-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Brett Ratner claims Rotten Tomatoes is "the worst thing in movie culture" (poor BvS)
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's a pretty decent debate you could have over whether Rotten Tomatoes or Brett Ratner has done more harm to the culture of film.
theclosetfan
Member
I would argue that Brett Ratner is the worst thing in movie culture.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Honestly, I think he got lucky with Rush Hour 1 and 2, because the rest of his work is just...
BrokenFiction
Member
And he manages to get in a dig about Middle America.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
I actually agree. Same with meta critic for games. People are unwilling to create their own opinions and feel the pressure to fit in with or against the consensus.
Ratner financing BvS is a pretty strong case for him doing more harm.
DANG IT, BOBBY.
But yeah, it's hard to feel bad for someone who made a career out of being hack and got really damn lucky that Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker hit it off so well.
Frozenprince
Banned
Man harmed by negative critical outlook on most his films cry's "critics are bad!".
I for one am shocked Brett Ratner is doing this.
I for one am shocked Brett Ratner is doing this.
I do not disagree that rotten tomatoes and metacritic is a pretty shallow way to judge a movie. I imagine the people who are into the film criticism he's talking about are actually seeking out content like that. The number is like a baseline for expectation. But come on this is Brett Ratner and he made a shitload of money off of this stinking pile of garbage.
sixteen-bit
Member
savage
TheDanimal
Junior Member
This so much.
People should focus more on the content of reviews rather than just a number.
But, BvS was just not good.
But that number is an aggregate and one that nobody can figure out exactly what it means, and its not always correct, Ratner said.
Uhhh, what? How is the Rotten Tomatoes system hard to understand? Before Rotten Tomatoes, we had Siskel & Ebert, which was 2 guys giving thumbs up or thumbs down. Now, we have Rotten Tomatoes, which is hundreds of people giving thumbs up or thumbs down. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have a much bigger pool than just two people.
At the end of the day though, it's all a matter of opinion. If the movie seems interesting to you, go see it. I saw BvS even though the score was shitty. Guess what? I think the movie was shitty, but I found out for myself!
Uhhh, what? How is the Rotten Tomatoes system hard to understand? Before Rotten Tomatoes, we had Siskel & Ebert, which was 2 guys giving thumbs up or thumbs down. Now, we have Rotten Tomatoes, which is hundreds of people giving thumbs up or thumbs down. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have a much bigger pool than just two people.
At the end of the day though, it's all a matter of opinion. If the movie seems interesting to you, go see it. I saw BvS even though the score was shitty. Guess what? I think the movie was shitty, but I found out for myself!
AuthenticM
Member
These movies were good in spite of Ratner. Any other director with experience in comedies would have made the movies better.
I feel like there's some merit to saying that Rotten Tomatoes is a problem, but his argument about BvS is completely weird. Here's two quotes from it:
In the first part, he argues that the low RT score put a cloud over BvS's success, which I assume must mean box office wise (because in what other way could that film be considered successful?), but then he complains about the Rotten Tomatoes score depressing box office.
If RT score actually mattered to most people, BvS would have bombed. It may have under performed, but that's because people didn't like the film. The word of mouth wasn't good.
In the first part, he argues that the low RT score put a cloud over BvS's success, which I assume must mean box office wise (because in what other way could that film be considered successful?), but then he complains about the Rotten Tomatoes score depressing box office.
If RT score actually mattered to most people, BvS would have bombed. It may have under performed, but that's because people didn't like the film. The word of mouth wasn't good.
*high five*
The question is the skew of Rotten Tomatoes vs Metacritic, with RT making a movie that gets all 6's 100% fresh vs Metacritic's 60%, but then metacritic can have a few outliers throw off the score (three 1s and seven 8s is a 5.9, but would be 70% fresh).
Although RT's method is more like the famous Siskel and Ebert setup, there's nuance, but discerning viewers with lots of choices ultimately need a thumbs up thumbs down.
