Devin Faraci of B.M.D. (a known Marvel fanboy) is a reviewer that Rotten Tomatoes has verified.

[AnonymityX1000]

This thread really got nikkas lookin at marvel like frank underwood it's sad these nikkas are so bitter they will never be able to come to terms that nikkas actually just like the movies.

More like Loki, wielding the Mind Gem.

 

[AquaCityBoy]

I'm aware of this, I was just speaking hypothetically...IF WB still owned RT, I would imagine they try to balance out the reviews so they weren't all negative but yea I'm aware that's not how it works.

Nah, if they did that, RT would lose credibility and so would WB.

RT would be straight up Source status.

 

[HipHopStan]

Okay, this is my opinion on the matter and then I'm out.

Was the movie as terrible as critics say? Not in my opinion. It was a pretty huge mess, but I was entertained and walked out feeling like I got my moneys worth.
Is it better than Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor and Thor: The Dark World, and Age of Ultron? You damn right it was.
Were critics paid off by Disney? I don't think so. However, there have been confirmed reports of groups being bought out by studios (See: FOX paying off the AMPAS to get a Best Picture nomination at the 1968 Oscars.) Also, Max Landis brought up earlier this year on Twitter, that he had heard of critics being bought off by studios. He later recanted and deleted the tweet. The possibility is out there, but I don't really think that's the case in this matter.
Were critics biased toward Marvel? Some probably are with Faraci being the prime, shining example. I know a lot of the internet ones such as Screen Junkies, Double Toasted, and comicbookcast2 definitely are. I think a lot of people were ready to shyt on the movie from the moment that it was announced and would find any and every way possible to find a complaint that they may let go with other movies. A lot of critics just didn't like it. Fair enough.
Did Warner do anything to hurt themselves? Yes. They pretty much gave away everything away with that one trailer featuring Doomsday that was released last year.
Should Rotten Tomatoes be the word on whether a movie is good or bad? No, you should make up your own mind on whether a movie is good or not without Peter Travers or the Schmoes Knows telling you otherwise, but for this movie, in particular, the media really hammered home that critics hated it. It almost became the top story out of all of this. If you talk to a random person on the street about BvS, I'll bet over 75% will say "I heard the critics trashed it."
Is the Marvel/DC rivalry annoying as all fukk? YES!!! It's tiresome. But it's going to continue, and I'll probably end up ignoring a lot of posters so fukk it I suppose.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Okay, this is my opinion on the matter and then I'm out.

Was the movie as terrible as critics say? Not in my opinion. It was, however, a mess.
Is it better than Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor and Thor: The Dark World, and Age of Ultron? You damn right it was.
Were critics paid off by Disney? I don't think so, however there have been confirmed reports of groups being bought out by movie studios (See: FOX paying off the AMPAS to get a Best Picture nomination at the 1968 Oscars.) Also Max Landis brought up earlier this year on Twitter, that he had heard of critics being bought off. He later recanted and deleted the tweet.
Were critics biased toward Marvel? Some probably are with Faraci being the prime, shining example. I know a lot of the internet ones such as Screen Junkies, Double Toasted, and comicbookcast2 definitely are. I think a lot of people were ready to shyt on the movie from the moment that it was announced and would find any and every way possible to find a complaint that they may let other movies go.
Did Warner do anything to hurt themselves? Yes. They pretty much gave away everything away with that one trailer featuring Doomsday that was released last year.
Should Rotten Tomatoes be the word on whether a movie is good or bad? No, you should make up your own mind on whether a movie is good or not without Peter Travers or the Schmoes Knows telling you otherwise, but for this movie, in particular, the media really hammered home that critics hated it. It almost became the top story out of all of this. If you talk to a random person on the street about BvS, I'll bet over 75% will say "I heard the critics trashed it."
Is the Marvel/DC rivalry annoying as all fukk? YES!!! It's tiresome. But it's going to continue, and I'll probably end up ignoring a lot of posters so fukk it I suppose.

Great post, I can't disagree with anything you said. If it were any normal ass movie release a movie like Batman v Superman probably would have had a RT score somewhere in the low 70s. The 28% is what made me look at people like Devin and see that "oh, they are super stans" so now it all makes sense as to what happened..

 

[gluvnast]

Okay, this is my opinion on the matter and then I'm out.

Was the movie as terrible as critics say? Not in my opinion. It was a pretty huge mess, but I was entertained and walked out feeling like I got my moneys worth.
Is it better than Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor and Thor: The Dark World, and Age of Ultron? You damn right it was.
Were critics paid off by Disney? I don't think so. However, there have been confirmed reports of groups being bought out by studios (See: FOX paying off the AMPAS to get a Best Picture nomination at the 1968 Oscars.) Also, Max Landis brought up earlier this year on Twitter, that he had heard of critics being bought off by studios. He later recanted and deleted the tweet.
Were critics biased toward Marvel? Some probably are with Faraci being the prime, shining example. I know a lot of the internet ones such as Screen Junkies, Double Toasted, and comicbookcast2 definitely are. I think a lot of people were ready to shyt on the movie from the moment that it was announced and would find any and every way possible to find a complaint that they may let other movies go.
Did Warner do anything to hurt themselves? Yes. They pretty much gave away everything away with that one trailer featuring Doomsday that was released last year.
Should Rotten Tomatoes be the word on whether a movie is good or bad? No, you should make up your own mind on whether a movie is good or not without Peter Travers or the Schmoes Knows telling you otherwise, but for this movie, in particular, the media really hammered home that critics hated it. It almost became the top story out of all of this. If you talk to a random person on the street about BvS, I'll bet over 75% will say "I heard the critics trashed it."
Is the Marvel/DC rivalry annoying as all fukk? YES!!! It's tiresome. But it's going to continue, and I'll probably end up ignoring a lot of posters so fukk it I suppose.

