By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Suicide Squad fans petition to shut down Rotten Tomatoes after negative reviews- Will it Break 100 million in its first weekend domestic?

 

How much the first Weekend?

50-75 Million 29 21.32%
 
75-100 million 19 13.97%
 
50 million or less 11 8.09%
 
100 million or more 37 27.21%
 
Other 0 0%
 
See results 5 3.68%
 
I am seeing it, no thoughts on gross 4 2.94%
 
I am not seeing it, no thoughts on gross 15 11.03%
 
Might see it, no thoughts on gross 4 2.94%
 
ioi 12 8.82%
 
Total:136
archer9234 on 05 August 2016
DakonBlackblade said:

Ppl understand that shutting down a site that simply averages review scores won't change the review scores themselves right ?

I was thinking the same thing. This is just like making a petition, to shutdown a baseball stadium. Because that's were your team lost.



Around the Network
naruball on 05 August 2016
Random_Matt said:
BvS buyers have learnt their lesson, reckon this will flop hard.

With the way the word "flop" is thrown around here, I wouldn't be surprised if it "flopped".

 

'Suicide Squad' Set for August Opening Record Despite Negative Reviews

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4213

 

OT:  I don't trust reviewers when it comes to superhero movies. I'll definitely watch it, hopefully with friends sometime soon.



Goddbless on 05 August 2016
binary solo said:
Stupid fans, won't come to anything. But Mr Abdullah gets his 15 minutes, so that's something I guess.

I think it will do $50-75M at the US box office first week, but it might have a sharp drop off and poor legs.

I'm undecided about seeing it in theatres myself. If I have a burning desire to go to the movies, and there's nothing on I actually want to see in theatres, then I might go.

This is exactly how I feel. After the negative reviews I waited to see BvS, and it wasn't horrible but it also wasn't spectacular. I think Snyder has a certain tone to all his movies and I don't think every DC movie should have the same tone. I think fans just want something true to the comics.



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo

DakonBlackblade on 05 August 2016
The Fury said:
DakonBlackblade said:

Ppl understand that shutting down a site that simply averages review scores won't change the review scores themselves right ?

People are stupid. You know that.

True, and the launch of Pokemon GO proves that. The amount of stupidity thats been going on cause of this game, with ppl invading places they shouldn't or falling off cliffs trying to catch Pokemons is epic.

archer9234 said:
DakonBlackblade said:

Ppl understand that shutting down a site that simply averages review scores won't change the review scores themselves right ?

I was thinking the same thing. This is just like making a petition, to shutdown a baseball stadium. Because that's were your team lost.

Pretty much. Rotten Tomatoes simply makes our lives easier, without it wed have to go to like 10 different outlets before we know what the critics consensus about a movie is.



Veknoid_Outcast on 05 August 2016
potato_hamster said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

This is a small group of idiots, yes, but I think it's emblematic of a disturbing trend I've been noticing. I see a lot of consumers appear to mistrust reviewers, critics, and journalism in general. It's like a weird anti-intellectual movement and it's awfully scary to me. I just want to remind everyone: it's the job of critics to inform public opinion, not reflect it.

Well the main difference between journalists and "reviewers" and "critics" is that journalists typically have a university degree, and are bound to a code of ethics, and "reviewers" and "critics" are people expressing their opinions on the internet. I grew up with one of the top journalists in the country who works for a national news organization and she has a lot to say about how bloggers and youtubers make people like her seem less credible to the general public. Anyone can get online and pretend they're an authority, or pretend they have a credible source, or be paid to say the things they're saying and never report that they're being paid for it, and say whatever they want within the limits of the law and not be held accountable for it. She is actually held to a much higher standard, and her organization can face huge fines and legal consequences if she steps out of line the way many bloggers and youtubers do.

So maybe that's why you see a lot of mistrust - there are people poisoning the well so to speak.

That's a fair point. Just look at this recent controversy with YouTubers advertising gambling sites or accusations of corruption and favoritism at gaming giants like IGN and Polygon.

