Real Moviegoers Don't Care About Rotten Tomatoes 173
In a recent essay published on the Hollywood Reporter, Martin Scorsese inveighs against two conjoined trends -- the widespread reporting of box-office results and the grading of movies by consumers on CinemaScore and by critics on Rotten Tomatoes -- and blames it for "a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers." In particular, he contends that this hostile environment is worsening "as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene." Richard Brody, a movie critic at the New Yorker, thinks Scorsese is missing the mark. He writes: I think that film criticism is, over all, better than ever, because, with its new Internet-centrism, it's more democratic than ever and many of the critics who write largely online are more film-curious than ever. Anyone who is active on so-called Film Twitter -- who sees links by critics, mainly younger critics, to his or her work -- can't help but be impressed by the knowledge, the curiosity, and the sensibility of many of them. Their tastes tend to be broader and more daring than those of many senior critics on more established publications. And, even if readers of the wider press aren't reading these more obscure critics, the critics whom general readers read are often reading those young critics (and if they're not, it shows). This is, of course, not universally so, any more than it ever was. The Internet is democratic in all directions -- it's also available to writers of lesser knowledge, duller taste, and dubious agendas, and it may be their work that's advertised most loudly -- but the younger generation of critics is present online and there for the finding. [...] What Scorsese doesn't exactly say, but what, I think, marks a generation gap in movie thinking that his essay reflects, is the appearance of an increasing divide between artistically ambitious films and Hollywood films -- the gap between the top box-office films and the award winners. For filmmakers ready to work on lower budgets, the gap is irrelevant. The filmmakers whose conceptions tend toward the spectacular are the ones whose styles may, literally, be cramped by shrinking budgets -- filmmakers such as Scorsese and Wes Anderson, whose work has both an original and elaborate sense of style and a grand historical reach.
Releasing Shitty Movies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
is hostile to consumers.
I blame Harvey W. for this....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Shitty" is too harsh, but in my opinion most of his movies are pretty mediocre.
Re: (Score:2)
could you have the position that perhaps your taste might not be quite aligned with the market that Scorsese's is intended for?
Indeed. Thus the phrase "in my opinion".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Releasing Shitty Movies (Score:4, Insightful)
...and charging really high ticket prices...
is hostile to consumers.
^ There.
And the irony is the high ticket prices are going to drive consumers to depend more heavily on online reviews before buying that expensive ticket. Hollywood is it's own worst enemy but they refuse to admit it and scapegoat everyone else.
Personally, the high price of movie tickets has driven me to only go to the theater for movies with special-effects that benefit from the big screen/sound. Dramas like Moonlight and Manchester by the Sea may be fantastic, but those types of movies have little to no benefit to theater prices over a RedBox rental at home. Hollywood will probably say I'm another bad audience member who doesn't value real movie art, but the free market reality is not every movie is worth the $15+ theater experience, and it's their fault for fixing movie prices like they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Releasing Shitty Movies (Score:5, Interesting)
This.
(((Hollywood))) hasn't had an original idea in decades.
Well.... I think that's a bit unfair. They just haven't been very good at taking original ideas they find and making them into movies folks want to see. The problem, and what's not original are the old tired formulas that Hollywood uses to take an idea and turn it into entertainment.
They are victims of their past successes, drinking their own Kool-Aid, and not taking chances. Basically, the MBA's have taken over to maximize profit.
Re: (Score:2)
> They just haven't been very good at taking original ideas they find and making them into movies folks want to see.
A lot of times it seems like the studios/directors/producers want to take a concept and transform it into their own vision of what the story should have been, rather than translating source material to the big screen.
A while back I heard of a guy named Robert Wise who is criticized as merely an artisan/craftsman rather than an artist.
I think we need more artisans who respect the source mate
Re: (Score:2)
Good reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's also a difference between "reviews" and "criticism". They're related, but distinct things.
You use a "review" to decide where to direct your purchasing dollars. If I'm buying a new washing machine, I'll check the reviews of the ones that seem to meet my criteria. However by-in-large I don't need a review to know whether I'm going to see the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe blockbuster in the theaters; I just know.
You use "criticism" to enhance your enjoyment and understanding of something. In the unlikely event that I see Thor:Ragnarok a critique afterward gives me a second bite of the apple as it were; it might even change my mind. Screen Junkies "Honest Trailers" on YouTube are an example of critique; they're intended for people who've already seen the movie.
