Lucas

I love the what now seems like a really extended photoshoot they got these guys to do.

I can imagine them wanting to hold out as long as possible, it's looked possible it might take a large dip and go under 75% for a while. Though now that it's up to 200+ it might be time.

Poor Michael Dougherty

All the boys! And proof that Gareth Edwards is still alive!

Yeah if there's one criticism I never agreed with it was Godzilla not having enough screentime.

I really really really wish so bad that I could call it a masterpiece as well. I did enjoy it quite a bit when I saw it in theaters in 2014 (I even saw it twice), but I was very frustrated at a lot of it because I could feel how it had all the pieces to be Jurassic Park levels of masterful (I've had the same feelings about Peter Jackson's King Kong for most of my life now lol). I just didn't think it maintained that quality level after Cranston dies (apart from the occasional wonderment). Back then I had to settle for a 7, then quietly brought it down to a 6, but now after my recent rewatch I upped it to an 8 because there really is just too much goodness in there to celebrate. This is so much more proper Spielbergian than Jurassic World or whatever else has been made recently. That one sticking point really is that the human element is excellent and up there with Spielberg right until Cranston dies. From that point on it's merely functional - but I will say, at least it felt like Elizabeth Olsen was delivering a "real" performance that we usually don't see from actors in blockbusters. Had they kept Cranston alive I feel like his dynamic with ATJ could've really elevated the film to monumental levels.

Dude's been on a roll recently, "Godzilla rages like James Gandolfini in Tony Soprano murder-mode".

Your entire point hangs on the idea that critics "review bombing a movie" is actually happening with on RT, which it isn't, while we literally know for a fact that it's happening with users on IMDb. I also enjoy the idea that IMDb is better because the random Joes around the world have different backgrounds when just yesterday you said just about anyone can become an RT certified critic these days because of their recent expansions. These being expansions that were made to include people from different backgrounds. You seem to think every single critic on RT can be boiled down to "just one", and that's a bad thing - but what you want are for all critics to think exactly like you do. Nothing about this makes any sense.

The whole point is IMDb ratings don't matter for this very reason lol

While for my own entertainment purposes I'd be fine with keeping the Onion-esque debate going, I'd like to mention that I watched the 2014 Godzilla movie recently for the first time since the theater, and I really enjoyed it. The first 40 minutes are fucking phenomenal, and after that there are some more brilliant scenes throughout. It's easily Gareth Edwards' best film, and I wish he didn't get eaten alive by Disney quite so soon. He's not exactly a great storyteller, but he's a great craftsman with a recognizable visual voice. The only storytelling voice I get from him in his big budget films are both of his films make the grave mistake of killing off the father character far too soon, leaving the much less interesting son/daughter character to pick up the pieces. I always wondered if he noticed the frustrating similarity when he read the Rogue One script or if it was actually him that made it happen, which in that case means he definitely has a recognizable voice as a storyteller lol.

Except it's the individual critics that make up the percentage/rating, and the claim you are making is that RT is less credible than IMDb because of those individual critics. The fundamental difference in credibility being you can actually see who is influencing the RT score, as opposed to IMDb which is just made up of thousands of question marks.

Sure no one is claiming everyone in the SnyderCut community is doing this, but similarly no one can claim that it's some other community that's doing it.

All these films were certified fresh on RT, if you want to stick to the narrative that "it's about the average rating" and not individual critics, these examples are pretty monumental failures on that point.

Lmao is this why you spent an entire paragraph on Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael.

If a movie contains so much racism and sexism that a critic spends their entire review discussing it, it's probably not a very good movie. For being... y'know, racist and sexist.