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, 75live said:

 

uh oh, could the ban hammer be getting shined up at this point?  

 

No.  LOL

[Fancyarcher]

27 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. 

 

Opinions are assholes and everyone's got them basically. Like anyone I'm hot and cold on RT's, but I do think people put too much stock into the percentage as opposed to the average, that's to be expected though. 

[aabattery]

I'm trying to work out a segue from his discussion into saying The Lone Ranger is very good but I'm coming up blank.

 

Whatever. It's very good and it got bad reviews and that is somewhat relevant.

[grey ghost]

I gave Hollywood two ways to circumvent the "RT problem".

 

Discount rotten movies and create a non-critic RT.

 

Or they keep crying that audiences can no longer be suckered to watch mediocre films. 

[The Panda]

2 minutes ago, grim22 said:

RT has become a crutch for film discussion for sure. Its a "How can you like that movie? It is only 15% on RT" line of attack now, or "Why would you dislike a 95% on RT movie?" thing. There is no discussion anymore, it has become a shaming exercise like McWeeny correctly put it.

 

I kind of admire contrarian critics like Armond White because they open larger conversations over the film.

[baumer]

Way way way off topic, but have you ever had a song just make you smile, or feel good?  Currently, I'm that way with Can't Stop the Feeling by Timberlake.  That song just makes me happy.  It's infectious.....ok, back to Rotten Tomatoes bashing.

[75Live]

1 minute ago, grim22 said:

RT has become a crutch for film discussion for sure. Its a "How can you like that movie? It is only 15% on RT" line of attack now, or "Why would you dislike a 95% on RT movie?" thing. There is no discussion anymore, it has become a shaming exercise like McWeeny correctly put it.

 

That's my big thing about it all.  It's not even RT really, it's the people that use it in that way like you put and like McWeeny said.

 

We all have our metrics, excuses why we see or don't see movies.  While I don't get why some  are used, but hey if it works for them, use it.

 

1 minute ago, baumer said:

 

No.  LOL

 

It's Saturday, have some fun and drop the hammer at least once  

 

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, aabattery said:

I'm trying to work out a segue from his discussion into saying The Lone Ranger is very good but I'm coming up blank.

 

Whatever. It's very good and it got bad reviews and that is somewhat relevant.

no segue needed. just post the always relevant

 

 

[kswiston]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

I gave Hollywood two ways to circumvent the "RT problem".

 

Discount rotten movies and create a non-critic RT.

 

Or they keep crying that audiences can no longer be suckered to watch mediocre films. 

 

Isn't IMDB basically a non-critic RT?

[Noctis]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

Noctis posts will just be hidden when I'm on.  His bullshit is getting very tiresome.

 

Yes, baumer, we get it...you don't follow the herd. You're a lion amongst sheep. We get that you have differing opinions (because NONE of us do as well) that go against the grain. You have always been a brave soul ready to withstand the bitter storm of online criticism on a movie forum. Your courage is inspiring and makes me wanna scream from the rooftops that I love movies that are rated rotten on RT. 

 

We get it. You hate RottenTomatoes.

 

 

 

[Fancyarcher]

24 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

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.  

 

Slight correction there Baumer, but it was four films a week eventually and then eventually five or even six reviews a week during the end of the Disney era. Point still taken though, I really enjoy rewatching old Siskel & Ebert episodes. 

[aabattery]

Just now, CoolioD1 said:

no segue needed. just post the always relevant

 

 

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Noctis said:

 

Yes, baumer, we get it...you don't follow the herd. You're a lion amongst sheep. We get that you have differing opinions (because NONE of us do as well) that go against the grain. You have always been a brave soul ready to withstand the bitter storm of online criticism on a movie forum. Your courage is inspiring and makes me wanna scream from the rooftops that I love movies that are rated rotten on RT. 

 

We get it. You hate RottenTomatoes.

 

 

 

 

Awww....thank you Noctis.  That's one of the nicest things you've ever said to me.

[grey ghost]

4 minutes ago, baumer said:

Fresh for Ebert was 3

 

That's on him.

 

He's saying he won't recommend anything less than a C grade.

