactly support that argument.

 

[The Joker]

Oh, it's funny that i was just reading some guy on this forum saying he will wait for the movie on DVD because he read bad reviews about it.

Listen, if you don't think people can be influenced by other people's opinions, i'd have to say you just lack a very basic understanding of human psychology.

If you don't think journalists have an impact on how people view the world, you just lack a very basic understanding on history and society. There's not much i can do about that other than suggest that you read a little bit about the subject.

These aren't journalists talking about serious issues. These are movie critics posting reviews. I've read enough on the subject to know that there is no credible source that links box office performance to critic reviews. If there was you'd have posted it 3 pages ago. And not still here telling me your he said/she said tales.

It has a lot to substantiate it. And i already explained it to you. But if you really need a third-party study/analysis in order to be able to understand the obvious logic behind something(that you didn't even bother counter-arguing) we can do it too.

https://is.muni.cz/el/1456/jaro2014...s-weekend-proved-critics-matter/#3c5e2f243b0a

No, I mean like this; http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/batman-v-superman-reviews-critics-box-office-1201740022/

Yeah, buddy, you're forgetting everything else i said. Very selective memory. Then again, that's the only way you can keep your ass in this discussion, right?

What am I forgetting, "buddy"? Enlighten me on what pearls of wisdom you said that I have forgotten?

You don't have a damn thing to back it up. Cheap talk is cheap.

Say that enough times and you might actually start to believe it.

Exactly. Big contributing factors, not the only contributing factors. It's still an action movie, it's still a blockbuster, it's still Batman, so you shouldn't compare it to a movie that isn't even close to share the same mass appeal.

But if they were big contributing factors, they would have given the likes of The Fighter a much healthier box office than less than 200 mil WW.

So explain to me why these big contributing factors were not really big contributing factors for that?

Well, if Batman is more popular than Transformers, and if TDK is held to a higher regard, why the trouble making more money than the Transformers? You're still failing at disproving my theory.

That's like asking if The Shawshank Redemption is more popular than why didn't it make more money. People went back and rewatched it more than these movies obviously, but that doesn't mean they loved them more.

 

[BlZARRO]

Deciding to skip Transformers 4 due to poor reviews is like deciding not to eat at Mcdonald's because someone said it was unhealthy. At this point we should all know what to expect.

I won't argue that poor reviews have absolutely no effect on the box office whatsoever, but I don't see any convincing argument that would say it has any significant effect, let alone one that it could make or break a film's profitability in theaters. That staggering opening weekend for both SS and BvS right when said reviews were in the headlines doesn't exactly support that argument.

The fact that a movie has enough fans and people interesting in watching it regardless of anything, in no way disproves the idea that bad critical reception can stop a movie from reaching it's full potential. Media has always had an impact on people's decisions and i don't see any convincing argument that when it comes to film the story is different.

The problem is that most of you think that, just because the movies makes a lot of money, it achieved its full potential. I don't see why anyone would think that. Especially when we have sooooo many examples of blockbusters that did poorly at the BO and had a very bad critical reception too.

 

[nogster]

Deciding to skip Transformers 4 due to poor reviews is like deciding not to eat at Mcdonald's because someone said it was unhealthy. At this point we should all know what to expect.

I won't argue that poor reviews have absolutely no effect on the box office whatsoever, but I don't see any convincing argument that would say it has any significant effect. That staggering opening weekend for both SS and BvS right when said reviews were in the headlines doesn't exactly support that argument.

You can't use the opening weekend BO sales to determine the validity or not of poor reviews making an impact of sales. Esspecially when the review embargo was lifted a day or 2 prior to release.
How many pre sales were there?
How many fans of these characters are there? A film with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman was always going to be Box office gold. But being the travesty it was, handicapped its potential for even bigger numbers.

I honestly do not see how this can be debated.

Again, I know many people that did not go and watch BvS due to the reviews.

The only movies I will generally still go and check out are the big superhero flicks. As I love my Superheroes.
However, there are a few I have not seen or did not catch in the cinemas specifically due to the poor critical reception.
i hardly think I am alone in this reasoning.

