The Official Suicide Squad Rotten Tomatoes Thread - Part 1

[BlZARRO]

In that case, you should just visit IMDB if audience scoring is your go-to for movie recommendations. Because RT is doing what it says on the tin

The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show

The problem is that people don't watch movies with the same mindset of a movie critic. Or maybe you do. Maybe you do, maybe people from this forum do, but not people in general. That's why you often see a disconnection between what critics think and what the audience think about a movie.

 

[idiot09]

Mark Hughes provides a breakdown on the "Critics are biased/Fans claiming conspiracy against DC" argument.Its a very well thought out and written article that explores both sides so give it a read

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...despite-medias-gloom-and-doom/2/#25fb43b57a1f

"I will strenuously defend the press and film reviewers against hyperbolic accusations and false, uninformed claims of widespread payoffs and bribery, and I consistently tell my readers and fans on social media to stop silly claims of conspiracies against their favorite films. And I will forever defend the right of film critics to express their opinions whether or not readers happen to aggree with the writer’s personal subjective assessment of art.

But I will just as strongly disagree with any members of the press who try to pretend ulterior motives or bad behavior sway some people’s writing sometimes, or who deny that there isn’t a demonstrable tendency of established narratives about a production or project or star to be perpetuated by outlets and reporters. This isn’t to say it can’t change, that people don’t resist it, or that it is the dominant truth of entertainment journalism, but it’s there and it’s not just a few “bad apples” or rare occurrences. And let’s face it, everybody knows it and can see it, so when the media tries too hard to deny it or make excuses for it, it merely enhances the perception that the press can’t be trusted to be honest about itself."

 

[BlZARRO]

Mark Hughes provides a breakdown on the "Critics are biased/Fans claiming conspiracy against DC" argument.Its a very well thought out and written article that explores both sides so give it a read

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...despite-medias-gloom-and-doom/2/#25fb43b57a1f

"I will strenuously defend the press and film reviewers against hyperbolic accusations and false, uninformed claims of widespread payoffs and bribery, and I consistently tell my readers and fans on social media to stop silly claims of conspiracies against their favorite films. And I will forever defend the right of film critics to express their opinions whether or not readers happen to aggree with the writer’s personal subjective assessment of art.

But I will just as strongly disagree with any members of the press who try to pretend ulterior motives or bad behavior sway some people’s writing sometimes, or who deny that there isn’t a demonstrable tendency of established narratives about a production or project or star to be perpetuated by outlets and reporters. This isn’t to say it can’t change, that people don’t resist it, or that it is the dominant truth of entertainment journalism, but it’s there and it’s not just a few “bad apples” or rare occurrences. And let’s face it, everybody knows it and can see it, so when the media tries too hard to deny it or make excuses for it, it merely enhances the perception that the press can’t be trusted to be honest about itself."

Good article.

 

[BlZARRO]

It’s simply the way the press works when a negative story gets traction early on and the rest of the press join in. The process favors piling on, so that’s what happens, and when the press smell blood they are likely to pounce

Found this part interesting.

 

[PacificBoy]

The problem is that people don't watch movies with the same mindset of a movie critic. Or maybe you do. Maybe you do, maybe people from this forum do, but not people in general. That's why you often see a disconnection between what critics think and what the audience think about a movie.

Agree, critics don't speak for all audiences, and disconnect invariably happens for something as opinion-varying as consumable entertainment. Doesn't disprove or contradict that bolded copy, however.

Edit: Yes, that article is a good read. Pertinent to the ongoing discussion

You can offer criticisms and complaints about aggregate sites and how the public uses them, but in the end all Rotten Tomatoes has ever claimed to be is a site where you can quickly look and see how many film critics recommend a movie, and how their recommendation compares alongside ordinary public users’ own recommendations (featured directly beside the film critic percentile). It provides snippets from each review, in case you want to get a bit more information but don’t have time to read full reviews (the reviewers personally choose the quotes attributed to them at Rotten Tomatoes); and if you want to dive even deeper into it, you can click a link that takes you to each full review. Thus how much or how little detail and nuance you get from Rotten Tomatoes is absolutely up to you. If you think people aren’t properly using it, then blame those people, not the site that offers lots of information and the chance to expand your insights into that information if you put forth minimum amounts of effort.

 

[The Joker]

Considering i know a good amount of people who straight up tell me they only hear bad things about the movies and that's why they wouldn't pay for it, yeah, i do. I do think with good critical reception this movie would have made more money.

Ah the old 'Well all the people I've talked to said this' argument. Meaningless and worthless. Your little circle does not represent a consensus. I don't know anyone who likes Harry Potter, but I'm not deluded to think that doesn't mean its insanely popular.

Transformers appeals to a much wider group of people than animated movies. You have people who watch it just because they had the toys and watched the series growing up. You have people who watch it just because they love cars. You have people who watch it just because they love Megan Fox's ass. It's on a different level of popularity.

Go on Google Trends. In 2004, even before the first movie, Transformers were more popular than the great Toy Story. It's really not difficult to understand why Transformers can make the money they make without being good.

Plus, they are so mindless, heartless and action packed, that they will always find its specific audience. Which is large. People who just wanna watch good action.

Batman and Superman were more popular than Transformers and Toy Story, and Batman by himself was able to make a billion twice in a row because he was in good movies. Put Batman and Superman together in a movie, a movie that had insanely high anticipation, and release it in a month with no other competition to take a bite out of its takings, and it still couldn't make the billion.

If mindless heartless action packed movies were guaranteed money makers, especially ones with big CGI robots, the likes of Pacific Rim would be raking it in, or at least made close to Transformers money, and that got a decent critical score. But it didn't. Not even close.

Your argument is baseless.

Movies that deal with extremely popular characters and are very well marketed will easily draw a lot of people to the theater. There's enough people who wanna watch a Batman/Superman movie just because it's a Batman/Superman movie, regardless of the reviews. But the reality is that those aren't the only people who go to the movies. Some people might be curious about it but not to the point where they will still see it if all they hear is bad things.

If you're willing to accept the influence of WOM, you should accept the influence of media. Opinions are opinions. And like i said, the influence of media on people's decisions is well documentated. You can search it for yourself. It seems naive to try to deny it.

I can't really answer you "how much of an impact", because that's something neither of us know. But as long as people give a crap about opinions, there will always be some of them who will act according to it. There will always be people who will hear what a friend says. There will always be people who will hear what the media says. It's the way the world works.

But I don't accept the influence of media. Not to that extent. TDKR made over a billion, and people were not put off by one of the theaters showing it having a horrible shooting by a psycho fan who thought said he was the Joker, or RT getting shut down temporarily because some idiot fanboys were sending death threats to a critic who gave it a bad review.

You argument is a strawman. Batman and Superman sell themselves. They are hugely popular icons. We are living in the height of the superhero movie craze. There's too many examples of panned movies make huge money, just like there is of many critically acclaimed movies not making big bank to say that critical consensus has significant impact on box office.

At the end of the day if people want to see a movie they will go and see it, and likewise if they enjoyed it they will go back and see it. That's how movies make box office.

I explained you what i meant by "i don't care". You're still ignoring it, just because you feel like it. If i didn't express myself well enough, than i apoligize. But since the last two posts i feel i did it, so i don't understand why you're still so hung up on your personal interpretation of what i said.

Maybe you should learn things aren't black or white. I like to stay informed and i enjoy the movie world, so i would read a couple of reviews from time to time just so i can at least talk about what i actually know. Doesn't mean i will follow their recommendations.

