Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets | July 21, 2017 | FLOP OF THE YEAR

[redfirebird2008]

5 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Yep (sample review taken from Wonder Woman):

 

 

I don't think it's MTV. I think they gave Amy top critic status and it follows her wherever she goes. 

[grim22]

1 minute ago, The Futurist said:

What are the criteria then ?

You re a top critic if you went to a posh school and had dinner with Tarantino ?

 

Snark is good, but you could just look on the RT website instead.

 

TOP CRITICS

Top Critic is a title awarded to the most significant contributors of cinematic and critical discourse. To be considered for Top Critics designation, a critic must be published at a print publication in the top 10% of circulation, employed as a film critic at a national broadcast outlet for no less than five years, or employed as a film critic for an editorial-based website with over 1.5 million monthly unique visitors for a minimum of three years. A Top Critic may also be recognized as such based on their influence, reach, reputation, and/or quality of writing, as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff.

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, Subzero said:

 

Dang, already a consensus after 24 reviews ? isn't that a little too early.

 

It's become a bad pattern or policy by RT.  There's no such thing as a consensus using 24 reviews when there are going to be 200-300+

[redfirebird2008]

A lot of the top critics tend to jump around between major publications. Todd McCarthy, the guy who ripped Valerian to shreds for Hollywood Reporter, was at Variety for a long time. 

[That One Girl]

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them.  Which is why I think there shouldn't be a top critics section on RT.  It basically just seems to attempt to establish others as having "better" opinions.  I say it should just be eliminated altogether and have everyone's opinions be judged by equal measure.

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

The thing is though, is it's acting like certain opinions are superior to other ones solely because they write for a different publication.  It's a bullshit, elitist kind of attitude that seems to try to nullify others opinions solely because "Oh, they're not a top critic!"  RT has a very flawed system, and the whole "Top Critics" choosing is one of their many flaws.

 

No, man, just no.

 

It doesn't mean their opinions are "better" -- it means they have (generally speaking) more experience and are better at communicating in a written form -- from no other reason than they have to pass muster through their editor (and senior editor, likely). That's very different from someone who can get a press credential because they run a movie fan site. (Which, btw, doesn't mean they're an awful writer, but it does mean they don't have to satisfy anyone but themselves).

 

This happens with every single damn movie, and it's just another reason why stanning has become this absurd, ridiculous thing. Reality doesn't need to conform to what you want.

[The Futurist]

Isn't Metacritic kinda the Top Critics of RT tho ?

[baumer]

3 hours ago, That One Guy said:

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them.  Which is why I think there shouldn't be a top critics section on RT.  It basically just seems to attempt to establish others as having "better" opinions.  I say it should just be eliminated altogether and have everyone's opinions be judged by equal measure.

 

I go though this all the time with films like Transformers and Twilight and other films I love that critics tear to shreds.  They key is to breathe and not take it so personally.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

No, man, just no.

 

It doesn't mean their opinions are "better" -- it means they have (generally speaking) more experience and are better at communicating in a written form -- from no other reason than they have to pass muster through their editor (and senior editor, likely). That's very different from someone who can get a press credential because they run a movie fan site. (Which, btw, doesn't mean they're an awful writer, but it does mean they don't have to satisfy anyone but themselves).

 

This happens with every single damn movie, and it's just another reason why stanning has become this absurd, ridiculous thing. Reality doesn't need to conform to what you want.

 

Pass muster?  I'm going to have to look that one up.

 

God dammit Chris, stop illustrating your points so well....it makes the rest of us look bad.

[redfirebird2008]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them.  Which is why I think there shouldn't be a top critics section on RT.  It basically just seems to attempt to establish others as having "better" opinions.  I say it should just be eliminated altogether and have everyone's opinions be judged by equal measure.

 

But they aren't equal. You wouldn't say the average Joe blogger who just started randomly writing reviews this year is the same as Roger Ebert, would you? That said, it's entirely possible for the less experienced and less well known critics to do a better job than the top critics. Batman Begins is a good example. 84% overall but 63% with Top Critics. General audience rating is 94%. 

