If only more real critics from big national publications had been at those early screenings, they seemed to say. They only gave WW84 a good rating because they’re silly fanboys/girls, who can’t think critically about what they’re seeing. People who write for genre-focused sites, it was implied by some, are too ‘fannish’. the studio ensured that the guest lists for early critic screenings were dominated by critics who write for comic book-friendly outlets, and who are more likely to enjoy a superhero flick in the first place.įrom there, it was an easy next step to see the critics themselves as the problem. had used their early critic screenings to skew the review aggregators in their favour. It didn’t take long, then, for astute commentators to suggest that Warner Bros. (And yes, the word “tomatometer” really does sound sillier every time you say it). But then a sudden influx of negative reviews, which incidentally The Indiependent’s Mischa Alexander agreed with, saw a sharp drop in the Tomatometer rating. In fact, Gal Gadot’s second outing as the lasso-wielding Amazonian princess was crowned on Rotten Tomatoes with the online review aggregator’s coveted “Certified Fresh” rating, a title reserved for the most widely praised films with enough positive reviews to earn a “Tomatometer” score of 75% or higher.
With that in mind, fans must have been extremely relieved, if not ecstatic, to see the overwhelmingly positive initial reviews. Only the fourth feature film made so far by director Patty Jenkins, Wonder Woman 1984 was keenly anticipated after the success of its predecessor in 2017. Online spats erupted after varied reviews were released for Wonder Woman 1984
0 kommentar(er)
