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

[grey ghost]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

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.

 

People who are too lazy to read reviews can watch video reviews on YouTube but only so many people are movie nerds obsessed with that stuff.

 

They'd rather watch the latest trap or viral cat video.

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

This.

 

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.

 

If there was a genuine problem, lots of great movies would get under 75% or bad movies would get above 50%.

 

They don't.

 

[DAR]

I think we have to not put critic as this giant monolith anymore.  I mean certainly  the critic from the Village Voice probably won't like the same films as say the Schmoes

[The Panda]

3 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

People who are too lazy to read reviews can watch video reviews on YouTube but only so many people are movie nerds obsessed with that stuff.

 

They'd rather watch the latest trap or viral cat video.

 

YouTube reviewers are typically terrible though.  There's only a few that give educated and thoughtful opinions.

[Dementeleus]

38 minutes 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 

 

38 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

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.

 

 

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.  

[Blaze Heatnix]

I'm surprised to see that a ton of movies that I loved ( and still love ) are rotten on RT.

 

I took my time looking at several movies and got several surprises. I like to see RT, but I don't allow it to cloud my opinion about a movie. Hell, I went on to watch The Mummy and I really enjoyed this flick.

 

I loved X-Men Apocalypse, another rotten one. Man of Steel, Rambo 4, Blade 1 and 2, Saw series. I just think people shouldn't get angry because critics dislike or like movies. 

 

I still don't understand how Roger Ebert gave a fresh review to Speed 2, though, lol. That movie was one of the worst sequels ever made. I'm glad to see how Keanu Reeves dodged a bullet. 

[trifle]

6 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

If there was a genuine problem, lots of great  good movies would get under 75% or bad worse movies would get above 50%.

 

They don't.

 

 

 

I disagree with your definition of a 'genuine problem' given the impact of the RT score on a movie. See my changes, and I think that DOES exist.

 

4 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 --

 

That isn't the score that shows up next to a movie when you google it.  Plus I do think that the 'top critic' score should be more elitist.

 

 

Whatever.  I've run out of rant for the evening, but that is my opinion.

Edited June 18, 2017 by trifle

[grey ghost]

 

 

Should Baywatch make way more than Get Out (which flops) because Hollywood buys out RT and buries it.

 

That would be a fucking tragedy.

[nomyth]

30 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

When studios are investing half a billion dollars into a film, I would assume they care.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy into the narrative that the billion dollar movie studios are the victims to the mean 'no-name' critics. If studios do care so much, then they should focus more on creating quality products.

 

Every year there are cinematic masterpieces that go completely unseen by the GP. I just don't understand the mentality griping about the reviews for movies like Baywatch and Passengers as if millions of people didn't see them and love them anyway.

[baumer]

BTW... @nomyth...I think you are my new best friend.....you are one of the only other posters here who hates Citizen Kane besides me.

[CoolioD1]

1 hour 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.

lol. just realized that one jlaw stan who liked this post took it back. @aabattery ruined my scheme. 

[Johnny Tran]

7 minutes ago, The Mummified Panda said:

 

YouTube reviewers are typically terrible though.  There's only a few that give educated and thoughtful opinions.

 

That can be said for a lot of the RT critics too.  Most are writing for blog sites, lesser known sites/publications and they have no actual film making knowledge or literary knowledge, you are basically reading the thoughts and opinions of your friends or family which is fine but the education level is not up to the standard that I've set in my own mind for how I'm going to feel whether their opinions matter or are useful.  But that's me. 

[Premium George]

I agree with grimm22. People put too much stock in RT, to the point they see it as objective metric of quality of films.

"I love BvS"

"Why? It's a bad film"

"Why it's a bad film"

"It is rotten on rt"

Discussion ends there. There should not be guilty pleasure, if people love it, it's good for them.

As for using it for spending on tickets, I agree with grey ghost. It's too expensive and time consuming to go to movies with family and freinds. RT makes it simple. Not everybody has time to read full reviews.

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

BTW... @nomyth...I think you are my new best friend.....you are one of the only other posters here who hates Citizen Kane besides me.

 

Ironically, one of the few movies deliberately savaged by the RT of the time in order to ruin it.  

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

I agree with grimm22. People put too much stock in RT, to the point they see it as objective metric of quality of films.

"I love BvS"

"Why? It's a bad film"

"Why it's a bad film"

"It is rotten on rt"

Discussion ends there. There should not be guilty pleasure, if people love it, it's good for them.

As for using it for spending on tickets, I agree with grey ghost. It's too expensive and time consuming to go to movies with family and freinds. RT makes it simple. Not everybody has time to read full reviews.

 

But then there's screwy people like me who think it's bad but kinda liked it anyway. 

[CoolioD1]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Ironically, one of the few movies deliberately savaged by the RT of the time in order to ruin it.  

Baumer is a Hearst confirmed? there's still a lot of that family hanging around.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CoolioD1

[nomyth]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

BTW... @nomyth...I think you are my new best friend.....you are one of the only other posters here who hates Citizen Kane besides me.

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!

[Mulder]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

But then there's screwy people like me who think it's bad but kinda liked it anyway. 

[trifle]

5 minutes ago, nomyth said:

 I just don't understand the mentality griping about the reviews for movies like Baywatch and Passengers as if millions of people didn't see them and love them anyway.

 

Because millions more might have seen them based on other factors but for this flawed,over-hyped aggregate site?

[Johnny Tran]

Here's another issue with RT.  A movie that has 50-60% shouldn't be "rotten".  It doesn't actually make sense.  If the majority of critics are recommending a movie then how could it be "rotten" on the scale?  

 

I always go back to Man of Steel because it has 55% on RT and people here and elsewhere will say "It was hated by critics".  No, it wasn't.  It was a very divisive film.  It's also a film that has stood the test of time already because 5 years later and people are still engaging in online beefs about it. I think in another 5 years or 10 years it will be looked at as a movie that's actually pretty solid and who some critics "got wrong".  

 

Audience score and Cinemascore are also decent, it shows that the movie is not exactly loved but probably not hated, it's very divisive.  But RT has no middle ground.