Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie (vanityfair.com)

Posted by msmash on from the wait-what dept.

An anonymous reader shares a VanityFair report: These days, it takes less than 60 seconds to know what the general consensus on a new movie is -- thanks to Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregator site that designates a number score to each film based on critical and user reviews. Although this may be convenient for moviegoers not necessarily interested in burning $15 on a critically subpar film, it is certainly not convenient for those Hollywood directors, producers, backers, and stars who toiled to make said critically subpar film. In fact, the site may be "the worst thing that we have in today's movie culture" -- at least according to Brett Ratner, the Rush Hour director/producer who recently threw the financial weight of his RatPac Entertainment behind Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Sure, the blockbuster made over $850 million worldwide in spite of negative reviews ... but just think of how much more it could have made had it not had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 27 percent! Last week, while speaking at the Sun Valley Film Festival, Ratner said, "The worst thing that we have in today's movie culture is Rotten Tomatoes. I think it's the destruction of our business."

65 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Fixed That For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Shitty Movie

    1. Re:Fixed That For You by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on, be sensitive. Some people spent their whole weekend making that movie.

      --
      Aeris Died For Your Sins.
    2. Re:Fixed That For You by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Very few animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Fixed That For You by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's worse than that. The guy's movie netted big and yet he feels his movie should have been entitled even bigger windfall despite having plot holes that Superman can throw a container ship through.

      Rotten Tomatoes has a Critics score *and* an Audience score. A lot of popular movies have a higher audience score. BvS has a 63% audience score. Iron Man 3 got 78% audience score. Lest it be a Marvel v. DC thing, The Dark Knight got 94% audience score *and* 94% critic score, so it's not like so many reviewers are snobs about comic book super hero movies.

    4. Re:Fixed That For You by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hollywood Grassfucker Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Shitty Movie

      FTFY - If we are going to go all filthy-critic.

    5. Re: Fixed That For You by VernonNemitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I think it's the destruction of our business."
      If that's the business of recycling old ideas, without adding any significant new ideas, then why not?

    6. Re:Fixed That For You by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Very few animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

      Ya, but how many people were harmed by watching it.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re: Fixed That For You by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right on, VernonNamitz. Hollywood's vanity is showing more and more plainly. The feedback cycle from the audience is now open, and the Hollywood babies who have spent 100 years in a protected bubble can't take it. Nobody to make friends with, nobody to bribe to change your Rotten Tomatoes score....whatever will you do? Hopefully, Ratner will be a man without a company soon. Hey Ratner, how about a reality show about your slide into anonymity? I might watch that, but it's a safe bet I won't be watching your "dark" Superman Batman crap.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    8. Re: Fixed That For You by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      If that's the business of recycling old ideas, without adding any significant new ideas, then why not?

      Well, it is a business. New ideas are risky. A movie with an innovative plot may be a hit, or it may bomb. But a remake or sequel using a proven formula is money in the bank. So it makes sense to just churn out another X-Men, Transformers, or Bond film.

  2. Poor business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If your business depends on tricking people into watching crappy movies, it deserves to die.

    1. Re:Poor business by Jhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One guys "crap" is another guys entertainment.

      The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like. In the dark ages (before www), I used to religiously read two or three movie reviewers in my area. After 5 or 6 reviews the lights clicked. If X liked a given movie it would be likely that I WOULDN'T like it. If Y liked a movie, then it was pretty good odds that I would enjoy it. It was a bit more complicated than that but that's the gist. I learned what THEIR criteria was pretty quick.

      Occasionally, I'd see a crappy movie my "rules" would indicate I would enjoy it or vise versa but it was otherwise pretty accurate.

      Good example of an exception -- Back to the Beach (1980s reunion movie). I did *NOT* want to see that film. Some friends and I went to see the latest Bond film (can't recall what it was) but it was sold out. They decided to see this and I didn't drive. Everything told me that this movie would be crap. I'm embarrassed to say I enjoyed it. The opening on the airliner set the tone and it was just fun to watch. My "rules" told me to avoid this film like the plague.

    2. Re:Poor business by omnichad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rober Ebert was a genius, though. He understood that pretentious movies are not the ultimate in entertainment and is sometimes cheap crap is great.