I'm ignoring nothing. Your explanation doesn't make sense. You don't need to read the reviews if you like to "stay informed". You can be aware of the critical consensus without sifting through the reviews, and likewise you can ignore said critical consensus if as you said it doesn't matter to you.

But its obvious you do care because nobody who devotes this much time to trying to argue it doesn't. You are the poster child of the kind of fan who claims these reviews don't matter, yet complain the most when they're bad.

Edit: Yes, that article is a good read. Pertinent to the ongoing discussion

You can offer criticisms and complaints about aggregate sites and how the public uses them, but in the end all Rotten Tomatoes has ever claimed to be is a site where you can quickly look and see how many film critics recommend a movie, and how their recommendation compares alongside ordinary public users’ own recommendations (featured directly beside the film critic percentile). It provides snippets from each review, in case you want to get a bit more information but don’t have time to read full reviews (the reviewers personally choose the quotes attributed to them at Rotten Tomatoes); and if you want to dive even deeper into it, you can click a link that takes you to each full review. Thus how much or how little detail and nuance you get from Rotten Tomatoes is absolutely up to you. If you think people aren’t properly using it, then blame those people, not the site that offers lots of information and the chance to expand your insights into that information if you put forth minimum amounts of effort.

Exactly. RT offers you the best of both worlds.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If all RT offered was an audience score, they would be killing their business. People would just abandon the site.

 

[BlZARRO]

Ah the old 'Well all the people I've talked to said this' argument. Meaningless and worthless. Your little circle does not represent a consensus. I don't know anyone who likes Harry Potter, but I'm not deluded to think that doesn't mean its insanely popular.

It's worthless to you, not to me. There's nothing meaningless about my life experiences and contact with people. Nobody is talking about consensus. I'm talking about logic. I know a lot of people like that. As someone who has been the manager of a theater, i've talked to a lot of people about movies IN PERSON, so i know, for a fact, that some people don't go watch movies with bad reviews unless they're very, very curious about it. So, if i've known a good amount of people like that, it's perfectly logical to assume that they don't exist just in my circle. Maybe you can also assume that a lot of people don't like Harry Potter, since you don't know anyone who does, therefor, there must be more people like that around the world.

And again, are you still denying the impact of media on people's opinions and behaviour? Why? It is well documented. Do a search. It has been studied for decades. It's a well known fact. There's nothing absurd about suggesting that there's a group of people who let themselves being influenced by what critics say.

Batman and Superman were more popular than Transformers and Toy Story, and Batman by himself was able to make a billion twice in a row because he was in good movies. Put Batman and Superman together in a movie, a movie that had insanely high anticipation, and release it in a month with no other competition to take a bite out of its takings, and it still couldn't make the billion.

If mindless heartless action packed movies were guaranteed money makers, especially ones with big CGI robots, the likes of Pacific Rim would be raking it in, or at least made close to Transformers money, and that got a decent critical score. But it didn't. Not even close.

Your argument is baseless.

Again, you're ignoring Transformers's history. Pacific Rim isn't half of the brand of Transformers.

The Transformers movies appeal to a very large audience. They obviously have an easier time making money even without being good than Batman. Batman has had not so great performances in the past.

I understand that your point is that "BvS is so bad, so bad, so bad, and people hated it so much that it couldn't even make 1 Billion dollars".

I know you're not a big fan of different factors, or the color grey, but maybe there's more to it than the simple quality of the film. For instance: Transformers is more family friendly. BvS is a more violent movie. It's darker, it's more depressive. It's a bunch of things that usually don't help a movie achieving huge numbers. Obviously, if the movie was better, it would have made more money. Nobody is questioning that. But let's not pretend the only factor involved is quality and that the style and cast of a movie, for example, can't make or break it.

But look: Dark Of The Moon made more money than BB, TDK and TDKR. What does that tell you? That Dark Of The Moon is a better film than those 3? Wow, TDKR and TDK must suck, if a supposedly great movie with the so popular Batman couldn't even beat a bad Transformers movie. Or maybe...maybe Transformers is just a more appealing concept, for whatever reason. Maybe it simply appeals to a larger audience.

But I don't accept the influence of media. Not to that extent. TDKR made over a billion, and people were not put off by one of the theaters showing it having a horrible shooting by a psycho fan who thought said he was the Joker, or RT getting shut down temporarily because some idiot fanboys were sending death threats to a critic who gave it a bad review.

You argument is a strawman. Batman and Superman sell themselves. They are hugely popular icons. We are living in the height of the superhero movie craze. There's too many examples of panned movies make huge money, just like there is of many critically acclaimed movies not making big bank to say that critical consensus has significant impact on box office.

At the end of the day if people want to see a movie they will go and see it, and likewise if they enjoyed it they will go back and see it. That's how movies make box office.

Well, if you don't accept it, that's your problem. I've studied enough about the media that to me there's zero doubt that it has an impact. Can't tell you to what extent, and neither can you.

I'm ignoring nothing. Your explanation doesn't make sense. You don't need to read the reviews if you like to "stay informed". You can be aware of the critical consensus without sifting through the reviews, and likewise you can ignore said critical consensus if as you said it doesn't matter to you.

But its obvious you do care because nobody who devotes this much time to trying to argue it doesn't. You are the poster child of the kind of fan who claims these reviews don't matter, yet complain the most when they're bad.

Man, you're truly obsessed about the word "care". Care about what? About the impact they have on people and the current state of film? Yes, i care about that. Care about their recommendations to the point where i will make decisions based on them? No, i don't care. You can keep arguing this over and over and over again, that it won't change this fact. And even if i did care, why is this so important to you? I feel flattered to see that you show such interest in what i care.

 

[The Joker]

It's worthless to you, not to me. There's nothing meaningless about my life experiences and contact with people. Nobody is talking about consensus. I'm talking about logic. I know a lot of people like that. As someone who has been the manager of a theater, i've talked to a lot of people about movies IN PERSON, so i know, for a fact, that some people don't go watch movies with bad reviews unless they're very, very curious about it. So, if i've known a good amount of people like that, it's perfectly logical to assume that they don't exist just in my circle. Maybe you can also assume that a lot of people don't like Harry Potter, since you don't know anyone who does, therefor, there must be more people like that around the world.

Obviously its not worthless to you since you're using it as an invalid argument. I'm talking consensus. Because it would have to be a significant number for it have any kind of negative or positive impact on box office. You saying people you've talked to people who feel this way doesn't mean a thing. Just as me not knowing anyone who loves Harry Potter doesn't mean anything. You are one person and your interactions with these people don't mount to anything.

And again, are you still denying the impact of media on people's opinions and behaviour? Why? It is well documented. Do a search. It has been studied for decades. It's a well known fact. There's nothing absurd about suggesting that there's a group of people who let themselves being influenced by what critics say.

A group of people, by that you mean a minority whom don't have any significant impact.

Again, you're ignoring Transformers's history. Pacific Rim isn't half of the brand of Transformers.

What about Transformer's history? Its only gotten movies in the last few years, and they made billions in spite of the fact the critics hammered them three times in a row.

You said, and I quote 'they are so mindless, heartless and action packed, that they will always find its specific audience. Which is large. People who just wanna watch good action.'. Pacific Rim and many other brainless CGI fest movies tick those boxes, but they're not making billions. And PR got a good critical score, too and it never came close to the money the likes ofTransformers makes. So where was its large audience there to skate it close to the billion mark?

