Memorial Weekend Thread: 4-Day Actuals - Aladdin $116.81M | John Wick 3 $30.97M | Avengers Endgame $22.06M | Pokemon DP $17.25M

[That One Girl]

we sure that the people claiming that critics are out to get Aladdin isn’t the Gotti marketing team at work again?

[Darth Lehnsherr]

Critics can only be honest with how they feel about a film. And treating critics as if they're one big collective who is a hive mind is missing the entire point of subjectivity of opinions and film criticism. Just focus on critics who align with your tastes or who you feel do a good job of articulating why or why not a film works.

[cdsacken]

4 minutes ago, Deja23 said:

In a time when certain critics are known for being intentionally contrarian like those who want to be the first to give a rotten to a perfect score, it’s easy to be cynical about RT and critics’ reviews. For Aladdin, the reviews don’t seem to have hurt it much. So some critics didn’t want or like Aladdin. It happens. The critics stated their own opinions about the movie. A large portion of the audience felt differently. I actually think it might motivate some people to see the movie to check if they’ll agree with the critics or audience. Not the first time it’s happened. 

 

It is amusing though that a Disney movie has people thinking that critics are biased against it when for a while now, *some* people believed the opposite. 

I mean that's fair. If you churn out a ton of films in the 90s for RT it makes people question it. But then the top critics saying hey this Twlight film is better.....yikes! (For the record I love all vampire and werewolf movies so there is my bias but I admit the quality was not good)

[Lordmandeep]

Seems like it's becoming more common that critics and audience disagree more often.

[Cmasterclay]

I'm back with a hot take: It's obscene how much better the live-action Aladdin is than Beauty and the Beast. It's absurd, really.  Better acting, better singing, better directing, better everything. *whisper voice* I actually thought the new Aladdin was better than the new Jungle Book, too. I'm just saying, it's REALLY good to have fun Will Smith back in our lives. I hate when people bag on critics, and I hate it in this case too, but I will say that I think if Aladdin had come out before Beauty, it would be over 80 percent on RT and Beauty would be under 45. The general weariness of the Disney live action movies increasing (justifiably!) is the only possible reason I can imagine that Beauty would have a better score from critics, who I generally find to be rather smart and correct people!

[RealLyre]

28 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

we sure that the people claiming that critics are out to get Aladdin isn’t the Gotti marketing team at work again?

Aladdin didn't even get bad reviews. so people calling the critical reception of Aladdin unfair or biased doesn't make much sense to me.

[ban1o]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I'm back with a hot take: It's obscene how much better the live-action Aladdin is than Beauty and the Beast. It's absurd, really.  Better acting, better singing, better directing, better everything. *whisper voice* I actually thought the new Aladdin was better than the new Jungle Book, too. I'm just saying, it's REALLY good to have fun Will Smith back in our lives. I hate when people bag on critics, and I hate it in this case too, but I will say that I think if Aladdin had come out before Beauty, it would be over 80 percent on RT and Beauty would be under 45. The general weariness of the Disney live action movies increasing (justifiably!) is the only possible reason I can imagine that Beauty would have a better score from critics, who I generally find to be rather smart and correct people!

Agree with every thing you said here 100% . Also Robin Williams  might have played a factor as well. 

 

I don't like bashing critics but I honestly think there was some internal bias just because they are kind of tired of live action remakes and the also the weird backlash this movie had online. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by ban1o

[dxmatrixdt]

maybe critics should list 2 or 3 movies that compare to the one they are writing about so people aren't gambling $20 on a 62% movie

 

is Booksmart going to be a useless ratty black and white hallmark movie?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Clubs Are Trash

[ThomasNicole]

I don’t get why people are complaining about RT.

 

I mean, clearly GP don’t give a shit and showed up, the movie is a success, this is more important than have a 70% or so, 58% isn’t even that bad.

 

Critics have their personal opinions, they know what they’re talking, no reason to attack just because public disagree. I loved Aladdin, gave it a 7.5/10, but the movie really have some problems and i can see why so many reviewers gave 6/10, that’s normal.

 

 

 

[ZackM]

18 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

Seems like it's becoming more common that critics and audience disagree more often.

Instead of just saying this, why not crunch the numbers?

[Deja23]

4 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

I don’t get why people are complaining about RT.

 

I mean, clearly GP don’t give a shit and showed up, the movie is a success, this is more important than have a 70% or so, 58% isn’t even that bad.

 

Critics have their personal opinions, they know what they’re talking, no reason to attack just because public disagree. I loved Aladdin, gave it a 7.5/10, but the movie really have some problems and i can see why so many reviewers gave 6/10, that’s normal.

 

 

 

I agree overall, but at least no one is attacking critics. Just discussing the reasons for the wide discrepancy between critics and audience scores. Perhaps no one would complain if BatB, which I loved, had 50% to Aladdin’s 58%. 

[Barnack]

Just now, Lordmandeep said:

Seems like it's becoming more common that critics and audience disagree more often.

 

Does it ?

