Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie (vanityfair.com) 395
An anonymous reader shares a VanityFair report: These days, it takes less than 60 seconds to know what the general consensus on a new movie is -- thanks to Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregator site that designates a number score to each film based on critical and user reviews. Although this may be convenient for moviegoers not necessarily interested in burning $15 on a critically subpar film, it is certainly not convenient for those Hollywood directors, producers, backers, and stars who toiled to make said critically subpar film. In fact, the site may be "the worst thing that we have in today's movie culture" -- at least according to Brett Ratner, the Rush Hour director/producer who recently threw the financial weight of his RatPac Entertainment behind Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Sure, the blockbuster made over $850 million worldwide in spite of negative reviews ... but just think of how much more it could have made had it not had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 27 percent! Last week, while speaking at the Sun Valley Film Festival, Ratner said, "The worst thing that we have in today's movie culture is Rotten Tomatoes. I think it's the destruction of our business."
Fixed That For You (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Shitty Movie
EULA (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps there needs to be an End User License Agreement for movies that bars unfavorable reviews. **ducks**
Re:EULA (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe snuck in with the previews? "By continuing to watch this, all viewers agree to give this movie perfect reviews. If you disagree, please forfeit your ticket purchase now."
In a related story, Consumer Reports just labelled the car I'm selling, "unsafe at any speed." Obviously, my next step is to sue Consumer Reports so that I can improve the safety of my cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:EULA (Score:5, Funny)
The ejection seat occasionally fires while the car is stopped. Admittedly, it was a questionable design choice.
Re:Fixed That For You (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, be sensitive. Some people spent their whole weekend making that movie.
Re:Fixed That For You (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fixed That For You (Score:4, Funny)
Very few animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture.
Ya, but how many people were harmed by watching it.
Re:Fixed That For You (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's worse than that. The guy's movie netted big and yet he feels his movie should have been entitled even bigger windfall despite having plot holes that Superman can throw a container ship through.
Rotten Tomatoes has a Critics score *and* an Audience score. A lot of popular movies have a higher audience score. BvS has a 63% audience score. Iron Man 3 got 78% audience score. Lest it be a Marvel v. DC thing, The Dark Knight got 94% audience score *and* 94% critic score, so it's not like so many reviewers are snobs about comic book super hero movies.
Re:Fixed That For You (Score:5, Funny)
FTFY - If we are going to go all filthy-critic.
Re: Fixed That For You (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the business of recycling old ideas, without adding any significant new ideas, then why not?
Re: Fixed That For You (Score:4, Insightful)
Right on, VernonNamitz. Hollywood's vanity is showing more and more plainly. The feedback cycle from the audience is now open, and the Hollywood babies who have spent 100 years in a protected bubble can't take it. Nobody to make friends with, nobody to bribe to change your Rotten Tomatoes score....whatever will you do? Hopefully, Ratner will be a man without a company soon. Hey Ratner, how about a reality show about your slide into anonymity? I might watch that, but it's a safe bet I won't be watching your "dark" Superman Batman crap.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's the business of recycling old ideas, without adding any significant new ideas, then why not?
Well, it is a business. New ideas are risky. A movie with an innovative plot may be a hit, or it may bomb. But a remake or sequel using a proven formula is money in the bank. So it makes sense to just churn out another X-Men, Transformers, or Bond film.
Poor business (Score:5, Insightful)
If your business depends on tricking people into watching crappy movies, it deserves to die.
Re:Poor business (Score:5, Insightful)
One guys "crap" is another guys entertainment.
The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like. In the dark ages (before www), I used to religiously read two or three movie reviewers in my area. After 5 or 6 reviews the lights clicked. If X liked a given movie it would be likely that I WOULDN'T like it. If Y liked a movie, then it was pretty good odds that I would enjoy it. It was a bit more complicated than that but that's the gist. I learned what THEIR criteria was pretty quick.
Occasionally, I'd see a crappy movie my "rules" would indicate I would enjoy it or vise versa but it was otherwise pretty accurate.