In a review you do need elements of criticism, but those elements have to be discreet. A review ought to tell you why you want to experience this thing without interfering with that experience. And while a reviewer's feelings are more important in a review than a critics feelings are in a critique, a little critical objectivity is still very useful in a reviewer. A good reviewer should be able to tell you why you want to see a movie that he himself hates.
Re:Good reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the problems with general-purpose reviews is that they don't take into account the specific tastes of the viewers (or in games, the player). They're a pretty good indicator of general quality, though. For specific tastes, you could probably move the bar up and down another good 20% of a total rating.
Fir instance, I generally enjoy science fiction, fantasy, or historical dramas. Anything with these characteristics will probably get an automatic 10% ratings bump. On the other hand, I really couldn't care less about most horror films, which get an automatic 10% penalty.
I've also found that I often disagree with the tastes of professional reviewers as well. I sometimes get the impression that they see so many movies, they tend to automatically latch onto anything that feels new, fresh, unique, or surprising, even if it really isn't all that great of a movie otherwise. By contrast, I see so few movies that I'm perfectly content with classic tropes, so long as they're well executed and engaging.
Knowing the taste of your audience gives you a better chance at finding shows they enjoy. I'm actually pretty good at finding movies and TV shows my parents might enjoy, simply because I have a reasonably good idea about their general tastes.. Personal recommendations for movies, shows, books, and games is one area that I think AI could do a *really* good job at if it were trained well enough.
Get over it (Score:5, Interesting)
Moviegoers have plenty of things to do with their time and many of them don't want to waste their time on crappy movies. For me nearly every movie with a very bad rotten tomato score (below 30%) is not worth going to the theater. I may rent it later but it isn't going to get $30-$40 from me. On top of that, there are plenty of movies which could be interesting but I'll wait for the reviews before going to the theater. Right now movies like Jumanji, Blade Runner, and Ready Player One are in that category for me. If they can get 70%+ scores I'll take another look, but otherwise I'll wait for the rental.
Bad rotten tomato scores are kind of like a resume with a lot of misspelled words when you have 1000 resumes to go through. It's a good initial filter criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
For me nearly every movie with a very bad rotten tomato score (below 30%) is not worth going to the theater.
I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen in the theater in the last 5 years that I thought was worth going to the theater for. That's why I rarely go to the theater anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't been to a movie theater in 10-15 years.
I originally stopped going because the experience was bad: high prices, noisy audiences, smaller screens, more crowded seats. And while some theaters are now addressing the latter two items, it's too late for me - I've found I'm perfectly happy watching movies on my flat-panel TV at home, eating my own popcorn, and having a "pause" button handy when I need to go to the bathroom.
Personal taste (Score:2)
I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen in the theater in the last 5 years that I thought was worth going to the theater for. That's why I rarely go to the theater anymore.
Not being disrespectful but I think that says more about you than it does about the movies. I totally get that movies in general might not be your particular brand of vodka and that's fine. But there are good movies out there (yes within the last 5 years) which are fun for many of us to see in a theater. Maybe you feel the same way about movies that I do about live music concerts. Even live music that I acknowledge is very well done rarely holds my interest for long and so it's not really worth the effo
Re: (Score:2)
Not being disrespectful but I think that says more about you than it does about the movies.
That's not disrespectful, that's a fair comment. Different tastes and all that.
A big part of the issue for me is the theater itself. Theaters have become pretty unpleasant (and expensive!) so a movie has to be truly exceptional to be worth it.
But an even bigger issue is the nature of most movies these days: it seems like 99% of them are mindless action movies, unnecessary remakes, and unnecessary sequels. And, good god, all that horrific CGI. Again, it's a matter of taste, but those are not exactly my cup o
Re: (Score:2)
A recent shock was going for "Victoria and Abdul" (which was pretty good) and finding the theater jam-packed of 60+ year olds.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, the teenagers don't bother me much, really. They don't tend to go to movies that require a great deal of attention.
I'm with you on the smaller theaters, though. My comments about theaters wasn't talking about those.