Question.
Has there ever been a time you did not go and watch a movie because of poor reviews?

 

[The Joker]

I use the same reasoning when choosing what movie to watch.
Whether it be at the cinemas or on netflix.
I check the reviews of a film to make a more informed decision than just blindly going watching it, hoping it won't be a waste of my time.

But that's you, nogster. You are not speaking for a consensus. Only for your good self.

Do you seriously believe that a films critical reception has no influence on its sales or view potential?

No significant impact yes.

No you don't know for a fact. There is no measurement for the increased BO potential of movies if they were critically praised. Take Transformers for instance.
I did not watch the 4th only due to the crap reviews. Otherwise I would of.
I can only speak for myself and others I know that did and do the same.
Again. To extend this reasoning to the general public is a fair assessment.

Again that's you. The fact that Transformers 4 made over a billion clearly shows you are in a minority. Never mind the fact this was the 4th one in the franchise and people are well aware of what to expect with these movies by now. All the critically panned ones made over a billion. The bad reviews didn't scare people off at all.

Why should we believe it did with BvS or SS?

Deciding to skip Transformers 4 due to poor reviews is like deciding not to eat at Mcdonald's because someone said it was unhealthy. At this point we should all know what to expect.

I won't argue that poor reviews have absolutely no effect on the box office whatsoever, but I don't see any convincing argument that would say it has any significant effect, let alone one that it could make or break a film's profitability in theaters. That staggering opening weekend for both SS and BvS right when said reviews were in the headlines doesn't exactly support that argument.

Exactly

 

[The Joker]

A film with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman was always going to be Box office gold. But being the travesty it was, handicapped its potential for even bigger numbers.

Exactly. Because people went and checked the movie out, that's why it opened huge in its first week, and then the box office dropped because people had no desire to go back and watch it again.

If the bad reviews scared people off, when they were already out before the movie even got released, the first week wouldn't have been as huge as it was.

Second week is always the determining factor because a lot if not most people will have seen the movie by then and getting those bums back in seats is what makes or breaks a movie.

I honestly do not see how this can be debated.
The only movies I will generally still go and check out are the big superhero flicks. As I love my Superheroes.
However, there are a few I have not seen or did not catch in the cinemas specifically due to the poor critical reception.
i hardly think I am alone in this reasoning.

Again nogster you keep applying what you do to some kind of consensus.

 

[nogster]

But that's you, nogster. You are not speaking for a consensus. Only for your good self.



No significant impact yes.

What is significant Joker?

 

[The Joker]

What is significant Joker?

How do you mean? What is a significant impact? I don't believe there is one. Not as far as critic reviews go.

 

[nogster]

Again nogster you keep applying what you do to some kind of consensus. You are making a baseless assumption.

I don't think I am alone with this reasoning. On the contrary, I think it is the common response.

Have you ever neglected to watch a film based on poor reviews before?

 

[nogster]

How do you mean? What is a significant impact? I don't believe there is one. Not as far as critic reviews go.

What in your opinion is a "significant" impact?

I mean, you agree there is some impact. Just not significant.
What is significant in your opinion?

 

[Flint Marko]

The fact that a movie has enough fans and people interesting in watching it regardless of anything, in no way disproves the idea that bad critical reception can stop a movie from reaching it's full potential. Media has always had an impact on people's decisions and i don't see any convincing argument that when it comes to film the story is different.

The problem is that most of you think that, just because the movies makes a lot of money, it achieved its full potential. I don't see why anyone would think that. Especially when we have sooooo many examples of blockbusters that did poorly at the BO and had a very bad critical reception too.

You can't use the opening weekend BO sales to determine the validity or not of poor reviews making an impact of sales. Esspecially when the review embargo was lifted a day or 2 prior to release.
How many pre sales were there?
How many fans of these characters are there? A film with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman was always going to be Box office gold. But being the travesty it was, handicapped its potential for even bigger numbers.

I honestly do not see how this can be debated.

Again, I know many people that did not go and watch BvS due to the reviews.

The only movies I will generally still go and check out are the big superhero flicks. As I love my Superheroes.
However, there are a few I have not seen or did not catch in the cinemas specifically due to the poor critical reception.
i hardly think I am alone in this reasoning.

If people like a movie they will tell their friends and potentially come back for a second viewing, critics and reviews be damned. WOM will always be the most powerful indicator of a film's profitability at the box office. You'll never be able to convince me that, generally speaking, your average film-goer would rather listen to a critic they've never met over someone they know and trust.

Question.
Has there ever been a time you did not go and watch a movie because of poor reviews?

I see most movies with my significant other, and we base our decisions on what we were already interested in or what we have heard from our friends that know our predilections.

 

[The Joker]

I don't think I am alone with this reasoning. On the contrary, I think it is the common response.

Well you're entitled to believe that, but when push comes to shove there's no proof of it.

Have you ever neglected to watch a film based on poor reviews before?

Never. Hand on heart. If I want to see a movie I'll see it and make up my own mind. I've had movie experiences where I have disagreed with the critics, which gives me extra incentive to judge for myself and make my own opinion.

 

[BlZARRO]

These aren't journalists talking about serious issues. These are movie critics posting reviews. I've read enough on the subject to know that there is no credible source that links box office performance to critic reviews. If there was you'd have posted it 3 pages ago. And not still here telling me your he said/she said tales.

Many film critics are journalists and i don't see you providing any evidence that people only pay attention to "serious issues". It's media, it gets to people, a lot of people see it, a lot of people read it. Period.

"It is not clear whether the views of critics necessarily go hand in hand with audience behavior"

Thank you very much

If you actually read the study you will find that the conclusion is that the analysis they made suggest a correlation between reviews and BO numbers. Is it 100% proven fact? No, but there is enough evidence that suggests it. There's also a lot of views on whether or not piracy negatively affects BO, in general, and you can't simply post a definitive study that answers that question with 100% certainty, simply because there are variables that simply can't be measured and because of that you will find many contrasting theories. But yet, you post a stupid link and you claim it as "THE PROOF". Well, that link doesn't prove anything.

 

[The Joker]

What in your opinion is a "significant" impact?

I mean, you agree there is some impact. Just not significant.
What is significant in your opinion?

Well something that takes a sizable bite out of the takings.

I posted this the other day, someone took a poll for the BvS forums a couple of months ago to see the consensus for this forum on how many people actually allowed the bad critic reviews to influence them. Here was the results;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=512541

Out of the 88 votes it got, only 1 said yes. Maybe it was you?

 

[BlZARRO]

If people like a movie they will tell their friends and potentially come back for a second viewing, critics and reviews be damned. WOM will always be the most powerful indicator of a film's profitability at the box office. You'll never be able to convince me that, generally speaking, your average film-goer would rather listen to a critic they've never met over someone they know and trust.



I see most movies with my significant other, and we base our decisions on what we were already interested in or what we have heard from our friends that know our predilections.

That's your personal experience. Not everyone is confined to your bubble. Not everyone has a friend who has seen BvS before them in order to give them an opinion. Not everyone cares enough about Batman to go see it anyway despite reading it everywhere around the web that the movie sucks. Not everyone wants to spend money on movies that are mocked online.

You seem to be under the impression that one factor invalidates the other. Because WOM is a factor, critical reviews can't be a factor too. Yes, because among the millions and millions who visit that site, absolutely no one looks at the critic score and thinks "hummm...not spending money on this".

 

[nogster]

WOM factor is the bigger factor. For sure.

But a films poor critical reception would have an impact on a films BO potential.
This to me is obvious.

 

[BlZARRO]

Well something that takes a sizable bite out of the takings.

I posted this the other day, someone took a poll for the BvS forums a couple of months ago to see the consensus for this forum on how many people actually allowed the bad critic reviews to influence them. Here was the results;

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=512541

Out of the 88 votes it got, only 1 said yes. Maybe it was you?

Yes, because people are completely aware of that. Ever heard of subconsciousness?

Plus, i don't see that many people admiting that their opinion about a movie's quality is influenced by critics.

