Comics Creators

Movie News and Trailers - Hollywood Hype


It changes it it but, as I say, because it often leads to a legal fight.

Sometimes companies will hold back rights because, if the film does well, they’ll get a better deal after it’s proved it’s popularity.

Which is a gamble of course.


I hope that in Pacific Rim 2, they combine like Devastator. I will fully boycott the film if they don’t.


What we need is more mutant alligator movies from the King of Hell guy from Supernatural.


I’ve been saying that for years, Miqque!!

But only in my head…



Just seeing the static image attached to the trailer made me wonder how long this movie has been sitting on the shelf. Because Chandler Riggs alone looks several years younger. Quick IMBD search says about 3 years. That probably doesn’t bode well.


I was thinking the same thing. Cause they look way young.


I think what Scorsese was saying about the box office is that it’s the later audiences, the ones that didn’t see it in theaters, that assume if a movie didn’t make a lot, it’s not good material. Even movies that are total bombs are caught in this crossfire. They either become something that’s fun to hate, or they become cult hits, or they’re simply buried. It’s movies that fall in between huge hits and big bombs that suffer the most, the ones that are so easily lost in the shuffle. Once the initial judgment is passed, it’s just accepted. You’re either going to agree with the assessment, whether you’ve seen it or not, or take the alternate approach.

Which is certainly true of anything. But we’re talking about RT because it’s become increasingly controversial. It kind of proves the whole effect. And some truly disturbing conclusions can be made. For instance, good reviews are probably easier to fake than you’d think, and so are bad ones. That’s why it’s so controversial, among DC fans, that DC moves seem to automatically draw bad reviews, and Marvel movies, or at least Avengers movies, good ones. Twenty years ago, when Disney was struggling again, it couldn’t, ah, buy a good review. But now it gets them for everything? Why, because the product is really so much better than it was twenty years ago? It’s still incredibly Disney. That’s the most reliable thing about Disney. But apparently slap a new label on it, and the results are that different?

And the RT effect is basically the internet effect, that impulse to aggregate experience even when you don’t realize you’re doing it. The internet is the great illusion of individuality, writ large. We say RT has no effect on our movie choices, and yet the last time we talked about this, a lot of us admitted to consulting RT tabulations. This is not a condemnation of the folks who responded that way, but an observation on how this all seems to work.

Invariably, when people talk about their favorite movies, they talk about the stuff they’re absolutely sure other people are remembering fondly, too. There’s nothing wrong with that. Quoting stuff is awesome! But there’s a real fear that this is the only stuff that’s going to matter, that the true art of film is going to be lost in the process. Not art as in art film. Popular filmmaking. Which will become even more homogeneous and safe because of it. The very thing everyone’s complaining about. With no idea how it’s happening…


Still, there is a sense that movies that are artistic are “better” than movies that simply entertain. When in the end the movies that put money into the theaters are what keep the medium viable. I wouldn’t want to see theaters go out of business because films that only care about distractions and eschew any cinematic aesthetic get trashed by critics who believe their opinion must adhere to some elite critical standard.

After all, even the trash of previous cinematic eras - like grindhouse - have become aesthetic styles today.


There may be an official thread for this soon, but until then;


I hear that documentary is pretty good.


In the end, the only true way to appreciate a work of art is your own experience watching it. However, that is not something you can do with every movie out there.

Rottentomatoes is especially problematic because it only has a “fresh” or “rotten” metric, so many movies that the reviews were really lukewarm about look like they’re brilliant masterepieces that everybody loved. Metacritic is a far better guide - and mother! has 68% on RT, which is abysmal, but 74% on MC, which is actually a pretty good by MC’s ratings averages.

And while aggregation is still a problematic tool, I agree, and reading individual reviews (if you like doing that kind of thing) should accompany the decision of whether to watch a movie, it is also untrue that challenging pieces of art automatically get worse reviews - they don’t. Well, not critics’ reviews, at least - audience reviews are a different matter.

When the critics are divided like they are with mother!, there is more often than not a good reason for it. That doesn’t mean you won’t like the movie, but that it may not be entirely successful at what at does. It then becomes a question of how forgiveable you are of a movie’s flaws and how much you like its strengths.

And even considering all this, sometimes the critics are just wrong. I mean, Magnolia has an 85% RT score. Clearly myself and a few select others are the only sane people who see that movie for what it is. (Although here, once again, metacritic does somewhat better with 72%.)


That’s like saying school grades are either passing or failing and then going on to explain the letter grading system, how that is based on a percentage and how that is based on an average of different class work and tests.

RT has as much fidelity as you want to use with the Fresh/Rotten, a percentage and individual reviews. With the proliferation of media vying for our time, some people just want a go/no-go. RT fills that niche. Hollywood is always trying to figure out the voodoo that makes one film succeed and another one crash. So there will always be these scapegoats when something doesn’t meet expectations. I remember when Ain’t It Cool News was always blamed as the reason a for unsuccessful films.


They’re making another Death Race movie?
Is there any hope it’ll be as good as Death Race 2050?


To be honest the difference between 68% and 74% is not going to have any influence on me going to see a film.

I think generally people look at RT to see if a film is regarded as shit or great (or maybe that’s me reaching as that’s what I do). Anything between 50-80% will be down to how much the idea appeals.


Uh, it shouldn’t when you’re talking Rottentomatoes, but I was referencing two different websites. Metacritic gives lower scores in general; around seventy usually means it’s worth watching (while if that’s your RT score, it’s probably crap). For example, Guardians of the Galaxy has a 76% on metacritic and 91% on RT. On metacritic, to get a 91%, you have to look at movies like No Country for Old Men. Because they measure not just if a critic liked it or not, but how much they liked it.


Yes but I am saying I don’t care. I know and have spoken about the limitations of the binary RT system but I’m not running over to Metacritic because I don’t really care and I’m not convinced their nuance is necessarily that useful. RT is only there to spark a desire to see a film because most critics love it and give a big score, or they hate it and it’s most likely shit.

Anything in between is not something I look at. Within its genre and audience Guardians is a really great film, as is No Country for Old Men. I can’t really measure one as 15% better than the other.


It’s entirely fine if RT is giving you what you want from it, but this description is still wrong:

The point is that RT only tells you that most critics didn’t hate a movie, not whether they loved it or not. An, “eh, it was fun but forgettable” will easily get you great percentages.

By all means, stick with rottentomatoes if the system is working for you, but my point was more that Scorcese’s criticism of Rottentomatoes holds true not necessarily because of an inherent flaw with using aggregators but with rottentomatoes’ system.


Yes but my main point is it’s all fatally flawed Christian. Many critics don’t use a point or star system or use different ones (marks out of 5 or 10 or 100), so at some point Mr Metacritic is making a personal judgement on where he thinks it sits.

There’s no science to it that makes sense and my main issue is that the detractors seem to work on some basis that the majority of filmgoers will follow RT as a bible. That clearly isn’t the case, there are films savaged on the site that had amazing box office, and ones praised to the hilt no fucker went to see.

You can see that just this week. Blade Runner 2049 rates higher than IT but the latter has made way more money.


Isn’t the RT MO to rate “fresh” or “rotten” based on whether it’s a positive or negative review? And isn’t the overall RT rating given based on the percentage the movie falls on?