THE CIRCLE | 04.28.17 | STX | final gross ● 20.50M

[MrGlass2]

On Metacritic it is at 51% compared to 67% for GotG2.

On RT that translates to 25% versus 88%.

 

Why some people swear by RT is beyond me, RT tells you that there is a giant critical gap between the two movies when the reality is far more nuanced.

[Barnack]

34 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

On Metacritic it is at 51% compared to 67% for GotG2.

On RT that translates to 25% versus 88%.

 

Why some people swear by RT is beyond me, RT tells you that there is a giant critical gap between the two movies when the reality is far more nuanced.

 

That difference is because you are comparing one average rating to the others % of good critics

 

The Circle on RT right now

4.6/10 (6.2/10 for top critics)

Metacritic: 51  (33% of them being above 5/10)

 

Not that different, they almost always really close (often the RT top critics section are exactly the same than those on MC)

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Barnack

[MrGlass2]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

That difference is because you are comparing one average rating to the others % of good critics

 

 

Yes, like everyone does, like RT themselves use for their prestigious CERTIFIED FRESH award as far as I can tell.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

Yes, like everyone does, like RT themselves use for their prestigious CERTIFIED FRESH award as far as I can tell.

 

Well no, Many when they read RT read it like that:

 

Tomato meter: What are the chance I will like the movie (consensus)

Average Rating: How good it is

 

Same on MC, MC score how good it is, the distribution of green/yellow/red change to like it.

 

 

[MrGlass2]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Well no, Many when they read RT read it like that:

 

Tomato meter: What are the chance I will like the movie (consensus)

Average Rating: How good it is

 

Same on MC, MC score how good it is, the distribution of green/yellow/red change to like it.

 
That is just wrong. MC gives the average rating of top critics. RT gives the "tomato meter", that is how people and RT themselves are using it. For example:

 

Quote

Now sitting at 25% with 16 reviews

 

 

You can't say "many people" are using RT to get their version of a Metacritic rating when you have to click a tab on the movie page to even know what it is.

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 
 

 

You can't say "many people" are using RT to get their version of a Metacritic rating when you have to click a tab on the movie page to even know what it is.

 

In my experience when you google a movie the RT score is about the first thing that comes up.

 

Currently The Circle only shows the IMdB rating, but that is likely because the RT score is still settling. https://www.google.com/search?q="The+Circle"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

One of the things that pissed me off about the impact of outright attacks on Passengers in the RT critic group was that anyone googling the film to find showtimes would see that purported "evaluation score" first thing.  That is certainly the only thing I ever used Rotten Tomatoes for, before I knew how it worked.

 

I really think RT is a problem.  I notice The Circle wasn't screened for critics and I think that was a good idea.  There was no time for a 'bad reputation' to gain traction before opening, at least.

Edited April 28, 2017 by trifle

[MrGlass2]

5 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

In my experience when you google a movie the RT score is about the first thing that comes up.

 

Unfortunately yes, and that RT score is precisely the "tomato meter" - not the "Average ratings by Top Critics" that you have to locate somewhere in the movie page on RT.

[Barnack]

8 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 
That is just wrong. MC gives the average rating of top critics. RT gives the "tomato meter", that is how people and RT themselves are using it. For example:

 

 

You can't say "many people" are using RT to get their version of a Metacritic rating when you have to click a tab on the movie page to even know what it is.

 

Maybe not the majority, but a vast amount of people take a look at the average rating.

 

Anyway it is just to say that everything is right there on the main RT and MC (consensus level and average rating), one is not really better than the others, most movie have almost exactly the same score.

 

One site put one of those number on a bigger font the other website the other number is an bigger font and on top of the page, doing it make them look both relevant even when all the review of MC appear on the RT Top critics page.

[trifle]

3 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

 

Unfortunately yes, and that RT score is precisely the "tomato meter" - not the "Average ratings by Top Critics" that you have to locate somewhere in the movie page on RT.

 

I agree. I think I misunderstood what you were saying in the first instance.

[WrathOfHan]

Wrong thread

Edited April 28, 2017 by WrathOfHan

[That One Girl]

I thought this film was actually...pretty good.

