Slashdot Mirror


Netflix Executives Say 'Bright' Success Proves Film Critics Are 'Disconnected From Mass Appeal' (indiewire.com)

Last month, movie critics slammed David Ayer and Will Smith's Netflix tentpole "Bright" movie. At present, it has less than 30 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But Netflix executives aren't worried. From a report on IndieWire: The abysmal reviews couldn't stop "Bright" from becoming a humongous hit on Netflix and earning a sequel. [...] According to both Netlfix bosses, "Bright's" success is proof that film critics don't matter as much when they're trying to tap into a global audience. "Critics are an important part of the artistic process, but [they are] pretty disconnected from the commercial prospects of a film," chief content officer Sarandos said. "[Film critics] speak to specific audiences who care about quality, or how objectively good or bad a movie is -- not the masses who are critical for determining whether a film makes money." CEO Hastings, chimed in to add "The critics are pretty disconnected from the mass appeal." Do ratings on movie websites matter? It's not a new topic of discussion. Last year, legendary director, producer and screenwriter Martin Scorsese said he believes real movie goers don't care about Rotten Tomatoes. But some people, including especially in the same room as Scorsese, disagree. Brett Ratner, the Rush Hour director/producer who threw the financial weight of his RatPac Entertainment behind Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice blamed Rotten Tomatoes for convincing people to not watch his movie. Along the same lines, DC fans were angry over Rotten Tomatoes's Justice League ratings .

8 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. You know...... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...I don't think I've ever looked at the Rotten Tomatoes website.

    I've seen it referenced in articles about movies, but other than that, I've not paid attention to it.

    Do people really look at that to decide if they're going to the movies or not?

    I just listen word of mouth of friends that have seen a movie and liked it.

    Granted, I don't go OUT to a movie theater that often, it has to be something special that really warrants a MUCH larger screen than I have and better sound, and I have a pretty good set up at my place.

    But anyway....not really that familiar with RT.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:You know...... by i_ate_god · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought Bright was entertaining and would have given it a 7/10.

      IMDB pegs it at 6.5/10.

      So why RT pegs it at 3/10, who knows....

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    2. Re:You know...... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      IMDB rating is based on user reviews, not critics. Bright got terrible critic reviews, but the user reviews are pretty good. You can see both if you go to Metacritic: 2.9/10 critic reviews, 7.3/10 user reviews. I'd personally give it around 7/10 as well.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:You know...... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just listen word of mouth of friends that have seen a movie and liked it.

      I'm sure there's plenty of value in that. On the other hand ...

      People like blood sausage, too. People are morons.
      -- Phil Connors, Groundhog Day

      I think reviews can be helpful if they're clear about what they're reviewing -- the plot, characters, production value, etc... Sometimes it seems a reviewer just doesn't like an actor, or premise, etc... and that seems to drive the review rather than what, objectively, was presented. I've seen plenty of movies on Amazon Prime with objectively low production values that were rather good because of the story or actors, etc... On the other hand, there are also expensively-made movies that aren't worth watching -- even on Amazon. A helpful review is compartmentalized, to some extent, with commentary based on some earned/acquired knowledge of film and film production.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:You know...... by CrankyFool · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes. The Last Jedi failed just as badly as the Ghostbusters remake.

      Other than the fact that two years later, Ghostbusters has totaled $229M worldwide and a little more than a month after it came out The Last Jedi has grossed about $1.3B.

      Other than that, it's an utter failure.

      cite:

      https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

      https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...

  2. Or it's proof people don't have taste by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Informative

    Which is also why McDonalds sells 6.5 million hamburgers every day.

  3. Re:NYC CBS movie critic didn't like "Star Wars" .. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1, Informative

    I loved SW:ANH as a child and as a young adult. Now that I am older, I can see how cheesy the dialog was and how campy the good vs. evil aspect of the film was.

    Really? Because now the good vs evil aspect is crazy complicated compared to what it seemed back then.

    Obi Wan dismembered and disfigured Luke's father and left him for dead, then lied to Luke and told him that Darth Vader had killed his dad. He spent years brainwashing Luke to hate the Empire, and training him to fight against it. And this included fighting against his own father, unbeknownst to Luke.

    To turn this diabolical plot up to 11, Obi Wan lets Darth Vader kill him to further fuel Luke's hatred for his father, and then comes back from beyond the grave to continue to push Luke to kill his father. Luke didn't get much of a choice of this insane plot. All Obi Wan's fucking machinations.

    Oh, yeah, he also gives Luke his dad's murder-stick, which he took from his dad after hacking his limbs off. He left out those little details now, didn't he?

    Obi Wan back then looked like a saint. These days he looks like a psychopath.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  4. Re:NYC CBS movie critic didn't like "Star Wars" .. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Informative

    In 1977 my dad took me to see Star Wars. I was 10, he was 36. I loved it (even though I thought Darth Vader was a robot) but he was so floored we just stayed in the theatre and watched it a second time. (I guess you could get away with that sort of thing back then.)

    What people sometimes fail to realize today, is that in 1977 we had never seen anything like that before. Dogfights in space (and yeah, we could see the matte lines sometimes). Imperial Star Destroyers. In 1977 it was simply incredible. Jaw-droppingly incredible.

    Today you can see that sort of thing in the theatre every few months - But not back in 1977.