 

But there are probably hundreds of contrarian reviews Ebert gave during the RT age.

[TwoMisfits]

I'm even gonna post a movie no one saw b/c it was a movie that would have needed good reviews to hype it...

 

Mr Church...this movie was an A- movie last year, Eddie Murphy was a revelation in his role, and it got 15% on RT.  15% - heck, worse than the Mummy.  Read some of those reviews...no critic accepted the premise...

 

Now, it can be slow, so it's not perfect, but that's not why the critics thrashed this movie unfairly...

Edited June 18, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[The Panda]

6 minutes ago, baumer said:

Fresh for Ebert was 3

 

I feel like if the Internet existed in Ebert's prime people would be having the same discussion over his thumbs up/down system.

 

People want a flat out recommendation, "Should I see it or not?".  That's why I think RT serves its purpose well, the percentage isn't really that important overall, it's more about if a lot critics and audience memebers thought the movie was worth seeing.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

I feel like if the Internet existed in Ebert's prime people would be having the same discussion over his thumbs up/down system.

 

People want a flat out recommendation, "Should I see it or not?".  That's why I think RT serves its purpose well, the percentage isn't really that important overall, it's more about if a lot critics and audience memebers thought the movie was worth seeing.

 

My point is people listened to him and Siskel.  They read their reviews and listened what they had to say.  They didn't just look at the rating or the headline.

[75Live]

@baumer

 

well we both can agree that the best review is the Sneakin' into the Movies since instead of thumbs they gave Dirty Larry..the finger, or gave Attack of the Street Pimps,  a serious high five

 

let's see who gets that reference  

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, kswiston said:

 

Isn't IMDB basically a non-critic RT?

 

Yup, which kinda defeats the entire RT is overrated argument.

 

Most of the public ignores imdb ratings.

 

RT, on the other hand, is useful for anyone who watches less than 3 or 4 movies a month.

 

Which is most people.

[trifle]

10 minutes ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

You need to realize it's a percentage of critics who recommend it.  It's not a metacritic score.

 

If a movie is a snooze, I personally wouldn't recommend seeing it, so I'd give it a rotten.

 

Youre also not always going to agree with RT, it happens.  But it is what it is, an aggregation of the opinions of critics.  You won't always agree, but I really don't think there's a more effective way for RT to do what they do (show how many critics recommend a movie or tv show).

 

Oh, at this point I absolutely know what it is and am shocked at how I relied on it before I knew.  That is my point.

 

6 minutes ago, Goffe said:

why isn't my favorite movie better liked? — that's how these anti-RT posts read to me.

 

GA has made rotten movies successes in the past & continue to do so. The Transformers movies for once, they never had a fresh a movie and are still making a lot of dough. The Boss Baby is a hit despite bad reviews. Fifty Shades Darker still crossed 100m despite it and predecessor scoring abysmal RTs. POTC is still doing 150m despite having just one fresh movie in the whole series.

 

Critics have given juvenile movies good reviews in the past. Just look for the James Franco and Judd Apatow movies.

 

Also, whenever someone quotes 1 out of 300 critics to make their point critics are no good.  

 

 

Nice, for animation and original IP.  Other than Passengers, which did what might be expected where RT means nothing, but sooooo much less domestically, can you cite another original IP which 'defied' the RT stamp of awfulness?

6 minutes ago, grim22 said:

RT has become a crutch for film discussion for sure. Its a "How can you like that movie? It is only 15% on RT" line of attack now, or "Why would you dislike a 95% on RT movie?" thing. There is no discussion anymore, it has become a shaming exercise like McWeeny correctly put it.

 

This.

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

I gave Hollywood two ways to circumvent the "RT problem".

 

Discount rotten movies and create a non-critic RT.

 

Or they keep crying that audiences can no longer be suckered to watch mediocre films. 

 

Or they could stop trying to pander to blogs that only want clicks and pretend they have the same critic legitimacy as real critics in an aggregation that is top of the search on a movie. 

 

Many blogs might have legitimate critics.  It isn't blogs, per se, I am against, just the hyperbole of the RT norm injected by their selected blogs, overall.