My town has three that are tiny, that use home theater equipment for their projection, and never have first-run movies. But they do have couches and overstuffed armchairs, beer, wine, and actually good, real food that you can order with a text and they bring it to you. Those are wonderful the
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to add this bit:
I have seen a number of really great movies in the last five years -- they just weren't in the theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly can't think of a single movie I've seen in the theater in the last 5 years that I thought was worth going to the theater for. That's why I rarely go to the theater anymore.
probably longer for me, last time I went to a movie theater was to watch The Aviator. It was the Howard Hughes aeronautical plot, and a big budget actor was indicator they'll do their homework before starting production (let me see the blueprints, let me see the blueprints, let me see the blueprints, let me see the blueprints, )
Re: (Score:2)
...is not worth going to the theater. I may rent it later but it isn't going to get $30-$40 from me.
What kind of theater are you going to? I don't live in the US but $10 seems like an already expensive ticket. Note that I don't eat popcorn and I don't drink in theaters, but even with that, that's a lot of money for a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
For first run big ticket movies in my part of the US, ticket prices are in the $10-$15 range (excluding the gimmicky stuff like 3D or iMax, which cost more). Bring a date, and you could hit $30 just to get in.
Re: (Score:2)
I just price checked a 7pm Blade Runner IMAX at my local theater and it is $18.34 per ticket. Then there is a $4.00 convenience fee for buying online, but since they allow reserved seating now you definitely don't want to wait until you are there in person because all the best seats are gone. So basically that is $40.68 before popcorn.
Most of the time I only go to the theater for movies I want to be able to talk about with friends and coworkers after opening weekend. If I can wait a week or two until things
Re: (Score:2)
Tickets to see the new Bladerunner movie in IMAX were 20 bucks last weekend at my local theater... 3D non IMAX were $19. The cheapest option was $14 and all of that is before any fees you might pay for buying your tickets online (which you probably want to do for a reserved seat show).
Movie theaters have gotten pretty damn expensive
so we meet again (Score:2)
Note: I wrote this without having noticed that Richard Brody was mentioned in the story submission.
Here's my personal calibration of Tomatoes:
_5 95-100___superb
_4 90-95____great
_3 85-90____good
_2 80-85____weak
_1 60-80____meh
_0 30-60____double meh
-1 _0-30____barrel bottom
If I had to engage in a Netflix-style 1-5 rating system (triple meh), then these would be my assigned numerical scores
RPO (Score:2)
I have no idea how the movie will turn out, but the book Ready Player One was a pastiche of geek culture references from the 80s and lists of geek culture references from the 80s. It also featured characters with all of the depth of a cardboard cutout -- actually, on balance I think that's insulting to cardboard cutouts. If the RPO movie is better than the Dungeons and Dragons movie, then it can only be by heroic virtue on the part of the scriptwriters; the book should be avoided at all costs.
And in other news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero fucks were given about critics [rottentomatoes.com]
--
Hey Hollywood, stop making the same shit over again [wikipedia.org]
Re:And in other news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even ST: Discovery is better, and it has no idea what it wants to be either.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine he was referring to other lowbrow entertainment (ice road trucks, ghost wars,supernatural).
If it's been a long day, you're not looking for something like Westworld or Handmaid's Tale...
It's good mind mush; decent stories, reasonable comedy, and no need to think too hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy Crap. If you think Hollywood is bad then click on 21+ on the right and scroll to the bottom!
Re:And in other news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey Hollywood, stop making the same shit over again [wikipedia.org]
If Bullshit Sequel #2 makes $50 million in profits, you better believe Hollywood is gonna make Bullshit Sequel #3.
That continues until Bullshit Sequel #8 proves to not-so-profitable. If not, then they'll make Bullshit Sequel #9.
Bottom line is STOP asking or blaming Hollywood. They are doing nothing more than responding to demand.
WTF the ship looks like (Score:2)
an offspring of B5 Whitestar and SG Ori Ship.
Re: And in other news ... (Score:2)
Orville is utter scheisse. I tried to watch it with open mind, but it was spectacularly unwatchable What you see in any user scores is fan boy buas.
Re: (Score:2)
Relies on it a lot! (Score:2)
If 30 critics out 40 hate something that is a BIG clue!
The world is changing, Martin Scorsese (Score:2)
Even guys like you need to either adapt, or die.
