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

[TwoMisfits]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

 

Does that really exist ?, people will have guilty pleasure for stuff they are not supposed to like, say a men that like a movie that target teenage girl, but a movie that got bad reviews, usually people are almost proud of it, and scream critics went overboard and I like it without any issue. I have no shame in liking some segment of Movie 43 or loving Spring Breaker, not at all, I cannot imagine one example of that, I'm sure you do not either so I'm not sure why we project that to anyone (to who ?)

 

 

I used the term just this week for a movie.  If you look up the term "guilty pleasure", it means "liking something, such as a movie, television program, or piece of music, that one enjoys despite feeling that it is not generally held in high regard."

 

Rotten Tomatoes gives us that feeling of the movie not being in high regard.  That's why we say "did you see that Wonder Woman got 9x%  That must mean it's awesome."  In this case, it was really good...but most folks equate the 90+% as an A+ movie, so saying it's an A- is almost sacrilege...

 

Baywatch, with just 19%, is like an F movie grade (if you break each level by 20%)...Mummy and Mr. Church would also be an F.  You almost have to apologize for liking some of these poorly rated movies now or start your conversations with "despite what the critics say", rather than just "you know, that was really good."

Edited June 18, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[nomyth]

I don't know... I get the complaints. I really do. But I do think the RT effect is largely overstated. I remember when Where the Wild Things Are came out and I had it slated as the big breakout of fall 2009 (largely just because it appealed so much to me!). I don't think I've ever stayed perched for reviews like I did for that movie. And when it was finally released, it got mostly positive reviews and I was so certain I was right about it breaking out.

 

Then it's OW showed signs of frontloadedness. And then it dropped like 57% in its second weekend! Meanwhile the critically maligned Couples Retreat was smashing! I tell you... I had never been more frustrated by a second weekend drop.

 

Bottom line... who knows how what's gonna hit with the GP. Sure, good reviews help. But a movie like WW or Get Out aren't hits because of the reviews. It's because they resonate with the GP.

 

Honestly, I think the general consensus of the GP is that most critics don't have a clue.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, nomyth said:

Ha ha, @baumer. I've seen your posts on these boards for years and I've always appreciated that you go your own way with taste. I don't always agree obviously, but I always have way more respect for people who just like what they like and fuck what everyone else thinks. Most of my best friends are filmmakers and there can be a lot of obvious bullshittery when it comes to discussing film. Sometimes you're just like... did you enjoy it or not??

 

But hell yeah! Fuck Citizen Kane man!

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, nomyth said:

Ha ha, @baumer. I've seen your posts on these boards for years and I've always appreciated that you go your own way with taste. I don't always agree obviously, but I always have way more respect for people who just like what they like and fuck what everyone else thinks. Most of my best friends are filmmakers and there can be a lot of obvious bullshittery when it comes to discussing film. Sometimes you're just like... did you enjoy it or not??

 

But hell yeah! Fuck Citizen Kane man!

 

And thank you, that's a very flattering.  Sincerely, thank you.

[grey ghost]

30 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

 

I guess I can only speak for myself but when I refer to critics I'm basically thinking of the Top Critics on RT -- with very rare and special exceptions -- people who may not necessarily be the intellectual equals of S&E (though I think some are) but who are at least their peers. 

 

I don't give a rip about all the fan-related sites. If you're arguing that RT should become "more elitist" then I agree.  

 

It's funny cause the top critic ratings are inconsistent and no more reliable.

[grey ghost]

11 minutes ago, kayumanggi said:

 

Wonderful.

 

I didn't complain about 40 pages of Pixar debates.

[superduperm]

Just finished my Cars 3 showing.

 

Not going to lie. I actually really enjoyed it. Biggest problem was the amount of obnoxious kids and parents refusing to control them but that's to be expected. Might just be because I'm a sucker for Pixar, but I thought this was in the middle of the pack for them, and I could see the argument for this film being the best in the trilogy.

 

Shame it doesn't seem to be doing great box office wise. I believe it deserves better.

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, nomyth said:

I don't know... I get the complaints. I really do. But I do think the RT effect is largely overstated. I remember when Where the Wild Things Are came out and I had it slated as the big breakout of fall 2009 (largely just because it appealed so much to me!). I don't think I've ever stayed perched for reviews like I did for that movie. And when it was finally released, it got mostly positive reviews and I was so certain I was right about it breaking out.