Good example of an exception -- Back to the Beach (1980s reunion movie). I did *NOT* want to see that film. Some friends and I went to see the latest Bond film (can't recall what it was) but it was sold out. They decided to see this and I didn't drive. Everything told me that this movie would be crap. I'm embarrassed to say I enjoyed it. The opening on the airliner set the tone and it was just fun to watch. My "rules" told me to avoid this film like the plague.
Re:Poor business (Score:5, Interesting)
Rober Ebert was a genius, though. He understood that pretentious movies are not the ultimate in entertainment and is sometimes cheap crap is great.
Just look at this snip from his review of Gremlins (movie picked at random):
"Gremlins" is a confrontation between Norman Rockwell's vision of Christmas and Hollywood's vision of the blood-sucking monkeys of voodoo island..... At the level of Pop Movie-going, it's a sophisticated, witty B movie, in which the monsters are devouring not only the defenseless town, but decades of defenseless clichés.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, April 2010, "Back Then". Roger Ebert says "video games can never be art." Can never.
Let's make a new Plinkett/Bechtel type test right here. Describe artistic game expression without relying on irrelevant (to the medium) things like pretty backgrounds, models, or movie cut scenes.
Video games are mechanics affecting these things. Even Atari games move a few pixels. Those things have to be identifiable.
Xenosaga does this with cutscenes, voice acting, complex 3D graphics, orchestral music, and the like; Golden Sun did it with two-dimensional sprites and some transformations, along with text-based dialogue and some sound-effects, and music; and Adventure: Colossal Caves did it with only text.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this shows another important point with reviewers: it's important to read the actual review rather than just the star rating. A good reviewer will explain not just whether they like a given movie (or book, album, etc.) but also why they feel that way. Even if your tastes differ from theirs, you can often get a good idea of whether you'll like something if you can see what they like and dislike about it in detail. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes give you the advantage of aggregating multiple reviews,
Re:Poor business (Score:4, Informative)
Roger Ebert gave that movie a rave review. It was like 3.5/4 stars and he compared it to Little Shop of Horrors.
The James Bond film at that time would have been The Living Daylights, starring Timothy Dalton. It worked out well for you. The Living Daylights isn't bad, but Back to the Beach is a cult classic.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's something lost when people look at 'x%' and call it a day. Media is a very subjective thing, so you have to determine that the person or population you are dealing with aligns with your own.
With rotten tomatoes, you have a monolithic population. If a movie is well known (i.e. over-promoted), it mustn't be in any way polarizing because people will go to see it, even if they wouldn't have otherwise, and end up resenting the film as a result. If a movie is a touch more obscure, then generally
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like.
That's the point of aggregation sites like RottenTomatoes. Any given particular reviewer might have tastes that differ from yours or mine, but if 999 of 1000 reviewers all say the movie stinks, then it's very likely the movie stinks. Sure, you might be the rare exception whose tastes are similar to the lone holdout, but that's not the way to bet.
Re: (Score:2)
One guys "crap" is another guys entertainment.
Rotten Tomatoes produce a score that is the consensus of often hundreds of reviews. You're free to ignore the consensus, agree with it, or disagree with it. You're free to read individual reviews and likewise come to your own conclusion.
Sensible people pay heed of reviews even if they don't agree with them. Producers like Brett Ratner, Michael Bay et al would prefer that you didn't though.
Re: (Score:2)
100% Agree (Score:2, Informative)
I saw batman v superman, and it was a huge disappointment. No bullshit and no trolling, they seriously dropped the ball. They deserved the low reviews, and the people who chose not to see it due to the low reviews probably spent their time doing something more enjoyable instead.
Far from being the death of the industry, I think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are an excellent quality control measure.
Re: (Score:3)
The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?
Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator, and so it is very limited. You have to look at the individual reviews to figure out why the reviewer didn't like the movie. That said, if a movie is sitting at 27%, there is a really good reason. There is something wrong with a movie that
Re: (Score:3)
The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?