The Transformers movies appeal to a very large audience. They obviously have an easier time making money even without being good than Batman. Batman has had not so great performances in the past.

Yeah because they were either poor movies - two of them regarded as among the worst CBMs ever, got a parental backlash, or were trying to recover from the tarnished brand DC had become. Batman has audience appeal to pull in billions. He's done it twice. Pairing him with Superman should have been an easy ride to a billion. But it never happened. Not because the critics hammered the movie.

I understand that your point is that "BvS is so bad, so bad, so bad, and people hated it so much that it couldn't even make 1 Billion dollars".

I know you're not a big fan of different factors, or the color grey, but maybe there's more to it than the simple quality of the film. For instance: Transformers is more family friendly. BvS is a more violent movie. It's darker, it's more depressive. It's a bunch of things that usually don't help a movie achieving huge numbers. Obviously, if the movie was better, it would have made more money. Nobody is questioning that. But let's not pretend the only factor involved is quality and that the style and cast of a movie, for example, can't make or break it.

But look: Dark Of The Moon made more money than BB, TDK and TDKR. What does that tell you? That Dark Of The Moon is a better film than those 3? Wow, TDKR and TDK must suck, if a supposedly great movie with the so popular Batman couldn't even beat a bad Transformers movie. Or maybe...maybe Transformers is just a more appealing concept, for whatever reason. Maybe it simply appeals to a larger audience.

The TDK trilogy is dark, gritty, violent, full of adult themes, and not in the least family friendly movies by any stretch of the imagination. So why are they able to make billions, but BvS is not? They're both movies with Batman in them. So where's the problem? Unless......one movie just isn't good enough to bring people back for repeat viewings because of the poor quality.

Well, if you don't accept it, that's your problem. I've studied enough about the media that to me there's zero doubt that it has an impact. Can't tell you to what extent, and neither can you.

No its not my "problem" because to me its a non issue. This is your hang up with critical reviews and their supposed impact that you have still yet to prove. Therefore this is your problem that you blame for hurting box office performance on these movies. If you can post one shred of proof that proves your point, I will step back and say you are right.

So shock me, post some proof. Actually substantiate your claims for once.

Man, you're truly obsessed about the word "care". Care about what? About the impact they have on people and the current state of film? Yes, i care about that. Care about their recommendations to the point where i will make decisions based on them? No, i don't care. You can keep arguing this over and over and over again, that it won't change this fact. And even if i did care, why is this so important to you? I feel flattered to see that you show such interest in what i care.

Its not important to me. You are a great example of the type of fan we were talking about. One who claims these they don't care about these critics or their reviews, but spend endless effort and time arguing about it.

That's the point here. You are validating it.

 

[Marvin]

In no way does the critical consensus have enough of an effect to hurt the box office in any significant way. The fact that the likes of brainless CGI fests can take over a billion, but take a hammering from the critics repeatedly proves this.

I've don't agree with this.
I'd love to see the list of 'several' tbh, perhaps to actually look at their specific circumstances. Moreover, I'd love to see the ones that landed in the sub thirty percent range that managed to perform well and by well I mean this measure that SS needs to hit before it's somehow considered a financial 'good performer'. Somewhere in the 300dom/700WW I hear, I'd really hope for them to be non (mega)sequels if possible. I say sub thirty cause there is differing effect between people seeing 50% or even 60% rotten and seeing something like 10%, rather the association those types of figures have to other films. I’d hope you’d list a few cause you make it sound like some precedent.

That being said, I figure it boils down to the coveted Transformer and Pirates trilogy of films and not much more(genuinely don’t know). I also assume you mean to lean heavily on the global cume and not so much the clear effects happened upon the domestic ones. I point this out cause intl markets in both those scenarios played a huge and wildcard like role. Pirates as a theme, like dinosaurs are a ready made brand from china to australia, and things like giant robots are a staple and make a killing in asian markets in particular. TF films themselves were making records there before the rest of the pack really started, and pulling in the additional 200mill to get them over 1bill. Intl markets are also affected in a different way by critics, and domestic critics at that. Why would I myself listen to some asian critics about the biggest films in the world, i'd probably stick with Ebert. I mention this cause I imagine RT and it’s score is largely 'our' critics, going by the thumbnails anyway. Also that and different cultures have different measure of art and quality. Some like more musical approaches, there is ‘hong kong cinema’ or what’s going on in south korean film at the moment...which would lead to different approaches to criticism then can be found here. Critics there may not even know about the precedent of 4 smiles per minute for superman for instance, rather that grim tales can be about even the brightest super heroes given their own heroes in their own manga and such, I digress.
Leading to the circumstance of big WW numbers in spite of critical consensus. I think the last pirate movie that made a billion on the dot had like 800mill alone from international.
Moreover, one will notice that both these trilogies in question more or less started off with a great GA reception (still 300dom), their sequels which really got 'hammered' at that point rode on the momentum and novelty now firmly established. Their third installments, back down to the 300dom level got hammered again, and their fourths in the 200doms. Point here being, their first sequels were destined to be big after that first one, but one can see these things aren't as critic proof once the novelty wares as it always does.

International audience aside, (something the dc brand hasn't ever really established mind you), I'm not really seeing big ‘stick it to the critics numbers’ from critical failures in those films I pointed to, especially their later films, and by huge I mean all that much more than these dceu failures. They are seemingly domestically on par with intl falling to circumstantial circumstance, ergo ‘a billion’. Still there could be others I haven’t accounted for.

Batman and Superman were more popular than Transformers and Toy Story, and Batman by himself was able to make a billion twice in a row because he was in good movies. Put Batman and Superman together in a movie, a movie that had insanely high anticipation, and release it in a month with no other competition to take a bite out of its takings, and it still couldn't make the billion.

This seems disingenuous tbh. Firstly if 'popularity' of name alone was all it took then every movie about Santa or Jesus would be doing tdk numbers(RT willing of course). Just because something is known, it then not doing super well doesn't simply boil down to quality, it’s not worth nothing(that two would be disingenuous). The obvious case being Batman Begins(good film?), a case where even most laymen can outline the circumstances as to why a property so 'popular' performed in such a way financially. I'm not sure why something like TDK get's brought up without mentioning the whole Heath thing, I've never been one to discredit nolan but pretending the only thing that happened there was a good film(coming off of bb's performance at that) is where the disingenuous stuff happens. Then you have TDKR, and here we have the momentum element, for I do wonder what would have happened if you swapped the releases of those latter two and heath was actually still with us. One has to note the sharp decline TDKR had compared it's predecessor not only in domestic total but very much in that multiplier. TDK seems to really be the impetus for the recent popularity in the batbrand, a film without a china release yet this new reboot of the character is supposed to pulling in avengers numbers over there as to compete with this current crop of intel juggernaunts? And yes to all that momentum(though on the down turn) didn’t just disappear but..I mention reboot cause the effect is all too often downplayed in these discussions. As if spiderman's reboot didn't suffer, or bond. As if a new actor in a new harry potter universe is supposed to do DanRad's numbers, no. The bat brand is strong but it still falls into this circumstance. I don't expect the ironman reboot to do RDJ(part 3) numbers. Nor do I expect this new spiderman(especially had civil war marketing boost not happened) to do 400 dom like the heights of Maguire did. Perhaps that depends on just how big a role RDJ plays, still I doubt it, rather II for one am not gonna then judge them by that criteria.