Just posted a link with far more votes where 6% straight up admit they won't watch a movie before reading the review. But i guess only the polls that sustain your agenda matter.

 

[The Joker]

Many film critics are journalists and i don't see you providing any evidence that people only pay attention to "serious issues". It's media, it gets to people, a lot of people see it, a lot of people read it. Period.

That's putting two and two together and coming up with five. Just because its in the media doesn't mean people automatically swallow it. Just because you read something doesn't mean you believe it or are influenced by it.

Aren't you proof of that with your anti critics brigade on how their reviews are worthless and you never listen to them.

If you actually read the study you will find that the conclusion is that the analysis they made suggest a correlation between reviews and BO numbers. Is it 100% proven fact? No, but there is enough evidence that suggests it. There's also a lot of views on whether or not piracy negatively affects BO, in general, and you can't simply post a definitive study that answers that question with 100% certainty, simply because there are variables that simply can't be measured and because of that you will find many contrasting theories. But yet, you post a stupid link and you claim it as "THE PROOF". Well, that link doesn't prove anything.

I did read it. That sentence summed it up right there. They have done many studies and at the end of the day all their studies didn't prove diddly squat. Unlike piracy, which they have made a link to hurting movie box office, right down to specific examples of movies that were affected, e.g. the makers of The Hurt Locker took the pirates to court to sue them to make up for their financial losses; https://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-makers-return-to-sue-2514-bittorrent-users-120423/

Yes, because people are completely aware of that. Ever heard of subconsciousness?

What are you trying to argue now, people subconsciously hate the movie and avoid it after reading bad reviews?

Plus, i don't see that many people admiting that their opinion about a movie's quality is influenced by critics.

You didn't see the 87 votes saying no vs the 1 saying yes?

Just posted a link with far more votes where 6% straight up admit they won't watch a movie before reading the review. But i guess only the polls that sustain your agenda matter.

Your link doesn't work.

 

[Flint Marko]

That's your personal experience. Not everyone is confined to your bubble. Not everyone has a friend who has seen BvS before them in order to give them an opinion. Not everyone cares enough about Batman to go see it anyway despite reading it everywhere around the web that the movie sucks. Not everyone wants to spend money on movies that are mocked online.

I never said otherwise.

You seem to be under the impression that one factor invalidates the other. Because WOM is a factor, critical reviews can't be a factor too. Yes, because among the millions and millions who visit that site, absolutely no one looks at the critic score and thinks "hummm...not spending money on this".

I never said this either. My whole point is that I don't believe these people exist in large enough quantities to make or break a film's box office. There are just so many examples of movies with horrid reviews putting up huge numbers to really convince me otherwise.

 

[The Joker]

That's your personal experience. Not everyone is confined to your bubble.

Says the person who was using his own personal experiences to make a point!

Double standards much?

I never said this either. My whole point is that I don't believe these people exist in large enough quantities to make or break a film's box office. There are just so many examples of movies with horrid reviews putting up huge numbers to really convince me otherwise.

That's the truth of it. There's too many examples of panned movies making big money, and critically acclaimed movies under performing or failing to believe critics really have any significant influence.

 

[BlZARRO]

That's putting two and two together and coming up with five. Just because its in the media doesn't mean people automatically swallow it. Just because you read something doesn't mean you believe it or are influenced by it.

Aren't you proof of that with your anti critics brigade on how their reviews are worthless and you never listen to them.



I did read it. That sentence summed it up right there. They have done many studies and at the end of the day all their studies didn't prove diddly squat. Unlike piracy, which they have made a link to hurting movie box office, right down to specific examples of movies that were affected, e.g. the makers of The Hurt Locker took the pirates to court to sue them to make up for their financial losses; https://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-makers-return-to-sue-2514-bittorrent-users-120423/

Dude, to pay attention to media is just normal human behaviour. People visit news sites, they subscribe to them on FB, people watch news on TV, people read them on paper. It's what people have always done. Besides being classic human behaviour, it's something that i've experienced in my personal life. I see people paying attention to opinions. Opinions from friends, opinions from journalists, opinions from random reviewers on the internet. It exists. It's a fact. So yeah, some people won't pay for a movie that has ****** reviews. What's the percentage of people who won't? Honestly, i don't know. The thing is: Neither do you, so quit acting like you have all the answers, when you obviously don't. And quit downplaying the opinions of people who straight up tell you that they give a ***** about critics and that they know other people who do too. It exists. You can't prove otherwise. Deal with it.