Headline sounds like wishful thinking (Score:2)
I didn't find a thing to support it in the summary or a skim of the rather ponderous article. Perhaps "real moviegoers" is Scorsese's shorthand for the rapidly diminishing population who will continue to just show up at the theater and pay for whatever slop is served up that particular week?
I read Rotten Tomatoes (Score:5, Interesting)
I do refuse to go to movies with low scores, and more importantly, I use it to discover movies with a high score that I was unaware of.
It's how I find Indie films to watch.
Maybe I'm part of the elite.
Or maybe the shmucks that dislike rotten tomatoes have no idea what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm part of the elite.
According to Martin Scorsese, you've got that backwards. Maybe you should read the article - the point is not that film criticism is bad, the problem is in how that criticism is represented by critic aggregators.
He doesn't go into the particular method in by which Rotten Tomatoes calculates its scores, which I think way way off (I can't understand why people go there at all, compared to some of the other aggregators), but rather he talks about the idea that film criticism, which is a sort of art in itsel
Re: (Score:2)
Rotten Tomatoes is one of the few movie rating systems that does not suffer from "paid creep".
Most movie rating systems are corrupted by the film makers that hate when they get a 1 star review. So the worst film gets a 3, the best gets a 5 star and most get a 4. That makes them worthless.
Graphs of their rating look like a single mountain at the end of plain.
Not true of Rotten Tomatoes, they give a full spectrum 1-5. Their graph looks like a normal curve
Re: (Score:2)
So a mediocre movie which everyone agrees is a little above average, but which no one thinks is great - that will score very high. While a controversial movie, which some people think is fantastic while others think is bad (or even just a little below average), that will score in the m
Re: (Score:2)
I half agree with you.... (Score:2)
I will watch movies with low scores if I want to see them, because I sometimes like what others don't, and hate what others love.
As you said though, I will find new things to watch by sorting them by high ratings, and reading some of the reviews. That doesn't guarantee I will watch it though, it only gives me a starting point. But, I may be unique in that I don't go to the theater**. I look for movies to add to my Netflix DVD queue. So by the time I am looking, there are plenty of reviews on the movie.
*
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the shmucks that dislike rotten tomatoes have no idea what they are talking about.
Hey, you and me - we're not real moviegoers.
Then and Now (Score:2)
Back 'then', when I was a kid, you saw the ad and decided if you wanted to see the movie. There was no Internet for public discussion, so if the movie wasn't awesome there was no word of mouth (good or bad).
That's how I got fooled into seeing Project X, a decent drama about military animal testing. What it wasn't was the hilarious comedy with the star of Ferris Bueller in it that it was marketed as.
When you see movie industry types bitching about reviews these days, they're not complaining about the subs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>If the Internet were required for "word of mouth" the phrase wouldn't be "word of mouth"!
The difference is the threshold for communicating is much lower now, especially to large numbers of people.
An average movie simply wouldn't have been much of a topic of conversation for most people, whereas now we're all crawling over social media looking for trivia to gnaw on. Maybe my immediate circle doesn't care what I have to say, but my words - however unimportant - now reach a much larger audience increasing
Re: (Score:2)
Scorsese is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Scorsese is generally wrong. People go to movies to see something entertaining, not (for the most part) study how well it was constructed. Nearly no one cares about the 'art of film" or whatever other pompous nonsense they talk to each other about. Critics who base their reviews and evaluation on what grade someone might get at film school are completely missing the boat. That's why no one pays any attention to them.
Scorsese has made plenty of movies people wanted to see, but you have to wonder if that was accidental, given his thought process. Or maybe he has lost sight of the end goal, 2 hours of entertainment (as opposed to an exercise of technical prowess).
If he wants to make movies for other film school grad or NY critics, then fine, but don't whine about the fact that most people don't care about it. From a artistic standpoint, "Star Wars" is a piece of crap, with terrible acting, cliche' plot that would have fit about as well in a B Western, and an entirely predictable ending. Oh, and it was not too far from a scene-by-scene remake of "The Hidden Fortress", so also not original. But people liked it because it has cool (astonishing for the time) effects and a lot of spaceships blowing each other up. People go to watch "Weekend at Bernie's" because its stupid but funny. No one cares it he shot a scene day-for-night or uses the same framing techniques as Kurosawa in Yojimbo.