      Just look at this snip from his review of Gremlins (movie picked at random):

      "Gremlins" is a confrontation between Norman Rockwell's vision of Christmas and Hollywood's vision of the blood-sucking monkeys of voodoo island..... At the level of Pop Movie-going, it's a sophisticated, witty B movie, in which the monsters are devouring not only the defenseless town, but decades of defenseless clichés.

    3. Re:Poor business by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Back to the Beach (1980s reunion movie)

      Roger Ebert gave that movie a rave review. It was like 3.5/4 stars and he compared it to Little Shop of Horrors.

      The James Bond film at that time would have been The Living Daylights, starring Timothy Dalton. It worked out well for you. The Living Daylights isn't bad, but Back to the Beach is a cult classic.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Poor business by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2

      The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?

      Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator, and so it is very limited. You have to look at the individual reviews to figure out why the reviewer didn't like the movie. That said, if a movie is sitting at 27%, there is a really good reason. There is something wrong with a movie that is less than 50%. Maybe you will like it, but there is a flaw in there somewhere that caused most people that review movies to not like it.

      My movie watching time is severely limited. My book reading, exercising, hobby and other time are severely limited. So, I have to decide pretty severely what I'm going to watch. Are there movies with a 30% rating that I might like? Maybe. But, why on earth would I bother going to see it, when there are movies with 70, 80, 90% ratings to go see?

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    5. Re: Poor business by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?

      Yes, I would also like to know what...fucking Brett Ratner...thinks is "underrated." Besides his own studio trash. Sure, there are movies that are "so bad they're good" but those are rare, and they deserve their bad ratings. They're just entertaining despite being so poorly rated. So I don't want to hear from Brett about the camp movies that score a 5% but are really entertaining because holy shit I can't believe anyone made this, I want to know what scored a 20% that he thinks really should be up in the 80s.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re: Poor business by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      I just did a quick look of some of the movies I like that score really badly on rotten tomatoes. Some of these are even below 10% but I still enjoy them.

      Ultraviolet
      Resident evil movies
      Netflix Iron Fist
      The Boondock Saints 1 and 2

      You can just do a search on google for movies that audiences love that critics hate and get a LOT of results.

      Iron Fist and Boondock Saints I understand the least why critics hated them so much. Iron Fist is doing VERY well with regular people and was hated by critics. Boonddock saints are good action movies and I don't get what the problem with those are at all.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    7. Re: Poor business by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      There is something wrong with a movie that is less than 50%. Maybe you will like it, but there is a flaw in there somewhere that caused most people that review movies to not like it.

      I agree with the last statement that there is something that caused most people that review movies to not like it.

      But movie reviewers don't always accurately reflect the tastes of the public. There are lots of times I've seen significant mismatches on review aggregator sites between critics' reviews vs. reviews by average viewers. Granted, it's pretty rare to see a HUGE disparity (say, more than 30%), but it's quite common to see stuff where only 40% of reviewers liked it, but it has a 65% audience approval or whatever.

      But, why on earth would I bother going to see it, when there are movies with 70, 80, 90% ratings to go see?

      I guess I agree to the extent that I'm only going to actually pay to GO SEE a movie with really high potential. Given the expense and inconvenience, I'm going to a theater for a guaranteed winner these days. For the rest, I'll wait and watch at home (maybe).

      That said, there are a number of prominent "critically acclaimed" films that I've really disliked. And I've had plenty of surprises where I've found films with less than 50% scores that have turned out to be a favorite. I may not take a chance in a theater on one, but I might for home viewing.

      And certain genres often tend to produce low ratings. If you're into stereotypical action, horror, slasher, even dumb rom-coms, expect a lot of your genre to get less than 50% approval, because critics as a whole like something a little less full of standard tropes. But some people like those genres. (Note that I'm not one of them -- I'm not into ANY of those genres, but I realize that there's a HUGE market for many of them.)

      Basically, to me again it comes down to the fact that critics are not necessarily representative of the public at large. If you understand the ways they are sometimes not representative, you can more accurately use their reviews. But just because 50% of critics don't like something doesn't mean there can't be a huge market for it... a fact that has been proven again and again.

      And really, if you want to use reviews, you need to actually read reviews. Rotten Tomatoes and other aggregators just assign scores to reviews, but often what matters is NOT just whether the review is overly "positive" vs. "negative." Some things that are a turn-off for you might be a positive for me and vice-versa, and actually reading the review may help you understand why critics don't like it. A Rotten Tomatoes score is just a very crude and unnuanced metric.

