Sunshine, Light, and Joy


This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Free Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About ChrisTelclear

  • Rank
    Cult Classic
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

142 profile views
  1. I have never understood the hair, even in the RR days it made no sense. The only thing I can assume is they tested longer, more normal, hair and it didn't work. Possibly too cartoony?
  2. I gotta be a good JLaw fan and speak up on her behalf. It's not her take on the character, it's production teams take on the character. She has stated in the past she keeps trying to take the character much darker, (she's seen the first 3 movies), and they keep doing what they are doing. I don't particularly care for what they've done with Mystique either, but the fault for Mystique lies with the production team, not the actress.
  3. I think she's hot, but yeah, her acting isn't the best.
  4. That's what a lot of us thought. But she did say if Fassbender and McAvoy came back, and the money was right, she'd do it. Her part in XMA was terribly written though, so I hope they come up with something better this time around.
  5. She got $8M for XMA, so they can't add too many zero's.
  6.‎/#!1/aint-them-bodies-saints-2013/ List of best movie posters of the decade. mother! made the list, #37.
  7. This, and a boring family drama about the little known (Outside of QVC) inventor of a mop opening to $17M. This is probably a lock for a $10M opening based just on Aronofsky and JLaw fans.
  8. Budget for this one is $13M per Forbes.
  9. For the first time in a long time there are quite a few well reviewed movies out this weekend. That's a pleasant surprise.
  10. I think that's very flawed. What are they basing that on? Every indicator I've seen indicates it will fly past $100M.
  11. It's going to hit at least $120M. My local theater that has reserved seating was half sold as of last night. I think WW is going to be big.
  12. Rotton Tomatoes flaw is there's no middle ground. Calling a movie that gets a 55 "Rotten" is harsh, and unfair. It's not rotten, it's just meh. This is where Metacritic got it right. If you notice a lot of rotten movies on RT fall into the mixed to average review category on MC, because MC has a middle rating. What RT should do is keep the ratings, but create a soft landing zone for movies in the middle. Perhaps as simple as just a score with no rotten associated with it, reserve the rotten designation for really bad movies, like those that score below 40. Of course none of this would've helped Baywatch or Pirates at they scored terribly, whether it was deserved or not. Another problem is that RT doesn't require all the critics to review based on the same scale. Some are using 5 stars, some 4, but whichever they use they all have to convert it to the 1-10 score. That's a tricky calculation and if not done fairly can create inconsistencies. I've seen a 3 out of 5 star review listed as Rotten, and then another 3 out of 5 listed as Fresh, and this is for the same movie! There's no quality control at the site at all, they need to clean up their act. I'm not sure it makes a huge difference, but you should still do a thorough job and make sure it all is done fairly. Don't kid yourselves, I'm hearing the complaining about RT from studios more and more lately. If things get bad enough the studios will attempt to bypass the critics, and for some movies it probably will work quite well. This is about money, and if it will help me sell tickets I'm doing it, I'm not going to worry about pissing off some critics who probably weren't going to like this type of movie anyway. In a world where the OW is where you make a lot of your money there is incentive to do just that, and the last thing anyone wants to see happen is to have film critics sidelined. RT should listen and take some steps to even out the playing field. Anyway, with some tweaks RT would be a quality tool for aggregating reviews. I never understood why the Fandango branch went along with posting the RT scores. Why would you post something that might hurt ticket sales when your job is to sell as many tickets as possible? It's like a mall posting Yelp scores at the entrances for restaurants in your mall. Why would anybody do that?
  13. I think we over use the term "flop". A movie isn't a flop if it makes money. Maybe under-performing, maybe disappointing, but not a flop. If you call every movie that doesn't live up to the box office expectations a flop, what are you going to call the movies that lose millions? Save the word flop for movies that deserve it, like King Arthur. Now that's a flop.