 

Then it's OW showed signs of frontloadedness. And then it dropped like 57% in its second weekend! Meanwhile the critically maligned Couples Retreat was smashing! I tell you... I had never been more frustrated by a second weekend drop.

 

Bottom line... who knows how what's gonna hit with the GP. Sure, good reviews help. But a movie like WW or Get Out aren't hits because of the reviews. It's because they resonate with the GP.

 

Honestly, I think the general consensus of the GP is that most critics don't have a clue.

 

RT is way more popular since then.

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

It's funny cause the top critic ratings are inconsistent and no more reliable.

 

Again, I know I'm not the norm but I don't read them to determine if I should see a movie, I just read them (some of them) because I enjoy reading what they say. 

[kayumanggi]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

I didn't complain about 40 pages of Pixar debates.

 

Thank God, I was asleep. lol

[Premium George]

7 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

I've heard no one say that.

 

In fact, BvS had terrible legs because the first wave of viewers ignored RT and felt ripped off.

 

Which only solidified RT's credibility.

And baywatch did more than nice guys and lobsters which discards RT's credibility. Gotg vol. 2 will have better legs than civil war which also discards rt. Alien covenant is gonna have bad legs af, which also discards rt credibility.

That was my point, rt is not objective.

[aabattery]

2 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

I used the term just this week for a movie.  If you look up the term "guilty pleasure", it means "liking something, such as a movie, television program, or piece of music, that one enjoys despite feeling that it is not generally held in high regard."

 

Rotten Tomatoes gives us that feeling of the movie not being in high regard.  That's why we say "did you see that Wonder Woman got 9x%  That must mean it's awesome."  In this case, it was really good...but most folks equate the 90+% as an A+ movie, so saying it's an A- is almost sacrilege...

 

Baywatch, with just 19%, is like an F movie grade (if you break each level by 20%)...Mummy and Mr. Church would also be an F.  You almost have to apologize for liking some of these poorly rated movies now or start your conversations with "despite what the critics say", rather than just "you know, that was really good."

 

I mean, it's a binary system. The percentage score doesn't really work as a method to determine a letter grade. The average score is better for that (even if it's a bit dodgy).

 

As for having to apologise for liking a movie that has a low RT score, that's on you really. I don't know anyone who gives me shit for liking masterpieces such as Gore Verbinski's THE LONE RANGER, which has a low RT score. Sometimes I rib my friends for liking a movie I didn't like, and sometimes they rib me but it's never really a case of feeling bad about liking things. IMO, anyway.

[kayumanggi]

2 minutes ago, superduperm said:

Just finished my Cars 3 showing.

 

Not going to lie. I actually really enjoyed it. Biggest problem was the amount of obnoxious kids and parents refusing to control them but that's to be expected. Might just be because I'm a sucker for Pixar, but I thought this was in the middle of the pack for them, and I could see the argument for this film being the best in the trilogy.

 

Shame it doesn't seem to be doing great box office wise. I believe it deserves better.

 

I haven't seen it, but I have the feeling I'll enjoy it more than FINDING DORY.

[Dementeleus]

Just now, damnitgeorge08 said:

And baywatch did more than nice guys and lobsters which discards RT's credibility. Gotg vol. 2 will have better legs than civil war which also discards rt. Alien covenant is gonna have bad legs af, which also discards rt credibility.

That was my point, rt is not objective.

 

Reviews, by definition, aren't objective. 

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

I'm still not convinced how much reviews effect movies.  There's no way to really statistically test it like you can for tracking numbers, YouTube views, etc.

 

There will be a lot of chicken and eggs (big production usually get better review, when they are smaller movie that will get/got better review like an Hidden Figure will get a much bigger marketing push than those who do not like Rough Night and so on) and past opening Thursday night it will become hard to isolate reviews from word of mouth.

 

Some people did try to find a correlation and failed:

http://minimaxir.com/2016/01/movie-revenue-ratings/

 

Usually those people make the big mistake to not separate the movies by genre/budget/number of theater to correctly isolate the reviews effect from the rest (methodology error), when they do a better job (using only wide release movie being a good step) they seem to find a really strong correlation.

