China Box Office Thread | Oppenheimer-August 30

[Olive]

Saturday Est

WC 61.8M/1289M

DORY 49M/73.8M

X 21M/734M

[TigerPaw]

2 hours ago, fastclock said:

 

Like @Telemachossays critics are people. They remembered original SW movies. They probably watched all Marvel movies. But they also watched many other movies and can compare them to the Disney ones. So there is a bias towards Disney as a brand. That s likely.

 

But american critics also like well-made movies. They like storylines that build towards the payoff final moments in the movie. They don't like plot holes. They don't like illogical out of nowhere moments. CW is a good example because it's a movie that really builds on its payoff moment while still having fun in between. it might be boring if you just like the action. The opposite ends would Probably be Warcraft. If you understand where they're coming, the reviews then makes sense and you can devise for yourself whether you're going to watch the movie or not.

Haha, nah, not a huge fan of the action, its more about the pacing, which CW truly lacks. I don't really care for action to be honest, if the plot of a movie is bad. Dark Knight doesn't have great action but the story telling and pacing is incredible, while Expendables 2 and 3 have great action but the plot is predictable. Revenant and Argo may have slow pace throughout, but at least the pacing is consistent, hence the storytelling is really good. 

Truth is there is definitely some sort of bias for Disney imo, and it is pretty obvious. Not looking at the scores, but just look at positives or negatives.
Just for example: some sites rate movies upon 4 stars, 2 stars and below is considered Rotten on RT and 2.5 stars and above considered positive, and I see many sites giving Disney movies 2.5 stars instead of 2 just so it appears positive despite the review being harsh, it almost seems like they do not want to be out of the norm hence giving the positive rating.
Therefore while CW's scores itself isn't exactly high, it has 90+% positive, because many are borderline positives, and audiences mostly will just look at the % Rotten instead of the score itself...
 

[Olive]

Warcraft has beaten Civil War, Apocalypse has taken over DOFP.

[Cynosure]

29 minutes ago, TigerPaw said:

Haha, nah, not a huge fan of the action, its more about the pacing, which CW truly lacks. I don't really care for action to be honest, if the plot of a movie is bad. Dark Knight doesn't have great action but the story telling and pacing is incredible, while Expendables 2 and 3 have great action but the plot is predictable. Revenant and Argo may have slow pace throughout, but at least the pacing is consistent, hence the storytelling is really good. 

Truth is there is definitely some sort of bias for Disney imo, and it is pretty obvious. Not looking at the scores, but just look at positives or negatives.
Just for example: some sites rate movies upon 4 stars, 2 stars and below is considered Rotten on RT and 2.5 stars and above considered positive, and I see many sites giving Disney movies 2.5 stars instead of 2 just so it appears positive despite the review being harsh, it almost seems like they do not want to be out of the norm hence giving the positive rating.
Therefore while CW's scores itself isn't exactly high, it has 90+% positive, because many are borderline positives, and audiences mostly will just look at the % Rotten instead of the score itself...
 

 

Precisely. And despite a 90% positive the legs have been pretty awful, even for Marvel standards, so it seems that the average rating and not the RT score ended up being a better reflection of moviegoers' behaviour and overall WOM.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Cynosure

[keysersoze123]

59 minutes ago, Olive said:

Saturday Est

WC 61.8M/1289M

DORY 49M/73.8M

X 21M/734M

 

So WC can beat Zoo especially if ID4-2 has a meh start.

[Olive]

4 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

 

So WC can beat Zoo especially if ID4-2 has a meh start.

It will lose all IMAX and premium screens next week.

[Finnick]

1 hour ago, Olive said:

Saturday Est

WC 61.8M/1289M

DORY 49M/73.8M

X 21M/734M

@Olive, any projection for Dory tally?

[Olive]

1 minute ago, Finnick said:

@Olive, any projection for Dory tally?

$30-35M

[Quigley]

what was MU's first Sat and Sun?

[Agafin]

19 hours ago, Cynosure said:

edit : Nevermind, I misunderstood. It's actually the way RT functions that's an issue. It artificially increases or decreases the percentages by having reviews being either fresh or rotten. For example Dory has 95% with an average score of 7.74 so the percentage makes it look way better than what critics really think.

