Slashdot Mirror
Real Moviegoers Don't Care About Rotten Tomatoes
In a recent essay published on the Hollywood Reporter, Martin Scorsese inveighs against two conjoined trends -- the widespread reporting of box-office results and the grading of movies by consumers on CinemaScore and by critics on Rotten Tomatoes -- and blames it for "a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers." In particular, he contends that this hostile environment is worsening "as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene." Richard Brody, a movie critic at the New Yorker, thinks Scorsese is missing the mark. He writes: I think that film criticism is, over all, better than ever, because, with its new Internet-centrism, it's more democratic than ever and many of the critics who write largely online are more film-curious than ever. Anyone who is active on so-called Film Twitter -- who sees links by critics, mainly younger critics, to his or her work -- can't help but be impressed by the knowledge, the curiosity, and the sensibility of many of them. Their tastes tend to be broader and more daring than those of many senior critics on more established publications. And, even if readers of the wider press aren't reading these more obscure critics, the critics whom general readers read are often reading those young critics (and if they're not, it shows). This is, of course, not universally so, any more than it ever was. The Internet is democratic in all directions -- it's also available to writers of lesser knowledge, duller taste, and dubious agendas, and it may be their work that's advertised most loudly -- but the younger generation of critics is present online and there for the finding. [...] What Scorsese doesn't exactly say, but what, I think, marks a generation gap in movie thinking that his essay reflects, is the appearance of an increasing divide between artistically ambitious films and Hollywood films -- the gap between the top box-office films and the award winners. For filmmakers ready to work on lower budgets, the gap is irrelevant. The filmmakers whose conceptions tend toward the spectacular are the ones whose styles may, literally, be cramped by shrinking budgets -- filmmakers such as Scorsese and Wes Anderson, whose work has both an original and elaborate sense of style and a grand historical reach.
is hostile to consumers.
A good review isn't one that says if a movie is good or shit. It's not necessarily one that explains why a particular movie is good or shit. A good review is one that gives me a fair chance to judge beforehand whether or not I am likely to enjoy the movie. I'm finding such reviews amongst the writings of more "serious" reviewers as well as punters on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. Overall I'd say the availability of amateur reviews has helped me.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Zero fucks were given about critics
--
Hey Hollywood, stop making the same shit over again
Martin Scorsese inveighs against two conjoined trends -- the widespread reporting of box-office results and the grading of movies by consumers on CinemaScore and by critics on Rotten Tomatoes -- and blames it for "a tone that is hostile to serious filmmakers." In particular, he contends that this hostile environment is worsening "as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene.
Translation: "Serious film makers shouldn't have to care about whether or not their film appeals to anyone or makes money and anyone who isn't a film history major shouldn't be allowed to criticize my work because they are unworthy."
"Hostile to serious filmmakers"? What a joke. Just because you can't make money on a shit film anymore isn't our problem. Just because nobody wants to fund your risky art house film isn't our problem. Knowledge of film history is utterly irrelevant in determining whether or not a film is worth seeing. Popularity does not necessarily equal quality but it cannot be denied that there is a strong correlation. Rotten Tomatoes isn't the end-all-be-all of movie evaluation but it is useful information. If a movie gets a 13% on Rotten Tomatoes I'm probably going to skip seeing it in a theater. If a narcissistic director cannot handle that business reality then that isn't my problem.
I pass on the trailers if only because frequently they reveal too much.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs