Batman v Superman Box Office vs Rotten Tomatoes Critics - REACTION & BREAKDOWN

Although there is some grain of truth to her points, for the most part, she's operating from the assumption that "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" was a great film, and everyone who didn't praise it wants it to fail.

Sure, she says that some people just didn't like the movie, but her reasons people didn't like it are horribly limited. As if the only reason for not liking it is because you wanted something happier. She speaks like everyone who disliked it still thought it was a good movie, but wanted brighter colors. People may have just thought it was a bad movie.

She even practically dismisses her Twitter follower who wanted a better movie, saying that it just wasn't what he wanted (almost as if his wants were selfish). People are allowed to vote with their wallets and refuse to see a movie because they want a better one: there's nothing wrong with that.

And her claim that the movie got bad reviews because critics were angry for not getting early screenings infuriates me. Studios are generally known for not opening movies to critics or even putting embargoes on reviews if they know a movie will be bad, so the word doesn't get out as quickly. She's trying to claim that the movie got bad reviews because of the late screening. Likely it was the other way around: there was a late screening because WB knew the film would be bad.

Also, and I'll say it again as I've said on other posts, movies are critiqued for what they are. Tommy Wisseau's "The Room" was critiqued as a drama; it was a horrible drama, so it got massacred in reviews. Sharknado was critiqued as a parody that was trying to be dumb, so it got good reviews. If Tommy Wisseau tried to make The Room a parody of self-important dramas, it's reviews would likely have been better. Similarly, Sharknado would've gotten terrible reviews if it took itself seriously.

Zack Snyder tried to do a fun, action movie that was mixed with a deep, psychological thriller. That can be done well. He didn't do it well.

"Cabin in the Woods" is a favorite example of mine. It was a comedy/horror. However, if you take the comedy out, it still functions as a good horror film. And if you take the horror out, it's still an outstanding comedy.

You can't do that with Batman v. Superman. If you take out the thriller, you're left with a bland, joyless action movie. If you take out the action, you're left with a puerile and shallow attempt at a psychological thriller.

If Snyder wanted to make a good, deep, psychological thriller, he failed. If he wanted a good, fun, action movie, he failed. And if he wanted to do both (which is possible) he also failed. He wound up with a shallow, boring action/thriller. Not a deep, fun action/thriller.

There is no conspiracy against DC. Snyder is just a $#¡††¥ director.

You can like DC movies, but that doesn't make them CRITICALLY good (I said "critically" because there are a lot of ways movies can be good). And there's nothing wrong with that. They can be fun popcorn flicks. You can still enjoy them. But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

WE CAN LIKE COMMENTS NOW?!!?!?!?!?!?!?! I've been gone for a while, holy shit!

[frick]

She's an idiot. One question though. I wonder how the critics whose reviews are aggregated by RT are selected. It's not all critics obviously. If there is any bias (not that there is any) this is the only place where it could be.