    8. Re:Poor business by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      That sounds like "music is art, so I guess this counts." He didn't see video games as a medium which could tell a story in complex ways; it sounds like he wasn't sure he could argue that music is somehow not art.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    9. Re:Poor business by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course this shows another important point with reviewers: it's important to read the actual review rather than just the star rating. A good reviewer will explain not just whether they like a given movie (or book, album, etc.) but also why they feel that way. Even if your tastes differ from theirs, you can often get a good idea of whether you'll like something if you can see what they like and dislike about it in detail. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes give you the advantage of aggregating multiple reviews, but that comes at the expense of eliminating everything but the bottom line number.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    10. Re:Poor business by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Uh, April 2010, "Back Then". Roger Ebert says "video games can never be art." Can never.

      Let's make a new Plinkett/Bechtel type test right here. Describe artistic game expression without relying on irrelevant (to the medium) things like pretty backgrounds, models, or movie cut scenes.

      Video games are mechanics affecting these things. Even Atari games move a few pixels. Those things have to be identifiable.

      Xenosaga does this with cutscenes, voice acting, complex 3D graphics, orchestral music, and the like; Golden Sun did it with two-dimensional sprites and some transformations, along with text-based dialogue and some sound-effects, and music; and Adventure: Colossal Caves did it with only text. The first two have immensely complex stories and deeply-developed characters, like a Brandon Sanderson novel or a TV series such as Babylon 5; the last is largely an exploration of a descriptive and somewhat-fantastic world inside a mountain cave, with much less depth of plot and character.

      The Metroid games does the same kind of thing, notably with Fusion, Other-M, and Prime; Super Metroid is said to have a strong story backing it, but doesn't express it directly via any kind of dialogue or cut-scenes, which draws some argument from people like me who say a game that doesn't demarcate plot and purpose isn't exactly conveying a story from the writer's mind to the player's. Nevertheless, even the original 8-bit game had complex level design and creative ideas of how a game is played, combining the "platformer" and "action-adventure" genres.

      Video games are often a medium to tell a story (any genre), evoke an emotion (e.g. horror), or describe a place (the world in which the game occurs). Movies and books have to tell a story; static art (images) can only describe a situation at a moment (although, as with my argument about Super Metroid not demarcating plot elements, many people argue that a picture implies a timeline events leading into and out of the situation, and thus can tell a long and complex story on its own). A video game can just world-build, giving you a place to explore without explanation or purpose other than to see it; or it can create that place and then render it in a particular art style to show off the visual medium; or it can deliver a deep and immersive cinematic experience with the player in control, or at least the illusion of control. It has options.

      Ebert's main argument was that video games aren't art because art is a thing you do and show others. Video games allow players to control the outcome--you can go left or right at this point--thus they have not expressed what the player will see and hear, and so aren't art. He essentially claims anything that doesn't play out exactly the same for everyone who observes it is not an artistic expression.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    11. Re: Poor business by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 2

      Critics watch far more movies than the average person does. As a result they tend to see patterns in movies far more often than average viewers do. This means that movies that basically just do a good job in execution but don't break any new ground tend to be seen very negatively by critics but very well by the average person. It is mostly a problem of saturation.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  3. Can't see the forest for all the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isn't the review aggregators; it's the constant stream of bad movies.

    1. Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, please no more comic-based movies, especially not in Sci-Fi. There must be many thousands of awesome scripts and novels that could be adopted for the big screen, and all Hollywood can do is dust of the most obscure old comic books for inspiration? And why all these endless action scenes in the end? Does Hollywood really think people like them? We go to the movies despite the needless action, not because of it!

      Make an intelligent Sci-Fi movie not based on a comic, and you'll also get good reviews, and stop compartmentalizing your productions into either action or intelligent, because these categories are not mutually exclusive!

    2. Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's especially delightful when the guy who made Batman v. Superman is complaining about rotten tomatoes doing exactly the right thing for the right reasons. I have had the displeasure of seeing this on HBO, I really think if anything Rotten Tomatoes made this appear better than it was. 27% is optimistic, I'm not sure what kind of people are in that 27%, but I don't see them as especially discerning critics. Absolutely nothing about that movie made sense, the story was incoherent, the acting was terrible, even the special effects/whizbang shit wasn't as good as some other movies.

