From what I gather Star Wars gets some and DC gets some but the Marvel films have by far the most tribalism around them. This is something that comes to mind:
But let’s not forget the death threats critics got over Batman Rises reviews.
Some people just need a slap.
That’s interesting. Do you think it is enough to affect their review scores across the board? It would mean a majority of critics being influenced by that kind of thing, which still seems a bit far-fetched to me. But possible I suppose.
I think it does sway reviews. It’s all reflective of the environment in which the reviews are being published and what creates brand loyalty between publications and audiences in a highly competitive market.
But when we’re talking about it being responsible for a 97% RT score, I think that’s going a bit far. Maybe it has a small influence but to be responsible for driving a RT score up that far it would have to be influencing a vast majority of reviews.
As far as the idea that it’s something that affects Marvel movies more than any other, I have no opinion as I don’t know how you could really put together any evidence either way. I do remember anecdotally the exact same arguments being made about Dark Knight Rises a few years back however. Maybe these things go on a cycle, both the reality and the perception.
I agree with your scepticism on this.
I have seen the fans go nuts on the bad reviews but you can’t individually amend the RT score. We know the weakness with it, that there is no real nuance, a film is either fresh or rotten. In truth while I get the criticism that Marvel films can be rather formulaic and artistically unambitious they are also very capable. There’s no Green Lantern or Catwoman or Elektra in there.
It’s hard to really trash any of them without being contrarian, so the 3 or 4 star reviews result in a high RT score. Some niche publishers may feel the pressure, we’ve head the accusations against the likes of Empire that seem to give high scores to films they get exclusives on, but I don’t think the major newspapers or TV and radio reviewers give a shit or ever look at what the comments sections on Rotten Tomatoes say.
I do think that there will always be some movies that critics will love to pile on the hate. Occasionally, I’ll get a “knives out” vibe for some films and I think there is something of a desire to do that if given the chance in critical community.
If you look at criticism or reviews as a form of entertainment in themselves - especially video reviews on Youtube or on news sites where the reviewer is actually performing for an audience - the desire and even pressure to make the review funny is strong and there usually is at least one big film every year where the negative reviews are more about the reviewers need to entertain than actually fair to the film.
Yeah, like Gods of Egypt…which holds a 15% on RT which is just…wow.
That movie ain’t that bad I tell you what.
You think Gods of Egypt should’ve had more than 15% of critics giving it more than a lukewarm score? Really? Because that’s what it would’ve taken, for that score.
The comments re: critics and RT continue to alarm me…
That makes no sense. “They’re fighting the dark inevitability of making it into adulthood alive”? They’re trying to die before they inevitably become adults? I really didn’t pick up on that in the book at all.
Seems like the movie has interpreted the book differently from how I did
Or the critic is an idiot, or can’t write, or both
It looks like the child actors in ‘IT’ should be back for flashbacks in the part 2;
What’s the one thing you want to nail in the sequel that you weren’t able to do in this film?
Andy: The thing I want to bring in the next film that I couldn’t do here is the dialogue between the two timelines. That was so important in the book and we didn’t get to explore that here, but I wanted to keep the story of the kids as pure and without interference as I could. The dialogue between those two timelines with all those flashbacks is so important to the book that I want to bring that back.
Does that mean the kids will be back for the second movie or is it just them as adults?
Andy: We are going back to the summer of 1989 and if people love these characters and actors the way I do, it’s going to be a blast to go back to 1989 in the second one. I don’t want to go back just for that, I want to make those flashbacks essential in the plot where in order for the Losers to figure out the clues to defeat Pennywise, they have to retrieve their memories from the past.
Of course they’re all going to be 2 years older by then, so they’ll also be about a foot taller!
You think this would have been part of the point of making the kid-only movie first. But that’d be too easy.
It’s how it’s worked out anyway so; win!
True, but the first is already so rushed that these would likely be new flashbacks, like you implied, so…in the end if it’s about these adults remembering brand new scenes about their childhood…doesn’t that make the first even more pointless?
It depends on what you mean by “point”?
They made a movie to entertain people, never forget that. It’s not all world building, or even franchise building. One of the worst things filmmakers can do is assume there’s going to be a ‘part 2’.
“Oh we’ll get to the good stuff later, we’re setting it all up now.”
This movie ends in a satisfying way, ‘IT’ is defeated, but not destroyed. Just like a lot of stories end.
There’s more story to tell and, because this one has been so successful already, we’re going to get that story. But no-one took that for granted and it paid off for them, and for us.
The point for me here is, let’s just say that they planned to make a Part 2 from the start, to tell the story of the kids in a way that fleshes them out for use in the sequel. This movie really failed at that. So to make new flashbacks for the sequel really just underlines the main faults of this first one.
If they hadn’t planned to make a part 2, then the movie hardly ends satisfyingly because…Pennywise just leaves. They don’t even really defeat him, he just vamooses. There’s no catharsis of belief that they beat him because the movie staunchly shows that they don’t. Even Nightmare on Elm Street has the “cathartic” ending, and then has the franchise ending.