Weekend Actuals (Page 130): Cars 53.7M | Wonder Woman 41.3M | All Eyez 26.4M | Mummy 14.5M | 47 Meters 11.2M | POTC 9M | Rough Night 8M

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

If people feel like treating movies like fast food then they shouldn't bother to check RT or critics at all. If you like an actor or a director or a genre, just go see it. 

 

    

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

I'm willing to bet your five movies wrre divisive.

 

Sorry, but the typical movie goer doesn't commit over 50 bucks a month for movies like the aveage movie nerd or cinephile.

 

Most people go to the movies maybe twice a month, at the most, so they gotta make it count.

 

That means they can't gamble on a divisive movie where there's a 50-50 chance they'll like it.

 

But they only think it is 'divisive' because this one flawed metric given way too high a profile says so. (and I call bull shit, I think most think a rotten rating means it is 'bad' not divisive.  Agree to disagree on this one.)

[John Marston]

15 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

They don't have to be great.  But I can name you movies that don't deserve to be rotten.  That's my point.  Movies don't fall into two categories of "shitty not worth my time" and "terrific must see".  That's what people do now with RT, they just see if it's fresh or not.  Instead of reading the review and see what the reviewer didn't like. 

 

For example, 47 Metres Down should not have been rotten.  It's the ending, imo that is bringing it down.  But it's very suspenseful and quite tense in much of the film.  I gave it a 7 and if the ending had been better it would have been an 8 or higher.  

 

Here's one part of a review from someone who didn't like it.

 

Director Johannes Roberts — whose ego is big enough that he gets a possessive credit before the title: "Johannes Roberts' 47 Meters Down" — and co-writer Ernest Riera aren't exactly Shakespearean in their dialogue. The script uses the word "shark" in repetition, as if saying the word enough times will cause them to appear, like Beetlejuice or Candyman. There's also a drinking game, though a short one, to be had with the number of times Taylor warns the sisters about the dangers of "the bends" if they surface too fast. Gee, I wonder if that will factor into the story later?

 

I mean, WTF does that have to do with the movie?  It's a reviewer being incredibly picky and in no way shape or form does this affect the movie at all.  Sounds like he has a problem with the director as a person, more than he does as a film maker.

 

Baywatch should have been fresh....or at least better reviewed.  The audience was 64%.  Critics were 19%.  Why?  Because they didn't like the comedy and they found it to be juvenile.  Of course it's juvenile, it's not aimed at 40 year olds with kids.  It's aimed at an audience about 20 years younger.  

 

And don't even get me started on Passengers.....one of the best films of last year and a bunch of no name critics rip it up and people stay away?  Fucking ridiculous.

 

And then there's the films that they praise at times that are just garbage, like It Comes at Night.

 

This is my problem with RT.  People are putting their faith in headlines now, not what the reviewers actually have to say.  

 

 

Great post and sums up what I kind of  feel. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by John Marston

[nomyth]

I don't know... I kinda think people scapegoat RT a lot when in reality a movie's success usually has to do with marketing and the reception by the GP. I do agree that our society has a problem with just looking at headlines and not digging deeper and so I understand the general frustration with the whole rotten/fresh rating when films fall in the 40-70% range, which I would imagine a majority do.

 

But I don't know... people get too defensive about critics I think. These people are just doing their job and fans call them every name in the book just for expressing their opinion. I wish I would have seen Passengers or Baywatch just so I could weigh in on the merits vs. the problems but I'm sure there's plenty to enjoy and plenty to critique about both. However, both would have made more money if they appeared more appealing to the GP and had connected with audiences better.

[Dementeleus]

Just now, baumer said:

 

    

 

The onus is on people. As it always has been.  

[John Marston]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I don't agree with this, Baumer. RT wasn't around but Siskel & Ebert were (and were basically the equivalent).... them and whoever your local critics were. 

 

Besides, BHC was pretty well received, if I remember. I think even TOP GUN was (though it had its detractors).

 

 

I watched a lot of Siskel and Ebert on YouTube and while I don't always agree with them I found them interesting to listen to. Can't say that about other critcs imo 

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I don't agree with this, Baumer. RT wasn't around but Siskel & Ebert were (and were basically the equivalent).... them and whoever your local critics were. 

 

 

 

NO!

 

Siskel and Ebert were legitimate critics.  Limit this to the NY Times, LA TImes, Ebert (whatever the legacy site is called) the Guardian, other legitimate critics.... you will see opinions and reasons for those opinions, not outright trashing of a movie as death on a cracker, or hyping without logic as nirvana, either, with each trying to outdo the other with how hip their compliments or insults are.  And an aggregate rating of such dross is garbage in, garbage out, imho.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by trifle

[CoolioD1]

i do agree that modern film fan's reactions are a little too preoccupied with other peoples reactions. RT or otherwise. like when force awakens came out fanboys here were using their reviews to tell me how wrong my C+ review was. like, wouldn't you rather talk about how much you love star wars? same principle with the dc fans who spend their whole reviews saying "urrgggh what do the critics know?" 