Yes, I would also like to know what...fucking Brett Ratner...thinks is "underrated." Besides his own studio trash. Sure, there are movies that are "so bad they're good" but those are rare, and they deserve their bad ratings. They're just entertaining despite being so poorly rated. So I don't want to hear from Brett about the camp movies that score a 5% but are really entertaining because holy shit I can't believe anyone made this, I want to know what scored a 20% that he thinks really should be up in the 80
Re: (Score:3)
I just did a quick look of some of the movies I like that score really badly on rotten tomatoes. Some of these are even below 10% but I still enjoy them.
Ultraviolet
Resident evil movies
Netflix Iron Fist
The Boondock Saints 1 and 2
You can just do a search on google for movies that audiences love that critics hate and get a LOT of results.
Iron Fist and Boondock Saints I understand the least why critics hated them so much. Iron Fist is doing VERY well with regular people and was hated by critics. Boonddock saint
Re: (Score:3)
Critics watch far more movies than the average person does. As a result they tend to see patterns in movies far more often than average viewers do. This means that movies that basically just do a good job in execution but don't break any new ground tend to be seen very negatively by critics but very well by the average person. It is mostly a problem of saturation.
Re: (Score:3)
There is something wrong with a movie that is less than 50%. Maybe you will like it, but there is a flaw in there somewhere that caused most people that review movies to not like it.
I agree with the last statement that there is something that caused most people that review movies to not like it.
But movie reviewers don't always accurately reflect the tastes of the public. There are lots of times I've seen significant mismatches on review aggregator sites between critics' reviews vs. reviews by average viewers. Granted, it's pretty rare to see a HUGE disparity (say, more than 30%), but it's quite common to see stuff where only 40% of reviewers liked it, but it has a 65% audience appr
Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the review aggregators; it's the constant stream of bad movies.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, there is something to be said that review sites gathering *all* opinions and presenting a single metric for all users of all preferences to see obliterates some depth. People who know will go and read more thoughtful reviews of course.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, please no more comic-based movies, especially not in Sci-Fi. There must be many thousands of awesome scripts and novels that could be adopted for the big screen, and all Hollywood can do is dust of the most obscure old comic books for inspiration? And why all these endless action scenes in the end? Does Hollywood really think people like them? We go to the movies despite the needless action, not because of it!
Make an intelligent Sci-Fi movie not based on a comic, and you'll also get good reviews, and
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fifth Element had very little action by today's standards. There was really only the one big fight scene.
Re: (Score:3)
"It was an ambush."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's especially delightful when the guy who made Batman v. Superman is complaining about rotten tomatoes doing exactly the right thing for the right reasons. I have had the displeasure of seeing this on HBO, I really think if anything Rotten Tomatoes made this appear better than it was. 27% is optimistic, I'm not sure what kind of people are in that 27%, but I don't see them as especially discerning critics. Absolutely nothing about that movie made sense, the story was incoherent, the acting was terrible, e
Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the review aggregators; it's the constant stream of bad movies.
Yeah translation: More people would have seen our film if they didn't know it was garbage.
Re:I'd prefer a less beautiful superman. (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect given the same script that Christopher Reeve would still be a better Superman than Henry Cavill, but Cavill's biggest problem was his scenes and dialog in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Reeve would have been every bit as dumb with "save Martha!" and Cavill never got the chance to play the bumbling but adorable country boy with lines like, "Well gee, I don't know, Lois!" and "Golly!". Cavill never got to play off the transition from bumbling, awkward Clark in his disguise to Superman. All that is not his fault.
Likewise, the biggest thing that made Val Kilmer terrible as Batman was just the scenes and dialog as Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. Keaton had much better writing in his two Batman films. Keaton and Christian Bale couldn't have done much with the stupidity Affleck had to deal with in Batman v Superman either.
And while we're at it, while I think Leto was especially bad in Suicide Squad (probably the worst super-powered movie I've ever seen), even Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill, Cesar Romero, or for that matter Denzel Washington, Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, or Tom Hanks would not have made that Joker good. The story, scenes, and dialog for the role were just as unbelievable pointless, boring, and stupid as the rest of the movie.
Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score:2, Insightful)
Their curated list of critics simply don't like the same movies I do. Therefore there is little to no correlation between my enjoyment of a film and its RT freshness. It's also setting expectations. People went into BvS expecting a terrible movie. If you look for a terrible movie, you will find it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but when I am walking by a Redbox in the grocery store and a title and "cover image" intrigue me, Rotten Tomatoes or whatever else Google brings up for a voice search on the movie title is a lot better gauge of whether or not this thing is worth $3 and 2 hours of my time. The self-promotional synopses are practically useless for judging the quality of entertainment they are describing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How was it not going to be a terrible movie? Puhleez. I didn't need a Rotten Tomato review to stay away—I stayed away because the very concept was not only offensive but also stupid. Okay, great, making some comic book movies was cool. But at this point it's just gratuitous. There's a reason why comic books work, and there's a reason why comic books as movies is wearing thin. You can't get much story into three acts.
Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score:5, Informative)
Bateman vs super man was a mediocre movie at best. The problem is these are big characters and you had no backstory for. 2 out of 3 main characters were new. If they had done a Bateman movie alone with Ben affalac (?) and had the ending, a cut scene etc tie it into Bateman vs super man it would have been a much better movie. Bonus you could also tie in sucide squad members being arrested after a confrontation with Batman.
It took Marvel a couple of tries to realize that. Now people look for cutscenes for the next marvel movie.
If you go back to 2007 and iron man and play the movies and tv shows in order you get a mostly consistent plot.
Batman vs super man is taking the plot of avengers 2 with out the character building arcs to make you care.
Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score:5, Funny)
I would pay good money to see Jason Bateman versus Superman. Should there be an Arrested Development tie-in?
I didn't know the duck's name was Ben. But if AFLAC reconciled with Gilbert Gottfried and got him to do the voice, I would be waiting in line to see that one as well.
Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A glance at the RT score tells a lot more than just the ranking. Especially if you compare the critic score to the audience score and how far apart they are. But I usually pop in further to read a few critic and audience review snippets. From that I can usually tell what the movie is worth. I used to watch trailers, but they spoil too much of the movie these days (or make the movie look better than it is).
I do the same when looking for a restaurant - find a negative review and they'll tell you everythin
Re: (Score:2)
I do the same when looking for a restaurant - find a negative review and they'll tell you everything good about the place that they don't understand.
This. I use this same strategy when evaluating any product. Read a few good reviews, sure, but I need to read a few of the top negative reviews to figure out if the product actually has weaknesses that matter to me, or if it's just been purchased by a few users with unrealistic expectations.
The good thing about negative reviews is they usually aren't placed there by the business or by a sock puppet/SEO, so the dishonest reviews are at least more transparent. If some jerk with a grudge posts a 1 star revi
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the users ratings. It's important to check those as much as it is the critical reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, "Debbie does Dallas" has far worse acting and plot than anything in superman vs batman I'm sure, but I don't hear whining about DDD. Why do people accept you watch one entirely for the "action" and shitty quality otherwise is okay but not the other?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore there is little to no correlation between my enjoyment of a film and its RT freshness.
There is a definite correlation for me, but it happens to be inverse. If something scores high on there there is a pretty good chance I'll hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Their curated list of critics simply don't like the same movies I do. Therefore there is little to no correlation between my enjoyment of a film and its RT freshness. It's also setting expectations. People went into BvS expecting a terrible movie. If you look for a terrible movie, you will find it.
Then don't bother with reading RT reviews. I don't use it much but generally if I do look for similar movies to se how they tend to rate them and then take their ratings with a grain of salt. Hollywood doesn't like people saying their babies are ugly and want to go back to having to only please a few and build a relationship with to get decent reviews.
"our business" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Adult appeal (Score:2)
We adults were kids once, and some of us enjoyed reading comics. With a good superhero movie, we get to see some of that come to life. It can be done well, and has been; you can also get a real stinker. Like Superman vs. Batman.
You know, just because I'm 60 doesn't mean I'm dead. Yet.
Also, comics are an art form. Like most art, it doesn't speak to everyone. That's okay. Like most art, it can be done well, or poorly. Also o
Yes, you entitled fuck, it is the destruction... (Score:5, Insightful)
...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, where are my mod points when I need them?! +1
Re: (Score:3)
...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.