Now:

But according to an extensive data analysis by Metacritic, the collective judgement of critics, at least as relayed by the site’s proprietary Metascores, turns out to be a fairly reliable predictor of a movie’s success. Analyzing every major release of the last decade — which they define as any movie that opened in at least 2,000 theaters between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015 — they found that movies with better reviews tend to make more money. Movies with a Metascore between 91 and 100 made an average of $59.1 million over their opening weekend, while those with a Metascore of 19 or lower averaged an opening weekend gross of just $14 million. The differences grow even more pronounced over the long run: Those in the top decile dropped an average of 37.7 percent in their second weekend, while those in the lowest dropped by 52.5 percent.

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/04/do-reviews-predict-how-movies-do-at-the-box-office-293225/


I don't really know how many links, studies, data analysis i have to send you so you can finally accept that it's not that unfounded to suggest that critics might have an impact on BO. I bet you will just insist on your own (wrong) idea that there's absolutely no correlation between one and the other. That's fine. I get that this is important to you and you have a hard time simply being wrong. If you wanna pretend what i say makes no sense and that you have some sort of definitive proof that this correlation doesn't exist, go ahead.

 

[BlZARRO]

I never said otherwise.



I never said this either. My whole point is that I don't believe these people exist in large enough quantities to make or break a film's box office. There are just so many examples of movies with horrid reviews putting up huge numbers to really convince me otherwise.

You keep insisting in the same fallacy that a movie making money equals to not having been affected by critics. Whose to say the movie wouldn't have made even more money if the critics had liked it? I have never seen any evidence of that.

And yeah, maybe the the percentage of people who care about these things isn't that big. But it doesn't need to big that big in order to make a difference. Hundreds of millions of people go to the movies. Maybe 5% might look like a small insignificant number, but 5% of 300 million people is still a lot.

 

[The Joker]

Dude, to pay attention to media is just normal human behaviour. People visit news sites, they subscribe to them on FB, people watch news on TV, people read them on paper. It's what people have always done. Besides being classic human behaviour, it's something that i've experienced in my personal life. I see people paying attention to opinions. Opinions from friends, opinions from journalists, opinions from random reviewers on the internet. It exists. It's a fact. So yeah, some people won't pay for a movie that has ****** reviews. What's the percentage of people who won't? Honestly, i don't know. The thing is: Neither do you, so quit acting like you have all the answers, when you obviously don't. And quit downplaying the opinions of people who straight up tell you that they give a ***** about critics and that they know other people who do too.

Oh good more of your personal experience stories. The type of argument you just told Flint Marko is invalid. Aren't you just precious.

It exists. You can't prove otherwise. Deal with it.

You should tattoo this on your forehead.

Now:

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/04/do-reviews-predict-how-movies-do-at-the-box-office-293225/

"Second weekend declines - After the initial wave of support from any built-in fanbase, films perceived as poor quality will fizzle out rather quickly. The data support this assumption, with ticket sales for lousy films falling off much more sharply over the first week than those for better quality releases."

Thank you again

Exactly what I have been saying. The reviews don't scare off the audiences. That's why the decline doesn't happen until the second week after most people have seen it and have no desire to go back.

I don't really know how many links, studies, data analysis i have to send you so you can finally accept that it's not that unfounded to suggest that critics might have an impact on BO. I bet you will just insist on your own (wrong) idea that there's absolutely no correlation between one and the other. That's fine. I get that this is important to you and you have a hard time simply being wrong. If you wanna pretend what i say makes no sense and that you have some sort of definitive proof that this correlation doesn't exist, go ahead.

You keep sending your links because twice now you've given me ones that support what I am saying.