As for superman, this is why I bring up santa/christ. Being a known brand isn't the same as being a hot one. There are ebbs and flows and seemingly only star wars is exempt(so far). Rocky is the maybe the most known single sports property in cinema yet his films aren't beholden to some mega number on that assertion alone. I bring this up about superman cause time and again people look to the ‘known’ argument but almost never to the historical performance side of it. The films, just prior to the dceu in particular have done crap numbers, there is no precedent for him consistently pulling in mega audiences. Especially intl. I brought up spiderman and batman earlier cause they also argue the element of having to deal with cinematic baggage. Something superman has in spades. Sure you can overcome this in a single film but the very same reasons people (like you for instance) go one about how the dceu is going to have trouble going forward cause all these films are painting a weak poor picture to the GA and fans... all those later films will have to suffer for it, the MOS/superman brand kicked off with that. Unless people think said film was such a hit that it completely wiped it away….
His books(the ones that actually do him ‘right’) don’t seem to fair much better, and that’s with fans.

In closing all that, topped off with both of their lucking international performances since time and no, their 'popularity' even together doesn't ensure anything on name alone. Just as RDJ+spiderman(himself) plus the avengers doesn't ensure a domestic number higher than a cartoon fish movie. That doesn't come down to quality alone, there are circumstances.
Decided to call you on these two things(particularly the former) cause you just keep using to prove something that may not be there. Figured I'd share.

 

[Marvin]

We are right. That's all critics are there for, is to give their opinion on a movie.

No, there is a difference between recommending films like that other guy said and asserting whether they are 'good' or bad'. Your first statement, the one I pointed to was the later. And given how often and the instances in which you are alluded to their authority, in our various discussions and they way you answered it seems pretty ‘simple’ as you said.. As for whether this other guy is right, again it very well could be, but recommend based on what, there is alot of weight given to these things, you’d think it’d be better defined. And does the audience by in large know or understand. There could be a critic out there that is wildly racially motivated(black lives matter on steriods for instance), do they inform everyone they are recommending stuff on this minor caveat? I doubt it and how much of that caveat made it's way into the discussion that a poster then decides he wants to add this now slanted aggregate into? If they are allowed to run free in preference then their opinion only really has weight with those who come from where they do, wake up on the same wrong side of the bed as them, read the same dark sider-man books as them...if they are recommending based on an understood and consistent quality as I'm sure most laymen think they are when they tell me things like ‘the critcis said this movie is ****/great’, there is a general value.

So this is, like most other complaints against film critics I see around here, rooted in the fact that movies you like are consistently lambasted by them, and people bring this up in discussions.

Firstly, I truly do wonder if it will ever be possible to have a discussion with you in which you don't at some point question or paint the motivations of the opposition, it's been a while so I forgot it happens but, here we are. And no my ensuring diatribe as it will be, is a consistent one. I'm somewhat known(by some) for my feeling about critics. Next time you see a movie you decide I 'like' but is some critical darling call me out and see what Marvin has to say about critics in that instant. I may very well just link to this ensuing post.
Back to your accusation, about as pointless as me implying you only love critics and defend them cause the movies you 'like' are well received by them. A clear slight I can't bring myself to make.

But no, a consistent measure of quality, you say. So what do you suggest? Should we require each critic to state their own criteria in their review and have certain boxes that must be checked before they can reasonably say it was a recommend? Should this personal criteria be permanent and never allowed to change or adapt given the movie in question, therefore applying the same standards to Sausage Party, The Raid, Mad Max, and The Revenant? Or should we take out any outliers, and just send out a rigid, standardized system to all professional critics that they must adhere to, thereby assuring that the films that most fit this standardized criteria excel? Who should decide this criteria? What if a critic finds a movie that checks all the right boxes is still incredibly boring, uninspired, or unoriginal? Are they allowed to say as much in their review, or do they just go through the motions and recommend it? What if a majority of critics feel this way, but aren't allowed to express as much given that, according to you, "it doesn't matter which films they prefer"? Doesn't that negate the entire point of film critics?

What you've basically done here is outline why it's flawed and perhaps can’t be amended. You're basically saying it's the best we got so accept it sort of deal. I get that with our medical equipment and presidential voting as flawed as it is but I also see the grave need in spite of it. I don't see any grave need here to accept this sort of thing. I mainly see the stakes, how they affect me and my career and our culture. And for what, because some people need the vaulted opinion of others to inform their? Or to validate it in some way. I simply think as it is now(an aggregate number), we are better without it, I know for certain I am.. I don't think most people care enough about the importance of the art we celebrate to worry about perfecting a system like this,, unlike say politics. At least it was somewhat bit different back in the day when people would seek out trusted critics in some newspaper and take all the good and bad of reading an actual review to heart when making decision as to weather lacking story was ok if they jokes were for them... but in this day and age all that boils down to a number, that number itself then transmuted into an aggregate yes no percent, that then ends up on a feed you probably didn't even seek out and before you know it you are free this weekend or inversely you have to make time for this picture.

And you are right, it's complicated, unlike some scientific theory, a film’s quality isn't decided by 80 people upon one sitting, it's decided by several billion over several years of generational viewing often times by the same people even, as understandings of art and cultures change. It's why we've gone through the critical misunderstanding of kubrick or pollock and mozzart even(for starters), now such assessments are spoken upon and tied down before films are even released as if art and it's analysis isn't some evolving conversation.

No I don't think before we get their opinion they need to jump through all the strawman hoops you suggest. But if some critic straight up doesn't prefer something of ‘quality’, then that's an issue for me, period. If every critic comes at something(say princess movies) from a particular preconception and are of the mind to grade and ‘‘recommend’ by how much they enjoy it, then they won't be preferring what might be quality thus slighting the artist.
Yes preference is issue, whether it be a preference of dc over marvel(I’ve seen it) or hating remakes or preferring indie or a style of natural light/practical or feminism...I know a guy that now writes for screenrant now, I also have him on facebook, just yesterday he got into it publically with another friend of ours about domestic violence and harley/joker, safe to say it was a passionate back and forth, he seemed to not care that there was a precedent for it in source, it has no place on screen today according to him(he should be pleased WB perhaps cut their film to shreds knowing his ilk was lying in wait lol). My point here being he's a step a way from writing reviews for this site and then for that aggregate. And yes this is very much anecdotal but funny enough this whole thing got started over ‘14 people recommending a film’. 14 is some 2 digit number that seems inconsequential when you laugh it off as you did but the difference between that 2 digit number and the 2 digit numbers that either crush or glow about bigger films is negligible(often 80) in the grand scheme given the scale of the audience I outlined above. It's an anecdote with actual weight thanks to the pooling size of rt. Still an anecdote none the less I suppose.
You again said the recommends boil down to what they find as 'good' you use that term again. If there is a standard of good then what they recommend as good for a billion people, holds far more weight than if they recommend based on some preference of having a female lead or being a throwback to their wizard of Oz youth, or 80’s car action, for all the people that share in that preference alone. We've simply put the preference of a few on a pedestal, even at the cost of industry jobs(my own potentially). Again in science magazine, they actually do have to lay out their criteria and their own pedigree in the craft, it's because of that, that I endorse science critics. You just laid out a good amount of reasons why people like 'me' can't get behind the same sort of system being forced onto something as existential as art, why it's not even possible in any turly fair way. Just to be complacent that it’s supposedly working in spite of that, maybe if it wasn’t as important... If the people in charge buried Einstiens work, we'd be in a different place culturally(among other things). It was important that it got a proper treatment, I personally feel the same about our great or poor art works, to me they are just as important culturally. We've deemed citizen kane the best ever(not at the time mind you), and it's taught in schools because of it, given a chance to inspire the next great Nolans or even presidents who then make stuff to inspire the rest of us and so forth. Lebron talking about watching the godfather when the cavs were down, I wonder what he would have turned to had that film not been allowed to preserve to this day. Or if 14 people ended speilberg or cameron right then and there, I sure as hell wouldn’t be here sharing my idea with you and everyone else.The point is it shouldn’t take an episode of star trek(tng) to tell us that the art a society props up, defines and shapes that society and the individuals in it perhaps more than anything else. It speaks to inspiration with may very well be the key to the great achievements of math/sport/design all of it.. I digress, it's important(to me) and thus giving all of this to the preference of a tiny opinionated pool and not questioning it at all isn't something I'm ok with.