If someone want to go to study the artistic value of a movie, fine, no on is stopping them. And no one (except the people who want to make money by providing entertainment for entertainments sake) is preventing anyone from making those movies. But it is foolish to expect that such self-indulgence made for other film buffs is going to get a high rating or make money from the general public. Rotten Tomatoes is telling you what people actually want to see, crappy or not from perspective of the overblown craft of moviemaking.
Re: (Score:2)
From a artistic standpoint, "Star Wars" is a piece of crap, with terrible acting, cliche' plot that would have fit about as well in a B Western, and an entirely predictable ending. Oh, and it was not too far from a scene-by-scene remake of "The Hidden Fortress", so also not original. But people liked it because it has cool (astonishing for the time) effects and a lot of spaceships blowing each other up.
Also, during the mid 60's and 70's, it became fashionable for movies to be incredibly cynical or depressing (e.g. Easy Rider, Planet of the Apes, Rosemary's Baby, etc). My parents told me they simply stopped going to see movies during that time. Star Wars completely bucked that trend. It was such a breath of fresh air, our family went to see it three times, which was completely unprecedented. As you said, Star Wars was a movie tailor-made for ordinary people, not film snobs.
I know that I don't (Score:2)
I'm not sure what a "real moviegoer" is, but I don't care about what ratings RT gives to movies when I'm trying to decide if one is worth my time or not. The ratings are useless.
The reason is because it's 100% a subjective call. The only people whose opinions are important are those people whose tastes resemble mine.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there are two scores. One of them is the critics, and the others the audience.
I mostly ignore the critics score, there have been multiple times were I've seen 30% critics movie, have 80s for the audience. In those cases the people who end up going to those critically reviled movies are the people who like that genre of movie.
Before the Internet, if you could find a critic with tastes similar to you, awesome. Otherwise you were hosed, with RT, if the audience score is high. Watch the trailer, if i
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there are two scores. One of them is the critics, and the others the audience.
I know, and neither of them are meaningful to me -- as in, neither of them correlate well with whether or not I'll enjoy the movie.
Of course (Score:2)
Everyone need to study the entire history of film to understand why "The Emoji Movie" was a pile of crap because clearly we aren't competent to judge things on our own without that knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
There's two kinds of critique, though... technical and the very simple 'What type of person will like this, and how much?"
It's not a bad idea for a professional critic to understand how films are made, why, and how that's different from the past. It is a bad idea for a professional critic to think that's more important than telling me whether I am likely to actually enjoy the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and lots of shilling (Score:3)
I looked at the Bladerunner 2048 Reviews on Saturday after the premiere, looks like a TON of canned 5-star reviews, overly verbose not really saying anything about watching the movie, but just how great the movie is, or the importance of the movie. Then there were the opposite one and no pointers, who wrote not again about the movie but how bad the movie was. In there if you read a bit you could find snippets of actual reviews where people mention the plot development form the original, characters, scenes
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at the Bladerunner 2048 Reviews on Saturday after the premiere, looks like a TON of canned 5-star reviews, overly verbose not really saying anything about watching the movie, but just how great the movie is, or the importance of the movie. Then there were the opposite one and no pointers, who wrote not again about the movie but how bad the movie was. In there if you read a bit you could find snippets of actual reviews where people mention the plot development form the original, characters, scenes etc.
There was apparently a great deal of effort to keep spoilers from slipping. The trailer noticibly doesn't give away much of the plot. Reviewers were asked/warned not to give away spoilers to the plot in reviews. Of course, you really only hear about this in "spoiler reviews" which you practically have to go looking for to find. There are also plenty of such reviews that think that such treatment may have hurt the numbers as there is no 'hook' to draw people in. Normally, I'm not one to worry about spoilers,
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just wait until I can see it at home, I think. I didn't like the original Blade Runner (even the director's cut), so I'm assuming that this one isn't for me either.
But I am curious nonetheless.
Judging by declining ticket sales: (Score:2)
They very much in fact, do care.
The question remains, will the remaining die-hard movie fans who don't care about endless sequels and superhero flicks be enough to keep Hollywood and the US box office afloat?
I doubt it and Hollywood will continue to pander to China making their US existence far more irrelevant.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Martin Scorsese inveighs against two conjoined trends -- the widespread reporting of box-office results and the grading of movies by consumers on CinemaScore and by critics on Rotten Tomatoes -- and blames it for "a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers." In particular, he contends that this hostile environment is worsening "as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene.