[Firepower]

22% on RT. Ouch.

[TheDarkKnightOfSteel]

Saw it.It was not good or bad.It was the very definition by mediocre.I would probably left the theater if it wasn't for the leads giving good performances and an idea that is intriguing.The biggest problem with the movie is that it takes that idea,a huge part of today's societies,and doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know.The only point that it makes is that it's dangerous being so obsessed with social media and it does it in a very graceless way.But somehw the movie stays with you after you leave the theater because it does present some aspects of social media and the internet that maybe you have thought before but didn't really realise until you actually watch them happen in a theater screen.

[Hatebox]

Haven't read the book but I'm aware of its mixed reception. Writing a novel about social media probably seems really zeitgeisty and important at the time but use of the technology changes so fast anything that tackles it feels dated even with a few years.

[rjones1325]

 

Quote

 

Thanks STX for not giving me us a screening and having critics sneak into it. I guess since The Bye Bye Man and The Space Between Us were significant critical failures why not give critics screenings for your next film starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, and John Boyega. It can’t be that bad right? Oh STX you came a long way from releasing The Gift.

 

It is weird that The Circle is shown as this multimedia platform with plenty of different purposes that at times are smart and cool until you realize, these things actually exist in our world. It's never really explained what The Circle really is. At one moment its Periscope then its Instagram Live, but then people talk about how it can also be a tracking device that can start or stop machines. I’m sorry but HOW?!  You don’t really see coders do anything of the sort to make all these TED talks and philosophies that Tom Hanks and Emma Watson do onstage turn into reality. One of the biggest moments is when Mae unveils a new idea, it just works right off the bat. This girl goes from Mae to Emma Watson really quickly. Honestly, I would love to see Tom Hanks and Emma Watson as motivational speakers.

 

 

 

https://rendyreviews.com/movies//the-circle-review

 

[Incarnadine]

I wasn't planning to see this in theaters, now I'm not even sure I'll bother when it finally makes its way to TV.

 

It's down to 16% on RT (9 fresh, 46 rotten) and looks to open barely over $9m.

 

It's not exactly surprising, it wasn't screened for critics (always a bad sign) and opening just 1 week before GOTG2 which is essentially dumping it.

 

[TimmyRiggins]

The Deadline article on this is interesting. On one hand, I'm surprised by the very mixed reception (and dat cinemascore), on the other, James Ponsoldt is a superb director who's been 4 for 4 between Off the Black, Smashed (both very good), and then taking it to the next level with The Spectacular Now & The End Of The Tour, both gems. 

 

It happens, even the greatest directors stumble, and sometimes, things just don't work out and what they envisioned it would be turns out to be something else entirely. Test screenings scored poorly, they reshoot and the scores go down even lower?! Geez ! I kept reading for months comments here and there that the book starts off good and then turns bad, I guess the source material combined with it being a mainstream film for James, his first when all his other films have been very personal, and him apparently sticking very close to the source AND the subject matter being perceived as dated led to this.

 

Looks like it might still not lose money in the end, but it kind of bums me out for James, Watson, Hanks & Boyega. Still excited, and his next film on the rise of MTV in the 90s is a return to the kind of stuff he does best.

Edited April 29, 2017 by TimmyRiggins

[TalismanRing]

This critics trailer - not for reviews but quotes for earlier anticipation is some ballsy marketing 

 

 

[The Stingray]

"Over 50 most anticipated lists" lmao
 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

Just leaving the theater now and like most non-horror movies with abysmal Cinemascores, IMO it's an issue of advertising expectations vs. onscreen reality. Reshoots weren't going to help with general audiences unless they reshot like 40 to 50 percent of the movie and did something totally different than the source material. Parts of it could have made a much better film...I get why, given a fresh/rotten vote, the RT score is so bad, but it's not a complete disaster, more of an interesting, underdevopled failure. Though it nearly lost me at the beginning with 

Spoiler

the set design for Mae's old job going a bit too far with the outmoded technology--no headsets for the phone reps? So impractical. A minor nitpick in a movie with major ones.

 

I wonder how they arrived at Beck as the musical cameo?