      Batman v. Superman is perhaps the destruction of their business.

    3. Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't the review aggregators; it's the constant stream of bad movies.

      Yeah translation: More people would have seen our film if they didn't know it was garbage.

    4. Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      While I agree that there should be more intelligent movies and in particular Sci-Fi; the problem is that a large part of the population prefers ignorance. Hence they are only serving what the market wants. Then they complain that the market doesn't want it and movie attendance is down because the ignorant poor slobs can't pay high enough prices for tickets so that movie executives can afford more blow and hookers.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

      "It was an ambush."

  4. EULA by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps there needs to be an End User License Agreement for movies that bars unfavorable reviews. **ducks**

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:EULA by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe snuck in with the previews? "By continuing to watch this, all viewers agree to give this movie perfect reviews. If you disagree, please forfeit your ticket purchase now."

      In a related story, Consumer Reports just labelled the car I'm selling, "unsafe at any speed." Obviously, my next step is to sue Consumer Reports so that I can improve the safety of my cars.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:EULA by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      As far as investments go, Movies are the most riskiest. Then comes New oil drilling. Everything else is a far 3rd place. The producers problem is that Rotten Tomatoes was not alone in its critique. 'B' movies are 'B' movies for a reason.

    3. Re:EULA by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      Consumer Reports clearly forgot that 0 mph is a speed.

    4. Re:EULA by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      The ejection seat occasionally fires while the car is stopped. Admittedly, it was a questionable design choice.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  5. "our business" by Kwirl · · Score: 2

    Is the operative term. If your business is crappy movies, then absolutely is rotten tomatoes ending you and rightfully so. Anyone making good movies has absolutely no problems with aggregated reviewing.

  6. Yes, you entitled fuck, it is the destruction... by mellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.

  7. No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip by ka9dgx · · Score: 4, Informative

    I watched the movie in question online a few weeks ago, I got bored and skipped an hour in the middle, and honestly don't think I missed anything important. I can't possibly imagine having to wait though the ever so slow plot line in a movie theater with no other distractions available.

    1. Re:No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did not watch myself. No need the concept is stupid on its face. Either super wild liberties would have to be taken with cannon, at which point its not the same story any more an using the existing character names and treating their elements as a grab bag is just lazy writing or Batman was going to have to use some device based on Kryptonite to be competitive with the S. Super boring and super predictable just like all DC's shitty Justice League stuff.

      It all gets a pass because Batman comics were inventive and cool, Superman comics told a story the public needed to hear at a certain time and will always be loved.

      Puting the two together though is just silly. Superman is for all intents and purposes a god. While not wholly omnipotent, he is so far above man that he can freely toss our greatest war machines around like children's toys and even slow the spin of earth altering time. Batman simply isn't in his league. Additionally Superman's original character was almost Christ like in his unfailing sense of justice and strength of character regarding doing the right thing. The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat, so okay we have some conflict but we know who should prevail; Batman is going to have to come around to the S in terms of how they resolve any external conflict.

      There just isn't any story there. The only reason those comics get read and the only reason that movie got watched all is the audience is hopelessly uncritical. They love the characters so much they will watch or read anything with them no matter how strained the story surrounding them is. Personally I love both Batman and Superman to much to allow these dumb mashups to ruin them both for me.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You missed all the critical developments. Like how Lex Luther knew how to do a whole lot of things that would cause a completely unpredictable yet predetermined outcome to further the plot in ways that didn't make sense culminating in a fight scene that was unwatchable.

    3. Re:No, it's the hour in the middle you can skip by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Puting the two together though is just silly. ... The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat, so okay we have some conflict but we know who should prevail; Batman is going to have to come around to the S in terms of how they resolve any external conflict.

      If you haven't, please borrow a friend's copies of the DC animated universe, starting with the Superman episode "World's Finest" if you don't want to watch everything. Batman and Superman have a rocky start, and even through Justice League, Batman's tactics rub Superman the wrong way. DC's animation folks consistently have good plots, story arcs, and character development. Their live-action movies and television series are rife with writers and producers wanting to make their own mark with the stories thus making a mess of them, or feeling they need to fit "modern sensibilities" of a television program (monster of the week drama + lover of the week drama).