Outside of influence my main issue with the current state of all of this is the polling size. Looked at in the extreme, if it was only one critic deciding these scores, surely then people would start to see, like having one person decide/influence which porn(studio/style) gets an audience based on their preference knowing how freaky and diverse the individual in the audience actually is, not 14 people not 100 people could do this fairly, even with a criteria. Another issue is that it's so unquestioned, people just chalk it up to system they have in place and that's that. I'm not even getting into that conspiracy or bias talk, if by all rights this pool of opinions gave something big an 8% tmr but and it had say the same audience score as that first spiderman(65ish), it wouldn't make a difference. Fans would lament, detractors would cheer, Atchity would collect his ad money and people would move on.
Like that dude a few posts back said said, RT matters, it matters more and more and it can’t be denied. It's the first stop for many people and basically wom for all the people that don't have friends to turn to for wom. Working at a vfx vendor myself I've seen the faces on the floor when the early reviews come in(particularly about our work) and what it does to the environment, people that worked on the film itself don’t want to see it. Stuff they put months into... and all based on the preferences of 14 people. Unquestioned. Then the audience score is posted next to it with a pool exponentially larger but ultimately given less weight...it’s bizzare. Then to be told that if it was ‘better’ more people would have turned up. If more people liked it more....unfortunately we are now talking about a group people who haven't even seen the movie. I have my issues with cinema score but at least they actually allow families to have a say as to whether something works for families, not just lenord maltin and his 9 old men fix.

And to the rest of your point, it's definitely doing something, I just wouldn't agree that "it's working" personally, for me it simply is what it is. Careers and studios and jobs are lost cause of something we just assume is working cause you/we can't figure out a better way to do this thing you seem to be under the impression we even need to begin with. If all of this amounted to a measure of enjoyment, then influence aside I'd perhaps have less problems with it. But it's known as a quality assessment, the very term itself is loaded. Again at least with cinema score when the prestige or inception or 12 monkeys get's a B, I get that said films are being graded by enjoyablity, digestability for the masses and by them. Not quality is something else.
In closing, it may work for you. It doesn't for me. Not as the entire process exists today. The critical discussion this entire year(for instance) all coming down to this an aggregate site. So there it is, and I assure you I won't feel any differently about it's value or issues if they change their tune for a movie I supposedly like.(didn't like ss btw).

Perhaps I was wrong, those critics did do their job. You're right. Clearly I have grander issues with the whole establishment.

I don't actually plan on replying to whatever you reply, too busy these days. I figured you deserved an answer you ur quasi inquiry as to how someone could not be cool with such things.
Have a good one.

 

[BlZARRO]

Obviously its not worthless to you since you're using it as an invalid argument. I'm talking consensus. Because it would have to be a significant number for it have any kind of negative or positive impact on box office. You saying people you've talked to people who feel this way doesn't mean a thing. Just as me not knowing anyone who loves Harry Potter doesn't mean anything. You are one person and your interactions with these people don't mount to anything.

I've know several people who have admitted they haven't watched certain movies because of its reviews. A good amount of people. And obviously i don't know every person in the world who acts like this, but considering that THEY DO EXIST, it's seems perfectly reasonable to look at it as one of the possible reasons to why a movie would underperform. Without being the only reason, i do think it has an impact, based on the fact that i know people who are influenced by it, and also based on the fact that it is well documented that the media has an impact on people.

If you have any mathematical evidence that i'm wrong and that people, in fact, don't care about what critics say, or that the percentage who care is insignificant, feel free to post it.

A group of people, by that you mean a minority whom don't have any significant impact.

You tell me, Mr. Box Office Analyst. How many people is the "minority", and how much money could that "minority" generate.

10% is the minority. But 10% of 100 million people is still 10 million people. Could easily generate over 50 million in BO revenue. Not bad. The minority of a lot is still a lot. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of potential viewers. It's not a couple hundred people.

What about Transformer's history? Its only gotten movies in the last few years, and they made billions in spite of the fact the critics hammered them three times in a row.

You said, and I quote 'they are so mindless, heartless and action packed, that they will always find its specific audience. Which is large. People who just wanna watch good action.'. Pacific Rim and many other brainless CGI fest movies tick those boxes, but they're not making billions. And PR got a good critical score, too and it never came close to the money the likes ofTransformers makes. So where was its large audience there to skate it close to the billion mark?

It's part of a lot of people's childhood. You can't compare it with Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim is also a completely different concept from transformers.

Yeah because they were either poor movies - two of them regarded as among the worst CBMs ever, got a parental backlash, or were trying to recover from the tarnished brand DC had become. Batman has audience appeal to pull in billions. He's done it twice. Pairing him with Superman should have been an easy ride to a billion. But it never happened. Not because the critics hammered the movie.

That's your opinion. Nothing more. I'm not even saying the movie "failed" because of the critics. All i'm saying is that critical reception might have been one of the possible factors, among others. If you refuse to deny the existence of any factor other than "it sucks", then there's not much i can tell you because that's nothing more than your opinion.

The TDK trilogy is dark, gritty, violent, full of adult themes, and not in the least family friendly movies by any stretch of the imagination. So why are they able to make billions, but BvS is not? They're both movies with Batman in them. So where's the problem? Unless......one movie just isn't good enough to bring people back for repeat viewings because of the poor quality.

It was a lot better received by the critics, it had better WOM and also had a much more beloved actor in Christian Bale attached to it.

It's funny how you're basically validating what i just said. Even being as great as it was, TDK wasn't able to comfortably beat Dark Of The Moon at the BO. That right there tells you just how much the tone of a movie can take away from its potential revenue.

No its not my "problem" because to me its a non issue. This is your hang up with critical reviews and their supposed impact that you have still yet to prove. Therefore this is your problem that you blame for hurting box office performance on these movies. If you can post one shred of proof that proves your point, I will step back and say you are right.

So shock me, post some proof. Actually substantiate your claims for once.

I don't have any proof regarding how much the critical reception affected the movie because there is no way to quantify that, as far as i know. But if you wanna read about the influence of media on people's opinions you just have to do a quick search on google. I'm obviously not gonna do the job for you.

Btw, if you are all about proof, why don't you post some proof that people don't care and that there's no way critical reception can affect BO in any way? Do you have any? No, you don't. The best you can do is say "oh, look at the Transformers", which in no way proves the movie couldn't have done even better if it had better critical reception.

