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

[trifle]

15 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Can you name five great movies in the last six months that recieved a rotten that didn't deserve it?

 

Why would it have to be in the last six months? How about 'grades' that don't deserve it, in whatever direction? and why 'great to terrible' as opposed to 'absolutely undeserved?'

 

Passengers was flawed but no way was it '31 rating' flawed. And its over $300M world wide receipts supports my opinion, not theirs.  If RT is supposed to reflect someone's political/personal-world-agenda bias it should come with a warning label, and its rating should not show up first thing when you google a film, as if it were some kind of universal value, imho. 

It isn't just Passengers, obviously, but before then I thought there might a contingent of RT rating hipsters trying to slant things with group think, and after Passengers, I was convinced.

Edited June 18, 2017 by trifle

[Dementeleus]

Just now, trifle said:

 

Why would it have to be in the last six months? How about 'grades' that don't deserve it, in whatever direction? and why 'great to terrible' as opposed to 'absolutely undeserved?'

 

Passengers was flawed but no way was it '31 rating' flawed.  If RT is supposed to reflect someone's political/SJW bias it should come with a warning label, and its rating should not show up first thing when you google a film, as if it were some kind of universal value, imho. 

It isn't just Passengers, obviously, but before then I thought there might a contingent of RT rating hipsters trying to slant things with group think, and after Passengers, I was convinced.

 

PASSENGERS RT score is far too generous, tho.  

[grey ghost]

8 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Wonder legs and other stuff : 

 

 

Maybe Kim Kardashian can lend her some ass cheeks.

 

J/k, Gal.

 

Luv ya! 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by grey ghost

[The Panda]

2 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Why would it have to be in the last six months? How about 'grades' that don't deserve it, in whatever direction? and why 'great to terrible' as opposed to 'absolutely undeserved?'

 

Passengers was flawed but no way was it '31 rating' flawed.  If RT is supposed to reflect someone's political/SJW bias it should come with a warning label, and its rating should not show up first thing when you google a film, as if it were some kind of universal value, imho. 

It isn't just Passengers, obviously, but before then I thought there might a contingent of RT rating hipsters trying to slant things with group think, and after Passengers, I was convinced.

 

Passengers is a bad example.  That movie was a snooze.

Edited June 18, 2017 by The Mummified Panda

[baumer]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

 

Can you name five great movies in the last six months that recieved a rotten that didn't deserve it?

 

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.  

[CoolioD1]

actually passengers was pretty epic!

 

 

 

actually didn't see it and have no interest but it's cool to dump on it so i'm gonna be that guy about it.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CoolioD1

[TwoMisfits]

10 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Why would it have to be in the last six months? How about 'grades' that don't deserve it, in whatever direction? and why 'great to terrible' as opposed to 'absolutely undeserved?'

 

Passengers was flawed but no way was it '31 rating' flawed.  If RT is supposed to reflect someone's political/SJW bias it should come with a warning label, and its rating should not show up first thing when you google a film, as if it were some kind of universal value, imho. 

It isn't just Passengers, obviously, but before then I thought there might a contingent of RT rating hipsters trying to slant things with group think, and after Passengers, I was convinced.

 

It's more good movies getting trashed vs great ones...

 

Passengers, Power Rangers, Angry Birds, Baywatch, Bad Moms...none of these were A+ movies, but they were all good (although I give Angry Birds an A- being a gamer - it was amazing what they pulled off from an app idea)...all were rotten and some crazily so... 

Edited June 18, 2017 by TwoMisfits

[grey ghost]

18 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Why would it have to be in the last six months? How about 'grades' that don't deserve it, in whatever direction? and why 'great to terrible' as opposed to 'absolutely undeserved?'

 

Passengers was flawed but no way was it '31 rating' flawed.  If RT is supposed to reflect someone's political/SJW bias it should come with a warning label, and its rating should not show up first thing when you google a film, as if it were some kind of universal value, imho. 

It isn't just Passengers, obviously, but before then I thought there might a contingent of RT rating hipsters trying to slant things with group think, and after Passengers, I was convinced.

 

Because people are arguing that audiences use RT too much to judge movies.

 

In other words, overrated movies in a non-issue from Hollywood's stand point. They benefit.

 

I do think Passenger's deserved a somewhat fresh rating but that's an exception to the rule.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by grey ghost

[trifle]

4 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

PASSENGERS RT score is far too generous, tho.  

 

Yeah, that and JW.

 

3 minutes ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

Passengers is a bad example.  That movie was a snooze.

 

a snooze is not 31.  How many 'snoozes' have rated above that? This wasn't a well known IP defying RT to get over $300M WW, it was an unknown IP.  With truly great legs.  How many '31 rating rotten' films need to get higher receipts second weekend than first in multiple countries before it is clear there is a flaw in the system?

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

 

For example, 47 Metres Down should not have been rotten. 

 

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. 

[aabattery]

4 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

actually passengers was pretty epic!

 

 

 

actually didn't see it and have no interest but it's cool to dump on it so i'm gonna be that guy about it.

 

 

Sneaky little bugger, aren't ya Coolio.

Edited June 18, 2017 by aabattery

[CoolioD1]

2 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

 

Sneaky little bugger, aren't ya Coolio.

[grey ghost]

5 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.  

 

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.

[The Futurist]

The Rotten Tomatoes thing is even worse than what Baumer is saying to me.

 

It s basically writing movie taste history, like if you like a rotten movie you re seen as a contrarian and vice versa because the RT number is seen as an objective, quantifiable truth.

So every movie opinion now is seen as an opinion on the RT score for any given movie, at any given time.

The RT consensus  IS de facto the general consensus people will remember.

Passengers will never have a second chance until RT goes offline I guess.

Edited June 18, 2017 by The Futurist

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Because people are arguing that audiences use RT too much to judge movies.

 

In other words, overrated movies in a non-issue from Hollywood's stand point. They benefit.

 

I do think Passenger's deserved a somewhat fresh rating but it's that's an exception to the rule.

 

I think when it comes up higher than the plot summary in a google search, it is overused, given it's 'value'.

 

I'm not saying critics aren't valuable, but a large contingent of those RT rates as legitimate critics seem to froth at championing or trashing a film.  That is not legitimate criticism.  And FWIW some of my most respected critics didn't like/love Passengers. But they didn't try to make it a social cause to boycott it either.

[baumer]

3 hours 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. 

 

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.

[baumer]

3 hours 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.

 

They used to before RT came out.  I mean if RT was a thing in the 80's then movies like Beverly Hills Cop and Top Gun would have been ignored.

[Dementeleus]

1 minute 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.

 

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. 

[grey ghost]

@baumer

 

Maybe you should create an anti-critic RT.

 

Just make sure you give me 10% royalties for the idea. 

[Dementeleus]

Just now, baumer said:

 

They used to before RT came out.  I mean if RT was a thing in the 80's then movies like Beverly Hills Cop and Top Gun would have been ignored.

 

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).