 

like a poster here said (can't remember who), calling a movie "overrated" is a fundamentally uninteresting take because you're responding to the reaction to the film moreso than anything in the film itself.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

I don't agree with this, Baumer. RT wasn't around but Siskel & Ebert were (and were basically the equivalent).... them and whoever your local critics were. 

 

Besides, BHC was pretty well received, if I remember. I think even TOP GUN was (though it had its detractors).

 

You can disagree with it Chris, that's fine.  But I gave you the quote once before from Ebert.  He said that his reviews wouldn't affect a film like Dirty Harry, but it would affect some of the smaller films.  And that's kind of what's changed today.  

 

Also, back 25 years ago, you had one easily accessible TV show where Siskel and Ebert reviewed three movies a week.  So you had one show that could turn to.  Now you have an entire website where it's just fresh or rotten.  At least with the Thumbs up and thumbs down, they gave you their opinions as to what worked and what didn't.  

[grey ghost]

12 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

But this exactly describes both why RT is unfairly reviled and given too much credit. All a "rotten" score means is that less than 6/10 critics liked the movie enough to recommend it. 

 

I agree that people put too much weight into the specific RT rating, but that's what happens when you aggregate a bunch of subjective opinions and reduce them to a single positive/negative judgement. 

 

People are free to use metacritic if they don't really want simple thumbs up pr thumbs down.

[elcaballero]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

People are free to use metacritic if they don't really want simple thumbs up pr thumbs down.

Metacritic sucks, though. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by elcaballero

[baumer]

3 hours ago, John Marston said:

 

 

I watched a lot of Siskel and Ebert on YouTube and while I don't always agree with them I found them interesting to listen to. Can't say that about other critcs imo 

 

Exactly, because they would tell you what they liked and didn't like.  Even their films that had thumbs down ratings, still had some good things said about them.  Now people don't even read a review, they just see FRESH or ROTTEN.

[75Live]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

 

Exactly, because they would tell you what they liked and didn't like.  Even their films that had thumbs down ratings, still had some good things said about them.  Now people don't even read a review, they just see FRESH or ROTTEN.

 

yeah when I had a quick debate about RT, I had a solution and someone actually said, yeah but that means I would have to actually read the reviews  

[nomyth]

Seriously, I think you guys are just putting too much into their opinions. It really isn't that big of a deal. There's always 100 reasons why movies succeed or fail and reviews by critics is just one of those reasons.

 

I love What Dreams May Come and I hate Citizen Kane. Who cares?

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

People are free to use metacritic if they don't really want simple thumbs up pr thumbs down.

 

I never heard of 'metacritic' before I came here, and still have no idea where to access it. Nor do I know if those critics are substantially different in professionalism than the RT crowd. 

 

RT comes up if someone googles a film to find out what it is about. First thing.  Try it for a film that is out.  It needs to be 'defied' by a lay person.

[grey ghost]

12 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Of course.  And yes I agree with you.....except with the part about RT being unfairly reviled.  

 

I mean, you don't see food critics affecting the bottom line of restaurants like McDonalds.  Sometimes people just want a shitty Big Mac and fries, and enjoy it.  Not every hamburger has to be made by a high end chain.  And that's the same as movies imo.  Movies should be enjoyed, not necessarily critiqued....imo.

 

Well maybe Hollywood should offer a discount for rotten movies.

 

Fast food is successful because it saves time and money.

 

But no, a Ghost in the Shell ticket is the same price as Get Out and Logan.

 

Something's gotta give. Hollywood can't have it both ways.

[The Futurist]

As time goes by, having a succesful movie with a terrible RT score will become more and more difficult.

 

The next Transformers will be interesting in that regard.

 

I wonder what would have happened to Twilight if the movies were released right now.

 

[aabattery]

Just now, trifle said:

 

I never heard of 'metacritic' before I came here, and still have no idea where to access it. Nor do I know if those critics are substantially different in professionalism than the RT crowd. 

 

RT comes up if someone googles a film to find out what it is about. First thing.  Try it for a film that is out.  It needs to be 'defied' by a lay person.

 

Really? I always see Metacritic when I google a movie. Hell, it's even there for Passengers on my end.

 

[grey ghost]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

I never heard of 'metacritic' before I came here, and still have no idea where to access it. Nor do I know if those critics are substantially different in professionalism than the RT crowd. 

 

RT comes up if someone googles a film to find out what it is about. First thing.  Try it for a film that is out.  It needs to be 'defied' by a lay person.

 

You google any movie and google gives you the RT and metacritic rating.

 

Try it. 

[kswiston]

2 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I never heard of 'metacritic' before I came here, and still have no idea where to access it. Nor do I know if those critics are substantially different in professionalism than the RT crowd. 

 

RT comes up if someone googles a film to find out what it is about. First thing.  Try it for a film that is out.  It needs to be 'defied' by a lay person.

 

I think that metacritic is more important in the video game review sphere. It is secondary to RT for films. I hear people talk about Rotten Tomatoes in every day life. I don't know if I have ever heard a non-gamer bring up metacritic. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by kswiston