 

[The Joker]

I've know several people who have admitted they haven't watched certain movies because of its reviews. A good amount of people. And obviously i don't know every person in the world who acts like this, but considering that THEY DO EXIST, it's seems perfectly reasonable to look at it as one of the possible reasons to why a movie would underperform. Without being the only reason, i do think it has an impact, based on the fact that i know people who are influenced by it, and also based on the fact that it is well documented that the media has an impact on people.

I know people who don't go to the cinema at all, and wait until movies come out on DVD before they watch them. THEY DO EXIST. That doesn't mean they're putting a dent in box office takings because they don't go to the cinema at all.

You think it has an impact, but you've got nothing to validate your theory. Its baseless.

If you have any mathematical evidence that i'm wrong and that people, in fact, don't care about what critics say, or that the percentage who care is insignificant, feel free to post it.

You can't post evidence of something that doesn't exist. But you can for factors that affect box office. Piracy for example; https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...arms-film-all-way-to-box-office-records.shtml

So if bad reviews are affecting the movie, some evidence of such a thing would exist. So lets see it.

You tell me, Mr. Box Office Analyst. How many people is the "minority", and how much money could that "minority" generate.

10% is the minority. But 10% of 100 million people is still 10 million people. Could easily generate over 50 million in BO revenue. Not bad. The minority of a lot is still a lot. We're talking about millions and millions and millions of potential viewers. It's not a couple hundred people.

I said minority who have no significant impact. So obviously less than 10% since 10 million is a significant bite out of 100 million.

It's part of a lot of people's childhood. You can't compare it with Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim is also a completely different concept from transformers.

The Smurfs and Inspector Gadget are a part of a lot of people's childhood, too. They didn't rake in billions or even close to it.

That's your opinion. Nothing more. I'm not even saying the movie "failed" because of the critics. All i'm saying is that critical reception might have been one of the possible factors, among others. If you refuse to deny the existence of any factor other than "it sucks", then there's not much i can tell you because that's nothing more than your opinion.

Fine. Its my opinion. One that is supported by no existence of proof to your claim.

It was a lot better received by the critics, it had better WOM and also had a much more beloved actor in Christian Bale attached to it.

So did The Fighter, which also scored Bale a well deserved Oscar win, but that didn't even make 200 mil worldwide.

It's funny how you're basically validating what i just said. Even being as great as it was, TDK wasn't able to comfortably beat Dark Of The Moon at the BO. That right there tells you just how much the tone of a movie can take away from its potential revenue.

They both made it to the billion mark. Anything after that is just icing on the cake. How that validates your point I don't know. TDKR made more than TDK, Spider-Man 3 made more than the first two, but none of this means they were tonally more suited to a specific crowd.

I don't have any proof regarding how much the critical reception affected the movie because there is no way to quantify that, as far as i know. But if you wanna read about the influence of media on people's opinions you just have to do a quick search on google. I'm obviously not gonna do the job for you.

I know you don't have any proof. Measurable or not, if it was in fact hurting the box office this would have been detected long ago. Like piracy. You can't say exactly how much piracy takes off box office but they know it does hurt it.

Btw, if you are all about proof, why don't you post some proof that people don't care and that there's no way critical reception can affect BO in any way? Do you have any? No, you don't. The best you can do is say "oh, look at the Transformers", which in no way proves the movie couldn't have done even better if it had better critical reception.

No its not. There's plenty of other movies that made huge money and got critically panned. Burton's Alice in Wonderland for example. Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 etc. All panned by critics. All made huge money.

 

[BlZARRO]

I know people who don't go to the cinema at all, and wait until movies come out on DVD before they watch them. THEY DO EXIST. That doesn't mean they're putting a dent in box office takings because they don't go to the cinema at all.

You think it has an impact, but you've got nothing to validate your theory. Its baseless.

And it doesn't mean they aren't. How are you so sure or unsure that if those people went to the movies, the BO numbers wouldn't be much different?

I have. I have common knowledge and common sense. Personal experience and decades of documented impact of the media on people's decisions is more than enough for me to think it does have an impact. Do you have any evidence that when it comes to movies journalism simply stops having any sort of impact on people? You love to talk about evidence, but you got nothing.

You can't post evidence of something that doesn't exist. But you can for factors that affect box office. Piracy for example; https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-records.shtml

So if bad reviews are affecting the movie, some evidence of such a thing would exist. So lets see it.

You keep going around in circles. Again, like your whole argument, the link you just posted didn't really prove in any way that piracy does not have any impact on the BO. It only shows that a movie can be pirated and still make money, which are two compeltely different things, not sure if you understand that.

Same thing with critics. You can prove a movie can make money with bad reviews. You can't prove that those bad reviews didn't stop the movie from making even more money.

How do you want me to prove you, undoubtedly, that critics have that kind of impact? You would need an alternate reality where the critical reception was better in order to compare the results with the ones we know. And that's obviously not possible. What i can tell you is that the vast majority of the blockbusters who received bad critical reviews didn't do very well at the Box Office, so it's not like we have that many examples of badly received movies who did amazing numbers at the BO.

I said minority who have no significant impact. So obviously less than 10% since 10 million is a significant bite out of 100 million.

Ok, so to you the percentage of people who would pay attention to critics is like what? 1%? That's fine. You have it all figured out. You gotta send me your source of information via PM so i can also learn the exact numbers regarding these things.

The Smurfs and Inspector Gadget are a part of a lot of people's childhood, too. They didn't rake in billions or even close to it.

Yeah, because the Smurfs is exactly the same type of movie as Transformers, with the same elements of mass appeal. Damn!!!!! You have such amazing arguments!!!! SMURFS!!!!!!

Fine. Its my opinion. One that is supported by no existence of proof to your claim.

Someone needs to wake you up and inform you that you have absolutely no definitive proof that the only reason the movie didn't reach 1B or whatever is only because it's terrible. You look at the numbers, you take your own conclusions based on the narrative that better suits your agenda. It's as simple as that. We're all speculating, the difference is that you think only your speculation makes sense, when in fact, you have as much proof of anything as i do. 100% of what you say is nothing more than personal belief. The problem is that your personal belief strongly goes against everything we know about the relationship between the people and the media.

Sorry. Deal with it. I know it's gonna be hard for you, because you seem to be the kind of guy who simply can't let go and has to be right regarding everything, but nobody is right all the time. You can argue all you want, you can write a novel about the subject, but you will still be just another guy in a forum speculating about matters he doesn't fully understand.

So did The Fighter, which also scored Bale a well deserved Oscar win, but that didn't even make 200 mil worldwide.

Again, comparing apples with oranges. You need to stop being so simplistic, dude. It's not black or white. A lot of factors can contribute to a movie's success or lack of it. The subject of the movie, the type of movie, the tone, the marketing, the competition, etc. There are so many variables. Ignoring them is simply a step in the right direction to being wrong.

They both made it to the billion mark. Anything after that is just icing on the cake. How that validates your point I don't know. TDKR made more than TDK, Spider-Man 3 made more than the first two, but none of this means they were tonally more suited to a specific crowd.

If a movie like Transformers can make as much as a Batman movie that's widely considered a masterpiece, then all it tells me is that the Transformers have better marketing elements than Batman. The fact that the best Batman movie ever can't beat a film that is, by sooo many people, considered absolute garbage, is a great testament to the fact that a more darker, serious and dramatic movie can seriously be a big turn off to certain groups of people that could generate massive profits. Like kids, for examples. Parents with kids.