  8. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bateman vs super man was a mediocre movie at best. The problem is these are big characters and you had no backstory for. 2 out of 3 main characters were new. If they had done a Bateman movie alone with Ben affalac (?) and had the ending, a cut scene etc tie it into Bateman vs super man it would have been a much better movie. Bonus you could also tie in sucide squad members being arrested after a confrontation with Batman.

    It took Marvel a couple of tries to realize that. Now people look for cutscenes for the next marvel movie.

    If you go back to 2007 and iron man and play the movies and tv shows in order you get a mostly consistent plot.

    Batman vs super man is taking the plot of avengers 2 with out the character building arcs to make you care.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  9. Re:Or... by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're able to - they just don't want the risk. Rebooting old movies from the 80's or making yet another sequel is safe - even if it's terrible people will buy tickets (unless they're warned in advance by terrible reviews).

    Turns out, it's not safe to make garbage and expect to turn a profit.

  10. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by ophix · · Score: 4, Funny

    I went in expecting a terrible movie and was pleasantly surprised to find it was a mediocre movie. I still think it deserves the poor RT rating though

  11. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by omnichad · · Score: 2

    A glance at the RT score tells a lot more than just the ranking. Especially if you compare the critic score to the audience score and how far apart they are. But I usually pop in further to read a few critic and audience review snippets. From that I can usually tell what the movie is worth. I used to watch trailers, but they spoil too much of the movie these days (or make the movie look better than it is).

    I do the same when looking for a restaurant - find a negative review and they'll tell you everything good about the place that they don't understand.

  12. Quit making crappy movies. by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's very simple. Stop remaking the same movies over and over. Come up with something NEW for once.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  13. Lol no by whoozwah · · Score: 2

    If anything is contributing to the destruction of the movie business its the people involved in making the shitty movies not the people who smartly avoid them or assist others in doing so.

  14. Maybe stop making crap movies? by cruff · · Score: 2

    I don't watch very many movies anymore, too many of them are just remakes of older movies or are just not interesting subject wise. Why do producers think that everyone will want to watch their particular piece of drivel?

  15. Crappy movie success plan: Trick people by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    The plan to be successful with a crappy movie. Trick people into going to see it. The people who really want to see it will go anyway. You need to trick people with flashy previews and actor interviews to get the rest of the people to go and be disappointed with the experience. Then you need to complain about them not liking it, to trick more people into watching.

  16. Here's an idea by DrXym · · Score: 2
    Stop making shit films and make good ones instead. Critics won't call you out for making shit films. Cinema goers will pay lots of money to see good films.

    Or continue to make shit films and then whine that people have the means to discover if a film is shit before wasting their money and time watching it.

  17. Hollywood is usually awful by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not safe to make garbage and expect to turn a profit.

    Exactly this. There are amazing numbers of untapped novels out there that would make wonderful movies.

    That the movie industry spends most of its effort ignoring this resource leaves me with absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any whining I hear from them. Where's Neuromancer? Where's Tau Zero? Where's (any one of) the Bolo stories, or Galactic Odyssey? Pretty much anything Gene Wolfe ever wrote? Axis of Time series? Novik's Temeraire? I could on for days just in the areas of fantasy and SF. There are tons of untapped thrillers and etc. out there too; Lots of as-yet-to-be-mades (not to mention as-yet-to-be-made-wells) from Clancy, Clavell, etc.

    And then, when they commit crimes against art like create utter crap like "Soylent Green" out of really good books like "Make Room, Make Room"... then I'm glad they're not digging up good novels as sources. Let 'em make more formula superhero movies like the (utterly terrible) Batman vs. Superman we're talking about here. Keeps me from tearing my hair out.

    Honestly, if the movie industry died (which it shows no sign of, this buffoon's whining aside), I'd just read more books.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. When a business hates feedback .... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Most businesses spend tons and tons of money to understand their customers and try to figure out what they want. They do market research, focus group studies, test marketing, etc etc. I get constant feedback about our products related to my area of responsibility. This feedback is expensive to collect.

    Hollywood is getting free feedback. Rotten tomatoes and such sites are casual comments. Netflix and Amazon prime streaming statistics are people paying money and actually watching stuff. Instead of using the feedback to improve the product, these guys are bellyaching about it.