Although RT's method is more like the famous Siskel and Ebert setup, there's nuance, but discerning viewers with lots of choices ultimately need a thumbs up thumbs down.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This looks like a dig at ratner/bvs but it also looks like you agree with ratner that middle america is gullible and easily misled.
……forgetit
Member
Sure, Brett "rehearsing is for fags" Rather saying "caring about quality is horrible" makes sense.
Pankratous
Member
BvS got 27% on RT.
Sausage Party got 52% on RT.
Might as well delete the website at that point.
Sausage Party got 52% on RT.
Might as well delete the website at that point.
You always have plenty of people on here in review threads for films that have no idea how it works. Its actually incredibly common. Most people think the higher the percentage the better the movie must be. They don't even take a look at the average rating or read a review.
echoshifting
Banned
No, it's all the bad and mediocre movies that have become the center of the cultural conversation, displacing better films
JadedWriter
Member
hydrophilic attack
Member
i would have thought the dc cinematic universe is worse
Gordon Shumway
Banned
hahaha good point.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
amazing how whenever someone talks about how bad RT for film is they never bring up a best picture nominee being rated too low or something like that but its always about a dc movie
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Metacritic >>>>. RT
I also hate RT, but not because of BvS. It's because bland, likable stuff ends up rated far too high.
I also hate RT, but not because of BvS. It's because bland, likable stuff ends up rated far too high.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Sausage Party was at least a film that knew exactly what it wanted to be and executed its purpose competently. That's a really weird comparison to make though.
Mat-triX
Member
I just checked: Sausage Party is at 83%, and has a AUDIENCE SCORE of 52% (basically user reviews)
Kill Your Masters
Member
If I could get a refund for bad movies I would gladly watch more movies with low RT scores. I'm not in the business of burning my money if reception is splitted or bad though.
What's really bad in movie culture is profit above all and the DCEU is all about the superhero cash grab while quality doesn't really matter.
What's really bad in movie culture is profit above all and the DCEU is all about the superhero cash grab while quality doesn't really matter.
Sgt. Kabukiman
Banned
RT is an interesting tool that is too often completely misinterpreted. A number of classic films would have had a relatively low RT number back in the day. Most of Kubrick's films, for example. Which is fine, since RT is a good way to get a picture of the general consensus around a movie at a certain point in time. But most people think of it as an indication of quality, which it absolutely is not.
Hmm, he's partly right.
People just use the RT metric incorrectly. I think it's broadly accurate at the far extremes of the scales, but is very fuzzy in the middle.
a 50% RT just means half of the critics actively liked the film, to me that's indicative of a polarising film but not necessarily a so-so film. So I'm not sure how valid the middle of the RT grading scheme is.
BvS wasn't a great film and it had plenty of extremely clear flaws, but I'd say it was probably a so-so film as a opposed to an borderline terrible one. The way most people seem to read 27% gives a far more jaundiced view of quality of the film than it probably deserves, however if you say just over 1 in 4 critics actively liked the film it's about right.
People just use the RT metric incorrectly. I think it's broadly accurate at the far extremes of the scales, but is very fuzzy in the middle.
a 50% RT just means half of the critics actively liked the film, to me that's indicative of a polarising film but not necessarily a so-so film. So I'm not sure how valid the middle of the RT grading scheme is.
BvS wasn't a great film and it had plenty of extremely clear flaws, but I'd say it was probably a so-so film as a opposed to an borderline terrible one. The way most people seem to read 27% gives a far more jaundiced view of quality of the film than it probably deserves, however if you say just over 1 in 4 critics actively liked the film it's about right.
Speaking as someone that lives in Middle America, your movies are trash, Mr. Ratner, and the scores are justified. Telling people that shit isn't shit doesn't suddenly mean it's not shit. It just means you don't know what you're talking about.
Fuckin' Hollywood trying to defend their utter trash by saying the mindless idiots of middle America are so easily brainwashed by a website ABOUT MOVIE CRITICISM that they can't identify what's hot garbage when they see it? Fuck outta here. Go fuck up another X-Men movie you fat hack.
- Status