I know you don't have any proof. Measurable or not, if it was in fact hurting the box office this would have been detected long ago. Like piracy. You can't say exactly how much piracy takes off box office but they know it does hurt it.

They can't do much about it. It's not even worth talking about it because they can't fight movie critics. They can fight piracy. They can't shut down opinions. It would only hurt their reputation.

Its not important to me. You are a great example of the type of fan we were talking about. One who claims these they don't care about these critics or their reviews, but spend endless effort and time arguing about it.

That's the point here. You are validating it.

The fact that i don't follow their recommendations doesn't invalidate my interest in debating how useless they are. People enjoy discussing what they like and what they don't like. You choose to misinterpret the way i used the word "care", because that's the only way you can keep arguing. I already explained you what i meant. Apparently you're unable to understand something simple.

 

[The Joker]

And it doesn't mean they aren't. How are you so sure or unsure that if those people went to the movies, the BO numbers wouldn't be much different?

I have. I have common knowledge and common sense. Personal experience and decades of documented impact of the media on people's decisions is more than enough for me to think it does have an impact. Do you have any evidence that when it comes to movies journalism simply stops having any sort of impact on people? You love to talk about evidence, but you got nothing.

How do I know something I have no reason to believe is true, is that what you're asking? Give me something concrete that would suggest to me that this has any validity to it, and then I can consider it a possibility other than 'I have talked to people who said so'.

This is not common knowledge and sense. This is baseless assumption.

You keep going around in circles. Again, like your whole argument, the link you just posted didn't really prove in any way that piracy does not have any impact on the BO. It only shows that a movie can be pirated and still make money, which are two compeltely different things, not sure if you understand that.

Same thing with critics. You can prove a movie can make money with bad reviews. You can't prove that those bad reviews didn't stop the movie from making even more money.

I'm not sure if you read the link, but the point is not that a movie can be pirated and still make money. Of course it can. The point is piracy DOES affect box office performance. There's links to this all over the Net; http://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsong...-hurts-the-filmmakers-and-artists-you-admire/

Whereas your claim has nothing to substantiate it.

How do you want me to prove you, undoubtedly, that critics have that kind of impact? You would need an alternate reality where the critical reception was better in order to compare the results with the ones we know. And that's obviously not possible. What i can tell you is that the vast majority of the blockbusters who received bad critical reviews didn't do very well at the Box Office, so it's not like we have that many examples of badly received movies who did amazing numbers at the BO.

Prove it by posting some source which has found evidence that bad critical press hurt the movie's earnings. If they can find that for other factors like piracy, then bad word of mouth from critics would easily be ascertainable as a factor for affecting the box office.

So lets see it.

Ok, so to you the percentage of people who would pay attention to critics is like what? 1%? That's fine. You have it all figured out. You gotta send me your source of information via PM so i can also learn the exact numbers regarding these things.

I don't know if its exactly 1%. Could be 0.1% or 0.001 % or any insignificant number like that. But it is an insignificant number because if it wasn't then box office analysts and studios would have figured it out long ago.

Yeah, because the Smurfs is exactly the same type of movie as Transformers, with the same elements of mass appeal. Damn!!!!! You have such amazing arguments!!!! SMURFS!!!!!!

Why wouldn't it have such mass appeal? You just said Transformers has mass appeal because it was part of so many people's childhoods. So was the likes of The Smurfs and Inspector Gadget. You scoff at Smurfs when a movie about talking animated fish is just coming in at 900 million. But a childhood favorite about talking little blue people is a funny compared to talking robots or talking fish making big bucks.

Someone needs to wake you up and inform you that you have absolutely no definitive proof that the only reason the movie didn't reach 1B or whatever is only because it's terrible. You look at the numbers, you take your own conclusions based on the narrative that better suits your agenda. It's as simple as that. We're all speculating, the difference is that you think only your speculation makes sense, when in fact, you have as much proof of anything as i do. 100% of what you say is nothing more than personal belief. The problem is that your personal belief strongly goes against everything we know about the relationship between the people and the media.

Well of course I think my speculation makes sense, because its got logic and proof to back it up. You're speculating on something that has nothing to substantiate it. If something is a significant factor that affects box office, be it positively or negatively, it gets noticed. That kind of thing doesn't consistently fly under the radar.

Your problem is you choose to ignore examples where your theory doesn't hold up. I don't just mean with critically panned movies that made money, I also mean with critically acclaimed movies that didn't light the box office on fire.

The point is critics, if they have any impact on box office at all, its negligible.

Sorry. Deal with it. I know it's gonna be hard for you, because you seem to be the kind of guy who simply can't let go and has to be right regarding everything, but nobody is right all the time. You can argue all you want, you can write a novel about the subject, but you will still be just another guy in a forum speculating about matters he doesn't fully understand.

Now don't throw your toys out of the pram and get all uppity because this isn't going your way. Yeah I'm speculating, but I'm doing based on something concrete. Something I can at least back up with some kind of proof that lends credence to it.

If you could do the same I might be finding some middle ground with you on this.

Again, comparing apples with oranges. You need to stop being so simplistic, dude. It's not black or white. A lot of factors can contribute to a movie's success or lack of it. The subject of the movie, the type of movie, the tone, the marketing, the competition, etc. There are so many variables. Ignoring them is simply a step in the right direction to being wrong.

I'm using your logic here. You said great word of mouth, good critical score, and much loved Christian Bale were big contributing factors to the TDK trilogy success. I gave you another movie from that very era that had the same factors, and it didn't even break 200 million.

You can't have one set of rules for one movie, and different ones for another that have the same factors you're using to making an argument.

If a movie like Transformers can make as much as a Batman movie that's widely considered a masterpiece, then all it tells me is that the Transformers have better marketing elements than Batman. The fact that the best Batman movie ever can't beat a film that is, by sooo many people, considered absolute garbage, is a great testament to the fact that a more darker, serious and dramatic movie can seriously be a big turn off to certain groups of people that could generate massive profits. Like kids, for examples. Parents with kids.

Why would it tell you that? All that should tell you is people love the Transformers movies. They obviously don't hold it in as high a regard as say TDK as no audience scores anywhere surpass it, but they love these movies for what they are, and they don't give a flying fig what critics think.

They can't do much about it. It's not even worth talking about it because they can't fight movie critics. They can fight piracy. They can't shut down opinions. It would only hurt their reputation.

Its not about fighting it, its about knowing what factors are affecting their box office. Whether you can prevent it or not, knowing the things that can make or break your movie are worth knowing. That way you know where you went right or wrong if your movies fails or succeeds financially.

The fact that i don't follow their recommendations doesn't invalidate my interest in debating how useless they are. People enjoy discussing what they like and what they don't like. You choose to misinterpret the way i used the word "care", because that's the only way you can keep arguing. I already explained you what i meant. Apparently you're unable to understand something simple.

If you don't see the the hilarious irony of wasting endless time discussing something you think is useless, then please carry on. Its always good to see someone investing so much energy into topics they think have no merit.

 

[nogster]

If BvS was critically praised it would of made a billion.
No doubt.
The only reason it did not is because of the poor reviews.
I know many people who were going to see it, but did not, due to the poor reception.
I agreed with the critics. It was an awful movie that totally missed a grand opportunity.
Poor reviews do have an impact on sales potential.
I don't see how this can be debated.