 

2001: A Space Odyssey is perhaps the best example of Top Critics blowing it. Variety, New York Times, and others trashed the movie in 1968. Now it's regarded as possibly the best sci-fi movie ever made. 

[That One Girl]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

No, man, just no.

 

It doesn't mean their opinions are "better" -- it means they have (generally speaking) more experience and are better at communicating in a written form -- from no other reason than they have to pass muster through their editor (and senior editor, likely). That's very different from someone who can get a press credential because they run a movie fan site. (Which, btw, doesn't mean they're an awful writer, but it does mean they don't have to satisfy anyone but themselves).

 

This happens with every single damn movie, and it's just another reason why stanning has become this absurd, ridiculous thing. Reality doesn't need to conform to what you want.

 

I'm not saying that was necessarily what Rotten Tomatoes was going for, but it seems to be what it's been established as and used by certain people online.  When Ghostbusters was getting positive reviews, I remember people on like the IMDb forums trying to invalidate it by saying "but the top critics hated it, so it must be bad!," which is an incredibly shitty mindset to have.  If it's just going to lead to people automatically assuming that the top critics section is the only way to look when finding opinions on movies, then I think it shouldn't be there in the first place.

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them.  Which is why I think there shouldn't be a top critics section on RT.  It basically just seems to attempt to establish others as having "better" opinions.  I say it should just be eliminated altogether and have everyone's opinions be judged by equal measure.

 

Everyone has an opinion, all aren't equally educated or well expressed.  There's a difference in quality and experience among most designated top critics and most non designated top critics.

If you don't like the concept or differentiation though then stick to the big pool on RT. 

 

6 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

I don't think it's MTV. I think they gave Amy top critic status and it follows her wherever she goes. 

 

Yeah, she's had that since she was at LA Weekly  & The Village Voice

[Dementeleus]

By the very definition of artistic expression and what it means to be human, you will never have a created work that everyone likes. So don't worry if someone hates something you love. Don't even worry if you feel their hatred is unfair. It's literally meaningless.

 

Bobby McFerrin said it best.

 

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

But they aren't equal. You wouldn't say the average Joe blogger who just started randomly writing reviews this year is the same as Roger Ebert, would you? That said, it's entirely possible for the less experienced and less well known critics to do a better job than the top critics. Batman Begins is a good example. 84% overall but 63% with Top Critics. General audience rating is 94%. 

 

2001: A Space Odyssey is perhaps the best example of Top Critics blowing it. Variety, New York Times, and others trashed the movie in 1968. Now it's regarded as possibly the best sci-fi movie ever made. 

 

See Empire Strikes Back.  

[Zakiyyah6]

Critics are gods when the agree with fanboys but awful when they don't 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Critics are gods when the agree with fanboys but awful when they don't 

 

Naaa..I pretty much despise them even when they agree with me.  

[That One Girl]

I think I remember The Thing having like a 17% top critics score.

[The Futurist]

Oh, and let this be said ONE last time :

 

Besson will NOT loose any money with Valerian, whatever the box office the movie will make.

 

Nothing will happen to Europacorp.

 

 

[Zakiyyah6]

Just now, baumer said:

 

Naaa..I pretty much despise them even when they agree with me.  

That's fair but most fanboys only hate critics when they dislike their pet movies or shows.

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

But they aren't equal. You wouldn't say the average Joe blogger who just started randomly writing reviews this year is the same as Roger Ebert, would you? That said, it's entirely possible for the less experienced and less well known critics to do a better job than the top critics. Batman Begins is a good example. 84% overall but 63% with Top Critics. General audience rating is 94%. 

 

2001: A Space Odyssey is perhaps the best example of Top Critics blowing it.

 

But I would argue they didn't blow it. Their job isn't to predict which movies will pass the test of time, or which ones will be embraced by audiences. Their job is to share their opinion at the time of viewing. If they didn't like it, fair enough. If they choose to revisit it in later years and change their opinion, fair enough as well.