 

How does it "artificially" increase of decrease the percentages? You make it seem like they are faking the numbers or something. The percentage tells you whether or not the critics found the movie worth watching. The score tells you to what extent they liked it. 95% of the critics found Dory worth watching. But they only consider it a "good" or "pretty good" watch, in contrast for example to Inside Out which was found worth the watch by 98% of the critics and they consider it excellent/masterpiece-worthy. The french scores you posted are all very similar to the scores that those movies received on RT so it seems to me like the problem comes from you not understanding how the site works rather than the site's fault.

 

3 hours ago, TigerPaw said:

Truth is there is definitely some sort of bias for Disney imo, and it is pretty obvious. Not looking at the scores, but just look at positives or negatives.
Just for example: some sites rate movies upon 4 stars, 2 stars and below is considered Rotten on RT and 2.5 stars and above considered positive, and I see many sites giving Disney movies 2.5 stars instead of 2 just so it appears positive despite the review being harsh, it almost seems like they do not want to be out of the norm hence giving the positive rating.
Therefore while CW's scores itself isn't exactly high, it has 90+% positive, because many are borderline positives, and audiences mostly will just look at the % Rotten instead of the score itself...
 

 

These conspiracies are pretty ridiculous. For starters, a reviewer is generally the one to choose whether his review is fresh or rotten. He can give a review a score of 3/5 and mark it  rotten while another might give a review  a score of 2/5 and mark it fresh so if the reviewers were really biased they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of doing what you said. This is an example of a review of one of Disney's biggest movies (Marvel's the avengers) which received a 6/10 but was marked rotten by the reviewer:

http://www.craveonline.com/site/187913-second-opinion-the-avengers

 

Deadpool also got 83% on rt despite having a score of 6.9 and it's not made by Disney last time I checked.

 

Seriously, it seems like you can't accept the fact that the reviewers (or other people in general) might have a different opinion than you. That's pretty close-minded tbh.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Agafin

[Frank]

3 hours ago, Olive said:

Warcraft has beaten Civil War, Apocalypse has taken over DOFP.

Warcraft made around $200m in China?

[fmpro]

14 minutes ago, Frank said:

Warcraft made around $200m in China?

 

Should pass 200 mill on sunday

[Cynosure]

2 hours ago, Agafin said:

 

How does it "artificially" increase of decrease the percentages? You make it seem like they are faking the numbers or something. The percentage tells you whether or not the critics found the movie worth watching. The score tells you to what extent they liked it. 95% of the critics found Dory worth watching. But they only consider it a "good" or "pretty good" watch, in contrast for example to Inside Out which was found worth the watch by 98% of the critics and they consider it excellent/masterpiece-worthy. The french scores you posted are all very similar to the scores that those movies received on RT so it seems to me like the problem comes from you not understanding how the site works rather than the site's fault.

 

Because it only has the RT scores on its main page under the 'movies opening this week list'. I find the average rating much more telling, afterall a movie can have a 90% RT score with many reviews just past the fresh threshold or the same score with much more dithyrambic reviews.

 

Yes, that's why I went back on what I said when I mentioned that I misunderstood. It's RT's system which is awful with its black and white way of rating things, not the critics.

[Mojoguy]

China really isn't helping Dory at all am I right?

[TigerPaw]

9 hours ago, Agafin said:

 

 

These conspiracies are pretty ridiculous. For starters, a reviewer is generally the one to choose whether his review is fresh or rotten. He can give a review a score of 3/5 and mark it  rotten while another might give a review  a score of 2/5 and mark it fresh so if the reviewers were really biased they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of doing what you said. This is an example of a review of one of Disney's biggest movies (Marvel's the avengers) which received a 6/10 but was marked rotten by the reviewer:

http://www.craveonline.com/site/187913-second-opinion-the-avengers

 

Deadpool also got 83% on rt despite having a score of 6.9 and it's not made by Disney last time I checked.

 

Seriously, it seems like you can't accept the fact that the reviewers (or other people in general) might have a different opinion than you. That's pretty close-minded tbh.

You sure about what you are saying?  And i see a lot of people not knowing what is happening but liking your post, haha.

This is what I understand "Rotten Tomatoes converts each review into a binary decision: fresh or rotten. Did the critic enjoy the movie or not? Or rather, would they suggest it or not? This brings the question of how to decide if a review is positive. Reviews with a rating greater than 60% of the available score range are called positive (2.5 stars out of 4 is fresh, for example). If there is no rating, human beings read and decide if the review was positive or negative. "
source: https://amaral.northwestern.edu/blog/rotten-tomatoes-vs-metacritic
 

I also spoke to one of the reviewers (on twitter) from Screen Daily whose review for a particular movie was pretty decent, and was rated a "negative" and so I asked her on twitter, where she replied "she wasn't in control whether its positive or negative". Let me know if you want this, i can screenshot this for you. Will need to scroll through my twitter notifications.
 