 

[The Joker]

If BvS was critically praised it would of made a billion.
No doubt.
The only reason it did not is because of the poor reviews.
I know many people who were going to see it, but did not, due to the poor reception.
I agreed with the critics. It was an awful movie that totally missed a grand opportunity.
Poor reviews do have an impact on sales potential.
I don't see how this can be debated.

If there's no doubt of it then show proof. If its so factual then lets see a credible source that links bad critical reviews to under performing box office on it. If you have none, then that's why its being debated. Its nothing but baseless assumption. You can't say something definitely happened for a reason, and not have a lick of evidence to support it. That's not a credible argument.

 

[nogster]

If there's no doubt of it then show proof. If its so factual then lets see a credible source that links bad critical reviews to under performing box office on it. If you have none, then that's why its being debated. Its nothing but baseless assumption. You can't say something definitely happened for a reason, and not have a lick of evidence to support it. That's not a credible argument.

C'mon Joker. How can I prove a negative?
it is not like there is a measurement for how a film could of done if not for poor reviews. There is no way to go back in time, release a good BvS movie that would be critically praised and thus generate stronger sales.
I can only go on the small sample size of friends and family that did not see the film because of the poor reviews. Extending that logic to the general movie going public is fair imo.

It is pretty common sense to me that a film that is critically praised has a better chance of generating stronger sales than if it was not.

 

[BlZARRO]

How do I know something I have no reason to believe is true, is that what you're asking? Give me something concrete that would suggest to me that this has any validity to it, and then I can consider it a possibility other than 'I have talked to people who said so'.

This is not common knowledge and sense. This is baseless assumption.

Oh, it's funny that i was just reading some guy on this forum saying he will wait for the movie on DVD because he read bad reviews about it.

Listen, if you don't think people can be influenced by other people's opinions, i'd have to say you just lack a very basic understanding of human psychology.

If you don't think journalists have an impact on how people view the world, you just lack a very basic understanding on history and society. There's not much i can do about that other than suggest that you read a little bit about the subject.

I'm not sure if you read the link, but the point is not that a movie can be pirated and still make money. Of course it can. The point is piracy DOES affect box office performance. There's links to this all over the Net; http://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongr...ts-you-admire/

Whereas your claim has nothing to substantiate it.

It has a lot to substantiate it. And i already explained it to you. But if you really need a third-party study/analysis in order to be able to understand the obvious logic behind something(that you didn't even bother counter-arguing) we can do it too.

https://is.muni.cz/el/1456/jaro2014/BPV_CMME/46836843/How_Critical_Are_Critical_Reviews.pdf

I don't know if its exactly 1%. Could be 0.1% or 0.001 % or any insignificant number like that. But it is an insignificant number because if it wasn't then box office analysts and studios would have figured it out long ago.

You mean like this?:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...s-weekend-proved-critics-matter/#3c5e2f243b0a

Why wouldn't it have such mass appeal? You just said Transformers has mass appeal because it was part of so many people's childhoods. So was the likes of The Smurfs and Inspector Gadget. You scoff at Smurfs when a movie about talking animated fish is just coming in at 900 million. But a childhood favorite about talking little blue people is a funny compared to talking robots or talking fish making big bucks.

Yeah, buddy, you're forgetting everything else i said. Very selective memory. Then again, that's the only way you can keep your ass in this discussion, right?

Well of course I think my speculation makes sense, because its got logic and proof to back it up. You're speculating on something that has nothing to substantiate it. If something is a significant factor that affects box office, be it positively or negatively, it gets noticed. That kind of thing doesn't consistently fly under the radar.

Your problem is you choose to ignore examples where your theory doesn't hold up. I don't just mean with critically panned movies that made money, I also mean with critically acclaimed movies that didn't light the box office on fire.

The point is critics, if they have any impact on box office at all, its negligible.

You don't have a damn thing to back it up. Cheap talk is cheap.

I'm using your logic here. You said great word of mouth, good critical score, and much loved Christian Bale were big contributing factors to the TDK trilogy success. I gave you another movie from that very era that had the same factors, and it didn't even break 200 million.

You can't have one set of rules for one movie, and different ones for another that have the same factors you're using to making an argument.

Exactly. Big contributing factors, not the only contributing factors. It's still an action movie, it's still a blockbuster, it's still Batman, so you shouldn't compare it to a movie that isn't even close to share the same mass appeal.

Why would it tell you that? All that should tell you is people love the Transformers movies. They obviously don't hold it in as high a regard as say TDK as no audience scores anywhere surpass it, but they love these movies for what they are, and they don't give a flying fig what critics think.

Well, if Batman is more popular than Transformers, and if TDK is held to a higher regard, why the trouble making more money than the Transformers? You're still failing at disproving my theory.

 

[The Joker]

C'mon Joker. How can I prove a negative?
it is not like there is a measurement for how a film could of done if not for poor reviews. There is no way to go back in time, release a good BvS movie that would be critically praised and thus generate stronger sales.
I can only go on the small sample size of friends and family that did not see the film because of the poor reviews. Extending that logic to the general movie going public is fair imo.

It is pretty common sense to me that a film that is critically praised has a better chance of generating stronger sales than if it was not.

Exactly, there is no proof. If it was a real factor, it would be well documented.

But there is a measurement against other movies that got hammered critically and still made a fortune. So we have a basis for comparison. We know for a fact that critical panning doesn't adversely affect box office.

Likewise movies that got critical acclaim have often not lit the box office on fire.

 

[nogster]

I use the same reasoning when choosing what movie to watch.
Whether it be at the cinemas or on netflix.
I check the reviews of a film to make a more informed decision than just blindly going watching it, hoping it won't be a waste of my time.

Do you seriously believe that a films critical reception has no influence on its sales or view potential?

 

[BlZARRO]

I use the same reasoning when choosing what movie to watch.
Whether it be at the cinemas or on netflix.
I check the reviews of a film to make a more informed decision than just blindly going watching it, hoping it won't be a waste of my time.

Do you seriously believe that a films critical reception has no influence on its sales or view potential?

He does.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

If BvS was critically praised it would of made a billion.
No doubt.
The only reason it did not is because of the poor reviews.
I know many people who were going to see it, but did not, due to the poor reception.
I agreed with the critics. It was an awful movie that totally missed a grand opportunity.
Poor reviews do have an impact on sales potential.
I don't see how this can be debated.

Disagreed. I not think bad reviews matter for movies. I love Spider-Man films most but Spider-Man 3 one of weakest ones and lowest critic score but make most money out of all 5 Spider-man movies. Poor reviews not impact.

 

[BlZARRO]

Disagreed. I not think bad reviews matter for movies. I love Spider-Man films most but Spider-Man 3 one of weakest ones and lowest critic score but make most money out of all 5 Spider-man movies. Poor reviews not impact.

Despite a guy just telling you that he pays attention to reviews. He is the second guy in 15 minutes that i've seen saying that in this forum. I think some people just wanna close the eyes to reality..i wonder why...

 

[nogster]

Exactly, there is no proof. If it was a reak factor, it would be well documented.

But there is a measurement against other movies that got hammered critically and still made a fortune. So we have a basis for comparison. We know for a fact that critical panning doesn't adversely affect box office.

Likewise movies that got critical acclaim have often not lit the box office on fire.

No you don't know for a fact. There is no measurement for the increased BO potential of movies if they were critically praised. Take Transformers for instance.
I did not watch the 4th only due to the crap reviews. Otherwise I would of.
I can only speak for myself and others I know that did and do the same.
Again. To extend this reasoning to the general public is a fair assessment.