 

I think for some movies, that try to reach a discerning audience like say Live by Nights the difference between terrible and great review on the box office would have been huge, was death on arrival with bad one for a movie like that.

 

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-quality-vs-box-office-grosses

 

Now how much causation is there in this, who knows, but the correlation is really strong, it goes up and up by every range of MC scores:

(FILMS OPENING IN 2,000+ THEATERS)

Metascore Range	# of Films	Avg. Opening  Weekend	Avg. 2nd Weekend  Decline	Avg.  Multiplier	Avg. Total  Gross
Films scoring 0–19	22	$13,961,514	▼ 52.5%	2.6	$35,081,918
Films scoring 20–39	301	$16,503,055	▼ 50.2%	2.8	$47,785,166
all with bad reviews:	323	$16,329,947	▼ 50.4%	2.8	$46,919,929
Films scoring 40–50	294	$21,353,058	▼ 49.5%	2.9	$62,658,866
Films scoring 51–60	255	$26,890,484	▼ 46.2%	3.1	$81,265,377
all with mixed reviews:	549	$23,925,086	▼ 48.0%	3.0	$71,301,234
Films scoring 61–70	163	$35,480,314	▼ 44.2%	3.4	$112,446,672
Films scoring 71–80	87	$37,112,105	▼ 42.1%	3.8	$137,787,032
Films scoring 81–90	29	$49,583,445	▼ 38.8%	4.3	$197,836,138
Films scoring 91–100	7	$59,076,012	▼ 37.7%	4.1	$238,356,646
all with positive reviews:	286	$37,984,253	▼ 42.8%	3.6	$131,895,188

Edited June 18, 2017 by Barnack

[AHepBurn]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

If Hollywood gets to a point where the vast majority of movies are considered good by the critics it's a win win for everyone.

Thing is, you can't quantify "good" like that. Movies are art. And by it's nature art is highly subjective.

 

For instance I generally like Tony Scott films. Top Gun (56% - Rotten, 86% Audience)) is currently kind of a beloved classic and the highest grossing film of 1986. That situation probably doesn't occur with Rotten Tomatoes in the 80s. Man on Fire (39% - Rotten, 89% Audience), another Tony Scott film, wouldn't have gotten a fair shot. And so on and so forth.

 

There's so many films throughout history that have needed a bit of time to be properly appreciated and there are movies that were initially really praised but have since gone down in opinion. Citizen Kane wasn't entirely appreciated on it's release and it's really only today that it's regarded as one of the greatest movies ever. My personal favorite cult film, Big Trouble in Little China, was initially mixed in critical response upon release but sits at 82% - Fresh today. The Thing, another John Carpenter movie, was really hit hard by critics upon release but currently sits at 81% - Fresh today. I'm sure everyone has movies that they love but have low ratings on RT and vice versa.

 

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really measure if a movie is "good." At best it really measures is "If I were the average moviegoer, what percentage likelihood would I say 'It was alright.'" for wide release movies. And critical reception at times could be even more out of tune with audience reception when it comes to smaller films like The Witch (91% - Fresh, 56% Audience), which I will also say my horror aficionado friends absolutely loathed.

 

So yes, Rotten Tomatoes is a problem and it's one that Hollywood needs to solve.

Edited June 18, 2017 by AHepBurn

[Orestes]

12 minutes ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

I'm still not convinced how much reviews effect movies.  There's no way to really statistically test it like you can for tracking numbers, YouTube views, etc.

 

I don't think they affect much at all. They might show how a movie will be received by audiences and thus how leggy it might be, but for OW? That's advertising, demand, reception of previous movies if its a sequel/franchise film, appeal of the leads in their roles, popularity of the source material if its an adaptation, and a host of other things.

 

I can think of three movies over the last several years where reviews were any kind of deciding factor, and that's only because other things I listed worked against them. Two of those movies were part of the same franchise, too.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Orestes

[baumer]

Rotten Tomatoes is the cheap Tuesday phenom.  They have both become much more relevant in the last two or three years than they ever were before.

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Again, I know I'm not the norm but I don't read them to determine if I should see a movie, I just read them (some of them) because I enjoy reading what they say. 

 

As long as you acknowledge that most people rather shoot themselves in the genitals than read top critic reviews all day. 

[John Marston]

Think I read an article that says many viewers do use RT these days. Guess it has an effect for better or worse