New Year's Day Weekend Thread: Late Friday estimates (DHD) - TLJ 19.5M, Jumanji 17.5M, PP3 6.7M, TGS 5.3M

[NoLegMan]

16 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Thor: Ragnarok

Thor isn't "Bad" though, it isn't perfect, but it does more right than wrong,  critics and audiences both love it.

[grey ghost]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

ESB is an irrelevant comparison because of the nature of how ANH played (a true "first run" would be more like 220m not that 307m #) and saying it dropped on par with AOTC is hardly helping your argument since that's widely considered to be the worst film in the saga, and TLJ had the advantage of coming off a far better received predecessor than AOTC did. 

Advantage?

 

The bar was much lower with AOTC.

 

Expectations were in the toilet 

 

And where are you getting your re-release numbers for ANH?

[NoLegMan]

I hate Fury Road, but I wouldn't say it's a bad movie because most people disagree. 

[MovieMan89]

4 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

Advantage?

 

The bar was much lower with AOTC.

 

Expectations were in the toilet 

 

And where are you getting your re-release numbers for ANH?

It's not counted as a "re-release" because it was still in a few theaters, but it was a re-expansion on the level of a re-release with the marketing push of a big re-release that let it play for much longer and added a lot of money. Had they let it die out naturally, it would have been like 220m. 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=starwars4.htm

Edited January 1, 2018 by MovieMan89

[Gamera]

22 minutes ago, Hermia said:

 

"I don't like a movie" is very different than "This movie is bad".

Then can say whatever they want about TLJ but they can't dismiss the great cinematography and the greatest acting a SW movie ever had. Critics do value this more than "Luke wouldn't do that" arguments.

 

 

Greatest acting?

 

Hamill was good, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver improved, but you also had an amateurish performance from Kelly Marie Tran and phoned-in, wooden performances from Oscar Issac and Laura Dern.  Poor Carrie Fischer could barely recite her lines.

 

Do agree about the great cinematography, though.

[grey ghost]

5 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Your own opinion should overshadow the collective opinions of other people.  If you don't like Batman Begins for your own subjective reasons, then it's clear you won't be able to change that unless you rewatch and reevaluate it, and your opinion should be the only opinion that matters to you.

My opinion should overshadow critical consensus when it comes to me.

 

But if anyone else wants to know if Batman Begins is worth watching they should use critical consensus 

 

Why would they listen to a random opinion instead?

[That One Girl]

The only objective truth is this: People have different opinions on films, and only your opinion should matter when deciding if something is good or bad.  If a lot of people consider a film to be great but you didn't find it to be so good, then that doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.  It's all subjectivity, and the fact that we hold ratings on a movie site at such high standards is fucking ridiculous.  Only you can be the judge of your own personal preferences.

[Rebeccas]

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

ESB is an irrelevant comparison because of the nature of how ANH played (a true "first run" would be more like 220m not that 307m #) and saying it dropped on par with AOTC is hardly helping your argument since that's widely considered to be the worst film in the saga, and TLJ had the advantage of coming off a far better received predecessor than AOTC did. 

There’s also the weird release patterns that are outdated with ANH and ESB. AND that era was marked by home video emerging which reduced theatrical runs. Coincidentally, the first early VCRs hit America in 1977.

[NoLegMan]

Just now, Gamera said:

Greatest acting?

 

Hamill was good, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver improved, but you also had an amateurish performance from Kelly Marie Tran and phoned-in, wooden performances from Oscar Issac and Laura Dern.  Poor Carrie Fischer could barely recite her lines.

 

Do agree about the great cinematography, though.

To be fair Adam Driver is a really strong actor, so is Daisy Ridley, Oscar Issac wasn't even wooden in this movie, Mark Hamill is a better actor now than he was, same with Carrie Fisher, Laura Dern is  an accomplished Actress, in term of pure acting skill, it would be hard to say it isn't the best acted.

[Alli]

Maybe TLJ is like It comes at night. I have not seen it yet, but the disparity between critics and public is huge

[grey ghost]

17 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:

I mean if Marvel vs DC stans can’t sink RT scores (and you know a particular group is fairly obsessed with RT)... 

DC fans giving Thor Ragnarok the lowest score possible to spite Marvel fans probably is a very small group.