While I agree with you overall, I disagree with you assessment of Hollywood accounting, it always wins. A film's purpose is not to make a net profit, it's to take the angel's money and make a profit for everyone except those investors. Hollywood accounting is a brilliant scheme to do just that.I mean, where else can you spend 60$Million, make 580$Million, and still be in the red so you don't have to payoff the people who gave you the money in the first place?
No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the movie in question online a few weeks ago, I got bored and skipped an hour in the middle, and honestly don't think I missed anything important. I can't possibly imagine having to wait though the ever so slow plot line in a movie theater with no other distractions available.
Re:No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip (Score:5, Insightful)
Did not watch myself. No need the concept is stupid on its face. Either super wild liberties would have to be taken with cannon, at which point its not the same story any more an using the existing character names and treating their elements as a grab bag is just lazy writing or Batman was going to have to use some device based on Kryptonite to be competitive with the S. Super boring and super predictable just like all DC's shitty Justice League stuff.
It all gets a pass because Batman comics were inventive and cool, Superman comics told a story the public needed to hear at a certain time and will always be loved.
Puting the two together though is just silly. Superman is for all intents and purposes a god. While not wholly omnipotent, he is so far above man that he can freely toss our greatest war machines around like children's toys and even slow the spin of earth altering time. Batman simply isn't in his league. Additionally Superman's original character was almost Christ like in his unfailing sense of justice and strength of character regarding doing the right thing. The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat, so okay we have some conflict but we know who should prevail; Batman is going to have to come around to the S in terms of how they resolve any external conflict.
There just isn't any story there. The only reason those comics get read and the only reason that movie got watched all is the audience is hopelessly uncritical. They love the characters so much they will watch or read anything with them no matter how strained the story surrounding them is. Personally I love both Batman and Superman to much to allow these dumb mashups to ruin them both for me.
Re: (Score:3)
Puting the two together though is just silly. ... The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat, so okay we have some conflict but we know who should prevail; Batman is going to have to come around to the S in terms of how they resolve any external conflict.
If you haven't, please borrow a friend's copies of the DC animated universe, starting with the Superman episode "World's Finest" if you don't want to watch everything. Batman and Superman have a rocky start, and even through Justice League, Batman's tactics rub Superman the wrong way. DC's animation folks consistently have good plots, story arcs, and character development. Their live-action movies and television series are rife with writers and producers wanting to make their own mark with the stories thu
Re: (Score:3)
You missed all the critical developments. Like how Lex Luther knew how to do a whole lot of things that would cause a completely unpredictable yet predetermined outcome to further the plot in ways that didn't make sense culminating in a fight scene that was unwatchable.
Simple solution: Stop making movies that suck! (Score:2)
I know that I'm atypical here... (Score:2)
Was it the best thing I've ever seen? No... but I certainly didn't regret spending my money on it either. It was some 2 and a half hours or so of escapism, and I enjoyed it on that level.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I quite enjoyed the movie. It did a better job showing a calculating dark batman and a morally struggling superman of the old days (like WWII) than any movie in the past 2 decades. Not an amazing movie with WW, Lois, and Luther being flat plug in characters; but good enough overall.
Having said that, the director needs to grow up. If RT is having that much of an impact on Hollywood, then that points to more about how little faith people have of professional movie critics. These days, I think
they should sue the movie theaters for having high (Score:2)
they should sue the movie theaters for having high pop and popcorn prices / not being byob as that makes people less likely to go to them.
Re: (Score:2)
For the first week or so the theatre only gets about 10% of the ticket sales. They need the high prices on the popcorn and drinks in order to pay for everything. When movies stay in the theatre longer then the percentage going to the studios drops as the weeks go by and the theatres can start to make money. The cheaters want successful movies with long runs because short run films don't make much for them.
Shoot the messenger (Score:2)
If Hollywood was creating a stream of innovative, original movies that might only appeal to a percentage of the viewing audience, his argument might have some merit. But when the Hollywood model is sequel after sequel with the odd reboot thrown in so we can make more sequels, I want to know if a movie is crap.