Translation: "Serious film makers shouldn't have to care about whether or not their film appeals to anyone or makes money and anyone who isn't a film history major shouldn't be allowed to criticize my work because they are unworthy."
"Hostile to serious filmmakers"? What a joke. Just because you can't make money on a shit film anymore isn't our problem. Just because nobody wants to fund your risky art house film isn't our problem. Knowledge of film history is utterly irrelevant in determining whether or not a film is worth seeing. Popularity does not necessarily equal quality but it cannot be denied that there is a strong correlation. Rotten Tomatoes isn't the end-all-be-all of movie evaluation but it is useful information. If a movie gets a 13% on Rotten Tomatoes I'm probably going to skip seeing it in a theater. If a narcissistic director cannot handle that business reality then that isn't my problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Knowledge of film history is utterly irrelevant in determining whether or not a film is worth seeing.
Of course it is relevant. A good film critic should not only tell you whether a film is worth seeing, but can tell you why, and what other films you might enjoy if you enjoy this one (or what films succeed where this one fails).
Haven't you ever heard about what happens to those who ignore history?
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is the idiot audience who supports making shit films.
I gotta say, it's hard to argue with this. However, this is also nothing new -- such is the way it's been for all of the history of Hollywood.
Hollywood isn't interested in making movies that are good. They're interested in making movies that maximize their profits.
Professional Critics disconnect. (Score:3)
Much like a lot of professionals there is a disconnect between them and the average guy.
Critics watch movies all the time, and are use to digging them apart and the begin to realize what they like and dislike, and as time goes on they get more picky.
Just like a Wine Connoisseur. As the average guy knows if he liked or disliked a wine, but wouldn't be able to tell them apart. the Wine Connoisseur has learned to tell the differences, so a wine they may had liked decades back is now poor to him, because of that one undertone that they have caught on to.
The same with movies, a plot hole, or a poorly made character would have gone unnoticed to the average movie goer because they got distracted by the shiny thing going on, or just comprehending a major plot and not realizing the sub plot.
There are some movies that I rather enjoyed because of the problems a critic had pointed out. Often because they were expecting more depth in the movie, while I just wanted a way to have a rompin good time for the next 2 hours.
Bad example (Score:3)
Just like a Wine Connoisseur. As the average guy knows if he liked or disliked a wine, but wouldn't be able to tell them apart. the Wine Connoisseur has learned to tell the differences, so a wine they may had liked decades back is now poor to him, because of that one undertone that they have caught on to.
You might have chosen a different example because wine tasting is complete BS [realclearscience.com] and has been repeatedly shown to be so in all sorts of studies. So called wine experts are routinely anything but experts and are easily revealed as such. They often cannot tell the difference between "good" and "bad" wines under any sort of rigorous scrutiny. Very similar to audiophiles who like to pretend they can hear things the rest of us cannot.
I use RT and IMDB (Score:2)
Mostly to decide if something is worth downloading to watch at home.
Most of the trailers lately seem to want to give away everything about a movie. If it's a new movie, I tend to ignore the trailers.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a helpdesk ticketing system like RT got to do with the topic at hand?
Re: (Score:2)
Use RT but consider both critic and user score (Score:2)
one unfortunate thing (Score:2)
I never consider reviews anyway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone else likes it or doesn't like it - what do I care?
If that someone else shares your taste, then their opinion would be helpful to you. That's they way to read critics: find one or two whose opinions you tend to agree with, listen to what they say about new movies, and ignore literally everybody else.
Don't blame the players, blame the game. (Score:2)
Online movie reviews have saved many people from the awful disappointment of a bad movie.
There are some movies that are only worth seeing on DVD or cable/streaming, if at all.
Rottentomatoes is a good spend o'meter.. (Score:2)
Review pages have just become utterly useless (Score:3)
Between "professional" reviewers that don't dare to pan an atrocious movie because they fear the social shitstorm, astroturfing studios and people who don't give a shit about the movie being good or bad because it doesn't fit into their world view and that's why it's horrible (or because it caters to it and that's why it has to be stellar), all of them trying to out-do each other with "it's the greatest movie of all times" or "it's the worst trash since the invention of cinema" on a movie that is essentially "meh".