 

 

[Hermia]

1 minute ago, Gamera said:

Greatest acting?

 

Hamill was good, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver improved, but you also had an amateurish performance from Kelly Marie Tran and phoned-in, wooden performances from Oscar Issac and Laura Dern.  Poor Carrie Fischer could barely recite her lines.

 

Do agree about the great cinematography, though.

I aready said the greatest acting compared only to the all the other SW movies, i honestly can't remember Hamill being better in any other SW movie. Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac are great actors in and outside Star Wars. Driver is really amazing t in that "proposal scene". Ridley and Boyega both give a very honest performance.

It's not like the other SW movies were renown for their acting, i think TLJ takes the crown easily.

[Rebeccas]

Honestly, the most prominent examples of critics vs audience disparity is usually when a film is mismarketed and the audience is led to believe the film is something it’s not. 

 

In this case, I do believe TFA was the marketing and TLJ ultimately was the product that didn’t match up. 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Rebeccas

[ThiagoMaia]

21 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Dude, it’s highly debatable because there is no objective good or bad.

 

To me, Thor Ragnarok is not a good movie.  Most people would disagree with that statement, but I found its poor qualities outweighed the good ones.  You can’t try to argue with me that it’s objecively good.  That’s fucking ridiculous.

Why can't there be objective good or bad? I mean, why do critics review movies, and there are awards dedicated to the best movies? Are those people simply voting on their opinion? Why is it that so often people like the same things?

 

I feel like this position that there can't be objectively good or bad in art sort of diminishes the value of studying and knowing things. On the last few years ago have tried to learn more about film, and have been rewarded with the hability to enjoy more films that I normally wouldn't. And I believe that most people on this website also like to study film, and try to watch the movies that are generally considered the best. If everything is just "each person has their own opinion" why bother arguing? I believe discussion about this things help us see new things and enjoy more the good things about this art that we like. 

 

I don't think there is any reason to just be dogmatic about there not being absolute good or bad, even because our opinion can change, if the opinions that I had 5 years ago are just as good and valid as they are now, what have I learned? What has changed in my life? 

 

I'm not saying that everybody should like the same things but I'm saying that we should make an effort to understand what we are talking about and reward filmmakers who are passionate, creative and well-learnt. 

 

Also, I agree with @TwoMisfits that rotten tomatoes needs to do something about this inflation of scores of recent movies. I don't think this says anything about "best ever lists" overall specially because I doubt that any rotten tomatoes critics would put those 12 movies from 2017 on their top 100 of all time, it's just a matter of improving the math behind the ranking.

[TwoMisfits]

5 minutes ago, Alli said:

Maybe TLJ is like It comes at night. I have not seen it yet, but the disparity between critics and public is huge

I wish I could like this...I'd forgotten this one was 2017, but why on Earth critics gave this 88% (and a 7.4) is also beyond me...

 

 

[grey ghost]

5 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

The only objective truth is this: People have different opinions on films, and only your opinion should matter when deciding if something is good or bad.  If a lot of people consider a film to be great but you didn't find it to be so good, then that doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.  It's all subjectivity, and the fact that we hold ratings on a movie site at such high standards is fucking ridiculous.  Only you can be the judge of your own personal preferences.

Yes, I can say my child's finger painting is better than a Picasso.

 

Very heart warming thought.

 

But that doesn't mean squat to most people, critical consensus does 

[mikee11]

2 minutes ago, Alli said:

Maybe TLJ is like It comes at night. I have not seen it yet, but the disparity between critics and public is huge

The damage control about this movie from entertainment journalists  can only be compared to Ghostbusters 2016.

 

[NoLegMan]

I have an interesting thing to add, folks are saying TLJ has mixed WOM because of it's RT and Metacritic Audience Scores, but BvS and JL had high audience scores, but obviously, both had poor WOM. and JL had one of the worst box office runs for a modern Superhero movie.  my point is the audience score doesn't actually determine WOM. 

[Alli]

The Beguiled is another movie with a big difference between critics and public. and i don't think that movie was mismarketed or was some misunderstood masterpiece. i have to side with the public on this one. bad movie indeed

[Rebeccas]

Of course there are objective measures for individual aspects of films but how or whether those things come together in the right way to make a “good” overall film is entirely up to the viewer.