I can remember CHiPs when it first screened on TV. Couldn't tell you any storylines, but I'm pretty certain it was nothing like the drek I'm seeing advertised now. I don't need to see a Rotten Tomat
Quit making crappy movies. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very simple. Stop remaking the same movies over and over. Come up with something NEW for once.
Lol no (Score:3)
Maybe stop making crap movies? (Score:3)
Crappy movie success plan: Trick people (Score:3)
Here's an idea (Score:3)
Or continue to make shit films and then whine that people have the means to discover if a film is shit before wasting their money and time watching it.
Re: (Score:2)
When a business hates feedback .... (Score:3)
Hollywood is getting free feedback. Rotten tomatoes and such sites are casual comments. Netflix and Amazon prime streaming statistics are people paying money and actually watching stuff. Instead of using the feedback to improve the product, these guys are bellyaching about it.
It shows how much of their product is real and how much of it is smoke-and-mirrors. If your product is steak you can realistically gather and meet user expectations. So you would love feedback. If your product is sizzle, you would hate people who mess up the expectations.
Your failing business model is not our problem (Score:2)
Review sites may well destroy the tired old formulas, but this need not destroy the business. At worst it injects some risk back into the business again, as studios are forced to find new formulas to replace those now being rejected by moviegoers as played out, but is that such a bad thing? The last period of experimentation produced the original blockbusters that spawned these remakes and sequels, after all, and it was considered a golden age.
Blame the others (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, Batman VS Superman is surely not the worst of all. Sure it is bad, but not so bad. This movie is just an average failure.
Man of Steel was a total trainwreck. The worst is that it looks awful. Visually, Man of Steel is the worst high budget movie I have seen for years. It looks like utter crap. It feels like the director had no steering power over his own film to make it consistent. I had not seen so many lens flares in a video since I watched Babylon V. The colors are mostly awful, and for whatever reason, the time in the movie is almost always late afternoon, whether the scene is in the US or in the foreign country. As a photographer I know that the golden hours sure look good, but it should be used sparingly.
How can such high budget movies can be shot so badly?
Re: (Score:3)
As a photographer I know that the golden hours sure look good, but it should be used sparingly.
As a photographer you should know that that videos are nothing like photography:
a) Colours are not defined by golden hours but by post processing. (Hint: Most night shots you see are shot at day)
b) Colours are chosen to identify the mood of the scene in question. Most big Hollywood movies that result in action and tension between characters will for that reason have a yellow / blue palate depending on who the scene is about and what is going on. The colours in this movie are more reflective of the crap plot
Think of how... (Score:3)
Think of how much more Batman vs Superman could have made if it wasn't a disorganised clusterfuck complete with characters doing things that made no sense, a plot that simply made no sense, and fight scenes which seemed to go out of their way to ensure that to the viewers they made no sense.
It made $850million based on the name, and the expectations of the rabid fanbase, and I'm sad to count myself as part of it. It was garbage. Probably the first superhero film I won't be getting on Bluray.
The ole' programmer idiom.. (Score:2)
Garbage in, garbage out..
Anything more that needs to be said?
So, the person who produced the movie... (Score:2)
Novel idea (Score:2)
Ratner's Resume (Score:5, Informative)
Brett Ratner is one of the biggest problems in Hollywood, not Rotten Tomatoes. Here's his directorial resume (I count one decent movie):
2014/I Hercules
2011 Tower Heist
2007 Rush Hour 3
2006 X-Men: The Last Stand
2004 After the Sunset
2002 Red Dragon
2001 Rush Hour 2
2000 The Family Man
1998 Rush Hour
1997 Money Talks
Dumb concept = producer's own fault (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who is aware of super hero comics and once faithfully followed one of them and watched the cartoons, the whole idea of Batman vs. Superman was just ludicrous from the title alone.
Batman is basically a rich guy with fancy gadgets on his toolbelt. He's not a LOT different from anybody. He just has better gadgets.
Superman is a God, effectively.