I guess everyone knows by now what I'm talking about, so I'll just close here. tl;dr version: It might work for simple Michael Bay movies that have no "message" but as soon as there is one, just ignore RT and find out for yourself.
He's got it backwards (Score:2)
With the advent of unlimited phone plans, then cell phones, and now the Internet, word of mouth among regular
Richard Brody is a Moron (Score:2)
I think that film criticism is, over all, better than ever, because, with its new Internet-centrism, it's more democratic than ever
Being democratic doesn't make something good or correct. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. The vast majority of people are not experts in every field. In fact, the majority of people have less than average aptitude in any specific field. Making film criticism, or anything else that benefits from specific knowledge or experience, more "democratic" makes it objectively worse.
I'm no fan of Scorsese. Honestly, the best thing he's ever done is Bad (MJ's music video). http://www.imdb.com/name/nm000 [imdb.com]
User discussion (Score:2)
At least Rotten Tomatoes still has user discussions, unlike IMDB, which trashed them for no better reason than California's "no age disclosure" nonsense.
What is a real moviegoer? (Score:2)
Being Slashdot, I didn't read the article. I go to the movie theater to watch movies so I assume I am a real moviegoer. But, I do care about rotten tomatoes. I see almost every movie that scores above 90 on rotten tomatoes. Any movie that scores below 90 that I'm interested in I watch on my laptop after it's released.
Scorcese is an old fart (Score:2)
He hasnt made a decent movie since Casino
My use of RT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I don't care about attendance figures, either. I'm not in the movie business, so those figures have no meaning in my life.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the trailer
I'll pass on the trailers. They've lied to me too often in the past to pay them any attention at all.
Re:Take it with a grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from their deceptiveness, my problem with trailers is the opposite. If, after watching the trailer, I still can't tell you what the movie is about then the trailer was useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, this bothers me too. I have pretty good audio-visual memory. Far too often I can predict the plot while watching the movie simply because I've seen the trailer, and I remember key upcoming scenes. I certainly don't *mean* for that to happen, but a particular set may trigger my memory, and I'll think "Oh, I know that something scary is going to pop out here", or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that I'm probably in the minority, but I've never been bothered by spoilers. If knowing how the movie is going to go in advance ruins it, then it wasn't a good movie to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you wouldn't have wanted to hear about the ending of Sixth Sense before you saw the movie, or other films with a wicked plot twist.
For many movies, the plot is almost incidental, perhaps focusing more on characters, action & effects, or drama. But for some movies, experiencing the plot first-hand for yourself is a large part of the fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you wouldn't have wanted to hear about the ending of Sixth Sense before you saw the movie
Actually, I did know that twist before I saw it. I don't think it reduced my enjoyment of the movie too much. Being surprised is a good thing, but not essential. A good movie is a good movie, whether or not you know how it goes. Perhaps I lost something in knowing the twist beforehand, but it doesn't really feel like it to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as you suggested, I'm going to say you're probably in the minority in that one. ;-) There are many movies I enjoy watching multiple times, so I agree that surprise isn't essential to enjoyment. But having watched that movie and experiencing the twist first-hand, non-spoiled, it was a rather enjoyable mind-bending moment that isn't nearly the same as watching it knowing the ending. That foreknowledge completely colors your movie-watching experience. I think this is why movies with big twists often
Re: (Score:2)
I do understand that -- I've seen plenty of "twisty" movies where I didn't see the twist coming. It's fun!
movies with big twists often replay key scenes in some sort of brief montage, which allows the viewer to re-watch those scenes to confirm the double meaning for themselves.
It always irritates me when movies do this, though. It's too much like spoon-feeding and eliminates a lot of the fun of the twist. It's right up there with when movies are posing an unstated question through the whole story, but then wuss out and state it at the end (this is why, although I really love the original Total Recall, I hate its ending. Asking overtly "is this real" just deflates it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I wasn't trying to say there's no difference. Only that the difference doesn't really affect me enough to be upset by spoilers. Probably because 9 times out of 10, the twist is pretty obvious by the time you're halfway through the movie anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I get there, it tells me things are fresh. 75% fresh. WTF? I never asked for this.
They've been manipulated into saying rotten things are actually fresh, so it's a subtle kind of rottenness where you read that it's fresh, then check it out to find it was rotten.