The 2025 was refreshing for sure. 7.1 seems adequate. Funny to see it's the exact same note as Man of Steel, as the two movies are completely different.
I'm kinda surprised that Man of Steel is a 7.1 as it seemed to be pretty poorly received at release.
The people who liked it were on IMDB a lot.
I personally greatly preferred Man of Steel. The new Superman felt more like a parody.
I so nearly didn’t bother watching it because I’m so sick of all the superhero movies. I think it was the first one I’ve enjoyed in years.
Gun has always gotten the tone right. First suicide squad? A star studded disaster. Gun squad? They killed Pete Davidson before the title. Gun gets it. Unfortunately Michael Rucker and Nathan Fillian were collateral damage.
I'm sure you don't mean anything by it, but by the third one I feel compelled to say something.
James GunN Michael ROOker Nathan FilliOn
Pete Davidson you nailed, though.
No I didn't and thanks for correcting me. I figured I probably got the wrong trying to remember them off the top of my head.
Both numbers seem too low. I suspect the fans manipulated each other's favorite movie.
More realistically, they should be at 7.8 and 8.5. My personal rating is 8 and 10.
I rewatched the old ones recently (and am currently watching the animated series from the 90s) and I honestly thought that the third one was the best.
The first one took itself much too serious, tried to be super artsy and fell flat on its face. With the third one they at least dared to play around and have a little fun. That made all its shortcomings feel not so bad.
But damn, the animated series is a blast. The first season isn't that great but by the second season they had found their grove. The episodes where Superman meets Batman for the first time and one where he tries to save a man from a death sentence by doing detective work are especially good.
IMDb scores are basically useless except to tell you if a movie is bad. Otherwise they all converge on either 6 or 7 over time, which basically just tells you "it's a movie."
!dcstudios@lemmy.world
It is comical that everyone bitches about RT sores.
Those have more authenticity than IMDB scores. IMDB scores are worthless.
I trust Letterboxd more than either.
No.. that is the same as IMDB. Anonymous voters.
I disagree as I find RT's "tomatometer" to be completely askew in reference to my personal rating while IMDb to be (more) aligned, in this way I find IMDb to be more "authentic."
Of course, this is coming from a simple watcher who does not gush at each Foley sound, sway at the perfect Dutch angle, groan at another sepia filter; one without aspirations to be yet another critic so my opinion is entirely just that.
Authentic… IT IS NOTHING BUT BOTS…
I'm not following how you came to this conclusion, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, I pulled up 'Superman' (2025) on both IMDb and RT as it's the one in most recent memory - and mine also. This is the result:
| IMDb | RT | |
|---|---|---|
| Critics | 68% | 83% |
| Audience | 71% | 90% |
From my recollection, 'Superman' was serviceable fare and my personal rating is closest to IMDb's critics than any other. My first reaction upon seeing the large disparity between mine and RT's ratings (both) isn't that they're full of bots bombarding RT with perfect scores, but perhaps the people on RT simply has a preference to superhero movies.
I may very well be missing something as you seem more intimate with the working on both sites and would appreciate any insight you can provide.
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.