This fight is over before it even starts so why the hell would I want to pay to see it? Well, I wouldn't and didn't and never needed to read the reviews. These characters used to be allies as well so the idea of having them fight each other sounds like something a four-year-old kid would come up with, bashing action figures in a sandbox. Whatever, man. Not gonna see this movie. Honey Boo Boo, which I have also never seen, sounds more interesting.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
They're able to - they just don't want the risk. Rebooting old movies from the 80's or making yet another sequel is safe - even if it's terrible people will buy tickets (unless they're warned in advance by terrible reviews).
Turns out, it's not safe to make garbage and expect to turn a profit.
Hollywood is usually awful (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly this. There are amazing numbers of untapped novels out there that would make wonderful movies.
That the movie industry spends most of its effort ignoring this resource leaves me with absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any whining I hear from them. Where's Neuromancer? Where's Tau Zero? Where's (any one of) the Bolo stories, or Galactic Odyssey? Pretty much anything Gene Wolfe ever wrote? Axis of Time series? Novik's Temeraire? I could on for days just in the areas of fantasy and SF. There are tons of untapped thrillers and etc. out there too; Lots of as-yet-to-be-mades (not to mention as-yet-to-be-made-wells) from Clancy, Clavell, etc.
And then, when they commit crimes against art like create utter crap like "Soylent Green" out of really good books like "Make Room, Make Room"... then I'm glad they're not digging up good novels as sources. Let 'em make more formula superhero movies like the (utterly terrible) Batman vs. Superman we're talking about here. Keeps me from tearing my hair out.
Honestly, if the movie industry died (which it shows no sign of, this buffoon's whining aside), I'd just read more books.
Re: (Score:2)
Novik's Temeraire?
Kids would love that shit. And there's already like seven books so they could milk it for a long time. That one seems like easy money to me. Not as big as Harry Potter but pretty damn big.
Re: Or... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Right. What we want is for it to be riskier to make repetitive schlock than to innovate. Rotten Tomatoes is helping to achieve that goal. Bully for them!
Re:The Lemming Society is pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find humans being utterly reliant upon reviews for every fucking thing in their life completely pathetic. Can't even drink a cup of coffee or eat a pizza without asking a panel of five-star rated liars. Ever heard of product satisfaction being subjective?
Use your own brain for once and make your own judgements. Live a little. Good or bad, it is satisfying knowing at the end of the day the decisions you made were yours, and not made based on sponsored bullshit.
Or, you have limited time and resources, try to spend it wisely. I see about 6 films a year, and I would prefer them not to be terrible if possible. Why would you *not* use the resources available to you to pick well?
Re: (Score:2)
You get five stars for being over-the-top judgmental and insulting -- apparently that's a requirement on the Internet -- but unless you have the time and money to see every movie, try every restaurant, etc, then you have to decide which ones to try and which to avoid based on something. What you're advocating is either making random decisions (which can be fun occasionally but also leads to wasting a lot of time and money suffering through crap), or making decisions based on other, less relevant criteria (
Re:The Lemming Society is pathetic. (Score:4, Insightful)
I find humans being utterly reliant upon reviews for every fucking thing in their life completely pathetic.
Getting opinions of people when you're stepping into the unknown is not pathetic, it's just common frigging sense. Those reviews for pizzas aren't so locals can masturbate over them, they are for people who have never been there before don't know the town, city or even country, and who want to know if they are going to get screwed or not.
Ever heard of product satisfaction being subjective?
Indeed. That's why people who agree with aggregate populations go to aggregate reviewers, people who agree with specific reviewers look up specific reviewers, and people who see themselves as different from people in general either avoid review sites, or sometimes sort them by 1 star ratings.
Use your own brain for once and make your own judgements.
Using brain is fine providing the process doesn't cost me an entire evening or a boatload of money.
Speaking of:
1.5 stars. GP wrote nothing of value because he didn't understand how reviews work. Would not read again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also this jerk has more than a touch of RIAA/MPAA disease - the belief that society owes them arbitrarily large amounts of money regardless of their product, demand, or business model. $850 million makes him cry? It should of been a billion, no make that two billion! How dare people publicly express a negative opinion about my movie! There shouldn't be any source of negative reviews! Only positive reviews should ever be published! It is so unfair to me!