WEEKEND THREAD | 3-DAY ESTIMATES: Pirates - 62M ; Baywatch - 18M; Alien - 10.5M (71% drop) like. F8 crosses 1B OS.

[franfar]

Just now, baumer said:

Let's not bring Citizen Kane into this. It's one of the most overhyped ridiculously boring films that brainwashed everybody in the world into liking it.

[GiantCALBears]

22 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

If you think SM3 is superior to CW then maybe RT isn't out of touch.

 

Maybe you're out of touch.

 

I have unpopular opinions too but at least I can admit I'm probably out of synch with most people in those instances.

gg bringing the fire this afternoon! 

[baumer]

Mockingjay 2 dropped as much as it did because it fucking sucked

[JohnnyGossamer]

3 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

I think people are seeing a disconnect on average vs bad movies...not that they think either of this weekend's movies were the Godfather...

 

A number of people have said Pirates 5 is much better than 4...and yet they scored the same 32%...

 

For me, Baywatch is a solid B movie, since it's got some real flaws that it did not overcome even with some great humor scenes...and something like BvS (since that came up) was an F movie...but somehow Baywatch is at 19% and BvS is 28%...so it's a disconnect in the scores that I think the studios are unhappy with.

 

Both Baywatch and Pirates should have probably hit the middling range of scores (45-55), but neither came close...and people see just the overall critics number and say "wow, that's really bad...not just average"...when in fact, both movies are probably average for what the expectations of the movies should have been.  Neither are awards bait, nor Citizen Kane...

Yup. And, this is represented via metacritic in their scores there.

[GiantCALBears]

Just now, franfar said:

He's so proud of how contrarian that one is man. 

[franfar]

Just now, GiantCALBears said:

He's so proud of how contrarian that one is man. 

I'll let him have his....opinion 

[robertman2]

Armond White is the only good reviewer nowadays

[John Marston]

13 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

There's this sensation on the internet where suddenly poorly received movies aren't actually flawed, they're actually misunderstood works of genius everyone would love if it wasn't for that RT score, so let's hang the critics! It's fine to like a movie that other people don't like. It's another to say that BvS is actually this generation's The Godfather and RT critics are just too out of touch to admit it.

 

 

sometimes you can acknowledge flaws in the movie and still not think it is as bad as the critics made it out

 

 

also sometimes you can like a film and not think it is as good as they make it out

 

don't think critics are 100% wrong or anything but IMO they kind of exaggerate sometimes one way or another

[grey ghost]

5 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I think that except for small exception, for wide release at least the first weekend is now definitely the king and has a bigger impact than WOM. Guardian 2 was a success before anyone saw it.

 

You could argue BvS was also a success but imagine if it made over 550 m.

 

That puts the franchise in another stratosphere.

 

 

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

If the movie can open without them yes, but otherwise I think they can in the current market place it is not easy to overturn a terrible first weekend for a wide release.

 

I mean, that's true.  But also look at things like The Girl on the Train or the Accountant.  They both had mixed reviews, but because of placing them in barren dates and knowing how to market them, they were decent successes.

 

If there's lots of wide releases however, I think the reviews help a movie stand out, and then the actual audience reception determines legs.

 

I also wouldn't blame the critics for the movie's success or failure.  Their job is simply to review a movie for its quality, and they tend to do a good job at it.  It's the quality of the movie you're making that you can blame.

 

Market an appealing concept and deliver with the product, and you'll have a much easier time selling tickets.

[CJohn]

1 minute ago, The Panda of the Caribbean said:

 

I mean, that's true.  But also look at things like The Girl on the Train or the Accountant.  They both had mixed reviews, but because of placing them in barren dates and knowing how to market them, they were decent successes.

 

Both had good WOM as well.

[Cmasterclay]

Franchises peak. And with Fast 8 dropping so hard, we can't even use that example anymore as a franchise that wouldn't stop peaking. You can find a second peak with a hiatus or a change, like TFA or JW or Skyfall, but it's impossible in my book for a franchise to generate massive, fresh buzz to attract casual curious audiences AND keep a hardcore fanbase, all while maintaining quality and provide enough big new stuff for it to feel fresh but not overstuffed. That's what happened to MJ, Pirates, Age of Ultron, even Spider-Man 2. The original Lord of the Rings trilogy is probably the only example of a franchise that just kept hitting it further every time, but that's a weird kinda example.

[dudalb]

9 minutes ago, The Panda of the Caribbean said:

I think reviews can help or hurt movies but I don't think they are what kill or make a movie a success.

 

I do think glowing reception can really help a movie get noticed and break out.  Such as Get Out, had universal praise and audiences obviously dug it.

 

But I do think it's easy to mistake reviews with WoM.  Alien for example isn't liked at all, despite fresh reviews.

It depends on the movie. Some movies really need a good critical reception, others do not.

Rule of thumb is that the more serious a movie is,the more it needs good reviews. If you a serious drama that you think is Award Bait bad reviews will kill you. If you have a mindless action movie reviews don't matter nearly as much.

