RT
90% (7.8 ave) after 62 reviews
share82% (7.5 ave) after 104 reviews
shareRT is trash and means nothing.
shareYou mean RT is like your predictions??
sharepretty much, Transformers 4 was rotten but made over a billion. RT ratings are subjective. even the audience score can be skewed as proven by captain marvel. the only thing that matters is butts in the seats.
sharePlays no role in my choices. Buying a ticket is a leap of faith. Whether you liked it or not, the money spent counts the same towards the total. I'll take a critic review aggregator over the box office or a ballot box stuffing audience score any day of the week. If anything, they're not harsh enough. My favorite films of the year are rarely the box office hits.
shareme too, when critics say a movie is rotten. I usually end up liking it. critics reviews have no bearing on my seeing a movie.
shareThe critic's scores are trustworthy, as it's a straight-up percentage of good vs. bad reviews, and can't be corrupted. The audience scores can be manipulated, as in the case you mentioned with Captain Marvel, a film that was hugely popular with audiences and a massive box office success, but one that was review-bombed by bots on Rotten Tomatoes.
sharethats true about critics scores of movies. but I am saying that critics that all agree a movie is terrible but yet it makes tons of money. if the movie was truly terrible then it wouldnt make any money.
I'm not sure I agree. Plenty of terrible films do well. In fact, I'd say it's more likely for a terrible film to do well than an excellent one.
shareyeah, thats my point. Transformers 4 has a 17% RT rating but yet made 1.104 billion.
if movie critics are the end all and be all of movie ratings then why did it make so much money? according to the experts it was a terrible movie, yet people still paid to watch it.
movie critics gave Top Gun 97% and it has made 1.2 billion.
to me its obvious that ratings have no bearing on total box office.
The rating has nothing to do with box office, but I don't think that's what's being discussed here.
My belief:
1. The quality of a film has little to do with its performance at the box office.
2. Transformers 4 is a poorly made, terrible film.
3. You can generally gauge the quality of a film by it's critic's score on Rotten Tomatoes, with occasional exceptions, as some films are challenging and polarize critics.
4. You can tell nothing whatsoever about a film's quality by how much it earns at the box office.
5. Often, better films earn less than bad films, though there are plenty of exceptions to this rule.
yeah, thats what I am saying as well. the ratings have nothing to do with the box office.
not all films fall into the category of blockbusters as well. like The Shape of Water, made great money and was highly rated.
my other question or point is, if critics say a movie is rotten, then why do some still make a ton of money? the critics are obviously wrong in their assessment of movies.
Why does a film making money suggest that the critical assessment of the film is wrong? The critics are not basing their review on how much they think a film will earn, they are basing it on how good the film is.
share"The critics are not basing their review on how much they think a film will earn, they are basing it on how good the film is."
Bingo! and thats the million dollar question, why would a low rated movie make the same or more than a highly rated movie?
It would be like car judges saying the Hyundai Excel is a better car than Mercedes-Benz C-Class. But when the cars are test driven, the public overwhelmingly agrees the Mercedes is a better car.
A car is not the best analogy, as it's a mechanical device, and something that can more or less be provably better or worse than another.
When it comes to art, the masses seldom flock to greatness. Sometimes they do, but not usually. Think about the books that sell millions of copies. They're usually, in truth nearly always, poorly written books, and an intelligent, discerning reader, like a critic, realizes this. But the average reader doesn't want to be challenged. He can't be challenged, because he hasn't developed the critical reading skills, or the patience, or the general body of knowledge, required to appreciate a great book. So he reads John Clancy, Stephen King, Dan Brown, Danielle Steele, etc. He simply can't understand Dostoevsky, or any other great author you can name.
Sometimes, movies can be accessible to the masses while still pleasing critics, but not always, but it isn't as if the critics are wrong when they pan a film that goes on to make money.
the critics are wrong because they are the experts and are paid to review movies. Thats their sole job. They watch movies everyday.
what about my million dollar question? why would a low rated movie make the same or more than a highly rated movie?
regular movie goers like myself can care less about ratings, its all about if you enjoy a movie or not.
Art, movies, books are subjective. Just because 3 people out of 100 say its good. It doesnt mean those 97 people are stupid and cant understand art or whatever.
lets use the Mona Lisa as an example. when it was first painted no one cared or raved about it. It wasnt until the 1860's that art critics thought it was a masterpiece. Fast forward to the present, now a days the Mona Lisa is famous for being famous. Everyone is told its a masterpiece so people flock to see it.
Kim Kardashian is also famous, why? She has done nothing to quantify her famousness. Now she is famous for being famous.
If a thousand revered art critics told you that elephant dung that was in the Louvre Museum was a masterpiece, would you agree with them?
I feel like I keep answering your question, and then you re-ask it without addressing my answer.
Art critics aren't going to claim elephant dung is a masterpiece, but if for some reason they did, an intelligent person would see through the sham.
Some art, like the Mona Lisa example you gave, flies under the radar, and is only appreciated long after the artist has died. Other art has a moment, but doesn't stand the test of time. Some is immediately and permanently appreciated. There's no one formula here.
It's also the case that some art is polarizing. Critics may be split. Art is subjective, after all. You brought that up, too. However, there are certain objective aspects to it. The elephant dung you mention is not great art, even if for some reason critics all say it is. I mentioned Dostoevsky. He wrote some of the greatest works of fiction of all time. His books are deep, intelligent, and meaningful. That's a factual, objective statement. Not everyone enjoys or appreciates them, which is the subjective aspect of it, but they are objectively great works.
I don't know much about Kim Kardashian, so I can't say for certain if her celebrity is deserved or not, but perhaps she is akin to a Top Gun or Transformers film. She appeals to the masses, as does a bad movie that sells a lot of tickets.
When you say the critics are wrong, I feel like you are misunderstanding their job. They are not there to predict what films will succeed financially, they are there to grade a film on its merit. When they say a film is terrible, yet that film sells lots of tickets, they didn't fail. They weren't wrong. They did their job. What the public chooses to see is of no consequence.
"What the public chooses to see is of no consequence."
Exactly, then whats the point of critics rating movies if it has no bearing on box office success or failure?
The critics loved Ghostbusters 2016, it was a failure.
The critics hated Transformers 4, it was a success.
If its their job to sniff out quality, then its obvious they have no idea what they are doing.
I might as well start my own movie rating site. It will be called JoWilli's Official Movie Rating Site.
Movies will be rated on 1 to 5 Willi's.
We're still going in circles, but I'll try again.
The point of critics rating films is to help the people who want to watch well-made films. If there are 30 movies playing at various theaters in my city, and I want to watch one, how do I know which one to choose?
I can look at box office numbers and pick the one that has made the most money, but more often than not I will end up seeing a poorly made film. There are exceptions, but usually the films that make a lot of money do so by catering to the dumbest possible audiences.
Or, I can look at what critics are saying. This isn't a surefire way to guarantee I'll enjoy the film, but if I find critics whose opinions I tend to trust, I'm at least more likely to choose a good film than if I choose one at random.
A critic has not failed to sniff out quality if a film they pan goes on to make a lot of money. As I've written countless times box office success does not equal quality.
If you want to start a movie rating site, I say go for it. You have your own tastes and opinions, and perhaps you will find readers with whom they resonate. Unless you assign Willis based on box office earnings, you will at least build up a body of work, and readers can choose films based on what they think of your assessments of films they've seen.