But I do hope people realize there are a lot of brilliant journalists, reporters, and critics out there that fulfill an important role. One of my heroes is Roger Ebert, whose reviews and essays helped me fall in love with movies. As an admirer of his and of the profession, I'd hate to see all critics dismissed as untrustworthy, out-of-touch, or otherwise unreliable.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 05 August 2016
Veknoid_Outcast said:
potato_hamster said:

Well the main difference between journalists and "reviewers" and "critics" is that journalists typically have a university degree, and are bound to a code of ethics, and "reviewers" and "critics" are people expressing their opinions on the internet. I grew up with one of the top journalists in the country who works for a national news organization and she has a lot to say about how bloggers and youtubers make people like her seem less credible to the general public. Anyone can get online and pretend they're an authority, or pretend they have a credible source, or be paid to say the things they're saying and never report that they're being paid for it, and say whatever they want within the limits of the law and not be held accountable for it. She is actually held to a much higher standard, and her organization can face huge fines and legal consequences if she steps out of line the way many bloggers and youtubers do.

So maybe that's why you see a lot of mistrust - there are people poisoning the well so to speak.

That's a fair point. Just look at this recent controversy with YouTubers advertising gambling sites or accusations of corruption and favoritism at gaming giants like IGN and Polygon.

But I do hope people realize there are a lot of brilliant journalists, reporters, and critics out there that fulfill an important role. One of my heroes is Roger Ebert, whose reviews and essays helped me fall in love with movies. As an admirer of his and of the profession, I'd hate to see all critics dismissed as untrustworthy, out-of-touch, or otherwise unreliable.

Well that's the biggest problem, isn't it? How do you sort out who is legitimate and who isn't? In the terms of critics, how do you sort out who is actually giving their honest opinion, who is being paid for expressing an opinion they don't necessarily believe, and who is just saying what they think their fans want to hear? Unless there's some kind of whistleblowing often time we have no way of knowing.

For example, you mention Polygon. They use a clearly use "Social Justice lens" when reviewing video games, movies, and entertainment, knocking games that they feel have sexist or racist undertones for whatever reason, and celebrating those games that "empower women". That's not really an objective point of view, but it sure gives them more page clicks from the crowd that that type of thing appeals to. I can't knock Polygon for that, but does that make them a more or less credible source of games journalism? In my opinion it makes them less credible, and less reliable because that lens is subjective.

So how do I or anyone else tell who is legit?



Veknoid_Outcast on 05 August 2016
potato_hamster said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

That's a fair point. Just look at this recent controversy with YouTubers advertising gambling sites or accusations of corruption and favoritism at gaming giants like IGN and Polygon.

But I do hope people realize there are a lot of brilliant journalists, reporters, and critics out there that fulfill an important role. One of my heroes is Roger Ebert, whose reviews and essays helped me fall in love with movies. As an admirer of his and of the profession, I'd hate to see all critics dismissed as untrustworthy, out-of-touch, or otherwise unreliable.

Well that's the biggest problem, isn't it? How do you sort out who is legitimate and who isn't? In the terms of critics, how do you sort out who is actually giving their honest opinion, who is being paid for expressing an opinion they don't necessarily believe, and who is just saying what they think their fans want to hear? Unless there's some kind of whistleblowing often time we have no way of knowing.

For example, you mention Polygon. They use a clearly use "Social Justice lens" when reviewing video games, movies, and entertainment, knocking games that they feel have sexist or racist undertones for whatever reason, and celebrating those games that "empower women". That's not really an objective point of view, but it sure gives them more page clicks from the crowd that that type of thing appeals to. I can't knock Polygon for that, but does that make them a more or less credible source of games journalism? In my opinion it makes them less credible, and less reliable because that lens is subjective.

So how do I or anyone else tell who is legit?

I guess folks just need to do their homework. Arthur Gies of Polygon, for example, proved to be petulant and amateurish in his review of Star Fox Zero. Jim Sterling, on the other hand, has displayed a cool indifference from the demands of publishers and advertisers, demonstrating an almost brutal level of honesty. 

It's definitely a bigger problem with the video game media, as it doesn't have the tradition and standards that movie and music criticism share. So I appreciate the frustration of video game fans. But things can get better if readers and consumers demand better, and stop squabbling among themselves. This episode with RT is proof of the wrong way to handle the situation. Don't make it about Marvel vs. DC. Make it about good journalism vs. bad journalism.



TruckOSaurus on 05 August 2016

This petition reaches new heights of stupidity since even without RottenTomatoes those bad reviews would still exist.



Signature goes here!

Nymeria on 05 August 2016

Part of a free society is people will have opinions differing from your own. The idea of censoring or silencing reviewers (or an aggregate site) is just childish and insecure.



Panama on 07 August 2016

Finally got around to watching the movie today. Let's just say, thank god no one takes these petition sites seriously.

If these fanboys can't see the huge difference in quality between the Dark Knight trilogy and the three Snyder approved turds we've gotten in the past couple of years, then no point talking sense into them.