>>94782561>>94783027Most of RT is useless because they use a lot of website and 'not respectable' critics for their critics score. That's way, if you are going to argue 'CRITICS LIKE/DON'T LIKE' either XYZ film or 123 film, MetaCritic is a better site.
When Superman - The Movie came out, 70% of the sites that are being used for reviews didn't even exist. While some of those sites have gone back and retrospectively reviewed S-TM, that's not really legitimate.
It would be comparable to something like someone going back and reviewing Star Wars (A New Hope) from the New York Times today and replacing the review that was done (assuming the NYT did one) when the movie came out in the 80s. It would be hard for a critic to review SWs in the current environment, knowing what they know, having seen the additional trilogy films and the prequel etc. Likewise, it's hard for current sites to review S-TM and not have comparisons to even movies that came out after it, for good or bad (Batman & Robin, for example).
>>94799941>It indicates that, at least among the modern generation, Man of Steel is considered the more successful film.Finally, those numbers are BS. You can find similar rankings and audience votes on iMDB, where S-TM is far, far higher.
Furthermore, the fact that S-TM inflation adjusts to 3x the ticket sales of MoS proves with actual, conclusive dollars/butts in seats versus internet BS voting, that more people liked one versus the other.