Problem I have with a lot of the critic haters is that they hate the critics, but they accept as gospel the opininion of "The Fans". I don't entirely trust critics, but I trust the fanboys for a film even less.

[grim22]

I do think that later reviews have a bandwagon effect. Not that people will give a high score or anything to a movie they didn't like, but if they are mixed on a movie and it has a large number of recommends on RT i.e. a high RT score at that point, then the later critics might be more prone to put it in Fresh because of the larger consensus. The early momentum can dictate how the later "on the fence" reviews are classified.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

2 hours ago, filmnerdjamie said:

Transformers 5 has the same basic problem of Pirates 5. It's following a highly disliked sequel and the footage presented offers nothing new, whatsoever.

 

Thus why should I, the film-goer, spend my hard-earned money when you the filmmakers don't even have enough respect to show why I should even bother this time? 

Don't forget Ice Age: Collision Course, last year. That is also a fifthquel that people hated....and that dropped to $64M DOM. Plus, it only made $408M WW.

Edited May 28, 2017 by MrFanaticGuy34

[GiantCALBears]

5 minutes ago, filmlover said:

RT has become in an increasingly influential source in how people how decide how to part with their money IMO, especially with the rise of streaming services in the last couple of years. With movie tickets as high as $20 (especially if you live in NYC), no one's gonna go out of their way to shell out a pretty penny for a film they aren't fully convinced they'll enjoy.

Exactly, this is my point about going to see a movie as a binary decision. It's not a streaming decision where you quit after ten minutes like is available to the masses these days. You are either going to pay to see a movie or you aren't which is why I like the attempt to put reviews in that box of its good or it isn't. Clearly there is a lot of variance on results especially with the middling scores but on average its an accurate representation of quality. 

[dudalb]

7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

Franchises peak. And with Fast 8 dropping so hard, we can't even use that example anymore as a franchise that wouldn't stop peaking. You can find a second peak with a hiatus or a change, like TFA or JW or Skyfall, but it's impossible in my book for a franchise to generate massive, fresh buzz to attract casual curious audiences AND keep a hardcore fanbase, all while maintaining quality and provide enough big new stuff for it to feel fresh but not overstuffed. That's what happened to MJ, Pirates, Age of Ultron, even Spider-Man 2. The original Lord of the Rings trilogy is probably the only example of a franchise that just kept hitting it further every time, but that's a weird kinda example.

The LOTR films were made at the same time as  one movie that was to be  released in three parts. Totally different then most franchises.  The last two films were not sequels, but continutations. Huge difference.

Irony is that Tolkien wrote Lord Of The RIngs as a novel with no idea of it as a trilogy. The decision to publish it in three parts was made by the publisher for business reasons;it was less risky to publish so long a novel as a single  book.

Edited May 28, 2017 by dudalb

[Cmasterclay]

3 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

sometimes you can acknowledge flaws in the movie and still not think it is as bad as the critics made it out

 

 

also sometimes you can like a film and not think it is as good as they make it out

 

don't think critics are 100% wrong or anything but IMO they kind of exaggerate sometimes one way or another

Right, but I disagree with that last point. Critics give their analysis without any of these ulterior motives or weird prejudices that people make up when their favorite movie doesn't get good reviews. They just do their job, and it's fine to disagree, but these personal insults and fantasies about them being "biased" against certain movies is toxic crap. People just can't handle their favorite franchise not being beloved and massive among everyone, and that goes for every franchise, so I'm not singling out. Sometimes non-franchise movies, too! It's so unbelievably fucking childish. There's real problems in the world, people shouldn't whine because critics were such big meanies to their newest obsession.

[John Marston]

Just now, Cmasterclay said:

Right, but I disagree with that last point. Critics give their analysis without any of these ulterior motives or weird prejudices that people make up when their favorite movie doesn't get good reviews. They just do their job, and it's fine to disagree, but these personal insults and fantasies about them being "biased" against certain movies is toxic crap. People just can't handle their favorite franchise not being beloved and massive among everyone, and that goes for every franchise, so I'm not singling out. Sometimes non-franchise movies, too! It's so unbelievably fucking childish. There's real problems in the world, people shouldn't whine because critics were such big meanies to their newest obsession.

 

 

why can't a critic be biased one way or another?

 

sometimes they even admit it in their review

[The Futurist]

Humans have  now devolved so much they contradict Darwin.

Ruled by st00pid Tomatoes.

How the Once Mighty has Fallen.

 

If anything, RT shows how the Internet makes everybody lazy AF.

Wall-E is the most visionary film of the last 25 years.

We re becoming lazy bums that have everything falling into their lap, constantly bitching about everything, frustrated and never satisfied :

this movie was laaaame, studios don't care about quality !!!!, do better movies studios ! It s so easy, right ?

Give me a fucking break please.

Few people are now able to appreciate how easy we re having it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by The Futurist