    It shows how much of their product is real and how much of it is smoke-and-mirrors. If your product is steak you can realistically gather and meet user expectations. So you would love feedback. If your product is sizzle, you would hate people who mess up the expectations.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. Re:The Lemming Society is pathetic. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find humans being utterly reliant upon reviews for every fucking thing in their life completely pathetic. Can't even drink a cup of coffee or eat a pizza without asking a panel of five-star rated liars. Ever heard of product satisfaction being subjective?

    Use your own brain for once and make your own judgements. Live a little. Good or bad, it is satisfying knowing at the end of the day the decisions you made were yours, and not made based on sponsored bullshit.

    Or, you have limited time and resources, try to spend it wisely. I see about 6 films a year, and I would prefer them not to be terrible if possible. Why would you *not* use the resources available to you to pick well?

  20. Blame the others by damaki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All recent DC Comics universe movies are know to have had an awfully hectic production process. The producers, and generally the Fox production teams have turned the movies into horrible mess.
    By the way, Batman VS Superman is surely not the worst of all. Sure it is bad, but not so bad. This movie is just an average failure.
    Man of Steel was a total trainwreck. The worst is that it looks awful. Visually, Man of Steel is the worst high budget movie I have seen for years. It looks like utter crap. It feels like the director had no steering power over his own film to make it consistent. I had not seen so many lens flares in a video since I watched Babylon V. The colors are mostly awful, and for whatever reason, the time in the movie is almost always late afternoon, whether the scene is in the US or in the foreign country. As a photographer I know that the golden hours sure look good, but it should be used sparingly.
    How can such high budget movies can be shot so badly?

    --
    Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Blame the others by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      As a photographer I know that the golden hours sure look good, but it should be used sparingly.

      As a photographer you should know that that videos are nothing like photography:
      a) Colours are not defined by golden hours but by post processing. (Hint: Most night shots you see are shot at day)
      b) Colours are chosen to identify the mood of the scene in question. Most big Hollywood movies that result in action and tension between characters will for that reason have a yellow / blue palate depending on who the scene is about and what is going on. The colours in this movie are more reflective of the crap plot that emphasises endless tension between two main characters both with questionable morals.
      c) The late afternoon effect is symbolic of madness, chaos, and social worship. Note that the scenes showing Batman don't have this colour scheme, er ... ever I think. They are mostly blue / green symbolising loneliness, coldness, and isolation.

  21. Think of how... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Think of how much more Batman vs Superman could have made if it wasn't a disorganised clusterfuck complete with characters doing things that made no sense, a plot that simply made no sense, and fight scenes which seemed to go out of their way to ensure that to the viewers they made no sense.

    It made $850million based on the name, and the expectations of the rabid fanbase, and I'm sad to count myself as part of it. It was garbage. Probably the first superhero film I won't be getting on Bluray.

  22. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bateman vs super man was a mediocre movie at best.

    I would pay good money to see Jason Bateman versus Superman. Should there be an Arrested Development tie-in?

    If they had done a Bateman movie alone with Ben affalac

    I didn't know the duck's name was Ben. But if AFLAC reconciled with Gilbert Gottfried and got him to do the voice, I would be waiting in line to see that one as well.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  23. Re: Or... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2

    I don't see this at all. RT has high scores on some pretty obscure, niche movies; they seem to like arty, symbolic, deep, foreign, etc.. It seems to me that if you have broad cross section, anodyne, bland movie, it will get 60 or 70%. The reviewers will say 'meh' to it, and you'll think 'It will be fine'. It takes a pretty bad movie to get a low score. However, it takes a pretty good movie to get a high score. Mass-market stuff gets a medium score. It seems (to me) to do its job really well.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  24. 100% Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I saw batman v superman, and it was a huge disappointment. No bullshit and no trolling, they seriously dropped the ball. They deserved the low reviews, and the people who chose not to see it due to the low reviews probably spent their time doing something more enjoyable instead.

    Far from being the death of the industry, I think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are an excellent quality control measure.

  25. Re:This just in by rl117 · · Score: 2

    Kung Fury review and movie. If a single person with a small budget from Kickstarter can do that, then Hollywood should be orders of magnitude better. As it is, I found this more entertaining than the latest Iron Man or other Marvel stuff. I may just have questionable taste, but while this is a cheap and cheesy feature, it also quite clever--the whole thing is a parody of movie tropes, doesn't take itself seriously, and ticks a large number of boxes.