These are not conspiracy theories, lol, there is no alien here, but you are blind if you don't feel that there may be some form of Bias from Critics when they are reviewing a Disney film, there MIGHT be tendencies to inflate the review/ratings to let it appear positive.

I don't mind being corrected, I am a huge disney fan and I do wish upcoming releases such as Rogue One can be 90%+ positive, but from what I am seeing, RT is losing credit with audiences, and more and more people are using CinemaScore to predict multipliers. And CinemaScore itself isn't that accurate as it is measured by the first weekend, which means frontloaded and fan-support films will tend to skew better, but at least it seems better than RT.
 

Edited June 19, 2016 by TigerPaw

[Mojoguy]

Why does China HATE Pixar so much?

[Arlborn]

1 hour ago, TigerPaw said:

You sure about what you are saying?  And i see a lot of people not knowing what is happening but liking your post, haha.

This is what I understand "Rotten Tomatoes converts each review into a binary decision: fresh or rotten. Did the critic enjoy the movie or not? Or rather, would they suggest it or not? This brings the question of how to decide if a review is positive. Reviews with a rating greater than 60% of the available score range are called positive (2.5 stars out of 4 is fresh, for example). If there is no rating, human beings read and decide if the review was positive or negative. "
source: https://amaral.northwestern.edu/blog/rotten-tomatoes-vs-metacritic
 

I also spoke to one of the reviewers (on twitter) from Screen Daily whose review for a particular movie was pretty decent, and was rated a "negative" and so I asked her on twitter, where she replied "she wasn't in control whether its positive or negative". Let me know if you want this, i can screenshot this for you. Will need to scroll through my twitter notifications.
 

These are not conspiracy theories, lol, there is no alien here, but you are blind if you don't feel that there may be some form of Bias from Critics when they are reviewing a Disney film, there MIGHT be tendencies to inflate the review/ratings to let it appear positive.

I don't mind being corrected, I am a huge disney fan and I do wish upcoming releases such as Rogue One can be 90%+ positive, but from what I am seeing, RT is losing credit with audiences, and more and more people are using CinemaScore to predict multipliers. And CinemaScore itself isn't that accurate as it is measured by the first weekend, which means frontloaded and fan-support films will tend to skew better, but at least it seems better than RT.
 

I'd love to see that tbh

 

Edited June 19, 2016 by Arlborn
deleting pieces of another post that got stuck with this one idk why

[TigerPaw]

6 hours ago, Arlborn said:

I'd love to see that tbh

 

Couldn't find the Screen Daily, gosh, too long ago. But I found this, from January, a review of Ip Man 3, where Slant Magazine Reviewer said they aren't responsible for the Rotten/Fresh thing
A screenshot: 
The actual post, my replies are below.

EDIT: Let me add this toclarifty
and now @Agafin (again..)

Look at this, I just randomly went to Warcraft's RT and took a screenshot of the Rotten reviews, and whatever i said earlier makes sense. Check out the "original score:, the reviews thus know that 60% and  above is positive.

I don't think its too far fetch for them to purposely put a 2.5/4 for a Disney movie and be a little more generous to Giant Mouse so they fit into the norm of positive reviews.
When i say this, this is not some BIG Conspiracy  out there, I am just saying that Disney has just a long history of making films and the Nostalgic factor is in play, being part of the norm, being invited to the red-carpet eg: for The Force Awakens premiere where the crowd(consist mostly of SW fans) stood up and clapped at the end of the movie, thus it is very difficult to be fully objective, and there might be a tendency to skew towards a more positive review.

 

 

 . 
 

Edited June 19, 2016 by TigerPaw

[fastclock]

When I said there was a bias towards Disney, it was not a "bought" vote or unnatural conspiracy. Disney has been focusing on tentpoles and they have been mostly very good. This film making branding is really working for them. 

[Olive]

PIXAR is really unpopular in CHINA, for example, Pixar special screenings for its classics in SIFF were pretty empty while other movies all sold out.

Dory will only make 1/7 of Zootopia...

 

Warcaft will be around 1.4b WHEN IDR and NYSM2 hit, 1.5B final gross possible but will be difficult to beat Zootopia.