Excellent post.

 

[gluvnast]

I will say this and conclude my thoughts at that, CIVIL WAR BETTER BE GOAT AS ADVERTISED.... because if it turns out being merely having similar to identical flaws as BvS, but being ignored... it only confirms what everyone is saying. I mean people ought to know better from how they rated Age of Ultron which, to me, is a far FAR worse film than BvS.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

I will say this and conclude my thoughts at that, CIVIL WAR BETTER BE GOAT AS ADVERTISED.... because if it turns out being merely having similar to identical flaws as BvS, but being ignored... it only confirms what everyone is saying. I mean people ought to know better from how they rated Age of Ultron which, to me, is a far FAR worse film than BvS.

Eh I think Civil War is going to be great, I like the Russos a lot and they have a great cast in this but I hear you on Age of Ultron. But the reason AoU had mixed reviews instead of outright terrible reviews is because the stan reviews add up. There's a lot of Devin's out there who will rate anything from the MCU as a positive no matter what so it skews the percentage and I blame RT because their reviews shouldn't be counted but it is what it is now. This thread is to show people who think RT is the end all be all that a lot of the critics who are verified have agendas.

 

[Rapmastermind]

Collider crew defending themselves saying they don't have a DC Bias, they said they reach out to all studios not just Disney:



Starts at 11:00

 

[gluvnast]

Collider crew defending themselves saying they don't have a DC Bias, they said they reach out to all studios not just Disney:



Starts at 11:00

HMMMm if they going this far to defend themselves... it smells like damage control. Plus they claiming of all people who WEREN'T part of Disney that they trashed. Not saying they're in the tank or not... just noticing this.

 

[Tasha And]

Okay, this is my opinion on the matter and then I'm out.

Was the movie as terrible as critics say? Not in my opinion. It was a pretty huge mess, but I was entertained and walked out feeling like I got my moneys worth.
Is it better than Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor and Thor: The Dark World, and Age of Ultron? You damn right it was.
Were critics paid off by Disney? I don't think so. However, there have been confirmed reports of groups being bought out by studios (See: FOX paying off the AMPAS to get a Best Picture nomination at the 1968 Oscars.) Also, Max Landis brought up earlier this year on Twitter, that he had heard of critics being bought off by studios. He later recanted and deleted the tweet. The possibility is out there, but I don't really think that's the case in this matter.
Were critics biased toward Marvel? Some probably are with Faraci being the prime, shining example. I know a lot of the internet ones such as Screen Junkies, Double Toasted, and comicbookcast2 definitely are. I think a lot of people were ready to shyt on the movie from the moment that it was announced and would find any and every way possible to find a complaint that they may let go with other movies. A lot of critics just didn't like it. Fair enough.
Did Warner do anything to hurt themselves? Yes. They pretty much gave away everything away with that one trailer featuring Doomsday that was released last year.
Should Rotten Tomatoes be the word on whether a movie is good or bad? No, you should make up your own mind on whether a movie is good or not without Peter Travers or the Schmoes Knows telling you otherwise, but for this movie, in particular, the media really hammered home that critics hated it. It almost became the top story out of all of this. If you talk to a random person on the street about BvS, I'll bet over 75% will say "I heard the critics trashed it."
Is the Marvel/DC rivalry annoying as all fukk? YES!!! It's tiresome. But it's going to continue, and I'll probably end up ignoring a lot of posters so fukk it I suppose.

What makes Double Toasted biased towards Marvel. The Dark Knight is Koreys second favorite movie of all time (behind Training Day).

 

[Brandeezy]

The bias is there, more evidence 3 years later smh



MOS was at 56% but now it's at 55% after BvS

 

[gluvnast]

What makes Double Toasted biased towards Marvel. The Dark Knight is Koreys second favorite movie of all time (behind Training Day).

There was no Disney/Marvel... All there was was Iron Man.

Marvel studios JUST BEGAN when TDK came out.... and Korey as of just the OTHER DAY with his review of the Doc Strange trailer confessed himself as a Marvel fan boy.

 

[HHR]

The bias is there, more evidence 3 years later smh



MOS was at 56% but now it's at 55% after BvS

The list of "Top Critics" changes.

Unless you can show me one of them who just wrote a negative review, you're just looking for problems lol

 

[AnonymityX1000]

I will say this and conclude my thoughts at that, CIVIL WAR BETTER BE GOAT AS ADVERTISED.... because if it turns out being merely having similar to identical flaws as BvS, but being ignored... it only confirms what everyone is saying. I mean people ought to know better from how they rated Age of Ultron which, to me, is a far FAR worse film than BvS.

It will confirm nothing because it is subjective how a movie is received. For example, I think Age of Ultron is FAR superior to Bats V Supes so we back to square one.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

The bias is there, more evidence 3 years later smh



MOS was at 56% but now it's at 55% after BvS

We arguing over 1 percentage point now?