  26. Re:Yes, you entitled fuck, it is the destruction.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

    ...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.

    While I agree with you overall, I disagree with you assessment of Hollywood accounting, it always wins. A film's purpose is not to make a net profit, it's to take the angel's money and make a profit for everyone except those investors. Hollywood accounting is a brilliant scheme to do just that.I mean, where else can you spend 60$Million, make 580$Million, and still be in the red so you don't have to payoff the people who gave you the money in the first place?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  27. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by aicrules · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're looking for Hancock

  28. Ratner's Resume by Volfied · · Score: 5, Informative

    Brett Ratner is one of the biggest problems in Hollywood, not Rotten Tomatoes. Here's his directorial resume (I count one decent movie):

      2014/I Hercules
      2011 Tower Heist
      2007 Rush Hour 3
      2006 X-Men: The Last Stand
      2004 After the Sunset
      2002 Red Dragon
      2001 Rush Hour 2
      2000 The Family Man
      1998 Rush Hour
      1997 Money Talks

  29. Re:Or... by mellon · · Score: 2

    Right. What we want is for it to be riskier to make repetitive schlock than to innovate. Rotten Tomatoes is helping to achieve that goal. Bully for them!

  30. Dumb concept = producer's own fault by RubberDogBone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As someone who is aware of super hero comics and once faithfully followed one of them and watched the cartoons, the whole idea of Batman vs. Superman was just ludicrous from the title alone.

    Batman is basically a rich guy with fancy gadgets on his toolbelt. He's not a LOT different from anybody. He just has better gadgets.

    Superman is a God, effectively.

    This fight is over before it even starts so why the hell would I want to pay to see it? Well, I wouldn't and didn't and never needed to read the reviews. These characters used to be allies as well so the idea of having them fight each other sounds like something a four-year-old kid would come up with, bashing action figures in a sandbox. Whatever, man. Not gonna see this movie. Honey Boo Boo, which I have also never seen, sounds more interesting.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  31. Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important by Widowwolf · · Score: 2

    Because with DDD at least you get a money shot

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  32. Re:The Lemming Society is pathetic. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find humans being utterly reliant upon reviews for every fucking thing in their life completely pathetic.

    Getting opinions of people when you're stepping into the unknown is not pathetic, it's just common frigging sense. Those reviews for pizzas aren't so locals can masturbate over them, they are for people who have never been there before don't know the town, city or even country, and who want to know if they are going to get screwed or not.

    Ever heard of product satisfaction being subjective?

    Indeed. That's why people who agree with aggregate populations go to aggregate reviewers, people who agree with specific reviewers look up specific reviewers, and people who see themselves as different from people in general either avoid review sites, or sometimes sort them by 1 star ratings.

    Use your own brain for once and make your own judgements.

    Using brain is fine providing the process doesn't cost me an entire evening or a boatload of money.

    Speaking of:
    1.5 stars. GP wrote nothing of value because he didn't understand how reviews work. Would not read again.

  33. Re:I'd prefer a less beautiful superman. by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't mean to downplay the actors, but a lot of the problem is the writing.

    I suspect given the same script that Christopher Reeve would still be a better Superman than Henry Cavill, but Cavill's biggest problem was his scenes and dialog in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Reeve would have been every bit as dumb with "save Martha!" and Cavill never got the chance to play the bumbling but adorable country boy with lines like, "Well gee, I don't know, Lois!" and "Golly!". Cavill never got to play off the transition from bumbling, awkward Clark in his disguise to Superman. All that is not his fault.

    Likewise, the biggest thing that made Val Kilmer terrible as Batman was just the scenes and dialog as Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. Keaton had much better writing in his two Batman films. Keaton and Christian Bale couldn't have done much with the stupidity Affleck had to deal with in Batman v Superman either.

    And while we're at it, while I think Leto was especially bad in Suicide Squad (probably the worst super-powered movie I've ever seen), even Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill, Cesar Romero, or for that matter Denzel Washington, Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, or Tom Hanks would not have made that Joker good. The story, scenes, and dialog for the role were just as unbelievable pointless, boring, and stupid as the rest of the movie.