It: Chapter Two | September 6, 2019 | 11th Most Profitable Movie of 2019

[Krissykins]

21 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Up to 60, but 45-55 for most. Does that now make MetaCritic useless? It's also got a similar trajectory to RT, you've just gotta know how to use. It's generally much tougher to get a high MetaCritic score as opposed to an RT percentage, but it's also rare to get a very low MC score as opposed to an RT percentage. Critics' Choice is similar in that 0-40 basically doesn't even exist (which is really bizarre), so 70s isn't as high of a score as it seems on the surface next to MC and RT - but low 60s is pretty damn low. You've just got to know how it's weighted. Critics' Choice is really not that off from RT.

I don’t look at metacritic, always stuck with RT since about 2002 I think. They can get up to 400 reviews so it’s a much bigger sample and, IMO, fairer representation. 

 

No idea what critics choice is. 

[Lucas]

1 minute ago, Krissykins said:

I don’t look at metacritic, always stuck with RT since about 2002 I think. They can get up to 400 reviews so it’s a much bigger sample and, IMO, fairer representation. 

 

No idea what critics choice is. 

It's fair enough, but I tell you Critics' Choice has a very similar trajectory to where the RT scores eventually end up. Not specific number-wise, but in correlation to most other movies. IT 2 has now gone up to 71/100, it can go to all sorts of places, but I guarantee it won't be extremely low for Critics' Choice while RT ends up extremely high for RT or vice versa. It's a very good indicator.

[Valonqar]

What's the difference between Meta Critics and critics Choice? 

[Lucas]

2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

What's the difference between Meta Critics and critics Choice? 

It's mostly how they weight the ratings, a lot of the critics are the same. The problem with Critics' Choice is lack of information, and that it's clearly not intended for the same thing overall. Once you get the hang of it, it works just fine, but Critics' Choice is only a thing because critics put up their scores before the embargo drops so we can get a sense of how it's doing until then. I've always suspected this is a mistake on Critics' Choice's part that they've just not noticed.

[Valonqar]

6 minutes ago, Lucas said:

It's mostly how they weight the ratings, a lot of the critics are the same. The problem with Critics' Choice is lack of information, and that it's clearly not intended for the same thing overall. Once you get the hang of it, it works just fine, but Critics' Choice is only a thing because critics put up their scores before the embargo drops so we can get a sense of how it's doing until then. I've always suspected this is a mistake on Critics' Choice's part that they've just not noticed.

Thank you! 

[infamous5445]

Since we're talking about Critics Choice, what's with that blue symbol (Critics Choice) some movies have, like Endgame? Is that just like Rotten Tomatoes, where a movie is certified fresh?

[Lucas]

15 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

Since we're talking about Critics Choice, what's with that blue symbol (Critics Choice) some movies have, like Endgame? Is that just like Rotten Tomatoes, where a movie is certified fresh?

Essentially highly acclaimed movies. "We highly suggest you see this movie" etc, much tougher to get than a certified fresh overall, but essentially the same concept. It's literally "the critics' choice".

Edited August 30, 2019 by Lucas

[lorddemaxus]

From Indiewire:

 

Quote

Even with double the first film’s budget, this two-hour, 49-minute E-ride crammed with chills and thrills and pricey VFX plus stars Bill Hader, James McAvoy, and Jessica Chastain as the grown-up kids, came in around $80 million

 

[baumer]

The larger budget makes sense. I'm glad they upped the ante on this one.

[Krissykins]

Huge for a horror film, but very well earned and a safe bet in this case. Completely justified. 

 

What Lies Beneath cost $100m in 2000. That always shocks me lol 

[harlequinade]

OMG what cost that much money there? Must have been Ford and Pfeiffer's salaries. But also it was a beautifully looking movie, production design was so great

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, harlequinade said:

OMG what cost that much money there? Must have been Ford and Pfeiffer's salaries. But also it was a beautifully looking movie, production design was so great

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer?

 

De-aging CGI probably cost a bunch.

Edited August 31, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[TMP]

5 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer?

 

De-aging CGI probably cost a bunch.

She's talking about why What Lies Beneath cost $100m  in 2000

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, baumer said:

The larger budget makes sense. I'm glad they upped the ante on this one.

Most likely it was largely above the line costs.  Established actors cost far more than mostly unknown child actors and the salaries for the director and producers also went up.

[harlequinade]

Pus the glimpses of the third act we saw so far look much bigger in scale than Chapter 1

Edited August 31, 2019 by harlequinade

[RealLyre]

so if we take the critics choice score seriously, the overall critical reception will be slightly below certified?  I don't think that will turn off the GA much as long as the movie is a crowd-pleaser. 

 

 

 

[Lucas]

1 minute ago, RealLyre said:

so if we take the critics choice score seriously, the overall critical reception will be slightly below certified?  I don't think that will turn off the GA much as long as the movie is a crowd-pleaser. 

 

 

 

If we take the current 71 at face value I'd predict a fresh percentage but not certified, yeah. Though strangely it always looks like horror movies are slightly different on Critics' Choice compared to other movies. A horror movie in the 80s is very rare while even some well received films are in the mid to high 60s, even though most other movies there are rotten on RT. That could bode better for IT, but I doubt it'll get near the first. 6.5-6.8 something average rating probably.

[RealLyre]

1 minute ago, Lucas said:

If we take the current 71 at face value I'd predict a fresh percentage but not certified, yeah. Though strangely it always looks like horror movies are slightly different on Critics' Choice compared to other movies. A horror movie in the 80s is very rare while even some well received films are in the mid to high 60s, even though most other movies there are rotten on RT. That could bode better for IT, but I doubt it'll get near the first. 6.5-6.8 something average rating probably.

hmm seems like the first IT was 69 on MC, if chapter 2 maintains low 60s at least that would be decent as well considering the reactions so far.

[Lucas]

Just now, RealLyre said:

hmm seems like the first IT was 69 on MC, if chapter 2 maintains low 60s at least that would be decent as well considering the reactions so far.

Comparing to a few Conjuring Universe horror movies this is how it compares:

 

IT 86% 7.2/10 avg, 69 MC - 82/100 Critics' Choice

The Conjuring 85% 7.2/10 avg, 68 MC  - 81/100 Critics' Choice

The Conjuring 2 80% 6.8/10 avg, 65 MC - 77/100 Critics' Choice

Annabelle Creation 71% 6.2/10 avg, 62 MC - 68 Critics' Choice

Annabelle Comes Home 65% 6.0/10 avg, 55 MC - 63 Critics' Choice

 

There's no telling if IT 2 will align just as perfectly as these ones do, but if we go with it then 71 on Critics' Choice leans towards being right over Creation.

[harlequinade]

18 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

so if we take the critics choice score seriously, the overall critical reception will be slightly below certified?  I don't think that will turn off the GA much as long as the movie is a crowd-pleaser. 

 

 

 

The third act is apparantely very emotional and well done so I think it will be, plus there appears to be a lot of humor

Edited August 31, 2019 by harlequinade