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."
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: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: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.
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.
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.
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