 

2009 top 10 box office metacritic score:

avatar: 83

Transformer: 35

Potter: 78

twilight: 44

Up: 88

Hangover: 73

Star trek: 82

blind Side: 53

Chipmunks: 43

Sherlock Holmes: 57

Average: 63.6

 

1999:

Star wars: 51

Sixth Sense: 64

Toy Story: 88

Austin Powers: 59

Matrix: 73

Tarzan: 79

Big Daddy: 41

Mummy: 48

Runaway Bride: 39

Blair witch: 81

Average: 62.3

 

1989:

Batman: 69

Indiana Jones: 65

Lethal Weapon: 70

Look who's talking: 51

Shrunk the kids: 63

Back to the future 2: 57

ghostbuster 2: 59

Little mermaid: 88

Driving Miss daisy: 81

Parenthood: 82

Average: 68.5

 

Last year 2018:

Black Panter: 88

Avengers: 68

Incredibles 2: 80

fallen Kingdom: 51

Aquaman: 55

Deadpool 2: 66

Grinch: 51

Fallout: 86

Ant Man: 70

Bohemian rhapsody: 49

Average: 66.4

 

 

---------------------------------------

Aren't critics (at least the getting to influence RT score) getting more and more closer and closer to your average movie goers, simple people that never studied/made movies, do not watch necessarily 400-450 new release a year in small festival, that simply watch the main hollywood affair and review them online ?

 

I have the feeling that has the bar to becoming a "critic" is getting lower and lower (in term of movie knowledge) and the access to every movies for everyone got easier and easier the gap is getting smaller instead of larger no ? The critics favorites not winning the box office has been quite common since the 80s.

[Yandereprime101189]

9 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

I don’t get why people are complaining about RT.

 

I mean, clearly GP don’t give a shit and showed up, the movie is a success, this is more important than have a 70% or so, 58% isn’t even that bad.

 

Critics have their personal opinions, they know what they’re talking, no reason to attack just because public disagree. I loved Aladdin, gave it a 7.5/10, but the movie really have some problems and i can see why so many reviewers gave 6/10, that’s normal.

 

 

 

 

People on movie forums think people care about RT after a few movies with bad reviews flopped or underperformed in the US during 2017.

[Webslinger]

This whole "Are the mean old critics out of touch with audiences?" debate has been going on forever. I felt like it was an overly simplistic, overly long-in-the-tooth debate ten years ago when numerous such articles were published in light of the (totally expected) contrast between the critical drubbing Revenge of the Fallen received and the general audience reaction (which is funny in light of the flack that movie takes on all fronts now).

[Porthos]

So we've now come to the point where Rotten Tomatoes is biased against Disney.

 

Biased. Against. Disney.

 

Sigh.

[AlexMA]

I swear people here are acting like Aladdin is 20% on RT, which it most certainly is not. It's within spitting distance of a fresh rating. And the biggest complaint I see from most is that this remake has no reason to exist because it doesn't bring enough new to the table here (something I don't agree with and at the same time can't disagree with, I know it sounds confusing but there are parts of the movie that make me agree with that assessment and others that do quite the opposite), which newsflash, is kind of accurate for most remakes. Look, this movie always had an uphill battle here, and honestly it could have been so much worse. I'm okay with that 58%.

 

Think about it this way, the difference between Detective Pikachu and Aladdin is 0.13/10 as far as as their respective average rating goes. No, that's not a typo, it really is that small a difference despite the 58%versus 66% making it look like it's so much more. It's not, and 58% is a good rating all things considered.

 

Now if you want to go into why Beauty and the Beast has a higher rating, well that's a very different can of worms that I'd rather not open. But I can say this much, going around and pretending like having 71% automatically means that movie is better than another that has 58% is just completely missing the point of Rotten Tomatoes or similar review aggregator sites. It doesn't work like that.

 

There's a lot more to be said about this subject but in all honesty I'd much rather go back to box office conversations, those are so much easier because numbers don't care what you like or what you don't, they just are, hard cold numbers that you can dissect and extrapolate and debate with like-minded individuals.

[Orestes]

People who see dozens, if not hundreds, of movies a year aren't gonna have their tastes always line up with folks who maybe see a handful.

[Legion Again]

30 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

Aladdin didn't even get bad reviews. so people calling the critical reception of Aladdin unfair or biased doesn't make much sense to me.

It’s literally rotten with top critics and all critics. Score below 6.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Thanos Legion

[dxmatrixdt]

i'm not surprised Aladdin is beating Solo: Star Wars at the Memorial opening box office.

i'm just surprised at how funky they made both movies look

 

p.s. those alien creatures on board the Millennium Falcon in TFA ruined the movie for me

Edited May 28, 2019 by Clubs Are Trash

[DAJK]

Why are critics any more wrong than audiences? And in other cases, why are audiences any more wrong than critics? Like seriously, there's not even a reason to debate this. Everyone just has their own opinion.

 

If you like Aladdin, there's no reason why someone who didn't like it is wrong.

Likewise, if you didn't like Aladdin, there's no reason why someone who liked it is wrong.